Precedence - Who Outranks Who? - Page 2

LadyGabrielle · #21 02-07-2008, 12:57 AM

I tend to agree that the Monarchs outrank Presidents, Prime ministers etc. A President is elected to his or her position whereas Monarchs are in their position due to the bloodline. Presidents etc, are only in their positions a short time compared to Monarchs who hold their positions until death or until they are unable to rule any longer in which case the heir takes over. Its all in the blood, in my opinion.

radin87 · #22 03-28-2008, 03:28 AM

Yes, monarch outrank the President / Prime Minister.
It is because, the position of King and Queen can be only be passed within the royal bloodline. It is true that nowadays most of monarch only holds as a ceremonial figure, but mos of the monarch has something that the politician doesn't have.
Loyalty. Sometimes, the subject of monarch is ready to fight/die for them.

PrinceOfCanada · #23 03-28-2008, 10:25 AM

Um, sorry, no.

Heads of State, whether the position is elected, inherited, or taken by force, have (nominally) the exact same precedence. However, since someone has to walk in first (or whatever), it's generally the longest-serving. That will generally mean, of course, that monarchs will end up appearing as though they have higher precedence, but for example Fidel Castro would have come before many currently-serving monarchs prior to his stepping down.

King Kiwi · #24 04-15-2009, 09:21 PM

I'm looking for information on how they determine the seniority of Royal lines/dynasties.

Like in the House of Oldenburg, there are 2 lines, the Main line, and the Holsteins, which the Cadet Branches all basically descend from. Then again, how do you determine senority within the cadet branches?

This goes for all houses and lines, I'd like an answer.

Well thanks for reading, much appreciate it.

Kotroman · #25 04-16-2009, 03:02 PM

If you have three brothers as ancestors of three cadet branches, then the branch started by the eldest brother is the senior branch. I hope this is what you meant.

King Kiwi · #26 04-20-2009, 12:53 AM

Yes, indeed that was what I was looking for

. Thanks very much.

One more question. How do you start a house? Doesn't everyone in the family eventually start their own line?

Kotroman · #27 04-20-2009, 07:28 PM

Only sons start new branches and most of the new branches died out soon because there were not enough sons to continue the branches. For example, person A had three daughters and three sons: B,C, and D. Son B had two sons, son C had a son and a daughter, and son D had only daughters. If the son of son C doesn't have any sons, then the branch started by son C will die out and the A branch would remain the only line.

Example:

The House of Mecklenburg had splitted into the House of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and the House of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. The former died out in the male-line in 2001 when it's last male, Hereditary Grand Duke Frederick Francis, died. When his widow and his three nieces, the remaining members of the House of Mecklenburg-Schwerin, die, the House of Mecklenburg-Strelitz will become simply the House of Mecklenburg again.

However, if the son of son C existed and survived to have offspring and one of his male offspring came to rule in another country, then the branch could adopt another name - that's how a new house is started.

Example:

1. The House of Windsor was established in 1917 by King George V. It was created from a cadet branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. The living members of this house are male-line desendants of King George V (the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra of Kent, Earl of Ulster, etc).
2. Queen Elizabeth II is married to a member of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Their male-line descendants belong to the House of Windsor, but this House of Windsor is a cadet branch of the House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. So, some people believe that there are now two Houses of Windsor, one consisting of the agnatic descendants of Albert and Victoria (a cadet branch of the House of Wettin) and the other consisting of the agnatic descendants of Philip and Elizabeth (a cadet branch of the House of Oldenburg).

RoyalistRiley · #28 05-24-2009, 01:04 AM

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.

I think Presidents enjoy the style of "His/Her Excellency" when on official state visits.

User0501 · #29 05-24-2009, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huddo

Do Kings and Queens out rank an elected president?

Kings or Queens or both is a Head of State of a country. A president may either be a Head of State or both as Head of State and Head of Government such as the president of The United States of America (USA). On the other hand, prime ministers are Head of Government of a country. So, Kings and Queens do not outrank Presidents but Kings, Queens and Presidents do outrank Prime Ministers.

Kotroman · #30 05-24-2009, 07:26 AM

In my opinion, an anointed and crowned monarch who reigns by the Grace of God always outranks a person who was elected and who rules by the grace of politics.

Wisteria · #31 05-24-2009, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman

In my opinion, an anointed and crowned monarch who reigns by the Grace of God always outranks a person who was elected and who rules by the grace of politics.

Absolutely spot on.

Lumutqueen · #32 05-24-2009, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman

In my opinion, an anointed and crowned monarch who reigns by the Grace of God always outranks a person who was elected and who rules by the grace of politics.

Quite right, thats is the reason we should not abolish ANY monarchy in the future. We need the stability they in my opinion bring.
x

Lilla · #33 05-24-2009, 10:54 AM

In the last years of late President Fidel Castro's presidency, he outranked most monarchs because he had been the head of state of Cuba for almost a lifetime.

COUNTESS · #34 05-24-2009, 01:26 PM

God anoints no one. That is just man made drivel. All are equal in God's eyes. Monarchs got to their spot, but strong ancestors with big swords who fought and often stole territory. Ruled with an iron fist and endowed their future generations. Presidents are elected by their constituents. They are neither better nor worse than their constituents.

Kotroman · #35 05-24-2009, 04:02 PM

Nobody said that God anoints someone

I said that, in my opinion, a monarch who is anointed in a holy ceremony by a religious leader ranks higher than a person who holds a position because he/she made lots of nice promises which are never going to be fulfilled.

BTW, "by the Grace of God" is a phrase used by monarchs. I used it to indicate their being above politics, while presidents rule "by the grace of politics".

COUNTESS · #36 05-24-2009, 05:51 PM

Presidents rule by the grace of their people. The Kaiser used that phrase, too, and he was a lunatic. Monarchs are above politics, because that is the only way they can exist, now. People have them as show pieces. The dirty work, real work is done by the elected. And, many of todays monarchs do not hold "holy cermonies", as they, too, know their part in the paegent. Monarchs are in their position because of birth; smart, dumb, evil, good, there they are.

lover_of_royalty · #37 07-12-2010, 05:39 PM

Hi,

My name is Laura, I'm new here and got some questions. It quiet important I get these right.

1, Does a Emperor bow to a King (ranks and all)?

2, If someone marries someone with a high title e.g. HSH marries HRH - do they know be HS&RH??? Would a woman of higher ranking lose her original title and therefore take all her husbands ranks and titles?

Thanks.

Lumutqueen · #38 07-12-2010, 05:43 PM

Take Caroline, Princess of Hanover.
She was a HSH up until the point she married Prince Ernst, then she became and HRH, and Princess of Hanover, a title ranking higher than her original title.
Queen Victoria elevated all the sons who married her daughters to the rank of HRH.
An emperor ranks higher than a King, I believe, so it would be the other way round. A king bows to an Emperor.

lover_of_royalty · #39 07-12-2010, 05:48 PM

In my opinion, King/Queens are their Head of State by birth why Presidents etc are their by been voted there. Therefore a King/Queen should greet Royalty in the right way. On the other hand, as with the President Obama situtation, as Emperor out ranks all other, they should bow.

Alison20 · #40 07-12-2010, 06:32 PM

Banda Windsor (No.9) wondered why Mme Chirac curtesied to HM QE. This is because Mme Chirac was the wife of the Head of State and the Queen was the actual Head of State. Although wives used to take most of the status and precedence of their husbands, they really were always 'one step behind'. However, Prince Consorts do not have the same rank as their reigning Queen wives, although they usually get precedence just behind her.