Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022

[KittyAtlanta]

Perhaps because The Duchess of Windsor was married to a Royal Duke, not just a plain Duke?

 

[Artemisia]

I dont understand, what does it matter if Prince William is with her or not? if he is in the room, it improves her standing? For some reason, I am not getting it.

Welcome to the club. I don't get it either.

British Princesses by marriage (such as Camilla, Kate and Sophie) taken their ranks and precedence from their husbands.
Most of the times, the ranking and precedence is so clear (the official one, at least) the spouses' presence doesn't actually change much. However, sometimes it does matter; for instance, when Prince Charles is present, Camilla outranks every lady in the Kingdom but the Queen. If he is not present, then the Duchess is still the first lady after Her Majesty in official precedence list, but in private one, her position may change in regards to Princesses by blood.

But Diana, other than most of the brides of the heirs before Charles, was not a princess born. Thus Anne should have outranked her when they met one-by-one. I believe all this "new" Order of Precedence wants to make clear that on our day and age, when commoners can become the future queen, a princess of the Blood Royal still is something special. It is unfortunate that Eugenie and Beatrice don't have yet shown that they deserve this reference personally but I understand that when "at court" - that is: on official functions in the presence of HM, they should be referenced to a blood members of the Royal Family and accorded the ceremonial greeting for Royal Princesses. There will be very rare occasions when Catherine attends such an event without her husband present. And William "present" means he has to be "there" during the formal greetings, after that he is considered to be there even if he is not in the ´room at that moment.

But that doesn't mean Catherine has to curtsey whenever she meets Beatrice of Eugenie in private and William is not there. For then she is not "at court". While in the presence of HM, she is "at court", even when she comes to a private tea.

Anne may be a Princess by blood, but Diana most definitely outranked her as the Princess of Wales. Diana was immediately after the Queen and the Queen Mother in the precedence list - both private and official ones (which were, at the time, identical).

Completely agree about Kate's situation.
One of the reasons the private precedence list annoys me so much is that there isn't really any conceivable situation when it may actually be applied and we'll see, say, Camilla or Kate curtseying to Anne or Beatrice. A century ago it would have probably be relevant, but in our days it just adds confusing to the already pretty confusing topic of rank and precedence.

 

[Artemisia]

How is it that the Duchess of Windsor would even be on this list? She was not accorded the rank of HRH at the time of marriage to the Former King Edward III, nor was she ever invited to court on official, formal or private occassions with the exception of The Duke of Windsor's funeral. Nor was she a mother of a titled prince or princess. Any consideration the Queen extended to her was based on being married to her Uncle who was a former King . However, officially she would not be accorded any rank or precedence within the Royal Family.

Am I missing something?

You are not missing anything; even if the Duchess of Windsor hadn't been denied pretty much all of her husband's styles and titles (as well as rank and precedence), she would have been merely the widow of the Sovereign's uncle - and as such would have been near the bottom of the Precedence list.

The Official Order of Precedence for women in 1980 looked like this:
- Queen Elizabeth II (the Sovereign)
- Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (Queen Dowager)
- The Princess Anne, Princess Royal (the Sovereign's daughter)
- The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon (the Sovereign's sister)
- Wallis, Duchess of Windsor *
- Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (wife of the Sovereign's uncle)
- The Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones (the Sovereign's niece)
- The Duchess of Gloucester (wife of Sovereign's cousin)
- The Duchess of Kent (wife of Sovereign's cousin)
- Princess Michael of Kent (wife of Sovereign's cousin)
- Patricia Lascelles, Countess of Harewood (wife of Sovereign's cousin)
- The Honourable Elizabeth Lascelles (wife of Sovereign's cousin)
- Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Mrs Angus Ogilvy (the Sovereign's cousin)

* The place Wallis would have occupied under normal circumstances, as wife (widow) of the Sovereign's uncle.

 

[Nice Nofret]

It has been written many times in this thread: I write it again.

the members of the british royal family do all curtsey/bow to The Queen and Prince Phillipe - (and they all bowed and curtseyed/bowed to Queen Mum) they do NOT cursey / bow to each other.

