politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Nighthawks is now open

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB Nighthawks is now open

If you Just Can’t Get Enough of PB, why not relax, and converse into the night on the day’s events in PB NightHawks.

Read the full story here

JBriskin

I shall choose to go First!!!

JackW

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages.

That's quite limited, indeed the last hereditary award outside the family was the Thatcher Baronetcy.

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

surbiton

FPT: Stuart Dickson

Con Most Seats and Lab Most Votes 66/1 from 100/1

OK, this is still an outlandish bet, but why is this shortening ? Could the punters explain this ?

Morris_Dancer

Good evening, everyone.

FPT: Mr. Surbiton, London effect?

It's been commented before that Labour could stack up votes in London but that wouldn't gain them many seats, whereas the blues may actually be getting a more efficient turnout, gaining more seats for not many more votes.

On-topic: 11 - Bercow's a moron. We've seen numerous serious hacks lately. Electoral integrity has been knocked severely by the shenanigans in Tower Hamlets and, more widely, postal voting. Voting by the interweb will just make votes all the less reliable.

Just because technology can do a thing doesn't it mean it must, or should. I use a computer for writing, but I still use a notepad and pen for ideas.

21 - o, utterer of heathen words! Cast thy tongue from thy empty head!

Alexander was the greatest. It cannot be disputed, even by a fellow as silly as you.

TheScreamingEagles

surbiton said:

FPT: Stuart Dickson

Con Most Seats and Lab Most Votes 66/1 from 100/1

OK, this is still an outlandish bet, but why is this shortening ? Could the punters explain this ?

Happened when the ComRes marginals came out, Pulpstar, myself and a few others thought that's what the ComRes marginals showed.

That gave rise to the possibility of Con ahead on seats, but behind on the popular vote.

ToryJim

JackW said:

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages.

That's quite limited, indeed the last hereditary award outside the family was the Thatcher Baronetcy.

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

Of course, I think it is a shame. There is something to be said for hereditary awards. Not masses of them but a few here and there.

JackW

JackW said:

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages.

That's quite limited, indeed the last hereditary award outside the family was the Thatcher Baronetcy.

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

Apologies. Should read 1966 until 1983.

JBriskin

Not that I want to suggest people leave the café - but for the Scottish posters - there's Janet Street-Porter on #indyref on Bbc at the moment.

ToryJim

Mr Dancer. On Bercow I utterly agree. If he weren't already diminutive I'd suggest he needs cutting down to size. The guy thinks he is the fount of all political wisdom when he is just a pillock.

Also agree re Alexander very few people conquer the world pretty much before they're 30. Plus he appears to have had good taste in men

ToryJim

JackW said:

JackW said:

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages.

That's quite limited, indeed the last hereditary award outside the family was the Thatcher Baronetcy.

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

Apologies. Should read 1966 until 1983.

No need. I'm sure you've been busy toasting the late "king over the water".

Life_ina_market_town

JackW said:

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

It is customary and proper for makers of war who are elevated to the peerage to be granted a name, style and title after the locus of their military activity (e.g. Montgomery of Alamein, V., Alexander of Tunis, E.). It remains the custom in this reign that former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are entitled to an earldom (e.g. Attlee, Avon, Stockton). Does that mean that we can expect Tony Blair, if he so desires, to be created Earl of Iraq, and Viscount Blair of Basra?

TheScreamingEagles

Morris_Dancer said:

Good evening, everyone.

FPT: Mr. Surbiton, London effect?

It's been commented before that Labour could stack up votes in London but that wouldn't gain them many seats, whereas the blues may actually be getting a more efficient turnout, gaining more seats for not many more votes.

On-topic: 11 - Bercow's a moron. We've seen numerous serious hacks lately. Electoral integrity has been knocked severely by the shenanigans in Tower Hamlets and, more widely, postal voting. Voting by the interweb will just make votes all the less reliable.

Just because technology can do a thing doesn't it mean it must, or should. I use a computer for writing, but I still use a notepad and pen for ideas.

21 - o, utterer of heathen words! Cast thy tongue from thy empty head!

Alexander was the greatest. It cannot be disputed, even by a fellow as silly as you.

Alexander was born into wealth and privilege, Caesar had no such advantages

Edit: Caesar was relatively a poor boy, from a poor family

No_Offence_Alan

TheScreamingEagles said:

surbiton said:

FPT: Stuart Dickson

Con Most Seats and Lab Most Votes 66/1 from 100/1

OK, this is still an outlandish bet, but why is this shortening ? Could the punters explain this ?

Happened when the ComRes marginals came out, Pulpstar, myself and a few others thought that's what the ComRes marginals showed.

That gave rise to the possibility of Con ahead on seats, but behind on the popular vote.

You would need at least the 3 following things to happen:

Tories gain most of the seats where they are second to LDs.
Tories lose lots of votes (but not seats) to UKIP in their safe seats.
Big swings from LD to Labour in seats where LDs were second to Labour last time.

TheScreamingEagles

No_Offence_Alan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

surbiton said:

FPT: Stuart Dickson

Con Most Seats and Lab Most Votes 66/1 from 100/1

OK, this is still an outlandish bet, but why is this shortening ? Could the punters explain this ?

Happened when the ComRes marginals came out, Pulpstar, myself and a few others thought that's what the ComRes marginals showed.

That gave rise to the possibility of Con ahead on seats, but behind on the popular vote.

You would need at least the 3 following things to happen:

Tories gain most of the seats where they are second to LDs.
Tories lose lots of votes (but not seats) to UKIP in their safe seats.
Big swings from LD to Labour in seats where LDs were second to Labour last time.

You can see all of three happening....

JackW

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

JackW said:

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages.

That's quite limited, indeed the last hereditary award outside the family was the Thatcher Baronetcy.

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

Apologies. Should read 1966 until 1983.

No need. I'm sure you've been busy toasting the late "king over the water".

Indeed so and PB has the delight of King James VIII as my avatar to enjoy most days !!

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jim, I'd need to check, but I think it was well before he was 30. His later years were fighting the rather competent Indians and making a hash of the easy bit (walking back home).

Depressing to read about him, in some ways, though. His life is basically an undiluted string of success. Caesar and Hannibal both actually lost some battles.

Bercow's a meddlesome midget.

ToryJim

Life_ina_market_town said:

JackW said:

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

It is customary and proper for makers of war who are elevated to the peerage to be granted a name, style and title after the locus of their military activity (e.g. Montgomery of Alamein, V., Alexander of Tunis, E.). It is remains the custom in this reign that former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are entitled to an earldom (e.g. Attlee, Avon, Stockton). Does that mean that we can expect Tony Blair, if he so desires, to be created Earl of Iraq, and Viscount Blair of Basra?

The military title designation is only for successful military adventurism. Attlee was one of the few Earldoms that was not a territorially designated title and doesn't have of in the title. One of the others is Earl Jellicoe. If Blair were raised so high it would either be Earl Blair or I'd suggest Earl of Sedgefield.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Eagles, he needs no sympathy. His uncle was seven times a consul!

GeoffM

"19. Merseysiders are the most likely to skive off to watch the World Cup"

What exactly are scousers going to be skiving off from?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jim, that isn't a high enough honour. I'd raise Blair further, just beyond the outer atmosphere, in the general direction of the sun.

Theuniondivvie

With Darling on a -16% rating and only 25% of voters thinking they're running a good campaign, Better Together must have had to think long and hard about this offer.

David Coburn MEP ‏@DavidCoburnUKip 20 mins
I offered to lead #BetterTogether Campaign - Never got THE call returned- Never mind - #UKIP Scotland will reach the parts others cant #Naw

JackW

Life_ina_market_town said:

JackW said:

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

It is customary and proper for makers of war who are elevated to the peerage to be granted a name, style and title after the locus of their military activity (e.g. Montgomery of Alamein, V., Alexander of Tunis, E.). It remains the custom in this reign that former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are entitled to an earldom (e.g. Attlee, Avon, Stockton). Does that mean that we can expect Tony Blair, if he so desires, to be created Earl of Iraq, and Viscount Blair of Basra?

I was thinking more Earl of the Euphrates, Viscount Forty-Five Minutes and Baron Baghdad.

TheScreamingEagles

ToryJim said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JackW said:

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

It is customary and proper for makers of war who are elevated to the peerage to be granted a name, style and title after the locus of their military activity (e.g. Montgomery of Alamein, V., Alexander of Tunis, E.). It is remains the custom in this reign that former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are entitled to an earldom (e.g. Attlee, Avon, Stockton). Does that mean that we can expect Tony Blair, if he so desires, to be created Earl of Iraq, and Viscount Blair of Basra?

The military title designation is only for successful military adventurism. Attlee was one of the few Earldoms that was not a territorially designated title and doesn't have of in the title. One of the others is Earl Jellicoe. If Blair were raised so high it would either be Earl Blair or I'd suggest Earl of Sedgefield.

You forget Kosovo and Sierra Leone.

Earl Blair of Kosovo and Viscount of Pristina.

Honestly, your lack of military history knowledge only rivals Mr Dancer's.

NickPalmer

18 is a scandal IMO. Merely saying we'll help people to get online isn't enough. We've tried many times to persuade my aunt to get a computer, but she doesn't want to; others won't be able to afford it. Giving discounts etc. maybe, but this institutionalises digital exclusion.

ToryJim

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jim, I'd need to check, but I think it was well before he was 30. His later years were fighting the rather competent Indians and making a hash of the easy bit (walking back home).

Depressing to read about him, in some ways, though. His life is basically an undiluted string of success. Caesar and Hannibal both actually lost some battles.

Bercow's a meddlesome midget.

Well he did have a stroke of luck at the Battle of the Granicus River when if I seem to recall he was nearly killed by Spithridates and only saved by the quick thinking of Cleitus the Black.

JBriskin

Theuniondivvie said:

With Darling on a -16% rating and only 25% of voters thinking they're running a good campaign, Better Together must have had to think long and hard about this offer.

David Coburn MEP ‏@DavidCoburnUKip 20 mins
I offered to lead #BetterTogether Campaign - Never got THE call returned- Never mind - #UKIP Scotland will reach the parts others cant #Naw

Those that drink Bitter!!!

GeoffM

NickPalmer said:

18 is a scandal IMO. Merely saying we'll help people to get online isn't enough. We've tried many times to persuade my aunt to get a computer, but she doesn't want to; others won't be able to afford it. Giving discounts etc. maybe, but this institutionalises digital exclusion.

Fantastic. Stop the world. Nick Palmer's aunt wants to get off.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jim, indeed. Cleitus probably rather regretted that.

Alexander also survived getting shot in the lung and being surrounded by enemies with only two men to protect him (the Macedonians overmanned siege ladders which led to them collapsing, temporarily leaving the three chaps stranded within a hostile fortress on the march back to Macedon).

Mr. Palmer, I concur. Also, some people will choose to go without the internet. It'll be a small minority, but you can't insist people have a computer.

ToryJim

TheScreamingEagles said:

ToryJim said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JackW said:

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

It is customary and proper for makers of war who are elevated to the peerage to be granted a name, style and title after the locus of their military activity (e.g. Montgomery of Alamein, V., Alexander of Tunis, E.). It is remains the custom in this reign that former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are entitled to an earldom (e.g. Attlee, Avon, Stockton). Does that mean that we can expect Tony Blair, if he so desires, to be created Earl of Iraq, and Viscount Blair of Basra?

The military title designation is only for successful military adventurism. Attlee was one of the few Earldoms that was not a territorially designated title and doesn't have of in the title. One of the others is Earl Jellicoe. If Blair were raised so high it would either be Earl Blair or I'd suggest Earl of Sedgefield.

You forget Kosovo and Sierra Leone.

Earl Blair of Kosovo and Viscount of Pristina.

Honestly, your lack of military history knowledge only rivals Mr Dancer's.

I did not forget, I chose not to remember

Freggles

Considering going to the launch of the North East Party. If it's just a group of embittered former Lab councillors I'll be disappointed, though.

bigjohnowls

Mike L Anthony has just updated the UKPR average.

Perhaps surprisingly it's now 32/35 - was 31/35 before.

Seats LAB 340 CON 262

Crossov oh

ToryJim

Freggles said:

Considering going to the launch of the North East Party. If it's just a group of embittered former Lab councillors I'll be disappointed, though.

Prefer for disappointment I'd say
Edit- Prepare - gah autocorrect

Charles

Life_ina_market_town said:

JackW said:

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

It is customary and proper for makers of war who are elevated to the peerage to be granted a name, style and title after the locus of their military activity (e.g. Montgomery of Alamein, V., Alexander of Tunis, E.). It remains the custom in this reign that former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are entitled to an earldom (e.g. Attlee, Avon, Stockton). Does that mean that we can expect Tony Blair, if he so desires, to be created Earl of Iraq, and Viscount Blair of Basra?

Does it remain the custom though?

Heath and Major got knighthoods. Thatcher, Wilson and Callaghan got Baronies. They all got Garters as well.

Blair and Brown have not been enobled - the former is too controversial, I think, and I believe the latter has said he doesn't want one.

i.e. Macmillian was the most recent serving PM to be awarded an Earldom (Douglas-Home got a life peerage, but was obviously a special case)

TheScreamingEagles

Freggles said:

Considering going to the launch of the North East Party. If it's just a group of embittered former Lab councillors I'll be disappointed, though.

Perhaps Ant & Dec will turn up.

ToryJim

GeoffM said:

NickPalmer said:

18 is a scandal IMO. Merely saying we'll help people to get online isn't enough. We've tried many times to persuade my aunt to get a computer, but she doesn't want to; others won't be able to afford it. Giving discounts etc. maybe, but this institutionalises digital exclusion.

Fantastic. Stop the world. Nick Palmer's aunt wants to get off.

I agree with Nick. Whilst digital only provision is probably inevitable we can't just go Big Bang on this. It has to be phased some older people just won't be able to get to grips with computers, and ultimately I'm not sure they should be forced to.

RobD

FPT:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages from that date.

Aren't all of them royal hereditary peerages?

TheScreamingEagles

Just stuck in link 22

John Bercow Backs A Referendum On Britain's Membership Of The European Union


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/10/john-bercow-european-union-referendum_n_5481535.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Life_ina_market_town

As a general comment on some of the news stories above: every single canonical political thinker from Plato to Marx would be classified as an "extremist" on the government's definition. Does that mean that no political thought or history should be taught in schools? Trying to define Britishness, or British values is an utterly crass and anachronistic task. As Sir Brian Harrison observes in his magisterial Finding a Role?: the United Kingdom, 1970-1990, (Oxford, 2010), the central feature of the postwar British life is that politicians have been unable to impose a single set of values on the public, or to define for the nation a role. The British people have been fortunate to have found those things on their own.

ToryJim

Charles said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JackW said:

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

It is customary and proper for makers of war who are elevated to the peerage to be granted a name, style and title after the locus of their military activity (e.g. Montgomery of Alamein, V., Alexander of Tunis, E.). It remains the custom in this reign that former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are entitled to an earldom (e.g. Attlee, Avon, Stockton). Does that mean that we can expect Tony Blair, if he so desires, to be created Earl of Iraq, and Viscount Blair of Basra?

Does it remain the custom though?

Heath and Major got knighthoods. Thatcher, Wilson and Callaghan got Baronies. They all got Garters as well.

Blair and Brown have not been enobled - the former is too controversial, I think, and I believe the latter has said he doesn't want one.

i.e. Macmillian was the most recent serving PM to be awarded an Earldom (Douglas-Home got a life peerage, but was obviously a special case)

Oh probably not. I wonder how much longer Blair will have to wait for his a Garter, most have been within 8-10 yrs space allowing. Heath had to wait nearly 20 years though.

david_herdson

ToryJim said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JackW said:

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

It is customary and proper for makers of war who are elevated to the peerage to be granted a name, style and title after the locus of their military activity (e.g. Montgomery of Alamein, V., Alexander of Tunis, E.). It is remains the custom in this reign that former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are entitled to an earldom (e.g. Attlee, Avon, Stockton). Does that mean that we can expect Tony Blair, if he so desires, to be created Earl of Iraq, and Viscount Blair of Basra?

The military title designation is only for successful military adventurism. Attlee was one of the few Earldoms that was not a territorially designated title and doesn't have of in the title. One of the others is Earl Jellicoe. If Blair were raised so high it would either be Earl Blair or I'd suggest Earl of Sedgefield.

Quite a lot of earldoms don't have a territorial designation, and (I think) all viscountcies and baronies. If Blair were to take his traditional earldom, Earl Blair sounds ugly - too many vowels together; the Earl of somewhere would be better. As an aside, an earldom (or for that matter, any hereditary peerage), doesn't go with a seat in the Lords now, due to a loophole in the legislation, unless the recipient was awarded a life peerage with it.

Of course, if Blair's entitled to one by customer, so too would Brown be.

TheScreamingEagles

Sun Politics ‏@Sun_Politics now

YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead drops to two points: CON 35%, LAB 37%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%

Tykejohnno

Sun Politics @Sun_Politics

YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead drops to two points: CON 35%, LAB 37%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%

Danny565

Article 8 (George Monbiot) is great. At the risk of sounding like a cracked record, it still makes me laugh how PBTories and other people in the Westminster bubble think Labour has set out some radically left-wing platform, when in reality the public doesn't think that at all.

Until Labour actually grow some balls and start arguing for socialism, and start pointing out that the mess the country is in has been caused by selfish and feckless employers refusing to give their employees decent wages and working conditions, and by the super-rich who refuse to pay their taxes and sponge off the society that everyone else's taxes pays for, then the party won't get anywhere.

RobD

Charles said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JackW said:

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

It is customary and proper for makers of war who are elevated to the peerage to be granted a name, style and title after the locus of their military activity (e.g. Montgomery of Alamein, V., Alexander of Tunis, E.). It remains the custom in this reign that former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are entitled to an earldom (e.g. Attlee, Avon, Stockton). Does that mean that we can expect Tony Blair, if he so desires, to be created Earl of Iraq, and Viscount Blair of Basra?

Does it remain the custom though?

Heath and Major got knighthoods. Thatcher, Wilson and Callaghan got Baronies. They all got Garters as well.

Blair and Brown have not been enobled - the former is too controversial, I think, and I believe the latter has said he doesn't want one.

i.e. Macmillian was the most recent serving PM to be awarded an Earldom (Douglas-Home got a life peerage, but was obviously a special case)

Thatcher, Duchess of the Falklands?

RobD

david_herdson said:

ToryJim said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JackW said:

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

It is customary and proper for makers of war who are elevated to the peerage to be granted a name, style and title after the locus of their military activity (e.g. Montgomery of Alamein, V., Alexander of Tunis, E.). It is remains the custom in this reign that former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are entitled to an earldom (e.g. Attlee, Avon, Stockton). Does that mean that we can expect Tony Blair, if he so desires, to be created Earl of Iraq, and Viscount Blair of Basra?

The military title designation is only for successful military adventurism. Attlee was one of the few Earldoms that was not a territorially designated title and doesn't have of in the title. One of the others is Earl Jellicoe. If Blair were raised so high it would either be Earl Blair or I'd suggest Earl of Sedgefield.

Quite a lot of earldoms don't have a territorial designation, and (I think) all viscountcies and baronies. If Blair were to take his traditional earldom, Earl Blair sounds ugly - too many vowels together; the Earl of somewhere would be better. As an aside, an earldom (or for that matter, any hereditary peerage), doesn't go with a seat in the Lords now, due to a loophole in the legislation, unless the recipient was awarded a life peerage with it.

