Precedence - Who Outranks Who?

[Marc23]

One question:

An example of marriage between Prince Ioann of Russia and Princess Helen of Serbia.

Who would take precedence in Russian court?

All princes and princesses of Imperial blood were His/Her Highness,while in this example a wife of a Highness is Royal Highness.

Would she outrank her husband and all princes and princesses of imperial blood?

 

[Ish]

I would suspect that in the Russian court she would have taken her precedence from her husband, not her father. She may have taken a higher precedence when in Serbia or when traveling to other countries without her husband.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

You must not look to the form of address (Your Highness, Your Excellency, Your Eminence, Your Honour, etc.). You must look to the position one has. A president and an ambassador have the same form of address (His Excellency) but a president always outranks an ambassador.

As female spouses take the title and corresponding rank of their husbands you need to know the consanguinity to the Sovereign (is the husband a son, a grandson, an uncle, a cousin to the Sovereign?). The closer the consanguinity, the higher in the pecking order. Etc. A royal can also have precedence because he holds a prestigious Order like Golden Fleece or the Garter. He can have anciennity, he can have a high rank (the Duke of Kent is Field Marshal of the British Army and outranks almost all at military events. It is a fine web, more than just HSH or HH, which are often wrong British interpretations of the German system.

 

[duke of poliganc]

she would retain her title and precedence as a royal highness the same as grand duchess maria alexandrovna of russia retained and was a accordance with the precedence of imperial highness and royal highness she outranked all the princesses in the british court except the princess of wales

 

[Ish]

Maria Alexandrovna was the wife of the second son of the Queen. That's why she outranked all the other princesses in the British court, except the Princess of Wales (the wife of the first son).

The British order of precedence for women is:
1. The Sovereign (regardless of gender)
2. The Queen (if not the sovereign)
3. The Dowager Queens
4. The wife of the sovereign's eldest son
5. The wives of the sovereign's younger sons (in order of the sons' birth)
6. The daughters of the sovereign (in order of birth)
7. The wives of the sovereign's grandsons (in the order of the grandson's precedences)
8. The granddaughters of the sovereign (in the order of primogeniture)

 

[Countessmeout]

Precisely. She did though retain her own rank, she was Her imperial and royal highness, but her rank as third lady behind Victoria and Alexandra was due to her husband.

 

[HRHPrinceD.J.H.W.G]

Monarchs are more powerful. Especially the British Monarch. The Queen holds the power passed on the her Ministers of the Crown. However the Armed Forces and the British people are loyal to her not the government of the day. In other countries, a President will not have the same affection from his people or the military. The Queen technically can declare war on her own, the US President cannot. Furthermore politicians come and go, a Monarch has continuous loyalty and affection by his/her people. The death of a British Monarch would cause more global grief than the death of a former US President I'm sure, although of course there would still be much grieving for a US President and rightly so.

 

[Suzzanah]

This is not exactly correct. Equality in leadership of countries is tough. Some are democracy, autocracy,oligarchy and so on. Additionally anyone knighted has a rank below HRH.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Monarchs are more powerful. Especially the British Monarch. The Queen holds the power passed on the her Ministers of the Crown. However the Armed Forces and the British people are loyal to her not the government of the day. In other countries, a President will not have the same affection from his people or the military. The Queen technically can declare war on her own, the US President cannot. Furthermore politicians come and go, a Monarch has continuous loyalty and affection by his/her people. The death of a British Monarch would cause more global grief than the death of a former US President I'm sure, although of course there would still be much grieving for a US President and rightly so.

Can QEII order the destruction of the entire planet in a matter of minutes with the push of a set of nuclear codes? The American president can.

And nope, he does not need the consent of Congress to do so.

The British monarch will almost always command prestige, affection and respect but to claim that any monarch, British or otherwise, is more powerful than the elected President of the United States is folly imo.

The sudden sad and unexpected passing of King George VI caused much global mourning, but I don't think it caused more grief than the sudden death of Franklin Roosevelt did in the spring of 1945, or the truly shocking murder of JFK in 1963 that sent the entire civilized world into shock and grief for months.

 

[moby]

Monarchs are more powerful. Especially the British Monarch. The Queen holds the power passed on the her Ministers of the Crown. However the Armed Forces and the British people are loyal to her not the government of the day. In other countries, a President will not have the same affection from his people or the military. The Queen technically can declare war on her own, the US President cannot. Furthermore politicians come and go, a Monarch has continuous loyalty and affection by his/her people. The death of a British Monarch would cause more global grief than the death of a former US President I'm sure, although of course there would still be much grieving for a US President and rightly so.

Er no, saying monarchs are more powerful than presidents, which has been repeatedly said in this thread makes no sense. Leaders' "power" or positions in protocolar discussions are based on the legitimacy of their countries and the mandate granted to them by their people, that's why they're ranked based on their length of rule. If you want to get a sense of which leader is more powerful, take a look at the UN. Technically, one country = one vote but then you have the UNSC Permanent Members which have veto powers. Of course there are other issues at play when you talk about power like gravitas from force of personality (QEII, King Juan Carlos, Vladimir Putin, Bill Clinton), but those have nothing to do protocol which, although complicated, for the most part would have clear rules.

On what Duc_et_Pair said about Ambassadors and Heads of State with the same title of "Your Excellency," I know that few people observe this but supposedly, if the President is in the same place as his Ambassador in the latter's host country, say if a President is there for a State Visit, you're not supposed to address the Ambassador as "Excellency," only "Ambassador" with the "Excellency" address reserved for the President. The Ambassador gets his Excellency title only because he is the highest ranking representative of his country in his host government, so if his President is there, then he it's not appropriate to address him as "Excellency".

 

[Suzzanah]

This is truly a complicated matter indeed. It depends on the country you are in and if your president is a knight or decorated by the other country. In most places a royal in any country would be an honored guest in that country. The president would be the host and they would meet as equal diplomats. In some countries the president would treat guests from other countries as less than equal but still as diplomats from another country. A royal within their realm visiting, might out rank the president of the country but it is all within the same realm. a good example is provinces, islands and territories. a good rule of thumb is this.... honor anyone older than you and anyone female if you are male. acknowledge anyone else that is royal whether you bow or not. Speak when spoken to, and break the ice in conversation if necessary. When in doubt think of everyone like an old auntie and treat them accordingly.

 

[Mbruno]

Can QEII order the destruction of the entire planet in a matter of minutes with the push of a set of nuclear codes? The American president can.

And nope, he does not need the consent of Congress to do so.

The British monarch will almost always command prestige, affection and respect but to claim that any monarch, British or otherwise, is more powerful than the elected President of the United States is folly imo.

The sudden sad and unexpected passing of King George VI caused much global mourning, but I don't think it caused more grief than the sudden death of Franklin Roosevelt did in the spring of 1945, or the truly shocking murder of JFK in 1963 that sent the entire civilized world into shock and grief for months.

Well, back in the early decades at least of Queen Victoria's reign, the British Empíre was still far more powerful and wealthier than the United States, so the British PM, if not the Queen herself, were conceivably more influential than the POTUS at that time.

Nowadays, I'd say the most powerful person in the world is probably Wladimir Putin as, although Russia is not particularly wealthy, he still can destroy the world without the same kinds of checks and balances that the POTUS has.

 

[Feologild]

Does an Emperor Rank Higher than a King?

Or am i wrong in saying that an Emperor is ranked over a king ?





I did look but i could not find this question asked.

 

[Muhler]

An emperor is a ruler of an empire, which may include several kingdoms. So an emperor is higher up the ranks.

Napoleon is a fine example. You may question how royal he really was, but he made himself emperor and since France de facto ruled more or less directly over quite a number of client states, some of which even had French/Corsican kings, Napoleon was by every definition an emperor.

 

[Countessmeout]

It doesn't really apply today as there is only one emperor and he rules only one country.......

But traditionally a king would rule but one kingdom. An emperor though ruled over a vaster area. In the case of emperors, there were commonly kings as well. They were a step below the emperor, owing their fealty and obedience to the emperor while governing their particular lands. Where the emperor owed loyalty and fealty to no one.

Besides Napoleon there is the obvious example of the Holy Roman Empire. The kingdoms of the empire had their own rulers but those answered to the emperor. The emperor had lesser titles, usually king of a kingdom or two as well.

 

[maria-olivia]

Your Imperial Highnesses are for Japan and the Habsbourg descendents. More ?

 

[Countessmeout]

Your Imperial Highnesses are for Japan and the Habsbourg descendents. More ?

The Romanovs. Grand Duchess Maria uses the title HIH. Of course her right to do so is disputed.

The hapsburgs use a combined imperial and royal highness.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

He is not higher ranked. In a group of heads of state he will be ranked according the anciennity of his position. Compare it with the Grand-Duke of Luxembourg who will have precedence over Don Felipe, Willem-Alexander and his cousin Philippe because he is head of state for 17 years now.

When Prince Naruhito becomes Emperor next year, he will close the row after the new King of Thailand. The most senior position is for Queen Elizabeth, purely because she is the doyenne of all heads-of-state, republican and royal.

 

[kbk]

An example (and a proof) that princesses by blood take precedence over those who are married into the Royal Family (if without their husbands) is a recently published Court Circular about the 2018 Commonwealth Day Observance Service:

12 March 2018
Buckingham Palace
The Queen this afternoon attended the Commonwealth Day Observance Service in Westminster Abbey and was received by the Dean of Westminster (the Very Reverend Dr. John Hall) and the Chairman of the Council of Commonwealth Societies (the Lord Howell of Guildford).

The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Henry of Wales, The Duke of York, The Princess Royal, Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy, The Countess of Wessex and The Duchess of Gloucester were also present.

 

[Durham]

Hi. I am an occasional visitor who has an interest in history & culture. I just posted in the Japanese forum on the subject of ranking & have just come across this thread. I hope nobody minds if I post it here as well as it was about the ranking of HM The Emperor of Japan.

Although the title of Tenno was translated in the C19th as emperor the Tenno is not an emperor in the European sense with precedence over kings like the Holy Roman Emperor was in Europe.

During the C19th century there was a sort of title inflation starting with Napoleon calling himself Emperor of the French & indeed this continued into the C20th with the last King of Italy being accorded the title of Emperor of Ethiopia. This rush to imperial status was tied up with national pride & it was therefore considered diplomatic to translate the title of Tenno as emperor in the western sense & to accord the Japanese monarch a similar imperial status to the rulers of the European great powers like Russia, Germany, France & Austria.

In the present day we have a King of Bahrain but “only” a Grand Duke of Luxembourg. The title of Tenno could just have easily have been translated as king. Japan is not an empire.

If these monarchies had survived to the present day we would have an extra four emperors in the world – Vietnam, Korea, Iran & Ethiopia. Would they really outrank the Kings of Thailand or Saudi Arabia? Or indeed a King of Egypt if that monarchy had also survived.

It would be odd if the Napoleonic dynasty had survived to the present day & we had a French Emperor but “only” a British King. Would a French HIH really outrank a British HRH?

I think it very telling that at the funeral of King Baudouin the Queen of the United Kingdom (1952) was sat ahead of the Emperor of Japan (1989).

I don’t think that Queen Elizabeth II is more important than all the other monarchs because she reigns over countries that in total are larger than Russia or more populous & richer than Japan. I don’t think that she is more important because she is Head of the Commonwealth that contains a third of the world’s population. Clearly she was seated first because she had come to the throne earlier & was therefore not outranked by the Emperor of Japan. In exactly the same way, King Charles the Third of the United Kingdom will be outranked by all other monarchs at the start of his reign despite having numerous realms as well as the Commonwealth headship.

The titles of emperor, king etc have a long & complicated history in Europe. Add in Asian ideas of monarchy & it all gets very complicated making comparisons across such different cultures very difficult.

I hope I haven’t gone on too much!

 

[Muhler]

The Japanese Emperor is head of state, the other royals are heads of states as well, so they are equal. Regardless of their titles.

 

[Durham]

Yes indeed I fully agree.

 

[JR76]

King Carl Gustav and Queen Silvia of Sweden was once asked in an interview if any reigning royal was considered more prominent than others and gave the reply that the royals themselves counted by the length of their respective reigns.

 

[Spheno]

King Carl Gustav and Queen Silvia of Sweden was once asked in an interview if any reigning royal was considered more prominent than others and gave the reply that the royals themselves counted by the length of their respective reigns.

Indeed they use this system, but (sometimes?) combine it with titles hierarchy.
As you can see HIH Crown Prince Naruhito had higher precedence then HRH Prince of Wales:
https://as1.ftcdn.net/jpg/01/56/76/96/500_F_156769640_iIAG16U1jcNH32ogQqv2e2z3CZlBoAeN.jpg
https://www.nobility-association.com/royals families.png

 

[JR76]

Indeed they use this system, but (sometimes?) combine it with titles hierarchy.
As you can see HIH Crown Prince Naruhito had higher precedence then HRH Prince of Wales:
https://as1.ftcdn.net/jpg/01/56/76/96/500_F_156769640_iIAG16U1jcNH32ogQqv2e2z3CZlBoAeN.jpg
https://www.nobility-association.com/royals families.png

They're seated exactly the same?

 

[Durham]

There certainly seems to be a lack of consistency among the courts of Europe with regard to different titles. There would appear to be no accepted notion of a titles hierarchy.

For instance, at the wedding of the then Prince of Asturias the Prince of Wales was given precedence over the Japanese Crown Prince. The exact reverse of seating arrangements at the Dutch celebrations. Seating at the Spanish wedding appears to have been set by direct heirs being placed according to the length of reign of their respective parent.

The Spanish Crown is among the great monarchies of Europe with a glorious history stretching back many centuries whereas the Dutch is, in the scheme of things (& with the greatest of respect), much newer. Spanish Kings at one time ruled over vast possessions from Europe to the Americas to the Philippines. Indeed at one time what is now the whole of the Kingdom of the Netherlands was but just one small part of the empire of Phillip II.

I would suspect that the Spanish approach might be more influential among royal watchers.

 

[Durham]

I have also just double checked but if you look at the formal wedding photograph of the wedding of Crown Princess Victoria it shows the Crown Prince & Princess of Denmark, the then Prince & Princess of Orange & the then Prince & Princess of Asturias as being placed ahead of the then Crown Prince Naruhito.

So the Swedish Court also does not place HIH ahead of an HRH.

So the Spanish & Swedish would appear to treat HRH & HIH the same but the Dutch appear to do something differently.

I'm pretty sure that the British & Danish courts follow what the Spanish & Swedes do.

 

[Stefan]

At the fuenral of Grand Duke Jean on May the different members of the royal houses came in order after the lenght of the reign with the longest reigning last. And bgefore it was also divided first the junior members, the the heirs and the the Head of 'States. And among these first Monaco and Liechtenstein who are HSH and the the royal Houses.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

How do non-European courts place foreign monarchs (or royals) in their order of precedence?

 

[Durham]

How do non-European courts place foreign monarchs (or royals) in their order of precedence?

If you look at the diamond jubilee celebrations of the late King Bhumibol of Thailand foreign monarchs are placed according to the length of their reigns.

For instance the Sultan of Brunei & the King of Sweden are seated in the places of highest honour near/next to the late king. Next come the King of Swaziland & the Emperor of Japan & so on.

As an aside it is interesting that we in the west don't translate the word sultan but do translate the word tenno. I wonder why that is.