The order of precedence defines the seeting, the order of who is greeting whom etc.

 

[royalistbert]

I think this list is mainly used for seating arrangements nowadays. It's just updated when a new member of joins the RF.

 

[Artemisia]

Granted, that's mostly true.
The strict protocol rules might have been used a century or even 50 years ago, but nowadays no one really bows or curtseys to anyone both the King and/or Queen.

Precedence is indeed mainly important for sitting arrangements, arrival order, processions (who walks ahead of whom), and similar issues - but of little relevance for everyday life.

 

[royalistbert]

Even republics have order of precedence.

United States order of precedence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Baroness of Books]

Hang on, so of Tim has to bow to Camilla because they're royal by marriage, they should curtesy to him? :S

But the reverse isn't true when wed to a female royal. A male doesn't share his wife's title; somewhat of a discriminatory point. Such exceptions exist i.e. Daniel Westerling being created a prince of Sweden on his marriage to Victoria, so he became a titled royal at that point.

 

[texankitcat]

Perhaps because The Duchess of Windsor was married to a Royal Duke, not just a plain Duke?

Yes, but that didn't matter. The Letters Patent issued by George VI in 1937 attibuted the style of HRH and the title of The Duke of Windsor to him alone. Alhtough she shared the title as his wife, she could not share the HRH status, nor would any offspring of his be able to inherit the title or HRH status or be placed in the line of succession. Therefore, her status was wife and widow only.

 

[NGalitzine]

Diana was never 2nd after the Queen.

Diana depending on the year and in public vs private she may have been the lowest person on the totem pole. She might not even have rank high enough to get a curtesy from other members of the family.

The order of precedence was not created because of Camilla. It has always existed. Camilla is 4th and if Diana was still alive and married to POW she would be 4th.






Order of precedence 1981 IMO

1. Queen Elizabeth II
2. Queen Elizabeth
3. Duchess of Windsor
4. Princess Alice
5. Princess Margaret
6. Princess Alexandra
7. Princess Anne
8. Diana

How is it that the Duchess of Windsor would even be on this list? She was not accorded the rank of HRH at the time of marriage to the Former King Edward III, nor was she ever invited to court on official, formal or private occassions with the exception of The Duke of Windsor's funeral. Nor was she a mother of a titled prince or princess. Any consideration the Queen extended to her was based on being married to her Uncle who was a former King . However, officially she would not be accorded any rank or precedence within the Royal Family.

Am I missing something?

After his abdication HRH The Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor reverted the the rank of youngest son of a monarch. Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor had no royal rank or precedence but at best would have been the widow of the Queens youngest uncle so would have come after Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester.

 

[texankitcat]

After his abdication HRH The Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor reverted the the rank of youngest son of a monarch. Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor had no royal rank or precedence but at best would have been the widow of the Queens youngest uncle so would have come after Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester.

He could never revert to being the youngest son since he was the eldest son of the Monarch, which is how he became King Edward VIII. His positon as the first born of 4 brothers and 1 sister was not changed when he abdecated, since no one could strip him of his birth date. Therefore, he also could not be placed as the youngest uncle of Queen Elizabeth since he was and always would be her oldest uncle having been first born. However, he did abdecate his titles, his HRH status and any rights to the throne. King George VI granted him the title as well as the HRH status after the abdecation.

As for Wallis, the only status she was afforded as Edward's wife within the Royal Family was after his death when she stayed at Buckingham Palace as his widow for his funeral and then after her death when she given a modest royal funeral and laid to rest at Frogmore next to the Duke of Windsor.

 

[Iluvbertie]

He could never revert to being the youngest son since he was the eldest son of the Monarch, which is how he became King Edward VIII. His positon as the first born of 4 brothers and 1 sister was not changed when he abdicated, since no one could strip him of his birth date. Therefore, he also could not be placed as the youngest uncle of Queen Elizabeth since he was and always would be her oldest uncle having been first born. However, he did abdicate his titles, his HRH status and any rights to the throne. King Albert VI granted him the title as well as the HRH status after the abdication.

As for Wallis, the only status she was afforded as Edward's wife within the Royal Family was after his death when she stayed at Buckingham Palace as his widow for his funeral and then after her death when she given a modest royal funeral and laid to rest at Frogmore next to the Duke of Windsor.

What I think was meant was that his precedence was that of the youngest son - so instead of being first of his brothers after the abdication, if he and his brothers were altogether his precedence was behind the Duke of Kent and not before him as his birth order would have placed him.

After he abdicated he actually had no precedence as he wasn't able to take the precedence of the eldest son of the monarch so George VI gave him the precedence behind The Duke of Kent but ahead of descendents of Edward VII etc.

Rank was probably the wrong word - but precedence.

 

[Queen Camilla]

Why are people SO upset that Kate has to curtsey to Beatrice & Eugenie?

It is common sense and logical. She is the newest member. It has always been by generation blood first.

I think there is some confusion over curtseying vs lining up.

IMO.
Camilla regardless of whether Charles is in the room or not would curtsey to the Queen, Princess Alexandra and Princess Anne.

If Charles is there, she enters and exits the room after the Queen.

Kate is no different.

Personally I think the daily mail had it wrong, Sophie outrank Kate in the curtsey business. Look at the Jubilee concert seating.

Princess Anne and Prince Charles on either side of the Queen with Prince Andrew next to Camilla.
Sophie is in the next row directly behind the Queen.

If you look at the troop the colours, through the years you will see they move around.

PBS just air the Monarchy at Work; it showed behind the scenes of them before going on the balcony, unfortunately I only saw the tail end. It was for 2006 so Camilla was missing because of the death of her father. It showed them greeting each other, so I didn't notice if there were any curtsey.

I believe they only curtsey the 1st time they meet that day so most of the curtseying is done in private.

 

[kbk]

The Official Order of Precedence for women in 1980 looked like this:
- Queen Elizabeth II (the Sovereign)
- Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (Queen Dowager)
- The Princess Anne, Princess Royal (the Sovereign's daughter)
- The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon (the Sovereign's sister)
- Wallis, Duchess of Windsor *
- Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (wife of the Sovereign's uncle)
- The Lady Sarah Armstrong-Jones (the Sovereign's niece)
- The Duchess of Gloucester (wife of Sovereign's cousin)
- The Duchess of Kent (wife of Sovereign's cousin)
- Princess Michael of Kent (wife of Sovereign's cousin)
- Patricia Lascelles, Countess of Harewood (wife of Sovereign's cousin)
- The Honourable Elizabeth Lascelles (wife of Sovereign's cousin)
- Her Royal Highness Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Mrs Angus Ogilvy (the Sovereign's cousin)

What about Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, whose a great-niece the Queen was?

The Duke of Windsor was the King's (George VI's) first brother and the Queen's (Elizabeth II's) first paternal uncle and nothing could change that and after his abdication he held precedence as such. And because a wife takes precedence of her husband, Wallis ranked as the King's first sister-in law and later still first among the in-law aunts of the Queen. Just like Artemisia said. :]

 

[Iluvbertie]

After the abdication Edward VIII had no precedence because he ceased to exist in terms of the laws of succession etc. He was given the precedence behind his younger brothers as they were still in the line of succession and he wasn't.

It would have been unthinkable to have the third in line to the throne have to follow his abdicated brother anywhere so The Dukes of Gloucester and Kent were ahead of him in precedence.

As the only time it came into effect was at Queen Mary's funeral where her three surviving sons walked in a line it never really came into effect publicly but he couldn't take precedence over those higher in the line of succession then he could but he also couldn't be completely removed as he was still the son of a monarch.

There was even an arguement as to whether or not, having abdicated, he could resume his former status of being a prince - which it was decided he could as the son of a monarch but precedence is different and it not only linked to the personal relationship to the monarch but also to the line of succession. Yes he still had to be given a precedence but he couldn't have the precedence of his father's eldest son as he had given up that right when he abdicated - the precedence of his father's eldest son was that of the King but having decided he didn't want that he had to be given official precedence, not automatic.

 

[kbk]

I don't agree with you. He could not renounce his relation to the King, whose first brother he was and nothing could really change this. He abdicated and lost his royal status, style and titles but he became the eldest brother of the King. And the order of precedence among the RF is all about direct relations to the Sovereign. So I think he was formally placed before his royal brothers, even if he was no longer in line to the throne. It was because he was the first brother of the King and later uncle of the Queen, not that he was a son of a previous monarch.

 

[Artemisia]

What about Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone, whose a great-niece the Queen was?

As the Sovereign's great-aunt, her precedence was below the ladies I mentioned, and then some (including wives of the Queen's other unles, and her other aunts by laws of primogeniture). Her position would have been about 18th in the precedence list of 1980.
Of course, as the longest-living British Princess by blood and Queen Victoria's last surviving grandchild, Alice was always given a rank and precedence that were much higher, but that was only a mark of respect.

The Duke of Windsor was the King's (George VI's) first brother and the Queen's (Elizabeth II's) first paternal uncle and nothing could change that and after his abdication he held precedence as such. And because a wife takes precedence of her husband, Wallis ranked as the King's first sister-in law and later still first among the in-law aunts of the Queen. Just like Artemisia said. :]

Wallis didn't have a place in the precedence list; I wrote her name in grey to signify that.
Unlike other Princesses by marriage, she did not share her husband's rank, precedence and styles.

The ranking of the Duke of Windsor was somewhat unclear as well. it would have been logical to assume he was ranked above his younger brothers (save for the new King). Then again, his abdication was so unprecedented there was no clear-cut template to base his position on. Once he abdicated, he reverted to having the styles, titles and precedence he had at the moment of his birth and as a son of a Sovereign - that of British Prince. Now, I do believe that abdicated or not, he did have higher precedence than the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent; however, that is my personal opinion and I cannot counter Iluvbertie's opinion by actual evidence.

 

[texankitcat]

After the abdication Edward VIII had no precedence because he ceased to exist in terms of the laws of succession etc. He was given the precedence behind his younger brothers as they were still in the line of succession and he wasn't...

Thank you Bertie. That is how I understood the terms of the abdication as well. My understanding is once he abdecated he was stripped of all royal privilege, titles and standing within the Royal family and only at the pleasure of the King was he granted the title, HRH status and financial support afterwards since he could not be supported by the civil list. My understanding is also that with the condition of financial support from the King, he had to leave England and would only be allowed back with permission from the King. Therefore IMO, any formal precedence for himself or his wife would have been unnecessary in Royal Court or within the RF. If there was an official precedence list after his abdecation, I have not come across it. Please correct me if you are aware of one.

 

[texankitcat]

I don't agree with you. He could not renounce his relation to the King, whose first brother he was and nothing could really change this...

Yes, he was the eldest brother of the King, but since the order of precedence is at the discretion of the monarch, being the eldest brother would not obligate the current monarch to place him ahead of his younger brothers who never forfeited their rights or place in that line. Considering the embarassment and bitterness of the abdecation within the Royal Family, most particularly felt by Albert who never wanted to e placed in the position he found himself, I seriously doubt Edward would have been given any consideration as the eldest born in the order of precedence. The only rights he was given after the abdecation were given in order to protect the crown....not out of respect for his position as first born.

 

[NGalitzine]

At the unveiling of the Queen Mary Memorial in 1967 both the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were in attendance and they were seated after the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester. I don't believe Princess Marina was in attendance and obviously the Duke of Kent died during WWII, so the Windsors were seated as if he had been the youngest brother.

 

[Nico]

Princess Marina and the Duke and Duchess of Kent were present but were seated on the other side.

 

[andrew]

.

Regarding curtsying, I think it is pretty simple :
HRH curtsies to HM!

I've never seen an HRH member of the BRF to curtsy to another HRH member of the BRF, not even to Prince Philip! If you have some pictures to prove me wrong, please post them!

I admit that precedence may be trickier, but being put behind somebody on the precedence list, it doesn't mean that you have to curtsy to that person, unless he/she is an HM.

 

[branchg]

I don't agree with you. He could not renounce his relation to the King, whose first brother he was and nothing could really change this...

You are correct. The Duke's precedence, which was discussed by the Baldwin Cabinet and agreed upon by George VI, was before The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester as he was the eldest brother of the King.

Since George VI had an heir and spare to the throne, the succession through his line was secure and that was considered to be the main issue, even though The Duke was no longer in the line of succession versus his brothers who were.

As far as his royal rank and style once he abdicated, this was automatic as the 1917 Letters Patent provided he was "HRH The Prince Edward" as a son of George V. While it's true George VI later argued he had no right to be HRH upon abdicating, this could only have been taken away with the issuance of new Letters Patent specifically removing his right to be HRH, which was never done.

 

[NGalitzine]

As we can see by the attendance of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor at the unveiling of the Queen Mary Memorial he was actually placed after his younger bother the Duke of Gloucester.

 

[branchg]

At the unveiling of the Queen Mary Memorial in 1967 both the Duke and Duchess of Windsor were in attendance and they were seated after the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester. I don't believe Princess Marina was in attendance and obviously the Duke of Kent died during WWII, so the Windsors were seated as if he had been the youngest brother.

His precedence was downgraded after the death of George VI because he was now an uncle of The Sovereign, rather than a brother. By 1952, it was clear he was never going to live in England again as an active member of the family, so it made sense he would come after his brother, The Duke of Gloucester, at court.

As we can see by the attendance of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor at the unveiling of the Queen Mary Memorial he was actually placed after his younger bother the Duke of Gloucester.

Yes, but as I said above, his precedence inevitably was downgraded due to the fact he and The Duchess were not allowed to live in England or accepted as members of the royal family, especially with Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth still alive.

 

[NGalitzine]

His precedence was downgraded after the death of George VI because he was now an uncle of The Sovereign, rather than a brother. By 1952, it was clear he was never going to live in England again as an active member of the family, so it made sense he would come after his brother, The Duke of Gloucester, at court.

So he essentially had precedence as the younger brother.

 

[branchg]

Regarding curtsying, I think it is pretty simple :
HRH curtsies to HM!

I've never seen an HRH member of the BRF to curtsy to another HRH member of the BRF, not even to Prince Philip! If you have some pictures to prove me wrong, please post them!

I admit that precedence may be trickier, but being put behind somebody on the precedence list, it doesn't mean that you have to curtsy to that person, unless he/she is an HM.

Yes, you are right.

The order of precedence at court is simply a list of who goes first or enters last during royal events that are not official state occasions. It has nothing to do with curtsies or bows today, although it used to be strictly followed with that as well. But that hasn't happened since George V's reign.

HRH is HRH. It doesn't matter what your title or style is as they hold equal rank to each other. The only exception is Prince Philip, who as the Consort of The Queen, is given precedence and place next to The Sovereign. They do occasionally curtsey or bow to Philip as they do with HM in private.

 

[branchg]

So he essentially had precedence as the younger brother.

Yes. I think the initial decisions were based on the assumption, before the Act of Abdication officially was passed, that The Duke would take his place as a member of the royal family and help his brother out with his new duties.

But as we know, things went rapidly downhill between the brothers (mainly over money) and that didn't happen.

 

[Meraude]

As the Sovereign's great-niece, her precedence was below the ladies I mentioned, and then some (including wives of the Queen's great-nephews, and her other great-nieces by laws of primogeniture). Her position would have been about 18th in the precedence list of 1980.
Of course, as the longest-living British Princess by blood and Queen Victoria's last surviving grandchild, Alice was always given a rank and precedence that were much higher, but that was only a mark of respect.

If you by Sovereign mean queen Elizabeth, the princess Alice could impossibly be her great-niece, as she was a grandchild of queen Victoria!

 

[NGalitzine]

If you by Sovereign mean queen Elizabeth, the princess Alice could impossibly be her great-niece, as she was a grandchild of queen Victoria!

Alice was married the Queen Mary's brother, so by marriage she was aunt to George VI and great aunt to Elizabeth II. She was , of course, also granddaughter of Queen Victoria and a Princess of the United Kingdom in her own right.