Talk:Writ of acceleration

Comment
This link has the text of the writs which someone may wish to add http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.talk.royalty/browse_thread/... Alci12 13:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to add the exact day of acceleration? VM 19:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A question
Is writ of acceleration also available to children of viscount and baron ?

Yes 20:35, 29 Sep. 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes *but* only if the peerage holder has a second title (ie a another viscountcy or barony) to give to their heir apparent.Alci12 20:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The house of Lords Act 1999 does not specifically abolish writs of acceleration. They rather have fallen into disuse, though it is sitll concievable that a person could be accelerated and then elected as one of the 'representative' 90 remaining hereditaries. Thus the page should be edited to suggest that writs of acceleration have fallen into disuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.169.34 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't possible that a person could be "accelerated" and then elected as a representative hereditary peer. The writ of acceleration is a writ of summons to attend the House of Lords, which hereditary peers do not receive unless elected. The only way would be for the hereditary peers to elect one of their own heirs-apparent as their representative, who then received the writ, and I doubt very much if it is possible for a commoner to stand for election. Opera hat (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. (1) Writs of summons (including ones in acceleration) are only issued for excepted hereditary peers, life peers, and lords spiritual, and as far as I know, by that title that qualifies them. (2) Excepted hereditary peers are elected among hereditary peers. Accelerated peers before their acceleration are commoners, and thus ineligible. So a writ in acceleration may not be issued, if the person is not elected, which is impossible for a commoner. No new writs of acceleration may be issued, nor any new baronies by writ created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.59.27 (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal situation
Was the legal situation of accelerated peers the same as that os ordinary peers? I mean, were they tried by peers if accused of a crime, or free from arrest in civil trials, or protected from scandalum magnatum, as ordinary peers were? If somebody knows the answer, it would be interesting that he/she add a new paragraph explainins such points. --85.57.72.226 (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

succession after acceleration
Suppose the first Earl Z and Baron X has two sons, and that the first son receives the barony by acceleration and dies childless before his father. His brother will eventually become second Earl Z but third Baron X. This doesn't say: does the brother become Baron X immediately upon the death of the second Baron, or does the barony revert to the first Earl? —Tamfang (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I apologize in advance for referencing to a deprecated source but that source and others (including this article) cite a total of 98 writs of acceleration (English/British House of Lords) over 510 years. Only a small subset of those could provide evidence of a surviving brother A) immediately made the next Baron X or an interim process or; B) first reverting that title back to the surviving father and/or; C) being dependent on another writ naming the brother and accelerating his own summons to the Lods. While multiple sources state 98 such British writs were issued, the detailed lists I find (including this Wiki article) only name 97 British heirs so accelerated. A complicated case (and perhaps the answer to the missing peer) exists in two heir apparents of the 1st Earl of Burlington. His having had multiple Baronies both Irish and British, his wife's own Barony "of Clifford" versus his "Clifford of Lanesborough", as well as both his peer wife and his first heir apparent predeceasing him, require careful study to infer succession to subsidiary titles after acceleration. Spoiler alert: I believe they show a separate House of Lords action is required for the next heir to claim the accelerated barony, even though that title had formally been held by his father then deceased.
 * Regarding the 1st Earl of Burlington, the source I attempted to cite to satisfy two 'citation needed' under PROCEDURE https://www.thepeerage.com/p1250.htm#i12494 may be deprecated but uses unique text to match the exact conclusions already stated in 3 existing articles here (Charles_Boyle,_3rd_Viscount_Dungarvan ; Charles_Boyle,_2nd_Earl_of_Burlington ; Baron_Clifford). I realize we don't cite Wikipedia within itself but the 3 existing articles state as fact (without question or citation) the conclusions this article has been held for citation [example: 1st Earl of Burlington's grandson became the 2nd Earl of Burlington but the 3rd Baron Clifford of Lanesborough because the first writ had truly created a 2nd Baron Clifford of Lanesborough in advance of its original grantee dying and passing on all the other titles]. We may conclude the accelerated but predeceased 2nd Baron Clifford of Lanesborough A) represented its own peerage (not a subsidiary title serving only as style for the heir then apparent), B) that title hadn’t reverted to the 1st Earl/Baron grandfather and C) sources detail the grandson becoming 3rd Earl of Cork [Irish] on 13 January 1697/98 when the grandfather died – having already become 4th Lord Clifford (English Barony from his predeceased grandmother via his father) and 4th Viscount Dungarvan [Irish] on 12 October 1694 – both on the day his accelerated father died BUT ONLY BECOMING 3rd Baron Clifford of Lanesborough [English] on 20 November 1694 – 39 days after his accelerated father died.  Summarizing this case: the English House of Lords continued to only recognized the Baron Clifford of Lanesborough title for eligibility to accelerate (while the Earl was still living), it was used to accelerate the next heir apparent also being seated as a Lord AND some action of the Lords was required (likely another writ) since this one is shown effective on a date which was neither the eventual date of the Earl’s death nor the death date of the Earl’s first heir— already accelerated and deceased. Note: The reference to the Earl’s death year as 1697/98 is an O.S./N.S. indication of an precise date prior to English “New Year” moving from late March back to January 1st. This other change shifting to the Gregorian calendar is what caused February-born George Washington’s birth year to change from 1731 to 1732.Wclaytong (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Discrepancies on effective dates
Ideally, there would be an official effective date for each person elevated but the summons date likely differs sometime from the date it becomes effective. The more recent writs citing an issue number in London Gazette are mostly helpful but frustrating when the dates in the articles first column differ from the dates shown in the citation. The article dates Baron Gower as 22 November 1826 but the Dec. 1st issue of London Gazette states the writ date as November 29, 1826. Another writ here uses 5 September 1876 for Baron Ashford (William Keppell) but the September 5th issue of London Gazette so cited states the writ date as September 2, 1876. If consensus can be reached on what the date we're listing is supposed to represent, I can check those cited and standardize but lacking both month and day on the first one may hint there will be compromises because public sources don't agree. Wclaytong (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Date format
converted the dates in the tables from "5 February 1533" to "1533, 5 February", a reverse-American format that as far as I know is not used by anyone anywhere in the world. If the point was that the dates column be sortable, I believe there is a better way. —Tamfang (talk) 02:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear Tamfang. You are, of course perfectly right right. I tried to quickly find a particular writ of acceleration by its year in the table in question and found it not easy because of the (correct) date format used in the table. So I changed it, making it an format that seems to be not acceptable according to MOS:DATEFORMAT. You say there is a better solution. I looked in WP:DATEOVER and found nothing really suitable. Please tell me. I am very keen to hear about it since there are other tables sorted by date that have the same problem, notably timeline tables I inserted in biographical articles, see e.g. the (collapsed) table entitled Timeline in the article Antoine Hamilton, immediately before the Works section. Please have a look. I would like to correct them all. With many thanks. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Help:Sorting — Apparently the right way is. —Tamfang (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I've put in those fields but have not stumbled on the syntax to make a table hidden AND sortable AND have an extra top row. Argh. —Tamfang (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)