Order of Precedence 2: Sep 2022 -

[Marengo]

Arms of The United Kingdom​

Welcome to the thread Order of Precedence, Part 2

Commencing September 1st, 2022 ​

The previous thread can be found here
​

Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules & FAQs
​

· Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.
· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles, so no more than 20% of an article
text should be posted, along with the link to the original article.
· We expect our members to treat each other, and the royals and persons in these threads, with respect.
· The Report Post button is for reporting inappropriate content in a post if no moderators or administrators are online.
· Threads should remain on topic. Posts which are irrelevant or disruptive
will be deleted or moved by one of the moderators.

***​

​

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The list from the CC:

The King and The Queen Consort
The Prince and Princess of Wales,
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex,
The Duke of York
Princess Beatrice, Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi and Mr Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi
Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank and Mr Jack Brooksbank,
The Earl and Countess of Wessex
The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
Viscount Severn
The Princess Royal and Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence
Mr Peter Phillips,
Mr and Mrs Michael Tindall
The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester
The Duke of Kent
Prince and Princess Michael of Kent
Princess Alexandra, the Hon Lady Ogilvy
other Members of the Royal Family

Interestingly the list of those who followed the Coffin included the Earl Snowdon but neither he nor his sister were listed as attending, specifically, the events inside Westminster Hall.

It is interesting that the Court Circular records the Princess Royal as (still) behind her brothers and their descendants (also in the entries for other mourning events). That did not appear to be the case in the footage I saw. Was I mistaken?

 

[Mbruno]

It is interesting that the Court Circular records the Princess Royal as (still) behind her brothers and their descendants (also in the entries for other mourning events). That did not appear to be the case in the footage I saw. Was I mistaken?

They are listed in the CC in the order of succession to the Crown (plus spouses), but that is not the same as precedence.

For example, the Princess Royal, as a sister of the King, has higher precedence than the King's nieces (Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise, who are higher than Anne in the order of succession), but lower precedence than wives of the King's brothers like Sophie, when she is accompanied by her husband.

The rules of precedence do not say anything Princess Anne's precedence relatively to her brothers (other than the King) since there are separate orders of precedence for men and women.

Lord Snowdon now takes the precedence of a grandson of a former British sovereign who is not a royal duke. That means he is outranked by the Duke of Gloucester and the Duke of Kent, who are nonetheless below him in the order of succession, but has higher precedence than Prince Michael of Kent for example.

Vice-Admiral Tim Laurence, on the other hand, has no precedence as the husband of a daughter of a former Sovereign of the United Kingdom.

Hopefully, King Charles III will revise and modernize the order of precedence including having for the first time a single, unified table of precedence for men and women.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

They are listed in the CC in the order of succession to the Crown (plus spouses), but that is not the same as precedence.

But the Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor is consistently listed ahead of her brother Viscount Severn, though he precedes her in the order of succession to the Crown. Or would you say that is a temporary exception while she is of age and he is not?

 

[Mbruno]

But the Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor is consistently listed ahead of her brother Viscount Severn, though he precedes her in the order of succession to the Crown. Or would you say that is a temporary exception while she is of age and he is not?

True, I had not noticed that. Maybe they are going with order of birth in this case.

 

[Meee]

But the Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor is consistently listed ahead of her brother Viscount Severn, though he precedes her in the order of succession to the Crown. Or would you say that is a temporary exception while she is of age and he is not?

I would say it was because she was of age. If it was purely on birth order, I would expect to see Anne listed above Andrew. That would be popular in the country at large and probably with Charles III himself (I noticed Andrew arrived to the vigil behind Edward also, so it feels as though he is less forgiving of the negative publicity the former has brought to the monarchy.)

 

[tommy100]

I wish they'd just put Anne above her brothers, she's earned that mark of respect IMO

 

[Toledo]

I'm checking old links I had for many years, going as far as when I was a member of the Royal Forums under the username El Cid, and just found one link was updated for Charles III.

Tables of precedence https://debretts.com/royal-family/tables-of-precedence/

If you scroll down, you have the rules for the spouses of Prince William of Wales and Harry, Duke of Sussex

This other interesting section is on Etiquette
https://debretts.com/etiquettes/forms-of-address/

And Forms of Addressing the Royal Family
https://debretts.com/royal-family/addressing-the-royal-family/

Mods - if there is a section this applies, please move it over there. I just returned to the new Forum and am still getting familiarized with the new settings. I also get distracted reading some amazing links people post in here on history, genealogy etc.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I wish they'd just put Anne above her brothers, she's earned that mark of respect IMO

A couple of members of the House of Lords also questioned Edward's precedence over Anne during the first debate on the Counsellors of State Bill:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords...9-8F09-EB624DF8980C/CounsellorsOfStateBill(HL)

Lord Berkeley (Labour): "I had a chuckle when I read the Bill and saw that the Earl of Wessex took precedence over the Princess Royal. I would like to ask the Lord Privy Seal why. Is it because he is a man, or for some other reason? It does not really matter, because they are both equal anyway."

Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour): "I can think of no more appropriate members of the Royal Household to take on these two positions as extra Counsellors of State. As has been referred to, both have previously acted as Counsellors of State but were then moved as the line of succession changed—we will have to look at some of the gender issues in this at some point—and others reached the age of majority and became Counsellors of State. Princess Anne was a Counsellor of State from 1971 to 2003, and the Earl of Wessex from 1985 to 2005, when Prince Harry reached the age of 21."

The government minister, the Lord Privy Seal (Lord True, Conservative) replied: "I was asked about the order of the names in the Bill. I do not think that there is anything sinister in it. I note that it is in one order in the Long Title, in a different order in the preamble and in another order in Clause 1. I believe the drafters of the Bill have sought to reflect equality."

 

[FigTree]

A couple of members of the House of Lords also questioned Edward's precedence over Anne during the first debate on the Counsellors of State Bill:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords...9-8F09-EB624DF8980C/CounsellorsOfStateBill(HL)

Lord Berkeley (Labour): "I had a chuckle when I read the Bill and saw that the Earl of Wessex took precedence over the Princess Royal. I would like to ask the Lord Privy Seal why. Is it because he is a man, or for some other reason? It does not really matter, because they are both equal anyway."

Baroness Smith of Basildon (Labour): "I can think of no more appropriate members of the Royal Household to take on these two positions as extra Counsellors of State. As has been referred to, both have previously acted as Counsellors of State but were then moved as the line of succession changed—we will have to look at some of the gender issues in this at some point—and others reached the age of majority and became Counsellors of State. Princess Anne was a Counsellor of State from 1971 to 2003, and the Earl of Wessex from 1985 to 2005, when Prince Harry reached the age of 21."

The government minister, the Lord Privy Seal (Lord True, Conservative) replied: "I was asked about the order of the names in the Bill. I do not think that there is anything sinister in it. I note that it is in one order in the Long Title, in a different order in the preamble and in another order in Clause 1. I believe the drafters of the Bill have sought to reflect equality."

Times are moving on, it isn’t acceptable for younger brother to outrank older sister. Which is right.

 

[SLV]

Times are moving on, it isn’t acceptable for younger brother to outrank older sister. Which is right.

Very true. But I don't think the HoL will want to take the next step in that proces of equality, namely that the eldest child, regardless of gender, inherits title&estate.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

A couple of members of the House of Lords also questioned Edward's precedence over Anne during the first debate on the Counsellors of State Bill:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords...9-8F09-EB624DF8980C/CounsellorsOfStateBill(HL)

[...]

The government minister, the Lord Privy Seal (Lord True, Conservative) replied: "I was asked about the order of the names in the Bill. I do not think that there is anything sinister in it. I note that it is in one order in the Long Title, in a different order in the preamble and in another order in Clause 1. I believe the drafters of the Bill have sought to reflect equality."

Edward's precedence over Anne was also questioned by an MP during the House of Commons debate on the same bill, but the government had a different explanation this time:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...5EA-83A86027A18E/CounsellorsOfStateBill(Lords)

Brendan O’Hara
(Argyll and Bute) (SNP)

As an aside, will the Minister explain why on the Bill as printed the Earl of Wessex seems to be given prominence ahead of the Princess Royal? I find it a strange order in which to put them.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office]
Alex Burghart

I also thank the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who spoke from the SNP Front Bench. He raised a point about the order of precedence. Obviously, the law of succession was changed a few years ago to enable girls born to the sovereign to inherit, but that did not change the existing order of succession. That is why the Princess Royal and the Earl of Wessex feature in the order in which they do.

 

[tommy100]

I don't see why Anne couldn't be given precedence over her younger brother even if he is higher up the line of succession than her. We are effectively in a period of transition for that anyway - Louis will not take higher precedence than his older sister we can assume given she will is higher in the line of succession for example so a "hybrid" system taking parts of both currently in place seems acceptable to me.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I don't see why Anne couldn't be given precedence over her younger brother even if he is higher up the line of succession than her. We are effectively in a period of transition for that anyway - Louis will not take higher precedence than his older sister we can assume given she will is higher in the line of succession for example so a "hybrid" system taking parts of both currently in place seems acceptable to me.

I fully agree. Other monarchies such as Luxembourg, Monaco and Japan have at least sometimes accorded female family members the precedence merited by their order of birth even when they ranked lower, or were excluded from, the order of succession to the throne. And in Great Britain, Prince Michael preceded Princess Alexandra even during those years when he was barred from the succession to the throne due to his marriage to a Catholic, so it is not as if they have always strictly followed the order of succession to the crown in the order of precedence.

 

[Mbruno]

I don't see why Anne couldn't be given precedence over her younger brother even if he is higher up the line of succession than her. We are effectively in a period of transition for that anyway - Louis will not take higher precedence than his older sister we can assume given she will is higher in the line of succession for example so a "hybrid" system taking parts of both currently in place seems acceptable to me.

Edward does not have higher precedence than Anne. Sophie Wessex, however, has higher precedence than Anne when she is accompanying Edward. The order of precedence in the UK applies only to people of the same gender.

Unfortunately, many people, even in Parliament, confuse "order of succession", in which Edward is by law ahead of Anne, with "order of precedence".

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Edward does not have higher precedence than Anne. Sophie Wessex, however, has higher precedence than Anne when she is accompanying Edward. The order of precedence in the UK applies only to people of the same gender.

Unfortunately, many people, even in Parliament, confuse "order of succession", in which Edward is by law ahead of Anne, with "order of precedence".

We were discussing the order of precedence of the names in the Counsellors of State Act 2022, in which both Edward and Anne's names (but not Sophie's) were included. The Government cited the order of succession to the crown as the justification for Edward's name preceding Anne's.

The articles in UK nobility publications may continue to follow the old-fashioned practice of separate lists for men and women, but the reality of life in the UK and even its extremely patriarchal royal family is that men and women are no longer separated at formal engagements and therefore decisions must be made about who is given precedence ahead of whom in processions, seating, receiving lines, guest lists, and so on, not to mention the Court Circular entries and other official communications. I don't see an issue with discussion of those order-of-precedence decisions in this thread.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Duke of Edinburgh's precedence ahead of his 14-year-older sister the Princess Royal was on prominent display at today's coronation: Prince Edward was a row ahead of Princess Anne both in the church and on the palace balcony.

 

[Lumutqueen]

The Duke of Edinburgh's precedence ahead of his 14-year-older sister the Princess Royal was on prominent display at today's coronation: Prince Edward was a row ahead of Princess Anne both in the church and on the palace balcony.

I agree with you in regards to the service, however it's clear there was no order to the way people stood on the balcony. It was a clear intention of those organising the entrance that William and Catherine should have gone behind or next to The King and Queen but didn't when the pages remained where they were.

 

[Somebody]

The Duke of Edinburgh's precedence ahead of his 14-year-older sister the Princess Royal was on prominent display at today's coronation: Prince Edward was a row ahead of Princess Anne both in the church and on the palace balcony.

I don't think at the Palace Balcony it was about the order of precedence as much - for example, on the other side princess Alexandra was closer to the king and queen than her brother and cousin who was furthest from the center but is the highest of the three in terms of precedence.

During the procession and seating, the duke was indeed accorded precedence ahead of his sister as has been the custom for decades now (since he came of age). However, in terms of seating Alexandra was ahead of her brother prince Michael - so, it only applied among the working royals.

 

[Minister of Court]

There was clearly some improvising/mixing up in the order of precedence at the Abbey. For example, the Gloucesters were given precedence over Anne, the Yorks over Harry, and the non-working Yorks and Harry over the working Princess Alexandra.

 

[tommy100]

I've said before I think Anne should be given highest precedence over the siblings (after Charles). She is older than all but Charles, and has been a "working royal" longer as well (Andrew and Wessex's now Edinburgh's had day jobs and did royal duties round that until the 2000s). The current rules of succession also mean no girl can be displaced by younger brother so why they continue to use the old precedence for Anne I don't get (I know the succession wasn't changed retrospectively so a nice nod would be to accept that while placing Anne higher in terms of precedence)

All this talk of modernising and yet still Anne has to sit behind her youngest brother because she is a woman. Very odd to me - especially given at the late Queen's state funeral all Elizabeth's children and spouses sat on the front row with Anne after the King and Queen Camilla.

Given Edward and Sophie got the Dukedom title I'm surprised this wasn't a pay off in some ways. I hope Charles fixes this anomaly.

I agree the balcony is a bit of a free for all once the King & Queen and pages then the Wales' were out everyone else just had to find a place.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

I've fully realized recently that rules for precedence and other forms of protocol like attendance are never really hard and fast. If the situation calls for going by line of succession, fine. If the King wants it by blood royal status, sure. Which can be quite intriguing, especially placement today, but that's another thing.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I've fully realized recently that rules for precedence and other forms of protocol like attendance are never really hard and fast. If the situation calls for going by line of succession, fine. If the King wants it by blood royal status, sure. Which can be quite intriguing, especially placement today, but that's another thing.

It was just a mix to have everyone seated with the knowledge that the Dukes of Sussex and of York, usually frontbenchers, preferrably are not so prominently seated today. And the Princess Royal also had a more prominent role as Gold Stick In Waiting. I think the strict Order of Precedence as known by a Queen Mary or a Dowager Countess Grantham is something of the Past and that adaptability is the word to go.

 

[MARG]

The seating of Princess Anne and Vice Admiral Sir Timothy Laurence seemed more about practicalities than precedence. She was far enough back from the 'Stars' that her discrete exit through a side door to dump her robes and jump on her horse to ride behind her brother's Coronation Carriage. It all went off like clockwork.

I have an idea that these days Anne's family precedence will place her first after Charles and Camilla.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

From Debretts:

https://debretts.com/royal-family/tables-of-precedence/

Same Sex Partners/Spouses

If an office holder is in a same-sex partnership/marriage, the same rule of precedence for their partner apply as for wives.
​

Does anyone know when this rule was instituted?

This means that in relation to order of precedence, same-sex spouses and even same-sex unmarried partners (but apparently not different-sex unmarried partners) are in the same position as women who are married to men, i.e., they take on the rank of their spouse if their spouse occupies a higher position in the order of precedence.

But in relation to titles and coats of arms, same-sex spouses are in the same position as men who are married to women, i.e., they are not allowed to share their spouse's title or arms (though if they are armigerous in their own right, they may impale their spouse's arms).

So there is currently an inconsistency between the rules of precedence and the laws of titles and arms. And I would like to hear the remaining arguments for why women should not be allowed to share their rank with their husbands: The typical argument made by people opposed to it is "tradition", but women sharing their rank with their wives is also not "tradition", and that change has already been made.

The inconsistency means that if Princess Charlotte marries a woman, her wife will have the rank of a Princess but will only be called Mrs./Ms. (Unless "office holders" is meant in a narrow sense as holders of non-hereditary offices - again, if anyone can share the decree(?) of the rule change, I would appreciate it.)