They’re not peers of the realm. They’re not “lords.” They’re not nobility. But they might be aristocrats. That depends on how much money they have.
Can a Baron be a life peer? Or can a baronet serve in the House of Lords today (post the reforms)?
Baronets cannot serve in the House of Lords. They’re not lords. They’re basically hereditary knights.
All life peers are barons, but barons can be either life peers or hereditary peers.
[quote=“Lamia, post:100, topic:609368”]
…
All life peers are Barons; the Queen can of course create a life peerage with a higher title, but that hasn’t happened since the Life Peerages Act was passed in 1958. That act didn’t create life peerages; it merely gave life peers the same right to sit in the House of Lords as hereditary peers. Previously life peers couldn’t sit in the House of Lords, except for the Law Lords (& that took it’s own act of parliament in the 19th century). In the past most life peers were women, so the issue of whether a life peerage entitled one to sit in the House of Lords seldom came up (women weren’t allowed to sit in the House of Lords until 1959 as life peereses, hereditary peeresses couldn’t sit until 1963).
Of course a baronet can be created a peer (life or hereditary) in addition to his baronetcy. And some hereditary peers were also given life peerages so they could keep their seats in the House of Lords.
Getting a bit further off topic from Downton Abbey, for which apologies, but… is there much resentment of the House of Lords by the English? Particularly to the ones who are still hereditary or the clergy?
^
Not English (or Scot, Welsh nor N Irish) but having lived in the UK for quite a while I got the impression it was a case of “needs reform…eventually…when we find the time… after East Enders finishes”. Reform of the Lords is an issue, but not just a pressing one.
I would say it has been noted (by the dozen or so people who take interest) that the Lords has been far more pro Civil Liberties than the Common, indeed the Lords blocked certain bills which the Commons had passed on Civil Liberties grounds.".
I don’t know about “resentment”, people generally understand that ‘turkey’s don’t vote for Christmas’ and many do believe the situation is, at best, bizarre.
For myself, I do tend to feel exasperation at people who really should know better accepting badges from Queenie – effectively the ticket into the House Of Lords.
A partial list of those who did know better:
That always seems to me to be a really, really weird argument. Disapproval of the existance or composition of a legislative body is not a reason not to sit in it. Opponents of the House of Lords who accept peerages are no more hypocritical than SNP MPs who sit in the Westminster Parliament, UKIP MEPs who sit in the European Parliament or advocates of PR who sit in the House of Commons.
Precisely. Abandoning a seat of power to those you disagree with serves only to leave the power in the hands of the opposition. If you want to change an institution, the best way is to join it. I feel certain that’s what Violet would do. 
It seems like a really good reason, to me.
How did you get from “Disapproval of the existance” to each of these variations on a theme of representational democracy?
Just to say… they begin filming S3 in “a couple of weeks”, according to Hugh Bonneville in an interview today.
I noticed this on Youtube: Downton Abbey: Top 10 Maggie Moments
Does anybody else wonder what extactly Sgt. Thomas Barrows duties of “managing Downton” entail? 
I’ve seen all of series 2, and don’t have a clue beyond him lording his Army status over the servants or ordering Daisy about. The patients are all officers and they’re sure as hell not going to take orders from him. Does he supervise the nurses or something? I don’t recall seeing him do anything like that.
Is anyone else wondering why Anna was so attracted to Mr. Bates, from the first meeting? I like them together, but he seems much older than she. He is not unattractive but is a bit portly. He is a good man, but she doesn’t know that at first. Maybe she had few opportunities to meet men? Are they closer in age than I’m thinking, and women in that era were more likely to marry men a decade or so older?
The army has put him in charge of the convalescent home being housed on the estate. The officers are patients; they don’t “take orders” from him but he’s in charge of the facility.
[quoteI don’t recall seeing him do anything like that.[/QUOTE]
He’s not in charge of medical care. He’s in charge of administration and operations.
Did you watch the Season 1? She didn’t fall for him because of the way he looked, but because of the way he behaved.
Yes, I watched Season 1, which is why I was puzzled at her attraction to him seemingly from the moment he walked in, before she knew anything about him.
Do you allow for differences in taste?
Of course I do. On television, though, things tend to be more easily ascertained. Bates’ ex-wife appears much older than Anna to me. It doesn’t matter.
I’ve only been watching this show for a few weeks now. I saw the first season on Netflix. But I will say this: if I was Anna I’d have been all over Bates like white on rice. Mrrrrrraow baby. I find the actor extremely attractive despite the age and portliness. But hey, YMMV.
This + one (that one being Matthew Crawley…also quite the catch.)
I wonder how much the WW1 widow’s pensions were. On the one hand William wanted to marry Daisy so she would receive his, therefore it must not have been totally negligible, but otoh the new housemaid, Jane, had to take a job as a housemaid (about £32 per year per this chart and that for all day labor) even with her widow’s pension.
I really don’t like Daisy. She’s such a little ninny. I’m guessing that she becomes the great-grandmother of Bubbles from Ab Fab.
This episode did show Violet in a likeable and admirable light though. You don’t want to piss off McGonagall.
Even though she’s a woman Vera Bates is such a baddie that I expect her to twist the end of her waxed mustache.