Talk:List of members of the House of Lords

Repeated Definite Article

Is it necessary or informative to include "The" at the start of each and every entry? As it's repeated, does it not become superfluous? While it may be a more precise form of their title, I would think a table like this should be used to display unique information. While it doesn't use that much space, it does add a little. To take how the House of Lords itself lists them, it titles each page as the name of the peer without the article, Lord Aberdare, and then noting within for full title, The Lord Aberdare: http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-aberdare/3898 William Quill (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Party affiliations

Comparing it to House_of_Lords#Current_composition, there are a number of mistakes; UKIP members, for instance. Could someone who knows more about this than I do please correct this? —Nightstallion (?) 15:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Older discussion

I think the Bishop of Chichester should be on this list (that would add up to 26 bishops), but he wasn't on the original source for this list [1]. anyone have any opinions on this? Mintguy 22:14 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There's definitely a missing bishop here (or rather not here), don't know who it is though as the criterion requires the 21 longest serving bishops not including the Bishops of Durham, London and Winchester and the the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Yorkwho automatically attend). Mintguy 17:59, 27 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The external link which served as the source of this page was updated in October. Is anyone is willing to do a comparison and bring this page up to date, I'm rather too busy/lazy myself. Mintguy

---

what is the policy for deaths? Annotate or delete? We seem to have been doing a bit of both... Anyway, it seems that Lord Blake (20 September) and Lord Perry of Walton (16 July) have died [2] without being updated. --rbrwrˆ

Delete, move to Former members of the House of Lords. Morwen 19:55, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

That page would be very large. The House of Lords had about 600 members for a very long time, with them being entirely replaced by death and inheritance about every 30 years. Proteus 11:11 GMT, 14th January 2004

---

Now we are getting lots of articles about hereditary peerages, shouldn't we link to the peers rather than their titles with pipelinking? Morwen 20:22, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

Yes we should be linking to peers rather than peerages. However as most hereditary peers no longer sit on the HoL, the titles shown for the most part should be unambiguous. Mintguy (T) 21:09, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, so there are only about 100 to fix. I would do it myself but I am too lazy at the moment. ;) Morwen 21:10, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

I've done the As and most of the Bs, and now I'm bored with it.

I have edited the life peers to follow naming conventions (John Smith, Baron Smith rather than Lord Smith), but some peers might use different names (I recalled Robin Butler instead of Frederick Butler), but I'm not quite an expert on British politics (nowhere near that, actually). I've done all of the A's and B's - perhaps someone could check my work to make sure I didn't screw up anyone's name? ugen64 16:48, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Lord Biffen (John, not William) and Lord Browne of Madingley (John, not Edmund) are the only two I know of (except Lord Butler of Brockwell) in the As and Bs who don't use their first name. I've changed the links accordingly. (Oh, and Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon is better known as Paddy Ashdown [in fact, his peerage title and real name are virtually unknown].) Proteus (Talk) 17:18, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm going to suggest that we leave dead peers in the recent section for no longer than one year, not sure if we establised policy on that or not. Mackensen 17:56, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Otherwise it'd be "peers who have died since we started listing dead peers", which isn't terribly professional. :-) Proteus (Talk) 18:58, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bishops

I think I'm going to move Bishops into a seperate part of the list, since membership of the Lords is in that case an ex officio office - and basically to make it easier to update them. We seem to be missing York, for example, who I'm not sure if he's hazed or whatever yet. Morwen - Talk 21:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that's done. I've also done a disambiguation and squashed what I think were all the links to titles rather than actual peers. Could do with some more notes :-

• need to note Lords of Appeal who remained in the House but aren't active Law Lords anymore, etc
• need to note elected hereditaries who won by-elections.
• could do with explicitly noting LPA 1958 peers, so that can difference between omission and a life peer. Morwen - Talk 22:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Partly done this. I note this diff removed Lord Steyn, who retired from being a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. However, he remained in the Lords. Morwen - Talk 12:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[3] is a good resource about Bishops. I note that the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds is next in line. Morwen - Talk 12:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing lords

gah, it looks like we may have a bunch of missing lords. Comparing the list here to [4] we are missing a lot of peers. The first bunch are :

