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.
Duke-of-Earl said:
All of this focus on the women but are people saying Andrew and Edward take precedence over the Duke of Cambridge? Can someone give me an example of where this has 'played' out in public?
Click to expand...

I can't give a sample of where its been played out as one time it really would have stood out was for William's wedding and as both William and Harry were in the bridal party....

The order of precedence for males of the BRF after the monarch and the DoE would be the Queen's sons, the Queen's grandsons, the Queen's brothers, the Queen's uncles and so on and so forth. The closer the male is in familial relationship to the monarch, the higher they are in precedence.
 
Kit said:
Ok the thing that always has me confused is this: if Sophie is alone with Kate and William who has precedence?? And who has precedence if there are just Kate and Sophie ?? I mean the official Order is quite clear on that subject with Sophie currently having Precedence BUT does this really change when Wills is with Kate ??
Click to expand...
Official Precedence wise, woman to woman Sophie outranks Kate.
If both William and Edward are present, Sophie still outranks Kate. *
If William, Kate and Sophie are present, Kate outranks Sophie through her husband.

* As I have noted before, William appears to enjoy higher precedence than his uncles, despite the sons of Sovereigns coming ahead of the Sovereign's grandsons. That, however, should be true for private precedence only. For official order of precedence, William should still be below his uncles.
 
Artemisia said:
That is interesting: I've never heard of Palace's confirmation of Kate's precedence.

One more question that interests me. If both Kate and Sophie are with their respective spouses, shouldn't Sophie (wife of the Sovereign's son) outrank Kate (wife of the Sovereign's grandson) official precedence wise? I'm asking because various publications, including credible ones, have put Sophie at the end of the pecking order (for senior royals), below Kate - and that doesn't sound quite right to me. Shouldn't Sophie outrank Kate both woman to woman and in presence of their husbands? The only situation when Kate should outranks Sophie is when William is present and Edward is not, at least the way I understand official precedence.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that is for state occasions when the official order of precedence is followed, not necessarily at court.
 
It must be remembered that these group events aren't necessarily following precedence.

That is about who enters a room first and who is seated where at the really formal, official state dinners or at large family functions not where people are going to be seated at a concert, which wasn't a formal affair.

As we rarely, if ever, see the BRF actually enter a room for a state visit en masse we really don't know how it all comes together on the night.
 
According to actual OoP, Andrew,Edward and Anne come before William. But recently that is being altered.
Wiki also says:The Court Circular also lists Prince William, Duke of Cambridge above his uncles, Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex, which suggests that he takes precedence over them.
And so is Prince Harry, and so will be their respective wives and kids..

BUT Y?
This is not a genuine answer but some interpretation with a bit of common sense..
See..if Charles' kids and grandkids are far behind his siblings, once the Queen dies..they gotta shout..
"All you..off to the back benches..The Queen is dead..And Sirs, may you please sit next to the King and Queen"..Got it? So now they have altered it so that the Precedence expands in only one direction and need not have to reverse at the change of every reign..
So they are slowly merging Order of Precedence with Line of Succession..
But they made a new Ladies' OoP so that a newbie greatgrandniece-in-law will not come flying and push good old Anne/Alexandra to the corner of the room..
What do you think of this post? Made any sense?
 
The CC is in order of line of succession and always has been.

Precedence is the order people enter the room - and in that case William on his own or just with Kate would enter after all The Queen's children but if Charles is present then they would enter as a family.
 
If I understand this correctly, Anne's children rank rather highly as grandchildren of the Sovereign. However, once King William V ascends the throne, they will no longer be grandchildren/nephew and niece of the Sovereign and will therefore lose their rank.

Imagine the situation in which you outrank the Prime Minister and the Archbishop of Canterbury one day, and the next day you're outranked by Victoria and David Beckham. I find it hillarious but then again, I doubt I would if I were Anne's child :D
 
Kotroman said:
If I understand this correctly, Anne's children rank rather highly as grandchildren of the Sovereign. However, once King William V ascends the throne, they will no longer be grandchildren/nephew and niece of the Sovereign and will therefore lose their rank.
Click to expand...
Currently, Peter and Zara are ranked 8th and 10th in, respectively, Official Male and Female Orders of Precedence. When Charles becomes King, and assuming we deal with the same people as now (that is to say, excluding new births and deaths), Peter will retain his 8th position (as the Sovereign's nephew), while Zara will actually move up one spot and occupy the 9th position (as the Sovereign's niece). So, no major changes for them. Of course, once William and/or Harry start having kids, they'll get bumped further down the line.


Official Order of Precedence for Men as of now:
1. Prince Philip
2. Prince Charles
3. Prince Andrew
4. Prince Edward
5. Prince William
6. Prince Harry
7. Viscount Severn
8. Peter Phillips
9. Viscount Linley
10. The Duke of Gloucester
11. The Duke of Kent
12. Prince Michael of Kent

Official Order of Precedence for Women as of now:
1. Elizabeth II
2. The Duchess of Cornwall
3. The Countess of Wessex
4. The Princess Royal
5. The Duchess of Cambridge
6. Autumn Phillips
7. Princess Beatrice
8. Princess Eugenie
9. Lady Louise
10. Zara Phillips
11. Lady Serena Stanhope
12. Lady Sarah Chatto
13. The Duchess of Gloucester
14. The Duchess of Kent
15. Princess Michael of Kent
16. Dowager Countess of Harewood
17. Princess Alexandra



When Charles becomes King, and again, assuming we deal with exactly the same people as now, the Orders of Precedence will look like this:

Official Order of Precedence for Men during the reign of King Charles:
1. King Charles
2. The Duke of Edinburgh *
3. The Duke of Cornwall (Prince William)
4. Prince Harry
5. The Duke of York **
6. The Earl of Wessex
7. Viscount Severn
8. Peter Phillips
9. Viscount Linley

* Prince Philip's position would not be automatic but I assume Charles will issue some sort of Proclamation granting Philip pre-eminence over all men but the King.
** Any children William and/or Harry will have (from legitimate marriages) will be ahead of the Duke of York in the Order of Precedence.

Official Order of Precedence for Women during the reign of King Charles:
1. Queen Camilla *
2. The Duchess of Cornwall (Kate)
3. The Countess of Wessex **
4. The Princess Royal
5. Autumn Phillips
6. Princess Beatrice
7. Princess Eugenie
8. Lady Louise
9. Zara Phillips
10. Lady Serena Stanhope
11. Lady Sarah Chatto

* Whatever her title, as the King's Consort, Camilla will be ranked above all ladies in the Kingdom.
** If Harry is married by the time, his wife will be ahead of Sophie.
 
Last edited:
I guess that official Order of Precedence ,listing Sovereign's sons and daughters above grandsons, has literally became a ceremonial, archaic one.
This year even at Remembrance Day Prince William preceded his uncles and aunt. It is indeed a full-blown official event, right..
So, practically, the Line of Succession has become the Order of Precedence.
The Ladies thing is a different one, though
 
Artemisia, I specifically said: "once King William V ascends the throne". When that happens, Anne's children will experience a major change - from outranking the Prime Minister to being outranked by celebrities.
 
Kotroman said:
Artemisia, I specifically said: "once King William V ascends the throne". When that happens, Anne's children will experience a major change - from outranking the Prime Minister to being outranked by celebrities.
Click to expand...
My bad: I misread your post as when King Charles - and not William - ascends to the Throne.
During the reign of King William, Pete and Zara will be just the King's cousins, and as such will be at the very bottom of the Order of Precedence.

I don't think Pete and Zara outrank the Prime Minister though, and I don't see how they will be outranked by celebrities at any point either. They may not be royals, but they are members of the Royal Family - and will be during William V's reign as well.
 
Anne's children are not members of the royal family. They are female-line grandchildren of the Sovereign who hold no royal title and carry out no royal duties (especially Peter).

Now, there is no provision for precedence of cousins of the Sovereign. This is very neatly explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_precedence_in_England_and_Wales

The Queen's cousins derive their precedence as royal dukes and princes. Once Charles is king, Lord and Lady Linley will rank as viscount and viscountess by courtesy. Anne's children, however, are completely untitled. Are there any sources that confirm Wikipedia's wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_order_of_precedence
 
:previous:

Pete and Zara are (untitled) members of the Royal Family - but not of the Royal House. At least, that's my understanding.
The Royal House - List of members of the House of Windsor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
British Royal Family - British Royal Family - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for the Order of Precedence, in the very link you provided cousins of the Sovereign (which, during William's reign, will be Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, James, Peter and Zara) come last in the list, immediately after the Sovereign's nephews (in case of men) and wives of Sovereign's cousins (in case of women).

There is no need to prove the Wikipedia article wrong because it's a fairly accurate article. However, nowhere did I find a reference that the Sovereign's cousins have to be royals, titled peers or children of peers. The place in the Order of Precedence is (with few exceptions) based on the relation to the Monarch; Peter and Zara will be the Monarch's cousins through a royal parent (Princess Anne - Prince Charles), which qualified them for a place in the Order.
 
Kotroman said:
You've linked me to an article which excludes Peter and Zara from the list of members of the royal family both in the text and in the template.

You're right about the link I provided, though. This link Order of precedence in England and Wales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia however says differently. Non-royal grandchildren of former sovereigns are excluded there.
Click to expand...
Well, in the Order of Precedence for England and Wales you linked, Viscount Linley is listed as a nephew of the Sovereign - and he is a grandson of George VI but not a royal himself. Viscount Linley is as much a non-royal (and female-line descendant) as Peter and Zara will be during William and Charles' reigns or are now, during the reign of their grandmother.

Peter and Zara (as well as Timothy Lawrence, the Linleys, etc) are indeed absent from the list of members of the Royal Family who bear the style of Royal Highness or Majesty. I never contested that. They are, however, listed among extended family members who carry no official royal styles or titles.

Think of Sarah, Duchess of York; as she never remarried, she is still member of the Royal Family (as mother of British Princesses) despite her divorce. You don't have to take my word for it: when she attended Prince Andrew's investiture into the Royal Victorian Order, she was treated as a member of the Royal Family. Moreover, the Lord Chamberlain's Diamond Jubilee Guidelines specified that Sarah is a member of the Royal Family in her own right. The same applied to Diana; even after her divorce, she was still a member of the Royal Family. On the other hand, Captain Mark Phillips ceased to be one when he re-married.


Perhaps we can agree to disagree on this particular issue. :)
 
Last edited:
Well, we must have a different opinion on what the term royal family means. To me, it consists of relatives of the Sovereign who hold royal titles (and who thus often carry out royal engagements). Otherwise, the "royal family" would be made of an extremely large number of people (especially when compared to other European royal families), most of whom an ordinary British person would never recognise.

As for the order of precedence I linked you to, it does include the Sovereign's nephews and nieces but not the Sovereign's non-royal cousins, which is why I referred to the reign of King William V. According to that same article, Lord and Lady Linley would lose their precedence upon Charles' accession, which is what I assume would happen to Anne's children upon William's accession.
 
The royal family is the family of The Queen, it's like a family, with royal in front of it. Difference in the UK, working and non-working members aren't differentiated such as in Scandinavian families. Mainly down to the huge line of succession we have.
By your definition, William wouldn't be a member of the RF because he's not a full time working royal. But he's the grandson of the reigning monarch.
 
No, by my definition any relative of the Sovereign who holds a royal title (and who thus usually carries out royal engagements) is a member of the royal family. That's very clear from my previous post. I have no idea how you managed to conclude that William does not fit into that pattern, as he is a Royal Highness and a Prince of the United Kingdom.

BTW, by royal title, I mean, of course, a royal title pertaining to the United Kingdom. I might also add those who are entitled to hold such title, but opt not to (such as Edward's children).

By your definition (family of the Queen, with royal in front of it), the royal family would include the Queen's maternal relatives, Lord and Lady Strathmore for example, and a number of others, not to mention her in-laws. I'm sure you'll agree that's a bit too much.
 
Last edited:
Kotroman said:
No, by my definition any relative of the Sovereign who holds a royal title (and who thus usually carries out royal engagements) is a member of the royal family. That's very clear from my previous post. I have no idea how you managed to conclude that William does not fit into that pattern, as he is a Royal Highness and a Prince of the United Kingdom.

BTW, by royal title, I mean, of course, a royal title pertaining to the United Kingdom.
Click to expand...

That would be because I misunderstood your post. The royal family, is the family of the current Monarch, title or no title.
 
But wouldn't that include the Queen's maternal cousins as well? By that definition, Simon Bowes-Lyon and Margaret Rhodes would, as the Queen's first cousins, be members of the royal family, as would presumably Lord and Lady Strathmore and Lord and Lady Granville. Are they, in your opinion? If not, why? Bowes-Lyon's and Rhodes' kinship to the Queen is of the same degree as her kinship to the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent.

When one stops being "family of the current monarch" is completely uncertain and arbitrary. Is Lord Ulster "family of the current monarch"? If he is, will he still be after his second cousin Charles takes over? What about when William ascends? He is William's second cousin once removed. Does that make him a member of the royal family? I tend to agree with Wikipedia on this; a strict, precise and clear definition that leaves little to no room for guessing.
 
Last edited:
:previous:
Because membership in the Royal Family, as well as inclusion in the Order of Precedence (at least, as I understand it) is based on a relation through royal parent.

Simon Bowes-Lyon and Margaret Rhodes are the Queen's relations through non-royal parent (the Queen Mother). Peter and Zara will be William's relatives through a royal parent (Princess Anne). The Spencers, on the other hand, would again be relatives from a non-royal parent so not members of the Royal Family (just as Middletons for William's child).
 
:previous:
I understand that and I agree with that, naturally. However, Lumutqueen's repeated defining of the royal family as the family of the current monarch, "title or no title", made room for the inclusion of the Queen's maternal relatives, as they are her family just as much as the Duke of Gloucester is.

As this topic is about precedence, I'd like to see if there are sources that confirm that Anne's children will retain their position once they are cousins of the monarch. According to the extremely detailed, sourced and (IMO) reliable Heraldica, they won't. They'll be accorded no special rank. See http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm#General
 
Last edited:
Kotroman said:
Anne's children are not members of the royal family. They are female-line grandchildren of the Sovereign who hold no royal title and carry out no royal duties (especially Peter).

Now, there is no provision for precedence of cousins of the Sovereign. This is very neatly explained at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_precedence_in_England_and_Wales

The Queen's cousins derive their precedence as royal dukes and princes. Once Charles is king, Lord and Lady Linley will rank as viscount and viscountess by courtesy. Anne's children, however, are completely untitled. Are there any sources that confirm Wikipedia's wrong?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_order_of_precedence
Click to expand...

Anne's children are members of the royal family who do not hold royal rank as female-line grandchildren of The Sovereign.

Official precedence is based on your place in relation to The Sovereign and subsequent degree of succession to the throne, whether you hold royal rank or not.
 
Kotroman said:
But wouldn't that include the Queen's maternal cousins as well? By that definition, Simon Bowes-Lyon and Margaret Rhodes would, as the Queen's first cousins, be members of the royal family, as would presumably Lord and Lady Strathmore and Lord and Lady Granville. Are they, in your opinion? If not, why? Bowes-Lyon's and Rhodes' kinship to the Queen is of the same degree as her kinship to the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent.
Click to expand...

I think when the Queen thinks of her family, I'm sure the Hon. Margaret Rhodes is a definite as they've been quite close nearly all their lives. I would imagine all the cousins are considered family. The difference may lie in that some are considered family within the "Firm" and for state, official and ceremonial reasons and some by being related. Until I read Margaret Rhode's excerpt from her book "The Queen and I", I had no idea of how close these two women have been throughout their lifetimes. Its a wonderful read and I've been meaning to pick up the book.

The Queen and I: Her Majesty's cousin lifts the lid on the private lives of the Royals | Mail Online

In the future when William ascends the throne, Beatrice and Eugenie may be way down the succession ladder and non working royals, but they will always remain his cousins and I'm sure he'd consider them family.
 
Kotroman said:
:previous:
I understand that and I agree with that, naturally. However, Lumutqueen's repeated defining of the royal family as the family of the current monarch, "title or no title", made room for the inclusion of the Queen's maternal relatives, as they are her family just as much as the Duke of Gloucester is.
Click to expand...

It does not. A member of the royal family is a person with a direct blood tie at birth to a current or former Sovereign. In the case of sons and male-line grandsons, this includes their wives as well, who retain their status if widowed.
 
Branchq, isn't the Queen related by blood to Margaret Rhodes?

Anyway, I keep giving arguments and yet responses to them boil down to: "Well, they are." That's neither convincing nor interesting, so I give up. As I said, Wikipedia's definition of the royal family seems by far the most reasonable one.

I'd like to link to Heraldica once again. Order of Precedence in England and Wales
Non-royal cousins of the monarch are nowhere to be found. Therefore, it can only be assumed that Anne's children will no longer outrank the archbishops, the prime minister, the bishops and peers of the realm once William ascends the throne. In fact, they won't be accorded any special rank at all. If there's a more reliable source than this one which suggests otherwise, please correct me.
 
Last edited:
Kotroman said:
I keep giving arguments and yet responses to them boil down to: "Well, they are." That's neither convincing nor interesting, so I give up.

Anyway, I'd like to link to Heraldica once again. Order of Precedence in England and Wales
Non-royal cousins of the monarch are nowhere to be found. Therefore, it can only be assumed that Anne's children will no longer outrank the archbishops, the prime minister, the bishops and peers of the realm once William ascends the throne. In fact, they won't be accorded any special rank at all. If there's a more reliable source than this one which suggests otherwise, please correct me.
Click to expand...

When William becomes King, they will no longer have official precedence because they are female-line grandchildren of Elizabeth II. His male-line cousins (Beatrice, Eugenie, James and Louise) will.
 
branchg said:
When William becomes King, they will no longer have official precedence because they are female-line grandchildren of Elizabeth II. His male-line cousins (Beatrice, Eugenie, James and Louise) will.
Click to expand...
But that would mean that right now Peter and Zara have no precedence as well, wouldn't it? After all, they are only female-line grandchildren of the Monarch.

On the other hand, if they do have precedence now (non-royal and non-titled as they may be), then surely during William's reign they will retain the precedence (as cousins of the Monarch) because their relation is through a royal parent?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Orders, decorations, and medals of kingdom of Italy
Replies
3
Views
566
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
558
Tatiana Maria
T
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
458
Tatiana Maria
T
T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
Replies
6
Views
1K
Tatiana Maria
T

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom