Precedence - Who Outranks Who?

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Unofficial as it may be (although it's my belief that the King and Court nevertheless take it seriously), Prince Daniel has been ranked behind Prince Carl Philip on nearly every occasion where Crown Princess Victoria was not present. Guest lists, receiving lines, and communiqués illustrate the principle:

https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamil...03ad1685e.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamil...4f7102eeb.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/press/pres...e148c3584.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamil...119aad58f.html

The same order has been applied when Prince Daniel and Princess Madeleine were present without the Crown Princess.

https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamil...800010371.html

Princess Sofia has also outranked Prince Daniel whenever she has accompanied her husband whereas Daniel was unaccompanied by his wife. I have not been able to find an official event which both of them attended without their spouses.

https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamil...cc9979ffa.html




Yes, I agree it is one likely cause of the King's assignment of a low rank to Daniel in the unofficial order of precedence. Had Carl Philip been the Crown Prince, the King would probably have had second thoughts about not permitting his son's wife to share her husband's rank, even if Crown Prince Carl Philip had married a woman with whom the King had an acrimonious relationship.

But I am not sure whether it is the only cause. The Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince Consort of Denmark and Prince Claus of the Netherlands never shared their wives' style of Majesty and Queen. Yet the Duke of Edinburgh was not ranked beneath Princess Margaret, Prince Henrik was not ranked beneath Princess Benedikte, and as far as I know Prince Claus was not ranked beneath Princess Margriet, in their respective orders of precedence (official or unofficial). And King Carl XVI Gustaf would have been familiar with the precedence of those other European male consorts.

If the TV series Victoria is correct , Prince Albert was originally ranked below Queen Victoria’s uncles in the table of precedence. Queen Elizabeth II made an specific point of placing Prince Philip at the highest position in the order of precedence for men after herself, and ahead of the Prince of Wales.

That is also true btw in Spain according to the RD of 1983, I.e., the “consort of the Queen” explicitly outranks the Prince or Princess of Asturias. In order of precedence. I am not sure about Denmark though. Wasn’t there an occasion when the Queen was not present and Prince Henrik complained he was accorded lower precedence than CP Frederik?

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The only exception was Henri, whom suddenly was placed behind his son Frederik at an event and this led to a conflict.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

In order of precedence. I am not sure about Denmark though. Wasn’t there an occasion when the Queen was not present and Prince Henrik complained he was accorded lower precedence than CP Frederik?

The Ambassador's reception on January 3, 2002. The Crown Prince took his mother's place because she had broken a few ribs two days before.

[Silverpot]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Unofficial as it may be (although it's my belief that the King and Court nevertheless take it seriously), Prince Daniel has been ranked behind Prince Carl Philip on nearly every occasion where Crown Princess Victoria was not present. Guest lists, receiving lines, and communiqués illustrate the principle:

https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamil...03ad1685e.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamil...4f7102eeb.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/press/pres...e148c3584.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamil...119aad58f.html

The same order has been applied when Prince Daniel and Princess Madeleine were present without the Crown Princess.

https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamil...800010371.html

Princess Sofia has also outranked Prince Daniel whenever she has accompanied her husband whereas Daniel was unaccompanied by his wife. I have not been able to find an official event which both of them attended without their spouses.

https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafamil...cc9979ffa.html




Yes, I agree it is one likely cause of the King's assignment of a low rank to Daniel in the unofficial order of precedence. Had Carl Philip been the Crown Prince, the King would probably have had second thoughts about not permitting his son's wife to share her husband's rank, even if Crown Prince Carl Philip had married a woman with whom the King had an acrimonious relationship.

But I am not sure whether it is the only cause. The Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince Consort of Denmark and Prince Claus of the Netherlands never shared their wives' style of Majesty and Queen. Yet the Duke of Edinburgh was not ranked beneath Princess Margaret, Prince Henrik was not ranked beneath Princess Benedikte, and as far as I know Prince Claus was not ranked beneath Princess Margriet, in their respective orders of precedence (official or unofficial). And King Carl XVI Gustaf would have been familiar with the precedence of those other European male consorts.

I wonder, did the above mentioned prince consorts have that high ranking before their respective spouses became monarchs?

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

By my knowledge Albert von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (UK), Heinrich von Mecklenburg-Schwerin (NL), Félix de Bourbon de Parme (Lux), Pierre de Polignac (Mon), Bernhard zur Lippe-Biesterfeld (NL), Philip of Greece and Denmark (UK), Henri de Laborde de Montpezat (Den) and Claus von Amsberg (NL) always took the place direct after the Sovereign. The only exception was Henri, whom suddenly was placed behind his son Frederik at an event and this led to a conflict.

Originally Posted by Mbruno

That is also true btw in Spain according to the RD of 1983, I.e., the “consort of the Queen” explicitly outranks the Prince or Princess of Asturias. In order of precedence. I am not sure about Denmark though. Wasn’t there an occasion when the Queen was not present and Prince Henrik complained he was accorded lower precedence than CP Frederik?

Prince Henrik's precedence at the New Year's reception of 2002 was a different situation to the routine placement of Prince Daniel behind his brother- and sister-in-law when his wife is not present. In 2002, as JR76 pointed out, Crown Prince Frederik was attending in the role of Regent and stand-in for the Queen. Even then, Prince Henrik was treated as the co-host of the reception.

Further, even if the prince consort had hypothetically been outranked by his oldest son as a matter of routine, it would still have been quite different from Prince Daniel's precedence, as Frederik is a Crown Prince whereas Carl Philip and Madeleine are only the younger siblings of a Crown Princess. The Danish equivalent would be if Prince Henrik had been outranked by Princess Benedikte whenever Princess/Queen Margrethe was absent.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

So I would apply the principles of your first interpretation to all monarchies with such succession rules. But where the monarchies distinguish between the Royal House, the Royal Family, and the private family of the monarch, or between different degrees of titles, or between males and females, those divisions should be incorporated into the order of precedence if they determine the official standing of royals (so I would not place Princess Anne behind her brothers in the order of precedence, though she remains behind them in the order of succession, because in practice she is a more senior working royal).

I would include any family members who attend royal events, even sporadically, to avoid having to make decisions about their precedence case-by-case.

Thus, my preferred order of precedence for the royal princesses and princes of the blood would be

For the UK:

The Queen
The Prince of Wales
The Duke of Cambridge

The Princess Royal
The Duke of York
The Earl of Wessex
The Duke of Sussex

The Duke of Gloucester
The Duke of Kent
Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy
Prince Michael of Kent
Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi
Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank

For Spain:

The King
King Juan Carlos
The Princess of Asturias

Infanta Margarita
Infanta Elena
Infanta Cristina
Infanta Sofía

The Marchioness of Laula
Princess Inés
Prince Pedro
etc.

For consorts, either application of the same precedence as their spouses or placing them below the born royals would be acceptable to me provided it is consistently applied to all consorts (in contrast to Sweden where Prince Daniel seems to be the only consort who is constantly demoted below his brother-in-law).

In the case of Spain, RDs 2099/1983 and 1368/1987 (as amended by RD 470/2014) do not actually include a rule to order the Infantes/Infantas in precedence among themselves. The RDs only say that Infantes/Infantas are outranked by: (1) The King or Queen of Spain; (2) The Queen consort or the consort of the Queen; (3) The Prince or Princess of Asturias; and (4) specifically in the case of Infantes/Infantas who are not descendants of King Felipe VI, by King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia. The RD of 1983 says, however, that the Casa Real must give previous notice to the government of which members of the RF will be in attendance at a public event indicating how they should be placed taking into account the general rules of precedence in the RD. So I understand it is up to the Casa Real to rank the Infantes/Infantas by precedence at each event.

Nevertheless, the practice used in Spain seems to be to consider the current order of precedence to be as follows:

1. HM The King
2. HM The Queen
3. HRH The Princess of Asturias
4. HRH Infanta Sofia
5. HM King Juan Carlos
6. HM Queen Sofia
7. HRH Infanta Elena, Duchess of Lugo
8. HRH Infanta Cristina
9. HRH Infanta Margarita, Duchess of Hernani and Soria

Based on the same reasoning, if Leonor for example were married and had children, the precedence would be :

1. HM The King
2. HM The Queen
3. HRH The Princess of Asturias
4. (The consort of the Princess of Asturias; also styled Prince of Asturias under RD 1369/1987).
5. (The children of the Princess of Asturias, by order of primogeniture, styled Infante/Infanta under RD 1368/1987)
6. HRH Infanta Sofia
7. HM King Juan Carlos
8. HM Queen Sofia
9. HRH Infanta Elena, Duchess of Lugo
10. HRH Infanta Cristina, former Duchess of Palma de Mallorca
11. HRH Infanta Margarita, Duchess of Hernani and Soria

I don't think Prince Pedro for example has official precedence because, unlike his father, he is not officially an Infante. Infante Carlos, when he was alive, was customarily listed immediately below King JC's sisters, i.e. Infanta Pilar and Infanta Margarita.

Note: Under the constitution of 1978, it is unclear whether King JC's sisters or the Duke of Calabria were in the line of succession. The majority opinion, I think, is that the line of succession is currently limited only to JC's descendants. Nonetheless, all Infantes/Infantas legally have precedence and are entitled to military honors in military events which they preside or designated civil events (RD 684/2010). Conversely, Infanta Elena's or Infanta Cristina's children (or, in the future, Infanta Sofia's children), even though they are in the line of succession, are not accorded official precedence and are not entitled to military honors; their only privilege under the RDs is the use of the style of Excellency.

In addition to Infantes/Infantas, military honors, of course, are also due to: (1) the King or Queen of Spain; (2) the Queen consort or the consort of the Queen (explicitly mentioned in the RD 684/2010); (3) the Prince or Princess of Asturias; (4) the "Prince or Princess of Asturias consort" (explicitly mentioned under that style in the RD 684/2010).

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

But I am not sure whether it is the only cause. The Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince Consort of Denmark and Prince Claus of the Netherlands never shared their wives' style of Majesty and Queen. Yet the Duke of Edinburgh was not ranked beneath Princess Margaret, Prince Henrik was not ranked beneath Princess Benedikte, and as far as I know Prince Claus was not ranked beneath Princess Margriet, in their respective orders of precedence (official or unofficial). And King Carl XVI Gustaf would have been familiar with the precedence of those other European male consorts.

Just out of curiosity, when King George VI was still alive, did the Duke of Edinburgh outrank the Duke of Gloucester?

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

By the way, the UK is the one European monarchy in which brothers (other than the monarch or the heir to the throne) continue to be regularly placed ahead of their older sisters.

Originally Posted by Somebody

Regarding the placement of brothers ahead of sister. I am trying to come up with comparable examples where the younger brother is ahead in the line of succession and not the monarch or heir. So, it seems that the line of succession is leading in most cases, just like in the UK (with the exception of Louise and James) - with in some case an additional distinction between royal highnesses and non-royal highnesses.

There are limited examples in the other European monarchies, primarily because they have fewer persons in line to the throne, but recent examples existed in Luxembourg and Monaco. Semi-Salic succession to the throne was in effect in Luxembourg until 2011, but the Grand Duke's siblings and children were cited in order of birth. Sons remain ahead of daughters in the line to the Monegasque throne, but Charlotte Casiraghi was cited ahead of her younger brother Pierre in royal communications even before Pierre's marriage (upon which he may have dropped out of the line of succession, as discussed here).

[ducdalbe]

I recently read an article which describes HRH the Duchess of Wellington (née Princess Antonia of Prussia) as the “leading peeress at the State Opening of Parliament.” Could this be due to her status as a member of a (non-reigning) royal family/royal highness or could it be due to the fact that she is legally a princess due to her husband being HSH the Prince of Waterloo (Belgian/Dutch princely title) as well? Or could it be due to her being a descendant of Queen Victoria and therefore relatively high in the line of succession (as opposed to most other peers and peeresses who aren’t even in the line of succession)?