• Ballyedmond
• Bhattacharyya
• Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
• Broers
• Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
• Cameron of Dillington
• Carswell
• Carter of Coles
• Chapman
• D'Souza
• De Mauley
• Dearing
• Drayson
• Dykes
• Falkner of Margravine
• Garden
• George
• Giddens
• Gould of Brockwood
• Griffiths of Burry Port
• Hale of Richmond
• Hart of Chilton
• Hastings of Scarisbrick
• Haworth
• Henig
• Howard of Rising

Presumably mostly recent life peers. This is going to take quite a bit of work to bring up to date. Morwen - Talk 20:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at this a bit more, yeah, the cutoff point seems to be the peers created after spring 2004, which is basically when the list was made originally. So Triesman (January 2004) is here, but Kalms (June 2004) isn't. Morwen - Talk 21:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In order of creation, they are:

• Lady Hale of Richmond
• Lord Carswell
• Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
• Lord Kalms
• Lord Drayson
• Lady Falkner of Margravine
• Lord Tunnicliffe
• Lord Bhattacharyya
• Lord Garden
• Lord Howard of Rising
• Lord Hart of Chilton
• Lord Leitch
• Lord Gould of Brookwood
• Lady Henig
• Lord Carter of Coles
• Lord Snape
• Lady Morris of Bolton
• Lord Truscott
• Lady Wall of New Barnet
• Lady Prosser
• Lady Morgan of Drefelin
• Lord Laidlaw
• Lord Rosser
• Lady Neuberger
• Lord Roberts of Llandudno
• Lord Giddens
• Lord Rana
• Lady Murphy
• Lord Maxton
• Lord Ballyedmond
• Lord McKenzie of Luton
• Lord Dykes
• Lord Broers
• Lady Young of Hornsey
• Lord Vallance of Tummel
• Lord Steinberg
• Lady Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury
• Lady Chapman
• Lady McDonagh
• Lord Young of Norwood Green
• Lady Royall of Blaisdon
• Lord Rowlands
• Lord Haworth
• Lord Cameron of Dillington
• Lord George
• Lord Griffiths of Burry Port
• Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
• Lady D'Souza
• Lord Alliance
• Lord Patten of Barnes
• Lord Kinnock
• Lord Hope of Thornes
• Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington
• Lord Adonis
• Lord Ramsbotham
• Lady Fritchie
• Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope
• Lady Taylor of Bolton
• Lady Morris of Yardley
• Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
• Lord Howarth of Newport
• Lord Tyler
• Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
• Lord Foster of Bishop Auckland
• Lord Hamilton of Epsom
• Lord Chidgey
• Lord Jones of Cheltenham
• Lord Bilston
• Lady Shephard of Northwold
• Lady Clark of Calton
• Lord Moonie
• Lord Smith of Finsbury
• Lady Tonge
• Lady Bottomley of Nettlestone
• Lord Mawhinney
• Lord Cunningham of Felling
• Lord Lyell of Markyate
• Lord Anderson of Swansea
• Lady Adams of Craigielea
• Lord Soley
• Lady Corston
• Lord Goodlad
• Lord Rees of Ludlow
• Lord Turner of Ecchinswell
• Lord Mance
• Lady Deech
• Lady Valentine
• Lord Turnbull
• Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick

Proteus (Talk) 12:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Tbh I think probably that this article should pause for a while as it looks like we will have all hereditaries and most life peers removed in the upcoming Q's Speech. So perhaps we might be wiser to devote our efforts to things that don't appear likely to change so soon.Alci12 10:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Alan Johnston, Lord Johnston

Why isn't he included in the article?84.134.92.179 (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Lord Johnston acquired his title through being a Senator of the College of Justice and not through a peerage. As he wasn't a peer he was not eligible for membership of the House of Lords. Road Wizard (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

William Buchan, 3rd Baron Tweedsmuir

What about him?84.134.100.168 (talk) 12:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Baron Tweedsmuir was a hereditary peer. There are several hundred hereditary peers, but only 92 are allowed to sit in the House of Lords at any one time (due to the changes brought about by the House of Lords Act 1999). As he wasn't one of the 92 hereditary members elected to sit in the Lords he is not recorded in this article. See List of hereditary peers elected to sit in the House of Lords under the House of Lords Act 1999. Road Wizard (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Lord Tombs

Why was he deleted from the "leave of absence"- list ?84.134.89.247 (talk) 14:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Because he is no longer on a leave of absence. See List of Peers Granted Leave of Absence and House of Lords: alphabetical list of Members. His entry in the article has been moved to the T-Z section. Road Wizard (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Royal Members

What's the reason Royal members are not included on this list? The House of Lords Act 1999 refers to:

members of the Royal Family with the right to sit and vote in the House (the Prince of Wales 2 , the Duke of Edinburgh, the Duke of York, the Duke of :Gloucester, the Duke of Kent and the Earl of Wessex); —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.38.184 (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Act is a little confusing (for those of us not used to reading Acts of Law, anyway!) The "Exclusion" that applies to Members of the Royal Family is Exclusion from the House of Lords, not exclusion from being excluded! The people listed in that section were actually all offered life peerages, but none of the royals accepted. Therefore they are not members of the House. A number of "first holders" did accept life peerages, the only remaining one being the Earl of Snowdon (a sort-of royal). Viscount Cranbourne, as the only holder of a writ of acceleration at the time, also accepted a life peerage. JRawle (Talk) 00:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

JRawle is correct. See the House of Lords Act 1999 article for a full explanation and supporting references. Road Wizard (talk) 10:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I had thought Cranborne was given a life peerage as a former cabinet minister rather than due to the writ of acceleration. john k (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Complete?

Is this list complete?84.134.117.197 (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not compare it to the official list here? [5] JRawle (Talk) 15:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

And what about this name? Is that nonsense? Lord Cadbury Richard Bass 84.134.117.197 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That is nonsense! I've deleted it. It was added by vandal 76.203.233.103 in this edit in May: [6] Lord Richard is correctly listed in the table already. JRawle (Talk) 15:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. 84.134.115.70 (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thomas John Ashton, 3rd Baron Ashton of Hyde

I can't find him in the list. Was he excluded in 1999?84.134.115.70 (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If a hereditary peer like Thomas John Ashton, 3rd Baron Ashton of Hyde is not recorded in the List of hereditary peers elected to sit in the House of Lords under the House of Lords Act 1999 then they will have lost their membership at that time. Road Wizard (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ian Cundy

Cundy has died.Max Mux (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

suspended?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/may/14/cash-for-amendments-peers

Max Mux (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

leave of absence?

What does this mean? john k (talk) 03:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Since 1958 [7] the Standing Order of the House of Lords requires its members to attend any of its meetings, however those prevented for any reason may request a leave of absence, granted by the Lord Speaker for a certain period or the remainder of a parliament. Generally the causes are disease or age-related infirmity. (see also [8] and [9]) ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 15:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

So did the hundreds of hereditary peers with little to no no interest in the business of the House of Lords before 1999 all show up unless they were suffering from disease or age-related infirmity? john k (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

When I said that health and age were the general causes, this of course meant not that these were the only reasons (for example [10]) - but do you want me to go through all hansards since then to examine all? I hope not :-) Instead I have found, I believe, the original procedure [11], what should expand my previous explantation a little bit more. Note that at several times amendments were implemented. By the way, if I remember right, at one time even sanctions against absentees (without granted leave) were considered. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 22:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Neither this article nor House of Lords explains the term, although both use it. It seems to me that some explanation of the nature of a "leave of absence" from the House of Lords ought to be included in both articles. Also - is it accurate to say that, in spite of this rule, there are no actual sanctions against absentees? john k (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be sensible to add an explantation to both articles and will do so in the next days. Regarding actual sanctions, I'm not aware of any. May I finally add that you John has always striked me as very familiar with peerage relates details and that I wonder whether your original question was perhaps only thought as reminder to explain the term ? ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 22:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I know a fair bit about the peerage, but largely historically, and not so much recent history. I was genuinely unclear on what a leave of absence was, especially as my understanding was that attendance in the House of Lords was always quite poor. So, no, it wasn't just a rhetorical device. I didn't know what a leave of absence from the House of Lords was and I was genuinely curious about it. john k (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my assumption came over as a offence, but I have been really surprised that the question was put just by you. :-) I have now added a little bit about leave on absence to both articles, so perhaps you might wish take to take a look, correct me, expand me or do whatever is appropriate. Best wishes ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 10:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

David Urquhart

Resolved

I would like to point out that due to a bad hyperlink, the article suggests that the current Lord Bishop of Birmingham is a man who has been dead for 133 years. I know that the correct page is linked at the top of that page, but at first glance it can be very confusing. I would change it myself, but a lack of technical knowledge prevents me from doing so.--82.16.110.13 (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Fixed. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Lord Bishop of Durham

Resolved

Just checking. Is he senior to London? --Kittybrewster ☎ 13:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, the order is Canterbury, York, London, Durham, Winchester, and then the others by seniority. Proteus (Talk) 13:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Parties

One thing i've noticed here is that some parties, that according to the main House of Lords article sit in, are missing from this list. For example last time I checked Baron Bannside was leader of the Democratic Unionist Party and The Ulster Unionists according to the main article have 4 representitives in the house so is this an error or is there some reason why members of some political parties don't have their party in this list? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Images

An IP editor wants to add images to this page for every single member for whom an image is available. This list is already large and loads somewhat slowly on older machines (c. 2005). Adding hundreds of images makes this page load so slowly that it effectively restricts me, and people like me, from viewing it. Editing becomes so slow that I would never be able to edit here again. As the one who tends to update the leaves of absence and one who helps with deaths and new members, such a result would not only be bad for editors on old machines, but also for the article. The only response to this in the edit summaries has been that IP disagrees. I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. That IP's experience isn't slowed down? Does IP think I am lying? I have added pictures to other lists around the project, and more to the point have never given IP a reason to do other than assume good faith. In any event, I cannot be the only person using a configuration on which hundreds upon hundreds of images drastically slows page load.

I have suggested the alternative of dividing the "Lords Temporal" section into four or five sub-articles with no response. I personally don't think the value of the images is enough to justify dividing the article, but it is a better alternative than having several hundred images. -Rrius (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggested re-styling

Afternoon, I come with some suggested changes which I think would make this a more useful list. Firstly, I'd suggest merging the Lords Spiritual into the main list, distinguishing them in type (we can have something in the key saying all other Lords are Lords Temporal). Drop the notes, which are sporadic in their current state and have no set parameters. With one exception - listing if they're a former MP. I think that's of interest to the general public, given the common conception that it's a retiring house. Similarly, give the age and when they were inducted, which gives a good idea of it's make-up. Separate columns for name and title - firstly because the bishops/hereditaries give no hint of their name in their title, secondly because their actual name might be more recognisable (I might scan past Lord Howe, but I'd mentally flag up Geoffrey Howe), thirdly because you can then basically sort by both surname and sex (given Baroness will sort above Lord in the title column). And, as noted, make it sortable.

I'd quite like to colour code the parties, like in List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2010 but I can't seem to make the coding work in my example below. Any solutions on that gratefully received... Anyway, thoughts? HornetMike (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Title	Name	Age	Party	Type	Inducted	Former office
Lord Aberdare	Alastair Bruce	77	Crossbench	Excepted hereditary peer	July 2009
Baroness Adams of Craigielea	Irene Adams	77	Labour	Life peer	13 May 2005	Former MP, 1990–2005
Lord Addington	Dominic Hubbard	61	Liberal Democrats	Excepted hereditary peer	1982
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon	Tariq Ahmad	61	Conservative	Life peer	13 January 2011
Lord Archbishop of Canterbury	Rowan Williams	74	N/A	Lord Spiritual	27 February 2003
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury	Jane Bonham-Carter	67	Liberal Democrats	Life peer	2004
Lord Harrison	Lyndon Harrison	77	Labour	Life peer	1999	Former MEP, 1989–1999

I would not be in favour of merging the Lords Temporal and Lords Spiritual because I think it would make the list too long and put less focus on the Lords Spiritual. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I would not be in favour of adding another column for names or adding colouring. I would support removing the notes, but not if service in the Commons is retained. I'm not as dead set against the ages, but the prime concern here is that this page is already massive. Adding more is just a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. As far as names go, I wouldn't care too much about adding the names by de-piping the links (The Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon becoming Tariq Ahmad, Baron Ahmad of Wimbledon), but only if the notes are removed. The table is simply too wide at this point to have both. -Rrius (talk) 19:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. The C of E - the list is long as it is, I don't think moving entries for one part to another makes any difference. And I don't think the Lords Spiritual should have any greater focus than other Lord. Rrius - do you think load issues would be a problem? The additions I've made expand across not down - there would be more data within the article though for sure. I don't think the difference between the current and proposed would be so great though, and I think the benefits outweigh the negatives. I've done a mock-up of how a table might look if you removed the piping and kept it to one column, although I've actually added a sex column (which at one letter would be relatively small data wise) so you've still got that function.

Name & Title	M/F	Age	Party	Type	Inducted	Former office
Jane Bonham Carter, Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury	F	67	Liberal Democrats	Life peer	2004
Lyndon Harrison, Baron Harrison	M	77	Labour	Life peer	1999	Former MEP, 1989–1999
Rowan Williams,The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury	M	74	N/A	Lord Spiritual	27 February 2003

Incidentally, I've added in one of the longest names on the list to both examples, just to give an illustration of the true column width. I've also changed notes to "Former office" - you could put that it relates to political offices in the key which would discourage people going wild as they would with a notes column. I've also dropped all the "The"s from the titles in the first example, just to save a bit of data. I'm not so fussed about colours, happy to drop that idea. HornetMike (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I added “former MP” to the “recently deceased list and it was reverted. I’ve undone that, as I believe it should stay. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Bishop of Manchester

Resolved

If the diocese is vacant, shouldn't it be removed from the list and the next most senior bishop after Worcester added to the bottom? john k (talk) 17:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes it should. Prompted by this I have (I think) brought the list up to date; my edit summary explains who's been removed, who left in and why. 217.155.59.204 (talk) 14:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

'Recently deceased' list

The Lord Luke and The Lord Howe of Aberavon have been added to the list of recently deceased peers. Both of them had retired from the House of Lords under the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. To me it would seem logical to have only those peers who were members of the House at the time of their death in the list of deceased. If retired peers are added in the list, there is some inconsistency as former Lords Spiritual and excluded hereditary peers, who have died, aren't listed. --Editor FIN (talk) 12:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Not using titles

Should we not also add names in some if not all cases? Some of these members deliberately do not use their titles, and there are some whose titles have not become their common name regardless (e.g. Peter Mandelson). Shouldn't this list make an effort not to obscure these members' identities? DBD 20:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that this page can remain as it is now, because all peers are known solely by their titles in the House of Lords and this is a list of members of the House. I think that it's maybe not very hard to identify peers, because most life peers have their surname as a part of their title and a reader can also check the articles of peers. --Editor FIN (talk) 12:06, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Formerly suspended peers

Some peers have a mention in their note section that they were suspended from the House earlier. I think that these mentions could be removed from the list, because those peers have suffered their punishments and aren't suspended anymore. What do others think? --Editor FIN (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

If the details are not from the cited sources (ie - House of Lords official site), then there's no reason to include them here. Farolif (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Crossbench colour

This article uses the colour template Crossbencher/meta/color described as grey for peers sitting on the Crossbenches. List of longest-serving current Members of the House of Lords and List of elected hereditary peers under the House of Lords Act 1999 use the slightly differently named template Crossbench/meta/color with the lighter shade grey. Personally, I prefer the latter (it just seems fitting that non-partisan people should have less strong colours than party members). I think it makes sense if there's just one colour for the same group across different articles, but didn't want to impose my own preference unilaterally 2A02:8010:6087:0:381A:988F:6000:3FB7 (talk) 12:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

No one has objected, so I have now gone ahead with this change 2A02:8010:6087:0:381A:988F:6000:3FB7 (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Members of the House of Lords. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130202190052/http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/deceased-lords/ to http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/deceased-lords/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/lords/non-attending-lords/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Current composition

Following the death of The Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore and other retirements, there should be 51 non-affiliated peers and 180 crossbench peers. However, I am unable to change the bar chart.

Sdrqaz (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Never mind: I have found the template and have edited accordingly. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Historical

Is there a wiki page that lists the count historically?

Just a rough guide?

MBG02 (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I was unable to find a tally for the size of the House of Commons;

but it’s at https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn02384/

and also on wiki at Number of Westminster MPs

which (unexpectedly), DOESN'T count Lords as MPs.

MBG02 (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Former MPs

I think all entries on the list article should state whether they are former MPs. User:Editor FIN reverted my edit which listed this for deceased members. I’ve undone the reversion, as I see no reason it can’t be mentioned. TrottieTrue (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Support this. I always wondered why it wasn't done before now? No other place exists on Wiki to see what former MPs are currently members of the Lords. The "notes" column isn't used enough in my opinion and it doesn't add to the length of the article in any way, just fleshes it out a bit more. --Jkaharper (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Former MP note should, of course, be included for current members, as Jkaharper said. My view is that for consistency, roles and offices should be included for former members (deceased, resigned etc.) in a similar way than for current members or to leave also former MP note out. Why to include former MP note for former members but leave other significant roles and offices out? --Editor FIN (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

TrottieTrue, have you seen my comment and question? --Editor FIN (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

No, I hadn’t seen it until now, for some reason. Thanks for your support, User:Jkaharper, although User:Editor FIN seems only to be objecting to me listing “former MP” for the deceased members of the HoL. My edits listing it for current members have been left alone so far. “Why to include former MP note for former members but leave other significant roles and offices out?” Well, it’s because I was researching the former MPs who were still living, and I thought this would be helpful to future researchers. If you want to add other roles and offices to the Notes column for deceased members, I certainly won’t object. Or indeed if anyone else wants to. It just didn’t occur to me (and I don’t think I had the time really). It certainly wasn’t intentional to leave out that other info. Although in any case, surely the “recently deceased” list is only temporary? TrottieTrue (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah okay, I better understand what the objection was about now. Just to be clear, I support adding "former MP" for both current and former members of the HoL as long as they're still alive. The word "former", IMO (and I say "IMO" because this is a contentious point), should only be used to refer to living individuals. Whenever a biography of a living person becomes a deceased one on Wiki, we remove any mention of the word "former" from the lede for a very good reason – it's a loaded word, and with it some people assume it to mean "still living but now doing something else" essentially. For that reason, it should be worded differently against deceased members OR just not mentioned at all. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I take your point, although “former” is open to interpretation. Perhaps “previously an MP in the House of Commons”? I wonder what the cut-off point for “recent” deaths is? It implies that the table of deceased members will be (or is) purged on a regular basis. TrottieTrue (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

"In the House of Commons" definitely isn't needed. "MP" only stands for one thing in the UK. "Previously an MP" or something like "MP; 1970–1997" is fine. As for your second question, isn't it stated on the page? It's 12 months after their death before we clear them off? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It isn't stated explicitly, but the "Recently deceased" is currently showing the deaths since March 2020, so I think it probably is only those for the last year. In which case I'm not going to make too much of a fuss about it, though when any Lord is "moved" from elsewhere on the page to the RD table, the Notes could surely just be copied with them. It now looks as though there is no 'Notes' column at all for the Recently deceased. Well, I suppose my main reason for adding 'former MP' will be resolved one way or another, which is that I've been keeping track of the oldest living former MPs, paying particular attention to those over 90. User:Andrew Gray has done some good work on this (see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom). Basically, I think the 'Notes' field should be copied over to the RD table when anyone in the list dies. Therefore anyone who currently has 'former MP' in their Notes would have it if they go into 'Recently deceased'. I hope that's all clear!--TrottieTrue (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Per discussion, I have now added other important roles and offices in the Notes column of the list of resigned peers. --Editor FIN (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I now remember that it was the "Ceased to be members" section which you reverted my edit on, not the "Recently deceased" section. So I think Jkaharper was agreeing with me. Good to see that "former MP" is now back in the "Notes" there..--TrottieTrue (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Why is Evgeny Lebedev not listed here?

Why is Evgeny Lebedev not mentioned in this list? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

He is actually in the list (as Lord Lebedev). --Editor FIN (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Julian Henderson

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-lancashire-60650077 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.238.77.239 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Deceased hereditary peers

Wouldn't it be more sensible to list the deceased hereditary peers with an ordinal number? There can be only one title holder of a specific title at any given moment so it's not a problem to list some hereditary peers who resigned under the proper form of address such as The Earl of X or The Lord X but it's very much possible for the succeeding titleholder of a hereditary peerage to be elected to the house so we'd find ourselves in a position where there's a Duke of X among the current members while his deceased predecessor, also a Duke of X, is listed among the deceased members for a whole year. I think we could preempt any such situation now. --Killuminator (talk) 13:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a sensible suggestion. I would follow the form of List of hereditary peers elected under the House of Lords Act 1999. SamWilson989 (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This sounds too much like a solution to a 'problem' which not only doesn't exist at this time, but will only ever happen in rare instances – especially given the process for electing hereditary peers. Is there a specific noble who you think is likely to ascend to the Lords in this situation? Farolif (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

One noble that is 100% certain to end up in this situation eventually, all other things remaining the same, would be the Duke of Norfolk. That title has been bundled with the title of Earl Marshal for a long time and the latter lands the titleholder an automatic seat in the House of Lords, and as the two titles are a package deal this would be one title that's guaranteed to eventually create a scenario I mentioned. We'd have a dead Duke of Norfolk for a year in one section and a living one listed somewhere else. Another highly probable but not 100% guaranteed scenario are the elected Labour Party peers. They have only two guaranteed seats for hereditary peers who affiliate with that party and there are very few nobles who have such a partisan affiliation to begin with. An article from The Guardian details recent issues of finding a noble who meets these criteria so the likelihood of both the title and parliamentary seat being inherited within a year is very high. But even ignoring the probability of these scenarios happening, you could make the case that it's technically incorrect to make a definitive use of THE with a title that currently belongs to a dead noble's successor. For example, we use The Lord Cobbold here for someone who died recently, his successor is technically The Lord Cobbold. The current one might never join the House of Lords, but it would be more accurate to use an ordinal number with this entry. --Killuminator (talk) 08:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Gender composition

I went to the article to find out how many women sit in the House of Lords and did not see the answer. 184.147.56.25 (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

The gender composition of the Lords is readily available at https://members.parliament.uk/parties/Lords broken down by various sub-categories. The total is 219 women, 555 men, 0 non-binaries for a total of 774. Jordan (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Additionally there is a Wikipedia article dedicated to this topic: Women in the House of Lords. I have updated it with your figures, @Jordan Grant. SamWilson989 (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for passing on the info to the relevant page. Obviously this is an evolving statistic. Updated Dec. 29, 2023 from https://members.parliament.uk/parties/lords/by-gender 557 men 228 women — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan Grant (talk • contribs) 01:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Notes

I have filled in many blank sections for notes on this article. The ones I left untouched are the ones where I didn't have much to go on beyond politician really. I'd like it better if we had some guidelines for this section. Some lords have very little to be added and others have a lot. I tried a balancing act where I inserted what I thought would be the most informative to the readers. I feel some notes from before could use an update, expansion or reduction depending on what's the issue for them. For former MPs and MEPs, I made sure to note the period and constituency. For some businessmen, I left it at just that, a simple listing, while others have founded or chaired notable companies. I also strived to list their occupations as parliamentary and government positions don't tell us everything about their background. I'd welcome a discussion on how to improve the page in this regard. --Killuminator (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I've done some revisions from time to time. I'd like @Farolif's input so we can devise some uniform approach going forward. Killuminator (talk) 16:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Killuminator I really have not given much attention to the Notes on this list article except to make MOS-related corrections. If we need to lay out some guidelines, then my first suggestion would probably be to highlight any experience on the member's Parliament bio which best explains why they were selected to be elevated to the Lords. Naturally, this would largely apply to life peers. In the case of a few hereditary peers, it may even be more appropriate to leave their notes blank.

