Talk:Australian peers and baronets

Comments moved

The below comments were moved from talk:Peerage of the Commonwealth of Australia

I am not convinced that there has ever been a peerage of the Commonwealth of Australia as opposed to British peerages. Certainly if there was, this article should explain it and not just list recipients. Also the terminology of "Baron of Y" is, I think, wrong. It should be "Baron X of Y". --Bduke 17:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought of going down the path of Baron x of y, but some of these peerages have since changed hands and I only padded each peerage with the 1st recipient, not the 2nd etc. Although part of the honours of Monarchy of Australia (that we happen to share with the British), I have put together a list of the titles that are wholly Australian. All the recipients were granted dual peerages, an Australian one and a UK one (probably because we don't have a House of Lords). Similar peerages appear for New Zealand, Canada and other Commonwealth Countries that use the British Monarch as their Head of State. In this article I thought I'd describe what I found when looking at the British peerages as the list specifically states that all these as "peerage of the Commonwealth of Australia". (Not to be confused with an 19th century term of Bunyip Aristocracy attributed to Wentworth about Jacob Hagan's plans for an Australian House of Lords. I'll try and expand the article at some point. petedavo 10:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The title is a bit misleading. Notwithstanding the dual Australian-British "territorial designations", as they're called, the baronies and so forth were, as far as I know, all created solely in the Peerage of the United Kingdom and the holders were eligible to sit in the UK House of Lords until 1999, barring any issues of naturalization. (This wasn't precisely a novelty; a number of Irish peers were created with English territorial designations, owing to the use of the Irish peerage as a dumping ground for British political jobbers.) Furthermore, baronetcies are a bit betwixt and between; they're hereditary titles, but not peerages. Perhaps it would be better to move the article to something like Hereditary titles created for Australians, which would encompass both. That said, kudos on compiling the list, which is quite interesting. Choess 03:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, see Welsh Peers, a similar list of nobles with a territorial connection; it may prove inspiring. Choess 03:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We do have a separate Queen of Australia, although at present it is the same as the British, it is not mandatory that the next one etc will be the same. Same with other Commonwealth countries like Canada, however since the letters patent describe two titles for each, one being Australian, and one being English, an assumption was that one was created by the Monarch as the Monarch of Australia, whilst the other was created as the Monarch of Britain. Of course some of these were never Australian citizens, like Birdwood or Slim, it an interesting list, even if not strictly following a correct protocol etc. I'd like to see such a list for Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, Jamaica etc.petedavo 10:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're reading too much into the territorial designations, which don't really have legal status. As a counterexample, consider Frederick Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts, who was first ennobled in 1892 as a "Baron of the said United Kingdom" with the "name, style and title of Baron Roberts of Kandahar, in Afghanistan, and of the city of Waterford". Even at the height of their power over Afghanistan, the British only claimed to dictate the conduct of foreign affairs by its emirs, not to grant titles or have any hand in its honours system, whatever that was. Since the monarch never exercised sovereignty over the territory thus designated (Kandahar), it follows that the appearance of overseas territories in the designations of other UK peers doesn't necessarily represent an exercise of the sovereign's power over those countries. That said, it's presumably a function of HM the Queen's status as Queen of Australia that these honours are recognized there.

Anyway, as far as the heterogeneity of the list, Welsh Peers works in pretty much the same way as your present list, so I agree that the list is interesting and worthy of preservation. I see that "Welsh Peers" also includes baronets, so perhaps we can just move this page to Australian Peers for naming consistency? And I agree that lists for Canada and so forth would also be interesting — I was working on the Graaff Baronets not too long ago, for instance. If you like this sort of thing, Cassiques may also interest you, although the article needs some cleanup. Choess 12:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. And baronetcies aren't part of the peerage, but I'm sure you know that! --Counter-revolutionary 13:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty good idea Australian Peers. I will probably have the time to do that later if someone else doesn't take it up. Will be a few pages linking here that will need changing and so forth, and the cat will need to be done as well to be consistent, but it's be better to take up the idea, than to loose the article later due to an afd or something just for a technicality. petedavo 22:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

New article, old article redirects here

Done. Article now moved.petedavo 08:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

A few queries

Good start, but I have a few issues with this article.

• As noted above, baronetcies are not part of the peerage, so all all references to Clarke and Way should be removed.

• Although they both had significant Australian connections, Slim and Birdwood were not Australians. Their titles do include reference to Australian places (although there is no such place as Anzac in the Commonwealth of Australia), but this no more makes them Australian peers than Baroness Sue Ryder of Warsaw’s title makes her a Polish peeress. Maybe there should be a separate section towards the end of the article for these peers who had Australian associations but who were not Australians as such.

• We say Birdwood’s grandson is the 3rd baronet; this should be 3rd baron

• Bruce – “our only Prime Minister to be awarded a peerage” – the tone should be neutral, and not suggest that the article is written only by Australian editors.

• There’s no mention of life peers – Lord May of Oxford immediately comes to mind. He was made a life peer only in 2001, and I have still not got to the bottom of why Australians are still being given these Imperial gongs despite clear Australian government policy from both sides of the political divide not to permit them. -- JackofOz 12:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I started this only because I found this issue fascinating. The changes suggested would be great. What's mentioned against each name is only just copied from the particular persons article. petedavo 02:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at a serious clean up. I decided to leave the baronetcies in, but place them last; even though they're not peerages, they are a form of hereditary honour, and people interested in such matters would probably appreciate them. -- JackofOz 04:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

While Not peers, the Baronetcies are hereditary titles and as such this is probably a suitable place for them to be located (with an explanation). Not putting them here will probably just creat confusions.

Does this mean the only currently active hereditary titles is the Clarke Baronetcy?Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks that way, but I can't speak for the completeness of Petedavo's original list. In fact, I'm sure there are other Aussies we can include here. "Who's Who in Australia" used to include lists of living Aussie peers, baronets and knights, and I'm sure I remember reading about 10 years ago about a woman from country NSW who became a peeress - she had a name like Trixie something. I'll check it out at the library tomorrow, if I remember. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

My original intent to create some sort of list was born out of the curiosity of finding out that Bunbury in WA was going to be a Baroncy, so I thought 'I wonder if there is any others'. My intent here is to present a list of Titles created for Australian Places, not for Australians specifically. I was going to originally include people with titles living in Australia, like Lord Alistair McAlpine etc but had to start applying limits to the list. The first limit was knocking out everyone of knight and below, therefore that left Baronetcies and above, so I called it Peers only for the shake of stopping people adding knights and below.petedavo (talk) 00:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The title is a little misleading, in that case. "Australian Peers" refers to people. If you wanted to restrict it to titles, it might have been "Australian Peerages". But that would immediately capture all Australians who hold UK peerages, including any whose titles make no reference to Australian places. I suppose a better description of what you wanted would be "Peerages with Australian-related Titles", or something like that. Btw, I've just noticed we're listing Howard Florey under Hereditary Peerages but we say he was a life peer (which he was). I'll fix it. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ta daaa! I've found Trixie - she's Rachel Trixie Anne, Baroness Gardner of Parkes see here. -- JackofOz (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

And now there's an article on her. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Roberthall

Having never heard of this person, I did some digging. This tells us that Sir Robert Lowe Hall (d. 17 September 1998) was created Baron Roberthall, of Silverspear in Queensland and of Trenance in the County of Cornwall [U.K. LIFE PEER] on 28 October 1969.This confirms those details. Note: It's Silverspear, not Silverspur.

So, he's apparently a Briton who was given a Life Peerage whose title includes an Australian place. This puts him into a category of his own. I'll see if I can create a new category. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, he was an Aussie who moved to the UK. [1]. He belongs with Florey and May. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

What does this mean ??

Such honours included peerages, which at that time were all hereditary Eregli bob (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"at that time" means what time ?? Most of the Australian peers that spring quickly to mind ( Lord Bruce, Lord Forest, Lod Casey ) were ennobled after the invention of "life peerages".

It refers to "originally" in the preceding sentence, "Australians, then being British subjects, were originally eligible to receive British Imperial Honours". It was meant to refer to the entire period from 1788, or more particularly from 1901, up until the period when our governments started to no longer recommend British Honours for Australians, which started with Whitlam. Life peerages only started in the early 1960s. Bruce's and Forrest's peerages were definitely created as hereditary peerages because there was no other way to do it prior to life peerages. Casey was a life peer. A fuller list is in the article but I'm sure we've missed one or two. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Correction. Life peerages started in 1958. It was possible to create them prior to that, but the practice was obsolescent. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Monarchial title" section

I can't quite see the relevance of this to the article. The monarch is not a peer, and while there is a "Queen of Australia", Elizabeth II is not an Australian. Her titles etc are amply covered in the Q of A article. Any objections to removing this section? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I stuck it in because it is a title with an australian geographical reference, that's all. Petedavo ^{talk contributions} 12:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed this section below which was stuck in by an IP address ->

