Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022

[Tatiana Maria]

During the reign of King George VI, what precedence was assigned to the Duke of Edinburgh when he was not accompanying his wife Princess Elizabeth? Did he have to give way to Princess Margaret or the Duke of Gloucester when his wife was absent?

This question arose in another subforum a while ago. I hope one of the readers of these British threads might be able to share an answer.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

As far as I am aware, precedence is not based on the order of succession but on the relationship to the queen. In practice, an exception is made for the Duke of Cambridge as the future king (and at least previously also for the Duke of Sussex as son of the future king) but for example Anne, as child of the monarch, would be given higher precedence than a HRH prince James, as a grandchild of the monarch, who is ahead of her in the line of succession (with a different title) - nor are Beatrice and Eugenie awarded higher precedence than their aunt.

Good point. My assumption was that the Duke of York and Earl of Wessex were awarded higher precedence than their sister because they were higher in the order of succession, but perhaps it is simply because they are male and she is female. I suppose we will have to wait to see whether Prince Louis is awarded higher precedence than Princess Charlotte when they are old enough to attend formal events.

When Prince Michael of Kent was excluded from the line of succession to the throne, was his precedence higher or lower than his older sister Princess Alexandra?

 

[Somebody]

As far as I am aware being in the line of succession or not is irrelevant to the order of precedence. According to wikipedia, princess Alexandra (as princess of the blood I suppose) is the third ranked female in private (after the Queen and Anne but before Camilla and Sophie). However, when accompanied by her husband they rank right after the queen.

If I understand it correctly, there is an order of precedence for men and one for women - in the female one wives of princes are ahead of their sisters-in-law who are princesses of the blood... That could of course be due to their husbands being higher in the line of succession but that doesn't apply between generations. For the next generation could be higher in line but lower in precedence.

For example for the female line, the official order of precedence (that isn't applied in practice) is (with position in line of succession for themselves or their husband between brackets):
- HM The Queen (0)
FIRST DEGREE
- HRH The Duchess of Cornwall (1)
- HRH The Countess of Wessex (14)
- HRH The Princess Royal (17)
SECOND DEGREE
- HRH The Duchess of Cambridge (2)
- HRH The Duchess of Sussex (6)
(previously: Autumn Phillips (18))
- HRH Princess Beatrice (10)
- HRH Princess Eugenie (12)
- Lady Louise M-W (16)
- Zara Tindall (21)
(previously: The Princess Margaret)
THIRD DEGREE
- The Countess of Snowdon (not sure how they treat separation) (25)
- Lady Sarah Chatto (28)
FOURTH DEGREE
- HRH The Duchess of Gloucester (31)
- HRH The Duchess of Kent (41)
- HRH Princess Michael of Kent (52)
(previously the sons of Princess Mary would be placed here)
- HRH Princess Alexandra (57)
[All wives of non-royal dukes]
- Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (4)
- Lilibet M-W (8)

This list will look somewhat different when Charles ascends the throne:
- HM Queen Camilla (or whichever title she will have)
FIRST DEGREE
- HRH The Duchess of Cornwall and Cambridge
- HRH The Duchess of Sussex
SECOND DEGREE
- HRH Princess Charlotte of Cornwall and Cambridge
- HRH Princess Lilibet of Sussex / Lady Lilibet M-W
- HRH The Countess of Wessex
- HRH The Princess Royal
THIRD DEGREE
(any future wives of Peter and James)
- HRH Princess Beatrice
- HRH Princess Eugenie
- Lady Louise M-W
- Zara Tindall
FOURTH DEGREE
- Lady Sarah Chatto
FIFTH DEGREE
- HRH The Duchess of Gloucester
- HRH The Duchess of Kent
[All wives of non-royal dukes]
- HRH Princess Michael of Kent
- HRH Princess Alexandra

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If I understand it correctly, there is an order of precedence for men and one for women

That is true, at least according to traditional authorities such as Debrett's and Burke's Peerage, but in practice (as discussed on the last page), formal events are no longer segregated by gender, and formal documents such as the Court Circular also do not separate names by gender, so the relative precedence of brothers and sisters is still relevant.

In the Lord Chamberlain's list of members of the Royal Family, the names of female and male members are not separated. The Princess Royal is listed after her younger brothers and their descendants, but Princess Charlotte of Cambridge is listed before her younger brother Louis.

https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/media/annex_d_-_royal_family_11.pdf

And apparently the list is not simply ordered by the line of succession, because Prince Michael of Kent was listed - ahead of his sister - even when he was excluded from the British throne.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/members-of-the-royal-family-23667-4.html#post1325851

in the female one wives of princes are ahead of their sisters-in-law who are princesses of the blood... That could of course be due to their husbands being higher in the line of succession but that doesn't apply between generations. For the next generation could be higher in line but lower in precedence.

That is one more new norm put in place during the 20th century (by Queen Elizabeth II, I believe). It went against the centuries-old rule of daughters outranking younger sons and the wives of younger sons (which is the reason the daughter of an Earl is a Lady, whereas a younger son or wife of a younger son of an Earl is "only" The Honourable).

Where Sisters Have Priority

 

[Mbruno]

Question: If the daughter of a peer marries another peer of lower rank, is she ranked by her husband's precedence or does she keep the original rank she had as an unmarried woman?

Example: The daughter of a Duke would normally rank right below Marchionesses and wives of eldest sons of Dukes. If, however, she marries a Viscount, would she be ranked instead as a Viscountess, thus also below Countesses, wives of younger sons of royal Dukes who are not otherwise ranked higher, wives of eldest sons of Marquesses, daughters of Marquesses not married to a peer, and wives of younger sons of non-royal Dukes? That doesn't seem fair to me.

Sorry if it is a basic question.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Question: If the daughter of a peer marries another peer of lower rank, is she ranked by her husband's precedence or does she keep the original rank she had as an unmarried woman?

By her husband's precedence (if he is the legal holder of a peerage, not an eldest son/grandson using a subsidiary title by custom).

Courtesy Titles
Precedence

When I pull the website up on my laptop it shows up differently than you've listed as above.

The screen is essentially divided into thirds - the left two thirds have a "major" family member while the corresponding right third has their spouse or sibling.

Left Side | Right Side
The Prince of Wales | The Duchess of Cornwall
The Duke of Cambridge | The Duchess of Cambridge
The Princess Royal | The Duke of York
The Earl of Wessex | The Countess of Wessex
The Duke of Sussex | The Duchess of Sussex
The Duke of Kent | Princess Alexandra
The Duke of Gloucester | The Duchess of Gloucester
Prince & Princess Michael of Kent

I find it interesting that they left off The Duchess of Kent. I realize she has been retired from royal duties for many years but if that is the reason for her omission then shouldn't the same logic apply to the The Duke & Duchess of Sussex as well as The Duke of York? They could have included her and dropped Princess Alexandra down to the empty space next to her younger brother & his wife.

The Duke of York has been moved even further down the menu, behind the Countess of Wessex. The Duchess of Kent is still missing.

https://www.royal.uk/royal-family

 

[Sunnystar]

The Duke of York has been moved even further down the menu, behind the Countess of Wessex. The Duchess of Kent is still missing.

https://www.royal.uk/royal-family

That's so odd. At this point, why even have a page for him or the Sussexes since, like the Duchess of Kent, they're no longer working royals?

I wonder if that is another change we'll see after The Queen passes.

 

[Mbruno]

By her husband's precedence (if he is the legal holder of a peerage, not an eldest son/grandson using a subsidiary title by custom).

Courtesy Titles
Precedence

So, are you saying that, if the daughter of a peer marries another peer, she may be penalized by going down in the order of precedence if her husband is a peer of lower rank, but , if she marries anyone else who is a commoner (including a peer's son or even heir), she can keep her rank?

Again, if that is the case, it sounds terribly unfair to me. A daughter of a duke who is married to a plain Mr. X would outrank a duke's daughter who is married e.g. to an earl as daughters of dukes not married to peers outrank countesses. Why should one be penalized for marrying an earl rather than marrying a commoner?
.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That's so odd. At this point, why even have a page for him or the Sussexes since, like the Duchess of Kent, they're no longer working royals?

I wonder if that is another change we'll see after The Queen passes.

The website's arrangements for the non-working royals are hopelessly inconsistent. Pages for the Duke of York, the Sussexes and the Michaels of Kent are shown on the Royal Family menu; the Duchess of Kent has an unlisted page which is only accessible through a search; Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are pageless and searches for their names are automatically redirected to their father's page, which lists no information about them apart from their birthdates and positions in line to the throne.

So, are you saying that, if the daughter of a peer marries another peer, she may be penalized by going down in the order of precedence if her husband is a peer of lower rank, but , if she marries anyone else who is a commoner (including a peer's son or even heir), she can keep her rank?

Again, if that is the case, it sounds terribly unfair to me. A daughter of a duke who is married to a plain Mr. X would outrank a duke's daughter who is married e.g. to an earl as daughters of dukes not married to peers outrank countesses. Why should one be penalized for marrying an earl rather than marrying a commoner?
.

I think it is consistent with the precedence of substantive peerages over courtesy titles in the British system. The duke's daughter married to a plain Mr. X (or a lower-ranked son of a peer) retains her courtesy style of Lady Jane, whereas the duke's daughter married to an earl become The Rt. Hon. the Countess of X.

Any unfairness seems slight in comparison to daughters, even if firstborn, being unable to inherit peerages and precedence in their own right and needing to take their precedence from fathers or husbands.

 

[Somebody]

So, are you saying that, if the daughter of a peer marries another peer, she may be penalized by going down in the order of precedence if her husband is a peer of lower rank, but , if she marries anyone else who is a commoner (including a peer's son or even heir), she can keep her rank?

Again, if that is the case, it sounds terribly unfair to me. A daughter of a duke who is married to a plain Mr. X would outrank a duke's daughter who is married e.g. to an earl as daughters of dukes not married to peers outrank countesses. Why should one be penalized for marrying an earl rather than marrying a commoner?
.

Imho the question is why daughters of dukes (who only have the courtesy style of Lady) outrank peers... The link provided by Tatiana Maria explains why they are treated as if they are equal to their eldest brother but it remains an anomaly.

So, I wouldn't say they are penalized as they are peeresses with the benefits associated to it (including children that are also using a courtesy style or title) unlike those marrying a commoner but it is indeed a little weird that they are lower in the order of precedence.

 

[Mbruno]

Imho the question is why daughters of dukes (who only have the courtesy style of Lady) outrank peers... The link provided by Tatiana Maria explains why they are treated as if they are equal to their eldest brother but it remains an anomaly.

So, I wouldn't say they are penalized as they are peeresses with the benefits associated to it (including children that are also using a courtesy style or title) unlike those marrying a commoner but it is indeed a little weird that they are lower in the order of precedence.

The British custom is that sons of peers are ranked with other peers one or two levels below in precedence. For example, the eldest son of a duke comes after a marquess in the order of precedence, but above an earl. On the other hand, younger sons of dukes come below earls, but above viscounts, and so on, so forth. Wives of eldest sons of peers and daughters of peers (not married to other peers) are ranked in the female order of precedence like eldest sons of peers in the male order with the wives of eldest sons, however, outranking the daughters.

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

Yes, I think it is terribly old-fashioned too.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

From the Court Circular:

Windsor Castle
The Service of Thanksgiving for The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh was held in Westminster Abbey this morning.

The Queen, accompanied by The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge with Prince George of Cambridge, Princess Charlotte of Cambridge and Prince Louis of Cambridge[TBC], The Duke of York with Princess Beatrice, Mrs. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi and Mr. Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi and Princess Eugenie, Mrs. Jack Brooksbank and Mr. Jack Brooksbank, The Earl and Countess of Wessex with The Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor and Viscount Severn, The Princess Royal and Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence, Mr. Peter Phillips, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Tindall, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, The Duke of Kent, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, and other Members of the Royal Family and Members of The Duke of Edinburgh's Family, was present.

Members of Foreign Royal Families and other Foreign Representatives attended.

The Dean of Westminster conducted the Service.

The Dean of Windsor gave an Address.

The Archbishop of Canterbury pronounced the Blessing.

Why is it that Princess Charlotte of Cambridge and Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor precede their younger brothers in the Court Circular whereas other women do not? (Lady Louise is behind her brother in the line of succession to the throne.)

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.

 

[Somebody]

From the Court Circular:

Why is it that Princess Charlotte of Cambridge and Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor precede their younger brothers in the Court Circular whereas other women do not? (Lady Louise is behind her brother in the line of succession to the throne.)

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.

Interesting observation. They seem to be quite consistent in following the line of succession, except for The Lady Louise. The only difference that might be part of that decision that I can come up with (other than that someone didn't realize that Louise should be put after James) is that she is an adult and James is still a minor.

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.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Interesting observation. They seem to be quite consistent in following the line of succession, except for The Lady Louise. The only different that might be part of that decision that I can come up with (other than that someone didn't realize that Louise should be put after James) is that she is an adult and James is still a minor.

That hadn't occurred to me! Both hypotheses seem plausible.

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.

It is not entirely about the line of succession as Prince Michael of Kent was placed ahead of Princess Alexandra even during the period when he was barred from the line of succession to the Crown for marrying a Catholic.

https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/members-of-the-royal-family-23667-4.html#post1325851

As for non-UK examples, I will post some later in the general precedence thread.

 

[Mbruno]

From the Court Circular:




Why is it that Princess Charlotte of Cambridge and Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor precede their younger brothers in the Court Circular whereas other women do not? (Lady Louise is behind her brother in the line of succession to the throne.)

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.

Regardless of position in the line of succession, daugthers of the Sovereign rank below wives of the Sovereign's sons in the female order of precedence when they are accompanied by their husbands. So it is correct that the Countess of Wessex should have precedence over the Princess Royal. As I have insisted before, Princess Anne is not ranked relatively to her brothers, but rather relatively to her sisters-in-law.

The real abnormality is the Duchess of Cambridge taking precedence over the Countess of Wessex and the Princess Royal, or the Duke of Cambridge having precedence over the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex, as that is not in accordance with the official order of precedence for men and women. But, as I have also noted before, the Cambridges and indeed the Sussexes when in attendance have been in practice ranked above the Queen's children (other than the Prince of Wales) and their respective spouses for quite some time now.

It is also abnormal that the York princesses, as granddaughters of the Queen, would be cited ahead of the Countess of Wessex or the Princess Royal, but I suppose that, in the Court Circular, they were grouped with the Duke of York and cited as a single family unit. Likewise, Lady Louise was grouped with her parents and her brother and, therefore, cited before the Princess Royal. And Princess Charlotte was of course referenced as accompanying her parents and cited accordingly immediately after them.

The Court Circular is not following precedence then and neither is the seating plan at the Abbey, which prioritized keeping family units together over precedence. The correct precedence of course for the ladies would have been:

1. HM The Queen
2. HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
3. HRH The Countess of Wessex
4. HRH The Princess Royal
5. HRH The Duchess of Cambridge
6. HRH Princess Beatrice, Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi
7. HRH Princess Eugenie, Mrs Jack Brooksbank
8. Lady Louise Mountbatten-Windsor
9. Mrs Michael Tindall
10. Lady Sarah Chatto
11. HRH The Duchess of Gloucester
12. HRH Princess Michael of Kent
13. HRH Princess Charlotte of Cambridge (no official precedence as a great-granddaughter of the Queen, but take precedence perhaps as the daughter of a royal duke not otherwise ranked higher?)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Regardless of position in the line of succession, daugthers of the Sovereign rank below wives of the Sovereign's sons in the female order of precedence when they are accompanied by their husbands. So it is correct that the Countess of Wessex should have precedence over the Princess Royal. As I have insisted before, Princess Anne is not ranked relatively to her brothers, but rather relatively to her sisters-in-law.

But when the Princess Royal attends an engagement or is mentioned in official communications together with either of her younger brothers, she is ranked behind them even when the Countess of Wessex is not present, isn't she?

I hope Iluvbertie or someone else with access to the archives of the Court Circular will clarify, but I am fairly sure that Princess Anne was placed behind her brothers even before they had wives.

It is also abnormal that the York princesses, as granddaughters of the Queen, would be cited ahead of the Countess of Wessex or the Princess Royal, but I suppose that, in the Court Circular, they were grouped with the Duke of York and cited as a single family unit. Likewise, Lady Louise was grouped with her parents and her brother and, therefore, cited before the Princess Royal. And Princess Charlotte was of course referenced as accompanying her parents and cited accordingly immediately after them.

I agree, but my question was why Lady Louise and Princess Charlotte were cited before their younger brothers Viscount Severn and Prince Louis, unlike other women in the British royal family. Or are you saying that it was because in their cases their younger brothers are unmarried? But the Duke of York is currently unmarried as well.

 

[Mbruno]

But when the Princess Royal attends an engagement or is mentioned in official communications together with either of her younger brothers, she is ranked behind them even when the Countess of Wessex is not present, isn't she?

I hope Iluvbertie or someone else with access to the archives of the Court Circular will clarify, but I am fairly sure that Princess Anne was placed behind her brothers even before they had wives.




I agree, but my question was why Lady Louise and Princess Charlotte were cited before their younger brothers Viscount Severn and Prince Louis, unlike other women in the British royal family. Or are you saying that it was because in their cases their younger brothers are unmarried? But the Duke of York is currently unmarried as well.

I think it is safe to say that the precedence in British royal events does not always match the nominal (official) order of precedence and is sometimes inconsistent.

That doesn't surprise me because the official precedence found in the references on the web is based on rules that date back to the reign of Henry VIII. I believe that, when Prince Charles becomes King, a new, modernized order of precedence will probably be published, at least for members of the Royal Family.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Thanks, Mbruno, the article is very informative.

I can't see, however, how the placement of royal family members in the tables of precedence found in reference works could have been inferred from the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539 or the Ordinance of 1595, the two acts which legally define the order of precedence, according to the article. The Ordinance of 1595 as quoted by Heraldica only appears to regulate the precedence of male peers and their sons, whereas the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539 appears to only touch on the royal family insofar as it says the King's Children have the exclusive privilege of sitting on either side of the Cloth of Estate, whatever that is. Am I missing anything?

The article also states that the precedence of women is defined by tradition, rather than legislation. Given that the legislation is nearly five hundred years old, I suppose it is unsurprising that it fails to mention women, but it would make little sense to apply the exclusion of women today.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Moved response to Somebody to Precedence - Who Outranks Who? .

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Interestingly, the Princess Royal seems to have been given precedence over the Duchess of Cambridge for a joint engagement on April 27, 2022. Quoting the court circular:

27 April 2022
St. James's Palace

The Princess Royal, Colonel-in-Chief, The Royal Army Veterinary Corps, this morning opened the Defence Animal Training Regiment Canine Training Squadron Headquarters, Remount Barracks, Asfordby Road, Melton Mowbray, and was received by the Lord-Lieutenant of Leicestershire (Mr. Michael Kapur).

Her Royal Highness, Patron, the Royal College of Midwives, and The Duchess of Cambridge, Patron, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, this afternoon opened 10-18 Union Street, London SE1, and were received by Colonel Jane Davis (Vice Lord-Lieutenant of Greater London).
​

The article on the official website likewise cites the Princess Royal first:

The Princess Royal, Patron, the Royal College of Midwives (RCM), and The Duchess of Cambridge, Patron, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), will visit the RCM and RCOG’s headquarters in London.

HRH The Princess Royal, Patron of the RCM, and The Duchess of Cambridge, Patron of the @RCObsGyn, heard more about the ways that the two Colleges are working together to improve maternal health care.
​

I seem to recall, though I could very well be misremembering, others saying that the Duchess of Cornwall takes precedence over the Princess Royal even without the Prince of Wales being present. If that is true, then it would seem the Duchess of Cambridge is the one other European consort other than Prince Daniel of Sweden whose place in the order of precedence drops when she is attending without her spouse.

 

[Mbruno]

Interestingly, the Princess Royal seems to have been given precedence over the Duchess of Cambridge for a joint engagement on April 27, 2022. Quoting the court circular:

27 April 2022
St. James's Palace

The Princess Royal, Colonel-in-Chief, The Royal Army Veterinary Corps, this morning opened the Defence Animal Training Regiment Canine Training Squadron Headquarters, Remount Barracks, Asfordby Road, Melton Mowbray, and was received by the Lord-Lieutenant of Leicestershire (Mr. Michael Kapur).

Her Royal Highness, Patron, the Royal College of Midwives, and The Duchess of Cambridge, Patron, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, this afternoon opened 10-18 Union Street, London SE1, and were received by Colonel Jane Davis (Vice Lord-Lieutenant of Greater London).
​

The article on the official website likewise cites the Princess Royal first:

The Princess Royal, Patron, the Royal College of Midwives (RCM), and The Duchess of Cambridge, Patron, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), will visit the RCM and RCOG’s headquarters in London.

HRH The Princess Royal, Patron of the RCM, and The Duchess of Cambridge, Patron of the @RCObsGyn, heard more about the ways that the two Colleges are working together to improve maternal health care.
​

The Princess Royal takes precedence over the Duchess of Cambridge when the latter is not accompanied by her husband. She also takes precedence over the Duchess of Cornwall in the same circumstances.

https://web.archive.org/web/2015031...s/precedence-amongst-ladies-england-and-wales

 

[Somebody]

Moved discussion to the more appropriate thread:

I agree, when William isn't present I would say that Edward and Alexandra take precedence.

I don't think Alexandra as only a cousin takes precedence over a grandson's wife. William is normally being given precedence over his uncles and aunts which he officially doesn't have, so 'demoting' Catherine to her rightful place (which is after the queen's children) makes sense but demoting her to behind the queen's female cousins (who are lowest of ALL among the (listed) women in the royal family) would be quite a stretch:

The full order (for women):

1. The Sovereign --> Queen Elizabeth
2. The Queen --> N/A
3. Queens dowager --> N/A.
4. The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay i.e. the wife of the Sovereign's eldest son. --> The Duchess of Cornwall
5. Wives of the Sovereign's younger sons --> The Countess of Wessex
6. The Sovereign's daughters --> The Princess Royal
7. Wives of the Sovereign's grandsons --> The Duchess of Cambridge, The Duchess of Sussex
8. The Sovereign's granddaughters --> Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise, Zara Tindall
9. Wives of the sovereign's brothers --> N/A
10. The Sovereign's sisters --> N/A
11. Wives of the Sovereign's uncles --> N/A
12. The Sovereign's aunts --> N/A
13. Wives of the Sovereign's nephews --> N/A
14. The Sovereign's nieces --> Lady Sarah Chatto
15. Wives of the sovereign's cousins --> The Duchess of Gloucester, The Duchess of Kent, Princess Michael of Kent
16. The Sovereign's cousins --> Princess Alexandra

It's not all about the order of succession, I recall that when Charles married Camilla the Queen altered the order of precedence so that Anne and Alexandra would outrank her on occasions where Charles wasn't present. These are born royal princesses the daughter and granddaughter of Sovereigns. Kate is only a girl from a small village in Berkshire who got a title purely from marrying a royal.

True, I was not writing about the order of succession (which is quite clear as not all children go before all grandchildren in the order of succession) the above was about the official order of precedence. The instance you refer to was for private occasions, for those the queen indeed altered the order of precedence for women at some point elevating both Anne and Alexandra (not others such as her granddaughters; Diana also was always ahead of princess of the blood) but this was a mixed and public occasion, so there is no reason why Alexandra would be ahead of Catherine. If she had been, Alexandra would have stood next to Edward but the two 'married-ins' stood next to Edward.

And Catherine is not 'only a girl form a small village in Berkshire' (what is wrong with that?!) but the future queen. I am quite sure the queen wouldn't be pleased to see people not paying proper respect to the wife of one of her heirs. She fully accepted both Camilla and Catherine and clearly values them as was evidenced by her recent decision on Camilla and her mentioning of these ladies in her latest Christmas speech.

Yes I thought the Queen had it that when it is ladies only royal born females ranked higher than those who married in. It makes sense to me to be fair, especially when you are talking about the likes of Anne and Alexandra who have served the RF and Crown much longer than any of the current married ins (bar perhaps The Duchess of Gloucester)

That's seems to be a generalization. Only Anne and Alexandra were 'promoted' for private occasions. Royal-born princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are apparently still behind their aunts - unless the queen at a later point included them as well. However, if they were included, they would (following the proposed logic that princesses of the blood are ahead but other than that follow the normal conventions) be ahead of princess Alexandra who did far more for the monarchy than the queen's granddaughters, so it is not about who did more or less but purely based on relationship to the Sovereign.

 

[tommy100]

Fair point and we never heard about B&E - I suspect HM placed Alexandra and Anne higher in part as recognition for their service to the Crown. Without disrespecting any of the married-ins Alexandra and Anne have been serving the Crown as working royals since they were adults - all the other married ins (bar DoG) joined much much later. HM also gets on very well with Anne and Alexandra - they were all spotted out for dinner a few years ago. I suspect a part of it may well also be HM choosing who she would like to be next to at official events (which of course doesn't mean she doesn't like spending time with the other ladies) especially when you go back in time and remember HM and Cams weren't all that close when Charles and Cams married.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Well, theoratically Catherine could have been "appointed" principle hostess at this event, too. This has nothing to do with "Prince of the Blood". If that would play any role, Edward and Alexandra would have lead this invitation to BP [...]

It is not the only criterion, but being a prince(ss) of the blood does play a role in the order of precedence, or else the Earl of Wessex would not have acted as the sole representative of the Queen at the palace garden party, even though the Countess of Wessex was also present.

https://www.royal.uk/court-circular

18 May 2022
Windsor Castle

The Earl of Wessex, on behalf of The Queen, and The Countess of Wessex gave an Afternoon Party in the garden of Buckingham Palace.

The Duchess of Cambridge and Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy were present.​

The Princess Royal takes precedence over the Duchess of Cambridge when the latter is not accompanied by her husband. She also takes precedence over the Duchess of Cornwall in the same circumstances.

https://web.archive.org/web/2015031...s/precedence-amongst-ladies-england-and-wales

I don't think Alexandra as only a cousin takes precedence over a grandson's wife. William is normally being given precedence over his uncles and aunts which he officially doesn't have, so 'demoting' Catherine to her rightful place (which is after the queen's children) makes sense but demoting her to behind the queen's female cousins (who are lowest of ALL among the (listed) women in the royal family) would be quite a stretch:

The full order (for women):

1. The Sovereign --> Queen Elizabeth
2. The Queen --> N/A
3. Queens dowager --> N/A.
4. The Princess of Wales, Duchess of Cornwall and Rothesay i.e. the wife of the Sovereign's eldest son. --> The Duchess of Cornwall
5. Wives of the Sovereign's younger sons --> The Countess of Wessex
6. The Sovereign's daughters --> The Princess Royal
7. Wives of the Sovereign's grandsons --> The Duchess of Cambridge, The Duchess of Sussex
8. The Sovereign's granddaughters --> Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise, Zara Tindall
9. Wives of the sovereign's brothers --> N/A
10. The Sovereign's sisters --> N/A
11. Wives of the Sovereign's uncles --> N/A
12. The Sovereign's aunts --> N/A
13. Wives of the Sovereign's nephews --> N/A
14. The Sovereign's nieces --> Lady Sarah Chatto
15. Wives of the sovereign's cousins --> The Duchess of Gloucester, The Duchess of Kent, Princess Michael of Kent
16. The Sovereign's cousins --> Princess Alexandra

Interesting, so you (Somebody) are stating that the Debrett's table is incorrect, since it would rank the British royal women as follows:

1. THE QUEEN --> Queen Elizabeth II
2. The Sovereign’s Daughter --> The Princess Royal
3. The Sovereign’s Granddaughters --> Princess Beatrice, Princess Eugenie, Lady Louise, Zara Tindall
4. The Sovereign’s Cousin --> Princess Alexandra
5. The Wife of the Heir Apparent --> The Duchess of Cornwall
6. Wives of the Younger Sons of the Sovereign --> The Countess of Wessex
7. Wives of Dukes of the Blood Royal --> The Duchess of Cambridge, The Duchess of Sussex, The Duchess of Gloucester, The Duchess of Kent
8. Wives of Princes of the Blood Royal --> Princess Michael of Kent

Your list seems to be more accurate where Princess Alexandra is concerned: She is listed behind the Duchess of Cambridge in the Court Circular. Can anyone cite an example where the Princess Royal and the Duchess of Cornwall were present at an event without the Prince of Wales?

the above was about the official order of precedence. The instance you refer to was for private occasions, for those the queen indeed altered the order of precedence for women at some point elevating both Anne and Alexandra (not others such as her granddaughters; Diana also was always ahead of princess of the blood) [...]

Your post and various other posters on TRF have stated that there is an order of precedence for private occasions which is said to be different from the official order of precedence. Where was that reported?

And Catherine is not 'only a girl form a small village in Berkshire' (what is wrong with that?!) but the future queen. I am quite sure the queen wouldn't be pleased to see people not paying proper respect to the wife of one of her heirs. She fully accepted both Camilla and Catherine and clearly values them as was evidenced by her recent decision on Camilla and her mentioning of these ladies in her latest Christmas speech.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by not being paid proper respect. Prince Daniel of Sweden has been called "the boy from Ockelbo" (even in Parliament) and demoted below Prince Carl Philip in the order of precedence (discussed here). Would you also say that he is not being paid proper respect? (My personal opinion is that whereas there is a cultural difference in regards to the former as explained by a Swedish poster, the latter is indeed not paying his position the proper respect, but I am clearly in the minority view.) If not, what is the difference?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If the linked news report of June 12, 2005 is behind the popular claim that the placement of (some?) blood princesses above married-in princesses whose husbands are absent is only for "private" occasions, then I am not sure the claim is fully made out when one examines the article more closely.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-351948/Camilla-Britains-Fourth-Lady-.html

[...]

As the Duchess, looking happy and radiant in an ivory suit and hat, took her place on the Buckingham Palace balcony for the first time, a confidential Buckingham Palace document revealed that she is ranked below Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra in the official list approved by the Queen.

The document, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, is the first to include Camilla since she married Prince Charles - and last night led to speculation of a Royal snub.

Her new position is below that held by Princess Diana when she was married to the Prince of Wales. Then Diana was ranked above all women in the Royal Family apart from the Queen and Queen Mother.

And the Duchess of York, who had a similar title to Camilla, was listed third in the order of precedence when she was married to Prince Andrew.

[...]

But this potential embarrassment is avoided in the new list, marked 'Private' and entitled 'Precedence of the Royal Family to be observed at Court', which in practical terms determines the seating arrangements for State occasions.​

In my judgment, the confidential list was marked "Private" to convey that it was a confidential, private document, not to be disseminated outside the palace. "To be observed at Court" does not necessarily suggest that the list is only applicable to private events.


Continuing with the article:

[...]

But last night Buckingham Palace insisted Camilla had not been demoted by the Queen. A spokesman said: "To reflect the Duchess's wish to be called Duchess of Cornwall rather than the Princess of Wales, the Queen took the opportunity to clarify the private administrative Precedence for the Palace. This is not a downgrading of the Duchess but merely reflects that the Duchess is a Duchess, not a Princess."

[...]
​

The Palace spokesman's reference to "the private administrative Precedence for the Palace" may connote "private precedence for administrative purposes". But alternatively, the spokesman's statement could connote "[public or private] precedence, to be privately administered", couldn't it?

That's seems to be a generalization. Only Anne and Alexandra were 'promoted' for private occasions. Royal-born princesses Beatrice and Eugenie are apparently still behind their aunts - unless the queen at a later point included them as well.

May I ask where you know that from? The 2005 report is ambiguous: "below Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra" could reflect a placement directly below them or at some further point below them.

Moreover, in 2005, Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie were both minors and thus may not have been included in the palace's precedence list at all.

Can anyone cite an example where the Princess Royal and the Duchess of Cornwall were present at an event without the Prince of Wales?

According to this column, the Duchess of Cornwall gave way to the Princess Royal at a joint engagement in 2006.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uk...bridge-to-curtsy-to-the-blood-princesses.html

The Order of Precedence affects other aspects of royal protocol, such as who arrives first at an event. For example, Camilla was forced to wait in the drizzle outside the Guards Chapel, Windsor, for the arrival of Princess Anne at a memorial service in 2006, because Charles had not accompanied her. A Buckingham Palace spokesman declines to comment.​

 

[Tatiana Maria]

https://www.royal.uk/court-circular

18 May 2022
Windsor Castle

The Earl of Wessex, on behalf of The Queen, and The Countess of Wessex gave an Afternoon Party in the garden of Buckingham Palace.

