Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022

[HM Queen Catherine]

I have a question about the current situation, if Kate (or Cathereine, whichever is appropriate now) were to attend an official function in her capacity of the soveregn's son's future daughter-in-law, what will her precedence be?
I'm asking becouse for example Letizia Ortiz were seated next to her fiancé in the mass after terrorist attacks in Madrid and Charlene Wittstock was just behind the Princesses Stephanie and Caroline...
Just curious..

If Catherine should attend an official function before she becomes William's wife, I would think she enters with him as the female counterpart to his position in precedence. This position, of course, would be given out of courtesy to both her and William.

In the medieval past, a couple were considered "married" when they were formally betrothed or married by proxy, which was a ceremony performed before the actual wedding. But from the point of betrothal, the lady could officially take her future husband's rank and title.

For example, when Catherine of Aragon was betrothed to Arthur, Prince of Wales, in 1499 she was known as the Princess of Wales in Spain before she ever set foot on English soil.. and before she even met Arthur.

Catherine Middleton's family is not titled nor are they a knightly family, and as her father is not an MBE, OBE or a member of some other order (that I'm aware of), she has no current place at all in the order of precedence.

From the examples you've given, I would say that some of the royal houses still observe and acknowledge the position and place for a lady officially engaged to marry into it. In the case of Monaco, it is appropriate that Charlene Wittstock enter behind Princess Caroline, because Caroline is the current heir presumptive.. she would not enter with Prince Albert because he is the ruling Prince.. but I am not familiar with their rules of precedence.

 

[wbenson]

Kate Middleton: Will Camilla have to curtsey to wife of future king? | Mail Online

Now the dust has settled on the royal engagement, the thoughts of several courtiers are turning to quite how Kate Middleton will fit into the life of the nation’s first family.

Though she is a commoner, as wife of the future king she will find herself elevated to a senior position among the Princesses and Duchesses in the Queen’s extended family.

While that may mean little to the rest of us, in practical terms it will make for a fascinating battle of wills, and force courtiers to address a tantalising question: will Camilla (not to mention the steely Princess Anne), have to curtsey to Kate?

 

[Esmerelda]

That depends if they have to curtsy to William. Do they?

 

[muriel]

What utter rubbish the article is? How could Camilla possibly be expected to curtesy to Kate? It is obvious who the more senior royal is.

 

[MRSJ]

So, is it true that HRH's don't have to curtesy to each other only The Queen? If that is true then Camilla won't curtesy to Catherine...regardless if The Princess Royal refused to curtesy to Diana then curtesing can't be that big a deal....

Also for the DM article I am not getting why Kate would be above Camilla if their husbands were in the room-

 

[muriel]

DM has based its whole story on the specific situation where William was with Catherine, but Charles was not present. I just don't believe that you would have a situation where Camilla would in any way be lower in the order of precedence than Catherine, other than if Catherine were Queen, and Camilla a widow.

As regards Anne, she curtesied to Camilla at Ascot a few years ago. The video of this was on Youtube, and was widely commented on on TRF.

 

[AnnEliza]

It certainly doesn't make any sense that Camilla would ever curtsy to Catherine, unless she survives Charles and Catherine is Queen -- does the Dowager Queen (if that's the right title) curtsy to the current Queen? Does it matter if the Queen is Queen Consort or the reigning monarch?

It's all very complex, but fascinating!

 

[Esmerelda]

Did Queen Mary curtsey to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother after George VI became King?

 

[cmkrcwi]

I heard a story during Charles and Diana's wedding that when Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother became Queen Consort, her mother-in-law Queen Mary kissed her. When her daughter Elizabeth II became Queen Regnant, Queen Mary curtsied to her because Elizabeth II was now her Sovereign.

Then she scolded her because her skirts "were too short for mourning."

 

[Iluvbertie]

The assumption that the DM is making is that without Charles then Camilla's precedence is the same all the time. I feel sure that if one husband is present then the precedence of the women would mean that they all take their husband's precedence to avoid that very situation.

...does the Dowager Queen (if that's the right title) curtsy to the current Queen? Does it matter if the Queen is Queen Consort or the reigning monarch?

Everyone curtsies to the present monarch so a Dowager Queen would curtsy to a regnant Queen and even to a Queen Consort.

 

[Zonk]

Personally I think the DM is tryign to start something again with regards to Camilla, Kate and the ghost of Diana.

I mean, how serious was the author in regards to research. They list Lady Louise Windsor but dont' list the Duchess of Kent/Gloucester (but they list the Gloucester daughters) or Princess Michael of Kent. Poorly written and with an obvious angle IMO. Its a legit question for those who don't know but they are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

 

[wbenson]

Royal wedding: new bride Kate Middleton takes her place in the Royal hierarchy - Telegraph

Kate Middleton will be expected to curtsy to 'more senior’ members of the Royal family following her marriage to Prince William.

 

[wbenson]

I suspect that this will be the order of precedence for royal women:

The Duchess of Cornwall (with her husband)*
The Princess Royal
The Countess of Wessex (with)
The Duchess of Cambridge (with)
Princess Beatrice of York
Princess Eugenie of York
The Duchess of Gloucester (with)
The Duchess of Kent (with)
Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy
Princess Michael of Kent (with)
The Duchess of Cornwall (without her husband)
The Countess of Wessex (without)
The Duchess of Cambridge (without)
The Duchess of Gloucester (without)
The Duchess of Kent (without)
Princess Michael of Kent (without)

I've also come to the opinion that it's possible that the dust-up over the Duchess of Cornwall's place in precedence was actually the normal functioning of precedence, and that the so-called "private" order of precedence that's been talked about is the same as the official order of precedence.

*The only discrepancy I can find between the "private" precedence and the formal precedence is that some sources (not all) list Princesses of Wales beneath the Queen in their own right. If that's the case, then the Duchess of Cornwall is still ranked as any other wife of a son of the sovereign would be, and I assume is ranked as such due to the decision that she be styled Duchess of Cornwall rather than Princess of Wales. If it's not the case that a Princess of Wales has such precedence in her own right, then the "private" precedence that has been discussed and the formal precedence are actually identical. (The supposed private order also didn't have either of the York princesses, but I'm assuming that's because they were both minor children at the time. The private order was supposedly Anne, Alexandra, Camilla, Sophie, etc., which is actually the same as the official order (minus Beatrice and Eugenie, who were children) when the wives take precedence in their own right, when Camilla takes her place at the head of the daughters-in-law, as opposed to next to their husbands.)

 

[MRSJ]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382563/ROYAL-WEDDING-Kates-lesson-Who-curtsey-whom.html

They almost get it right, I think, aside from 1 thing......I believe Edward as the son of the monarch is higher rank then William so Sophie would not curtesy to Kate regardless if William and Edward were in the room, she would only do so if William was and Edward not, yes? Also if Edwards in the room she wouldn't curtesy to Anne either.....

 

[Iluvbertie]

Order of precedence though normally puts the daughters of the monarch ahead of the younger sons of the monarch so Anne would be ahead of Edward.

 

[MRSJ]

Order of precedence though normally puts the daughters of the monarch ahead of the younger sons of the monarch so Anne would be ahead of Edward.

Oh, I didn't realize that, I thought officially boys outranks girls .....sorry

But Edward still outranks William yes?

Precedence fascinates me for some reason.....

 

[cmkrcwi]

The only person she will have to curtsey to is the Queen. British Princes and Princesses do not bow and curtsey to each other because they all have the same rank: Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom.

 

[MRSJ]

The only person she will have to curtsey to is the Queen. British Princes and Princesses do not bow and curtsey to each other because they all have the same rank: Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom.

Not true- at official events Charles as heir outranks Andrew,Anne etc...they have and do bow/curtesy to each other and foreign royals ....

And someone clarify for me, isn't Prince/Princess a title/style and not a rank......or is it both?

 

[wbenson]

Oh, I didn't realize that, I thought officially boys outranks girls .....sorry

In succession but not in precedence. In precedence, all daughters rank alongside eldest sons but come ahead of younger sons. That's why daughters of Earls are "The Lady X" but younger sons are only "The Honourable X."

 

[Iluvbertie]

The only person she will have to curtsey to is the Queen. British Princes and Princesses do not bow and curtsey to each other because they all have the same rank: Prince/Princess of the United Kingdom.

British princes and princesses to curtsey to each other based on precedence.

To us they are all the same but not to them - they are aware of where they fit and they do acknowledge that difference with the curtsies etc so Kate will curtsey to Camilla, Anne and Sophie as they are the daughter and daughters-in-law of the monarch. She may also have to curtsey to Alexandra, Beatrice and Eugenie as these three ladies were princesses born but that will be determined by the Queen if she updates the order of precedence that she issued when Camilla married into the family.

In time they will all curtsey to her and then she will curtsey to the next Queen after her - if she outlives William of course.

 

[Renata4711]

I hope that, when William becomes King, he gets rid of all the curtseying and flunkeying !!

 

[Lumutqueen]

I hope that, when William becomes King, he gets rid of all the curtseying and flunkeying !!

You seriously think he should get rid of curtseying? That's ridiculous IMO.

 

[snowhite]

You seriously think he should get rid of curtseying? That's ridiculous IMO.

Why is that ridiculous? It seems like a very reasonable suggestion.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Why is that ridiculous? It seems like a very reasonable suggestion.

Because curtseying or "flunkying" has occured in royal families forever. If the BRF chose not to curtsey to either each other or foreign royals they would certainly seem like the outsiders. Even the modern monarchies like Denmark and Sweden still curtsey. It's part of being royal.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If we are going to have something as outdated as monarchy then having the trappings is also necessary and that includes the curtseying etc.

 

[Lumutqueen]

If we are going to have something as outdated as monarchy then having the trappings is also necessary and that includes the curtseying etc.

Well said, in an interesting way.

 

[Esmerelda]

Didn't William request that there be no bowing/curtseying when he visited Australia. Maybe he'd prefer if people didn't?

 

[MARG]

I hope that, when William becomes King, he gets rid of all the curtseying and flunkeying !!

Right at the same time he, in his capacity of Head of the Armed Forces, gets rid of the demeaning custom of paying of compliments (saluting) superior officers!

 

[Royal_Eagle]

I can see and understand the importance of bowing/curtsying in public--but do they really do that in private too?

I suspect William will just go along with the public bowing/curtsying, but once he get on the Throne, I suspect he'll get rid of that in private (such as private family gatherings, etc).

 

[Diarist]

Two little points to mention here because they sometimes traps the unwary are:

1. Precedence and Succession are two very different things - this is clearly shown by the way that Prince Michael of Kent does not appear in the line of succession, as he forfeited his right to the throne when he married Marie-Christine. His own children however DO remain in the line of succession. However, Prince Michael of Kent clearly outranks his son in order of precedence!

2. On Divorce, female [ex] Royals lose their precedence - and their titles are adjusted - your designation as 'a Royal Highness' is removed and you become known as Diana, Princess of Wales, Sarah Duchess of York etc.

3. There is generally no difficulty with Precedence where the Royal Family is concerned, because their positions are so well known. Problems usually arise where the nobility is concerned, and most usually with wives, particularly where a wife is the daughter of a Peer as well as a wife. For example, Princess Diana's sister Lady Sarah McCorquodale is married to a Gentleman Mr Neil McCorquodale, but retains her rank as the Eldest Daugher of an Earl. There are all sorts of similar traps for the unwary: some of my foreign friends who do not come from countries where there are monarchies find it amazing that Zara Phillips enjoys both a (relatively) high place in both the order of succession and precedence despite the fact that she is [only] Miss Zara Phillips... My friends find it incredulous that you can be a grandaughter of the present Queen and be untitled.

Hope this helps,

Alex