Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
yvr girl said:
But they were seated after grandchildren of George V (who are HRH)
Click to expand...

William and Catherine's wedding was a royal, not a state, occasion. For formal events such as this, court precedence places all Royal Highnesses before non-royal members of the family.
 
branchg said:
Legally, they remain HRH Prince James and HRH Princess Louise automatically under the 1917 Letters Patent as male-line grandchildren of The Queen, so they would take their precedence ahead of Peter and Zara Phillips.

However, The Queen announced on Edward's wedding day that his future children would not hold royal rank at the request of Edward and Sophie. As The Sovereign and fount of all honours, her announcement is sufficient to express her Will, which means Louise and James are not royal.
Click to expand...

So we all know they do not use their HRH title, so do they sit before Peter and Zara as their father is before Anne in the order of precedence? I doubt we'll ever see both of them present at a formal or state occasion, at least not until the Queen's funeral perhaps, and that depends on how old James is at the time. But for the future, would they be seated before Peter and Zara? (On that note, what is even more scary is that way into the future at the funeral of the Catherine, The Queen Mother James will likely attend as James, Duke of Edinburgh and everyone will say that he is the youngest grandchild of Queen Elizabeth II. That is mad.)

Does this also mean if Lady Louise was to attend any Diamond Jubilee celebrations, would she walk with her parents or behind? The likelihood of her attending anything other than Trooping the Colour is slim, but if she were to attend something, she would not walk with her parents would she?

Also, when Charles is crowned will all his siblings and nieces and nephews attend as not all are HRH?
 
Last edited:
We'll have to see in the future when they are older and participate at royal and state occasions, but generally speaking, regardless of their style or title, they would take precedence ahead of Peter and Zara as male-line grandchildren of The Queen at court.

Once The Queen dies, anything could happen when Charles is King. He may issue Letters Patent limiting the HRH Prince/Princess style to the children of The Sovereign, the children of the heir to the throne and the eldest child of the eldest child of the heir. Everyone else would simply be Lord/Lady Windsor.
 
As the younger members become adult they take their own individual precedence. While they are younger they attend events with their parents so Lady Louise, and James, if he attends any Jubilee events (which I doubt) will attend with their parents - most likely Louise would walk directly with her parents either on the side of one or the other or in between them.

As for Harry - there are a couple of scenarios:

1. He still walks with William so that he, William and Kate enter as a threesome - highly doubtful but...
2. He walks on his own - probable.
3. He walks with Andrew followed by the girls - I doubt it - as I believe that the Wales boys virtually don't even talk to Andrew
4. He is accompanied by Beatrice while Eugenie accompanies Andrew (the girls could also go with the other male) - the advantage here is that they can then be male/female pairings.

When Charles marries of course his siblings, nieces and nephews will attend but most want have a formal procession although they will enter just before Charles - much the same way as happened at the Wedding where they were all in in reverse order of succession but also in family groups.
 
Last edited:
That's not that different from what I expected last May, then; the only difference is that Catherine goes before Sophie. Debrett's had already listed "The Wife of the Sovereign's eldest grandson" (I'm assuming they mean the eldest son of the eldest son there, not the eldest grandson period) as a separate category, so I'm not sure how much of this is really news.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry, much as I love the Queen, this whole order of precedence nonsense is utterly stupid. It makes the Queen and the Royal Family look incredibly out of touch, partaking in the kind of naval-gazing that just makes the whole family look as if they're living on a different planet to the rest of us.

The fact that Kate, or Sophie for that matter, should have to curtsy to Beatrice and Eugenie is utterly preposterous. The idea of 'blood princesses' might have had some relevance a century ago; but is entirely out of date in the 21st Century. The fact that Camilla had to wait outside the Guards Chapel in the rain, waiting for Princess Anne to arrive simply because the PoW wasn't there is frankly silly.

The Queen should simply say that everyone curtseys to herself, the DoE, PoW and Camilla and forget the rest of it.
 
Hasn't Catherine always been before Sophie? I always thought she was as Sophie is married to the youngest son. In all honesty I can't see Sophie curtseying to Catherine and I don't think i've ever seen her curtsey to Camilla. (Correct me if i'm wrong.)

Regarding female precedence, i am guessing Zara and Louise (when she is 18) will come after Sophie and Harry's future wife as they aren't HRH? If Louise usef her HRH style she would come after Eugenie, is that right?
 
Last edited:
EIIR said:
The Queen should simply say that everyone curtseys to herself, the DoE, PoW and Camilla and forget the rest of it.
Click to expand...

I agree. This is a far more sensible solution in private and public. But I'm a tad torn on this topic, as I feel for example that Kate should curtsey to Princesses Alexandra and Anne but most certainly not to Beatrice and Eugenie and I also feel that if this is the Queen's wish then there should be no argument about it. Either way I suppose it doesn't make much difference - surely there won't be that many occasions where Kate is without her husband and has to curtsey to the York girls? I'm just glad as a humble commoner I just bow at everyone :)
 
Once Charles is King, the Order will probably change again; Catherine will only have to curtsey to Camilla, right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Absolutely ridiculous article. It makes it sound as though the Queen called Kate and told her that.

While Camilla's place in the Order of Precedence differs (depending on whether it's the official or private one), Kate's place - as wife of the Sovereign's grandson - is firmly established: she is ranked below the wives of the Sovereign's sons, as well as Sovereign's daughter. That doesn't mean that she has to curtsey to them though, unless it's a highly official (state) event.

Strictly speaking, there is a circumstance when even the Duchess of Cornwall has to (technically) curtsey to Kate. Woman to woman Camilla outranks Kate, and the same is true when both Charles and William (or just Charles) are present. However, if only William is present, then Kate outranks Camilla through her husband and Camilla would (theoretically) have to curtsey to her. This said, I can't see it ever happening. And if Kate ever curtsies to Princess Alexandra or Princess Anne, it will be out of respect - not because of the Order of Precedence. Kate did curtsey to the Duchess of Gloucester (during Lunch for Monarchs), although she most definitely didn't have to.


Mirabel said:
Once Charles is King, the Order will probably change again; Catherine will only have to curtsey to Camilla, right?
Click to expand...

When Charles becomes King, Kate will be the wife of the Heir Apparent to the Throne. As such, she would have precedence below only the Queen Consort (Camilla) and wouldn't have to curtsey to anyone else. Her and the foreign Monarchs and their spouses as well, of course.
Incidentally, Harry's wife will have precedence above all women in the Kingdom but Camilla and Kate (above Anne, Sophie, Beatrice, Eugenie and others).
 
As an early poster said. It is all nonsense.
 
I thought Prince Philip was a prince in his own right?!? Wasn't his title at one time Philip, Prince of Greece and Denmark, or something similar to that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Duchess of Durham said:
I thought Prince Philip was a prince in his own right?!? Wasn't his title at one time Philip, Prince of Greece and Denmark, or something similar to that?
Click to expand...

yes, but he had to denounce or resign his title along with his Greek citizenship in order to become a british citizen to marry Elizabeth.
 
I think this is all done to keep the family from looking like a bunch of school kids trying to get in a lunch line. It makes sense.
 
Duchess of Durham said:
I thought Prince Philip was a prince in his own right?!? Wasn't his title at one time Philip, Prince of Greece and Denmark, or something similar to that?
Click to expand...

I meant created a prince of Great Britain in his own right. He had been a prince of Greece and Denmark but as someone pointed out he had to give those titles up.
 
Duchess of Durham said:
I thought Prince Philip was a prince in his own right?!? Wasn't his title at one time Philip, Prince of Greece and Denmark, or something similar to that?
Click to expand...
Prince Philip was indeed Prince in his own right - a Prince of Greece and Denmark.
However, before his marriage to princess Elizabeth, he renounced all his Greek styles and titles. George VI created Philip a Royal Highness and the Duke of Edinburgh - but not Prince of the United Kingdom. So, technically from 1947 to 1957, Philip's title was His Royal Highness The Duke of Edinburgh (without the Prince, although he was still known as such). In 1957, Queen Elizabeth granted Philip the title of Prince of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and since then he has been His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Of other spouses of British Queens Regnant, none was created a Prince of the United Kingdom (or its predecessor states) in their own right. Prince Albert (Queen Victoria's husband) was made The Prince Consort (the only consort in British history to have had the official title), but not a Prince of the United Kingdom.

The closest example to Prince Philip's situation was probably that of Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. When Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (Alice's husband) died, she was to be known as The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester to avoid confusion with the new Duchess of Gloucester (Birgitte, the wife of Prince Richard); however Alice was known to intensely dislike the style, so she ask the queen's permission to be known as Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. Alice's sister -in-law, Marina, Duchess of Kent, was also known (after her husband's death and son's marriage) as Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent - instead of the Dowager Duchess of Kent. However, Marina was Princess by birth (of Greece and Denmark), whereas Alice had been merely a Lady. Alice's title of Princess was a personal courtesy from the Queen - although no formal letters patent were ever issued to recognise that style. Nevertheless, from 1974 and until her death in 2004, Alice's full style and title was Her Royal Highness Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester; in other words, she was styled and titled as a Princess by birth, not by marriage.
 
Last edited:
What is Duchess Catherine supposed to do in two decades from now when meeting her children in public without the father being present? According to the 'bloodline principle' (historically, a perfectly terrible term) in the order of precedence, the mother would have to curtsey to her own bloodline-carrying kids.

And why, if a woman in the UK legally shares her titles and styling with her husband upon marriage, does the mere physical absence of said husband degrade her own status? How remarkably sexist.

Funny how archaic the Windsors appear to be at the core, behind their smart 'social media'-enhanced facade.
 
The Windsors have a tradition of not fixing what isn't broken. They are far more traditional than their European counterparts.

Kate will not have to curtsey to her children until one of them becomes King or Queen Regnant.
When she is a Princess of Wales, she will automatically have precedence over all men and women in the Kingdom apart her husband, the King and the Queen.
When she is Queen Consort, she will be the first lady of the Kingdom, overall ranked only below her husband, the King, but above everyone else - including the Heir Apparent (her eldest child).

Assuming she outlives her husband, she will then be a Queen Dowager and Queen Mother - and as such will have precedence over all men and women in the Kingdom apart from the new King and Queen Consort, but above the Heir Apparent or Presumptive. By protocol, she will be required to curtsey to the King and Queen - but that's hardly all that unusual; both Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother curtseyed to new Monarchs - their children (though not, to the best of my knowledge, their spouses).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Artemisia said:
Strictly speaking, there is a circumstance when even the Duchess of Cornwall has to (technically) curtsey to Kate. Woman to woman Camilla outranks Kate, and the same is true when both Charles and William (or just Charles) are present. However, if only William is present, then Kate outranks Camilla through her husband and Camilla would (theoretically) have to curtsey to her.
Click to expand...


It was spelled out in 2005 that these rules only apply whenever there are only women present and that as soon as a man is present all ladies take their precedence as if their husband is present.

That means that if William is with Kate and Charles isn't there that Camilla will still take her precedence as Charles' wife. Both the DM and Telegraph article says But she must always curtsey to the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, whether William is present or not.

Therefore Camilla will not be curtseying to Kate until Charles is dead and Kate is Queen - hopefully 30+ years from now.
 
If Charles is absent but William is present, Kate outranks Camilla through William.
Woman to woman, Camilla does outran Kate. However, because of the 2005 edict (based on "blood principles", as the Palace called it), when William is present, Kate outranks pretty much everyone else (apart from the Queen, Prince Philip and Camilla - if Prince Charles is present). However, if William is not present, Kate would be expected to curtsey not only to the Queen and Camilla, but also to Princesses by blood - Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie.

Here is an article on the very topic. Now, I understand Daily Mail is not the most reliable of sources, however this has been reported in various news outlets, including pretty reliable ones.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous:

Artemisia

You are linking to the 2011 article which was wrong anyway as it was misinterpreting the 2005 announcement.

The 2005 announcement was giving protocol regarding females only and made it clear that as soon as there was a man present precedent followed as if all men were present.