The Duchess of Cambridge and Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy were present.​

The Queen hopes to attend Chelsea Flower Show on Monday with the Earl and Countess of Wessex, Princess Beatrice, the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent and Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FTIlJYQUEAAEe7O?format=jpg&name=900x900

The current order of precedence at the palace (which appears to have been modified since 2005) is very confusing.

It no longer follows the principle of blood. The Duchess of Cambridge is higher than Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy.

It is not using the order of succession to the crown. The Earl of Wessex is higher than the Duchess of Cambridge and Princess Beatrice.

It is not ordered by generation or age. The Earl of Wessex is ahead of his mother's cousins.

It is not reflective of service to the crown. Princess Beatrice, who does not carry out official engagements, is ahead of the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, who do.

So what exactly is the premise of the present line of precedence?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

From what I have seen during the funeral and the service of remembrance for the late Duke of Edinburgh: it is all handled quite relaxed. It is a helpful instrument, nothing more.

 

[Mbruno]

The current order of precedence at the palace (which appears to have been modified since 2005) is very confusing.

It no longer follows the principle of blood. The Duchess of Cambridge is higher than Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy.

It is not using the order of succession to the crown. The Earl of Wessex is higher than the Duchess of Cambridge and Princess Beatrice.

It is not ordered by generation or age. The Earl of Wessex is ahead of his mother's cousins.

It is not reflective of service to the crown. Princess Beatrice, who does not carry out official engagements, is ahead of the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, who do.

So what exactly is the premise of the present line of precedence?

It is the order of precedence established in England in the 16th century. Nobody has bothered to change it officially since then. The main criterion seems to be proximity of blood to the current sovereign.

 

[tommy100]

IMO the order of precedence is really not for for purpose now. It ranks the sovereign's sons as the same and all the grandsons as the same but we see today you have in effect two separate groups - working royals with HRH and those without. In many ways on a day to day basis we see the actual precedence as being:

HM The Queen
The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall
The Duke & Duchess of Cambridge
The Earl and Countess of Wessex
The Princess Royal
The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester
The Duke of Kent
Princess Alexandra, The Hon Lady Ogilvy

This actually makes more sense than the official order of precedence laid out as it puts the likes of William, a future King ahead of the Earl of Wessex rather than behind him. It also puts William ahead of his cousins as grandsons of the sovereign, again making sense as a future King vs Peter Phillips or Viscount Severn.

Of course the difficulty is -how do you set rules for a changing beast - Harry and Andrew show that you could have someone in one place that, given events, then seems out of place. But in a world where it is much more likely members of the sovereign's family are going to choose (or have chosen for them) whether or not to be part of the official working royal family the old systems seems a rather outdated.

At the very least I would (as if it was up to me) create a Royal House like the Dutch have and place all working official royals in it and rank them above the sovereign's family, whose precedence can be determined by the existing precedence. I would also place Anne above Edward because she was born first and there is now equal primogeniture (even if it wasn't applied retrospectively)

 

[LauraS3514]

There is a separate precedence table for men and women. IIRC, it traditionally went something like this for the HMs & HRHs, with the Sovereign always being first, of course. Also, precedence is for those of legal age - no minors, who would walk with their parents.

The Sovereign's Widowed Mother (none at this time) EITHER/OR
The Sovereign's Consort (none at this time) These two positions would swap, depending on the sex of the Sovereign as an incumbent Queen Consort would outrank the Sovereign's Widowed (Queen) Mother.

Men: The Sovereign's Sons in order of age; the Sovereign's HRH Grandsons, in order of succession; the Sovereign's HRH Great-Grandsons, in order of succession (the Sovereign's Brothers would go here, but none at this time); the Sovereign's HRH Uncles, in order of succession; the Sovereign's HRH male cousins, in order of succession.

Females: The Wife of the Sovereign's Eldest Son; the Sovereign's Daughters in order of age; the wives of the Sovereign's younger sons, in order of their succession; the daughters of the Sovereign's sons, in order of succession; the wives of the Sovereign's HRH Grandsons, in order of their succession; the Sovereign's Sisters in order of succession; wives of the Sovereign's HRH Brothers; the Sovereign's HRH Aunts; the wives of the Sovereign's HRH Uncles; the Sovereign's HRH female cousins; the wives of the Sovereign's HRH cousins.

On joint public occasions, the married-in wives would take their husbands' precedence.

However, HM reportedly tinkered with this list in 2005 - at least for private occasions - when she placed all of the born HRH Princesses ahead of all of the married-ins. At that time, Camilla and Sophie were "demoted" when The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra were moved ahead of them; Beatrice and Eugenie were minors at the time.