Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
So, ‘all members of the Royal Family’ are ranked as follows by the Palace: The Queen; Prince Philip; Prince of Wales; Duchess of Cornwall; Prince William; Prince Harry; the Duke of York; the Duchess of Cambridge; the Earl of Wessex; the Countess of Wessex; the Princess Royal; the Duke of Gloucester; the Duchess of Gloucester; the Duke of Kent; the Duchess of Kent; Princess Alexandra.


Read more: Should Kate bend a knee to Beatrice? | Mail Online

I found this interesting - why is Kate slotted in between the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex?
 
Finally somebody told the truth about the whole Order of Precedence thing. thanks Iluvbertie for that. I knew the DM article was crap....
 
yvr girl said:
So, ‘all members of the Royal Family’ are ranked as follows by the Palace: The Queen; Prince Philip; Prince of Wales; Duchess of Cornwall; Prince William; Prince Harry; the Duke of York; the Duchess of Cambridge; the Earl of Wessex; the Countess of Wessex; the Princess Royal; the Duke of Gloucester; the Duchess of Gloucester; the Duke of Kent; the Duchess of Kent; Princess Alexandra.
I found this interesting - why is Kate slotted in between the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex?
Click to expand...
That is not their ranking; that is merely in what order they are listed in the official diary. Similarly, Prince William is listed above his uncles.
There are two orders of precedence - an official one and a private one. The Official Precedence (ranking for official events) is determined by law and traditions, whereas the Private Precedence (ranking for private events) is at the will of the Sovereign.


The Official Ranking For Men:
- The Duke of Edinburgh (except, where provided by Parliament, he is outranked by The Prince of Wales)
- The Prince of Wales (except, where provided by Parliament, he outranks his father)
- The Duke of York
- The Earl of Wessex
- The Duke of Cambridge
- Prince Harry
- James, Viscount Severn
- Peter Phillips
- Viscount Linley
- Duke of Gloucester
- Duke of Kent
- Prince Michael of Kent

The Official Ranking For Women:
- The Queen (the Sovereign)
- The Duchess of Cornwall (wife of the Heir Apparent)
- The Countess of Wessex (wife of the Sovereign's younger son)
- The Princess Royal (the Sovereign's daughter)
- The Duchess of Cambridge (the wife of the Sovereign's grandson)
- Autumn Phillips (the wife of the Sovereign's grandson)
- Princess Beatrice (the Sovereign's granddaughter)
- Princess Eugenie (the Sovereign's granddaughter)
- Lady Louise (the Sovereign's granddaughter)
- Zara Phillips (the Sovereign's granddaughter)
- Viscountess Linley (the wife of the Sovereign's nephew)
- Lady Sarah Chatto (the Sovereign's niece)
- The Duchess of Gloucester (the wife of the Sovereign's cousin)
- The Duchess of Kent (the wife of the Sovereign's cousin)
- Princess Michael of Kent (the wife of the Sovereign's cousin)
- Patricia, Countess of Harewood (the wife of the Sovereign's cousin)
- Princess Alexandra (the Sovereign's cousin)


The Private Ranking For Men 1: *
- The Duke of Edinburgh (except, where provided by Parliament, he is outranked by The Prince of Wales)
- The Prince of Wales (except, where provided by Parliament, he outranks his father)
- The Duke of York
- The Earl of Wessex
- The Duke of Cambridge
- Prince Harry

The Private Ranking For Men 2: *
- The Duke of Edinburgh (except, where provided by Parliament, he is outranked by The Prince of Wales)
- The Prince of Wales (except, where provided by Parliament, he outranks his father)
- The Duke of Cambridge
- The Duke of York
- The Earl of Wessex
- Prince Harry

The Private Ranking For Women 1: **
- The Queen
- The Princess Royal
- Princess Beatrice
- Princess Eugenie
- Lady Louise (assuming she is counted as a Royal Princess, which she legally is)
- Princess Alexandra
- The Duchess of Cornwall
- The Duchess of Cambridge
- The Countess of Wessex

The Private Ranking For Women 2: **
- The Queen
- The Duchess of Cornwall
- The Duchess of Cambridge
- The Countess of Wessex
- The Princess Royal
- The Duchess of Gloucester
- The Duchess of Kent
- Princess Alexandra


* The official website lists the Duke of Cambridge above his uncles, which suggests he has precedence over them. However, unlike the private precedence for women, no announcement or edict of any kind has ever been issued, so it might well be a mistake, or just listing for convenience.
** The official website is a bit confusing in that respect; although in the private precedence Princesses by birth (Anne, Beatrice, Eugenie, Alexandra and possibly, Lady Louise) should be ahead of everyone else, the Duchess of Cornwall is still listed immediately after the Queen, followed not by the Countess of Wessex - the wife of the Sovereign's younger son - but the Duchess of Cambridge.

In short, I doubt even the Court knows who is after whom.
 
Last edited:
I did not think Louise or Zara counted in the precedence for Royal women as they are not HRH...is that true? Though technically Louise is Princess Louise (oh, how I wish we could call her Princess Louise, darn!), she does not use the style therefore she does not "count" per se in the line up. It is odd that Louise would take precedence above her mother, but that is the way it goes.

My question, therefore, is do Peter, Zara, Louise and James rank in the order of precedence?
 
That's an interesting question.

The Order of Precedence puts Sovereign's granddaughters immediately after the wives of Sovereign's grandsons; there is no mention that they should be Royal Highnesses or have titles of any sorts. Zara and Louise are the Queen's granddaughters - ergo, they should be included.

When Queen Victoria's daughter married a non-royal (a pretty daring move in those times) - the Duke of Argyll - that didn't mean her children were crossed out from the Order of Precedence. I would assume the same applies to the Queen's non-titled grandchildren. For the same reason, I have included Autumn Phillips (wife of the Sovereign's grandson), Viscountess Linley (the wife of the Sovereign's nephew), and others.
 
Last edited:
Why are there two separate orders of precedence for men and women? It's not as if there are still male-only enclaves of the Royal Court, unless I've missed something.
 
There are occasions when only the men, or only the women are present hence the different lists.
 
Why are people confusing precedence with the need to curtsey to a person? Precedence only means the line up of people as they enter or leave an event or the receiving line at an event. As a general rule British HRHs do not curtsey to each other regardless of their placing in the order of precedence, although personal exceptions may occassionally be made due to a persons age and the respect one wants to give that individual.
 
Victoria Arbiter said that the precedence articles were nonsense and those very same articles where writing when Diana marry Charles
 
Posts discussing correct titles and protocol relating to Belgian, Danish, Dutch, Norwegian and Spanish Princesses and Crown Princesses have been moved to the Questions About Styles and Titles thread in the General Royal Discussion subforum.
 
I am not sure about the story posted in The Telegraph, and The Mail-- who is the source? Did this person really read this? I have serious doubts about the story. I think that both Charles and William would have something to say about the issue of precedence and that the Queen would listen! Camilla and Catherine are future Queens Consort. Seniority has something to do with precedence as well. Philip and Anne are senior royals who have spent lifetimes serving the crown and are due some respect.
Then, there is the issue of Beatrice and Eugenie's not being official members of the working royals.. There just are so many problems with the story.

Will there be a Letters Patent posted about Precedence if the story is true?
 
So in the UK we call the daily mail the daily fail....
 
Tudur rose said:
So in the UK we call the daily mail the daily fail....
Click to expand...

It reports the news it hears, isn't that what news outlets do?
One article has got the TRF talking about order of precedence for 2 or even 3 pages. There accuracy isn't great but I can't find a better paper that provides information on the royals, certainly not for pictures. When royals, particularly Catherine are doing engagements nowadays the DailyMail always has the info and the pictures up within 15 minutes or half an hour of the event kicking off. You can belittle them all you like, but they are our only source of information on the royals.
 
They may well be the only source for royal news (accurate or inaccurate )You can look at hello magazine or ok too for royal pics .
Or the Torygraph. Oops sorry telegraph silly me .
Is there anywhere else. Websites etc. maybe the royal websites etc which may be more accurate for info . Lots of the media just write speculative stuff. The DM does edit to their own agenda tho , no real journos will work for them .tells you a lot really .
 
Last edited:
Tudur rose said:
They may well be the only source for royal news (accurate or inaccurate )You can look at hello magazine or ok too for royal pics .
Or the Torygraph. Oops sorry telegraph silly me .
Is there anywhere else. Websites etc. maybe the royal websites etc which may be more accurate for info . Lots of the media just write speculative stuff. The DM does edit to their own agenda tho , no real journos will work for them .tells you a lot really .
Click to expand...

Hello! and Ok! are released on a weekly basis, their websites update information hours after an event has occurred. Pictures uploaded almost instantly can be found on twitter, but the DailyMail has good pictures within minutes, then follows Getty and Zimbio.

The only really reliable source of information for what royals say and do are the royals themselves, even the royal websites get protocol wrong. I believe when it comes down to precedence, curtseying or bowing it's all down to "what happens on the night". Every media outlet can write nothing but speculation about the royals until they themselves confirm or deny it. For instance, we didn't officially know William and Catherine were in a relationship until they got engaged. The press wrote speculatively that they were together or they weren't, same goes for Harry currently. It's not just the Daily Mail who writes to its own agenda, every does. Even normal people.

Nothing is ever certain in royalty, look at the order of precedence I think Artemisia listed 5 or even 6 possible scenarios in which we might see different royal entrances.
 
Artemisia said:
Not when they meet the Queen, it's not optional. And pretty much everyone else on official events. For example, during the aforementioned Lunch with Monarchs, royal ladies curtseyed so much, they might have as well walked with permanently bent knees.
;)
Click to expand...

Artimesia, I'm not sure whether you meant when members of the Royal Family meet the Queen curtsying isn't optional. I appreciate that is correct.

For members of the public it is. From the British Monarchy website:

"There are no obligatory codes of behaviour when meeting The Queen or a member of the Royal Family, but many people wish to observe the traditional forms.

For men this is a neck bow (from the head only) whilst women do a small curtsy. Other people prefer simply to shake hands in the usual way."
 
VictoriaB said:
Artimesia, I'm not sure whether you meant when members of the Royal Family meet the Queen curtsying isn't optional. I appreciate that is correct.
For members of the public it is. From the British Monarchy website: "There are no obligatory codes of behaviour when meeting The Queen or a member of the Royal Family, but many people wish to observe the traditional forms. For men this is a neck bow (from the head only) whilst women do a small curtsy. Other people prefer simply to shake hands in the usual way."
Click to expand...
I meant Royals don't really have the option to bow or curtsey; it's pretty much obligatory and goes with the title and style. :)

The Court has always made it clear that for members of public, bowing or curtseying when meeting the Queen is optional.
However, royals - all royals, not just British - are traditionalists, so for members of the Royal Family bowing and curtseying to the Queen is obligatory.
 
miche said:
Victoria Arbiter said that the precedence articles were nonsense and those very same articles where writing when Diana marry Charles
Click to expand...

The problem with that is that at the time of the marriage between Charles and Diana it was made clear that Diana was the third lady in the land - behind HM and HMTQM - but these articles are pushing Camilla and Kate, when without their husbands away from that position.
 
NGalitzine said:
Why are people confusing precedence with the need to curtsey to a person? Precedence only means the line up of people as they enter or leave an event or the receiving line at an event. As a general rule British HRHs do not curtsey to each other regardless of their placing in the order of precedence, although personal exceptions may occassionally be made due to a persons age and the respect one wants to give that individual.
Click to expand...


The British HRH's do curtsey to each other according to the rules as we saw on the Balcony of BP at Trooping - HRH The Duchess of Cambridge curtseyed to HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.

We have heard that Anne refused to curtsey to Diana implying that Anne was expected to curtsey to her new sister-in-law.
 
Molly2101 said:
I did not think Louise or Zara counted in the precedence for Royal women as they are not HRH...is that true? Though technically Louise is Princess Louise (oh, how I wish we could call her Princess Louise, darn!), she does not use the style therefore she does not "count" per se in the line up. It is odd that Louise would take precedence above her mother, but that is the way it goes.

My question, therefore, is do Peter, Zara, Louise and James rank in the order of precedence?
Click to expand...


Louise and James don't because they are minors but Peter and Zara do - as the children of the monarch's daughter. When there is only a listing of names it is hard to see where they fit but when you see a list of people by relationship it is clearer.
 
Artemisia said:
That is interesting, thank you for clarifying that, Iluvbertie. :)
Click to expand...

If say Prince Harry forgot something in QE2's desk and later he runs into retrieve it? He just walks in to her study, thinking it was empty, just as the women gathered and they are mid heavy cursing. There is a man there, do they have to start all over again? Times headline, "Princess All Sent Home With Minor Cursting Pile Up.". Apparently two princess whacked heads as they thought they had to Cursty to the other. Mayhem ensued.
 
padams2359 said:
If say Prince Harry forgot something in QE2's desk and later he runs into retrieve it? He just walks in to her study, thinking it was empty, just as the women gathered and they are mid heavy cursing. There is a man there, do they have to start all over again? Times headline, "Princess All Sent Home With Minor Cursting Pile Up.". Apparently two princess whacked heads as they thought they had to Cursty to the other. Mayhem ensued.
Click to expand...
Love the headline. :lol:
For such highly unofficial occasion? No, of course not. I strongly doubt any Princess, or any woman, would curtsey to Prince Harry on an occasion like that. They would most probably say something like "Good Morning" (or, maybe even "Good Morning, Sir") - but that's about it.
And during official events, when curtseying is more or less required (although technically optional), there would simply be no such mix up; timing is perfected to a second.

But, theoretically, assuming your case scenario happened, say, a century ago (when protocol rules were much stricter), and a King or Prince entered the room when ladies were in the process of curtseying to a Queen or Princess, then they wouldn't interrupt the procedure and turn towards the man; instead, they would wait until he leaves the room. Should he pass next to them and/or talk to them, then they would make a small curtsey in acknowledgement - but nothing so dramatic that health and safety would be endangered. ;)

On private occasions, royals don't really bow or curtsey to each other. I mentioned earlier that bowing or curtseying to a Queen is pretty much required from royals; however, I meant official events - not private ones. I would imagine when Prince William meets his grandmother on a private occasion, he merely kisses her on the cheek, or hugs her - but definitely doesn't bow.
 
Last edited:
Iluvbertie said:
The British HRH's do curtsey to each other according to the rules as we saw on the Balcony of BP at Trooping - HRH The Duchess of Cambridge curtseyed to HRH The Duke of Edinburgh.

We have heard that Anne refused to curtsey to Diana implying that Anne was expected to curtsey to her new sister-in-law.
Click to expand...

As I said there are persoanl exceptions based on age and respect.

I know you believe the British HRHs go about curtseying to each other but I would love to see some photographic evidence of say HRH The Countess of Wessex or HRH The Duchess of Goucester dropping a curtsey to HRH The Princess Royal or HRH The Prince of Wales or some similar example. There is a clip on YouTube "A Royal Gathering" I think it was called which shows a large number of royals in the Queen Mothers garden at Clarence House. They all can be seen dropping a curtsey or bowing to The Queen but to each other it seems to be very much hugs and kisses all around.
 
NGalitzine said:
As I said there are persoanl exceptions based on age and respect.

I know you believe the British HRHs go about curtseying to each other but I would love to see some photographic evidence of say HRH The Countess of Wessex or HRH The Duchess of Goucester dropping a curtsey to HRH The Princess Royal or HRH The Prince of Wales or some similar example. There is a clip on YouTube "A Royal Gathering" I think it was called which shows a large number of royals in the Queen Mothers garden at Clarence House. They all can be seen dropping a curtsey or bowing to The Queen but to each other it seems to be very much hugs and kisses all around.
Click to expand...

Oh, I doubt anyone really things even royals go around bowing or curtseying to each other all the time; that would be pretty ridiculous.

I can totally believe there weren't a lot of bows and curtseys for that event since it was only a semi-official or possibly even private one; for an event like that, the royals would pay respect to the Queen and Prince Philip only (possibly, the Prince of Wales and/or the Duchess of Cornwall too, depending on various circumstances) and greet each other as any family members would.

Precedence and ranking is nowadays only important for really official events, mostly state occasions. For instance, think of the Lunch with Monarchs where everyone curtseyed to those with higher rank (and some, to those of equal or even lower rank); for events like that, rank and precedence is very important, from the order of arrivals, to sitting arrangements.
 
I don't think we can look at the Jubilee celebrations as an example of how things are supposed to be. It looked like they had caught some sort of bob and nod fever with many ladies dropping curtseys to people they clearly did not have to. Also I don't think we saw any examples of British HRHs dropping curteys to each other.
 
Thanks for posting the video, Nico. It looked like Camilla was standing next to a man with an umbrella, so perhaps Princess Anne was curtseying to Charles? Of course, Ascot is a public occasion, so it doesn't mean that Anne would curtsey in private.

I find the custom of bowing and curtseying charming, but I don't think I would like to do it. I think it should be limited to the Queen and Prince Philip within the family. It seems little pretentious for a brother to expect his younger siblings to bow and curtsey. On the other hand, it wouldn't seem strange if that is how you are brought up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Orders, decorations, and medals of kingdom of Italy
Replies
3
Views
569
Blog Real
Blog Real
Z
The new order of precedence
Replies
2
Views
7K
LauraS3514
LauraS3514
Marengo
Order of Precedence 2: Sep 2022 -
Replies
24
Views
563
Tatiana Maria
T
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
515
Tatiana Maria
T
T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
Replies
6
Views
1K
Tatiana Maria
T

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom