Precedence - Who Outranks Who?

[Warren]

This thread on 'Seating' is about Order of Precedence under another name.
It has therefore been merged into the Precedence thread.

Warren
Admin

 

[HisLegendaryMajest]

For example, i was a crown prince of Australia (pretend its not in the commonwealth and has nothing to do with the British Royal Family) and i'm getting married. I have to invite all the royal families of the world and most of the world leaders. All of them will be seated based on the time they have been in their position, what would happen if instead of a King or Queen coming they send one of the prince's/princess' (not necessarily a crown prince), do they get seated based on when they personally got their position of prince or when their parents became king or queen?

 

[Osipi]

I think post #88 in this thread answers your question nicely.

 

[COUNTESS]

Who out ranks whom.

 

[HisLegendaryMajest]

I think post #88 in this thread answers your question nicely.

So Prince WIlliam would sit in a position based on where Queen Elizabeth would be based on your belief?

 

[HisLegendaryMajest]

what happens at an event with both presidents, prime minister, Kings/queens, crown princes/princess' and regular prince's/princess'? Does everyone get seated based on when thy assumed their position out of everyone at the event? or are all the Kings seated, then the presidents/prime minister and then the princes and princess'

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The length of the Reign or office is decisive within a same rank. And when exactly equal the name of the country in French will decide.

Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin have exactly the same length of office? President Obama will come before President Putin because alphabetically les États-Unis comes before la (Fédération de) Russie.

 

[Osipi]

what happens at an event with both presidents, prime minister, Kings/queens, crown princes/princess' and regular prince's/princess'? Does everyone get seated based on when thy assumed their position out of everyone at the event? or are all the Kings seated, then the presidents/prime minister and then the princes and princess'

Along with Duc_et_Pair's explanation, it most probably would be easiest to remember that at such an event that you're using as a model, the seating and precedence would be determined by the country rather than rank or titles. So yes, Prince William would be seated as if Queen Elizabeth herself was there as William would be the Queen's official representative at the event.

With this in mind, it would stand to reason that many kings and monarchs or hereditary heads of state would be seated in a more prominent manner because they most likely have been in their positions longer than (for example) a President of the United States because such a president could never have exceeded 8 years as a head of state.

 

[Mbruno]

Well if you think back to wedding of Charles and Diana the guests entered in reverse order of precedence based on date of taking the throne:
1 TSH Princess Grace & Hereditary Prince Albert of Monaco
2 TSH Prince Franz Joseph II and Princess Gina of Liechtenstein (he was then the longest reigning monarch in attendance)
3 TRH Grand Duke Jean and Grand Duchess Josephine Charlotte of Luxembourg
4 HM Queen Beatrix and HRH Prince Claus of The Netherlands (she had just come to the throne in 1980 so was the newest King?Queen of her rank)
Other European monarchs in reverse order of accession with TM King Baudouin and Queen Fabiola being the last to enter in the procession.They exited lead by the Belgians and trailed by the Monagasques.
Courts are of course able to make adjustments as they see fit. QMII orgainzed the protocol alphabetically for a UN meeting in Copenhagen to avoid sitting beside Mugabe of Zimbabwe who was the longest head of state in office in attendance.
Today I think most courts are much more relaxed about these things except perhaps at the most formal state occassions.

So let's assume just for the sake of argument that a royal funeral were held in Britain this year. Would president Obama have precedence in the seating over, let's say, King Willem-Alexander, King Philippe, or King Felipe VI as he has been head of state longer than the latter ? I don't think so as monarchs are usually seated together in those occasions and in the front rows.

 

[Stefan]

So let's assume just for the sake of argument that a royal funeral were held in Britain this year. Would president Obama have precedence in the seating over, let's say, King Willem-Alexander, King Philippe, or King Felipe VI as he has been head of state longer than the latter ? I don't think so as monarchs are usually seated together in those occasions and in the front rows.

As far as i remember at the funeral of Pope Johhn Paul II. in 2005 where also several Presidents (including President Bush) attended they where seated behind the Kings and Queens.

 

[Skippyboo]

I just did a quick google image search. The US delegation to Pope John Paul II funeral was in a front row. It's was GW and Laura, his dad, President Clinton, plus Condi Rice. They had no one in front of them


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[tommy100]

So let's assume just for the sake of argument that a royal funeral were held in Britain this year. Would president Obama have precedence in the seating over, let's say, King Willem-Alexander, King Philippe, or King Felipe VI as he has been head of state longer than the latter ? I don't think so as monarchs are usually seated together in those occasions and in the front rows.

I think we have to remember the precedence and protocol are only a guide as what to do not hard and fast rules. In the case of a royal funeral, as a family event (even if it was a state or ceremonial funeral) it would probably be the case the all royals would sit together with the current sovereigns at the front (indeed as we saw for QEII jubilee lunch even deposed sovereign would probably be in the place they would be as if they were still sovereign. Any other heads of state, presidents etc, would sit together in order elsewhere.
However at an event that is not a 'family' event, such as a UN Summit etc then presidents and sovereigns would very likely be mixed together and ordered by length of service in office. Again protocol and precedence are important but not rules to have to be followed.

The Queen of Denmark is known to be a bit of stickler for protocol and precedence however for the 2009 climate change summit she gave a state banquet for those in attendance, if precedence was being followed exactly she should have sat next to Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe as he was the longest serving head of state present. Not at all surprisingly this time precedence was overlooked to avoid that from happening... so another example of precedence not always being stuck to.

Mugabe and the queen: a seating plan nightmare for Copenhagen gala dinner | Environment | The Guardian

Asked if Mugabe was going to sit next to Queen Margrethe, a Danish protocol official said: "This is not the case, but he will have a nice place because of his seniority … we are not bound by seniority. The queen wants people to have a good time and we know that some people don't want to sit next to others. It's like a family dinner. You don't want Uncle Louis sitting next to Uncle Ernie."

 

[Skippyboo]

In a funeral, even a Royal one. The family will take precedence over foreign royalties. The Queen Mum's funeral had the British royal family on the right side of the Abbey and the Bowes Lyon family on the left.

The King of Norway or Queen of Denmark isn't sitting in front of Lady Sarah Chatto at her Grandmother's funeral. The same with Peter and Zara.




Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[HisLegendaryMajest]

So say for example at my royal wedding, i would seat everyone based on when they assumed their position, or monarchs, followed by presidents, then followed by everyone else?

Also would the politicians from my own countries government be seated seperately to the above or seated behind them, or do they get put into place with the above? What about my countries head of government? do they go in with the above group or do they lead my countries delegation?

 

[Osipi]

A lot depends on what kind of royal wedding you'll be having. Most likely the precedence could be a bit more relaxed as it most likely would not be considered a state occasion. Even William's wedding was not a full blown state event but Charles' was as he is the heir to the throne.

Taking William's wedding as an example, you can see the people who were invited and those that declined or could not attend.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wedding_guests_of_Prince_William_and_Catherine_Middleton

This is the seating that was used for Will and Kate's wedding so another good example to help you out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...g-seating-plan-reveals-intimate-ceremony.html

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

So let's assume just for the sake of argument that a royal funeral were held in Britain this year. Would president Obama have precedence in the seating over, let's say, King Willem-Alexander, King Philippe, or King Felipe VI as he has been head of state longer than the latter ? I don't think so as monarchs are usually seated together in those occasions and in the front rows.

It depends on the country. The one country does not make any difference between royal and non-royal heads of state and ranks them according office. The other country does make a difference indeed and ranks royal heads of state before non-royal heads of state, despite the last one eventually being longer in office. Needless to say that these countries will be monarchies themselves.

 

[Muhler]

A number of years ago there was an international summit in DK and at one point there was a gala, hosted by QMII.
Now, the DRF adhere strictly to the protocol in regards to who should sit where and with whom.
In this particular case Fidel Castro ended up sitting next to QMII, because he was the most senior head of state present.
- It was also BTW the first time in many, many years Fidel Castro was seen wearing a suit and not his customary uniform.

I can't remember off hand whether is was at the same event that Robert Mugabe attended. That was a bit of a headache, because the heads of states were seated at six or eight man tables and to put it mildly it was far from all heads of states or government representatives who were happy to sit next to him! Fortunately it turned out that his table partners were not among the countries most hostile to Robert Mugabe. So some arrangements were no doubt made to cover that, because as I recall he wasn't seated with what we (unfairly perhaps) would call the most important countries in the world.

 

[Mbruno]

It is all very confusing to me. At the weddings of CP Frederik and CP Victoria, Edward and Sophie were seated way behind the front row even though they were representing Queen Elizabeth ii and, according to precedence, should have been seated where QEIi would have sat.

In fact, looking at Frederik's and Victoria's wedding videos, I cannot understand the seating arrangements at all. King Albert Ii and Queen Paola for example sat opposite the other monarchs at Victoria's weddings in an area where mostly HSHs (sovereign princes) and HRHs were seating. Why weren't they seating with the other kings and queens ?

 

[Molly2101]

It is all very confusing to me. At the weddings of CP Frederik and CP Victoria, Edward and Sophie were seated way behind the front row even though they were representing Queen Elizabeth ii and, according to precedent, should have been seated where QEIi would have sat.

In fact, looking at Frederik's and Victoria's wedding videos, I cannot understand the seating arrangements at all. King Albert Ii and Queen Paola for example sat opposite the other monarchs at Victoria's weddings in an area where mostly HSHs (sovereign princes) and HRHs were seating. Why weren't they seating with the other royal copules ?

I suppose Edward and Sophie were seated so far back because Edward is not the heir to the throne. He may have been representing a Monarch but at the end of the day the other attendees are much higher up in precedence as they are normally heirs. He and Sophie are often sat near Martha-Louise and Ari or Marie and Joachim. They did, however, get a GREAT spot at Carl-Philip and Sofia's wedding behind the King and Queen simply because they were the first people to fill the second row.

 

[MARG]

I very much doubt that "first come, first served or seated" applies at Royal weddings. There's no way Queen Max or Margrethe for that matter, would be seated in the "cheap seats". One must always remember that just as in the Military, RHIP applies in all things Royal.

 

[Molly2101]

I very much doubt that "first come, first served or seated" applies at Royal weddings. There's no way Queen Max or Margrethe for that matter, would be seated in the "cheap seats". One must always remember that just as in the Military, RHIP applies in all things Royal.

I didn't mean they chose their own, I meant that they were the first people to fill the second row. The heirs were in the front row and as Edward was representing his mother he was the next person to be seated, but that just happened to be at the start of the second row. Martha-Louise, Arie, Marie and Joachim all followed him.

 

[Curryong]

^ I think in monarchies royals are seated before elected Heads of State and their representatives at ceremonies like funerals and weddings.

I remember at Charles and Diana's wedding Nancy Reagan, representing her husband, was surprised to be seated way back. The day before the wedding she happened to be speaking to the Archbishop of Canterbury at some function. On parting he apparently said to her 'I'll see you tomorrow" and she replied "Well, I'll see you but I doubt you will see me!" referring to the seat she'd been allocated.

 

[Meraude]

In fact, looking at Frederik's and Victoria's wedding videos, I cannot understand the seating arrangements at all. King Albert Ii and Queen Paola for example sat opposite the other monarchs at Victoria's weddings in an area where mostly HSHs (sovereign princes) and HRHs were seating. Why weren't they seating with the other kings and queens?

At weddings in Sweden the bride's family sits on the left side and the groom's on the right side. At Victoria's wedding her parents, siblings, her god-father (king Harald) with spouse, her god-mother (queen Beatrix) and queen Margrethe with spouse, the longest-reigning monarch at the wedding (and also the closest royal relative to her father, his cousin) sits at the left front row.
On the right side, Daniel's parents and sister are seated in the front row, as well as the king and queen of the Belgians, the prince of Monaco, the presidents of Finland and Iceland with spouses. So both front rows can be said to have been the best seats in the church, Victoria's family at the left, Daniel's family and the other highest-ranking heads of state on the right.

 

[LeDerius]

Regarding en Emperor VS. King:

In today's world there is only one emperor and that is the Emperor of Japan. I believe the kings and queens of the world see him as an equal. I have seen several photos of The Emperor in the company of Queen Elizabeth, and she has always preceded him in precedence. Also I have never seen her bow or curtsy to him.

My theory seems to be reinforced by the late Queen Victoria, who stated that she outranked the Tsar of Russia due to her tenure on the throne.

 

[Chubb Fuddler]

In 1990 at the Imperial Banquet to celebrate the Emperor of Japan's Enthronement, His Highness Malietoa Tanumafili II, O le Ao o le Malo of Samoa (1963-2007) was seated in the position of honour next to the Emperor. The Imperial Household Agency must have taken the position that all monarchs are equal regardless of style or title, and just ranked them according to length of reign.

 

[Minister of Court]

Seating plan for foreign royals (The Cambridge wedding)

This is something that has been bothering me for awhile. I know, this is a topic that many will think as boring and irrelevant, but I've always been a stickler for protocol and orders of precedence So:

At the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge I noticed that the seating plan for the foreign royalty was very bizarre indeed. Granted, since William is not yet the heir, their wedding was more informal an occassion which explains why European royalty was given precedence over African and Asian monarchs. They are family after all. But there were some strange seating arrangements among the Europeans too. The Queen of Denmark as the longest-reigning European monarch was rightly given the place of honour but after her it's a right mess. Here's a link for a picture:http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2011/royal_wedding_main/wedding_main_26.jpg

For example:

- why were the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess of Luxembourg given precedence over the King and Queen of Norway? A king outranks a grand duke and, anyway, Harald's been on the throne longer than Henri.

- why were Philippe and Mathilde (then the crown prince couple) sitting in the first row when EVERY SINGLE person in the second row outranked them?

- and speaking of the second row: the order of precedence between these (then) crown prince(ss) couples was completely reverse! And on the top of all that they squeezed the Queen of Spain between them.

- the Prince of Monaco seated behind the former royal families of Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Yugoslavia. I know he's a mere Serene Highness but he's also a Head of State of a sovereign country!

So, what is the logic behind these arrangements or is there one? Did they lose the seating plan and just seated them in "first come, first served" principle? This bugs me and I find it very peculiar that the British who are all about pomp and pageantry should make such mistakes.

 

[Meraude]

- why were the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess of Luxembourg given precedence over the King and Queen of Norway? A king outranks a grand duke and, anyway, Harald's been on the throne longer than Henri.

- why were Philippe and Mathilde (then the crown prince couple) sitting in the first row when EVERY SINGLE person in the second row outranked them?

- and speaking of the second row: the order of precedence between these (then) crown prince(ss) couples was completely reverse! And on the top of all that they squeezed the Queen of Spain between them.

- the Prince of Monaco seated behind the former royal families of Bulgaria, Greece, Romania and Yugoslavia. I know he's a mere Serene Highness but he's also a Head of State of a sovereign country!

Just a wild guess, but the Norwegian royal family are the closest relatives to the BRF. The Belgian and the Luxembourg families are related to the BRF through prince Albert, could that have something to do with their placing in the front? In the second row, it seems to be some kind of alphabetical order from the names of the countries. As for Monaco, as far as I know there are no blood relations between them and the BRF, while several of the former royal families have blood ties to the BRF.
http://www.theroyalforums.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

 

[Minister of Court]

it seems to be some kind of alphabetical order from the names of the countries
http://www.theroyalforums.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

By God, you have solved it for me! They were sitting among their respective groups and inside these groups they were seated alphabetically according to their countries:

- reigning European monarchs: Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway
- other royals from reigning European monarchies: Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden
- former European monarchies: Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Yugoslavia
- Monaco is still strangely placed here
- reigning non-European monarchs: Brunei, Malaysia, Swaziland, Tonga
- other royals from reigning non-European monarchies: Kuwait, Lesotho, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, United Arab Emirates

Thank you very much! Years of speculation are finally over

 

[Countessmeout]

By God, you have solved it for me! They were sitting among their respective groups and inside these groups they were seated alphabetically according to their countries:

- reigning European monarchs: Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway
- other royals from reigning European monarchies: Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden
- former European monarchies: Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Yugoslavia
- Monaco is still strangely placed here
- reigning non-European monarchs: Brunei, Malaysia, Swaziland, Tonga
- other royals from reigning non-European monarchies: Kuwait, Lesotho, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, United Arab Emirates

Thank you very much! Years of speculation are finally over

Monaco is a principality not a monarchy, why it gets ranked below both reigning and non-reigning monarchies. Yes Lux is a Grand Duchy, but they are considered royal, and are addressed as HRH. Monaco is not, they are princely, and addressed as HSH. I would think if Lich had sent someone, they would be sitting with Monaco.

 

[MAfan]

Monaco (and Liechtenstein as well) is a principality, but is also a monarchy and the members of their reigning families are royals. The fact that they are styled Serene Highnesses doesn't mean that they aren't royals.
Look at the picture posted above.
In the first rows were seated the representatives of the current European reigning Houses (Luxembourg, Norway, Belgium, Spain, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden. Then were seated the former European Kings and their immediate families (Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, Yugoslavia; besides they are also relatives to the British RF) and the Prince and Princess of Monaco.
Behind all them the representatives of other (reigning) monarchies: the Sultan and Queen of Brunei, the King and Queen of Malaysia, the King of Tonga, etc.

As for Luxembourg, the members of the current Grand Ducal Family are styled as Royal Highnesses because they are descendants of His Royal Highness Prince Félix of Bourbon-Parma, husband of Grand Duchess Charlotte; before the members of the Grand Ducal Family were styled as Grand Ducal Highnesses. Still, they were considered as royals even before they aquired the style of Royal Highnesses.