Talk:George Bingham, 8th Earl of Lucan

House of Lords seat
The article is not clear on this. Lucan was an Irish peer. They used to elect a few of their number as representative peers ( to sit in the Lords) as they were not automatically entitled to seats. No new Irish representative peers were elected since 1922, but existing ones kept their seats. The last one died in 1961. So how does Lucan have a seat? And if he has none, his heir can not have one either, not by right of being The Earl of Lucan. The 1999 Lords reform has nothing to do with this, as it does not allow Irish peers to be selected. Although there is a dodge for getting any hereditary in by simply also giving him a life peerage. The Guardian article cited seems to have simply got it wrong. 95.149.54.90 (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The Earl of Lucan also holds the subsidiary title of Baron Bingham, in the Peerage of the UK. It is by virtue of this peerage that the famous 7th Earl sat in the House of Lords - you are correct that his Irish earldom would not suffice for that.  The subject of this article, presumably now the 8th Earl, was known as Lord Bingham as a courtesy title according the the standard practice of courtesy title's using one of the father's lesser titles.  Now that the father has been declared dead, the son is substantively the new Lord Bingham and is in virtue of that eligible for election as an excepted hereditary peer.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. The new 8th Earl of Lucan is now eligibile to stand for election for a seat in the House of Lords by virtue of his barony in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. It should also be noted that, should Lord Lucan be elected to the House of Lords, he would be known and addressed as the Earl of Lucan, rather than the name of his United Kingdom baronyDs1994 (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Not so fast. The new Earl must first petition the House of Lords claiming to have succeeded to the Earldom of Lucan in the Peerage of Ireland, and the Barony of Bingham in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. Normally this is a simple matter but in a unique case such as this there may be complications. In theory it is the Lord Chancellor who establishes the succession but if there is a dispute, the Privileges and Conduct Committee of the House of Lords may have to hold a hearing (the last one was I think for Baroness Arlington in 1999). Should his succession be established, then he would be entered on Register of Hereditary Peers who wish to stand for election, maintained under Standing Order 10(5). Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

New developments
Seems he may not have committed suicide after all: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17076512 Antarctic-adventurer  (talk)  09:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Any updates?
Might be worth establishing career history since 1998. 109.154.19.165 (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Bias?
I would question whether the wording is POV, for instance "lying injured in hospital following the attack on her by her husband. The police took her from the hospital in order for her to defend her hard won custody and she was successful. There followed a sustained campaign by her sister and brother-in-law to obtain custody".203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Legally dead
There is considerable confusion regarding the earl's father. The statement: "Lord Lucan was not declared legally dead by the High Court in 1999. Probate was granted on 11 August 1999 and is not an official confirmation of death for all purposes; nor does it operate as if it were a death certificate. The grant is valid for probate purposes only and is a technical requirement for the administration of the subject's estate" is wrong and contradictory.

The High Court did indeed declare Lucan dead - the exact wording being "Be it known that the Right Honourable Richard John Bingham, Seventh Earl of Lucan, of 72a Elizabeth Street, London SW1, died on or since the 8th day of November 1974". Probate is not granted unless the court accepts and declares that the testator is dead. Probate and death certificates are two different things, and ought not be compared.203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

8th
George is welcome to style himself 8th. Earl. This has little significance after 1999. Response from George: the title is Irish and had no significance as regards the UK since 1922.

That's an obviously ridiculous statement as until the reform of the House of Lords it gave a seat in the House of Lords. PhilomenaO&#39;M (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC.)

Any Irish peer would be surprised to hear his Irish title has no standing in the UK. The Crown has jurisdiction over all peerages from the now-Independent Irish Republic, they just aren't making any more since 1922. They used to elect some of their number to sit in the Lords, but that also stopped in 1922. Maybe that's what you are thinking of. The existing ones continued to sit in the Lords, though; the last one died off in 1961.

Did any of the Earls of Lucan ever serve as Irish representative peers? The article implies so, as the heir seeks his seat. Or does he get a writ, which proves he's an Earl, then discover he can't sit due to the 1999 Lords reform? This article needs a constitutional expert to sort it out, cause right now it's confusing. 95.149.54.90 (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See my explanatory note up above. The Irish peerage did not confer a right to sit in the House of Lords, neither before nor after 1999.  But the Bingham barony did, before 1999, and leaves the Earl of Lucan now eligible for election.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)