Editor FIN and AviationEnzo have previously added new names to the list and might also be able to share some helpful feedback on this. Farolif (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Marquess of Cholmondeley

There seems to be a dispute of whether the Marquess of Cholmondeley should still be included. He was an ex officio member as Lord Great Chamberlain, but upon Queen Elizabeth's death, the office based to Lord Carrington. As the Marquess of Cholmondeley is no longer Lord Great Chamberlain, it would appear that he is no longer an ex officio member. 24.15.214.201 (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Fact is: the HoL still lists him as a member, even though they do not list him as the acting LGC. https://members.parliament.uk/member/3397/career

Reason is, that the House of Lords Act section 2(3) states "Once excepted from section 1, a person shall continue to be so throughout his life (until an Act of Parliament provides to the contrary)." So, Cholmondeley was excepted as LGC from the ban of hereditary peers and therefore continue to be so throughout his life.

Also it is bad style, to remove a sourced statement just because you think it should be different. To not start an edit war, I refrain from a reedit till we have resolved the matter. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I only commented it out so we can determine what the course of action is, plus mainly so that there would be an edit reason on the page directing editors to this discussion. 24.15.214.201 (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the text of the Act, it's unclear if that provision refers to the ex officio members, since it mentions that the Earl Marshall and Lord Great Chamberlain don't count towards the limit of people who serve for life, and the section mentions the members that group being replaced through by-elections, which doesn't apply to the ex officio members. 24.15.214.201 (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to discuss if the text of the act is clear or unclear. This is an encyclopedia, not an attorneys office. We just stay with the facts. Fact is: HoL lists him still as a member even though it tells at the same time his turn as LGC ended. I'm always happy to discuss subtleties in laws (and for my, here absolutly irrelevant opinion, the law is very clear, but again, this question doesn't matter), but this is not the place for this. The only important interpretation of the law is the interpretation by HoL officials. And this interpretation is, as is evident from the HoL website, that Cholmondeley remains a member.

---

Just to lay out the interpretation (again, this does not affect the question, whether Cholmondeley remains in the house, this is just for the pleasure on discussion):

Section 2(3): "Once excepted from section 1, a person shall continue to be so throughout his life (until an Act of Parliament provides to the contrary)."

Ok, what is section 1: "No-one shall be a member of the House of Lords by virtue of a hereditary peerage."

So, is the LGC excepted from section 1 and therefore member for life? Of course!

Supported by Section 2(2): "[...] but anyone excepted [...] as performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain[...]"

And Standing Order 9(2): "The excepted hereditary peers shall consist of the following categories: [...] (iii) any peer holding the office of Earl Marshal or performing the office of Lord Great Chamberlain."

I hope, I was able to clear this a little bit up for you. But again, this whole second part is absolutly irrevant for the question whether Cholmondeley remains a member, as sthe only relevant interpretation of this law for this encyclopedia is the interpretation and decision by authorities. Theoreticalmawi (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

According to the "Find Members" feature of the Lords official site, the Marquess' membership ended on 8 September 2022. Farolif (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Baroness Goudie

Suspended as well. 84.167.80.80 (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Returning from leave of absence

[User:Farolif]] noticed that some peers returned to attend state opening but I did ot see any references for that so I asked him and did not receive an answer. As I'm interested about that I'm askin g here. HulkNorris (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC) Help would be muchb appreciated. 84.167.89.24 (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC) After Farolifs strange reaction is there someone else who can shed light on it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HulkNorris (talk • contribs) 12:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC) Can someone with good knowledge please respond? 84.167.89.24 (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)