"The only lawfully correct title for the Queen - as it underpins the Commonwealth of Australian Constitution Act 1900 (see covering clause 2) - is the first title. The second one cannot be, as Queen Elizabeth cannot legally be the queen of two separate realms or countries; the first title already contains Australia, as Australia is a possession of the Crown under the Act of Settlement 1701 (and this Act cannot be changed except with the concurrence of the whole Commonwealth). Additionally, the Queen takes a Coronation Oath (in the Coronation Oath Act) referring to the same basic elements as the first title, and (implicitly) swears to uphold the various constitutional statutes such as the Act of Settlement. This is what gives legitimacy to the first title and makes the second title lawfully invalid (not just redundant). As a side note, the term "Commonwealth" has a completely different meaning in both titles as the first is part of a British Act and the second is part of an Australian Act."

as it was not referenced and I believe it is POV as it appears to be incorrect in a few assumptions.

1. The Acts quoted are both Australian (there is a UK version)

2. HM QEII is actually a separate Queen of some Commonwealth countries and it is possible to lose one and retain another as the case was for India and South Africa and other republics. Indeed it can happen the other way around also as in the case of Portugal when the Monarchy was abolished yet kept going in Brazil and Mozambique.

3. It doesn't add to the article.

Petedavo ^{talk contributions} 12:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Clive Baillieu

Clive Latham Baillieu, 1st Baron Baillieu was born and went to school in Australia and later moved to the UK, where he was granted an hereditary peerage, but with a reference to Australia in the title ("Sefton in the Commonwealth of Australia"). Does this mean that Stanley Bruce has to give up his "sole Australian hereditary peer" claim, or do we consider that Baillieu ceased being an Australian some time after he left, despite his Australian-sounding title? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It depends on his nationality not his title (just as Viscount Montgomery of Alamein would not be described as an Egyptian peer!) It says he was British-Australian. It seems reasonable to describe him as Australian as he was born in Australia - I'm not sure what citizenship he would have had, given Australia's status at various stages of his life. JRawle (Talk) 11:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. We need to make some note about him in the article. He got his peerage in 1953, and died in 1967, both of which were after the Australian citizenship laws came into force (1949). I wonder what happened to Aussie-born people who were residents of the UK in 1949 (or of other countries, for that matter) and had not gone through some formal process of obtaining the nationality/citizenship of their new country. Did they automatically become Australian citizens, or was it possible to somehow "disclaim" it, or was it dependent on the length of time they'd been absent from Australia prior to 1949? If his peerage had been granted prior to 1949, there'd be no issue, since all Australians, like all Britons, were British subjects, and it was enough to have been born in Australia to make one "an Australian", even if they'd lived for many years in some other Commonwealth realm. After 26 January 1949, that changed. Being born in Australia made you an Australian citizen by birth, but it was possible to relinquish your Australian citizenship at some later stage. Baillieu may have done that for all we know. We need to find out whether he was an Australian citizen at the time he got his peerage in 1953. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I would bung him in as this list I created was entirely for titles 'that have something to do with Australia'. It some cases the title holders were originally born England anyway. PS: It would still remain a very small list regardless. Petedavo ^{talk contributions} 12:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added some appropriate words, and downplayed Bruce's claim to be the only Australian hereditary peer. That still may prove to be right, when we get more info on Baillieu. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Earl of Portarlington?

The 7th Earl lives in Sydney. He's probably worth a mention in the article.203.31.52.137 (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we know what his citizenship is? Just living in Australia does not make a peer an Australian peer. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what his citizenship is, but he lives here. I'd consider that a sufficient reason for him to be listed under "Hereditary peers with Australian associations".203.31.52.137 (talk) 22:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. If it's cited, fair enough. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Boldface

The policy seems to be a little opposite in the article here. Leefkrust22 (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Earl of Dunmore

I was surfing WP and i stumbled upon a very short article about Malcolm Murray, 12th Earl of Dunmore, the article states that he is "a native-born Australian and lives in Tasmania". He is not mentioned in this article so I can only assume he was missed or he does not hold Australian citizenship although he "lives in Tasmania". Regards, Nford24 (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2012 (AEST)

It's a little tricky, because when he was born in 1946, there was no such thing as Australian citizenship. That was created on 26 January 1949. All British subjects who were born in Australia, and who normally resided here as of that day, automatically became Australian citizens on that day. It is possible to lose or renounce citizenship, but if he still lives here - and it seems he's always lived here - then that seems highly unlikely. On the face of it, he's an Australian peer and should be added to the article. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 06:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll add him to the article and if anyone finds a reason to remove him later on then thats fine. Nford24 (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2012 (AEST)

James Atkin, Baron Atkin

What do we do with James Atkin, Baron Atkin? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wives of peers

... such as the Countess of Harewood. She is certainly a countess, but is she a peeress? I rather think not. She just married well. We could also be including Maie Casey, Baroness Casey and all the other wives. But we never have, because spouses are not peer/esses in their own right. Is it proposed we change this? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

She warrants a mention because she is Australian, but her husband was not. And neither is the present Earl of Harewood. So it is not just the same as Lady Casey.GSTQ (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. Lots of Aussie women married notable foreign men. The fact that this particular man happened to be a peer does not make her a peeress. If we want to expand the scope of the article, it would need a name change. But "Australian peers and baronets and Australian spouses of non-Australian peers and baronets" is too much of a mouthful for my taste. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a non-sequitur to conflate peers with "notable foreign men". Are you suggesting that lots of Aussie women married peers? I don't think you're correct if that's your contention. There is no need to change the title of the article. This article already contains governors-general who were not Australian, so why not attack their inclusion? They are not Australian peers or baronets. Neither were Lords Dugan or Birdwood. In the same way as those non-Australian peers are relevant to the topic discussed in the article, just because somebody is not a peeress suo jure does not mean she is irrelevant to the topic either. By the way, nobody ever said that marrying a peer makes someone a peeress.GSTQ (talk) 04:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

No, but you've put the Countess of Harewood in a section headed "The following hereditary peers are or were Australians by birth or residence" (my bolding). She qualifies by being an Australian, but she fails to qualify as a peeress, because she is not a peeress, hereditary or otherwise. She simply does not have the same status as any of the other people in that section.

What I think we ought to do is to include her late husband in "Hereditary peers with Australian associations", and mention her in that context.

We should take the same approach with Baron Tryon and his Australian wife Dale Tryon, Baroness Tryon. And any other non-Australian peers who married Australians. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Your objection holds true for both other people listed in "Other", so if we're going to move one, all three should be moved. But where? Forrest was never created a peer. Baden-Powell is not a peer but probably will be one day. Perhaps the best approach is to create a new section for Australians who have a connexion with a peerage but do not (or did not) hold the peerage themselves.GSTQ (talk) 05:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I like that idea. We can only be bold and give it a try and see what develops. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-british nobility with Australian associations?

I've recently come across various articles about various non-british nobles/royalty who either live/d in Australia or married an Australian, like a von bulow, a Princess Radziwill, the son of the last Nizam of Hyderabad, a Crown Princess of Albania etc. is there any interest of adding a section here? Australia's tenuous noble connections were more than the british. Siegfried Nugent (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

John Forrest

I would argue that John Forrest's title should be included (even if only as a courtesy title):

• John Forrest's title is listed as extinct (and so as valid) in the authoritative Burke's Peerage (1920), and his widow is clearly listed as a Baroness: https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=PNc7AQAAMAAJ&dq=%22Baroness+Forrest%22&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=%22Baroness+Forrest%22
• Most reference and government sources treat the title as having been created: e.g., http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/forrest-sir-john-6211, https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Forrest, http://exhibitions.senate.gov.au/pogg/members/forrest.htm
• WA's official monument to him (his statue in King's Park) describes him as a Baron: http://monumentaustralia.org.au/themes/people/government---state/display/61009-john-forrest
• Even assuming that the peerage was not formally created, there is precedent in Britain for the use of a peerage title as a courtesy despite the failure of its formal creation: see Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge (1660–1661), Charles Stuart, Duke of Cambridge (1677). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.194.134.197 (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Mary, future Queen of Demark

What shall we do with What shall we do with Mary and her offspring? Petedavo ^{talk contributions} 06:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a question of citizenship. Mary certainly should be on this list (an oversight even I've made) but as for future generations, that could get interesting. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 03:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Page title

I think this pages title is counter-intuitive. "Peers" can mean anything.. It should be perhaps like, "Australian formal titles" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.118.42.44 (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

• "Peers" is the plural for a group of people that have been awarded a peerage. Changing the name to "Australian formal titles" would be opening pandora's box and there is already a page that covers that anyway. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 23:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)