Talk:Michael Morris, Baron Morris

Requested move 18 August 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. Not exactly a firm consensus, but there seems to be a prevailing opinion that he was more commonly known as Lord Morris than Lord Killanin, therefore we should use that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Michael Morris, 1st Baron Killanin → Michael Morris, Baron Morris – According to WP:NCPEER, the main rule is that the most senior title of a peer should be used in the article title. Michael Morris was created a life peer as Baron Morris in 1889 and a hereditary peer as Baron Killanin in 1900. Both titles have the same rank, but Baron Morris is senior, because it was created earlier. He also continued to be known as Lord Morris in the House of Lords after the creation of his hereditary barony (on 15 June 1900) as can be seen on Hansards:,. Editor FIN (talk) 12:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. No such user (talk) 08:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Question. Can Editor FIN (or anyone else) provide a reference for the assertion that a life peer has equal rank to a hereditary baron? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See this precedence list of hereditary peers on the site of Hereditary Peerage Association: . If you scroll the page down, the list says that life baron Lord Chalfont ranks higher in precedence than those hereditary barons, whose titles were created after his title. There is also a text saying that other extant life peerages postdate the latest hereditary barony. --Editor FIN (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - not convinced that a life peerage outranks an hereditary one but WP:NCNOB does state that a peer's article should take its title from the title by which the peer is best known, even if that is not the most senior title, so possibly on those grounds... Eustachiusz (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In addition to the website of the Hereditary Peerage Association, there is also another source, though self-published (but not by me): . It states: 'Lords of appeal in ordinary have precedence as if they were barons [hereditary barons] (Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876) as do life peers (Life Peerages Act 1958). There is no distinction made within the rank of baron between hereditary barons, lords of appeal and life peers.' --Editor FIN (talk) 07:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it really matters which was more senior - the real issue is what he was known by. When he was given a hereditary peerage, did he stay "Lord Morris", switch to calling himself "Lord Killanin", or combine the two as "Lord Morris and Killanin"? Hansard isn't really the best source for that, as it will strictly follow precedence, but there must be reliable newspaper articles (The Times etc.) that can be trusted to reveal what was actually used. Proteus (Talk) 15:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In another similar case, Thomas Shaw, Baron Shaw and 1st Baron Craigmyle changed to be known by his (junior) hereditary title also in Hansards: . That could imply that Lord Morris (and Killanin) was actually known by his life peerage title. In newspapers, he is referred to as Lord Morris in an article from the Spectator announcing his death: . Here are also search results from the British Newspaper Archives:, . In those old newspapers, he is mostly known either as Lord Morris or as Lord Morris and Killanin. --Editor FIN (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.