Talk:Commoner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think this definition is not quite precise enough. As shown by the example of Sir Alexander Ramsey (cited in the article on Princess Alexandra), having a title does not stop one being a commoner. I think that, in terms of royal marriages, "commoner" actually means one who is not of royal blood, rather than one who is not of noble blood. Opinions? Deb 19:10 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I do not believe that the category of "commoner" has any legal consequences in England at the present time, so it is slightly misleading to say "in British law...." since that implies that there is some currency to the idea. It might be that the more popular meaning is really "correct" simply because it is the current usage. I may, of course, be wrong about it and would be interested to have some law cited at me to the contrary. There is also no such thing as "British law". Francis Davey 01:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fruits of legal research suggest that there *might* be a distinction, although I am not sure if the one made on this page is either correct or right -- as I will explain. However searching through a standard legal encylopedia (Halsbury's) for English law, the vast majority of usages of the word "commoner" are for people who have rights of common. Surely this should be under this entry and the usage of commoner that is here put somewhere else?

What difference does being a commoner make? Well, in the first place the procedure used at a trial for impeachment is different -- but since there haven't been any of those for such an inordinate time, I do not believe that makes any real difference and it only appears to have made a difference to procedure.

As to sitting in the House of Commons, things were always more complicated than is expressed below, eg many people were unable to sit (eg clergy), but I believe that Irish peers were. Now of course being a peer does not stop you sitting (nor does being a clerk). In theory Prince Charles could sit as an MP of the House of Commons, although whether he would get elected is another matter.

Otherwise, the only difference I can find is that -- according to Halsbury's -- mesne process etc cannot be levied against a peer. I doubt that is anymore correct, or it shouldn't be.

Speaking as a practising lawyer, it worries me that we have here defined in "law" a term, which appears to have no practical application and is never used except by people obsessed with royalty etc. Whereas "commoner" does mean something useful and practical. Francis Davey 01:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is entirely wrong. In British law, a Commoner is someone who is not a Peer or the Sovereign. No Commoner is a Peer, and no Peer is a Commoner. Any member of the Royal Family who is not a Peer (e.g. The Princess Royal, Princes William and Harry, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie) is a Commoner, and can legally vote and stand in elections for the House of Commons. Proteus 13:53 GMT 1st December 2003

Can you back this up with a reference please ? I'm pretty sure you are correct but would like some evidence. If you are able to cite a reference, and are therfore certain, then just go ahead and rewrite the page. theresa knott 14:27, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From the BritFAQ of the usenet group alt.talk.royalty:

"Who is a Commoner in Britain?

Anyone who is not the sovereign or the holder of a substantive (as opposed to courtesy) peerage. This includes all members of the royal family who are not peers, and all members of peerage families except the actual peer: for example, Prince William of Wales, the Princess Royal, the earl of Arundel (son of a duke) are all commoners.

While this definition is legally correct, it seems counter-intuitive to many, in part because it is so different from the continental usage. This tends to generate confusion and debates, and use of the word should perhaps be avoided where possible."

I'll probably rewrite the page when I have some time. Proteus 11:16 GMT 4th December 2003

This page could use some discussion of commoners in countries other than the UK. I believe most monarchies have such a distinction. Nate 04:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Titles do not determine anything. A person can have all the titles they want, granted by any monarchy, however, if that person is not descended directly from royalty or noblity recently or sometime in the past the title means nothing. They are still a commoner. In the past, to be a commoner was to be without royal or noble blood and it had nothing to do with titles. RosePlantagenet 03:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Surely the fact that Prince William of Wales is a member of the royal family contradicts any other laws about this peerage nonsense? --Camaeron 16:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two Definitions of 'Commoners'

There are, in my opinion, two different definitions of 'commoners': the "more common" definition is anyone who is not of royal title or of nobility (with peerage - real or even courtesy). The 'royal' definition, a more continental Europe one, seems to be anyone who is not royal. For example, the Countess Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde (Queen Elizabeth II's great-great-grandmother on Queen Mary's side) was a member of nobility and would certainly be classified as someone with peerage by British definition, but she was viewed as a commoner among the 19th century German and continental European royals using the second definition, as the royals thumped their noses at her. --JNZ (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a confusion between British & (Old) German Law. Under the later there were two definitions of nobility: High nobles & Low Nobles. The former were nobles 'for time out of mind' while the later were those of "recent" creation and had usualy held letters of patent. All high nobles are equals (peers) irrespective of their particular title (if they have one). 'Royals' under German law are high nobles and as such it was illegal to marry out of their class. Although all ruling Princes in Germany were High nobles -- many other high nobles were not rulers and could be little more than a Lord of Manor but still be the peer of an ruling prince.

Low Nobles held letters of patent (from ruling princes) were recent creations (post 1400) and often they were more likely to have a 'title'. For continental (& German) nobility - a title was not a requirement for being a noble, but all titled persons were nobles (either high or low). Countess Claudine was NOT a commoner (under German Law) but she was a Low Noble and therefore not a peer to a High Noble - so her marrage was morganatic - under German Law.

Even though her children (through the grant of patent) were created a Dukes and Princes, she and her childeren would be Low Nobles....this doesn't seem to have bothered the British Royal Family who married one them. Jalipa (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)