Order of Precedence

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by KittyAtlanta

If the son were born when the father was 20, the general would probably have retired by then, thereby not having to salute anyone.

In your scenario, if the general was still in the Army, protocol would command that he salute his son and the general wouldn't bat an eye. He would not be saluting his son, he would be saluting the President.

Which is exactly the situation with the Queen Mother curtseying to her daughter - it wasn't her daughter to whom she was curtseying but her monarch.

When Snowhite said

You don't think there's something weird about the fact that the late Queen Mother had to curtsey to her own daughter just because Elizabeth became queen?

I simply gave another scenario.

[Vita]

I for one am sad they mo longer require you to curtsy to the royals and that they don't one another. I always thought that was one of the most elegant displays of respect. I thought Catherine looked lovely when she curtsied.

[Zonk]

I didn't get a good view of Catherine's curtsey. No one IMO beats Charles and Diana...Diana did a deep curtsey and Charles' bow to his mother, The Queen was perfect.

[Vita]

Originally Posted by Zonk

I didn't get a good view of Catherine's curtsey. No one IMO beats Charles and Diana...Diana did a deep curtsey and Charles' bow to his mother, The Queen was perfect.

Zonk I did not want compare Diana to Catherine for obvious reasons but I could not agree more. And I am not just saying that because she is my favourite.

[Osipi]

Originally Posted by Vita

Zonk I did not want compare Diana to Catherine for obvious reasons but I could not agree more. And I am not just saying that because she is my favourite.

I couldn't remember Diana's curtsy during her wedding so I went looking and found a wonderful photo of it. She really did do an awesome curtsy to HM which had to be a bit tricky in the gown she was wearing. I love it!

Getty Images - Unsupported browser detected

[Vita]

Originally Posted by Osipi

I couldn't remember Diana's curtsy during her wedding so I went looking and found a wonderful photo of it. She really did do an awesome curtsy to HM which had to be a bit tricky in the gown she was wearing. I love it!

Getty Images - Unsupported browser detected

Thank you for that. Even the photograph captures how lovely they looked! If only....sighs.

[Midwestern Mom]

Ok so I need clarification here on who takes precedence over whom....

I heard it said that if Prince Charles is present with Camilla that Camilla takes precedence over Catherine...but if it's just Camilla and Catherine (sans husbands) then Catherine would take precedence over Camilla.

No?

MM

[Daria_S]

Originally Posted by Midwestern Mom

Ok so I need clarification here on who takes precedence over whom....

I heard it said that if Prince Charles is present with Camilla that Camilla takes precedence over Catherine...but if it's just Camilla and Catherine (sans husbands) then Catherine would take precedence over Camilla.

No?

MM

I'm going to venture a guess, so someone who knows a little more, feel free to correct me.

My assumption is that Camila would outrank Catherine in either situation.

[Super Baroness]

Originally Posted by Midwestern Mom

I heard it said that if Prince Charles is present with Camilla that Camilla takes precedence over Catherine...but if it's just Camilla and Catherine (sans husbands) then Catherine would take precedence over Camilla...No?

That's the information stated in the current Daily Mail article about Balmoral, but it's incorrect. If Camilla is with Charles, then she of course takes precedence, and if Charles is absent, Camilla still outranks Catherine. Married to the first-in-line vs. married to the second-in-line I'm hoping the DM just messed up the names.

[Midwestern Mom]

What I heard said, was on the day of the Royal Wedding by one of the commentators...I just remembered more....I think they said Catherine would take precedence only if her husband was present (Camilla there, William and Catherine there...no Charles). I didn't get it but I know there are all sorts of protocol I'm unaware of.

MM

[MRSJ]

Originally Posted by Midwestern Mom

What I heard said, was on the day of the Royal Wedding by one of the commentators...I just remembered more....I think they said Catherine would take precedence only if her husband was present (Camilla there, William and Catherine there...no Charles). I didn't get it but I know there are all sorts of protocol I'm unaware of.

MM

Camilla and Charles , Camilla takes precedence over Catherine (William or not)

Camilla no Charles, but Kate with William- Kate is top dog

Camilla and Kate no men- Camilla is higher

But in an informal family setting not sure if they'd adhere to it so strictly......

[Diarist]

Don't forget that there are TWO sorts of precedence: one, which I will call the more formal, is based on both statute and custom and does not in actual fact follow the line of succession; the second type of precedence is for private [family] events and is a matter for The Queen’s discretion. There is separate precedence [for both gentlemen and ladies] and joint precedence.

Private precedence for ladies used to be more straightforward until Camilla married Charles, when the Queen fiddled about with the order, in effect elevating the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra OVER Camilla, which royal commnetators attributed to the fact that the Queen wanted to demonstrate her sensitivity to the fact that some of her subjects had qualms about Camilla benefitting from having effectively destroyed Charles' marriage to Diana in some people's minds. We were told that a new PRIVATE order of precedence was due to be issued shortly after Williams and Catherine's wedding, but - and please correct me if I am mistaken - I don't think I have seen any new order yet.


Alex

[LauraS3514]

Originally Posted by Diarist

Don't forget that there are TWO sorts of precedence: one, which I will call the more formal, is based on both statute and custom and does not in actual fact follow the line of succession; the second type of precedence is for private [family] events and is a matter for The Queen’s discretion. There is separate precedence [for both gentlemen and ladies] and joint precedence.

Private precedence for ladies used to be more straightforward until Camilla married Charles, when the Queen fiddled about with the order, in effect elevating the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra OVER Camilla, which royal commnetators attributed to the fact that the Queen wanted to demonstrate her sensitivity to the fact that some of her subjects had qualms about Camilla benefitting from having effectively destroyed Charles' marriage to Diana in some people's minds. We were told that a new PRIVATE order of precedence was due to be issued shortly after Williams and Catherine's wedding, but - and please correct me if I am mistaken - I don't think I have seen any new order yet.


Alex

When the new private precedence rules were issued at the time of Charles and Camilla's marriage placing "born" princesses ahead of "married-in", Beatrice and Eugenie were still under-age. It would seem that if the same rule is followed today, the private precedence for ladies should be this: Pr. Anne Princess Royal (daughter of The Sovereign); Pr. Beatrice followed by Pr. Eugenie ("born princess" grand-daughters of The Sovereign); Pr. Alexandra (granddaughter of a previous sovereign); The Duchess of Cornwall followed by The Countess of Wessex (wives of sons of The Sovereign); The Duchess of Cambridge (wife of The Sovereign's grandson); The Duchess of Gloucester followed by The Duchess of Kent and Princess Michael (wives of grandsons of a previous sovereign) etc. I'm not completely sure where the non-royal ladies might fall: would Zara be with Beatrice and Eugenie as a sovereign's granddaughter, even though she has no title? What about Autumn Phillips as wife of The Sovereign's grandson? And where would Lady Sarah Chatto (granddaughter of a previous sovereign) and Lady Linley (wife of a previous sovereign's grandson) be? And what will be done with Lady Louise when she's of age? She's a princess under the 1917 Letters Patent (and a granddaughter of a sovereign) but is only using the title of an earl's daughter...

All I can say is I'm glad I don't have to figure out who sits where at dinner...

[branchg]

Private precedence has always differed from official precedence. Even before Camilla married Charles, precedence at court usually placed the princesses of the blood ahead of princesses by marriage.

Camilla currently follows The Queen, The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra at court. I would think court precedence may have been updated to reflect Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie coming ahead of Alexandra and Camilla as male-line granddaughters of The Sovereign, with Catherine following Camilla and Sophie as the wife of a male-line grandson.

[Molly2101]

Originally Posted by branchg

Private precedence has always differed from official precedence. Even before Camilla married Charles, precedence at court usually placed the princesses of the blood ahead of princesses by marriage.

Is that true though? As I am sure when Camilla got married, the Queen changed it so that Anne and Alexandra would be ahead of Camilla, whereas beforehand Sophie was directly after the Queen, as the only wife of the son of the Sovereign at the time, followed by Anne etc. as wives ranked higher than daugthers at the time.

Originally Posted by LauraS3514

And what will be done with Lady Louise when she's of age? She's a princess under the 1917 Letters Patent (and a granddaughter of a sovereign) but is only using the title of an earl's daughter...

I am guessing that may depend on whether Lady Louise takes her HRH title when she comes of age, which she is entitled to do so if she wishes. But I am guessing, as a grand daugther (or niece, as she may be when she is 18) of the Sovereign, she will still be a higher rank than Lady Sarah Chatto, even though they are both styled as daugther's of Earls.

It's so confusing! I wish they would do a "Order of Precedence for Dummies."

Originally Posted by Vita

I for one am sad they mo longer require you to curtsy to the royals and that they don't one another. I always thought that was one of the most elegant displays of respect. I thought Catherine looked lovely when she curtsied.

The Royals do curtsey to one another, as I am sure Anne has been seen curtseying to Camilla upon occasion. Sophie pretty much always curtsey's to the Queen, which she was seen doing even at the Windsor Horse Show. I agree that I think it's a shame that they don't all curtsey to one another, but realistically they'd be waiting a heck of a long time to do ANYTHING if they all had to wait and curtsey to one another. Royal Brides still curtsey to the Queen though.

[kbk]

Isn't the order of precedence we call "formal" also a matter of the Queen's will? Which act of law actually governs it?

[XeniaCasaraghi]

This is freakin insane. I think everyone should curtsey to the Queen and that's it, until the unavoidable change occurs; by that I mean the Queen dies and Charles becomes king. Then Camilla will become Princess Consort or Queen and Catherine will become Princess of Wales, then the crazy curtseying can resume.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by MRSJ

Camilla and Charles , Camilla takes precedence over Catherine (William or not)

Camilla no Charles, but Kate with William- Kate is top dog

Camilla and Kate no men- Camilla is higher

But in an informal family setting not sure if they'd adhere to it so strictly......

That actually doesn't make sense.

The precedence whereby Anne and Alexandra come before Camilla was when there were only ladies present.

As soon as there is a man present then all ladies take their precedence based on their husbands.

Camilla will only behind Kate in precedence when William becomes King.

Taken logically - if present are the following ladies - The Queen, Camilla, Kate and Sophie Prince Edward is also present then does Sophie take precedence ahead of the other ladies as her husband, a prince born, is present - no of course not. But why not - because in that situation they take the precedence of their absent husbands.

The problem with the reports at the time of the wedding is that either didn't read the actual private precedence changes the Queen made (which said something along the lines of 'when only ladies are present) or wanted to raise the spectre of problems between the royal ladies.

[kbk]

It wouldn't also make sense to me that the Queen changed the order of precedence for cases where there are only ladies present. How often the British royal ladies are in the same place on the same time, without any of their husbands, brothers and sons?

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by kbk

It wouldn't also make sense to me that the Queen changed the order of precedence for cases where there are only ladies present. How often the British royal ladies are in the same place on the same time, without any of their husbands, brothers and sons?

There have been a couple of occasions, to do with women's organisations for instance, when only femle royals were present.

There may be totally private occasions also at somewhere like Balmoral where the woman are together but the men are out killing stuff.