Talk:History of the British peerage

older entries
"Catholic peers were hindered/disqualified from the House of Lords because they were forced, before taking their seats, to recite a declaration that denounced some of the Roman Church's doctrines as "superstitious and idolatrous." These provisions would not be repealed until 1829."

I have added hindered in place of disqualified because many did take the oath so weren't disqualified. Obviously others wouldn't due to their own interpretation of their faith. Alci12 18:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Serious Errors in Article
This article has errors. Hundreds - were a Saxon creation (Alfred the Great) not Norman. In the Danelaw counties (East Anglia & East Midlands) a Hundred was a Wapentake (spelling might be incorrect). They were a Sub-divsion of a Shire or County. A Manor (also Saxon) could either be a sub-division of a Hundred OR an entire Hundred could be within a Manor (rare but there are cases) there was no hard and fast rule for a Manors size. William the Conqueor gave his Manors NOT Hundreds. This is quite clear in the Doomsday Book.

A Saxon Thane was not the same as a Baron. The legel definition of a Thane was ownership of five "hides of land" (the typical size of a small Manor). Though some/most Thanes owned a lot more. An actual size of a "Hide" varied 60 to 120 aces. He was thus a much smaller landowner than a Baron.

Barons created by William were granted several Manors -- between 10 to 100+. They in tern granted their Manors to their own Tenents (Usually Knights) -- Thus a Manor was often known as a "Knight's Fee"

Jarl/Earldomoman - difficult terms. Before the viking King Canute, Earldoman were the military leaders of Shires, while Jarls were the Military leaders of the Danelaw counties. These guys usually were appointed from prominent local families. (Often the descendents of pre-England/Heptachry kings). But King Canute created the Great Earls (or Jarls) to rule over groupings of counties that followed roughly the ancient kingdoms of the Heptachery (Wessex, Mercia, East Anglia etc..). The "Great Earls were far more powerful than the Norman Barons.77.251.125.7 (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And eorl (which occurs in Beowulf) is an Anglo-Saxon word. The idea of using it for a local subking may be Norse; but that's not what the passage said. I have replaced it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, this article is quite a mess. Just for on thing, it's not even internally consistent. I'm going to make a few corrections, but I am merely an informed amateur on this subject, so if an expert sees a need to overrule my changes, feel free, (but please do give an eye to rest of the article if you're here).184.147.211.109 (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of the British peerage. 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/20080306094534/http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=0&lev2=0&menu=16&showPage=article&ID=118 to http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=0&lev2=0&menu=16&showPage=article&ID=118

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) 06:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)