Of course, if Blair's entitled to one by customer, so too would Brown be.

Are new hereditaries entitled to be elected in a House of Lords by election?

GeoffM

ToryJim said:

GeoffM said:

NickPalmer said:

18 is a scandal IMO. Merely saying we'll help people to get online isn't enough. We've tried many times to persuade my aunt to get a computer, but she doesn't want to; others won't be able to afford it. Giving discounts etc. maybe, but this institutionalises digital exclusion.

Fantastic. Stop the world. Nick Palmer's aunt wants to get off.

I agree with Nick. Whilst digital only provision is probably inevitable we can't just go Big Bang on this. It has to be phased some older people just won't be able to get to grips with computers, and ultimately I'm not sure they should be forced to.

Why "probable"? It clearly *is* inevitable and there's no point making us all hang around with quills just because some people don't like pens.

TheScreamingEagles

david_herdson said:

ToryJim said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JackW said:

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

It is customary and proper for makers of war who are elevated to the peerage to be granted a name, style and title after the locus of their military activity (e.g. Montgomery of Alamein, V., Alexander of Tunis, E.). It is remains the custom in this reign that former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are entitled to an earldom (e.g. Attlee, Avon, Stockton). Does that mean that we can expect Tony Blair, if he so desires, to be created Earl of Iraq, and Viscount Blair of Basra?

The military title designation is only for successful military adventurism. Attlee was one of the few Earldoms that was not a territorially designated title and doesn't have of in the title. One of the others is Earl Jellicoe. If Blair were raised so high it would either be Earl Blair or I'd suggest Earl of Sedgefield.

Quite a lot of earldoms don't have a territorial designation, and (I think) all viscountcies and baronies. If Blair were to take his traditional earldom, Earl Blair sounds ugly - too many vowels together; the Earl of somewhere would be better. As an aside, an earldom (or for that matter, any hereditary peerage), doesn't go with a seat in the Lords now, due to a loophole in the legislation, unless the recipient was awarded a life peerage with it.

Of course, if Blair's entitled to one by customer, so too would Brown be.

Earl Brown of Shit, Viscount of Bust

ToryJim

TheScreamingEagles said:

Just stuck in link 22

John Bercow Backs A Referendum On Britain's Membership Of The European Union


http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/06/10/john-bercow-european-union-referendum_n_5481535.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Bercow shouldn't be commenting on politically sensitive issues. You cannot play the game whilst arbitrating the rules. Simple as. Just another example of his monumental unsuitability for the role of Speaker.

Eastwinger

Tykejohnno said:

Sun Politics @Sun_Politics

YouGov/Sun poll tonight - Labour lead drops to two points: CON 35%, LAB 37%, LD 8%, UKIP 12%

Coming into line with Populus?

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Jim, once again you're absolutely right.

Bercow's an arse.

Anyway, I am off for the night.

Sean_F

ToryJim said:

Mr Dancer. On Bercow I utterly agree. If he weren't already diminutive I'd suggest he needs cutting down to size. The guy thinks he is the fount of all political wisdom when he is just a pillock.

Also agree re Alexander very few people conquer the world pretty much before they're 30. Plus he appears to have had good taste in men

Bercow's a hobbit. Not a heroic hobbit, of course. More like Lotho Sackville-Baggins.

Eastwinger

You/Gov have Tories at 35% which is the highest for quite a while. So much for the theory of a voteless recovery.

JackW

RobD said:

FPT:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages from that date.

Aren't all of them royal hereditary peerages?

No. Four were commoners :

Viscount Whitelaw the former Willie and Viscount Tonnypandy the former Speaker and SuperMac enobled as Earl of Stockton and Viscount MacMillian of Ovenden.

The other eight are royal :

Prince William - Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
Prince Andrew - Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.
Prince Edward - Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn

Charles

NickPalmer said:

18 is a scandal IMO. Merely saying we'll help people to get online isn't enough. We've tried many times to persuade my aunt to get a computer, but she doesn't want to; others won't be able to afford it. Giving discounts etc. maybe, but this institutionalises digital exclusion.

I think the Telegraph is exaggerating...

This is the key quote:

Asked by the Telegraph if all Government services would be online at some stage, he said: “Our point is that everything that can be delivered online, should be delivered online and only online.”

It's highly theoretical.

NickPalmer

GeoffM said:

ToryJim said:

GeoffM said:

NickPalmer said:

18 is a scandal IMO. Merely saying we'll help people to get online isn't enough. We've tried many times to persuade my aunt to get a computer, but she doesn't want to; others won't be able to afford it. Giving discounts etc. maybe, but this institutionalises digital exclusion.

Fantastic. Stop the world. Nick Palmer's aunt wants to get off.

I agree with Nick. Whilst digital only provision is probably inevitable we can't just go Big Bang on this. It has to be phased some older people just won't be able to get to grips with computers, and ultimately I'm not sure they should be forced to.

Why "probable"? It clearly *is* inevitable and there's no point making us all hang around with quills just because some people don't like pens.

It would only be acceptable if the Government offered free, trivially-operated basic internet access devices to everyone who didn't have a computer (the approach the French used with Minitel when they got rid of phone books). Do you feel pensioners should be FORCED to buy a tablet/laptop and get internet phone access, perhaps even broadband (not available in some areas at all)? (Yes, one can access sites using a mobile, but it's often painful even for tech-friendly users like me.)

Smarmeron

Another disaster for Milliband?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27788899

TheScreamingEagles

@NickPalmer can you outdo this?

BRUISING female defence minister Anna Soubry turned have-a-go-hero when she broke up a street fight between THREE men.

The tough Tory - who has been be likened to Margaret Thatcher - came to the help of two sandwich shop workers who were brawling with a drunk.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5682994/female-mp-breaks-up-street-fight.html

SquareRoot

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Jim, once again you're absolutely right.

Bercow's an arse.

Anyway, I am off for the night.

Bercow? Worst Speaker in history. Lord Tonypandy would be turning in his grave. He was speaker with consent (probably one of the best speakers ever)

Stick Bercow, him or her or more likely both back into the Big Brother House, its about their level.

Sean_F

TheScreamingEagles said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Good evening, everyone.

FPT: Mr. Surbiton, London effect?

It's been commented before that Labour could stack up votes in London but that wouldn't gain them many seats, whereas the blues may actually be getting a more efficient turnout, gaining more seats for not many more votes.

On-topic: 11 - Bercow's a moron. We've seen numerous serious hacks lately. Electoral integrity has been knocked severely by the shenanigans in Tower Hamlets and, more widely, postal voting. Voting by the interweb will just make votes all the less reliable.

Just because technology can do a thing doesn't it mean it must, or should. I use a computer for writing, but I still use a notepad and pen for ideas.

21 - o, utterer of heathen words! Cast thy tongue from thy empty head!

Alexander was the greatest. It cannot be disputed, even by a fellow as silly as you.

Alexander was born into wealth and privilege, Caesar had no such advantages

Edit: Caesar was relatively a poor boy, from a poor family

But, still descended from Venus, Aeneas, and the Kings of Alba Longa. Such a prestigious ancestry gave one a big head start over the new rich, when it came to running for political office.

RobD

JackW said:

RobD said:

FPT:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages from that date.

Aren't all of them royal hereditary peerages?

No. Four were commoners :

Viscount Whitelaw the former Willie and Viscount Tonnypandy the former Speaker and SuperMac enobled as Earl of Stockton and Viscount MacMillian of Ovenden.

The other eight are royal :

Prince William - Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
Prince Andrew - Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.
Prince Edward - Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn

Thanks

I recall reading an article on the Telegraph reporting on the gradual decline in the number of hereditary Dukes in the country:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100013133/save-our-dukes-return-the-extra-parliamentary-hereditary-peerage-like-the-garter-to-the-queen/

ToryJim

JackW said:

RobD said:

FPT:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages from that date.

Aren't all of them royal hereditary peerages?

No. Four were commoners :

Viscount Whitelaw the former Willie and Viscount Tonnypandy the former Speaker and SuperMac enobled as Earl of Stockton and Viscount MacMillian of Ovenden.

The other eight are royal :

Prince William - Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
Prince Andrew - Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.
Prince Edward - Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn

Of course six of the Royal titles will eventually merge into the crown or go extinct.

Pulpstar

The recent Yougov Con scores makes sense with a fundamental population score of ~ 32.5% according to their methodology.

welshowl

Danny565 said:

Article 8 (George Monbiot) is great. At the risk of sounding like a cracked record, it still makes me laugh how PBTories and other people in the Westminster bubble think Labour has set out some radically left-wing platform, when in reality the public doesn't think that at all.

Until Labour actually grow some balls and start arguing for socialism, and start pointing out that the mess the country is in has been caused by selfish and feckless employers refusing to give their employees decent wages and working conditions, and by the super-rich who refuse to pay their taxes and sponge off the society that everyone else's taxes pays for, then the party won't get anywhere.

We pay well above min wage for base shop floor pay, £10/hr in fact . Way above average for comparable jobs locally ( S Wales ), 26 days hols, 37 hrs, final salary or 8% employer contribution DC pension. But we make internationally traded goods ie we compete every day with the Germans, the Chinese, the Indonesians etc etc. Make us increase wages by say 10% and I will show you the approx 10 jobs out of 83 we would lose. Wouldn't want to do it, would hate to, but it would mean survival or not. And "not" means all 83 go up the road. Me included.

ToryJim

TheScreamingEagles said:

@NickPalmer can you outdo this?

BRUISING female defence minister Anna Soubry turned have-a-go-hero when she broke up a street fight between THREE men.

The tough Tory - who has been be likened to Margaret Thatcher - came to the help of two sandwich shop workers who were brawling with a drunk.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5682994/female-mp-breaks-up-street-fight.html

I do like Anna Soubry.

ToryJim

RobD said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

FPT:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages from that date.

Aren't all of them royal hereditary peerages?

No. Four were commoners :

Viscount Whitelaw the former Willie and Viscount Tonnypandy the former Speaker and SuperMac enobled as Earl of Stockton and Viscount MacMillian of Ovenden.

The other eight are royal :

Prince William - Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
Prince Andrew - Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.
Prince Edward - Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn

Thanks

I recall reading an article on the Telegraph reporting on the gradual decline in the number of hereditary Dukes in the country:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100013133/save-our-dukes-return-the-extra-parliamentary-hereditary-peerage-like-the-garter-to-the-queen/

I'm available for elevation to a Dukedom, I think a coronet would suit me.

Charles

david_herdson said:

ToryJim said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JackW said:

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

It is customary and proper for makers of war who are elevated to the peerage to be granted a name, style and title after the locus of their military activity (e.g. Montgomery of Alamein, V., Alexander of Tunis, E.). It is remains the custom in this reign that former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are entitled to an earldom (e.g. Attlee, Avon, Stockton). Does that mean that we can expect Tony Blair, if he so desires, to be created Earl of Iraq, and Viscount Blair of Basra?

The military title designation is only for successful military adventurism. Attlee was one of the few Earldoms that was not a territorially designated title and doesn't have of in the title. One of the others is Earl Jellicoe. If Blair were raised so high it would either be Earl Blair or I'd suggest Earl of Sedgefield.

Quite a lot of earldoms don't have a territorial designation, and (I think) all viscountcies and baronies. If Blair were to take his traditional earldom, Earl Blair sounds ugly - too many vowels together; the Earl of somewhere would be better. As an aside, an earldom (or for that matter, any hereditary peerage), doesn't go with a seat in the Lords now, due to a loophole in the legislation, unless the recipient was awarded a life peerage with it.

Of course, if Blair's entitled to one by customer, so too would Brown be.

Are you sure of that? I certainly know both Viscounts and Barons of recent creation (i.e. post Lloyd George) with geographic designation.

I'd imagine that Blair will be gentle discouraged, at least until he is firmly retired, from seeking enoblement. I'd imagine Cameron will go for a Barony and can quite imagine that Brown would rather be disapproving from the sidelines.

JackW

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

FPT:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages from that date.

Aren't all of them royal hereditary peerages?

No. Four were commoners :

Viscount Whitelaw the former Willie and Viscount Tonnypandy the former Speaker and SuperMac enobled as Earl of Stockton and Viscount MacMillian of Ovenden.

The other eight are royal :

Prince William - Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
Prince Andrew - Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.
Prince Edward - Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn

Of course six of the Royal titles will eventually merge into the crown or go extinct.

Indeed and unless the Duke of York remarries and has a son or succession to hereditary titles is changed to allow female succession in all cases.

Prince Edward will eventually succeed as Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Harry will also enjoy various royal peerages in due course.

Smarmeron

Yet another Politician tackling crime?
There has been a few this political term?

Charles

RobD said:

Charles said:

Life_ina_market_town said:

JackW said:

Indeed. Although of course the Thatcher baronetcy is not a peerage and there were no new hereditary peerage creations from 1966 until 1981.

It is customary and proper for makers of war who are elevated to the peerage to be granted a name, style and title after the locus of their military activity (e.g. Montgomery of Alamein, V., Alexander of Tunis, E.). It remains the custom in this reign that former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom are entitled to an earldom (e.g. Attlee, Avon, Stockton). Does that mean that we can expect Tony Blair, if he so desires, to be created Earl of Iraq, and Viscount Blair of Basra?

Does it remain the custom though?

Heath and Major got knighthoods. Thatcher, Wilson and Callaghan got Baronies. They all got Garters as well.

Blair and Brown have not been enobled - the former is too controversial, I think, and I believe the latter has said he doesn't want one.

i.e. Macmillian was the most recent serving PM to be awarded an Earldom (Douglas-Home got a life peerage, but was obviously a special case)

Thatcher, Duchess of the Falklands?

Churchill turned down the Duke of London, so I think a Thatcher duchy would be too much... not to mention her dreadful son.

Easterross

evening all and just caught the conversation about Blair/Brown and honours. A year or two ago there was a suggestion going round that Prince William had personally intervened to oppose Blair being given any honour in the gift of his grandmother.

Traditionally PMs took Earldoms. Maggie took only a Life Peerage because she was warned there would be uproar about Mark becoming the 2nd Earl of Finchley. The compromise was Dennis Thatcher getting the most recently created Baronetcy, hence we now have Sir Mark Thatcher. John Major has thus far turned down a peerage but hopefully he will accept one.

Traditionally an Earldom or above, i.e. Marquis or Duke received either a city or county in his/her title. A Viscount or Baron might have a territorial designation but generally a smaller location. There was trouble when David Owen insisted on getting the City of Plymouth in his title and it took a great deal of persuading to allow it.

Now that Hereditary Peerages are no longer connected with an automatic role in the Executive, I personally think they should be used to reward people for distinguished public service. King Juan Carlos of Spain has granted around 50 new hereditary titles during his reign including to Dali the painter, Rodrigo the composer, the former Olympic President and Segovia the guitarist.

Sean_F

There are territorial Baronies and Viscounties. Lord Aldenham, and Viscount Sidmouth, for example.

Scott_P

@George_Osborne: On set of Episode VII tonight, can announce another #StarWars film will be made in UK. A #LongTermEconomicPlan in a galaxy far far away

compouter2

Smarmeron said:

Another disaster for Milliband?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27788899

On here, everything is a disaster for Miliband. PB HODGES RULE OK!

Pulpstar

welshowl said:

Danny565 said:

Article 8 (George Monbiot) is great. At the risk of sounding like a cracked record, it still makes me laugh how PBTories and other people in the Westminster bubble think Labour has set out some radically left-wing platform, when in reality the public doesn't think that at all.

Until Labour actually grow some balls and start arguing for socialism, and start pointing out that the mess the country is in has been caused by selfish and feckless employers refusing to give their employees decent wages and working conditions, and by the super-rich who refuse to pay their taxes and sponge off the society that everyone else's taxes pays for, then the party won't get anywhere.

We pay well above min wage for base shop floor pay, £10/hr in fact . Way above average for comparable jobs locally ( S Wales ), 26 days hols, 37 hrs, final salary or 8% employer contribution DC pension. But we make internationally traded goods ie we compete every day with the Germans, the Chinese, the Indonesians etc etc. Make us increase wages by say 10% and I will show you the approx 10 jobs out of 83 we would lose. Wouldn't want to do it, would hate to, but it would mean survival or not. And "not" means all 83 go up the road. Me included.

You sound like an excellent employer.

Sean_F

Danny565 said:

Article 8 (George Monbiot) is great. At the risk of sounding like a cracked record, it still makes me laugh how PBTories and other people in the Westminster bubble think Labour has set out some radically left-wing platform, when in reality the public doesn't think that at all.

Until Labour actually grow some balls and start arguing for socialism, and start pointing out that the mess the country is in has been caused by selfish and feckless employers refusing to give their employees decent wages and working conditions, and by the super-rich who refuse to pay their taxes and sponge off the society that everyone else's taxes pays for, then the party won't get anywhere.

The rich pay huge amounts of tax.

NickPalmer

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

18 is a scandal IMO. Merely saying we'll help people to get online isn't enough. We've tried many times to persuade my aunt to get a computer, but she doesn't want to; others won't be able to afford it. Giving discounts etc. maybe, but this institutionalises digital exclusion.

I think the Telegraph is exaggerating...

This is the key quote:

Asked by the Telegraph if all Government services would be online at some stage, he said: “Our point is that everything that can be delivered online, should be delivered online and only online.”

It's highly theoretical.

No, this is the key quote:

"In future the Government would only make services available over the internet, in the same way an airline sells tickets."

The quote you're citing is to say that some services actually can't be delivered online (home care assistance, say), but he says all the ones that can should in future only be available that way.

JackW

The title of Duke of York is usually reserved for the second son of the monarch which will be slightly thorny if the present incumbent enjoys Windsor longevity with Prince Harry in the wings.

Sorry Harry you may have a long and futile wait .... Duke of Clarence ?!?

murali_s

compouter2 said:

Smarmeron said:

Another disaster for Milliband?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27788899

On here, everything is a disaster for Miliband. PB HODGES RULE OK!

Post of the day - so true!

welshowl

Pulpstar said:

welshowl said:

Danny565 said:

Article 8 (George Monbiot) is great. At the risk of sounding like a cracked record, it still makes me laugh how PBTories and other people in the Westminster bubble think Labour has set out some radically left-wing platform, when in reality the public doesn't think that at all.

Until Labour actually grow some balls and start arguing for socialism, and start pointing out that the mess the country is in has been caused by selfish and feckless employers refusing to give their employees decent wages and working conditions, and by the super-rich who refuse to pay their taxes and sponge off the society that everyone else's taxes pays for, then the party won't get anywhere.

We pay well above min wage for base shop floor pay, £10/hr in fact . Way above average for comparable jobs locally ( S Wales ), 26 days hols, 37 hrs, final salary or 8% employer contribution DC pension. But we make internationally traded goods ie we compete every day with the Germans, the Chinese, the Indonesians etc etc. Make us increase wages by say 10% and I will show you the approx 10 jobs out of 83 we would lose. Wouldn't want to do it, would hate to, but it would mean survival or not. And "not" means all 83 go up the road. Me included.

You sound like an excellent employer.

Thank you. We try. We are not all top hatted Victorian b****s, but we do have to have a firm grip on reality and not any utopian away with the fairies crap.

ToryJim

JackW said:

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

FPT:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages from that date.

Aren't all of them royal hereditary peerages?

No. Four were commoners :

Viscount Whitelaw the former Willie and Viscount Tonnypandy the former Speaker and SuperMac enobled as Earl of Stockton and Viscount MacMillian of Ovenden.

The other eight are royal :

Prince William - Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
Prince Andrew - Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.
Prince Edward - Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn

Of course six of the Royal titles will eventually merge into the crown or go extinct.

Indeed and unless the Duke of York remarries and has a son or succession to hereditary titles is changed to allow female succession in all cases.

Prince Edward will eventually succeed as Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Harry will also enjoy various royal peerages in due course.

Prince Edward won't succeed as DoE, Charles will add Edinburgh to his other Dukedoms upon his father's demise, when he becomes King the title will merge and be recreated.

Charles

Sean_F said:

There are territorial Baronies and Viscounties. Lord Aldenham, and Viscount Sidmouth, for example.

Viscount Hailsham is another one.

Sean_F

JackW said:

The title of Duke of York is usually reserved for the second son of the monarch which will be slightly thorny if the present incumbent enjoys Windsor longevity with Prince Harry in the wings.

Sorry Harry you may have a long and futile wait .... Duke of Clarence ?!?

Separate the Duchy of Lancaster from the Monarchy?

Smarmeron

Is there a market for questions to the PM tomorrow?

Charles

NickPalmer said:

Charles said:

NickPalmer said:

18 is a scandal IMO. Merely saying we'll help people to get online isn't enough. We've tried many times to persuade my aunt to get a computer, but she doesn't want to; others won't be able to afford it. Giving discounts etc. maybe, but this institutionalises digital exclusion.

I think the Telegraph is exaggerating...

This is the key quote:

Asked by the Telegraph if all Government services would be online at some stage, he said: “Our point is that everything that can be delivered online, should be delivered online and only online.”

It's highly theoretical.

No, this is the key quote:

"In future the Government would only make services available over the internet, in the same way an airline sells tickets."

The quote you're citing is to say that some services actually can't be delivered online (home care assistance, say), but he says all the ones that can should in future only be available that way.

Reading the article as a whole, though, it sounds like Maude was musing about the future with the Telegraph's tech journalist rather than it being a specific plan.

I think the headline is over-reaching

Charles

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

FPT:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages from that date.

Aren't all of them royal hereditary peerages?

No. Four were commoners :

Viscount Whitelaw the former Willie and Viscount Tonnypandy the former Speaker and SuperMac enobled as Earl of Stockton and Viscount MacMillian of Ovenden.

The other eight are royal :

Prince William - Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
Prince Andrew - Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.
Prince Edward - Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn

Of course six of the Royal titles will eventually merge into the crown or go extinct.

Indeed and unless the Duke of York remarries and has a son or succession to hereditary titles is changed to allow female succession in all cases.

Prince Edward will eventually succeed as Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Harry will also enjoy various royal peerages in due course.

Prince Edward won't succeed as DoE, Charles will add Edinburgh to his other Dukedoms upon his father's demise, when he becomes King the title will merge and be recreated.

I thought that Edward had been tapped for DofE though - that's why he's taken over leadership of the Award scheme

Easterross

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

FPT:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages from that date.

Aren't all of them royal hereditary peerages?

No. Four were commoners :

Viscount Whitelaw the former Willie and Viscount Tonnypandy the former Speaker and SuperMac enobled as Earl of Stockton and Viscount MacMillian of Ovenden.

The other eight are royal :

Prince William - Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
Prince Andrew - Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.
Prince Edward - Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn

Of course six of the Royal titles will eventually merge into the crown or go extinct.

Indeed and unless the Duke of York remarries and has a son or succession to hereditary titles is changed to allow female succession in all cases.

Prince Edward will eventually succeed as Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Harry will also enjoy various royal peerages in due course.

Prince Edward won't succeed as DoE, Charles will add Edinburgh to his other Dukedoms upon his father's demise, when he becomes King the title will merge and be recreated.

Sorry Jim you are wrong. When Edward was granted his titles on marriage, the Queen decreed that Edinburgh would pass to Edward (as his father's favourite son). So the Earl of Wessex will become the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh.

Life_ina_market_town

Sean_F said:

Separate the Duchy of Lancaster from the Monarchy?

The fourteenth-century dukes of Lancaster were fantastically avaricious and ambitious, even by the standards of their day, and ultimately usurped the Crown. The fifteenth-century would be marked by the consequences of their treachery in 1399, and, as Bishop Stubbs memorably put it, was characterised by 'no unity of public interest'. That title should never be granted to anyone every again, but should remained united and annexed to the crown.

TheScreamingEagles

Charles said:

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

FPT:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages from that date.

Aren't all of them royal hereditary peerages?

No. Four were commoners :

Viscount Whitelaw the former Willie and Viscount Tonnypandy the former Speaker and SuperMac enobled as Earl of Stockton and Viscount MacMillian of Ovenden.

The other eight are royal :

Prince William - Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
Prince Andrew - Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.
Prince Edward - Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn

Of course six of the Royal titles will eventually merge into the crown or go extinct.

Indeed and unless the Duke of York remarries and has a son or succession to hereditary titles is changed to allow female succession in all cases.

Prince Edward will eventually succeed as Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Harry will also enjoy various royal peerages in due course.

Prince Edward won't succeed as DoE, Charles will add Edinburgh to his other Dukedoms upon his father's demise, when he becomes King the title will merge and be recreated.

I thought that Edward had been tapped for DofE though - that's why he's taken over leadership of the Award scheme

Kinda

It was also announced that the Earl of Wessex would be created Duke of Edinburgh when that dukedom, held by Edward's father since 1947, reverts to the Crown[2] (which will happen only after "both the death of the current Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales' succession as King

SquareRoot

How many different logons do some posters have? I recognise one poster in a multiplicity of Vanilla identities

TheScreamingEagles

Easterross said:

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

FPT:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages from that date.

Aren't all of them royal hereditary peerages?

No. Four were commoners :

Viscount Whitelaw the former Willie and Viscount Tonnypandy the former Speaker and SuperMac enobled as Earl of Stockton and Viscount MacMillian of Ovenden.

The other eight are royal :

Prince William - Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
Prince Andrew - Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.
Prince Edward - Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn

Of course six of the Royal titles will eventually merge into the crown or go extinct.

Indeed and unless the Duke of York remarries and has a son or succession to hereditary titles is changed to allow female succession in all cases.

Prince Edward will eventually succeed as Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Harry will also enjoy various royal peerages in due course.

Prince Edward won't succeed as DoE, Charles will add Edinburgh to his other Dukedoms upon his father's demise, when he becomes King the title will merge and be recreated.

Sorry Jim you are wrong. When Edward was granted his titles on marriage, the Queen decreed that Edinburgh would pass to Edward (as his father's favourite son). So the Earl of Wessex will become the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh.

Err, the current Duke of Edinburgh is the fourth incarnation of that title.

ToryJim

JackW said:

The title of Duke of York is usually reserved for the second son of the monarch which will be slightly thorny if the present incumbent enjoys Windsor longevity with Prince Harry in the wings.

Sorry Harry you may have a long and futile wait .... Duke of Clarence ?!?

They haven't had much luck with Clarence's really. Sussex is a possibility or they could go really off piste with Kendal or a Scottish based one like Ross which have been used in the past in Royal circles. They could always invent a nice new one for him, but he needs to find himself a wife first.

Smarmeron

@SquareRoot

Ask the mods to check IP addresses? (unless they are using onion routing)

JackW

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

FPT:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages from that date.

Aren't all of them royal hereditary peerages?

No. Four were commoners :

Viscount Whitelaw the former Willie and Viscount Tonnypandy the former Speaker and SuperMac enobled as Earl of Stockton and Viscount MacMillian of Ovenden.

The other eight are royal :

Prince William - Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
Prince Andrew - Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.
Prince Edward - Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn

Of course six of the Royal titles will eventually merge into the crown or go extinct.

Indeed and unless the Duke of York remarries and has a son or succession to hereditary titles is changed to allow female succession in all cases.

Prince Edward will eventually succeed as Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Harry will also enjoy various royal peerages in due course.

Prince Edward won't succeed as DoE, Charles will add Edinburgh to his other Dukedoms upon his father's demise, when he becomes King the title will merge and be recreated.

It was announced in 1999 prior to Prince Edward's weeding that he would eventually become Duke of Edinburgh on the death of his father and the succession of the Prince of Wales to the throne or the former only should Charles predecease his father.

Easterross

I suspect long before Prince Andrew croaks we will have an Act of Parliament amending those Letters Patent permitting only primogeniture. More and more current Letters Patent make provision for female heirs. Mine provides for my heirs male whom failing heirs of my body i.e. daughters. Several Dukedoms have died out in the last 50 years and a number including our Sutherland one is on a shugglie peg. The present duke has 2 sons and each has 3 daughters and he is the 3rd branch of the family to hold the Dukedom since 1963 owing to a lack of male heirs. Our Earldom on the other hand, being Scotland's oldest one (1230) can pass through the female line and is currently held by the 3rd Countess Elizabeth since 1510.

TheScreamingEagles

If I read the front page of the times correctly, Boris is going to use a water cannon on Theresa May?

BBC News (UK) ‏@BBCNews 2m

Wednesday's Times: "Now Boris targets May over Tory leadership" #bbcpapers

pic.twitter.com/Sl8DvcuIn0

via @suttonnick

SquareRoot

Smarmeron said:

@SquareRoot

Ask the mods to check IP addresses? (unless they are using onion routing)

not that bothered, its just rather obvious.


Time for zzzz's

Night all

JackW

TheScreamingEagles said:

Easterross said:

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

FPT:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages from that date.

Aren't all of them royal hereditary peerages?

No. Four were commoners :

Viscount Whitelaw the former Willie and Viscount Tonnypandy the former Speaker and SuperMac enobled as Earl of Stockton and Viscount MacMillian of Ovenden.

The other eight are royal :

Prince William - Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
Prince Andrew - Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.
Prince Edward - Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn

Of course six of the Royal titles will eventually merge into the crown or go extinct.

Indeed and unless the Duke of York remarries and has a son or succession to hereditary titles is changed to allow female succession in all cases.

Prince Edward will eventually succeed as Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Harry will also enjoy various royal peerages in due course.

Prince Edward won't succeed as DoE, Charles will add Edinburgh to his other Dukedoms upon his father's demise, when he becomes King the title will merge and be recreated.

Sorry Jim you are wrong. When Edward was granted his titles on marriage, the Queen decreed that Edinburgh would pass to Edward (as his father's favourite son). So the Earl of Wessex will become the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh.

Err, the current Duke of Edinburgh is the fourth incarnation of that title.

Easterross means second Duke of the 1947 creation.

Life_ina_market_town

ToryJim said:

They haven't had much luck with Clarence's really. Sussex is a possibility or they could go really off piste with Kendal or a Scottish based one like Ross which have been used in the past in Royal circles. They could always invent a nice new one for him, but he needs to find himself a wife first.

I think Duke of Sussex is probable. That said, a person whose opinion on matters relating to the peerage I value greatly, suggests Duke of Cumberland. Whether that would be proper, however, given the provisions of the Titles Deprivation Act 1917, is questionable.

TheScreamingEagles

JackW said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Easterross said:

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

ToryJim said:

JackW said:

RobD said:

FPT:

JackW said:

RobD said:

ToryJim said:

Hmm I just discovered that the manager of Spain is now a hereditary member of the aristocracy. That's got to be a World Cup first.

Spain still regularly dish out hereditary peerages, it looks as though he was elevated in 2011.

Including Harold Macmillan's elevation in 1981 HM The Queen has created twelve hereditary peerages from that date.

Aren't all of them royal hereditary peerages?

No. Four were commoners :

Viscount Whitelaw the former Willie and Viscount Tonnypandy the former Speaker and SuperMac enobled as Earl of Stockton and Viscount MacMillian of Ovenden.

The other eight are royal :

Prince William - Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn and Baron Carrickfergus.
Prince Andrew - Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.
Prince Edward - Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn

Of course six of the Royal titles will eventually merge into the crown or go extinct.

Indeed and unless the Duke of York remarries and has a son or succession to hereditary titles is changed to allow female succession in all cases.

Prince Edward will eventually succeed as Duke of Edinburgh and Prince Harry will also enjoy various royal peerages in due course.

Prince Edward won't succeed as DoE, Charles will add Edinburgh to his other Dukedoms upon his father's demise, when he becomes King the title will merge and be recreated.

Sorry Jim you are wrong. When Edward was granted his titles on marriage, the Queen decreed that Edinburgh would pass to Edward (as his father's favourite son). So the Earl of Wessex will become the 2nd Duke of Edinburgh.

Err, the current Duke of Edinburgh is the fourth incarnation of that title.

Easterross means second Duke of the 1947 creation.

Ah.

Neil

I think young Harry will get by just fine without a Dukedom. He's a handsome young chap, I'm sure there are women out there who would marry him even without the prospect of him becoming a Duke.