Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022

[HRHHermione]

The only part of your post that strikes me as incorrect, Queen Camilla is the idea that the Duchess of Windsor would have ever outranked anyone styled an HRH.

 

[Super Baroness]

I disagree, with Diana outranking Princess Anne, because the Princess Royal title, means Anne out ranks all other BRF princess, regardless if the man is in the room.

I believe that personal "titles" have nothing to do with the Order of Precedence. I don't think upgrading from just The Princess Anne to The Princess Royal changed her rank in any way. She was still the monarch's eldest/only daughter at the end of the day.

I' ve just always thought that the wife of the heir to the throne outranks the current monarch's daughters. Looking back at previous Princess Royals, I'm not sure that Victoria (eldest daughter of Queen Victoria) would outrank Alexandra (as The Princess of Wales), and the same goes for Louise (daughter of Edward VII)/Mary. Similarly, I have a hard time seeing Princess Mary (daughter of George V) outranking the Duchesses of York and Kent in the mid-1930s, who were married to the sons of the monarch. Oh, this precedence stuff.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Previous Princess Royals left the BRF. Princess Anne continues to work for the BRF so her title as Princess Royal moved her before all other Princesses.

The Queen created the female Order of Precedence when she finally moved into the 21st century and women in the BRF were seen for themselves and not for their husband's position.

Charles bowed to the Duchess of Windsor. He bowed so she outranked him. That would mean Duchess of Windsor outranked Diana.

 

[Osipi]

Charles bowed to the Duchess of Windsor. He bowed so she outranked him. That would mean Duchess of Windsor outranked Diana.

It is very possible that Charles perhaps did bow to the Duchess of Windsor upon meeting her but done out of respect and courtesy rather than because of rank and precedence. There is absolutely no way that the DoW could ever outrank the Heir Apparent to the throne. Along these lines, I believe that even the Duke of Windsor even as a former King, was outranked by Charles after the abdication as the Duke of Windsor was the uncle of the Queen. As far as Diana goes, while married and HRH The Princess of Wales, she most certainly outranked the Duchess of Windsor.

 

[Zonk]

Previous Princess Royals left the BRF. Princess Anne continues to work for the BRF so her title as Princess Royal moved her before all other Princesses.

The Queen created the female Order of Precedence when she finally moved into the 21st century and women in the BRF were seen for themselves and not for their husband's position.

Charles bowed to the Duchess of Windsor. He bowed so she outranked him. That would mean Duchess of Windsor outranked Diana.

Not all previous Princess Royals left the BRF. And by left I believe you are referring to the fact that they married into other royal families? In fact, prior to Anne I can think of the last three who didn't (Mary, Louise and Victoria). With that in mind, if I am correct when Lady Elizabeth Bowles Lyon married Albert, Duke of York she became the third lady in the land AFTER Queen Mary and Queen Alexandra but before The Princess Royal (Princess Mary). She would have, of course, been fourth if Edward, Prince of Wales had married.

And I am sorry there is no way, that Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor would have outranked HRH The Princess of Wales (whether its Camilla or Diana). Do you have anything that supports your claim?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Not all previous Princess Royals left the BRF. And by left I believe you are referring to the fact that they married into other royal families? In fact, prior to Anne I can think of the last three who didn't (Mary, Louise and Victoria).

Mary was the daughter of George V and she married the Earl of Harewood.

Louise was the daughter of Edward VII and she married the Duke of Fife.

but...

Victoria was the daughter of Queen Victoria and she most certainly did marry outside the BRF - she married the Crown Prince of Prussia and went on to become the Empress of Germany.

With that in mind, if I am correct when Lady Elizabeth Bowles Lyon married Albert, Duke of York she became the third lady in the land AFTER Queen Mary and Queen Alexandra but before The Princess Royal (Princess Mary). She would have, of course, been fourth if Edward, Prince of Wales had married.

That is correct - Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons followed her mother-in-law and grandmother-in-law in the order of precedence from the time of her marriage onwards.

And I am sorry there is no way, that Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor would have outranked HRH The Princess of Wales (whether its Camilla or Diana). Do you have anything that supports your claim?

Absolutely - both Camilla and Diana would outrank Wallis - and the Queen would never have allowed that situation to be different.

Charles bowing to her was more like a bit of respect for a much older lady by a younger man - something he had been taught to do as a child - show respect to his elders and Wallis was certainly that - his great-aunt. Wallis would have been expected to curtsey to Diana not the other way round.

Many people simply don't understand what the Queen did in 2005 when she issued private precedence for ladies only - an order that only applies when there are no men present and in private situations only and thus they think it applies in all circumstances when a lady is present without her husband but it doesn't - it simply can't.

 

[Zonk]

Thanks but I mixed up my Victoria's...I was thinking of the later Victoria, George V's sister not the Empress of Prussia. And of course, both Victoria and Louise couldn't be Princess Royal at the same time.

 

[Kataryn]

Many people simply don't understand what the Queen did in 2005 when she issued private precedence for ladies only - an order that only applies when there are no men present and in private situations only and thus they think it applies in all circumstances when a lady is present without her husband but it doesn't - it simply can't.

I guess after what has transpired with both Diana and Sarah the queen simply wanted to make sure that in her presence at private occassions and female members of the family only, Anne and Alexandra outrank her daughters-in-law. It's that way in many families: age outranks younger generations and daughters are closer to their mother than the daughters-in-law. My mother had 7 brothers and sisters and there was an enormous amount of offspring and we all knew our place when it came to large festivities which included our grandmother.

 

[Molly2101]

I guess after what has transpired with both Diana and Sarah the queen simply wanted to make sure that in her presence at private occassions and female members of the family only, Anne and Alexandra outrank her daughters-in-law. It's that way in many families: age outranks younger generations and daughters are closer to their mother than the daughters-in-law. My mother had 7 brothers and sisters and there was an enormous amount of offspring and we all knew our place when it came to large festivities which included our grandmother.

Does that then mean Beatrice and Eugenie outrank Camilla and Sophie as well? Does that then mean that Lady Louise, if she were 18 years old, would outrank Camilla and her mother as well, because she is a grand-daughter of the Sovereign?

 

[Kataryn]

Does that then mean Beatrice and Eugenie outrank Camilla and Sophie as well? Does that then mean that Lady Louise, if she were 18 years old, would outrank Camilla and her mother as well, because she is a grand-daughter of the Sovereign?

No, as I think this goes along the generations. Camilla and Sophie are a generation "higher" than the grandchildren. But I think Beatrice, Eugenie and maybe even Louise would outrank Catherine as wife of a grandson, if the queen does not decide differently because of William's high rank in the sucession.

And of course only in private and in a female-only group.

 

[LauraS3514]

I think I remember reading that after the abdication, The Duke of Windsor was placed behind all his brothers in precedence, but ahead of all other Dukes...

 

[Osipi]

I think I remember reading that after the abdication, The Duke of Windsor was placed behind all his brothers in precedence, but ahead of all other Dukes...

Which makes sense to me as David was still HRH The Duke of Windsor after the abdication. The difference with Wallis was that even though she was titled The Duchess of Windsor, she was never accorded the HRH status.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Does that then mean Beatrice and Eugenie outrank Camilla and Sophie as well? Does that then mean that Lady Louise, if she were 18 years old, would outrank Camilla and her mother as well, because she is a grand-daughter of the Sovereign?

There has been no released updated private female precedence since either Beatrice or Eugenie turned 18 but as the argument was that Princesses born took precedence over those by marriage I would expect that they would but as this only applies in totally female situations and they are rare I doubt if the situation would ever truly arrive.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Doesn't the monarch set or determine the order of precedence? I ask this because several people above placed Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother as the third lady of the land when she married the Duke of York but on the thread devoted to QETQM there was a post which stated a video clip of her wedding day proclaimed her the fourth lady of the land.

So, at that time, would George V have determined the order to be: Queen Mary, his wife; Queen Alexandra, his mother; then Princess Mary as his daughter and in the order of female precedence she would outrank any wife of his other sons? Or was it Princess Louise, who in 1923 was the Princess Royal? If it is based on the personal relationship to the monarch, then I think it would be QM, QA, PcssM, then the Duchess of York but maybe a Princess Royal trumps all but wife and mother of the monarch.

 

[Diarist]

Vasillisos, there are TWO sorts of Lists of Precedence:

The public list of precedence, which is fixed by a mixture of statute law and custom and practice

The private list of precedence, which is used at private BRF events and is fixed ENTIRELY at the will of the Queen.

There are several variations of the List of Public Precedence, as the List of Precedence in Scotland differs from that in use in England and Wales.

There are separate lists of precedence for Gentlemen and Ladies and also where both Ladies and Gentlemen are present.

If there is a function in the City of London [which geographically is different from 'London' itself, as the City of London is a District approximately 1 mile square which comprises the major Financial Centre of the UK, and also houses a number of other important insitutions [The College of Arms, Several Universities, etc] There is another List of Precedence: in this The Lord Mayor of London has precedence in the City immediately after the Sovereign!!!!


In my full time job before I moved to a more flexible way of working, I was issued with folder that was about correct form and procedure. In fact there is a specialised book actually devoted to the whole of this subject, but my folder only contained extracts of tables of Precedence [and it was loose-leaved, because during the 1980's there was a lot of 'royal too-ing and fro-ing']

The Public precedence for Gentleman went like this [I have not copied all of it, but you get the idea from it]

The Duke of Edinburgh
The Heir Apparent
The Sovereign's Younger Sons
The Sovereign's Grandsons
The Sovereign's Cousins
Archbishop of Canterbury
Lord High Chancellor
Archbishop of York
Prime Minister
Lord High Treasurer (when existing)
Lord President of the Council
Speaker of the House of Commons
Lord Speaker
Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
Lord Privy Seal
Ambassadors and High Commissioners
Lord Great Chamberlain (when in performance of official duty)
Lord High Constable (when existing)
Earl Marshal
Lord Chamberlain of the Household
Lord Steward of the Household
Master of the Horse
Dukes of England
Dukes of Scotland
Dukes of Great Britain
Dukes of Ireland
Dukes of UK and Ireland since the Union
Eldest Sons of Dukes of the Blood Royal


The Public list of Precedence for Ladies went something like this [I have edited out the Queen Mother etc]

THE QUEEN
The Sovereign's Daughter
The Sovereign's Granddaughters
The Sovereign's Cousin
The Wife of the Heir Apparent
The Wife of the Sovereign's eldest grandson
Wives of the Younger Sons of the Sovereign
Wives of Dukes of the Blood Royal
Prime Minister (if female)
Duchesses of England
Duchesses of Scotland
Duchesses of Great Britain
Duchesses of Ireland
Duchesses of UK and Ireland since the Union
Wives of Eldest Sons of Dukes of the Blood Royal


I've only copied some of this but the lists of public precedence go right down to the lowest catergory; Gentlemen (male table) and Wives of Gentlement (female table), but can tell you of yet another complication: Mr John Smith gets married to the daughter of a duke who we will call Susan: She will then be known as Lady Susan Smith. But she takes her precedence as the daughter of a Duke, not as the wife of a gentleman. So you always have to consider the Lady's own rank in her own right, and not just that of her husband!


The Queen's own private list is different from this of course: Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra rank above The Duchess of Cornwall.



None of the above tables should be confused with the Order of Succession. [Don't forget that in this, the untitled Children of the Princess Royal rank higher in the Order of Succession than many titled members of the BRF.

This is a very difficult subject, and I can tell you from my own experience that it is much misunderstood and I have known the occasional mistake having been made.

Hope this is some interest,

Alex

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

My dear Diarist,

Thank you for the xplanation. Yes, it is confusing and I do know that precedence differs from the line of succession. So, and I hope that I don't make the water muddier, would you agree that in 1923, the order of precedence for women would have been: Queen Mary, Queen Alexandra, Princess Mary (as the only daughter of the sovereign) and then the Duchess of York? I don't see where the Princess Royal has any special place in the order of precedence. And if the sovereign's sisters had precedence, then the Duchess of York would be further down the list because of Louise and Victoria (I am not including Maud as she was Queen of Norway and out of the country).

 

[Midwestern Mom]

Er...where does Prince Harry fit in?


MM

 

[MRSJ]

Diarist- isn't the public list of precedence for ladies assuming no gentleman present? If Prince Charles is there doesn't his wife take public precedence over his sister? And I thought Edwards wife outranks Catherine should even men be in the room? Because doesn't Edward outrank William as male son of sovereign vs male grandson? From what I've read on this forum and online your male precendence is for public but the female list is the private one or the one should no male heirs be present......

 

[Molly2101]

I think the aforementioned precedence is only when the women are present without husbands, which is very rare. I always thought Sophie would have outranked Catherine if William was not present, as the daugther-in-law of the Sovereign.

This precedence business does confuse me a lot. I always just go by who is in what carriage and who is behind who in the line up as they exit, haha.

 

[Super Baroness]

I always just go by who is in what carriage and who is behind who in the line up as they exit, haha.

Seriously, that's the easiest way to see some sort of precedence! It's a bit fun to debate about the private precedence, but truthfully the public may never know that pecking order (and why should we? That's why it's private! Though I'm still confused why it was even released that the order was changed in 2005, it's not anyone outside the Royal Family's -or their close friends'- business)

Looking at the processions at Philip's 90th birthday service and Zara's wedding - you can see how it goes Queen/Philip, Charles/Camilla, and then William/Kate (sadly no more William/Harry). Before, after the Waleses came the Yorks, with Andrew flanked by his daughters. It's hard to tell, but I'm guessing that Harry walks with Andrew now, ahead of Beatrice and Eugenie. It will probably stay like that until either Royal man gets married (no idea how long til that happens!) or maybe even a York Princess..

 

[Molly2101]

Seriously, that's the easiest way to see some sort of precedence! It's a bit fun to debate about the private precedence, but truthfully the public may never know that pecking order (and why should we? That's why it's private! Though I'm still confused why it was even released that the order was changed in 2005, it's not anyone outside the Royal Family's -or their close friends'- business)

It is the easiest way to see precedence that way! I think it's amusing that at these gatherings they all know exactly where to stand, who to stand behind and infront of and they wait their turn to get in line. It's amusing to see. They even know what side the women have to stand on when they are in procession. It's so formal!

Looking at the processions at Philip's 90th birthday service and Zara's wedding - you can see how it goes Queen/Philip, Charles/Camilla, and then William/Kate (sadly no more William/Harry). Before, after the Waleses came the Yorks, with Andrew flanked by his daughters. It's hard to tell, but I'm guessing that Harry walks with Andrew now, ahead of Beatrice and Eugenie. It will probably stay like that until either Royal man gets married (no idea how long til that happens!) or maybe even a York Princess..

I guess we'll see what happens at the Diamond Jubilee celebrations next year regarding where Harry stands, unless there are other formal family gatherings before then. I think Harry will probably walk with Andrew, followed by the princesses, then Edward and Sophie etc. If their children, or even Lady Louise who will be 8 then attends, would she walk in between them? Beatrice and Eugenie attended many formal gatherings when they were 8/9 and they flanked Andrew during the procession. I doubt Louise would go though, sadly.

Like you said, we can only speculate what they do in private.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Er...where does Prince Harry fit in?


MM

Prince Henry is 7th in the official order of precedence after HM, Philip, Charles, Andrew, Edward and William.

 

[branchg]

According to Debretts, Diana was considered the third lady in the land after her marriage, preceded only by HM and QEQM. One school of thought has it that HM revived the Princess Royal title in order to ensure that a Princess of the Blood was not outranked by one who "married in" and who by that time, was causing distress and considering leaving the RF.

Diana officially was the third lady in the kingdom after HM and The Queen Mother, as the wife of the heir to the throne. Camilla is the second lady in the land after HM.

At court, Diana's precedence varied depending on the year and The Queen's wishes, but generally was after HM, The Queen Mother, Princess Margaret and The Princess Royal, but before all other princesses of the blood and by marriage as the mother of the future King. After the divorce, Diana was granted her former precedence officially on state occasions and at court when present for royal occasions as the mother of Prince William.

The Duchess of Windsor was never listed in the Court Circular, except for her husband's funeral. She was not considered a member of the royal family as she was denied royal rank. When she died, she was granted some honours at her service, but that was about it.

 

[yvr girl]

This picture made me curious. Prince Andrew and, Duke of York Photos - Royal Wedding 2 - Zimbio

Harry and Beatrice and Eugenie are seated with their fathers but the Princess Royals children are after all the HRHs. At one time they sat with their mother. Are they placed further back now because they are married? Technically, they are higher in the line of succession and precedence as grandchildren of the Queen, but they are not official members of the Royal Family. What will happen when Beatrice and Eugenie get married? Where will they sit?

 

[Lumutqueen]

but the Princess Royals children are after all the HRHs.

You may have typed wrong, but Zara and Peter are not HRHs.

At one time they sat with their mother. Are they placed further back now because they are married? Technically, they are higher in the line of succession and precedence as grandchildren of the Queen, but they are not official members of the Royal Family. What will happen when Beatrice and Eugenie get married? Where will they sit?

Zara wasn't married when this picture was taken, but Peter was. I imagine they were sat back there because they don't have HRHs.

 

[branchg]

...What will happen when Beatrice and Eugenie get married? Where will they sit?

At court and officially, they would take precedence after the male-line grandchildren of The Queen who are HRH and closer in succession to the throne.

 

[Molly2101]

At court and officially, they would take precedence after the male-line grandchildren of The Queen who are HRH and closer in succession to the throne.

So where do Louise and James fit in as they do not have HRH but their father is before Zara and Peter's mother?

 

[branchg]

So where do Louise and James fit in as they do not have HRH but their father is before Zara and Peter's mother?

Legally, they remain HRH Prince James and HRH Princess Louise automatically under the 1917 Letters Patent as male-line grandchildren of The Queen, so they would take their precedence ahead of Peter and Zara Phillips.

However, The Queen announced on Edward's wedding day that his future children would not hold royal rank at the request of Edward and Sophie. As The Sovereign and fount of all honours, her announcement is sufficient to express her Will, which means Louise and James are not royal.

 

[yvr girl]

At court and officially, they would take precedence after the male-line grandchildren of The Queen who are HRH and closer in succession to the throne.

But they were seated after grandchildren of George V (who are HRH)

 

[tihkon2]

but the Princess Royals children are after all the HRH's

Originally Posted by yvr girl
but the Princess Royals children are after all the HRHs.

You may have typed wrong, but Zara and Peter are not HRHs.

Lumutqueen

I think the original poster meant that they were seated after all the HRH's.