Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022

[Warren]

Who knows?

For me, I just want to know how Her Majesty feels about Camilla; does she like Camilla or dislike her?

Unless Her Majesty puts out a Press Release or tells us how she feels by writing her own post on TRF, the answer to your question is "we don't know". We can speculate endlessly (as we are doing) and still come up with "we don't know".
Perhaps it's best to leave it at that. Otherwise the question becomes just another vehicle for those with axes to grind.
.

 

[Elspeth]

For me,i just want to know how Her Majesty feels about Camilla,does she like Camilla or dislike her?

You aren't honestly expecting that she's going to say anything in public about how she feels about Camilla, are you? The Queen doesn't talk about her feelings in public.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Yes I am aware of Queen Alexandra's support of the those suffering from leprosy and I apologize to the memory of Queen Alexandra. She was a great lady.

However, after Queen Alexandra's death in 1925, I don't think a royal has taken up the plight of lepers.

In the 1950s the Queen visited an African country (can't remember which) with a large leper community and both she and Prince Philip visited the colony and she touched them, showing that they could be touched. The government of the day didn't want her to do so but she insisted.

People forget the huge following the she had in the 1950s - with crowds in their 100,00s coming to see her. She accepted the adulation as part and parcel of her job without letting it go to her head and didn't court the celebrity that she could have done.

Throughout history royalty have been the leaders in areas like this e.g. Queen Victoria having a smallpox injection making it more acceptable and common for the people to have one - she was a young princess at the time.

Many people think that Diana was the first to do these types of things when in fact she was just following the lead of others.

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

You aren't honestly expecting that she's going to say anything in public about how she feels about Camilla, are you? The Queen doesn't talk about her feelings in public.

No,no Elspeth,i do not mean that to expect the Queen to say her personal feelings in public,i know Her Majesty does not say her feelings in public.In my previous post,i just mean that i still not sure,wondering a lot that Her Majesty's relationship with the Duchess of Cornwall,sometimes maybe show she has good relationship with the Duchess but sometimes not.

 

[ElisaR]

In the 1950s the Queen visited an African country (can't remember which) with a large leper community and both she and Prince Philip visited the colony and she touched them, showing that they could be touched. The government of the day didn't want her to do so but she insisted.

People forget the huge following the she had in the 1950s - with crowds in their 100,00s coming to see her. She accepted the adulation as part and parcel of her job without letting it go to her head and didn't court the celebrity that she could have done.

Throughout history royalty have been the leaders in areas like this e.g. Queen Victoria having a smallpox injection making it more acceptable and common for the people to have one - she was a young princess at the time.

Many people think that Diana was the first to do these types of things when in fact she was just following the lead of others.

Thank you for, Chrissy, for this story about the Queen. I didn't know.

 

[selrahc4]

In the 1950s the Queen visited an African country (can't remember which) with a large leper community and both she and Prince Philip visited the colony and she touched them, showing that they could be touched. The government of the day didn't want her to do so but she insisted.

Nigeria, 1956. I've read that she and The Duke of Edinburgh each "adopted" (sponsored) a child from the leper community at that time too.

 

[Frothy]

LOL!

I think it should be remembered that the Soverign is the fount of honour. Soon Camilla's husband will have that right. She will be the first lady in the land and if the blood princesses don't like it they'll have to lump it!

 

[A.C.C.]

LOL!

I think it should be remembered that the Soverign is the fount of honour. Soon Camilla's husband will have that right. She will be the first lady in the land and if the blood princesses don't like it they'll have to lump it!

I think it would be odd anyway for the Princess Consort, or whatever Camilla will be called, as wife of the king to come behind any of the other princesses, either by blood or marriage, in precedence. Yet of course, this will have to wait until Charles is King.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

I think that this is an obvious example of how the press interfere in the Royal Family's personal affairs and turn simple things into huge stories.

The Duchess of Cornwall chose to be known as such, and so she ranks as a Royal Duchess. She'd come before the Duchess of Argyll because she's a Royal Duchess but she'll come before the Duchess of Gloucester because she's the senior Royal Duchess.

A few people have said the Duchess isn't Princess of Wales. She is. The fact that she's asked to be addressed by a courtesy title doesn't mean that she isn't Princess of Wales. Diana is the late Princess of Wales, and Camilla is now the Princess of Wales but that in itself was a mistake.

Diana was titled as Diana, Princess of Wales before she died. She was not an HRH because she divorced the Prince of Wales not because the Queen took it from her. The Duchess of York also lost her HRH when she divorced Prince Andrew. It's standard procedure for a Royal Divorce. Diana's official title was, Diana, Princess of Wales.

As a butler, I've asked a few colleagues as to how Diana would have been addressed. She was Princess of Wales but she was not an HRH and she would have been addressed as M'Lady. The reason being that she was Lady Diana Spencer.

Diana would indeed have to curtsey to Princess Michael of Kent in theory but bowing and curtseying is no longer expected. It's nice if people do and 95% do, but it's a personal choice. Diana could have made a personal choice not to curtsey but that would be childish.

The popular press and some members on the Royal Forums and other message boards call Diana, 'Princess Diana'. This is totally incorrect because Diana never was Princess Diana. She was HRH The Princess of Wales when married and Diana, Princess of Wales thereafter. However, if she had been known as Princess ____________, she would have been Princess Charles. Females who marry into the Royal Family become Princess and take their husbands first name, hence Princess Michael. Before the death of the Duke of Gloucester (Prince Henry), the present Duke and Duchess were known as Prince and Princess Richard.

As to precedence, if Diana was alive today, then we'd be in a very different situation. She'd have been Diana, Princess of Wales until Prince Charles married Camilla, when Diana would probably be given a title (probably Duchess) and would be placed behind Camilla as the new Princess of Wales.

I don't think the Duchess of Cornwall will mind her rank because she understands that it isn't a slur but the ways of court. However, I mind very much that my future Queen is ranked behind the Princess Royal (who I have 100% support and respect for). Whether she chooses to be called Queen or not, or Princess of Wales or not, she is both and should be respected as such and take her place in precedence as such.

 

[tiaraprin]

LOL!

I think it should be remembered that the Soverign is the fount of honour. Soon Camilla's husband will have that right. She will be the first lady in the land and if the blood princesses don't like it they'll have to lump it!

Not if Her Majesty the Queen outlives him.

 

[branchg]

That is incorrect. Diana is not the "late Princess of Wales" because she held the name as a style of a divorced wife of a royal peer. Only the wife of Prince Charles can be "Princess of Wales". Similarily, Sarah Ferguson is correctly styled as "Sarah, Duchess of York" as the divorced wife of a royal peer. This is similar to all other divorcees of peers in the UK until they or their former husband remarries. At that time, they must reliniquish the style and revert to their birth name.

Also, there is no "standard procedure" for styling a former wife of a prince of the blood royal because such things are within the royal perogative of the Queen as Sovereign. As discussed before, the Queen considered making Diana a princess of the UK with the style of HRH in her own right after the divorce as the mother of Prince William provided: (1) she agreed to work with the Household in setting her engagements and duties; (2) she dropped her demand to be known as HRH Diana, Princess of Wales; Diana refused on both counts and relinquished her royal rank as a consequence.

The Queen did, however, make clear that Diana remained a member of the royal family and retained the precedence she enjoyed during her marriage as the mother of Prince William. As such, if she were alive today, she would have retained precedence directly after Camilla (most likely retitled by now as "HRH Princess Diana" with perhaps a secondary peerage if she had remarried and had additional children) as the mother of a future king.

Sarah, Duchess of York was in a very different position than Diana and was treated accordingly. She lost her royal rank and her precedence after the divorce and received a very small financial settlement as a consequence of her questionable behavior and tremendous debts. To her credit, she overcame these obstacles, paid off her debt and remains on good terms today with the Queen, although she is no longer royal.

Camilla is HRH the Princess of Wales, but choosing to be known by her secondary title of Duchess of Cornwall. This does not change the fact she remains Princess of Wales by virtue of marriage to the heir to the throne. She is not a royal duchess, but a princess of the UK. Court precedence is at the discretion of the Sovereign as fount of honour and has nothing to do with Camilla's official precedence after the Queen.

 

[Frothy]

As a butler, I've asked a few colleagues as to how Diana would have been addressed. She was Princess of Wales but she was not an HRH and she would have been addressed as M'Lady. The reason being that she was Lady Diana Spencer.

Actually, that is incorrect. Under Scottish divorce laws and Scottish titles, she would have remained the rights of a Duchess of Rothesay and her correct style was Your Grace. I have read elsewhere but can't confirm that Fergie is also correctly addressed as Your Grace as a divorced Duchess.

 

[iowabelle]

Perhaps Henry VIII had it right, and beheading was the best alternative to have your ex wander about.

(I am just kidding. And I know that Anne of Cleves accepted the King's alternative arrangement, which was rather inventive of him and clever of her.)

 

[Oppie]

I have a question about the titles so I hope it is ok if I ask it here.

I understand that the wives of Princes get the title Princess husband name (ie Princess Charles Princess Edward ect.) but if a Prince marries a Princess can she still use her name.

As a hypothetical example if Prince William marries Princess Theodora would she still be called that or would she become Princess William ?

 

[susan alicia]

do not know if this story is true but if it is hope I am allowed to say:

"big deal" .

Nigeria, 1956. I've read that she and The Duke of Edinburgh each "adopted" (sponsored) a child from the leper community at that time too.

 

[branchg]

Actually, that is incorrect. Under Scottish divorce laws and Scottish titles, she would have remained the rights of a Duchess of Rothesay and her correct style was Your Grace. I have read elsewhere but can't confirm that Fergie is also correctly addressed as Your Grace as a divorced Duchess.

No, she could not. The title is royal and flows from the Crown in honour of it. Diana could not remain Duchess of Rothesay in Scotland in her own right as it is held by Charles in Scotland as the heir to the throne. It is true, however, that Scottish divorcees are styled the same as widows, but this does not really mean much.

Diana was correctly addressed after the divorce as "Princess"

 

[Frothy]

It does mean much. After a divorce, a Scottish divorced duchess continues to use the Ducal style unless she should remarry. A Louise, Duchess of Hamilton and Brandon (for example) would be called 'Your Grace'. Diana would have been 'Diana, Duchess of Rothesay' and her correct style would have been 'Your Grace'.

There is no style 'Princess'. She asked to be called that, but it means nothing. A Princess is by definition a royal highness. 'Diana, Princess of Wales' does not mean she was then a princess; she was not. It describes a relationship with an ex-husband.

However under Scottish custom, she would have had the style of a divorced Duchess. Diana, Duchess of Rothesay would have been correctly addressed as 'Your Grace'.

Most people would have used 'ma'am' I imagine, but most people are not title trivia junkies like we are!

 

[branchg]

I have a question about the titles so I hope it is ok if I ask it here.

I understand that the wives of Princes get the title Princess husband name (ie Princess Charles Princess Edward ect.) but if a Prince marries a Princess can she still use her name.

As a hypothetical example if Prince William marries Princess Theodora would she still be called that or would she become Princess William ?

A princess by birth retains her style and dignity unless she marries a man of superior title and rank. She then takes on her husband's status, which takes precedence if superior to her own.

For example, if Princess Theodora married Prince William, she would be marrying a man of equal rank to her own and remain "Princess Theodora" after the marriage. In contrast, when Lady Diana Spencer married Prince Charles she became "HRH the Princess of Wales".

Another example would be Princess Caroline's marriage to Prince Ernst-August of Hanover. Caroline was born HSH Princess Caroline de Monaco, but upon marriage to Ernst, she became "HRH Princess Caroline, Princess von Hannover". She was born a princess, so she retains the right to be Princess Christian Name, but her status as "HRH Princess von Hannover" comes from her marriage and is superior to her birth rank.

 

[Frothy]

You are right re: theodora.

Women of equal rank may choose to use their own names. A Lord John Smith marries a Miss Mary Jones and she becomes Lady John Smith. But if he marries Lady Mary Roberts she becomes Lady Mary Smith.

And if a Mr. John Smith marries her she is still Lady Mary Smith.

The general rule is that a woman may not be reduced in rank by a marriage, only raised in rank. Recently this was extended to allow armigerous women to keep the right to use their coat of arms (in a lozenge) upon their marriage "beneath them" as it were to a non-armigerous man. Previously a woman in this situation would have lost her right to her arms.

 

[branchg]

It does mean much. After a divorce, a Scottish divorced duchess continues to use the Ducal style unless she should remarry. A Louise, Duchess of Hamilton and Brandon (for example) would be called 'Your Grace'. Diana would have been 'Diana, Duchess of Rothesay' and her correct style would have been 'Your Grace'.

There is no style 'Princess'. She asked to be called that, but it means nothing. A Princess is by definition a royal highness. 'Diana, Princess of Wales' does not mean she was then a princess; she was not. It describes a relationship with an ex-husband.

However under Scottish custom, she would have had the style of a divorced Duchess. Diana, Duchess of Rothesay would have been correctly addressed as 'Your Grace'.

Most people would have used 'ma'am' I imagine, but most people are not title trivia junkies like we are!

The Crown takes precedence over all laws and customs. The title "Duke of Rothesay" is royal and held by Prince Charles on behalf of the Sovereign. A former wife cannot hold a royal peerage granted to a prince of the blood royal after a divorce. There is no question on the matter. The only title Diana could hold was one granted in her own right by the Queen, which never came to be.

"Your Grace" is not an appropriate form of address to a former princess of the UK. Neither Sarah nor Diana was ever a duchess, they were both princesses while married. Sarah was technically "HRH Princess Andrew, Duchess of York" and Diana was "HRH the Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall, Duchess of Rothesay, Countess of Chester and Countess of Carrick" as the wife of Prince Charles.

Both were legally commoners after letters patent were issued by the Queen stating a former wife of a prince of the UK would not hold the dignity of Royal Highness after a divorce. Diana retained her precedence and royal status via assent from the Queen, but Sarah did not.

 

[james]

A divorced Peeress dosn't automatically revert to her pre-marital status when her husband remarries. She becomes known not as "The" Duchess or Countess etc but instead her title starts with her forename and then the title. For example, Earl Spencer's first wife Victoria was known as Victoria, Countess Spencer after the Earl remarried but his new wife became The Countess Spencer. Victoria only gave up her title completley when she recently remarried herself. Similarly, Sarah Ferguson would still be know as Sarah, Duchess of York if Andrew remarried and his wife would be The Duchess of York.

Also, there is no difference between a Royal Duchess and a Royal Princess as all Royal Duchesses are Princesses as well.The Duchess of Gloucester's full title for example is Princess Richard, Duchess of Gloucester. She is equally a Princess in the way that Princess Michael is but Princess Michael uses the Princess title as her husband has no other titles.

 

[branchg]

Also, there is no difference between a Royal Duchess and a Royal Princess as all Royal Duchesses are Princesses as well.The Duchess of Gloucester's full title for example is Princess Richard, Duchess of Gloucester. She is equally a Princess in the way that Princess Michael is but Princess Michael uses the Princess title as her husband has no other titles.

Right now, this is true. However, Wallis, Duchess of Windsor, was specifically denied the rank of HRH and princess of the UK by George V and held the rank of a duchess with the style "Her Grace", albeit still royal.

Upon the deaths of the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, their eldest sons will still hold a royal dukedom with the style of His Grace, not HRH.

 

[tiaraprin]

Upon the deaths of the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, their eldest sons will still hold a royal dukedom with the style of His Grace, not HRH.

I thought upon the deaths of the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, their sons would just remain Earls and the Kent and Gloucester Dukedoms would revert back to the crown?

 

[iowabelle]

That was my impression too, tiaraprin.

 

[Elspeth]

I've heard that the Gloucester and Kent titles will carry on down the current lineage, although York will revert to the Crown and would have done so even if Prince Andrew had had a son. I'm not sure about that, though, because if the Gloucester and Kent titles do continue down the present lineage, assuming (fairly safe assumption, with the low infant mortality rate these days) that there are sons for the next few generations in those lineages, the titles will be effectively lost to the monarchy, which would be a shame.

 

[tiaraprin]

I've heard that the Gloucester and Kent titles will carry on down the current lineage, although York will revert to the Crown and would have done so even if Prince Andrew had had a son. I'm not sure about that, though, because if the Gloucester and Kent titles do continue down the present lineage, assuming (fairly safe assumption, with the low infant mortality rate these days) that there are sons for the next few generations in those lineages, the titles will be effectively lost to the monarchy, which would be a shame.

I agree with you Elspeth. I wonder, if down the line, there is only a female to succeed her father, if special orders of patent would be drawn up for her to become duchess in her own right leaving the title afterwards to male heirs of her body?

 

[branchg]

I've heard that the Gloucester and Kent titles will carry on down the current lineage, although York will revert to the Crown and would have done so even if Prince Andrew had had a son. I'm not sure about that, though, because if the Gloucester and Kent titles do continue down the present lineage, assuming (fairly safe assumption, with the low infant mortality rate these days) that there are sons for the next few generations in those lineages, the titles will be effectively lost to the monarchy, which would be a shame.

Unless the Queen issues new letters patent, the dukedoms of Kent and Gloucester will continue downward until the death of the last male descendant of the current Dukes. At that time, the titles would return to the Crown. Given past history, it is inevitable the titles will revert since it is very rare for successive generations to have sons to inherit every time, but it certainly is possible.

More likely, given current trends in the UK, the Queen will issue new letters patent to supersede her grandfather's 1917 letters patent before her death on the advice of the Government. It is clear the future royal family will be limited to the children of the sovereign, the eldest child of the heir to the throne and the eldest grandchild of the heir to the throne. All other members of the family would be granted courtesy titles or new peerages without the style of HRH.

 

[iowabelle]

I was just reading up on the matter of the Gloucesters and Kents. Apparently, the sons of the current incumbents will inherit the titles but they will not be allowed to be HRHs like their fathers. So, the next Duke of Kent will simply be the Duke of Kent, not HRH the Duke of Kent.

 

[Iluvbertie]

At this point in time all the Royal Dukedoms have included in their Letters Patent the clause about the title passing to male heirs of the body only. That is why both Kent and Gloucester will pass on to their sons and grandsons in time but York and Wessex won't as neither of these titles have an heir male of the body. If either Prince Andrew or Prince Edward have a legitimate son then their titles will pass to that son. Andrew could pass the title Duke of York to a legitimate son but historically this hasn't happened since the middle ages with the Dukes of York either becoming king in turn or dying without issue. Andrew is the first I can think of since 1500 to actually have children and look like not becoming king. His title will revert to the crown unless he has a son.

The Royal Dukedoms inheritance laws follow those of any other Duke in that the title passes on even though the holder ceases to be an HRH. The difference is that when there is no male line direct heir the title merges with the crown rather than pass to cousins etc as can happen with other titles.


The HRH was clearly covered in 1917 - children of a monarch (Charles, Anne, Andrew and Edward), all male line grandchildren (including the present Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, Prince Michael and Princess Alexandra of Kent - all grandchildren of George V through their respective fathers, William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise - and I am not going there - we all know that situation!) and then only the eldest son of the Prince of Wales eldest son. As things currently stand only Prince William's eldest son is guaranteed having an HRH but presumably all his children and all of Prince Harry's children will be HRH (assuming that Charles becomes king) but only the children of their sons will have the HRH and not of their daughters.

 

[Frothy]

The Crown takes precedence over all laws and customs. The title "Duke of Rothesay" is royal and held by Prince Charles on behalf of the Sovereign. A former wife cannot hold a royal peerage granted to a prince of the blood royal after a divorce. There is no question on the matter. The only title Diana could hold was one granted in her own right by the Queen, which never came to be.

"Your Grace" is not an appropriate form of address to a former princess of the UK. Neither Sarah nor Diana was ever a duchess, they were both princesses while married. Sarah was technically "HRH Princess Andrew, Duchess of York"

Again, I must take issue with you. Nobody says the wife of a peer 'holds' a peerage. We are talking about the style of a divorced peeress who has not yet remarried.

Sarah was not technically HRH Princess Andrew, Duchess of York because Andrew was never HRH Prince Andrew, Duke of York. While we are getting techincal, direct sons and daughters of the monarch have 'the' before their names if they have no senior titles. The day before his marriage, Andrew was HRH The Prince Andrew, not Prince Andrew. Furthermore, when he became Duke of York he ceased to be referred to as the Prince Andrew, having acceded to a higher dignity. His correct title is not HRH the Prince Andrew Duke of York, it is simply HRH the Duke of York.

The Queen decided that the divorcees would cease to be princesses, which carry with them the HRH title. But she did not strip them of their common right to be known as divorced peeresses are known. The woman may not be royal but retains the normal style and title for her situation unless the Queen specifically forbids it. Wallis Simpson was 'Your Grace' as a Duchess, although not permitted by the Sovereign to rise to the level of a Princess; her marriage was semi-morganatic. Wallis' casket reflects that ducal dignity.

Diana was not allowed to use the style of a Princess as a former Princess. That was the Queen's explicit decision. The Queen made no such pronouncement about her using the style of a divorced peeress, therefore normal custom holds. A divorced Duchess, as noted above, retains the 'Your Grace' unless she loses the courtesy title by remarrying, as Diana's mother did. Diana, and Sarah, had/have the correct style of 'Your Grace'. Sarah, Duchess of York has been barred from the royal dignity by the Queen's express statement, but she is a still a divorced duchess. The Queen has not said that she may not use the normal style of any divorced and not remarried duchess.