Precedence - Who Outranks Who?

[lucien]

Do Kings and Queens out rank an elected president?

A Head of State is a Head of State.Crowned or elected....Allthough in some cases the Crown is far above a president....

 

[Mbruno]

Is there any other European monarchy besides the UK and Denmark where holders of hereditary titles of nobility or kinighthoodsvate still accorded precedence in official public acts ?

It looks like in other monarchies like Belgium , Spain and Sweden , precedence is still accorded to members of the Royal House or the Royal Family ( usually outranking all other civil, military and ecclesiastical authorities) , bu there is no official precedence nowadays for the nobility or the knighthood. Why ?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Is there any other European monarchy besides the UK and Denmark where holders of hereditary titles of nobility or kinighthoodsvate still accorded precedence in official public acts ?

It looks like in other monarchies like Belgium , Spain and Sweden , precedence is still accorded to members of the Royal House or the Royal Family ( usually outranking all other civil, military and ecclesiastical authorities) , bu there is no official precedence nowadays for the nobility or the knighthood. Why ?

The precedence in Belgium still lists the princes and dukes of the Salon Bleu on 41 which is a downfall from the first 10 it used to be: https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_Préséance_in_België

 

[principessa]

The precedence in Belgium still lists the princes and dukes of the Salon Bleu on 41 which is a downfall from the first 10 it used to be: https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_Préséance_in_België

Does "princes of the royal blood" only mean princes or also princesses? And is there also a ranking between this group?

 

[Mbruno]

The precedence in Belgium still lists the princes and dukes of the Salon Bleu on 41 which is a downfall from the first 10 it used to be: https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_Préséance_in_België

Thanks, Duc. Yes, I noticed that after my initial post. Only the heads of families with princely or ducal rank (HSH/HH) are listed in the Belgian order of precedence, but ordinary members of the Belgian nobility (counts, barons, jonkheers, etc.) are not.


I was making a contrast with the UK where all peers, sons and daughters of peers, sons of sons of peers, baronets, knights, non-knight members of the orders of chilvary, and sons of baronets and knights are accorded some kind of precedence.



Order of Precedence in England and Wales (source: Heraldica.org)


https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm#MEN



Spain used to be like the UK before the proclamation of the Second Republic. In the restored Spanish monarchy, however, under the royal decrees 2099/1983 and 470/2014, precedence is of course still accorded to the King and Queen, the Prince or Princess of Asturias, the Infantes or Infantas of Spain, the King emeritus and the Queen emerita, but no precedence is noted for children or spouses of infantes/infantas, grandees of Spain and other non-grandee holders of titles of nobility, or knights of the orders of the Golden Fleece, Charles III, Isabella the Catholic, Alphonse X, Civil Merit, and so on.



Note that the latter are still distingushed by honorifics though. For example, children of infantes, grandees of Spain (including their spouses and firstborns), and knights with collar or knights grand cross of the Spanish orders are Excelencia/ Excelentísimo(a) Señor(a). Holders of titles of nobility without an attached grandeeship (including their spouses and firstborns) , members of the order of Charles III at any rank below Grand Cross, and commanders with star (roughly equivalent to Knight Commander in the UK) of any other Spanish order are Ilustrísimo(a) Señor(a). Still, it is a shame that they no longer have precedence in official events like their British counterparts.


Order of precedence in Spain


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_order_of_precedence


Reference: https://www.boe.es/buscar/act.php?id=BOE-A-1983-21534



Denmark, like the UK, also has a nicely structured order of precedence which includes, besides the Royal Family, former members of the Royal Family, illegitimate descendants of Kings, knights and commanders of the orders of the Elephant and Dannebrog, counts, barons, etc. , as it should be done in a proper, traditional monarchy.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_order_of_precedence

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Does "princes of the royal blood" only mean princes or also princesses? And is there also a ranking between this group?

The heads of the princely and ducal families around 41 and then around 64 the other members of these families.

Also the term "the Salon Bleu" is no longer used. The difference with "normal" nobility is that these families are considered equal to "formerly Sovereign Houses".

It is very theoretical anyway. The last time the Salon Bleu was strictly interpret was at the grand wedding of King Baudouin and Doña Fabiola de Mora y Aragón. Then the princes and dukes of the Salon Bleu ranked directly after the royal family, foreign royal guests and the cardinals ("princes of the Church").

But after the wedding, the ascetic King Baudouin and Queen Fabiola ended the tradition of Court Balls and débutes (the Salon Bleu was a specific reception room exclusively for the princes and dukes, to mingle with the royal family) the Salon Bleu itself became in disuse.

Nowadays even the term "the princes and dukes of the Salon Bleu" is no longer used.

The Salon Bleu was build by King Willem I of the Netherlands, Grand-Duke of Luxembourg. It was a yellow salon with marble pillars. Under King Léopold II blue ameublement was placed in the salon, giving the name "the blue salon". Now it is a white salon anyway, in dire need of restoration: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3MQIvqnShd8/UlR_J2SxSpI/AAAAAAAAJEw/ZmEXtaJJJv8/s1600/01.jpg

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Does "princes of the royal blood" only mean princes or also princesses? And is there also a ranking between this group?

I have often seen "princes" meaning "princes and princesses" in Dutch. In 2020, it would be absurd if Princes Laurent, Gabriel, Amedeo, etc. would be entitled to a high rank in the order of precedence while Princess Astrid would rank below even the heads of non-royal princely and ducal families.

In the official agenda on monarchie.be, Princess Astrid's name precedes Prince Laurent's when they are in attendance at the same event.

 

[Mbruno]

A Head of State is a Head of State.Crowned or elected....

Diplomatically, yes, and, in terms of precedence in events where both monarchs and presidents are in attendance, I guess that is true too.

However, and to be honest, do you feel that monarchs treat other monarchs differently than other Heads of State, especially presidents of republics?

What I mean is that, in practice, especially in Europe, we see that, with a few exceptions, monarchs get preferential treatment for example in invitations for enthronements/coronations, and royal jubilees, birthdays, weddings, even funerals. And two European monarchs in particular, the Queen of the United Kingdom and the King of Spain, award different orders to monarchs and presidents, reserving the higher and more prestigious/exclusive ones to the former.

If the answer to the question is indeed “Yes”, what does that mean and how do you feel about it? Do monarchs see other monarchs as “equals” and elected presidents not so much?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Diplomatically, yes, and, in terms of precedence in events where both monarchs and presidents are in attendance, I guess that is true too.

However, and to be honest, do you feel that monarchs treat other monarchs differently than other Heads of State, especially presidents of republics?

What I mean is that, in practice, especially in Europe, we see that, with a few exceptions, monarchs get preferential treatment for example in invitations for enthronements/coronations, and royal jubilees, birthdays, weddings, even funerals. And two European monarchs in particular, the Queen of the United Kingdom and the King of Spain, award different orders to monarchs and presidents, reserving the higher and more prestigious/exclusive ones to the former.

If the answer to the question is indeed “Yes”, what does that mean and how do you feel about it? Do monarchs see other monarchs as “equals” and elected presidents not so much?

It is also often optics: royals soon are seated first row when the protocol is strictly the anciennity of office. Imagine the Benelux-countries and their two neighbours coming together, it is already royals front row, looking like giving them preference:

1. Henri of Luxembourg
2. Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands
3. Philippe of Belgium
4. Frank-Walter Steinmeier of Germany
5. Emanuel Macron of France

Even "young" Kings as WA, Philippe and Felipe already outrank most presidents in anciennity because they are already longer than two presidential terms on the throne. When we see King Felipe at any Ibero-American Summit he looks like to receive preferential treatment, but he simply already is the doyen of most Ibero-American heads-of-state.

 

[Mbruno]

Moved from the "Remembrance Day Services" Forum

hmm - Afraid this is not the thread for this discussion. Precedent and all. So we will leave it here. But I have been told that a new Family protocol and precedence will be released for the Jubilee. Figured it was to say where Andrew and the Sussex's fell in - now I think it is something else.

It is definitely something else IMHO. I can't remember for example a single event where the Duke of Cambridge was not accorded precedence above his uncles (the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex), or where the Duchess of Cambridge, when accompanied by her husband, did not have precedence above the Countess of Wessex and the Princess Royal. Even Prince Harry had higher precedence than his uncles in the official events he attended (e.g. the Spanish state banquet in 2017).

That suggests to me that the "official" order of precedence as described in Burke's, Heraldica.org, and Wilikipedia, where sons of the monarch are placed above grandsons, and daughters-in-law and daughters of the monarch are placed above granddaughters-in-law is not being observed in practice as far as the sons and daighters-in-law of the Prince of Wales are concerned, and it is high time the Palace officially acknowledged that by publishing a new, updated order of precedence.

I think two slightly different interpretations are possible:

1. Precedence is being applied as if the succession had been anticipated, i.e. the sons and daughters-in-law of the Prince of Wales are being accorded precedence as if he had already ascended the throne.

2. The British court will in the future follow the practice used by other monarchies of according precedence based on position in the line of succession to the throne rather than proximity of blood to the Sovereign, which makes more sense in my opinon.

If the updated order of precedence also follows the practice of other (slimmed-down) courts, it is possible that members of the Royal Family who are not HRHs will cease to have any attached official precedence as is the case in Spain, where only the King, the Queen Consort, the Prince or Princess of Asturias (and their consorts), and the Infantes or Infantas (in order of succession to the throne) have official precedence, but children or consorts of Infantes/Infantas do not.

I suppose the British court still feels it is necessary to accord precedence to the children of the Earl of Wessex and the Princess Royal, or to Princess Margaret's children, because they attend some royal functions, but I am not convinced that merits their inclusion in the official order of precedence. Note, for example, that husbands of British princesses like Tim Laurence already do not have official precedence, although they also attend royal events.

 

[Durham]

The British court will in the future follow the practice used by other monarchies of according precedence based on position in the line of succession to the throne rather than proximity of blood to the Sovereign, which makes more sense in my opinon.

If the updated order of precedence also follows the practice of other (slimmed-down) courts, it is possible that members of the Royal Family who are not HRHs will cease to have any attached official precedence as is the case in Spain, where only the King, the Queen Consort, the Prince or Princess of Asturias (and their consorts), and the Infantes or Infantas (in order of succession to the throne) have official precedence, but children or consorts of Infantes/Infantas do not.

I would agree except with the position of the female consorts of princes. The old rules will continue to apply I would think. That their precedence derives from their husbands'.

This as well as princely status being reserved for the children of the monarch & those in direct line of succession only. Plus the husbands of female heirs.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think two slightly different interpretations are possible:

1. Precedence is being applied as if the succession had been anticipated, i.e. the sons and daughters-in-law of the Prince of Wales are being accorded precedence as if he had already ascended the throne.

2. The British court will in the future follow the practice used by other monarchies of according precedence based on position in the line of succession to the throne rather than proximity of blood to the Sovereign, which makes more sense in my opinon.

If the updated order of precedence also follows the practice of other (slimmed-down) courts, it is possible that members of the Royal Family who are not HRHs will cease to have any attached official precedence as is the case in Spain, where only the King, the Queen Consort, the Prince or Princess of Asturias (and their consorts), and the Infantes or Infantas (in order of succession to the throne) have official precedence, but children or consorts of Infantes/Infantas do not.

I suppose the British court still feels it is necessary to accord precedence to the children of the Earl of Wessex and the Princess Royal, or to Princess Margaret's children, because they attend some royal functions, but I am not convinced that merits their inclusion in the official order of precedence. Note, for example, that husbands of British princesses like Tim Laurence already do not have official precedence, although they also attend royal events.

For monarchies that have introduced the rule of primogeniture and representation, which includes all European monarchies, the first option is preferable to me. The second option promotes a fiction that someone such as Arthur Chatto is a more senior royal than Princess Alexandra, which is wholly removed from reality.

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).

 

[JR76]

(in contrast to Sweden where Prince Daniel seems to be the only consort who is constantly demoted below his brother-in-law).

That is strange. I wonder (mostly because I haven't bother to check) if Daniel would be placed after Madeleine as well if they took part in anything without Victoria present. It does quite strangely tie into the old tradition of a husband not sharing his wife's rank. When alone Daniel is ranked according to his own rank as a Prince of Sweden, which is below Carl-Philip based on time of creation.
All this of course with the caveat that Sweden doesn't have an official Order of Precedence besides the fact that the Monarch outranks the Speaker of parliament who in turn outranks the Prime minister. The Court has a "seating chart" to help them organise the attendants at official events, but it's not an order of precedence.

 

[Claire]

That suggests to me that the "official" order of precedence as described in Burke's, Heraldica.org, and Wilikipedia, where sons of the monarch are placed above grandsons, and daughters-in-law and daughters of the monarch are placed above granddaughters-in-law is not being observed in practice as far as the sons and daighters-in-law of the Prince of Wales are concerned, and it is high time the Palace officially acknowledged that by publishing a new, updated order of precedence.

I think two slightly different interpretations are possible:

1. Precedence is being applied as if the succession had been anticipated, i.e. the sons and daughters-in-law of the Prince of Wales are being accorded precedence as if he had already ascended the throne.

2. The British court will in the future follow the practice used by other monarchies of according precedence based on position in the line of succession to the throne rather than proximity of blood to the Sovereign, which makes more sense in my opinon.

If the updated order of precedence also follows the practice of other (slimmed-down) courts, it is possible that members of the Royal Family who are not HRHs will cease to have any attached official precedence as is the case in Spain, where only the King, the Queen Consort, the Prince or Princess of Asturias (and their consorts), and the Infantes or Infantas (in order of succession to the throne) have official precedence, but children or consorts of Infantes/Infantas do not.

I suppose the British court still feels it is necessary to accord precedence to the children of the Earl of Wessex and the Princess Royal, or to Princess Margaret's children, because they attend some royal functions, but I am not convinced that merits their inclusion in the official order of precedence. Note, for example, that husbands of British princesses like Tim Laurence already do not have official precedence, although they also attend royal events.

Yep - it is on its way if my sources are to believed.
it will then be as such
1. Queen
2. Charles and Camilla
3. William and Kate
4. Princess Anne
5. Prince Edward and Sophie
6. Prince Harry and Meghan
7. Duke of Kent
8. Duke and Duchess of Gloucester
9. Prince Andrew
10. Prince Michael of Kent

Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, as well as Peter Philip and Zara Philips will not be included at all. Regular subjects. And unsure what they do when Tim Lawrence attends without Anne? If they don't release it for the Jubilee events we will see if in the seating arrangements ect. But I think they will make a formal announcement about working royals first. Yep - the fact that they have H & M before Kent has been pointed out by many. Lets wait to see this in action.

 

[Mbruno]

That is strange. I wonder (mostly because I haven't bother to check) if Daniel would be placed after Madeleine as well if they took part in anything without Victoria present. It does quite strangely tie into the old tradition of a husband not sharing his wife's rank. When alone Daniel is ranked according to his own rank as a Prince of Sweden, which is below Carl-Philip based on time of creation.
All this of course with the caveat that Sweden doesn't have an official Order of Precedence besides the fact that the Monarch outranks the Speaker of parliament who in turn outranks the Prime minister. The Court has a "seating chart" to help them organise the attendants at official events, but it's not an order of precedence.

It happened at least once, when Victoria was not present and Daniel walked behind Carl Philip and Madeleine. I remember the image being posted here on TRF.

Honestly, however, I think sometimes we, common folk, take precedence more seriously than the Court itself. Look for example at the video below of the Dutch state visit to the UK: the Archbishop of Canterbury (!) was placed ahead of Prince William, who in turn is ahead of Prince Edward; the Duchess of Cambridge is also ahead of the Countess of Wessex and the Princess Royal. And, in the Spanish state visit, the Prime Minister (!), Mrs May, was ahead of the Duchess of Cambridge, and both Prince William and Prince Harry ahead of Prince Edward. All that seems to conflict with the alleged "official" order of precedence.

 

[Somebody]

Yep - it is on its way if my sources are to believed.
it will then be as such
1. Queen
2. Charles and Camilla
3. William and Kate
4. Princess Anne
5. Prince Edward and Sophie
6. Prince Harry and Meghan
7. Duke of Kent
8. Duke and Duchess of Gloucester
9. Prince Andrew
10. Prince Michael of Kent

Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise and Viscount Severn, as well as Peter Philip and Zara Philips will not be included at all. Regular subjects. And unsure what they do when Tim Lawrence attends without Anne? If they don't release it for the Jubilee events we will see if in the seating arrangements ect. But I think they will make a formal announcement about working royals first. Yep - the fact that they have H & M before Kent has been pointed out by many. Lets wait to see this in action.

This would be a very inconsistent order of precedence. Not only are Harry and Neghan placed strangely (if the idea would be to put the non-working royal highnesses below the working HRHs within the royal family) but why would the Duke of Kent and Duke of Gloucester suddenly switch places? And I'm also a bit confused about Anne. Why would she be placed ahead of her younger brother? And why would the two remaing non-working royal highnesses not be included?

Note that if you'd like to use yesterday's event as evidence for the positioning of Anne ahead of Edward you would need to explain why the Wessexes were below the Gloucesters... I don't believe that was intended.

 

[Claire]

yep - actually forgot Princess Alexander as well. I have asked for the new precedent I was told that it has already been used on the website. So that is what I was thinking.
I don't really think there is rhyme and reason to it. Nor do I think BP will explain it if it comes out. But it might be fun to see what happens at the Jubilee going forward.

 

[JR76]

It happened at least once, when Victoria was not present and Daniel walked behind Carl Philip and Madeleine. I remember the image being posted here on TRF.

Thank you. Then it all make sense to me. When alone Daniel is the lowest ranked adult member of the royal family because of when he became a member of the family and because he doesn't share his wife's rank. When Victoria is present he accompanies her.
As we've seen many times it's often the case that we take things more serious than the royals themselves seems to do.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That is strange. I wonder (mostly because I haven't bother to check) if Daniel would be placed after Madeleine as well if they took part in anything without Victoria present. [...] When alone Daniel is ranked according to his own rank as a Prince of Sweden, which is below Carl-Philip based on time of creation.
All this of course with the caveat that Sweden doesn't have an official Order of Precedence besides the fact that the Monarch outranks the Speaker of parliament who in turn outranks the Prime minister. The Court has a "seating chart" to help them organise the attendants at official events, but it's not an order of precedence.

When alone Daniel is the lowest ranked adult member of the royal family because of when he became a member of the family and because he doesn't share his wife's rank. When Victoria is present he accompanies her.
As we've seen many times it's often the case that we take things more serious than the royals themselves seems to do.

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/kungafami...aidrottsgalan.5.45950b73176843503ad1685e.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafami...kfranislanddag2.5.3d99037b160d54f7102eeb.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/press/pre...andspresidentpar.5.4a3da1313658e148c3584.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafami...13arsnobelpris.5.4ea495e313c19c119aad58f.html

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

https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafami...eensummit.5.70e7de59130bc8da54e800010371.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/kungafami...ungligaslottet.5.14840bc815ec78cc9979ffa.html

It does quite strangely tie into the old tradition of a husband not sharing his wife's rank. When alone Daniel is ranked according to his own rank as a Prince of Sweden, which is below Carl-Philip based on time of creation.

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.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

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/kungafami...aidrottsgalan.5.45950b73176843503ad1685e.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafami...kfranislanddag2.5.3d99037b160d54f7102eeb.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/press/pre...andspresidentpar.5.4a3da1313658e148c3584.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafami...13arsnobelpris.5.4ea495e313c19c119aad58f.html

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

https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafami...eensummit.5.70e7de59130bc8da54e800010371.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/kungafami...ungligaslottet.5.14840bc815ec78cc9979ffa.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.

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.

 

[Mbruno]

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/kungafami...aidrottsgalan.5.45950b73176843503ad1685e.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafami...kfranislanddag2.5.3d99037b160d54f7102eeb.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/press/pre...andspresidentpar.5.4a3da1313658e148c3584.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafami...13arsnobelpris.5.4ea495e313c19c119aad58f.html

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

https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafami...eensummit.5.70e7de59130bc8da54e800010371.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/kungafami...ungligaslottet.5.14840bc815ec78cc9979ffa.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]

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

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]

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/kungafami...aidrottsgalan.5.45950b73176843503ad1685e.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafami...kfranislanddag2.5.3d99037b160d54f7102eeb.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/press/pre...andspresidentpar.5.4a3da1313658e148c3584.html
https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafami...13arsnobelpris.5.4ea495e313c19c119aad58f.html

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

https://www.kungahuset.se/kungafami...eensummit.5.70e7de59130bc8da54e800010371.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/kungafami...ungligaslottet.5.14840bc815ec78cc9979ffa.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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

HRH Princess Antonia, Duchess of Wellington

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]

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.