Talk:List of lord chancellors and lord keepers

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Why are the Early Chancellors of England and the Lord Chancellors and Lord Keepers of England included in the same page as the Lord Chancellors and Lord Keepers of Great Britain, yet the Lord Chancellors of Scotland are on a separate page? Should the pre-Union institutions of both England and Scotland not be kept separate from those of the UK? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.53.46 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Plural Lords, singular offices

Shouldn't that be "Lords Chancellor" and "Lords Keeper" etc? As in "courts martial" etc? (I haven't checked anywhere, but it just doesn't ring true.) SiGarb | Talk 23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, as in this case the adjective is Lord. They are chancellors and keepers. They don't necessarily have to be Lords (although they usually have been). As Lord Chancellor says, there is no legal impediment to the appointment of a commoner. In contrast, courts martial are courts. Martial is the adjective. See also Talk:List of Lord Mayors of London. JRawle (Talk) 00:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Hmmm. Interesting: the word "lord" can be a noun or a verb, but I had never considered it as an adjective before! Neither does either of my dictionaries (Collins & Chambers), but they are similarly no help on the correct plural. Hansard, however, ought to know the answer, and I find it uses "Lords Chancellor" extensively in reporting business in the House of Lords. And here is an extract from The Judicial Functions of the House of Lords: "...frequent sittings by Lords Chancellor. The practice of different Lords Chancellor in sitting judicially has been remarkably variable." The usage "Lord Chancellors" is given in the next paragraph, but only in a direct quotation from someone. The document itself then returns to the usage "Recent Lords Chancellor, like their predecessors, have sat in cases of constitutional importance..." (see [1] ) I'm pretty sure Lords Keeper of the Seal would therefore follow suit, but can only find one (online, and thus to be taken with a pinch of salt) reference, to the Finch family (of Rutland?), "members of which have been Speakers of the House of Commons, Lords Keeper of the Seal, Recorder of London, Attorney-General". So, with respect, I think you must be mistaken. (And as for Talk:List of Lord Mayors of London, I'm with your old sparring partner FearÉIREANN on this one. SiGarb | Talk 20:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that parliament says the plural is Lords Chancellor and Lords Keeper writing Lord Chancellors and Lord Keepers looks plain ignorant and unencyclopaedic. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 20:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. However, the plot thickens: I consulted the Guardian online style-guide and the Times' ditto. They give no guidance on plurals for Lord Mayor, or Lord Chancellor. But they differ of Lords Lieutenant, with the Times, surprisingly, being less traditional, and following the guidance of the Association of Lord-Lieutenants! (Hansard sticks to Lords Lieutenant.) SiGarb | Talk 20:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The office isn't even formally "Lord Chancellor" — in the most formal documents, such as Writs of Summons to Parliament and Letters Patent, issued in the name of the Queen in the first person, the Lord Chancellor is "Our Chancellor of Great Britain" (see here, for instance). A group of people who are each Chancellor of Great Britain can't collectively be anything other than Chancellors of Great Britain. And having random switching between "Chancellors" and "Lords Chancellor" depending solely on whether you want to stick the meaningless honorific "Lord" in front of the title would be bizarre. Proteus (Talk) 20:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen refers to herself as "We", therefore the use of "Our". He's HER chancellor, but no-one else can refer to him thus. Therefore the rest of us should follow Hansard, I reckon. SiGarb | Talk 20:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. FearÉIREANN

\^(caint) 20:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes so little sense I don't even know where to start. She also says "Our County of Rutland" — I suppose you believe that means it's "HER county, but no one else can refer to it thus". Proteus (Talk) 07:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The DCA refers to them as Lord Chancellors. [2] As for debates recorded in Hansard, those speaking have used Lord Chancellors on 444 occasions [3] but Lords Chancellor on only 7 occasions [4]. So whether it's correct or not, it seems that the standard parliamentary usage is Lord Chancellors. JRawle (Talk) 22:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point.

The DCA is useless as a source (unfortunately). Their goof-ups are legendary. The screw up the attempt to abolish the Lord Chancellorship pretty much sums up the standard of knowledge there.
Hansard's reports of all parliamentary debates repeats whatever is said, no matter how misinformed, inaccurate or whatever. If someone had (having a bit too much claret) said "chancellorship lord" it would be quoted. The actual source that is relevant is not verbatim reports that display the wisdom or ignorance of the speaker, but official documentary usage in parliamentary documentation. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 22:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on both points. Perhaps I didn't phrase it very well when I said "whether it's correct or not", but seeing as there's no consensus here on the talk pages, shouldn't we reflect common usage in our decision on how to pluralise the names of these posts? The people speaking in both houses of parliament show a clear consensus as to which form to use! JRawle (Talk) 00:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although Bryan A. Garner is a native Texan, and Philip Norton, Baron Norton of Louth was educated in Pennsylvania, each is regarded as an authority (if recently-recognised) on Parliamentary lexicography ...

Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage is published by the Oxford University Press; his third edition (2011) has this to say:

The plural is sometimes made Lords Chancellor, sometimes Lord Chancellors, and sometimes Lords Chancellors. The prevailing, and the best, form is Lord Chancellors.

Responding to a question viz. the plural form, Lord Norton is resolute:

[I]t’s Lord Chancellors, like Lord Justices. It’s different with the Attorney General.

... and each is unsympathetic to my expectations. Ultimately, I am convinced by the illuminating example of Lord Justices--indisputable precedent for the Lord-as-adjective variety of honourific. Patronanejo (talk) 04:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First MP

This is more complicated than it seems at first. Several Lord Chancellors were appointed directly from the Commons and sworn is as Lord Chancellor before their peerage was formally conferred. (Charles Yorke was definitely Lord Chancellor as he was in a position to apply the seal for the patent creating his peerage, but he refused and committed suicide as a commoner.) Now between about 1707 and 1919 this automatically meant their current right to sit in the Commons expired, but after this there were some who appear to have briefly been in office whilst still an MP. Inskip/Caldecote was noted as such in the early 1939 newspapers, whilst Simon addresses the issue of whether the Lord Chancellor had to be a peer in his memoirs (he argues the Woolsack is technically not part of the floor of the Lords). As well as Caldecote, both Hailshams, Simon, Jowitt, Kilmuir, Dilhorne and Elwyn-Jones were all MPs immediately before they became Lord Chancellor and it's possible that several were technically an MP & Lord Chancellor at the same time. Timrollpickering 15:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion in the Peerage

When a holder such as Lord Halsbury served multiple terms and was promoted in the peerage during a subsequent one, I have shown him as 'The Lord Halsbury' during his first term and as 'The Lord Halsbury (later Earl of Halsbury)' during the subsequent one. Alekksandr (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leave out the 'The'

In formal parlance, 'The' is added to titles to indicate that the title belongs to a peer, and is not a mere courtesy title (such as one held by the eldest son of a peer).

In lists like this, the use of 'The' adds nothing except annoyance.

Skepticaltogether (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of Lord Chancellors and Lord Keepers

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Lord Chancellors and Lord Keepers's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Handbook85":

From Ralph Baldock: Fryde, et al. Handbook of British Chronology pp. 85-86
From Robert Burnell: Fryde, et al. Handbook of British Chronology p. 85

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are. Thank you bot. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

David Maxwell Fyfe.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

David Maxwell Fyfe.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to split section 2 into two sub-sections

The 2007 decision to create the position of Secretary of State for Justice, and make the incumbent of that office concurrently the Lord Chancellor, was a very significant moment for this list of Lord Chancellors. Since then, Lord Chancellors have been frontline politicians, rather than random members of the House of Lords that no-one's ever heard of (no offence!). It looks like this will continue for the foreseeable future. Therefore, I propose firstly that section 2 is split into two sub-sections (1707-2007, and 2007-present). Clearly Falconer will have to appear at both the end of the first sub-section and the start of the second.
Also, seeing as the list of Lord Chancellors since 2007 is deliberately identical to the list of Secretaries of State for Justice, I don't think there should be two separately coded tables of office holders since 2007, one in this article and one in the SofS article. The tables should be identical, but there are inevitably some differences, for example in the dates. Therefore, I propose secondly that the table of Lord Chancellors since 2007 is replaced with a function which calls the table of Secretaries of State, probably something like {{Excerpt|Secretary of State for Justice|List of secretaries of state|hat=no}}. Thanks. Mmitchell10 (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1783

According to this list, the office was in commission from April to December in 1783. However, the article at David Murray, 2nd Earl of Mansfield says he (at that point Viscount Stormont, not yet having succeeded to the earldom) was Lord Chancellor. This is supported by a reference I found to the introduction in the House of Lords of the Prince of Wales (later George IV) in The London Gazette.[5] Could someone take a look and make the necessary changes? -Rrius (talk) 04:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Lord Lieutenants of Anglesey which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]