Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022

[Elspeth]

Correct. Additoinally, she was never 'plain Mrs. Somebody' as the previous poster wrote. Rather, she was the Honourable Mrs. Frances Shand-Kyd. She was entitled to the "Honourable" as she was the daughter of a Baron -- Baron Fermoy to be exact.

Erm, actually she was the Hon Frances Burke Roche; Peter Shand Kydd was her second husband, not her father. However, when she married him, she did indeed keep the "Hon", which was from her father.

 

[Elspeth]

Uh, why then is King Constantine still accepted by the British Royal family besides being part of Philip's family?? They never acknowledged Philip's sisters!

Well, Philip's sisters were married to Germans, some of whom were known or suspected to have been followers of Hitler. The public wouldn't have been thrilled at the notion of Prince Philip's family having a very high profile in the UK after the war.

 

[Sean.~]

Erm, actually she was the Hon Frances Burke Roche; Peter Shand Kydd was her second husband, not her father. However, when she married him, she did indeed keep the "Hon", which was from her father.

Erm, that's what I wrote/meant. I think you're confused, as we were discussing her style *after* her divorce & second marriage. The previous poster wrote that she was plain Mrs. somebody, and I was pointing out that she wasn't just Mrs. Somebody, but rather that she had was entitled to the predicat of Honourable. ;-)

 

[Elspeth]

Ah, OK. When you said "never," I thought you were referring back to her original name.

 

[florawindsor]

shouldn't she be The Princess Anne before she became The Princess Royal?

The Royal Family > HRH The Princess Royal > Background

She received the title Princess Royal from The Queen in June 1987; she was previously known as Princess Anne

 

[Elspeth]

Yes, it should be. The Royal Family website doesn't seem to have been written by one of their experts on titles.

 

[florawindsor]

thank you Elspeth.
maybe it's inevitable when they are making such a huge site, they are bound to make minor mistakes.

 

[Warren]

Anne

shouldn't she be The Princess Anne before she became The Princess Royal?

Yes, you are right florawindsor. She was previously known as HRH The Princess Anne; now HRH The Princess Royal.
.

 

[Warren]

King Consort

Thank you. I read in wikipedia that Victoria wanted Albert to be King Consort but the parliament did not allowed that because he was a foreigner, which I found strange.

I don't think it would have mattered who Victoria married; it is unlikely the Parliament would have allowed anyone to be called "King Consort". For a start there was no precedent for this title, plus there may have been concern that the husband may take the title too literally.

Prince Albert was created Prince Consort by letters patent in 1857, many years after they were married. Although this title was also without precedent, it seemed an acceptable compromise to give him some extra status, and to keep Victoria happy (a tough job in itself).
.

 

[Warren]

Consultancy positions available?

The Royal Family website doesn't seem to have been written by one of their experts on titles.

All they need to do is advertise on the TRF for consultants. Problem solved.

 

[Georgia]

I know this conversation ended a few days ago but I have spent that time looking for evidence to back up what I wanted to say.
I was sure that Prince Andrew was Prince Andrew, Duke of York.
I am now certain of it. When Prince Charles was born, the notice on the gates at Buckingham Palace read "The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, was safely delivered of a Prince at 9.14pm today etc etc"
I am sure of all the people to know and get it right, Buckingham Palace would be?

 

[Sean.~]

I know this conversation ended a few days ago but I have spent that time looking for evidence to back up what I wanted to say.
I was sure that Prince Andrew was Prince Andrew, Duke of York.
I am now certain of it. When Prince Charles was born, the notice on the gates at Buckingham Palace read "The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, was safely delivered of a Prince at 9.14pm today etc etc"
I am sure of all the people to know and get it right, Buckingham Palace would be?

She wasn't Duchess of Edinburgh in her own right, but by marriage. Thus she was styled The Princess Elizabeth (the higher of the two titles), Duchess of Edinburgh. Conversely, Andrew is Duke of York in his own right.

 

[branchg]

I know this conversation ended a few days ago but I have spent that time looking for evidence to back up what I wanted to say.
I was sure that Prince Andrew was Prince Andrew, Duke of York.
I am now certain of it. When Prince Charles was born, the notice on the gates at Buckingham Palace read "The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh, was safely delivered of a Prince at 9.14pm today etc etc"
I am sure of all the people to know and get it right, Buckingham Palace would be?

It's not the same. Elizabeth held the style and title of "Duchess of Edinburgh" as the wife of HRH the Duke of Edinburgh. So she was correctly styled "The Princess Elizabeth, Duchess of Edinburgh". Similarly, when married, Sarah was formally "HRH the Princess Andrew, Duchess of York", but styled and addressed correctly as "HRH the Duchess of York".

Andrew is both "HRH the Prince Andrew" and "HRH the Duke of York". His birthright style remains his automatically, but was superseded by his royal dukedom upon marriage. He is correctly styled and addressed as "HRH the Duke of York" as a matter of practice and form.

 

[Georgia]

Thanksfor clarifying that. I stand corrected. However, as a Prince is higher than a Duke what is the point of granting extra titles. Surely a person would rather be known as a Prince than a Duke? Sorry if I'm just not getting this.

 

[branchg]

Thanksfor clarifying that. I stand corrected. However, as a Prince is higher than a Duke what is the point of granting extra titles. Surely a person would rather be known as a Prince than a Duke? Sorry if I'm just not getting this.

A Prince is higher than a Duke in the peerage of the UK, however, this dignity can only be held by the children and male-line grandchildren of a Sovereign. Because of this, a dukedom is customarily granted to each son of the Sovereign, which then becomes their new title, in order to provide a royal style to pass down to their eldest male descendants.

For example, HRH the Prince Harry was granted the dukedom of Gloucester by his father, George V. He then became HRH the Duke of Gloucester. His son, HRH Prince Richard, assumed the dukedom after the death of his father and is the present Duke. After his death, his eldest son will become the new Duke, but as a great-grandon of George V, will not be entitled to the style of HRH. He will instead be known as "His Grace the Duke of Gloucester" as a duke of the blood royal.

 

[Warren]

Precedence of stand-ins

I will gingerly re-activate this thread with a story disclosing another aspect of Precedence as it relates to a representative, or "stand-in", for the Prince of Wales.

In the just-released "Olivier, The Authorised Biography", it is revealed that the Olivier family reacted with horror when the Prince of Wales suggested that the actor Kenneth Branagh should represent him at the memorial service at Westminster Abbey in 1989. They feared that such a prominent role for the young Branagh, who was already being hailed as "the next Olivier", would have stolen Olivier's thunder on the very day he was meant to be centre stage.

As the representative of the Prince of Wales, Branagh would have taken precedence over everyone else at the ceremony and would have entered the Abbey last while all the other mourners stood.

The author of the biography writes: "Richard Olivier [his son] thought several senior actors would have died on the spot." Branagh's nomination was withdrawn, and instead the "safe" Lord Attenborough represented the Prince of Wales.
.

 

[Mapple]

I don't think it would have mattered who Victoria married; it is unlikely the Parliament would have allowed anyone to be called "King Consort". For a start there was no precedent for this title, plus there may have been concern that the husband may take the title too literally.
...

Actually, there was a precedent—the husband of Mary Tudor, Philip of Spain, was styled 'King of England'. It comes at no surprise, though, that the Government of 1857 decided not to follow in Mary and Philip's steps.

 

[Warren]

Actually, there was a precedent—the husband of Mary Tudor, Philip of Spain, was styled 'King of England'.

Thanks for the correction, and welcome to TRF Mapple.

 

[Idriel]

The Real Thing

I will gingerly re-activate this thread with a story disclosing another aspect of Precedence as it relates to a representative, or "stand-in", for the Prince of Wales.

In the just-released "Olivier, The Authorised Biography", it is revealed that the Olivier family reacted with horror when the Prince of Wales suggested that the actor Kenneth Branagh should represent him at the memorial service at Westminster Abbey in 1989. They feared that such a prominent role for the young Branagh, who was already being hailed as "the next Olivier", would have stolen Olivier's thunder on the very day he was meant to be centre stage.

As the representative of the Prince of Wales, Branagh would have taken precedence over everyone else at the ceremony and would have entered the Abbey last while all the other mourners stood.

The author of the biography writes: "Richard Olivier [his son] thought several senior actors would have died on the spot." Branagh's nomination was withdrawn, and instead the "safe" Lord Attenborough represented the Prince of Wales.
.

Warren that's simply wonderful! We have been disserting on the order of precedence of the BRF when there's no real indication that the royal do really care; and now you bringing us those very commoner actors who act whith more diva attitude, grandness and snobbery than the royal.
It's a whole new world for me, thank you .
Mapple, when Mary's husband was styled King, what did happen? Was is hierarchically above his wife? Did he had precedence over her? Did he shared some (or all) of her Royal prerogatives?
Please tell more (and welcome BTW).

 

[Mapple]

Warren, Idriel, thank you for your welcome!

So, as regards Mary Tudor, she was a Queen Regnant, the first such case in England (if we are to exclude Empress Mathilda, and we'd better do it), since 1553. On 25 July 1554 she married Prince Philip of Spain at Winchester Cathedral, and they took a joint style 'Philip and Mary, by the Grace of God, King and Queen of England, France and Naples, Jerusalem and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Princes of Spain and Sicily, Archdukes of Austria, Dukes of Milan, Burgundy and Brabant, Counts of Habsburg, Flanders and Tyrol'.

In 1556 Philip ascended the throne of Spain, and the style changed to 'Philip and Mary, by the Grace of God, King and Queen of England, Spain, France, Jerusalem, both the Sicilies and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Archdukes of Austria, Dukes of Burgungy, Milan and Brabant, Counts of Habsburg, Flanders and Tyrol'.

The Parliament was called under their joint authority, the Acts of Parlament were dated with both royal names, and the coins were minted with two faces. However, Philip's role in government was extremely limited, his case was a unique instance of 'Crown matrimonial' going to a male person. Unlike William and Mary, the joint sovereignty of Philip and Mary was never established by an Act of Parliament, and Philip lost his English title when Mary died in 1558.

By the way, Scotland also had a King Consort—Lord Darnley was elevated to the kingship on marrying Mary, Queen of Scots in 1565.

 

[tiaraprin]

I think the laws need to change and allow for a King Consort to a Queen Regnant. There should be equality. A husband should get the title of his wife if she ascends the throne. The days of a man usurping power from a "weak" female are over.

 

[Idriel]

Who wears the pants?

'Spaciba' Mapple (sorry, no cyrilic alphabet on my computer).

Your post is really informative but could you precise who in this couple had official precedence over the other. I note that the King is named before the Queen. Is that an indication of anything? I read on Wikipedia that English male consorts were never elevated to the dignity of King because a King (male) is hierarchically above a Queen (female).

Tiaraprin, I agree with you! Everybody is much interested in women rights (abrogating the Salic rule, etc.) but everybody forget men's rights (poor creatures) .

 

[Mapple]

'Spaciba' Mapple (sorry, no cyrilic alphabet on my computer).

Your post is really informative but could you precise who in this couple had official precedence over the other. I note that the King is named before the Queen. Is that an indication of anything? I read on Wikipedia that English male consorts were never elevated to the dignity of King because a King (male) is hierarchically above a Queen (female).

Tiaraprin, I agree with you! Everybody is much interested in women rights (abrogating the Salic rule, etc.) but everybody forget men's rights (poor creatures) .

Glad to be of use.

The King was always mentioned first in the legal instruments of 1554-1558 and Mary I called Philip her 'Lord and Husband' in her will, so, I think, it is safe to infer that Philip preceded the Queen theoretically. However, it was Mary who exercised royal powers.

 

[Frothy]

Similarly, when married, Sarah was formally "HRH the Princess Andrew, Duchess of York", but styled and addressed correctly as "HRH the Duchess of York".

Andrew is both "HRH the Prince Andrew" and "HRH the Duke of York". His birthright style remains his automatically, but was superseded by his royal dukedom upon marriage. He is correctly styled and addressed as "HRH the Duke of York" as a matter of practice and form.

