The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1161  
Old 10-09-2018, 03:06 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Remember the Commonwealth fashion event at BP earlier this year. Catherine was the first to be received, next was Sophie followed by Beatrice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wartenberg7 View Post
Exactly. And William sat at "table no. 1" with the Queen, not his aunt or uncles.
This disproves your argument. As many have said, William and Harry are the exception as adult children of the heir. If the order of succession was strictly followed Beatrice would have been received prior to Sophie but as she is a grandchild and Sophie the wife of a child, Sophie takes precedence while Edward is lower in the line of succession than Beatrice.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1162  
Old 10-09-2018, 05:50 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 255
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Remember the Commonwealth fashion event at BP earlier this year. Catherine was the first to be received, next was Sophie followed by Beatrice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wartenberg7 View Post
Exactly. And William sat at "table no. 1" with the Queen, not his aunt or uncles.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
This disproves your argument. As many have said, William and Harry are the exception as adult children of the heir. If the order of succession was strictly followed Beatrice would have been received prior to Sophie but as she is a grandchild and Sophie the wife of a child, Sophie takes precedence while Edward is lower in the line of succession than Beatrice.
If the order of succession is strictly followed, if Catherine and Sophie are not accompanied by their spouses, Beatrice outranks both of them.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1163  
Old 10-09-2018, 06:40 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Remember the Commonwealth fashion event at BP earlier this year. Catherine was the first to be received, next was Sophie followed by Beatrice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wartenberg7 View Post
Exactly. And William sat at "table no. 1" with the Queen, not his aunt or uncles.




Quote:
If the order of succession is strictly followed, if Catherine and Sophie are not accompanied by their spouses, Beatrice outranks both of them.
I'm not sure: if the order of succession is strictly followed (a hypothetical situation) it would not matter whether a spouse was present or not as his place in the order of succession doesn't change.

However, in practice it apparently is the case that princesses of the blood get precedence over their cousins by marriage (I doubt whether that also applies to an aunt who is in a 'higher' category as child(-in-law) of the monarch vs grandchildren.

However, maybe we should move this discussion to the appropriate thread.
Reply With Quote
  #1164  
Old 10-10-2018, 04:41 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
This disproves your argument. As many have said, William and Harry are the exception as adult children of the heir. If the order of succession was strictly followed Beatrice would have been received prior to Sophie but as she is a grandchild and Sophie the wife of a child, Sophie takes precedence while Edward is lower in the line of succession than Beatrice.
No, it confirms my argument as William is higher in the royal pecking order just by birth than those you claimed they woud proceed.
Beatrice is neither the daughter of the future King nor is she married yet nor does she play an equally active role in the "family firm" like William, Harry or Edward, and by that Sophie for that matter, do. All these things have to be considered when it comes to royal ranking.
Reply With Quote
  #1165  
Old 10-10-2018, 05:07 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 1,793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fijiro View Post
Quote:
If the order of succession is strictly followed, if Catherine and Sophie are not accompanied by their spouses, Beatrice outranks both of them.

Again, no! Just imagine the following scene: The royal family has to attend a commerotative service at Westm. Abbey and William was suddenly caught by flu. The Queen would of course proceed, after her C. and C. If the Sussexes were in London and also take part, Catherine would probably go with them (the ladies taking Harry in the middle of them), may be she would even escort Charles and Camilla.
After them the Queen´s children proceeded by Andrew and so on and then Beatrice and Eugenie. Sitting down at the high altar, Catherine would be sitting next to Ch. and Camilla, then Harry/ Meghan, while Beatrice would probably sit next to her father in the 2nd row.

If Catherine in this example of William having taken ill would still take part in a state banquet and, no matter how unlikely, Prcss Beatrice also being present, Catherine would certainly not walk in procession after B. into the banqueting room or sit somewhere at the table down below. If Ch. and C. also being there she would sit close to the top table or even at the top table a little bit outside of it, while B. takes her seat at an upper part of the table sideline.

Sophie is a different matter. She is outranked by B. because Andrew, and by that his daughters, too, are in a higher position in the line of succession than Edward is. But if that would mean that Sophie would at an event walk behind the Queen´s grand daughters, sit behind them etc., because her husband was not present, I doubt. I guess she would be escorting Andrew or walk with Anne and T. Laurence, for instance.
Reply With Quote
  #1166  
Old 10-10-2018, 08:12 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by wartenberg7 View Post
No, it confirms my argument as William is higher in the royal pecking order just by birth than those you claimed they woud proceed.
Beatrice is neither the daughter of the future King nor is she married yet nor does she play an equally active role in the "family firm" like William, Harry or Edward, and by that Sophie for that matter, do. All these things have to be considered when it comes to royal ranking.
If the active role people play needs to be considered, we have to conclude that it is not the line of succession that determines their place in the order of succession.

This heraldica article explains all the rules and even includes where these rules stem from. The royal family does not operate in a vacuum, so the way these rules are applied should reflect how precedence works in general. The queen however is free to use a sslightly different order. She in fact has done so: Camilla being downgraded behind Anne and Alexandra -who is way down in the line of succession- but before her other daughters-in-law and granddaughters (including princesses of the royal blood) is just one example. The other example, so an exception to the general rule, are William and Harry being upgraded to the position they would have when their father is king. This same upgrade doesn't apply to the children of the queen's other sons as in general it is not the line of succession that is leading but the relationship to the monarch.
Reply With Quote
  #1167  
Old 10-10-2018, 08:25 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 1,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Somebody View Post
This disproves your argument. As many have said, William and Harry are the exception as adult children of the heir. If the order of succession was strictly followed Beatrice would have been received prior to Sophie but as she is a grandchild and Sophie the wife of a child, Sophie takes precedence while Edward is lower in the line of succession than Beatrice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wartenberg7 View Post
No, it confirms my argument as William is higher in the royal pecking order just by birth than those you claimed they woud proceed.
Beatrice is neither the daughter of the future King nor is she married yet nor does she play an equally active role in the "family firm" like William, Harry or Edward, and by that Sophie for that matter, do. All these things have to be considered when it comes to royal ranking.
If that is the case, it confirms that the ranking order does not strictly follow the order of succession.
Reply With Quote
  #1168  
Old 10-10-2018, 08:37 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,115
“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.
Reply With Quote
  #1169  
Old 10-10-2018, 08:44 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
“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.
Isn't the idea of female precedence that it is applied when no men are present? But when other men are present that all women retain their rank from their husband?
Reply With Quote
  #1170  
Old 10-10-2018, 08:51 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,115
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1171  
Old 10-10-2018, 09:24 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1172  
Old 10-10-2018, 09:42 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 255
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1173  
Old 10-17-2018, 09:42 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 100
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?
Reply With Quote
  #1174  
Old 10-17-2018, 10:36 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 1,793
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1175  
Old 10-17-2018, 10:45 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 10,629
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
Reply With Quote
  #1176  
Old 10-17-2018, 10:50 AM
Somebody's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 2,748
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pranter View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
  #1177  
Old 10-17-2018, 10:54 AM
Pranter's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 10,629
They don't always follow the formal 'line'.


LaRae
Reply With Quote
  #1178  
Old 10-18-2018, 12:08 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 12,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
“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.
Reply With Quote
  #1179  
Old 11-09-2018, 05:49 AM
Gentry
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Somewhere in the U.K, United Kingdom
Posts: 100
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1180  
Old 11-09-2018, 01:33 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 650
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal_enthusiast View Post
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.
__________________

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 204 05-27-2018 11:39 AM
Princess Madeleine at the Ball of the Order of Innocence: 2003 Josefine Princess Madeleine, Chris O'Neill and Family 63 06-15-2015 03:07 PM
Danish Royal Family, Current Events 1: April 2003 - March 2008 Julia Current Events Archive 506 03-23-2008 05:56 PM




Popular Tags
belgian british royal family ceremony clothes corruption crown current events daughters de belgique denmark documentary duchessofcambridge duchess of sussex duke of edinburgh duke of sussex earl of wessex england fashion forum french revolution genealogy general news gordon harry and meghan headship hohenzollern infanta cristina interesting facts interests juan carlos kiko ladies-in-waiting lady louise mountbatten-windsor lineage meghan markle member monogram patron prince harry prince harry of wales princenapoleon prince peter princess princess beatrice princess claire princess eugenie princess of belgium princess royal prince william public image queen elisabeth queen elizabeth relationship remarriage royal royal family royal wedding sarah ferguson savoy saxony state visit swedish royal registry tiara tradition van belgië wedding wedding of prince harry windsor castle windy city ww1



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:50 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2019
Jelsoft Enterprises