Would any of the reasons listed above possibly place Her Royal Highness above all or most other non-BRF peeresses if she were to attend an event? I imagine at certain events which adhere to precedence protocols that this might be an issue for the host to address. Thank you!

[Somebody]

Great question. My guess would be that her being a royal highness is the reason she is considered a 'leading peeress' (eventhough it is a foreign style). The royal dukes are ahead of dukes of older dukedoms but as soon as that same formally royal dukedom is held by a mere 'his grace the duke' their precedence drops to the place they have based on the creation date of the title.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by ducdalbe

I recently read an article which describes HRH the Duchess of Wellington (née Princess Antonia of Prussia) as the “leading peeress at the State Opening of Parliament.” Could this be due to her status as a member of a (non-reigning) royal family/royal highness or could it be due to the fact that she is legally a princess due to her husband being HSH the Prince of Waterloo (Belgian/Dutch princely title) as well? Or could it be due to her being a descendant of Queen Victoria and therefore relatively high in the line of succession (as opposed to most other peers and peeresses who aren’t even in the line of succession)?

Would any of the reasons listed above possibly place Her Royal Highness above all or most other non-BRF peeresses if she were to attend an event? I imagine at certain events which adhere to precedence protocols that this might be an issue for the host to address. Thank you!

Not counting the Earl Marshal (the Duke of Norfolk), I believe there are only 3 dukes today sitting in the House of Lords: the Duke of Wellington, the Duke of Somerset, and the Duke of Montrose.

Out of those 3, the Duke of Somerset has the highest precedence, being a title in the Peerage of England, followed then by the Duke of Montrose, which is a title in the Peerage of Scotland, and then the Duke of Wellington, which is a title in the Peerage of the United Kingdom. And, of course, the 3 dukes outrank all other hereditary peers in the House except the Duke of Norfolk, who is the highest ranking peer in the land, other than the royal Dukes who are sons or grandsons of a British Sovereign.

I don't think the Duke of Wellington's foreign titles (including that fact that he is an HSH in Belgium and the Netherlands) have any impact on his precedence in the United Kingdom as the United Kingdom does not legally recognize foreign titles. I would appreciate if anyone could confirm that.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by ducdalbe

I recently read an article which describes HRH the Duchess of Wellington (née Princess Antonia of Prussia) as the “leading peeress at the State Opening of Parliament.”

I unfortunately can't assist with your question. However, since I don't know whether the article you read was a reliable one, have you verified that the wives of hereditary peers attend the UK State Opening of Parliament? As most British hereditary peers have ceased to be members of the House of Lords, and space at the State Opening is limited, I am not sure what the rationale would be for inviting non-member hereditary peers or their wives to the State Opening.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

I unfortunately can't assist with your question. However, since I don't know whether the article you read was a reliable one, have you verified that the wives of hereditary peers attend the UK State Opening of Parliament? As most British hereditary peers have ceased to be members of the House of Lords, and space at the State Opening is limited, I am not sure what the rationale would be for inviting non-member hereditary peers or their wives to the State Opening.

The current Duke of Wellington is, however, still a member of the House of Lords.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

The current Duke of Wellington is, however, still a member of the House of Lords.

Thanks. Sorry, I missed reading your first post, and for some reason I had the wrong impression that the Duke of Norfolk was the only duke remaining in the Lords.

[ducdalbe]

Here she is! You can see her seated on the far right in the first chair. Based on the responses, my guess is that as the wife of one of the only Dukes currently serving in the House of Lords, that’s how she got that special position as leading peeress

https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/n...oto/1175846880

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

Thanks. Sorry, I missed reading your first post, and for some reason I had the wrong impression that the Duke of Norfolk was the only duke remaining in the Lords.

No problem. There are 92 hereditary peers still entitled to sit in the House of Lords (including the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, who are members ex-officio). According to the Wikipedia, out of those 92 nembers, there are: 4 dukes, 1 marquess, 25 earls, 17 viscounts, 44 barons, and 2 Lords of Parliament.

On the question of precedence, however, as I said, I don't think the Duke of Wellington's foreign titles count, so he should be actually the lowest ranking out of the 4 dukes in the House, but outranks of course all the marquesses, earls, viscounts, barons, and Lords of Parliament.

[ducdalbe]

I’m looking at a photo of the 2019 State Opening of Parliament and HRH the Duchess of Wellington is seated first amongst the peeresses. So, I guess the wives (if they have any) of the other dukes in Parliament didn’t attend, leaving the princess as the most senior peeress.

[Josefine]

what was the order of Precedence for Foreign royals at Queen Elisabeths funeral
did they enter in specifik order in church?

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Josefine

what was the order of Precedence for Foreign royals at Queen Elisabeths funeral
did they enter in specifik order in church?

K I N G S

1972
Queen Margrethe II of Denmark and Crown Prince Frederik
(Margrethe now holds the position of Doyenne of all Sovereigns - was Elizabeth II)

1973
King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden and Queen Silvia

1980
Former Queen Beatrix
King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands (2013) and Queen Máxima
(Because Willem-Alexander is a reigning King, he was seated before his mother).

1975
Former King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofía
King Felipe of Spain (2014) and Queen Letizia
(Because Felipe is a reigning King, he was seated before his parents but as WA has more anciennity, the Spanish contingent was placed after the Dutch contingent)

1991
King Harald V of Norway and Queen Sonja

2013
King Philippe of the Belgians and Queen Mathilde

------


O T H E R
S O V E R E I G N S

2000
Grand-Duke Henri of Luxembourg and Grand-Duchess María Teresa

2005
Prince Albert II of Monaco and Princess Charlène

-----

F O R M E R
R O Y A L
H O U S E S

1964
Queen Anne-Marie of the Hellenes
Crown Prince Pavlos of Greece and Crown Princess Marie-Chantal
(Pavlos now holds the position of Doyen of all Crown Princes - was Charles III)

2017
Princess Margareta of Romania and Prince Radu
(Margareta is no head-of-state but nevertheless head of a recognized and functioning Royal House inside a republican structure).




PICTURE

[Josefine]

Thank you. Did they enter the church in that order?
found a picture but i dont know if its at entering or leaving church
https://flipboard.com/topic/unitedki...2Fsheknows.com

https://www.soundhealthandlastingwea...en-at-funeral/

thats way i was wondering about the order

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Josefine

Thank you. Did they enter the church in that order?
found a picture but i dont know if its at entering or leaving church
https://flipboard.com/topic/unitedki...2Fsheknows.com

https://www.soundhealthandlastingwea...en-at-funeral/

thats way i was wondering about the order

They were seated in the Abbey in the order that Duc indicated: Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Spain, Norway, and Belgium. The Dutch were apparentely seated according to Princess Beatrix's precedence as Queen, and the Spaniards according to King Juan Carlos' , but the Spaniards still came after the Dutch delegation, which is a bit confusing since Juan Carlos became king earlier than Beatrix. Perhaps, as Duc said, they averaged out the precedences of Beatrix/Willem-Alexander and Juan Carlos/Felipe VI, which is an odd thing to do.

The Grand Duke of Luxembourg and the Sovereign Prince of Monaco were seated after the King of the Belgians, although both became Sovereigns earlier than King Philippe. Apparently they gave precedence to reigning kings over sovereign HRHs or HSHs.

Also, all non-European sovereigns, or their representatives (Japan, Bhutan, Brunei, Malaysia, Qatar, Oman, Lesotho, Morocco, Tonga, etc.) were given lower precedence in the seating than the European royal houses, including non-reigning houses (for example, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania, and Serbia).

At the committal service in Windsor, it appears that the order of seating in the row where the European monarchs were was, I think, again Denmark, Sweden, Spain and Norway (from right to left); the Belgians did not attend the committal service, nor did the Grand Duke of Luxembourg and the Sovereign Prince of Monaco (I don't know if they were invited or not).