Talk:Father of the House

List source
A full list of Fathers of the House is at http://www.leighrayment.com/commons/fathercommons.htm if someone want's to do the donkey work Mintguy (T) 17:37, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The original list is on the parliament site, which seems to suggest that the list before 1874 may just be educated guesswork. Sjorford 16:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

UK succession
Who is in line to suceed Tam Dalyell as Father after he retires from the Commons at the next election? PMA 16:08, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * According to this message board, it will be Alan Williams, Swansea West - although it would be nice to see a complete list of current members by service to confirm that. Sjorford 17:13, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, the top few seem to be:
 * Tam Dalyell (14/06/1962 by-election)
 * Alan Williams (1964)
 * Peter Tapsell (1966)
 * Kevin McNamara (1966)
 * followed by 10 MPs elected in the 1970 election. The longest serving woman (and potential Mother of the House) is Gwyneth Dunwoody, elected in Feb 1974. Sjorford 16:36, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Kevin McNamara should come before Tapsell as the former was first elected in a by-election immediately before the 1966 General Election. Tapsell was in the House earlier, but lost his seat and his current term stretches back only to the 1966 General Election. Timrollpickering 20:20, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If ministers can't serve as Father of the House, how is it that Campbell-Bannerman was father of the house while serving as Prime Minister? john k 00:29, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I reckon someone else performed the functions but Campbell-Bannerman retained the honour attached to the post or something. Timrollpickering 20:57, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

One thing i am curious about, On Sir Patrick Cormacks section of this site, it says he should have been Father of the House but there was a break in his service due to the death of a candidate in his constintuency. However he was voted in 1970. but there are a few candidates before him for father of the house, as stated earlier in this discussion.


 * Yes, I think somebody was getting confused there - I've removed that note from Patrick Cormack's page. Sjorford 14:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Cormack has hoped to be the Father of the House at a later stage and I think he's not far short of the longest continuous service as there are very few of the 1960s intake still in the House. There was some uncertainty over exactly whether or not the postponed poll affects this - anyone know if any ruling has been made on this? Timrollpickering 04:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I would guess that since the poll was just postponed, and was still considered part of the General Election (as opposed to a by-election), he would still be considered to have continuous service. (I am so not a lawyer.) sjorford (talk)  12:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Sir Hugh O'Neill
The Article on North Antrim States that he was MP until 1953. One of these articles has to be wrong.

Australian Usage
This continues a debate I started over at List of longest-serving members of the Australian House of Representatives. The issue overlaps both pages so it deserves a mention here.

My recent changes here were reverted, on the basis that the term "Father of the House" is not used in Australia. I take issue with this. It most definitely is used in Australia, albeit without any formal status. If that were not so, then what is all the other information doing on the Australian section of this article?

In particular, Phillip Ruddock is mentioned. From his own media release MPS 134/98 of 23 September 1998:


 * If Mr Ruddock is successfully re-elected at the upcoming election he will, at 55 years of age, become the second-youngest person behind Doug Anthony to achieve the status of ‘Father of the House’. This title is unofficially conferred upon the longest serving Member of the House of Representatives. Ironically, he will displace from the position of second youngest Father of the House Kim Beazley Senior, who was 58 when he became father in 1976.

Ruddock never makes statements that are other than bone-jarringly, bureaucratically correct. If he himself thinks he is the Father of the House, who are we to disagree with him?

Further, there seems to be a view that the UK usage of the term is somehow hallowed and sacrosanct (in contrast with the Australian usage). That is also a furphy. The term is not defined in House of Commons Standing Orders. Standing Order 1 requires that, when the office of Speaker is vacant, the person who has served for the longest period continuously as a Member, and who is not a Minister of the Crown, must take the chair to preside over the election of the new Speaker. (and go to Factsheet M3). The term (as distinct from the "office") has come about through tradition in the UK, exactly as in Australia. It is used unofficially in the UK, exactly as in Australia.

Also, in Australia, whether the longest serving member is a Minister or not has nothing to do with them being acknowledged as the Father of the House, viz. McEwen, Daly, Uren and Ruddock. That is a point of distinction that, if anything, supports my view. JackofOz 03:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

A search of Hansard shows that the expression "Father of the House" has been used in the Australian House of Representatives five times in the past seven years. Given the tens of millions of words uttered in the House over that time, I would not call this a frequent rate of usage. I maintain my view that this is not an established usage in Australian politics, and indeed I think its currency has declined in recent years because of its perceived patriarchal overtones. Given this, and given that the position of longest-serving member confers no status or privileges, I think the Australian usage of the term merits no more than the current brief paragraph in this article. Adam 03:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If I were to accept that view (which I don't), that still leaves the problem that we present a long list of UK Fathers of the House, going back to 1701, as compared with no similar list for other countries. That seems to reinforce the view that the UK terminology is somehow special, and others are merely derivative or worse, non-existent.  Well, that is simply not the case.  The UK term has no more parliamentary "status" than the Australian term, the Canadian term or the NZ term.


 * You say "the position of longest-serving [Australian] member confers no status or privileges". I entirely agree with you.  But, except for very infrequent occasions when the UK Speakership is vacant, that is identical to the UK experience.  And even on those infrequent occasions, the person called upon to very briefly preside is not the "Father of the House" per se, but the person who qualifies under the formula specified in the Standing Orders.


 * Your search revealed the term is used in the Australian parliament. You talk about frequency.  Five mentions is certainly infrequent compared with the number of words spoken in the same parliament over that time, but I think that's not the best comparison to make.  A better one would to compare those 5 occasions with the frequency of the use of the term in the UK Parliament over the same period.  Have you done such a search?  The result might be very telling.


 * Regardless of such a comparison, on each of those 5 occasions, whoever was in the chamber knew exactly who was being referred to, and it was accepted as a legitimate term that did not require any further explanation. It is certainly used in the Australian media, and it has certainly had Australian claimants, viz. Ruddock.  I think it is undeniable that the term is de facto well-established in Australia.  And it's hardly surprising; we have borrowed many (or most) of our parliamentary traditions from the UK, and this term is one of them.  And this is really the crux of this debate.  This article is not about the existence of any "office" of Father of the House (because there is no such office).  It's all about the label that history has appended to certain people.  Those labels do exist, both here and in the UK.  Deny that, and you may as well deny the existence of the name "Adam Carr".


 * Unless the article is improved by either dropping the UK list, or by allowing similar lists for other countries, it will remain unbalanced and misleading. It almost has a whiff of cultural cringe in its current state.  Cheers JackofOz 05:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've let it lie for a couple of days, and now made some changes that make it read better. JackofOz 13:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It's been a while on this discussion, but it may be of note that at Tony Blair's last Prime Minister's Questions Alan Williams was the final MP called and the Speaker explicitly said "Father of the House" not "Alan Williams". Has the term been formalised in the UK Commons? Timrollpickering 22:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Revisited
I've raised a serious issue that is connected with the Australian section of this article, @ Talk:List of longest-serving members of the Australian House of Representatives. Grateful for any comments. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Uncle of the House
I spotted the following question and answer (both unsigned) on Reference desk/Humanities:

Who is the current "uncle of the house" for the british parliment? That is who is the member with second longest record of continuous service?


 * I've never heard that term before & I don't believe it is a properly recognised 'official' designation. The term was used by Tony Benn in 1992 "We were elected in the same year ; you are the Father of the House and I was then the baby of the House. I must now be the uncle of the House, and it is in that capacity that I want to speak" [19] but I suspect it was just a witty comment by him rather than a reference to an actual position. I can't find any other reference to 'uncle of the house' than that.

I suspect the answer is spot on. Anybody else have any other info? JackofOz 13:13, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have an answer to this, I think:


 * Shortly before the 1992 GE, a debate on the arrangements for the House of Commons provoked the following from Tony Benn:


 * I was elected in 1950--I believe that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and I are the oldest survivors of that election. I have broken service, so I shall have to invent some new category--great-uncle of the House, perhaps--after the election.


 * Apparently he dropped the "great" and just went with Uncle instead. Whilst the title is clearly only made up by him, it has come to be used by a number of people and I have heard it used on occassion. --New Progressive 17:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The member with the second longest period of continuous service is often referred to as the Uncle of the House.

...and yet Tony Benn was far from this, with his continuous service at that point stretching back just 8 years. Since Uncle of the House seems rather ephemeral is there any formal authority/ruling at all on this? Timrollpickering 23:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Even the expression "Father of the House" has no official parliamentary status anywhere. There would certainly be nothing formal about Uncle. JackofOz 00:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There does not need to be a formal authority on something for wikipedia for it to be used - I've heard the term of Uncle used to refer to Alan Williams before he became Father last year, and Tapsell of late. Whilst it may not have been the definition that Benn might have attached to it, it has nonetheless gained an amount of widespread use, and thus can be noted in this article. --New Progressive 01:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This term clearly isn't frequently used, but has been used a few times since Tony Benn's original joke. I'll tweak to clarigy that. Liberaljon 21:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Does seeking re-election reset the clock?
Do MPs who seek re-election, such as when they were appointed to the Cabinet pre 1919 or those who call a by-election, get their continuous service reset? This is particularly crucial for the 1970 intake as Ian Paisley forced a by-election in 1986. Timrollpickering 17:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It clearly didn't count against Lloyd George who enterred the Cabinet in 1905 (having been initially elected in 1890) and then became Father in 1929, and I know that Edward Turnour enterred in 1904 and didn't achieve Cabinet office until the 20s, but only became Father after Lloyd George left the Commons.


 * The case with Paisley is a little more complicated I think: He choose to force the by-election, and this wasn't the case with Lloyd George. I checked the Standing Orders of the Commons, and they are about as useful as a poke in the eye, and I have no idea how these points are arbitrated.


 * As a side note, I emailed the House of Commons about finding out what order the 1970 intake swore in, and they informed me that I would have to go to the London searchrooms to peruse Hansard myself to find out. --New Progressive 19:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see why even voluntary by-elections should reset the clock. Technically between the dissolution and the new election, people cease being MPs, too, so "continous service" already has to be expanded to allow that, otherwise it would be meaningless.  Morwen - Talk 12:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You've answered your own question. Between dissolution and the start of the new parliament, there are no MPs, so this has to be ignored while working out the Father of the House.  However, by definition, a by-election takes place outside a general election so parliament has not been dissolved, and that break in service would have to be taken into account when calculating the Father of the Hoiuse. Liberaljon 21:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What on earth are you basing this on? Show me some fact other than your own interpretation of the situation. Hypnoticmonkey (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Eligibility of Ministers to be Father of the House
I would like to know where the idea comes that John Prescott would not be Father of the House, even with the longest continuous service, should he remain a Minister. Henry Campbell Bannerman was Father of the House and Prime Minister simultaneously and I think other Fathers of the House have been Ministers. Is this some confusion with presiding over the House during the election of the Speaker? Ministers might be specifically exempt from that role, so that neutrality from the government was preserved, but that would not mean they were not the Father, merely that they could not perform that role. Sam Blacketer 13:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a confusion because the position of the FotH isn't defined in Standing Orders. Technically one could argue that whoever presides at the Speaker election is a separately defined position (indeed what if the longest continuous serving MP is ill?) but one that often produces the same person.


 * Also of note is that I think Campbell Bannerman's period as FotH did not coincide with any actual election for Speaker. List of Speakers of the British House of Commons Or are Speakers voted in formally every year? Timrollpickering 15:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hicks Beach was also a minister from 1901 to 1902 (he was Chancellor of the Exchequer). On the other, Palmerston is not on the list, even though with continuous service from  1807, he should have succeeded Burrell on the basis of pure seniority in 1862 (Lowther had served only since 1812). john k 16:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand Parliament
The New Zealand section needs updated - Helen Clark retired from politics and is now working for the UN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopold Obert (talk • contribs) 07:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * New Zealand section updated and full list added --Kaspa31 (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * What are the sources, please, for the "full list"? I note that at the very least, William Steward is missing from the list, who preceded Arthur Guinness. See this obituary.  Schwede 66  18:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

European Union
This section needs a reference when one becomes available. Stephen Knight (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

How about the U.S.?
Since we mentioned Israel based on custom, why not the U.S. also, where the President Pro Tempore (fourth in line to the Presidency) is also traditionally the senior member, albeit of the majority party?Mzk1 (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture of Gerald Kaufman
Is it possible to use a more politically neutral picture of Gerald Kaufman? Cymruisrael (talk) 13:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Tiebreakers
How is it determined that Gerald Kaufman is Father of the House when he, Kenneth Clarke, Michael Meacher, and Dennis Skinner entered the House of Commons on the same day? If Kaufman were to leave the House, which one of the others would be first in line to succeed? Akwdb (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The article explains this: "If two or more Members have the same length of current uninterrupted service, then whoever was sworn in earliest, as listed in Hansard, is named as Father of the House." Everyking (talk) 06:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Father of the House of Lords - Lord Romily
Lord Romily was not Father from 1943 to 1983 as stated. I'm pretty sure he was Father in the later years of his career, but not that entire stretch as he had only entered the House in 1920 (for example William Montagu, 9th Duke of Manchester inherited in 1892, and then served from 1898 to 1947 exclipsing both Romily's entry to the House of Lords (1920) and his inheritance of his title (1905). I'm not meaning to suggest that Manchester was the Father for a few years, just stating a counter-example I have found. New Progressive (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe Lord Romilly succeeded the 7th Earl of Macclesfield in 1975 (Lord Macclesfield succeeded to his title in 1896 and became old enough to take his seat in 1909).--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Further,I believe that before Lord Macclesfield the 4th Baron Southampton and 9th Earl of Shaftesbury were in turn Father of the Lords,and after Lord Romilly's death the next Father was the 7th Marquess of Downshire.--L.E./12.144.5.2 (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Father of the House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090325142809/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/m03.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/m03.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Anachronism?
I'm wondering how far back this list ought to go for the UK and what source it ought to use. At the moment, we calculate the Fathers, using the modern system, back to 1701 (which itself is a bit strange - 1707 would make more sense as a cut-off). However, most of these would never have been thought of as Fathers by their contemporaries, and in some cases someone else might have been considered Father; the list is therefore somewhat anachronistic.


 * The Commons Library gives first usage in 1816, with an 1853 publication using it in reference to a putative 1760s "Father"
 * Again from the Commons Library, it is clear that during the late 19th century, while there was a recognised "Father", the method of selection was not necessarily "longest unbroken service". It names, among others, Joseph Hume (1852) who was named Father but is not on our list.
 * From the History of Parliament, there is a contemporary quote using it from in a 1788 obituary, which apparently is based on "earliest elected" or "oldest" rather than "longest unbroken service"; prior to that there are various others as far back as 1593 - 30 entries mention the phrase in total, seven of whom are MPs who died before 1800, but Noel is the only early one who has it clearly quoted from a contemporary source

My feeling is that we should probably adopt the Commons Library approach of giving the title only to people who were clearly recognised by their contemporaries as such - which rules out many of the people on this list. Thoughts? Andrew Gray (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Father of the House. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325142809/http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/m03.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/m03.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

After the 2017 general election
Assuming the general election goes ahead in June 2107, I understand Ken Clarke is not standing for re-election, but Dennis Skinner is. Ordinarily, Skinner would would become the Father of the House, but he has said that he will reject the title. It is purely honorific, so I don't see there is any opportunity to "reject" it, as such, but he could refuse to accept its minor privileges or duties, such as chairing the election of a new speaker (if needed) and moving ceremonial motions. In which case, who would do so? I think Peter Bottomley is next in the list of seniority, and then Geoffrey Robinson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.171 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

House of Lords.
I've removed the section. The HoL has no father of the house now nor has it ever. This is the official positon and has been stated. Garlicplanting (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you give us a source? As the position is unofficial even in the Commons this could be complicated. PatGallacher (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you visit the HoC own website they have briefing papers and identify members so its not 'unofficial' even if its not called that in the standing orders of the house. The HoL website/journal on the other hand has no recognition of it at all. I have a dead link to the leader of the house of lords stating the same will try to find a live one. (though as wiki policy is that additions to an article have to be evidenced the burden is not on me to prove the Lords FotH is false.Garlicplanting (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The House of Lords does track the peer with "Longest Continuous Membership of the House" . Whilst the title "Father of the House" is probably not used, and I am not aware of any duties that fall on the peer with the longest service (continuous or otherwise), there is citable evidence that the House of Lords cares enough to produce that table. New Progressive (talk) 11:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No one has provided any official evidence of its existence. Your link is a statistical digest which lists a whole range of attributes of members (members over 30 years, aged under 50 or over 90 none of which make those official positions or terms either. Wiki can't invent a Foth on such a threadbare basis - the citation does not verify the claim made in the article. (If you want to have an article 'Longest serving member of the HoL' then thats an appropriate cite) Sadly my edit were reverted by Pat despite its having no supporting citation. Wiki policy is clear sections can be boldly removed where citations don't exist and can't be found. (As an aside, there is no need in the house for a FotH. The Leader of the Lords,(Gov ministers) Speaker take the role as needed. Seniority (precedence) is determined by Act of parliament not Age or length of service. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:49, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The fact that there are no duties assigned to the role does not make it unencylopedic. I would agree that it would be better placed in a different article, e.g. List of Peers with longest continuous membership of the House of Lords (I suspect it was originally placed here due to its similarity to the House of Commons role) - but it definitely should be somewhere and not just deleted. New Progressive (talk) 12:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no 'role'; that's the point at hand! Being the longest serving member makes you no more than that. Wiki can't invent a 'FotH' merely because in some other chambers they have such a title(formally or informally). Doubtless someone simply assumed there must be a position without troubling to establish that there was. The solution to the 'don't delete' is to copy the data into talk to preserve it for someone to create a new article if desired; not to keep it in the live article where is clearly false and misleading any reader - as at present Garlicplanting (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

I found this discussion through Google because I keep seeing 'Father of the House of Lords' in succession boxes and infoboxes on Wikipedia, but had suspiciously never heard of the title elsewhere. There is no such thing as Father of the House of Lords; official of otherwise. I'm going to start widespread removal and refer back to here. Simply put: Effectively, those making the claim it does exist have to prove as much. Editing with Eric (talk) 15:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) If 'Father of the House of Lords' is a real title or honour, sources will exist to verify this claim. If that is the case, it can be included in articles with a citation that meets reliability criteria (see WP:SOURCE).
 * 2) If one claims 'Father of the House of Lords' is a de facto position or unofficial term being used for who the member who inherited their peerage before all others, or is the oldest, or took their seat earliest; then one is guilty of original research, and the information should be removed (see WP:OR).