The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #901  
Old 10-13-2012, 06:46 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 4,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl View Post
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?
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.
__________________

__________________
“We live in a world where we have to hide to make love, while violence is practiced in broad daylight.”
~~~ John Lennon ~~~
Reply With Quote
  #902  
Old 10-13-2012, 07:17 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kit View Post
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 ??
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #903  
Old 10-13-2012, 08:50 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemisia
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.
Yes, but that is for state occasions when the official order of precedence is followed, not necessarily at court.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #904  
Old 10-13-2012, 10:19 PM
Queen Camilla's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Chicago, United States
Posts: 752
In the Jubilee Concert photo, Princess Anne, Prince Charles and Prince Andrew are in the front row. Prince Edward stands behind Charles with Sophie behind the Queen. Harry stands behind the vacant seat of Prince Phillip with William next to him and Kate behind Princess Anne.
Diamond Jubilee Concert: Who sat with the Queen in the Royal Box? | Mail Online
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #905  
Old 10-14-2012, 01:23 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,702
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #906  
Old 10-25-2012, 04:51 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 632
video of the royal family attending a reception for Team GB, Kate attended alone and can be seen entering after Princess Anne and Tim Laurence

Queen meets London Olympics athletes - YouTube!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #907  
Old 11-06-2012, 01:57 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #908  
Old 11-06-2012, 04:03 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,702
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #909  
Old 11-20-2012, 02:45 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #910  
Old 11-20-2012, 03:18 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #911  
Old 11-20-2012, 04:46 PM
vkrish's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 842
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
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #912  
Old 11-20-2012, 05:17 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #913  
Old 11-20-2012, 05:20 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #914  
Old 11-20-2012, 05:36 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #915  
Old 11-20-2012, 05:45 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421


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.
Reply With Quote
  #916  
Old 11-20-2012, 06:06 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #917  
Old 11-20-2012, 06:20 PM
Artemisia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Yerevan, Armenia
Posts: 5,421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kotroman View Post
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.
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.
Reply With Quote
  #918  
Old 11-20-2012, 07:00 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #919  
Old 11-20-2012, 07:28 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,193
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.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #920  
Old 11-20-2012, 07:38 PM
Kotroman's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: -, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Posts: 464
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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
order of precedence, protocol


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Danish Orders and Monograms davo Royal House of Denmark 156 08-08-2014 12:36 PM
Danish Royal Family, Current Events 1: April 2003 - March 2008 Julia Current Events Archive 506 03-23-2008 05:56 PM
Princess Madeleine at the Ball of the Order of Innocence: 2003 Josefine Princess Madeleine and Chris O'Neill 62 11-19-2005 04:27 PM




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympics ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:28 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]