Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022

[Lumutqueen]

Even if The Queen was stood in front of you, you would not bother curtseying?

 

[windsorgirl]

Even if The Queen was stood in front of you, you would not bother curtseying?

I am one American who would definitely curtsey to the Queen. I don't think I could stop myself from doing it if I tried! I got to shake Prince Charles' hand once in London but we were not formally introduced and it didn't occur to me to curtsey at the time.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I know The Queen is not your Queen, but she is still a Queen. I would curtsey to all the members of the royal family, no matter how they got there.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I have to backtrack a bit here. Intellectually, I say I wouldn't curtsey -- not being a subject. EMOTIONALLY, I'd probably drop to my knees and clutch the knees (like a widdle child) of any member of the immediate royal family, especially the Monarch.

I am American by birth, but it is English blood coursing through these veins.

 

[COUNTESS]

I know The Queen is not your Queen, but she is still a Queen. I would curtsey to all the members of the royal family, no matter how they got there.

Queen is a title made up to subjugate people, by men with large swords. There is nothing the queen does that is, particularly, special. She never invented a life giving vacine, doesn't spend her time in some God forsaken place caring for people, she really doesn't govern. She was born and lucked into great wealth and this title. She is a very nice woman, but, I, certainly, don't see why anyone, except her "subjects" would even consider bowing or curtseying. I know some of her subject don't care for it either.

 

[Iluvbertie]

As a citizen of one of her realms I don't see any need for anyone to curtsy to her and most certainly wouldn't myself at all (and didn't do so when I met her on a walkabout but just chatted to her about why I was there). At that time I was still a monarchist which I am no longer. I see no reason to curtsy to anyone and simply won't do so.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Someone mentioned that Zara Phillips wanted her "Princess" title (or is it style?!?!) All I know is that if I juxtapose myself into the BRF, I would want my title. Who wouldn't? It gets you in the finest schools, colleges and universities even if you can't cut the academics; keeps you on all the "A" lists, etc. Also, as I love jewelery, I'd have an authentic heraldic signet ring and maybe even a tiara.

What 'princess' title?

Zara has never been eligible for that title as she can't get a title through her mother only her father and her father wasn't a prince to pass it on to her.

I have never heard that she wanted it but rather the opposite - that she and Peter are pleased they don't have any titles as it gives them a freedom they don't see their cousins having. Even yesterday she was reported as saying 'don't call me princess or a model' when she was unveiling her new clothing line.

 

[branchg]

Princess Anne has stated many times that she and Mark both wanted their children to be commoners without the burden of royal rank or titles. The Queen offered on numerous occasions to create them Peers or even grant them royal styles via letters patent, all of which were declined.

As far as we know, neither Peter nor Zara has ever desired any title or royal style as adults.

 

[kbk]

What position in the order of precedence had The Duke of Windsor?

 

[Lumutqueen]

What position in the order of precedence had The Duke of Windsor?

At what point?

 

[Osipi]

What position in the order of precedence had The Duke of Windsor?

Wouldn't it be that once Edward VIII abdicated the throne and then became the Duke of Windsor that he actually didn't have a place in the order of precedence at all? If I'm right from what I've read, both the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were not welcomed at the British court at all.

Correct me where I'm wrong here?

 

[kbk]

It is correct that they were not welcomed at the Court, but they were still the brother and sister-in law of the King, so they could not be totally ignored. And they were in England for several times, including the funerals of Queen Mother and George VI. So, at this occassions, they had to follow some order.
As it was stated, when Edward VIII abdicated he lost his status as a Royal prince and a son of a Sovereign, but his status and title was reverted to him by his successor. So, it had to be a very difficult case to resolve for the Court. Edward, then as the Duke of Windsor, was the eldest brother of George VI and the most senior, agnatic, member of the Royal House, but he abdicated and renounced his status as such earlier... But I don't think that he enjoyed a place of a non-Royal British duke in the order of precedence, at the last place, after the Peerage of the United Kingdom's second (to him) most junior duke, the Duke of Fife.
So, was he after all his brothers, who were also Royal Dukes, but before other male-members of the Royal Family (for example, The Prince Arthur, Duke of Connaught) or at the last place after all other members of the Royal Family?

EDIT: I hope that my post is understandable. My English is not very good. ;-)

 

[Zonk]

Actually, Wallis was not present at the funerals of King George VI or Queen Mary the Queen Mother. In the funeral procession for the late King, the Duke of Windsor did walk with the royal dukes (Kent, Gloucester and Edinburgh) but Wallis was not present.

 

[kbk]

Ok, so I am asking about the Duke. He did follow the coffin with his brothers, but what about other events, at the palace or at the church (sitting).
And finally, when Wallis was invited to the Buckingham Palace after her husband's funeral, what place in order of precedence did she take?

 

[branchg]

What position in the order of precedence had The Duke of Windsor?

The Duke was granted precedence ahead of his brothers, which placed him directly after The King at the time of the Abdication and ahead of The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester. After The Duke of Kent was killed, his son, HRH Prince Edward of Kent, became the 2nd Duke and took precedence after his uncles.

He fell down the list after George VI died and Elizabeth's sons and husband took precedence ahead of her two surviving uncles, The Dukes of Windsor and Gloucester.

As it was stated, when Edward VIII abdicated he lost his status as a Royal prince and a son of a Sovereign, but his status and title was reverted to him by his successor.

Edward never lost his status as a son of George V. The Act of Abdication simply stated he was relinquishing his right to be "HM The King" on behalf of himself and any future descendants. At that point, he automatically reverted to being a son of The Sovereign, which under the 1917 Letters Patent of his father, entitled him to be "HRH The Prince Edward".

George VI issued letters patent in March 1937 creating him Duke of Windsor in the Peerage of the UK. In May 1937, after extensive consultation with constitutional experts, he issued additional letters patent stating his brother would continue to be entitled to the attribute and style of HRH, but such attribute was limited to him alone and could not be shared by his wife or any future children.

The reasoning here was The Duke had voluntarily relinquished the rights of his descendants to the succession in the Act of Abdication. As such, the style and title of HRH Prince/Princess of the UK would apply only to The Duke as a son of George V and former Sovereign, as his children and wife could never succeed to the throne.

 

[texankitcat]

...it seems logical to me that William would desire a less grand title for now...

But the question is, would he be eligible for a title of an earl if he is 2nd in line to the throne? An earl is a lesser title than that of a Duke, and therefore that would diminish Kate's place in the precedence of the Royal family.

 

[prsgoddess]

But the question is, would he be eligible for a title of an earl if he is 2nd in line to the throne? An earl is a lesser title than that of a Duke, and therefore that would diminish Kate's place in the precedence of the Royal family.

I don't think it would. Prince Edward was created an Earl (eventually, Duke of Edinburgh), and it didn't diminish his place. He is still the son of the monarch, and in placed accorndingly in precedence.

 

[Sister Morphine]

But the question is, would he be eligible for a title of an earl if he is 2nd in line to the throne? An earl is a lesser title than that of a Duke, and therefore that would diminish Kate's place in the precedence of the Royal family.

Her place in the order of precedence is low anyway, seeing as she's merely the heir's daughter-in-law (soon to be). She'll move up the ladder (I don't mean that in a disparaging way) in due course.

 

[texankitcat]

Her place in the order of precedence is low anyway, seeing as she's merely the heir's daughter-in-law (soon to be). She'll move up the ladder (I don't mean that in a disparaging way) in due course.

She may be the heir's daughter-in-law, but her husband IS second in line to the throne which should place him directly behind Charles in precedences, and therefore his wife behind Camilla. Personally, I don't think the Queen would agree to an earldom even if Prince William requests it. Edward is way down the list of heirs, and therefore he can have his choice.

I for one would not want to see Prince William and Kate with lesser titles of Earl and Countess. They should be given no new titles or be granted a Ducal title. IMO of course.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Someone more versed on this than me can correct me, but William isn't directly behind Charles in precedence, the Duke of York is. Then it's the Earl of Wessex and then William, followed by Harry if we're talking about just the men.

William is second in line to the throne, but won't be directly behind his father in precedence until Charles is King. So if the Queen grants William an earldom when he marries, it would be a greater title than what he already has, not a lesser title. He would be HRH Prince William of Wales, Earl of ________. That's not an insult.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Precedence places the children of the monarch ahead of the grandchildren not the line of succession so William's precedence is behind that of his father, Anne, Andrew and Edward. They are the Queen's own children so take precedence over the grandsons.

When Charles becomes King then William and Harry will take precedence over their uncles and aunt but Harry will take precedence ahead of William's children until William becomes King.

Then there is private precedence at which Princesses born take precedence over princesses by marriage so if only the women are present then Camilla, Sophie and in time Kate come behind Alexandra of Kent (along with Anne, Beatrice and Eugenie - assuming that the Queen has added them to the list that she made in 2005 when she changed that private precedence).

 

[texankitcat]

Okay. It seems rather strange to me, but then I'm not royalty.

 

[Lady Ann]

Does anyone have a copy of the list she made in 2005 can someone please post it....

 

[Iluvbertie]

Okay. It seems rather strange to me, but then I'm not royalty.

It isn't really that strange if you think about it from the point of view of a parent. Are parents closer by blood to their children or their grandchildren? That is why the precedence is not the same as the line of succession because precedence is done by personal blood relationship to the monarch whereas line of succession is a lineal descent from the monarch.

 

[texankitcat]

It isn't really that strange if you think about it from the point of view of a parent. Are parents closer by blood to their children or their grandchildren? That is why the precedence is not the same as the line of succession because precedence is done by personal blood relationship to the monarch whereas line of succession is a lineal descent from the monarch.

Put in that context, it makes more sense, although I thought Royalty went by titles. Well I am always learning something new here.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Precedence by title does exist, but only if we're talking about groups.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

The Order of Precedence for Ladies

The Queen
HRH The Princess Royal
HRH Princess Beatrice of York
HRH Princess Eugenie of York
The Lady Louise Windsor (legally HRH Princess Louise of Wessex)
Miss Zara Phillips
HRH Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy
HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
HRH The Countess of Wessex
HRH The Duchess of Gloucester
HRH The Duchess of Kent
HRH Princess Michael of Kent

The Order of Precedence for Gentlemen

The Queen
HRH The Duke of Edinburgh
HRH The Prince of Wales
HRH The Duke of York
HRH The Earl of Wessex
HRH Prince William of Wales
HRH Prince Henry of Wales
Viscount Severn (legally HRH Prince James of Wessex)
Mr. Peter Phillips
Viscount Linley
HRH The Duke of Gloucester
HRH The Duke of Kent
HRH Prince Michael of Kent

These lists have been verified by Debrett's Peerage, and reflect the changes made by the Queen in 2005. This list is accurate as of May 2010.

I suppose it will be Her Majesty's decision on where to put Miss Middleton in precedence when she becomes William's wife. Obviously, if she made changes to it in the past, then it's in within her perogative to change it again to accommodate her grandson's wife.

I would think Catherine would follow the Countess of Wessex, just as Prince William follows his uncle the Earl.

 

[texankitcat]

Thank you for posting that! Rather surprising that Beatrice and Eugenie are placed before Camilla.

 

[Zonk]

Well...its because they are Princesses of the Royal Blood.

Yes, very confusing.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Born princesses outrank princesses by marriage, including the wife of the heir to the throne. If Camilla was a princess by birth, that would be a different story.

Incidentally, say Camilla was a princess by birth, where would she rank in the precedence of ladies? I know she isn't, but it's a what if in the instance that she was.