I just can't agree, Branch q. Sarah was never formally The Princess Andrew, Duchess of York. Precisely because the royal ducal title supercedes the princely one, she was formally HRH The Duchess of York, because her husband was HRH The Duke of York (and not HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York) when she married him.

When Andrew was created the Duke of York he ceased to have the title the Prince Andrew. He remained a Prince and his name remained Andrew, but his title changed - not his dignity, his title.

Retaining his birthright princely dignity does not mean the birth title that uses the Christian name was also retained. The princely dignity was used with a new title of a royal dukedom.

Of course, Andrew and Edward are informally known as Prince Andrew and Prince Edward, but those are not true titles.

 

[Frothy]

The letters patent grant a princely dignity, they do not state that it must include a Christian name. They state either the Christian name or the other title of honour shall be used. It is either/or and not both.

What is retained as granted at birth is the rank of Prince/ss of the UK. Not a particular style using a Christian name.

 

[Frothy]

Maybe I should write to the Palace and ask. I did email Debrett's, but got no reply. This is just one of those niggling questions that bug a person.

Branch thinks that once Andrew was made DofY, he was "formally" known as HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York and I disagree. Perhaps only a letter to the palace can solve this. I could send it on to an admin person if I got a reply.

 

[ysbel]

The letters patent grant a princely dignity, they do not state that it must include a Christian name. They state either the Christian name or the other title of honour shall be used. It is either/or and not both.

What is retained as granted at birth is the rank of Prince/ss of the UK. Not a particular style using a Christian name.

Hi Frothy,

Maybe we're talking semantics. I distinctly remember reading a primer for Americans on the titles of British nobility and royalty and it mentioned that the style Prince or Princess could only be inherited at birth by the child or grandchild through the male line of the sovereign. In such case they were Prince or Princess FirstName. The presence of a Christian name was definitely spelled out to differentiate it from a title which does not include a Christian name (normally) It is a style or honor inherited at birth and so should not be confused with titles according to this source. Once a prince or princess inherits a title the style Prince (Princess) first name is no longer used. The only exception is Prince and Princess of Wales, which afterall is a title. I normally would discount a third party American reference but this was written by Amy Vanderbilt who advised a lot of prominent Americans how to move in titled British society during the early 50s when this stuff was still really important. She said she had a lot of research to do for this section because it is so complicated.

Perhaps the Queen has changed the rules, she did grant the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester to be called Princess Alice but this is really the exception not the rule.

 

[Frothy]

Exactly. The title is 'Prince'. The style is The Prince Andrew. The title of a royal Duke is HRH The Duke of X (HRH says 'Prince', of course - all royal dukes are princes). The style is then HRH The Duke of X as well as the title.

The letters patent say that a Prince will be known by his first name OR his other titles of honour. It is not AND but OR - not both. A title of honour supercedes the use of the Christian name. This is certainly confirmed on the BRF website.

However, Branch Q will disagree. I adamantly maintain Sarah was never The Princess Andrew, Duchess of York because I believe there is no such title as The Prince Andrew, Duke of York, except when talking informally. However, as I have said, perhaps the only way to clear this up is to write to HRH's private secretary and ask. If I get a response I promise to publicize it here even if it says I am utterly wrong!

 

[Elspeth]

Maybe I should write to the Palace and ask. I did email Debrett's, but got no reply. This is just one of those niggling questions that bug a person.

Branch thinks that once Andrew was made DofY, he was "formally" known as HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York and I disagree. Perhaps only a letter to the palace can solve this. I could send it on to an admin person if I got a reply.

You could submit it as a question to the Royal Insight Magazine, but I don't know how many of the questions they respond to. I'm pretty sure you'd get an answer of some sort if you wrote to the Palace. You can always tell them you're asking because of some questions that came up on this message board and you'd like to get an authoritative answer that you can post.

 

[Warren]

Still important!

... Amy Vanderbilt who advised a lot of prominent Americans how to move in titled British society during the early 50s when this stuff was still really important.

Some of us think it still is!