The quote I gave above came from the 2012 DM article giving the new protocol rules as of now Will the Duchess of Cambridge curtsey to Princess Beatrice and Eugenie? | Mail Online It is the same thing in The Telegraph The Queen tells the Duchess of Cambridge to curtsy to the 'blood princesses’ - Telegraph
 
Iluvbertie said:
The 2005 announcement was giving protocol regarding females only and made it clear that as soon as there was a man present precedent followed as if all men were present.
Click to expand...
That is interesting, thank you for clarifying that, Iluvbertie. :)
 
Why are people getting so excited about this - so maybe Kate has to curtsey to Anne & Beatrice - big deal. Why does is matter who outranks who and who curtseys to who? - nobody seems to be able to agree (see Bertie's and Artimesia's posts above), the Queen has never made a public statement about the whole thing and so everybody seems to be guessing and putting their own interpretation on things or relying on newspaper articles that may or may not be correct.

In any case, this whole thing of anyone curtseying to anyone is anachronistic and totally out of place in 2012 - something the BRF seem to agree on given that curtseying is optional when anyone meets any member of the royal family.

Sorry to sound abrupt but it just seems that people are making mountains out of molehills and getting invested in something that affects nobody except a group of women who can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
 
VictoriaB said:
Why are people getting so excited about this - so maybe Kate has to curtsey to Anne & Beatrice - big deal. Why does is matter who outranks who and who curtseys to who?
Click to expand...
It's not a big deal, it's just interesting.
When there is a large gathering of royals (like Lunch for Monarchs), it's interesting to observe how protocol is observed or broken.

- nobody seems to be able to agree (see Bertie's and Artimesia's posts above), the Queen has never made a public statement about the whole thing and so everybody seems to be guessing and putting their own interpretation on things or relying on newspaper articles that may or may not be correct.
Click to expand...
Iluvbertie and I do agree. :)
We were just engaged in a friendly discussion with an aim to understand the implications of the 2005 edict; my interpretation, based on earlier reports, was apparently wrong. However, Iluvbertie's kind explanation helped me to understand how thing "properly" work.

In any case, this whole thing of anyone curtseying to anyone is anachronistic and totally out of place in 2012 - something the BRF seem to agree on given that curtseying is optional when anyone meets any member of the royal family.
Click to expand...
Not when they meet the Queen, it's not optional. And pretty much everyone else on official events. For example, during the aforementioned Lunch with Monarchs, royal ladies curtseyed so much, they might have as well walked with permanently bent knees.

Sorry to sound abrupt but it just seems that people are making mountains out of molehills and getting invested in something that affects nobody except a group of women who can be counted on the fingers of one hand.
Click to expand...
Again, it's just really interesting - at least for me, and people who are, like me, interested in protocol and etiquette.
And since the whole point of this thread is establishing the Order of Precedence, we are hardly going off-topic. ;)
 
Last edited:
I don't see anybody getting excited. I just see people discussing the topic because this is , you know, a discussion board.

I feel that all of this is anachronistic as well. However, that's what this thread is about and if I felt very strongly that the whole thing was stupid I would just avoid the topic. Whether I like it or not some people choose to observe these rules and I find that interesting enough to partake in this conversation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The thing i found ironic is that this new order of precedence was considered by some people back in 2005 as a deliberate snub from the Queen to the new Duchess of Cornwall. In 2012 i presume we can't suspect her Majesty to have such strong feelings toward the brand new Duchess of cambridge ?
Anyway as stated above it's not a big deal and of course any news from some "mandrake" of the Daily Telegraph or some "courtier" of the Daily Mail must be taken with a grain of salt...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Blog Real
Orders, decorations, and medals of kingdom of Italy
Replies
3
Views
565
Blog Real
Blog Real
Z
The new order of precedence
Replies
2
Views
7K
LauraS3514
LauraS3514
Marengo
Order of Precedence 2: Sep 2022 -
Replies
24
Views
557
Tatiana Maria
T
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
423
Tatiana Maria
T
T
Constitutional and Dynastic Matters in the Norwegian Monarchy
Replies
6
Views
979
Tatiana Maria
T

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom