Talk:Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom

Current status of the office
The office of Lord High Admiral has historically been vested on individuals other than the Sovereign, but upon their demise it has been vested in the Crown, and thus held by the King/Queen in right of the Crown, though there is no legal document (or Letters Patent) on the matter, and thus it is impossible to know for certain. The Ministry of Defence, through the famous Freedom of Information request, has suggested that the title is indeed vested on Her Majesty, and as such this article should note such, with all due mention of the troubled background on the current status of the post. The offices of the Great Officers of State may be vacant or in commission (Lord High Steward, Lord High Treasurer, and Lord High Constable are currently vacant, and none currently in commission), though in the case of Lord High Admiral it is my upmost belief, and in accordance with what the Informations Office from the Ministry of Defence said, that the office is vested in Her Majesty. MaximusWikipedian (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * From a technical perspective, if an office is created, and an individual appointed to it  - as with the the appointment of the late Duke of Edinburgh - it becomes vacant upon their death or resignation. It is not an honour but an office. Unless HM The King decides to regrant it (before things turned bad the Duke of York would have been a candidate), or it is put in commission, the office of Lord High Admiral is vacant, not vested in the Crown. This is my understanding, as a semi-retired legal academic specialising in the Crown. Ncox001 (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The info box should be updated to note it as either vacant or unclear. Currently it could confuse a casual reader who only read the introduction and info box. BuckTN (talk) 21:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

superfluous
Apart from the list of former lord high admirals, virtually nothing is said about the office. So what did a lord high admiral do, when and how did it turn into a meaningless honorary title etc? 77.47.74.154 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi this is list class article only not a biography, however should you wish to understand one the roles they undertook the Black Book of The Admiralty outlines his responsibilities in realtion to the Admiralty court and maritime laws., there is a scanned version of the book orginally written in French translated to English found here: http://shadyislepirates.com/blackbook1/index.htm.--Navops47 (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Do we include these additions
Since editing this article I have since found a further two further Admirals of England, Richard FitzAlan, 11th Earl of Arundel appointed by Richard II of England in December 1385 to 18 May 1388. succeeded by Thomas Percy, 1st Earl of Worcester appointed by Richard II of England and since doing this have found this book [https://books.google.lk/books?id=GyQIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA155&dq=Thomas+Percy+Admiral+of+England&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1146f0KPVAhUBOJQKHRWJBF04ChDoAQgoMAI#v=onepage&q=Thomas%20Percy%20Admiral%20of%20England&f=false Beatson's Political index modernised. The book of dignities; containing rolls of the official personages of the British empire, together with the sovereigns of Europe, the peerage of England and of Great Britain] published in 1851 listing Lord High Admirals of England back to the year 871 starting with Alfred the Great LHA 871-901, the slightly confusing thing is the latter book also refers to the naval station, the previous books from the 1740's separate this office from example the offices of Admirals of the North, West, Irish, North and West, North and South, South, and Narrow Sea's, they also refer to them as stations it also refers to Admirals of the Fleet, the former book refers to Admirals of the Kings Navy is this also an Admiral of the Fleet equivalent? any thoughts anyone.--Navops47 (talk) 05:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Current status
The position of Lord High Admiral cannot be "vacant", although I'm not too sure who's taken it over since the passing of HRH. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 13:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The position can be “vacant”. No commission has been appointed and no one has been appointed. Two other Great Offices of State (Lord High Steward and Lord High Constable) are vacant. One (Lord High Treasurer) is in commission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.169.168 (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The position was assumed by HM The Queen in 1964, when it went out of commission. HM then appointed (in 2011) the late Duke of Edinburgh. On his death 10 years later the post clearly became vacant - HM did not explicitly assume it. Nor was it assumed by the new King Charles III. It is thus vacant, and has been vacant since 2021. Ncox001 (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Phrasing
It's fine that the history and list start with Arundel if he's the first considered the "Lord High Admiral". The phrasing at the head of the history should reflect that there was a unitary admiral prior to the separation of the fleets in the 1290s. William de Leybourne certainly was one. This list includes two more before him, although they probably weren't called any form of admiral even in Latin and the dates in the margins don't seem to be accurate at all for the Richard de Lucy we have an article on.

[Edit: Seems to be a different and possibly unrelated Sir Richard de Lucy by charter of 29 August 1224 in 8 Henry III. Our article on the History of the Royal Navy (before 1707) seems entirely mistaken though. Its source pointedly says that he held an equivalent office but that the title admiral itself was not yet mentioned in the actual charter. Other places on the internet consider him the first British "Admiral of the Fleet" but not the first "Lord High Admiral".]

Regarding other similar silliness, and can be used as a source for some historians of the Royal Navy considering the kings back to Alfred as 'lord high admirals' and Hubert de Burgh & al. similarly for having commanded specific fleets in certain conflicts. It points to the fuzziness of applying the term backwards past when it was first specifically formally used. — Llywelyn II   03:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)