Hereditary Peers not currently on the Roll of the Peerage

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Does anyone have a list of the hereditary  peers that are currently not on the Roll of the Peerage?

Thanks.

Brooke

[colinp]

I have a list as follows:

PEERS NOT ON ROLL

As at 30 November 2023

Dukes, Marquesses and Earls are in bold.  

Disclaimed peerages are not mentioned below

Acton B; Airlie E; Allenby V; Allendale V; Amherst of Hackney B; Argyll D; Ashbrook V; Ashtown B; Atholl D; Auckland B

Baden-Powell B; Bagot B; Baldwin of Bewdley E; Bangor V; Basing B; Bath M; Beatty E; Berners B; Bessborough E; Blyth B; Bolingbroke and St John V; Bradbury B; Brassey of Apethorpe; Brownlow B; Buchan E; Buckmaster V; Burden B; Burton B; Bute M

Caldecote V; Carnock B; Carrick E; Castle Stewart E; Castlemaine B; Cavan E; Charlemont V; Chelmsford V; Chesham B; Churchill B; Churston B; Clanmorris B; Coleraine B; Congleton B; Conyngham M; Cornwallis B; Coventry E; Craven E; Croft B; Cullen of Ashbourne B

Dalhousie E; Darwen B; Davidson V; Decies B; Delamere B; Denham B; Denman B, De Ros B; De Villiers B; Dickinson B; Dilhorne V; Donerall V; Downe V; Ducie E; Dufferin & Clandeboye B; Dunrossil V; Dunsany B;

Egremont B; Elphinstone L; Elton B; Ely M; Esher V; Essex E

Fermoy B; ffrench B; Fitzwalter B; Forbes L; Forester B

Glendevon B; Gort V; Gowrie E; Granville E; Graves B; Grey E

Hambledon V; Harding of Petherton B; Harewood E; Harris B; Harvey of Tasburgh B; Hatherton B; Headfort M; Home E; Howard of Penrith B; Howick of Glendale B; Huntingfield B

Ilchester E; Inchiquin B; Inverforth B;

Kenswood B; Kenyon B; Keyes B; Kilmaine B; Kingsale B; Kingston E

Langford B; Layton B; Leigh B; Lifford V; Lincoln E; Lisle B; Londonderry M; Long V; Longford E; Lonsdale E; Louth B; Lucas of Chilworth B; Luke B; Lyvedon B

MacAndrew B; Macdonald B; Malmesbury E; Malvern V; Manchester D; Manton B; Marchamley B; McGowan B; Massy B; May B; Mayo E; Merivale B; Methven B; Mexborough E; Milne B; Milverton B; Molesworth V; Monck V; Moncreiff B; Montagu of Beaulieu B; Monteagle of Brandon B; Moray E; Mottistone B; Mount Edgcumbe E; Muskerry B

Newburgh E; Norbury E;

Orkney E

Palmer B; Piercy B; Plymouth E

Raglan E; Ranfurly E; Rathconnell B; Ravensworth B; Rea B; Reith B; Rendlesham B; Rennell B; Ritchie of Dundee B; Riverdale B; Rochester B; Rodney B; Rootes B; Rosse E; Rothes E; Runciman of Doxford V

Sackville B; St Vincent V; Samuel V; Sanderson of Ayot B; Sandford B; Scarsdale V; Selby V; Selkirk E; Shannon E; Sherfield B; Sidmouth V; Sinclair of Cleve B; Sinclair L; Sinha B; Southwell V; Stamp B; Strabolgi B; Strathcona and Mount Royal B; Stuart of Findhorn V; Sudeley B; Sutherland E; Swinton E

Talbot of Malahide B; Tankerville E; Tedder B; Tenby V; Tennyson B; Teviot B; Teynham B; Thomson of Fleet B; Trimlestown B; Tryon B; Tweedsmuir B

Valentia V;

Wakehurst B; Wardington B; Waterford M; Westbury B; Westwood B; Wharncliffe E; Winchester M; Winterton E; Wolverton B; Wraxall B

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Thank you so much, colinp.  This is very helpful.

I was actually surprised to find that there are 3 Dukes not on the Roll. 

I can almost under Manchester not being there ( he does seem to "march to his own drummer"), but any guesses as to  why Argyll (succeeded in 2001 and Atholl (succeeded in 2012) aren't on the Roll?

Thanks.

Brooke

[malcolm davies]

Brooke,

             Atholl & Manchester are overseas residents.As are Conyngham,Ely,Headfort,Waterford,Winchester,Bessborough,Essex,Lincoln,Newburgh and(I think Winterton).

One reason for being on the roll was to receive official invitations to Royal events-but peers on the roll weren’t invited to the coronation,so there is the question now-why bother?

[https:/www.maltagenealogy.com/LeighRayment/]

100% agree with you Malcolm. No point since the House of Lords was demoted and today, many are living a "professional or non-scene" life without recognition of their history. Those that have properties associated to their legacies are more eager to ensure it continues more so. I was surprised by the young Earl of Craven is not registered, though he lives a Artistic career through his popularity of his work, not his hereditary position in the UK.

[marquess]

Being an hereditary doesn't cut much ice these days, unless you're possessed of rolling acres and staff who address you according to your rank. It's not likely that you will be addressed correctly by members of the public, and even in a legal capacity you're likely to be addressed as a commoner. 

The court that peers once adorned has long gone; as too are the official privileges they were once entitled to. Moreover we have a sovereign who seems to care little for the hereditary peerage, the mere life peerage conferred on his brother serves emphasise this point.  With the hereditary system locked in 1964, their relevance in the modern scheme of things is likely to slip further.

[S. S.]

The age of the peerage where you had rolling green acres, glistening coronets, mighty and stately edifices and a long pedigree to boot are now long gone. The peerage does not define itself by the times it inhabits, rather the individuals that make it so. It has endured for so long as it has always been molded and changed. If it were a rigid entity and entirely exclusive and closed off, it simply would not be tolerated. 

As to the question of social niceties, you are not respected by the mere position of being a duke anymore, you are respected by wielding it responsibly, whether in private or in public. Whether you are a landed duke with millions, or a poor baron with nothing left, what matters is not your rank or edifice, rather your conduct and actions. Even if the whole world does not give a wooden nickel as to how to address you, being indignant at it does naught. 

The peerage, as we think as it should exist, cannot simply exist in the modern world. For those that hanker for rank and privileges to them will themselves have to accept that state. Conferring hereditary peerages in the modern era simply will have too much backlash and controversy attached to it, even more so then when it did in the past amongst scheming courtiers and opportunistic politicians. 

We should be privileged to know that while the splendor of the peerage has declined, it still remains in some form. Even if that form is unrecognizable to some, it still occupies some incorporeal form. If it didn't, we all wouldn't be gathered and still documenting it, researching it and talking about it.

S.S.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Thank you, malcolm, marquess, maltagenealogy and S.S.  

Your answers were all very helpful and much appreciated.

Brooke

[Henry W]

The title that really stands out to me is the Earl of HAREWOOD.  He is the 2nd cousin of HM The King, and attended the Committal service as part of the funeral of the late Queen Elizabeth II.  His father died in 2011, and the family still retain Harewood House I think.

I am grateful, as ever, to Colin for maintaining this list.  We cannot have failed to notice his posts updating us on Peers coming onto the Roll in the months/years after succeeding.  

There are some peers on this list who only recently succeeded and are likely to appear on the Roll in time, but as stated, some will not.  Either they live abroad, are just uninterested or the costs involved in proving a collateral succession are not worth it to them.  The only residual benefit of proving succession is to enable a hereditary peer to stand for election to the House of Lords if interested.  If you are solely a peer of Ireland, this benefit does not exist.

I think Colin's list is only those peerages to which there appears to be an undisputed successor?  I don't see titles to which there are likely to be heirs, for example, the Earl of Breadalbane and Holland (in Hungary, but this is contested).  The following category of dormant peerages on Wikipedia is helpful, but likely to be incomplete.

[malcolm davies]

Henry,the other matter is the fact that heriditary peers rights to election are under threat,and may well be removed in the future.

Since Colin responded to Brooke,the Earl of Airlie has been put on the roll.

See Colin's post on the recognition of titles by the passport office and my comment in response.

[pyvery]

Irish peers have been included on this list so they need to be deleted 

[colinp]

Henry, yes the list is only intended to include titles to which there is an undisputed successor although I note I have included the earldom of Cavan which is borderline

Pyvery, peers of Ireland are entitled to be entered on the Roll of the Peerage - see clause 9 of the Royal Warrant dated 1 June 2004 - "For the purposes of this Our Warrant "Peer" means Peer of :

(a) England

(b) Scotland

(c) Ireland

(d) Great Britain

(e) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

(f) the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" 

[colinp]

From the House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings 18 January 2024:

Earldom of Mexborough in the Peerage of Ireland The Lord Chancellor reported that John Christopher George Savile had established his claim to the Earldom of Mexborough in the Peerage of Ireland

Lord Mexborough was b 1931 and s 1980

[colinp]

From the House of Lords Minutes of Proceedings 24 February 2025:

Viscountcy of Ashbrook and Barony of Castle Durrow in the Peerage of Ireland The Lord Chancellor reported that Michael Llowarch Warburton Flower had established his claim to the Viscountcy of Ashbrook and the Barony of Castle Durrow in the Peerage of Ireland

Lord Ashbrook was b 1935 and s 1995

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Re: Viscount Ashbrook.

It took THIRTY years for him to establish his claim in a FATHER TO SON ( an elder and only surviving son at that) succession?    It's not  a case of a fourth cousin twice removed. 

At that rate, no title that's dormant will ever see the light of day.  

Brooke

[marquess]

Agree with your comments Brooke. The speed doesn't incentivise one to bother going through the process.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Does every succeeding peer need to establish a claim to the  peerage in question?  Even in the case of Royal Dukes?

Brooke

[dpth...@gmail.com]

There doesn't seem to be much point in peers "proving" their claims. They know whether they are peers or not, and their positions don't change by having their claims "proved". They no longer have a constitutional position, as potential members of the legislature, and the Rule Against Perpetuities (as it is called in the US) or its equivalent in the UK has long prohibited linking estates to possession of the noble title for future generations.

So, why should they bother? I suspect it means a lot more to some members of this group than it does to the nobles themselves.

[malcolm davies]

dpth,

         The reason for being on the Roll is clause 3 of the Warrant which says:

3. Peers not entered on the Roll not entitled to precedence of Peerage, etc.
Any Peer who is not entered on the Roll shall not:
(a) be entitled to any precedence attaching to his Peerage;
(b) be addressed or referred to by any title attaching to his Peerage in any
civil or military Commission, Letters Patent, or other official document.

But the Crown has undermined this itself.First, it declined to issue invitations to the Coronation based on precedence.Second, it ignored its own instructions, in the case of the Earl of Dalhousie, by addressing him in the name of his title, despite his not being on the Roll.That occurred in respect of his appointment as Lord Steward and his being appointed as a GCVO, extract below from the Gazette:

G.C.V.O.
To be Knights Grand Cross:
David George Philip Cholmondeley, The Marquess of
CHOLMONDELEY, K.C.V.O., lately Lord Great Chamberlain, Royal
Household.
James Hubert Ramsay, The Earl of DALHOUSIE, lately Lord Steward,Royal Household

[dpth...@gmail.com]

Thanks for pointing that out, but still I would question how many peers care any more what their precedence is (how often does it matter any more?) or whether their titles are used on other official documents.

[David Beamish]

For the avoidance of doubt: the Ashbrook claim appeared in the House of Lords Minutes of 6 February 2025 as follows:

"3 Viscountcy of Ashbrook and Barony of Castle Durrow in the Peerage of Ireland The Petition of Michael Llowarch Warburton Flower claiming to have succeeded to the Viscountcy of Ashbrook and the Barony of Castle Durrow in the Peerage of Ireland was presented and referred to the Lord Chancellor for a report to the House pursuant to Standing Order 79."

So the processing of the claim took 18 days - the 30-year delay was in putting in the claim!