The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   Order of Precedence (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/order-of-precedence-6536.html)

james 07-20-2005 10:05 AM

Order of Precedence
 
I see that in the order of precedence at court Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra have been ranked directly after the Queen and thus in front of Camilla, Sophie and the other ladies supposedley on the premise they were born Royal (although this was never the case before Charles and Camilla were married). Logically then, among the females, Princess Beatrice will rank directly after the Queen when she turns 18 next year but if William marries where would his wife be placed?

Am I alone in thinking that between Louise being called Lady, when she should be Princess, and these new rules of precedence it is becoming increasingly difficult to understand how things "work" in the Royal Family anymore? Rules that existed for generations and worked very well are now suddenly being changed willy nilly to suit individuals. Everything seems to have gone haywire.

iowabelle 07-20-2005 10:17 AM

I think the Royal Family is making up new rules as they go along (although they don't want to admit it).

Diana was not placed after the ladies born into the family, and I don't think there is any precedent for making the wife of the Prince of Wales follow other women, besides the Queen, on this list. My guess is that this is a response to Camilla's unpopularity among Diana fans (of which I am one).

james 07-20-2005 10:31 AM

Yes I agree with you but I don't think it's so much to appease Diana fans. I think it has been done because many people in the establishment, perhaps including the Queen herself, are finding it difficult to accept Camilla as a fully legitimate member of the Royal Family. The thought of her taking precedence over people like Anne is, I think, uncomfortable for some people. However I think if she's in she's got to be in 100% because there has to be continuity otherwise it makes a mockery of the institution. I am not her greatest fan but all these changes are starting to make the Royal Family lose credibility.

Elspeth 07-20-2005 10:35 AM

I wonder what Charles thinks of this development. It's possible that he and Camilla are in full agreement, but it just seems strange that he and Camilla would have such different positions in the order of precedence. I wonder where, if anywhere, Tim Laurence is in this list, or where Anglus Ogilvy was.

HMQueenElizabethII 07-20-2005 10:44 AM

Before the Wedding,it was said that Princess Anne and some of the Royal Ladies felt uncomfortable to curtsey to the Duchess of Cornwall.So i think although they said that "The Duchess is the Duchess not a Princess" and she feels "comfortable" with the new arrangment but i think truthly they all have their purpose in that.Maybe some said that The Queen gets along well with the Duchess of Cornwall but i still do not think so.Although she is the Duchess but legally according to the Government she is the Princess of Wales and can legally becomes Queen when her husband inherit the throne.It's the law from the Goverment not just say she likes or not like.And anyway,the wife of the Prince of Wales is the Princess of Wales.Although she refers as the Duchess truthly other Royal Ladies must curtsey to the Duchess of Cornwall.
And about the Countess of Wessex,although she is ranked lower than the Duchess of Cornwall but i'm sure that in the Queen's opinion,she still really refers the Countess of Wessex.She can rank the Duchess of Cornwall higher but it does not mean she refers and likes the Duchess of Cornwall.

james 07-20-2005 11:05 AM

This being justified by saying Camilla is a Duchess and not a Princess is nonsence and the Palace knows it. She is Princess Charles anyway even without calling herself Princess of Wales. With the logic the Palace is using Princess Michael would take precedence over Camilla, Sophie and the Duchess of Gloucester as she uses the title Princess. The fact is that all the Royal women who are known by a title other than Princess still hold the rank of Princess as their husbands are princes, including Camilla.

Reina 07-20-2005 11:30 AM

I don't think it is legit to say that camilla is all fine and happy about this arrangement b/c she supposely "does not care about such things" and only wants to make charles happy. I think it is nonsense and ppl should know better. After being sidelined all those years, it is highly probable that camilla thinks she deserves to have better precedence and prestige.

ladybelline 07-20-2005 11:57 AM

I understand Camilla's place in the order of precedence now, but could anybody tell me, as James asked, why Lady Louise is a Lady and not a Princess, although being the child of of male Royal Prince? Her cousins are Princesses of York, so why isn't she referred as "Princess of Wessex"?

Elspeth 07-20-2005 12:22 PM

There's a discussion about that at the Louise thread; you'll probably find some answers there.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...0&page=7&pp=20

branchg 07-20-2005 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowabelle
I think the Royal Family is making up new rules as they go along (although they don't want to admit it).

Diana was not placed after the ladies born into the family, and I don't think there is any precedent for making the wife of the Prince of Wales follow other women, besides the Queen, on this list. My guess is that this is a response to Camilla's unpopularity among Diana fans (of which I am one).

I explained in a previous thread this is all proper and appropriate. And Diana's precedence at court was also after the Queen, the Queen Mother, Princess Margaret and Princess Anne (however, she came before Princess Alexandra). Court precedence usually calls for princesses of the blood royal to take precedence over princesses by marriage.

Official precedence differs and Camilla (as did Diana) comes directly after the Queen as the wife of the heir to the throne.

branchg 07-20-2005 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HMQueenElizabethII
Before the Wedding,it was said that Princess Anne and some of the Royal Ladies felt uncomfortable to curtsey to the Duchess of Cornwall.So i think although they said that "The Duchess is the Duchess not a Princess" and she feels "comfortable" with the new arrangment but i think truthly they all have their purpose in that.Maybe some said that The Queen gets along well with the Duchess of Cornwall but i still do not think so.Although she is the Duchess but legally according to the Government she is the Princess of Wales and can legally becomes Queen when her husband inherit the throne.It's the law from the Goverment not just say she likes or not like.And anyway,the wife of the Prince of Wales is the Princess of Wales.Although she refers as the Duchess truthly other Royal Ladies must curtsey to the Duchess of Cornwall.
And about the Countess of Wessex,although she is ranked lower than the Duchess of Cornwall but i'm sure that in the Queen's opinion,she still really refers the Countess of Wessex.She can rank the Duchess of Cornwall higher but it does not mean she refers and likes the Duchess of Cornwall.

This is not true. No one in the family curtesies to each other, regardless of their court or official precedence. The only person who receives a curtesy (or bow) from all is the Queen.

branchg 07-20-2005 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowabelle
I think the Royal Family is making up new rules as they go along (although they don't want to admit it).

Diana was not placed after the ladies born into the family, and I don't think there is any precedent for making the wife of the Prince of Wales follow other women, besides the Queen, on this list. My guess is that this is a response to Camilla's unpopularity among Diana fans (of which I am one).

The so-called "rules" are determined by the Sovereign in consultation with the Prime Minister. It is entirely possible the Queen may eventually issue new letters patent which will change the rules regarding who is HRH and a prince/princess of the UK to "downsize" the royal family. Ideas have included limiting the HRH and prince/princess dignity to the children of the sovereign, the current heir to the throne and their eldest child. All other members of the family would be styled "the Lord/Lady Windsor" or retain a peerage title only.

None of this is in response to Camilla's so-called "unpopularity", which is nonsense. The royal family all knew and accepted Camilla long before the marriage and she has been welcomed into the fold.

iowabelle 07-20-2005 03:59 PM

I looked into this a little more today. Ingrid Seward says that Buckingham Palace said that Camilla's position was not a demotion, just a reflection of her wish to be called Duchess of Cornwall, not PoW.

I looked at Burke's Peerage, an old list admittedly (prior to Edward's marriage and Margaret's death). If "precedence calls for princesses of the blood royal to take precedence over princesses by marriage", why would a non-princess like Zara Phillips have precedence over a blood princess like Princess Margaret? And Zara is significantly ahead of Princess Alexandra (who deserves enormous respect).

I stand by my belief that a new order is being created, either to satisfy the wishes of the Royal Family, the Establishment, or that group of people who can't tolerate the idea of Camilla.

iowabelle 07-20-2005 04:11 PM

I just went to Insight, the magazine at the official website of the British Monarchy. There's a question in the April 2004 issue which deals with this problem. It states, "Precedence in the Royal Family is based around the line of succession." Then it goes on to state that spouses "are ranked accordingly alongside their respective parties."

So, under the old "rule" Camilla should be ranked alongside Charles (no matter what her title).

branchg 07-20-2005 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowabelle
I looked into this a little more today. Ingrid Seward says that Buckingham Palace said that Camilla's position was not a demotion, just a reflection of her wish to be called Duchess of Cornwall, not PoW.

I looked at Burke's Peerage, an old list admittedly (prior to Edward's marriage and Margaret's death). If "precedence calls for princesses of the blood royal to take precedence over princesses by marriage", why would a non-princess like Zara Phillips have precedence over a blood princess like Princess Margaret? And Zara is significantly ahead of Princess Alexandra (who deserves enormous respect).

I stand by my belief that a new order is being created, either to satisfy the wishes of the Royal Family, the Establishment, or that group of people who can't tolerate the idea of Camilla.

Official precedence flows from your place (or your husband's) in the line of succession to the throne. Private, or court precedence, is determined by the Sovereign and is based on your position within the royal family, whether by blood or marriage, your title, status and style.

For example, Diana came after the Queen and the Queen Mother as Princess of Wales officially, because this reflected her place as the wife of the heir to the throne and future Queen Consort. Privately, her court precedence came after the Queen, the Queen Mother, Princess Margaret and Princess Anne, but before all other female royals as the wife of Prince Charles and the mother of the heir and the spare.

Camilla is Duchess of Cornwall (legally she is Princess of Wales) and her official precedence follows the Queen as the wife of Prince Charles. Privately and at court, she takes precedence after the Sovereign and the princesses of the blood royal, but before the current wives of the princes of the blood royal. There is nothing remarkable about this and there is no issue.

iowabelle 07-20-2005 05:09 PM

Charles Moseley, the editor-in-chief of Debretts, says that Camilla's new position is a demotion.

branchg 07-20-2005 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iowabelle
Charles Moseley, the editor-in-chief of Debretts, says that Camilla's new position is a demotion.

It is a "demotion" in terms of the precedence Diana held as Princess of Wales, which Camilla does not hold at court. But Diana was also the mother of a future king, which gave her precedence in her own right, separate from her status as the wife of Prince Charles.

It is true Camilla will not hold the same precedence at court as Diana held, which the Palace made clear was the decison of the Queen and in line with Camilla's choosing to be known by her "lesser" title of Duchess of Cornwall, rather than Princess of Wales. It's not a big deal.

Reina 07-20-2005 06:49 PM

It is a big deal to Charles.

sara1981 07-20-2005 06:55 PM

i read your posts about that!

Camilla is not Princess of Wales! but she is Duchess of Cornwall! and Diana is Princess of Wales and Sophie is Countess of Wessex also!

but i knew what Majesty Magazine Editors says that but Ingrid Seward knew everythings about Royals who known about titles cant took another titles! after Diana! if many people will hurt their feelings about their favorite Princess very much!

when Diana got divorces from Prince Charles Diana known as Diana,Princess of Wales in publics nor Princess of Wales no matters for Diana! and also Sarah,Duchess of York also! but she known as Sarah,Duchess of York also after she got divorces from Prince Andrew or Sarah Fergusons whatevers her choices!

Sara Boyce

iowabelle 07-20-2005 06:56 PM

Perhaps I am wrong, but when Diana lost her HRH didn't she have to curtsy to the lesser royals like Princess Michael?

If so, it would seem that giving birth to a future monarch doesn't give a person precedence, apart from the marriage.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises