The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #461  
Old 11-11-2021, 05:45 AM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 8,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob2008 View Post
If I remember correctly, I think that was just the amount for the ladies' hats.
Are the top hats of the gentlemen a separate amount?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #462  
Old 11-11-2021, 02:23 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob2008 View Post
It is possible that the UK could already have split up by the end of the current monarch's reign. That seems too fast and not a realistic speed. An English coronation is not likely for Charles.
I am not clear on what you mean, but I don't believe the potential for a UK split would have any bearing on an English coronation, or vice versa. It seems unlikely that if a majority of Scots supported independence that their views would be swayed by a Scottish coronation, or that the decision to hold the coronation in England - which would be in line with tradition - would be connected to concerns about Scottish independence.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #463  
Old 11-11-2021, 10:47 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob2008 View Post
It is possible that the UK could already have split up by the end of the current monarch's reign. That seems too fast and not a realistic speed. An English coronation is not likely for Charles.
Coronations without Scotland has happened before.... Without Wales too.....

Even if Scotland leaves, it won’t affect a coronation, in other ways than fewer scottish guests, no moderator of the Church of Scotland present and no stone under the coronation chair...
Reply With Quote
  #464  
Old 11-11-2021, 11:00 PM
rob2008's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
My understanding is that the English titles have seniority followed by Scottish titles and then Irish titles. After the Act of Union of 1707 new titles were created in the Peerage of Great Britain and then, since 1801, all new peerages are Peerages of the UK regardless of where the territorial designation is.

My understanding is that is why some English peerages, even though created after a Scottish peerage or Irish peerage, have precedence. So provided Scotland is not a republic by the time Charles is crowned, Scottish peers will still be ranked below English peers but before British or UK peers.
The peerage is not divided in this way but recorded on a unified Union Roll. Longevity is not determinative because if Winchester and Hereford are the earliest, then why did Huntly and Arbuthnott represent marquises and viscounts in 1953; and Mowbray the baron level.
Reply With Quote
  #465  
Old 11-12-2021, 12:05 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 774
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob2008 View Post
The peerage is not divided in this way but recorded on a unified Union Roll. Longevity is not determinative because if Winchester and Hereford are the earliest, then why did Huntly and Arbuthnott represent marquises and viscounts in 1953; and Mowbray the baron level.
I was taking it from Burke's Peerage.

https://web.archive.org/web/20070205...s/page62-4.asp

Another article here which lists the order precedence around the middle of the page and the reasons why (including the various Acts of Union). According to this article, precedence of Peers depends on the whether they are peers of England, Scotland, Great Britain or the UK.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/bri...e.htm#Official
Reply With Quote
  #466  
Old 11-12-2021, 09:33 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,355
And while the official Roll of the Peerage does not deal with precedence (the peers are listed in alphabetical order), it does continue to categorize peers as peers of England, Scotland, Great Britain, etc.

https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/i...he_Peerage.pdf
Reply With Quote
  #467  
Old 11-12-2021, 09:46 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob2008 View Post
The peerage is not divided in this way but recorded on a unified Union Roll. Longevity is not determinative because if Winchester and Hereford are the earliest, then why did Huntly and Arbuthnott represent marquises and viscounts in 1953; and Mowbray the baron level.
The Peers you mention were replaced for different reasons:
The Marquess of Winchester was over 90 at the time of the Coronation something that might've prevented him from taking part in what for the guests was a very long day.
The Viscount of Hereford, who had inherited his title from his grandfather the year before, was only 20 at the time of the Coronation and therefore had not yet taken his seat in the House of Lords.
The Barony of Ros was replaced by the Barony of Mowbray because at the time of the Coronation it was held by a woman who could not take a seat in the House of Lords.
Reply With Quote
  #468  
Old 11-12-2021, 10:00 AM
An Ard Ri's Avatar
Super Moderator
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: An Iarmhí, Ireland
Posts: 33,240
Here's a little further information on The Coronation Spoon its exact date of origin is not known but is believed to be from the mid 12th Century.

https://www.rct.uk/collection/31733/...ronation-spoon
Reply With Quote
  #469  
Old 11-12-2021, 10:31 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,355
I am not familiar with the coronation of 1953, but seeing as it was a national occasion, it would be logical if it was treated as an exception from the normal rule that peers and other dignitaries of England take precedence within England and Wales, and ranked the peers in attendance strictly by the longetivity of their peerages.
Reply With Quote
  #470  
Old 11-13-2021, 07:38 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 8,265
Tatiana Maria, Here is information on The plan of the Coronation
Reply With Quote
  #471  
Old 11-13-2021, 09:51 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
The Peers you mention were replaced for different reasons:
The Marquess of Winchester was over 90 at the time of the Coronation something that might've prevented him from taking part in what for the guests was a very long day.
The Viscount of Hereford, who had inherited his title from his grandfather the year before, was only 20 at the time of the Coronation and therefore had not yet taken his seat in the House of Lords.
The Barony of Ros was replaced by the Barony of Mowbray because at the time of the Coronation it was held by a woman who could not take a seat in the House of Lords.
According to Hugo Vickers, the Marquess of Winchester was excluded because he was a bankrupt and the Lord Chancellor's Office had decided bankrupt peers should be excluded from the ceremony. See Hugo Vickers, Coronation (Dovecote Press, 2013), p. 59.
Reply With Quote
  #472  
Old 11-13-2021, 10:02 PM
rob2008's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria View Post
And while the official Roll of the Peerage does not deal with precedence (the peers are listed in alphabetical order), it does continue to categorize peers as peers of England, Scotland, Great Britain, etc.

https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/i...he_Peerage.pdf
The division is an historical factor and doesnt create a hierarchy. I sometimes wonder how to reintegrate Irish peers from the Northern Ireland territory into the UK peerage.
Reply With Quote
  #473  
Old 11-13-2021, 10:07 PM
rob2008's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla View Post
Tatiana Maria, Here is information on The plan of the Coronation
I am convinced that Norfolk's rule forbidding motorised transport in 1953 will not apply next time.

I don't think the 1762 gold coach will be used. It will be the Diamond Jubilee coach surely for the new sovereign and queen consort.
Reply With Quote
  #474  
Old 11-13-2021, 10:07 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,355
I think you missed the sources given by VictoriaB, above.
Reply With Quote
  #475  
Old 11-14-2021, 08:41 AM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawin View Post
According to Hugo Vickers, the Marquess of Winchester was excluded because he was a bankrupt and the Lord Chancellor's Office had decided bankrupt peers should be excluded from the ceremony. See Hugo Vickers, Coronation (Dovecote Press, 2013), p. 59.
Thank you, I haven't read that book. The fact do show that had the three peers not been replaced for reasons such as age, gender or bad optics they would have performed their part of the ceremony based on the age of their peerages.
Reply With Quote
  #476  
Old 11-14-2021, 04:32 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
Thank you, I haven't read that book. The fact do show that had the three peers not been replaced for reasons such as age, gender or bad optics they would have performed their part of the ceremony based on the age of their peerages.
Yes, and in case they were replaced by the peer holding the "next oldest" title.
Reply With Quote
  #477  
Old 11-14-2021, 05:49 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Pittsburgh, United States
Posts: 7,538
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob2008 View Post
The division is an historical factor and doesnt create a hierarchy. I sometimes wonder how to reintegrate Irish peers from the Northern Ireland territory into the UK peerage.
All sources, however, claim that there is a hierarchy in the order of precedence, namely:
  1. Peers of England.
  2. Peers of Scotland.
  3. Peers of Great Britain.
  4. Peers of Ireland.
  5. Peers of the United Kingdom.

From what I understand, however, the hierarchy only applies within the same rank , i.e. a duke always outranks e.g. an earl, no matter which peerage their titles belong to; however, among dukes, those in the Peerage of England outrank those in the Peerage of Scotland, and so on, according to the hierarchy above. Finally, within the same rank and the same peerage, precedence is determined by seniority (date of creation of the title).

An interesting point also is that the Roll of Peerage only records the main title of British peers. There is no official directory in the UK, as far as I know, of subsidiary titles (unlike, for example, in Spain, where all existing titles and their legal holders are officially recorded). Nonetheless, the Royal Warrant of 2004 which created the Roll of the Peerage says that inclusion of the name of the title holder in the Roll is necessary to enjoy the legal rights and privileges associated with the peerage in the United Kingdom.

EDIT: After double-checking, I verified that it is actually possible to be entered in the Roll under a subsidiary title if the applicant can prove succession to that title, but not to the most senior one, but I believe that is rare. There is a more comprehensive explanation in the link below.

https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/peers-roll-contents
Reply With Quote
  #478  
Old 11-14-2021, 06:05 PM
rob2008's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 274
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
The Peers you mention were replaced for different reasons:
The Marquess of Winchester was over 90 at the time of the Coronation something that might've prevented him from taking part in what for the guests was a very long day.
The Viscount of Hereford, who had inherited his title from his grandfather the year before, was only 20 at the time of the Coronation and therefore had not yet taken his seat in the House of Lords.
The Barony of Ros was replaced by the Barony of Mowbray because at the time of the Coronation it was held by a woman who could not take a seat in the House of Lords.
Thank you. Winchester's bankruptcy was the more important in the decision. He married in the year before the coronation and then almost immediately left his new wife for Ian Fleming's mother. He seems quite an active nonagenarian.

I wonder why the 14th Viscount of Falkland was not selected when his title had an older pedigree.

Viscount Hereford doesn't have the participle 'of'. Thank you.
Reply With Quote
  #479  
Old 11-14-2021, 06:23 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Bellevue, United States
Posts: 1,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mbruno View Post
All sources, however, claim that there is a hierarchy in the order of precedence, namely:
  1. Peers of England.
  2. Peers of Scotland.
  3. Peers of Great Britain.
  4. Peers of Ireland.
  5. Peers of the United Kingdom.

From what I understand, however, the hierarchy only applies within the same rank , i.e. a duke always outranks e.g. an earl, no matter which peerage their titles belong to; however, among dukes, those in the Peerage of England outrank those in the Peerage of Scotland, and so on, according to the hierarchy above. Finally, within the same rank and the same peerage, precedence is determined by seniority (date of creation of the title).

An interesting point also is that the Roll of Peerage only records the main title of British peers. There is no official directory in the UK, as far as I know, of subsidiary titles (unlike, for example, in Spain, where all existing titles and their legal holders are officially recorded). Nonetheless, the Royal Warrant of 2004 which created the Roll of the Peerage says that inclusion of the name of the title holder in the Roll is necessary to enjoy the legal rights and privileges associated with the peerage in the United Kingdom.

EDIT: After double-checking, I verified that it is actually possible to be entered in the Roll under a subsidiary title if the applicant can prove succession to that title, but not to the most senior one, but I believe that is rare. There is a more comprehensive explanation in the link below.

https://www.college-of-arms.gov.uk/peers-roll-contents

In some cases peers are listed under a subsidiary title which allowed them to sit in the House of Lords. For example, see the entry for the Marquess of Hamilton which notes he is "customarily styled by the superior title Duke of Abercorn." He sat in the House as Marquess of Abercorn (in the peerage of Great Britain) because his ducal title was created in the peerage of Ireland, which did not entitle him to a writ of summons.
Reply With Quote
  #480  
Old 11-14-2021, 06:49 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob2008 View Post

I wonder why the 14th Viscount of Falkland was not selected when his title had an older pedigree.

Viscount Hereford doesn't have the participle 'of'. Thank you.
Neither does Viscount Falkland anymore.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british monarchs, ceremonies, coronation, king george vi, regalia


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What Would You Wear To Your Own Coronation?! constance Royal Chit Chat 35 04-05-2021 10:27 PM
Unexpected Monarchs auntie Royalty Past, Present, and Future 89 10-10-2020 08:25 PM
Worst British Monarchs Kurenai British Royal History 171 08-15-2017 07:26 AM




Popular Tags
#uae #abudhabirullingfamily 18th birthday america american archie mountbatten-windsor asian birth britain british british royal family camilla camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles castile charles china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing coronation crown jewels de la cerda dresses dubai expo duchess of sussex duke of cambridge duke of sussex edward vii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics guzman harry and meghan hello! henry viii highgrove ingrid-alexandra ivrea japanese imperial family japan history king edward iii king edward vii king henry iii king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers maria ii medical monarchist movements monarchists mongolia nara period noble families norway crown princely couple pedro ii politics prince andrew prince harry prince of wales prince of wales in jordan queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon st edward tokugawa uae unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:50 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2022
Jelsoft Enterprises
×