Order of Precedence

[branchg]

Originally Posted by kbk

Could you cite a proper source for your opinion here?

It's not an opinion, but fact, as I have already referenced throughout this thread. Daughters of Sons of The Sovereign take precedence ahead of Sons of Daughters of The Sovereign. Beatrice and Eugenie are ahead of Peter Phillips in the line of succession as male-line granddaughters, just as The Duke of York takes precedence ahead of The Princess Royal.

This is why male-line grandchildren are HRH while female-line grandchildren are not.

[kbk]

Originally Posted by branchg

It's not an opinion, but fact, as I have already referenced throughout this thread. Daughters of Sons of The Sovereign take precedence ahead of Sons of Daughters of The Sovereign. Beatrice and Eugenie are ahead of Peter Phillips in the line of succession as male-line granddaughters, just as The Duke of York takes precedence ahead of The Princess Royal.

This is why male-line grandchildren are HRH while female-line grandchildren are not.

I completely don't understand your point now. I think you are confusing here the order of precedence with the order of succession to the throne! With an addition of the Letters Patent of 1917 and general rules of dynastic seniority...
Again, could you recite your source?

[COUNTESS]

Originally Posted by kbk

I completely don't understand your point now. I think you are confusing here the order of precedence with the order of succession to the throne! With an addition of the Letters Patent of 1917 and general rules of dynastic seniority...
Again, could you recite your source?

Look, it is the BRF's own rules, biting them in the rear end. The Duchess of Windsor was not a HRH, by their standards, because of her past. If you use the logic of "to whom you are married" she was. She had precedence. Camilla has, some what the same role. As a very bright woman, she choose not to style herself, POW, as her popular, predecessor, but DOC. She has done a good job and is smart. I don't think she care at all, but Charles is obsessed with protocol and station, but not as his mother's thoughts have evolved.

[PssKatie]

Originally Posted by branchg

It's not an opinion, but fact, as I have already referenced throughout this thread. Daughters of Sons of The Sovereign take precedence ahead of Sons of Daughters of The Sovereign. Beatrice and Eugenie are ahead of Peter Phillips in the line of succession as male-line granddaughters, just as The Duke of York takes precedence ahead of The Princess Royal.

This is why male-line grandchildren are HRH while female-line grandchildren are not.

In the female Order of Precedence, wives of grandsons of the sovereign come ahead of granddaughters of the sovereign. Thus, Autumn Phillips has precedence over Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. If Autumn has precedence over Beatrice and Eugenie, obviously Peter does as well.

[Grandma828]

If males are present the males ruless apply.

[Kit]

Does this mean that Kate with William will have precedence over Camilla without Charles?

[Artemisia]

That appears to be the general consensus among those well-versed in the precedence rules - that Kate would outrank Camilla via William if William is present but Charles is not. If Charles is present than Camilla always outranks Kate, and the same is true if both their husbands are absent.

I have to say though that the first case (Kate outranking Camilla if only William is present) is one aspect of precedence that I find a bit hard to understand.

[Kit]

Thanks Artemisia. I do not really understand it either to be honest.

[Duke-of-Earl]

Seems consistent with the way the BRF operates. If William outranks Camilla, then it only makes sense that when Catherine is with William, she takes her husband's status and therefore outranks Camilla (sans Charles)

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl

Seems consistent with the way the BRF operates. If William outranks Camilla, then it only makes sense that when Catherine is with William, she takes her husband's status and therefore outranks Camilla (sans Charles)

Yes but does William outranks Camilla?
Camilla is the wife of the Heir Apparent and I don't see how William could outrank her, even if he is the future King.

[Duke-of-Earl]

Originally Posted by Artemisia

Yes but does William outranks Camilla?
Camilla is the wife of the Heir Apparent and I don't see how William could outrank her, even if he is the future King.

You know more about this than I do but from different articles I've read lately, this appears to be the way it is.

Should Kate Middleton bend a knee to Princess Beatrice? | Mail Online

Edit: Actually this article states Catherine does have to curtsey to Camilla even if William is present, which means William would bow to Camilla.

[Artemisia]

That's kind of what confuses me.

Various articles I have read state that if William is present but Charles isn't, then William's wife - taking precedence from her husband - outranks Camilla. Now, that doesn't make sense to me. That would imply that William outranks Camilla in his own right but how? Because he is the Queen's grandson in his own right whereas Camilla is "just" a Princess by marriage. That sort of make sense unless you realise that then Camilla would actually have to curtsey (in theory) to Andrew, Edward, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Anne, Alexandra... In other words, all royals who were, as it were, born royals.

The only explanation I have is that William - as the eldest son of the Prince of Wales - holds special precedence when his father is not present. Then again, that contradicts to the article you've linked which states he'd have to bow to Camilla whether Charles is present or not. Besides, that would explain why William wouldn't have to bow to Camilla (if Charles isn't present), but not his wife's lack of curtsey (because Kate is in exactly the same position as Camilla). *


I'm starting to believe there was some sort of an error in the interpretation of the Precedence and, to me, everything is pretty simple: Camilla is the second woman in the Kingdom after the Queen, and there is no one but the Queen and Prince Philip she has to curtsey to whether her husband is present or not. Unless someone gives logical and/or official reason why that isn't the case, I'm going to go by that rule whatever various news outlets may state.


* To clarify, I know royals don't spend the day bowing/curtseying each other; the discussion is from precedence point of view only and has little to do with what royals would do in real life.

[Duke-of-Earl]

I have always believed this to be the case with the Duchess of Cornwall. Precedence in the BRF is very confusing to me (William appears to outrank his uncles on Remembrance Day for example) even though he is behind his uncles on 'official' precedence lists/
For me , Camilla is the second lady in the land.

When I think of precedence in the BRF, I look to the balcony appearance during the Jubilee. Official or not, those are the 'top' 7 members of the BRF.

[Artemisia]

Originally Posted by Duke-of-Earl

I have always believed this to be the case with the Duchess of Cornwall. Precedence in the BRF is very confusing to me (William appears to outrank his uncles on Remembrance Day for example) even though he is behind his uncles on 'official' precedence lists/
For me , Camilla is the second lady in the land.

I think, just as with women, there is a kind of private precedence list for men as well where William (and possibly, Harry too) do indeed outrank the Sovereign's son (apart from Charles, of course).

By and large, BRF's precedence is pretty clear to me (though I'm not saying my viewpoint is necessarily 100% accurate) but the "Camilla must curtsey to Kate if William is present but Charles isn't" situation - which, incidentally, was put forward by not necessarily most reliable news outlets in the world in the first place - confuses me simply because I don't understand the logic behind it.

[Kit]

I really love your informative posts Artemisia and you have hit the nail on the head too with your previous post. I remember the discussion began with an article by the Daily Mail a few weeks before the wedding. Will Camilla have to curtsey before Kate was the headline and all other newspapers printed the article as well. IMO they only did this to have a good headline. Nobody would have asked this question if Camilla were William's real mother. Why should a son and his wife take precedence over his mother ??? This would only be the case if Camilla were Dowager Queen with William and Kate being King and Queen.

[Dman]

Yes, I do think it's true that Camilla is the second lady of the land as Catherine is third.

I paid attention to how the senior royals arrived at Zara's wedding. Although Andrew & Edward arrived before William at the wedding. The arrivals somehow aligned with the succession to the throne. William arrived just before The Prince of Wales and The Prince of Wales arrived just before The Queen.

[Grandma828]

I vote to just let the royals sort it out and enjoy watching the show.

[Duke-of-Earl]

I don't pay much attention to what the tabloids say about this matter.
I try to look to 'real life', and figure it out for myself and at least since William's wedding, I have not witnessed a situation where Andrew or Edward have taken precedence over William (Zara's wedding, Remembrance Day) and Like Kit has stated, no one would question Camilla's precedence if she were William's biological mum.

[Dman]

Precedence:
Precedence

[Duke-of-Earl]

The placing of wreaths at the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day is almost sacrosanct with the BRF, and if William takes precedence over Andrew and Edward there, than at least in my opinion, William takes precedence over his uncles everywhere, regardless of what the lists say and I also believe Camilla to be the second lady in the land period, regardless of the lists.