Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022

[Somebody]

Well for example when Edward is absent Sophie is sat after the Princess Royal but at the event at the royal Albert Hall, Kate was sat ahead of Anne not after her which happens to Sophie.

Thanks, so within the same category (in this case the younger children of the monarch) the order seems to change but Catherine is still in the children of the heir category which in practice ranks higher than the 'younger children' of the monarch, so it makes sense that she remains seated at the same spot.

Theoretically it could be argued that Harry would be seated higher than Catherine if William isn't present but if I understand the order of precedence correctly (as explained by the Heraldica article) the wife of the eldest son ranks higher than his sister's but wifes of younger brother rank below the sisters. So, my interpretation would be that the wife of the eldest son (=heir) always ranks higher than any sibling or sibling-in-law.

So, if Charles, Andrew and Edward aren't present, Camilla should outrank Anne (which apparently is not the queen's practice, although it was the case for Diana) but any wifes of Andrew or Edward rank below Anne as she is the daughter. Had the queen had another daughter after Edward, let's call her princess Mary, this princess Mary would also outrank Sophie in this case.

 

[Fijiro]

The order of precedence is different from the line of succession.
If we’re talking about the line of succession, Camilla, Catherine, Meghan, and Sophie are not even in the line, they’re consorts. On the other hand, Beatrice and Eugenie are in the line.
The order off precedence is another thing all together, and BR determines the order, which they’ve updated a few times now.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

Is Sarah, Duchess of York in the Order of Precedence, I noticed at her daughters wedding a member of the royal staff bowed to her when she was getting in to the car. Does this prove she is still royal or was this just a gesture to her as the mother of two Royal Princesses?

 

[wartenberg7]

The order of precedence was clearly visible again at last week´s wedding:
The "most important members" of the RF sat in the middle bench of St. George´s,
1st the Queen and the Duke, of course, then Charles, William and Catherine, Harry and Meghan and Anne before the Gloucesters (which made me wonder why they had the honour to sit in the middle bench at the same level as Queen and heirs...?). 1st and 2nd rows the minor Royals like the Yorks, the Kents, the Tindalls, the Wessexes.
When it comes to the Dss of Cambridge, she is, after Charles´s wife, a future Queen and certainly everybody knows and respects that in the the RF.

 

[Pranter]

Interesting that Anne did not sit near the Queen. I can't quite figure out where she is because it seems like sometimes she is ahead and sometimes she's not.


LaRae

 

[Somebody]

Interesting that Anne did not sit near the Queen. I can't quite figure out where she is because it seems like sometimes she is ahead and sometimes she's not.


LaRae

Formally she is behind her brother but before her nieces and nephews. Only the children of the heir are given precedence over the queen's other children. In seating arrangements, sometimes someone's children are seated with them instead of at their formal spot in the line of succession.

For example at the wedding of William and Catherine were sested with their father while Anne's children were seated separately (behind the queen's cousins but before the queen's nephew and niece). Louise and James until recently would also be seated with their parents.

And as someone pointed out previously, at the Commonwealth service Sophie was seated after Anne and Alexandra becsuse Edward wasn't present (other wise they would have sst between Andrew and Anne).

 

[Pranter]

They don't always follow the formal 'line'.


LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

“Precedence not regulated by law is substantially that granted at Court and this is a question for the Crown” - Sir Geoffrey Ellis.

In other word Because royals no longer sit in the House of Lords, where the House of Lords act was in effect , it’s up to The Queen to assign precedence at court.

Harry and especially William have been shown to outrank their uncles. Even Catherine appears to keep her precedence in the absence of her husband.

A couple of years back most of the family attended an event at the Royal Albert Hall and Kate was sat as if William was there but he was absent.

The only time when Kate doesn't take her precedence from her position as William's wife is when she is attending a PRIVATE event at which on WOMEN are present. That was the change the Queen made and announced in 2005 - that in private women's only settings born princesses took precedence over married in princesses and that was restated in 2012.

Many people ignore the 'private' and 'women only' in that announcement and try to apply it to all situations when it doesn't.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

Hi, regarding the precedence issue with Diana after the divorce. Obviously I know she would have been seated with the BRF at both her sons weddings as she would be part of the groom's family. However, if she had attended Princess Eugenie's wedding would she have been seated with the British Royal Family even though she officially would not be part of the Bride's family as she would be Eugenie's uncles ex-wife but she did still retained her precedence as the mother of a future King.

 

[VictoriaB]

Hi, regarding the precedence issue with Diana after the divorce. Obviously I know she would have been seated with the BRF at both her sons weddings as she would be part of the groom's family. However, if she had attended Princess Eugenie's wedding would she have been seated with the British Royal Family even though she officially would not be part of the Bride's family as she would be Eugenie's uncles ex-wife but she did still retained her precedence as the mother of a future King.

I think the best guide for that would be where Sarah was seated at William’s & Harry’s weddings. She was not seated with the family and I think that would have been the case with Diana.

Eugenie s wedding was a family event not a state event so Diana’s precedence really would not really have been relevant.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

Hi because of the fact that the Sovereign's siblings have a place on the Order of Precedence, I was wondering if in the event that Diana had gone on to have more children would these individuals have a place the Order of Precedence during the reign of their sibling William V?

 

[Osipi]

I wouldn't think they would. Any children Diana may have had after her divorce from Charles would not be royal nor would they be in the line of succession to the throne. They may be half siblings to William and Harry but other than that, they would have absolutely no ties to the House of Windsor whatsoever.

If anything, they would be extended family to William V on his mother's side from a different marriage and therefore have no place in the order of precedence whatsoever.

 

[muriel]

I wouldn't think they would. Any children Diana may have had after her divorce from Charles would not be royal nor would they be in the line of succession to the throne. They may be half siblings to William and Harry but other than that, they would have absolutely no ties to the House of Windsor whatsoever.

If anything, they would be extended family to William V on his mother's side from a different marriage and therefore have no place in the order of precedence whatsoever.

That is right. Similarly, Camilla's children do not and will not have a place on the OofP.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

Thank you for your swift response, this probably has been asked before, but was Diana on the Order of Precedence after the divorce?

 

[Spheno]

the Order of Precedence at the Anzac Day service this afternoon
1. prince Harry
2. prince Richard
3. Catherine
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/04/25/12/12704402-6958599-image-a-157_1556192155023.jpg

 

[Fijiro]

Thanks for clarifying the order of precedence.

It is sometimes confusing.

 

[royal_enthusiast]

At the time of Charles and Diana's divorce the Palace announced that she would receive invitations to some state and national public occasions. Would that mean that Diana would have been invited to Charles and Camilla's coronation and what precedence would she have enjoyed if she had gone?

 

[Rudolph]

Precedence outside of law is a matter for the sovereign. It's the King or Queen who decides such matters.

 

[muriel]

At the time of Charles and Diana's divorce the Palace announced that she would receive invitations to some state and national public occasions. Would that mean that Diana would have been invited to Charles and Camilla's coronation and what precedence would she have enjoyed if she had gone?

It is difficult to speculate, as we do not know how the relationship between Charles, Camilla and Diana would have developed over time.

 

[Dman]

At the time of Charles and Diana's divorce the Palace announced that she would receive invitations to some state and national public occasions. Would that mean that Diana would have been invited to Charles and Camilla's coronation and what precedence would she have enjoyed if she had gone?

We do know their relationship improved very nicely before her untimely passing. Diana had also accepted Charles’ invite to sail the British isles with him on the last voyage on the Royal Yacht Britannia. I hope their relationship would’ve strengthened enough for her to be invited to the Coronation.

 

[EuroJpnJoRoyals]

Order of Precedence

May I ask, IF Princess Margaret is still alive, how would the order of precedence when the married royals are NOT WITH THEIR HUSBAND?

Is she behind Princess Royal or behind Eugenie and Beatrice, because she’s blood royal?

As Alexandra is GRANDDAUGHTER of former sovereign, but Margaret was DAUGHTER of former sovereign.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

When I pull the website up on my laptop it shows up differently than you've listed as above.

The screen is essentially divided into thirds - the left two thirds have a "major" family member while the corresponding right third has their spouse or sibling.

Left Side | Right Side
The Prince of Wales | The Duchess of Cornwall
The Duke of Cambridge | The Duchess of Cambridge
The Princess Royal | The Duke of York
The Earl of Wessex | The Countess of Wessex
The Duke of Sussex | The Duchess of Sussex
The Duke of Kent | Princess Alexandra
The Duke of Gloucester | The Duchess of Gloucester
Prince & Princess Michael of Kent

I am glad to see the Princess Royal precede her brothers for, I believe, the first time, even if it is only on the website. I have never understood why she, as the hardest-working royal, is denied that place in the official order of precedence.

I find it interesting that they left off The Duchess of Kent.

While at the same time adding Prince and Princess Michael of Kent back onto the page.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

My mistake; the Duchess of Kent was excluded from the previous version of the page as well.

 

[Fijiro]

I wonder why the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra of Kent are listed ahead of the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester.

 

[morhange]

I wonder why the Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra of Kent are listed ahead of the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester.

Age, perhaps? Certainly not due to title seniority or place in the family, since Richard's father was the older brother and received his title six years before Edward's father, the younger brother, received his.

But Edward and Alexandra are both older than Richard, so maybe that's why?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Age, perhaps? Certainly not due to title seniority or place in the family, since Richard's father was the older brother and received his title six years before Edward's father, the younger brother, received his.

But Edward and Alexandra are both older than Richard, so maybe that's why?

But Prince Michael of Kent is older than the Duke of Gloucester yet is listed below him.

 

[kbk]

I believe the place on the website for Anne, Edward and Alexandra's profiles is a mix of age, i.e. family seniority, and their personal records of decades of work for the monarchy. Anne is older than Andrew and Edward and she is definitely the most working child of the Queen after Charles. Same goes with the Kent siblings, they are significantly older than the Gloucesters thus take the privilege of age seniority here. And just by being senior to Richard, they have simply longer careers within the Firm.
I think the order of presenting RF profiles on the monarchy website at least (partially) tries to reflect each member's position and role within the family as a public institution.
And, obviously, it has nothing to do with the formal or private order of precedence.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Precedence, on the other hand, is assigned separately in the UK to men and women, so it doesn't really make sense to say that the Princess Royal will be given higher precedence than her brothers (who are of a different gender).

I am not sure why it doesn't make sense. Official events in the UK typically do not separate guests by gender, thus, either the Princess Royal or her brothers must come first when their names appear on a guest list or they walk into an aisle to take their seats. As far as I recall, her brothers precede her.

 

[Mbruno]

I am not sure why it doesn't make sense. Official events in the UK typically do not separate guests by gender, thus, either the Princess Royal or her brothers must come first when their names appear on a guest list or they walk into an aisle to take their seats. As far as I recall, her brothers precede her.

Technically, and that is something that honestly the Brits pointed out to me, her position is not determined with respect to her brothers, but rather in relation to other women who precede her, i.e.., she is not walking behind Edward for example, but behind Sophie who is accompanying Edward. It is true, however, that, for example, when only Andrew and Anne are present, Andrew comes ahead of her.

In any case, the way the protocol should work is that men and women should be assigned to different lines with designated pairs and each line should be ordered separately according to precedence. Otherwise, there is no point in having separate orders of precedence based on gender as the UK has.

EDIT: The only person who is on top of both orders of precedence, regardless of gender, is the monarch him/herself.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Technically, and that is something that honestly the Brits pointed out to me, her position is not determined with respect to her brothers, but rather in relation to other women who precede her, i.e.., she is not walking behind Edward for example, but behind Sophie who is accompanying Edward.

That is one more new norm put in place during the 20th century (by Queen Elizabeth II, I believe). It went against the centuries-old rule of daughters outranking younger sons and the wives of younger sons (which is the reason the daughter of an Earl is a Lady, whereas a younger son or wife of a younger son of an Earl is "only" The Honourable).

Where Sisters Have Priority

It is true, however, that, for example, when only Andrew and Anne are present, Andrew comes ahead of her.

In any case, the way the protocol should work is that men and women should be assigned to different lines with designated pairs and each line should be ordered separately according to precedence. Otherwise, there is no point in having separate orders of precedence based on gender as the UK has.

EDIT: The only person who is on top of both orders of precedence, regardless of gender, is the monarch him/herself.

Agreed that the separate orders of precedence are incompatible with the present-day norm of mixed-gender events, but the superior resolution would be to update the protocol rather than reverting to gender-separated receiving lines and seating, I think. (Consider the optics of a palace reception for foreign heads of government attending a summit, if the male King receives the mostly male prime ministers and presidents while the minority of female heads of government are sidelined, literally. And how would the gender-separated protocol be applied if an attendee of non-binary gender was present?)