The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Ceremony and Protocol (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f162/)
-   -   Precedence - Who Outranks Who? (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f162/precedence-who-outranks-who-5580.html)

Huddo 04-06-2005 09:23 PM

Precedence - Who Outranks Who?
 
Do Kings and Queens out rank an elected president?

Isabel 04-07-2005 10:43 AM

Well, it kind of depends on several factors.

Most countries that possess a President don't have a monarch, so the President is the Head of State as in the U.S. This means that a monarch (reigning of course) and President have an equal rank in their roles and status as Head of State of their countries.

Many and most countries that are functioning monarchies have a monarch (Queen, King, Sovereign Prince, Grand Duke etc.) and possess a Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is not the actual Head of State. The Prime Minister is the Head of Government whereas the monarch is the Head of State. In many cases the Prime Minister is the chief advisor to the monarch.

lamass 04-09-2005 12:50 AM

the president and his family are our royal family. take the kennedys for example. they ruled our hearts for a long time.

Genevieve 04-10-2005 09:03 PM

I think monarchs do outrank presidents and prime ministers because unlike other elected heads of state who are in office usually for only a handful of years, monarchs reign until their death.

During the Pope's funeral most of the monarchs sat in front of presidents, prime ministers and other government leaders. In the front row sat the Jordanian, Spanish and Belgian kings and queens and the Danish queen and her husband. Behind them sat President Bush and his wife.

machievelli 04-11-2005 02:15 PM

In modern times in terms of real power, influence, decision making, ect. Elected officials such as presidents, prime minister,s ect. have more power and out rank the monarchy in a democracy. The monarchy has no real power anymore and are mainly only ceremonial.

GrandDuchess 04-12-2005 12:07 PM

Heads of States of sovereign countries (wheter it is a President, King/Queen or any other form) hold the same rank in official protocol.

Warren 04-12-2005 01:28 PM

Rank and Precedence
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GrandDuchess
Heads of States of sovereign countries (wheter it is a President, King/Queen or any other form) hold the same rank in official protocol.

All Heads of State are equal in rank; their rank being "Head of State" of an independent sovereign nation.

However, they are not equal in precedence, and this is where the Royals more often than not have the upper hand.

Modern precedence is usually given in terms of the length of the rule/reign/elected office.

In Europe, for example, Queen Elizabeth is not only the longest reigning Monarch, but the longest serving Head of State, so she is at the top of the list. Prince Albert would currently be at the bottom of the list of precedence because he has been Head of State the shortest time.

Most politician presidents serve one or two terms, and that's it; say 8 to 10 or 12 years max. Once a Monarch gets into his or her stride and passes that point they are then moving with other royals, unusually long-serving politicians or presidents, and the ocasional dictator-for-life.

But compromises are always made; it would be unlikely that a just-elected President of the United States would be told to sit in the back row! This is very much a case of deference to power, not attainment or breeding.

And for events like the Vatican funural it would be a given that reigning Royalties are seated in the front row.

It is easy to work out from a list of Royals who should go where and in what order, but much more difficult and arcane when dealing with, say a bevy of German and Austrian Nobility. In this case title, rank and stye, and "age" of the House come into play.

In former times there would, at big meetings/coronations/weddings etc be a melange of Imperial Emperors and Empresses, Archdukes and Archduchesses, Royal Kings and Queens, Grandukes and GrandDuchesses, Dukes and Duchesses, Princes and Princesses, Counts and Countesses etc etc.

The difficulty here is that some Princes were reigning Princes, and some were not, some Princes were Royal Highness, some Highness, some Serene Highness, and some just "Prince". Archdukes were Imperial and Royal Highness. Grand Dukes were Imperial Highness, Royal Highness or Grand Ducal Highness. A Count could be an Illustrious Highness, or nothing. And of course there are the mediatised Princes to be slotted in accurately!

And if you had two people of equal title, rank and stle, they would have to be differentialted by length of time (say, for a Sovereign Prince), or in what year did the Emperor admit the family to the College of Princes of the Holy Roman Empire, and at what level of Prince they were admitted.

Which of course is no different to us saying that the Duke of Norfolk is the Premier Duke and Earl of England because his dukedom was created in 1483, before anyone else.

Everybody knew their own place in relation to everyone else, and if an error was made, there were plenty of people around who would have noticed. It would certainly have minimised disputes over the grandstand seating, or which Prince entered a room before another Prince.

These myriad rules, designed to ensure proper respect where it was due and to prevent arguments over who was the more "important", is the forerunner of the modern protocol of today. Still rigidly structured, but with allowance made for real-politik realities.

No one wants their Diplomatic State Function to dissolve into a series of petty and acrimonious disputes over the seating plan!
.

mktv2000 04-12-2005 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lamass
the president and his family are our royal family. take the kennedys for example. they ruled our hearts for a long time.

This is incorrect on a number of levels. The President and his family pass nothing on to anyone unlike royalty. He is the head of state, and head of the government, but is not royalty in anyway. The only link of the Kennedy's to royalty is the way Americans are generally obessed with the family and everythign that happens to them. The family it just intrenched in public service so they live in the public eye...but they still are not anything like royalty.

I think the comparison between them all lies in their responsibilities. With most consitutional monarchies the job of Head of State and Head of the Government is split into two positions...in countries like the US - the position is the same. But when you combine the positions in a democracy, the term is often shorter (like in the US - four years). So you have the longevity of HM the Queen, but she has never been the head of the government. Honestly...I think it is like comparing apples and oranges.

banda_windsor 03-26-2007 12:23 AM

I think, president and monarch has an equal rank. although in some cases, sometimes monarchs do outrank presidents. I have a picture of Madame chiraque, French First Lady, courtsey to QEII.

Madame Royale 03-26-2007 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by banda_windsor
I think, president and monarch has an equal rank. although in some cases, sometimes monarchs do outrank presidents. I have a picture of Madame chiraque, French First Lady, courtsey to QEII.

That's more to do with a sign of respect, rather than precedence.

Aurora810 03-26-2007 01:29 AM

I personally think royalty outranks a president. A King or Queen represents history, a long standing institution. Blue blood! But a president is chosen to serve for a term, in America it's four years and if one happens to win a second term than it's a total of 8 years. But then that's it one then returns to a "normal" civilian life. Yes, ones place in history is reserved. But as for a King/Queen there is no changing the family that one is from and the blood that pumps thru a persons veins. So I definitely believe royalty outranks a President. Just my (American) opinion!

Next Star 03-26-2007 01:55 PM

I believe a king or queen does outrank a president because they have the stlye His or Her Majesty while the president does not have a stlye just a title.

Henri M. 03-26-2007 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Next Star
I believe a king or queen does outrank a president because they have the stlye His or Her Majesty while the president does not have a stlye just a title.

In almost all countries heads of state are ranked the highest. In this group their ranking is determined by the length of their Reign.

So the King of Sweden (1972) would have preference above President Chirac of France (1995).

But President Chirac would outrank the Grand-Duke of Luxembourg (2000).

You can clearly see this in international events with royals and presidents, like the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin or the 60th Commemoration of the Liberation of Nazi Camp Auschwitz.

Only in the non-republics (just a handful) the rules might differ because it is also 'family', you know. But the fact that most monarchs reign for 30,40,50 years, automatically places them very high in the hierarchy, so it looks like royals are higher, but it is easy to outrank a president. Look at Grand-Duke Henri, with a short Reign (7 years) but he will soon already outrank every US president by the length of his Reign since only two 4-years terms are allowed in the US.

:flowers:

Iain 03-30-2007 11:42 AM

It would be interesting to know what happens in a country like Uganda which is a republic (and therefore has a President) made up of monarchies each with it's own king.

banda_windsor 03-31-2007 08:44 PM

Quote:

It would be interesting to know what happens in a country like Uganda which is a republic (and therefore has a President) made up of monarchies each with it's own king.
Well i think in the case like Uganda, President does outrank the monarch. It also happen here in Indonesia. We have many Sultan and King now. For example the Sultan of Jogjakarta, Sri Susuhunan Pakubwono XII of Surakarta, Sultan Pakuningrat of Kasepuhan, Sultan of Deli, Sultan of Kutai, Sultan of Palembang and many more. But those monarch doesn't rule their region anymore. They're just a symbol of the culture and heritage of in their area. So the President of Indonesia is outrank of all the Sultans, Kings, and Queens of Indonesian states.

Vanesa 03-31-2007 08:57 PM

We never know...How is the "Head of the State" in Spain, for example? I believed it was the King, Don Juan Carlos. Mr. Rodríguez Zapatero is always named as the "chied of the Spanish Gouvernement"...:ermm:

But...Oh..wait! I think this one is a "political discussion"! :rolleyes:

Vanesa.

Next Star 04-18-2007 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henri M.
In almost all countries heads of state are ranked the highest. In this group their ranking is determined by the length of their Reign.

So the King of Sweden (1972) would have preference above President Chirac of France (1995).

But President Chirac would outrank the Grand-Duke of Luxembourg (2000).

You can clearly see this in international events with royals and presidents, like the funeral of Yitzhak Rabin or the 60th Commemoration of the Liberation of Nazi Camp Auschwitz.

Only in the non-republics (just a handful) the rules might differ because it is also 'family', you know. But the fact that most monarchs reign for 30,40,50 years, automatically places them very high in the hierarchy, so it looks like royals are higher, but it is easy to outrank a president. Look at Grand-Duke Henri, with a short Reign (7 years) but he will soon already outrank every US president by the length of his Reign since only two 4-years terms are allowed in the US.

:flowers:

My opinion is the same that kings and queens outrank presidents and prime ministers period.

maria cristina 04-27-2007 07:10 PM

Well for me a Monarch-Sovereign and his or her Family outrank a president,primeminister and their families certainly.But,times have changed and nowadays these elected heads of state have been given somewhat similar honors due the to King,Queen,Emperor,and Empress.But first family members do not get the same honors as members of a Royal or Imperial Family.No one has to bow or curtsey to the president or primeminster,and they are addressed simply as president this or primeminister that.

HRHofNothing 04-30-2007 08:02 AM

All Monarchs are heads of state without exception whereas the Prime Ministers are all heads of government withour exception so the Head of State outranks the Head of Government. It is impossible for Tony Blair to outrank QEII simply because he is the head of HER government and cannot outrank her.

In the case of Presidents they are on an equal fotting with Monarchs because they are heads of state of their respective countries and are treated as such. They are all treated estentially the same, even though Monarchs may be given precedence out of respect and protocol in certain situations (e.g: The incident where George Bush I sat down at a meeting while QEII was still standing).

RoyalProtocol 11-09-2007 12:55 PM

In my personal opinion Monarchs should outrank presidents etc. However in most cases Precedence is predicted by the lenght of time an office has been held. Though there are obivious times when this does not happen, Papal ceremonies, Royal Funerals, Weddings, coronations etc. when a Sovereign has automatic precedence due to the regal nature of the event.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises