Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022

[Elspeth]

No, she did not. The Queen and the Palace made very clear at the time that Diana would remain a member of the royal family and be accorded the precedence she enjoyed during her marriage as the mother of Prince William.

I think the confusion here has to do with a story in one of the many books about Diana that after her divorce most of the royal family cold-shouldered her but Princess Michael, as one royal outsider to another, made a big deal of being friendly with her, going so far as to assure Diana that even though she officially now had to curtsey to Princess Michael, she shouldn't think of actually ever doing so.

Who knows how much truth, if any, there is in that story, but it was definitely in one of the books or articles about Diana.

 

[branchg]

I think the confusion here has to do with a story in one of the many books about Diana that after her divorce most of the royal family cold-shouldered her but Princess Michael, as one royal outsider to another, made a big deal of being friendly with her, going so far as to assure Diana that even though she officially now had to curtsey to Princess Michael, she shouldn't think of actually ever doing so.

Who knows how much truth, if any, there is in that story, but it was definitely in one of the books or articles about Diana.

Yes, I believe Paul Burrell wrote something about this in his book about Diana. But, of course, there have been so many books written about Diana at this point, and even Burrell's was not accurate in many respects (as confirmed by people like Rosa Monckton who were close to the Princess to the day she died).

In any case, the point is Diana was not expected to curtsey and she did not. Regardless of her style or title, she was the mother of a future king and was treated accordingly after the divorce.

 

[superdog]

I understand Camilla's place in the order of precedence now, but could anybody tell me, as James asked, why Lady Louise is a Lady and not a Princess, although being the child of of male Royal Prince? Her cousins are Princesses of York, so why isn't she referred as "Princess of Wessex"?

Ran across this in wikipedia online encyclopedia:
As a granddaughter of the Monarch in the male line, she would normally be styled Her Royal Highness Princess Louise of Wessex. However, upon her parents' marriage they decided that their children could be styled as Earl's children rather than Prince or Princess with the style Royal Highness. This was ostensibly so they could avoid the full burden of Royal titles and the responsiblity that comes with them. That this was ill-considered was reflected in the apparent subsequent change of policy, so that Lady Louise will be entitled to the styles of Princess and Royal Highness when she is an adult. No doubt this is a reflection of the desire to not set a precedent, to prevent Lady Louise from being seen as a "second-class" member of the Family, or as the off-spring of a morganic marriage. It is also an acknowledgement that the original rationale - that this would spare her the media attention which members of the Royal Family face - is flawed. Attention focuses on these individuals because they are related to the Queen, not because of any title they may or may not have.

The Lady Louise is eighth in line to the British throne.

 

[Reina]

Get real. Most of us are not Diana fanatics. It is highly probable that PCharles is furious and wants (along with camilla) the top honors for his wife. Look at the way he handled himself at the wedding of the van-cutsems, the balcony scene where camilla wore her wedding dress, and this precedence issue. I think your assertion about us and Diana just proves how real the issue really is.

I agree. It's hard to imagine why Prince Charles would be "furious" since this is the way these things are handled. I think people here care because they are still acting as if Diana passed away yesterday, instead of eight years ago.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, we'll have to see how things turn out. At the moment he's looking very relaxed and happy with life in general, so even if he is furious about the precedence thing, he has other compensations.

 

[florawindsor]

well, i don't know why Charles or Camilla should be furious about the precedence thing. what does it mean, an order, what does it matter?? it is so unreal. imho, if i were them, i would be very happy that they can marry and get together after all these years, they might just want to relax and enjoy life as husband&wife rather than worry about sth. which practically has nothing important to do with their life. nevertheless, i may be wrong cuz royals seem to think things differently

 

[tiaraprin]

Get real. Most of us are not Diana fanatics. It is highly probable that PCharles is furious and wants (along with camilla) the top honors for his wife. Look at the way he handled himself at the wedding of the van-cutsems, the balcony scene where camilla wore her wedding dress, and this precedence issue. I think your assertion about us and Diana just proves how real the issue really is.

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.

 

[Elspeth]

I don't see where Camilla is any more morally at fault than Charles, to be honest.

 

[Warren]

Attempted Summary

Branchg has made a valiant attempt to clarify this Order of Precedence business. If I can summarise...

There are TWO "Orders of Precedence":

Court Precedence - The Queen's list. Think of this as relating to the family within the Palace walls (this is where Camilla is outranked by [some] Princesses of The Blood);

Official Precedence - The Government list of where the members of the Royal Family, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Prime Minister, Goverrnment Ministers, Dukes, Judges, Marquesses' younger sons, Earls, Barons, younger sons of the younger sons of Peers, etc etc etc fit within the offical British Royal/ political/ social etc heirarchy. Here Camilla takes the precedence of her husband, the Prince of Wales, who ranks after the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.

Virtually everyone in an official position gets his or her place. For example, 'Masters in Lunacy' rank after 'Serjeants at Law', but before 'Companions and Commanders'.

Precedence is formed by statute, patent, or usage, but the chief regulations regarding the order of precedence were settled by Parliament in the reign of Henry VIII.
.

 

[Elspeth]

Somehow "Masters in Lunacy" seems a strangely appropriate title for some of this arcane stuff...

 

[tiaraprin]

I don't see where Camilla is any more morally at fault than Charles, to be honest.

You are correct Elspeth, they are equally at fault. Charles' titles cannot be stripped from him, he was born a royal. There are many princes and kings past and present who are morally questionable and not had their titles taken away.

As I have said earlier, if Charles had married elsewhere to a woman he met after his separation, I would have no problem with it whatsoever provided the woman was a good person. She could even be a divorcee and a good person.
I am not anti-divorce. Besides the basic incompatibility of Charles and Diana, Camilla was a large factor in the marriage failing.

I will never condone or forgive what Charles and Camilla have done and they really do not seem to care what they have done. One small prayer that everyone recited at the wedding blessing does not absolve them from their wrongdoings. Perhaps if I saw some true lamentation for what they did I might soften, but that isn't coming any time soon.

 

[Princess BellyFlop]

Diana died years ago, maybe we should cherish her memory and let her former family go on with their lives. Maybe THE mistake was to marry Diana in the first place - not giving up after years of probably painful cohabitation. Charles seems very happy with Camilla and I'm starting to like her. I love her hats and her sense of humour...and her sense of duty.

 

[Elspeth]

Well, I suppose we can argue back and forth about the motivation for this order of precendence and the reactions of the people involved, but realistically none of us know anything more than the facts of the matter.

 

[branchg]

Diana is dead and life goes on. Camilla is a woman of fine character, who truthfully, will make a far better Queen Consort than Diana could ever have done. She is the wife of the heir to the throne and has shown a fine sense of duty since her marriage.

Diana's place in history is secure and it's time to move on.

 

[grevinnan]

The whole Charles, Diana and Camilla story is very tragic. Any young and inexperienced woman thrown into the situation Diana found herself in would have had a challenging time. Compare her situation to Queen Anne Marie's and there appears to be some very distinct differences. Diana did not seem to have any family support system. Where were her parents and older sisters during this time? Did her husband support and guide her into her new situation? Did the royal family reach out to her? She was after all just a breath away from being the queen. To be in a situation where your husband truly belongs to someone else is devastating for a mature and independent woman to handle but could only have been beyond what someone young could deal with. Although Diana could have handled the situation better it could also have been much worse.

I have nothing positive to add as to how Charles and Camilla handled the situation but the fact is - Diana is gone and Camilla is doing a great job. My guess is that she and Charles choose her title of duchess instead of Princess of Wales out of concern for William and Harry. Their beloved mother will always be the Princess of Wales and as a parent herself I am sure Camilla realized what that title means for the young men.

With her new title she coming into the situation with her own title and not a title that will forever be associated with Diana.

As for Camilla's hats - they are great. Only a women with a rugged appearance would look good in them. It is the contrast that brings out the lovely outrageousness in them. The same with some of the dresses Queen Margrethe of Denmark has worn. Wonderfully outrageous - would have looked disastrous on someone beautiful as Queen Silvia but look just great on Margrethe.

Grevinnan

 

[james]

As far as there being a difference between Court Precedence and the normal Order of Precedence I would like to know how this is reflected at Court. In any footage of a State Banquet for example, which is a Court event, the Royal Family walk in the same Order of Precedence they follow at more public events. Diana was always pictured walking directly behind Prince Charles and the Queen into the Banquet (ahead of the Princesses of the Blood) and Princess Alexandra was always last behind her brothers and their wives. Even in the seating arrangements Diana sat closest to the Queen, then the Duchess of York, Princess Anne etc.

Branchg seems to be the only person who has heard of a seperate Court Order I have never seen any evidence of it.

 

[Elspeth]

It's been the subject of questions over at the royal family Insight Magazine website, and there was something about it in last month's issue of Majesty, so it really isn't something that branchg is making up.

I remember reading somewhere about one of Diana's gripes when they were in Balmoral for their honeymoon and Charles was passing drinks around - he offered one to the Queen, one to the Queen Mother, and then one to Diana, and she was upset because she thought the wife should come first. It seems as though Charles was using the family's order of precedence to guide what he did (or maybe just old-fashioned manners in serving the older ladies first); this could be something that mostly affects behaviour in private situations and we just don't tend to see much evidence of it.

 

[james]

I don't think he/she's making up that he/she's heard of it but I suspect that it is a new concept which has been made up to make it seem that Camilla's position is normal in the scheme of things when it's not.

 

[iowabelle]

In response to Elspeth's last post I can see the reasoning Charles probably would used in passing the drinks around. The two queens were the most important people in the room, both having been crowned queen, and ought to have been served before anyone else.

But in a similar situation today, guided by "family precedence", I don't think that Charles would pass the drinks around from the Queen down to Princess Alexandra and then to the beloved Camilla.

If they are operating under two separate lists, it is rather confusing and must be complicated for those who have to work under these systems.

 

[branchg]

As far as there being a difference between Court Precedence and the normal Order of Precedence I would like to know how this is reflected at Court. In any footage of a State Banquet for example, which is a Court event, the Royal Family walk in the same Order of Precedence they follow at more public events. Diana was always pictured walking directly behind Prince Charles and the Queen into the Banquet (ahead of the Princesses of the Blood) and Princess Alexandra was always last behind her brothers and their wives. Even in the seating arrangements Diana sat closest to the Queen, then the Duchess of York, Princess Anne etc.

Branchg seems to be the only person who has heard of a seperate Court Order I have never seen any evidence of it.

A state banquet is just that....a state event, not a private royal event. In that case, official precedence is followed.

A private royal dinner would be different, as would family cocktails, all of which is governed by court precedence and the Sovereign's wishes.

 

[branchg]

I don't think he/she's making up that he/she's heard of it but I suspect that it is a new concept which has been made up to make it seem that Camilla's position is normal in the scheme of things when it's not.

It is NOT a new concept and this is the way the royal family has operated for centuries. Royal life is governed by precedence, tradition and duty. It is automatic and done without thought. This is the way their lives are programmed and there is nothing unique or unusual about it.

 

[Von Schlesian]

Though perhaps an odda angle to be coming from, I can't help but feel uncomfortable when people start getting agitated about who "will" or "won't" become Queen, Princess of Wales etc.
THat is not to say that I don't believe whole-heartedly in the importance of the line of succession, and the order of precedence - which I do, what I mean is, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is by Grace of God, Queen of The United Kingdom. Enough said. All of the 'when's' and 'what if's' just makes me feel that people are forgetting that we have a superb Soverign, and speculating on possibilities of her successors (or their partners), in my mind is like squabbling over Grandmothers jewellry while she's still 100% fit and healthy.

 

[Warren]

To the Palace Born

If they are operating under two separate lists, it is rather confusing and must be complicated for those who have to work under these systems.

It may be confusing for us, but issues of precedence (let's call it "the pecking order") would be the most natural thing in the world to them. The fact they are a "Royal" family sets them apart; Royalty is an elite and exclusive caste and operates under its own dynastic and traditional rules.

To get some perspective, it is interesting that this topic of the private or "Court" precedence has come as a surprise to many of us. We like to think we have an idea of what goes on behind the scenes, but here is evidence that we don't. And probably never will. After all, this is private family business. We may get glimpses, but never a full understanding.

This is why we refer to the "mystique" of Royalty, and why it continues to fascinate.
.

 

[tiaraprin]

Camilla is a woman of fine character, who truthfully, will make a far better Queen Consort than Diana could ever have done.

You are joking, right??

Diana did more for the monarchy then most members of the royal family have!! As a young woman of 20 years of age, she jumped into a world of piranahas and learned how to play the game and get the job done. She wasn't going to follow archaic rules, she led with her heart and the people loved her for it!

She brought a human touch to an institution that kept itself isolated and above the people. She taught her sons to be sensitive and understanding to all people's needs--not just their own. It was recently commented on Larry King Live that the British Nation misses Diana's human touch and compassion.

Diana blew wide open the myths surrounding AIDS and Leprosy by not only visiting sufferers, but also shaking their hands. She was mounting a world wide campaign against landminds just at the time of her tragic death.

With Diana's knowledge and compassion, she would bring much more to being a royal consort. The immeasurable good she could have brought to Great Britain and the world at large will never be known. Camilla, at the ripe age of 58, could never do what Diana did in her short life span. If I remember accurately what Charles said to Camilla on the "Camillagate" tapes, "You're greatest achievement in life is to love me." I think that sums up Camilla's role.

 

[wymanda]

Be that as it may Tiaraprin the british political system as it is at the moment a Queen who is involved with such controversial situations would put her husband in a difficult situation with the Government. Tony Blair would much rather the Royals stuck to opening things and staying out of politics. When Diana took on the AIDS cause it was very controversial and with so many high profile people being affected she was able to make something of "a name for herself". As for Leprosy Diana was certainly not the first royal to take up this cause. Queen Alexandra was, in her time, just as bigger advocate for caring as Diana. I don't know if you have seen a film called "The Elephant Man" but Queen Alexandra was featured in that story about a man who people were afraid to touch in case is disease was catching.

 

[tiaraprin]

Be that as it may Tiaraprin the british political system as it is at the moment a Queen who is involved with such controversial situations would put her husband in a difficult situation with the Government. Tony Blair would much rather the Royals stuck to opening things and staying out of politics. When Diana took on the AIDS cause it was very controversial and with so many high profile people being affected she was able to make something of "a name for herself". As for Leprosy Diana was certainly not the first royal to take up this cause. Queen Alexandra was, in her time, just as bigger advocate for caring as Diana. I don't know if you have seen a film called "The Elephant Man" but Queen Alexandra was featured in that story about a man who people were afraid to touch in case is disease was catching.

Yes I am aware of Queen Alexandra's support of the those suffering from leprosy and I apologize to the memory of Queen Alexandra. She was a great lady.

However, after Queen Alexandra's death in 1925, I don't think a royal has taken up the plight of lepers. Diana took on the AIDS epidemic because of Adrian Ward-Jackson. He showed her what AIDS was doing and Diana pitched in to help, not to make a name for herself. This was the time when Diana was moving away from the image of being an empty-headed fashion figure. She wanted to play a serious role in helping others.

 

[Elspeth]

I hope this thread isn't going to degenerate into yet another pitched battle between supporters of Diana and supporters of Camilla. They both have/had good points and bad points; they just have different strengths and weaknesses from each other. We can speculate all we like about how the Queen feels about Camilla and whether this precedence business has anything to do with her feelings about Camilla, but none of us really know how the Queen feels about it; we're just speculating.

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

For me,i just want to know how Her Majesty feels about Camilla,does she like Camilla or dislike her?

 

[tiaraprin]

I hope this thread isn't going to degenerate into yet another pitched battle between supporters of Diana and supporters of Camilla. They both have/had good points and bad points; they just have different strengths and weaknesses from each other. We can speculate all we like about how the Queen feels about Camilla and whether this precedence business has anything to do with her feelings about Camilla, but none of us really know how the Queen feels about it; we're just speculating.

I understand your concern Elspeth. I try very hard not to descend to depths of depravity when responding to what I believe is an insult to Diana and her memory, but I am going to stand up when I feel she is getting a bad deal. This is a problem of gargantuan proportions that is not going to go away I feel. I wish their could be a truce in the war, but how to accomplish it, I don't know where to begin.

 

[A.C.C.]

For me,i just want to know how Her Majesty feels about Camilla,does she like Camilla or dislike her?

And unfortunately, I doubt any of us will ever know how Her Majesty feels about Camilla.