Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022

[yvr girl]

Prince Albert would take precedence as he is the head of state. When you have multiple heads of state, it goes by seniority - those who have held the office the longest.

I'm not sure where you got your info on Autumn Philips. She would be higher than the Gloucesters because her husband is closer to the throne. She would be behind Beatrice and Eugenie. Beatrice and Eugenie might not be on some lists yet due to their age. (Children are not generally listed.) At the memorial for Diana, Princess of Wales, they were seated in front of everyone except for the Wales' and The Queen and Prince Philip. This reflected their status, as their father was not at the service.

 

[wbenson]

I'm not sure where you got your info on Autumn Philips. She would be higher than the Gloucesters because her husband is closer to the throne.

Precedence and placement in the line of succession are sometimes different things. The official order of precedence places all children of the sovereign before all grandchildren, for example, but I rarely see that in practice (William laid his wreath at the cenotaph directly after his father, even though precedence-wise he would have went after the Princess Royal). I don't know if non-royal grandchildren are included, though. It's a very murky thing.

 

[Kotroman]

Aren't there are always two tables of precedence - one for the ladies and for the gentlemen?

 

[Warren]

Officially, there is 'Precedence in England and Wales', 'Precedence in Scotland' and 'Precedence in Northern Ireland' with the rider "women take the same rank as their husbands or as their eldest brothers...". Then there is the Queen's own or private Order of Precedence which for females we know is EIIR, Anne, Alexandra, Camilla, Sophie...

It is very difficult to find a list of official precedence with the people named rather than titles or positions. Technically, grandsons of the Sovereign would follow Sons of the Sovereign, but apparently the Court Circular lists William above Andrew and Edward. Precedence within the Royal Family seems to be fluid.

 

[branchg]

The Court Circular reflects the royal order of precedence, not the official precedence of the kingdom. William and Harry would come before anyway as the sons of the heir to the throne.

For females, precedence reflects your distance from the throne, whether in your own right or by virtue of marriage. Therefore, the wives of sons and male-line grandsons of the reigning Sovereign come before princesses of the blood (daughters, male-line grandaughters or sisters of The Sovereign).

 

[Warren]

William and Harry would come before anyway as the sons of the heir to the throne.

To confuse this vexed issue further, Wiki lists the Official Order of Precedence for Men in England and Wales as follows, with William and Harry after their uncles:

1. The Sovereign
2. The Duke of Edinburgh
3. Sons of the Sovereign
...1. The Prince of Wales
...2. The Duke of York
...3. The Earl of Wessex
4. Grandsons of the Sovereign
...1. Prince William
...2. Prince Harry
...3. Viscount Severn
...4. Peter Phillips
5. Brothers of the Sovereign [none]
6. Uncles of the Sovereign [none]
7. Nephews of the Sovereign [Viscount Linley]
8. Grandsons of former Sovereigns being Dukes
...1. The Duke of Gloucester
...2. The Duke of Kent
9. Grandsons of former Sovereigns not being Dukes
...1. Prince Michael of Kent
...2. The Earl of Harewood

After the Royal Family, the second grouping is 'Archbishops and High Officers of State';
Following them in third place is the 'Nobility, Bishops, Cabinet' etc grouping where the minor members of the Royal Family can be found including the Earl of Ulster, the Earl of St Andrews, Lord Nicholas Windsor and Lord Frederick Windsor.

The Official Order of Precedence for Women is a separate list.
Without going into too much detail, here is where is gets messy when the two lists are mixed. For example, Princess Margaret would rank at number 5(a) being a Sister of the Sovereign. Does anyone think it likely that Mr Peter Phillips would take official precedence over Princess Margaret if she were still alive?

Just as the Courts and Houses in old Europe had specialists in precedence for Imperial, Imperial and Royal, Royal, Grand Ducal, Highness, Serene and Illustrious Highnesses etc etc, so today there must be people whose job involves being masters of the arcane to ensure no-one's nose is put out of joint by being placed in an "inferior" position to that which their rank entitles them.

 

[branchg]

I don't think that's correct. It should be The Duke of Edinburgh (granted precedence and place next to The Sovereign before all others), followed by The Prince of Wales, William, Harry, then their uncles, then male-line grandsons (Viscount Severn, Peter Phillips), then Viscount Linley.

 

[wbenson]

This page also shows all grandsons (including William and Harry) after all sons. The last occasion I can think of where that really mattered, though, was the Queen Mother's funeral procession, and that might have been based on genealogical proximity to the Queen Mother instead. I can't really tell.

 

[RoyalProtocol]

If you write to the Crown Office in The House of Lords they can send you a copy of the scale of general precedence as can the Court of Lord Lyon for Scottish Precedence

 

[Royal Fan]

Where will the forthcoming children of the Earl of Ulster, Lady Rose and Lady Davina rank in Precedence???

 

[Lumutqueen]

Where will the forthcoming children of the Earl of Ulster, Lady Rose and Lady Davina rank in Precedence???

I don't think their children will go into the order. As far as I can see Xan Windsor isn't on the list, so I don't know why any other children would go on.

 

[Warren]

I don't think their children will go into the order. As far as I can see Xan Windsor isn't on the list, so I don't know why any other children would go on.

Lord Xan Windsor, Baron Culloden, is the eldest son of an Earl so of course he has a place in the 'Precedence in England' list:
...
Dukes, according to their Patents of Creation
Ministers and Envoys
Eldest sons of Dukes of Blood Royal = Earl of Ulster
Marquesses, in same order as Dukes
Dukes' eldest sons
Earls, in same order as Dukes
Younger sons of Dukes of Blood Royal
Marquesses' eldest sons
Dukes' younger sons
Viscounts, in same order as Dukes
Earls' eldest sons = Xan, Lord Culloden and = if the Earl of Ulster's next child is a daughter
Marquesses' younger sons
Bishops of London, Durham and Winchester
All other English Bishops
Secretaries of State, if of degree of a Baron
Barons, in same order as Dukes
Treasurer of HM's Household
Comptroller of HM's Household
Vice-Chamberlain of HM's Household
Secretaries of State under the degree of Baron
Viscounts' eldest sons
Earls' younger sons = if the Earl of Ulster's next child is a son
Barons' eldest sons

Women take the same rank as their husbands or as their brothers. Daughters of Peers rank next immediately after the wives of their elder brothers, and before their younger brothers' wives.
My reading of this is:
both Lady Davina and Lady Rose have married non-titled commoners; they would rank after the Countess of Ulster, their brother's wife.
If the Earl of Ulster's next child is a daughter, she takes the same rank as her brother Xan.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think that's correct. It should be The Duke of Edinburgh (granted precedence and place next to The Sovereign before all others), followed by The Prince of Wales, William, Harry, then their uncles, then male-line grandsons (Viscount Severn, Peter Phillips), then Viscount Linley.

The Order of Precedence is not the same as the line of succession. Precedence is determined by the actual relationship to the monarch - so her children take precedence before her grandchildren because her own children are closer in relationship to her than her grandchildren.

Thus the Queen's sons take precedence over her grandsons.

When Charles becomes King his sons will take precedence over his brothers but William's sons will take precedence behind Harry as William and Harry will be the sons of the King and William's sons will only be the grandchildren.

When William becomes King his sons will take precedence over Harry.

Each change of monarch changes the precedence to indicate the relationship to the monarch.

Charles will even have to decide what precedence Philip will have. He had to be actually granted precedence because in his own right he would have to take it based on his cousinly relationship and there would be many men who would have had precedence over him, in his own right.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Interestingly, according to the link provided above by wbenson, a bill in Parliament to assign precedence to Prince Albert next after the Queen was defeated but he was accorded this right by warrant

 

[Iluvbertie]

Interestingly, according to the link provided above by wbenson, a bill in Parliament to assign precedence to Prince Albert next after the Queen was defeated but he was accorded this right by warrant

I think part of the argument was that Parliament shouldn't be getting involved in this sort of thing but the Queen obviously wanted her husband directly next to her and that meant issuing the same instructions that Elizabeth gave about Philip - precedence immediately after the monarch - as would be the case for a Queen Consort. Charles won't have to issue such an instruction when he marries about Camilla's precedence as that is automatic as the wife of the monarch.

Another thing that needs fixing - it should be automatic for the spouse of the monarch regardless of gender.

 

[branchg]

Charles will even have to decide what precedence Philip will have. He had to be actually granted precedence because in his own right he would have to take it based on his cousinly relationship and there would be many men who would have had precedence over him, in his own right.

I would assume if Philip survives The Queen, his precedence would remain the same once his son takes the throne. He would be first in the order of precedence for gentlemen, next to The Sovereign and ahead of William and Harry. Similar to The Queen Mother's precedence as dowager queen.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I would assume if Philip survives The Queen, his precedence would remain the same once his son takes the throne. He would be first in the order of precedence for gentlemen, next to The Sovereign and ahead of William and Harry. Similar to The Queen Mother's precedence as dowager queen.

Note that you are making an assumption.

With the Queen Mother is was automatic precedence but with Philip it will be up to Charles to specify.

I also assume that Charles will give that precedence to his father but then again maybe he won't.

It should be automatic, like it is for a Queen Consort, but in fact it isn't. Special instructions have to be issued to give him that status.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Why would it not be automatic? Is it because the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was crowned like her husband, but Phillip was not? Is that why the Queen Mother had automatic precedence as a dowager queen?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Why would it not be automatic? Is it because the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was crowned like her husband, but Phillip was not? Is that why the Queen Mother had automatic precedence as a dowager queen?

Not just that she was crowned but because a woman holds rank with her husband but a man doesn't gain the rank of his wife.

When George VI became King he didn't have to announce that his wife would take precedence immediately after himself. That is automatic as she was his wife.

Elizabeth II had to make that announcement because her husband didn't rise in rank by being married to her automatically - George had to give him HRH and titles and then issue new LPs to allow Charles to be born HRH. None of these things have to be done when the status is held by the man - his wife rises to his status e.g. compare what happened with the HRH for Charles and for William - Charles needed new LPs because his royal status within the BRF came through his mother whereas for William it was automatic because his royal status came through his father. In addition Diana and Camilla automatically became HRH on marriage but Philip (and even better examples are Mark Philips and Tim Lawrence) who on marrying a female don't get it.

Therefore when Elizabeth became Queen the automatic order of precedence was Charles and then the Duke of Gloucester and Duke of Kent and Philip a long way down the line but she raised him to that status equivalent to her own. That, however, only holds for her reign and Charles will have to deal with the situation if Philip outlives his mother. He will probably do the right thing and give Philip the precedent of the surviving parent of the monarch but it has to be given. It isn't automatic as it was when George VI died and the Queen Mum took that position - with Queen Mary pushed back as the grandmother of the monarch.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Thank you for the explanation. Another change that will occur only if there is gender equality in inheriting the crown.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Thank you for the explanation. Another change that will occur only if there is gender equality in inheriting the crown.

Not necessarily as it would have to be gender neutral for all titles for it to be automatic for the male to be raised in rank to that of his wife. It might even require additional legislation to automatically allow husbands to have equal status with their wives - so that no matter which partner holds the senior title the other automatically rises to that status.

e.g. say William has a daughter first and the law is changed to have that daughter automatically become the heiress apparent - there is still no given that her husband would automatically rise to equal rank.

Even in Sweden, with gender neutral succession there is no suggestion that Victoria's fiancee will be King Consort automatically. There is discussion about what title his future father-in-law will give him whereas if it was automatic then he would automatically become a Prince.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Thank you for the explanation. Do you believe that limiting acquisition of royal titles to men has been a way of controlling the numbers of royals and having lines eventually end? This would ease the burden on civil lists.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Thank you for the explanation. Do you believe that limiting acquisition of royal titles to men has been a way of controlling the numbers of royals and having lines eventually end? This would ease the burden on civil lists.

In past centuries the princesses were usually married into other royal families and so their descendents would get royal status through their fathers, without losing their inheritance rights in Britain (unless, after 1701 they were raised as Roman Catholics).

George V restricted the number in 1917 by making it only through to grandchildren through the male line whereas in the past the greatgrandchildren had all been HH.

When he did that it didn't limit anyone who already was entitled to the Civil List as greatgrandchildren of a monarch wouldn't have reached adulthood and thus would still have been being supported by their father e.g. when Victoria died his own children were still under 10 and even when he becamse King they were still minors.

The Queen limited the Civil List to herself and Philip in 1992 so it really isn't an issue any more.

Queen Victoria's daughters all were paid Civil List payments as were other daughters of the monarch but their children would have received payments from their husband's family and the British raised grandchildren of Victoria weren't on the Civil List as far as I am able to ascertain regardless of the gender of the parent - except eventually the sons of Edward VII - Albert Victor and the future George V but then they were the future king.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Maybe Prince Charles needs to learn he can't get everything he wants in life and stomp his foot like a petulant child. He is really lucky he got his way and married Camilla. Even though she is married to him, she does not morally deserve all the honors that have come her way. If Charles had married someone other than Camilla, I would have accepted that. He was divorced at the time of Diana's tragic death.

Oh by the way, Those of us who love Diana and who are loyal to her, STILL EXIST and we aren't going anywhere.

I am so sorry Diana died so young. And, I'm also sorry that you would withhold Camilla's claim to the Wales title. She, and whomever else was involved, was verrrry smart not to use "The Princess of Wales" title, even though she IS The Princess of Wales. Had Charles married Camilla after his divorce from Diana, and Diana was still living, there would legally be 2 Wales princesses: Camilla, THE Princess of Wales and Diana, Princess of Wales. Were I Camilla, I wouldn't want to be yet another Princess of Wales --- I, too, would petition to use Duchess of Cornwall. None of this has anything to do with Diana, anyway, IMO.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

It will be interesting to see if the Sovereign grants a peerage since this would be the first time in British history that a royal descendant would carry the family name "Windsor", which really doesn't exist since it was made up, instead of some dignity befitting descendants of the blood royal.

Mountbatten was made up too, so I don't think anyone really knows what the royal family's name is. George V was a Saxe-Coburg through his father, Edward VII, and a Glucksburg through Queen Alexandra. Edward VIII and George VI were essentially Saxe-Coburg and Hanovers. Elizabeth II is really only half-royal since the Queen Mother was a Scottish aristocrat, while Philip is essentially a Glucksburg and Hesse-Darmstadt.

Didn't The Princess Royal sign her second wedding document as "Anne Mountbatten-Windsor"? I think she did...

 

[Lumutqueen]

Didn't The Princess Royal sign her second wedding document as "Anne Mountbatten-Windsor"? I think she did...

Yes she did sign her name like that in 1992.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Although I am an American, there are certain Royals I would curtsey to out of respect and the fact that I think they are good people. I would curtsey to Her Majesty, Prince William, Prince Harry, The Wessexes, The York Girls, The Gloucesters, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, and Princess Alexandra.

I would NEVER curtsey to Charles, Camilla, Prince Philip, Princess Michael, and The Duke of York.

My, your selectiveness is stunning! I'm an American, too, and I would curtsey to no one in my home country. However, I would probably bob a bit to HM The Queen if we had an encounter in any of the Commonwealth countries.

 

[KittyAtlanta]

I wonder if truth be told any of these women or men in any of these royal families really give two cents about their rank. I guarantee you the younger generations could care less where they are listed officially or unofficially.

Someone mentioned that Zara Phillips wanted her "Princess" title (or is it style?!?!) All I know is that if I juxtapose myself into the BRF, I would want my title. Who wouldn't? It gets you in the finest schools, colleges and universities even if you can't cut the academics; keeps you on all the "A" lists, etc. Also, as I love jewelery, I'd have an authentic heraldic signet ring and maybe even a tiara.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I wonder if truth be told any of these women or men in any of these royal families really give two cents about their rank. I guarantee you the younger generations could care less where they are listed officially or unofficially.

I think especially William and Harry care about their titles, the relationship they have with their grandmother, they wouldn't know what their titles means.

I would NEVER curtsey to Charles, Camilla, Prince Philip, Princess Michael, and The Duke of York.

Why would you not curtsey to these people? I can understand Camilla and MC.

 

[COUNTESS]

The better question is why would you courtsey to anyone? It is archaic and foolish and, if you are an American, unnecessary.