Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022

[Osipi]

Earlier today I was scouting around for some information on Prince Harry and his Sentebale entry into the Chelsea Flower Show and found this video. In it, we see Harry warmly greeting his grandmother with kisses on both cheeks and then the respectful bow of the head to his monarch.

Video: Prince Harry brings slice of Lesotho to RHS Chelsea Flower Show - Telegraph

 

[AChatto]

Princess Margaret at Balmoral

The Queen's sister Princess Margaret was also no fan of Sarah Ferguson even whilst she was married to her nephew Prince Andrew. One story goes that in the late 80's Sarah Ferguson and Lady Helen Windsor were chatting in the library at Balmoral when Princess Margaret walked in looking for a particular books. Lady Helen stood up and curtseyed to the Princess. Sarah although stood up, did not curtsey. Princess Margaret was furious and gave Sarah the iciest of royal stares and waltzed out of the room. She later wrote a terse letter to Sarah whilst still under the same roof in Balmoral and reminded her that when she is not accompanied by Prince Andrew (who provides her rank and status) she must curtsey to her and all blood princesses. Princess Margaret was always one for correct protocol and reverence.

 

[RoyalHighness 2002]

Um, also since members of the Royal Family don't curtsy to each other, only giving their reverence to the Queen and by courtesy the Duke of Edinburgh, I'm not sure how true this encounter is.

 

[Blog Real]

The Queen's sister Princess Margaret was also no fan of Sarah Ferguson even whilst she was married to her nephew Prince Andrew. One story goes that in the late 80's Sarah Ferguson and Lady Helen Windsor were chatting in the library at Balmoral when Princess Margaret walked in looking for a particular books. Lady Helen stood up and curtseyed to the Princess. Sarah although stood up, did not curtsey. Princess Margaret was furious and gave Sarah the iciest of royal stares and waltzed out of the room. She later wrote a terse letter to Sarah whilst still under the same roof in Balmoral and reminded her that when she is not accompanied by Prince Andrew (who provides her rank and status) she must curtsey to her and all blood princesses. Princess Margaret was always one for correct protocol and reverence.

Thanks for sharing this story.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen's sister Princess Margaret was also no fan of Sarah Ferguson even whilst she was married to her nephew Prince Andrew. One story goes that in the late 80's Sarah Ferguson and Lady Helen Windsor were chatting in the library at Balmoral when Princess Margaret walked in looking for a particular books. Lady Helen stood up and curtseyed to the Princess. Sarah although stood up, did not curtsey. Princess Margaret was furious and gave Sarah the iciest of royal stares and waltzed out of the room. She later wrote a terse letter to Sarah whilst still under the same roof in Balmoral and reminded her that when she is not accompanied by Prince Andrew (who provides her rank and status) she must curtsey to her and all blood princesses. Princess Margaret was always one for correct protocol and reverence.

Welcome to the board.

There are some holes in your story however which I would like to point out or explain.

Margaret would have been wrong if she worded it that way as the Queen didn't change that rule until 2005 after Anne said she wouldn't 'give precedence' to Camilla. As a result the Queen said that 'blood princesses' took precedence over married in princesses in private. Precedence doesn't mean curtseying anyway but rather who enters a room first and who sits where.

Helen needed to curtsey as she wasn't an HRH but Sarah was HRH and so didn't need to curtsey at all - even to a blood princess.

At that time the Margaret wouldn't have had precedence over Sarah anyway as she was the sister of the monarch while Sarah was the wife of the son - precedence was

1. wife of the eldest son of monarch,
2. daughters of the monarch,
3. wives of the sons of the monarch and then
4. sister of the monarch.

IF Margaret wrote such a letter then she was wrong on many counts.

That she disliked Sarah is not new but I doubt that she ever claimed a precedence to which she wasn't entitled under a rule that didn't exist until three years after she died.

 

[AChatto]

Um, also since members of the Royal Family don't curtsy to each other, only giving their reverence to the Queen and by courtesy the Duke of Edinburgh, I'm not sure how true this encounter is.

I'm afraid you are wrong on this occasion. They do curtsey in private particularly younger members to older members. However you tend to find younger members of the royal family don't tend to bow and curtsey to one another.

Welcome to the board.

There are some holes in your story however which I would like to point out or explain.

Margaret would have been wrong if she worded it that way as the Queen didn't change that rule until 2005 after Anne said she wouldn't 'give precedence' to Camilla. As a result the Queen said that 'blood princesses' took precedence over married in princesses in private. Precedence doesn't mean curtseying anyway but rather who enters a room first and who sits where.

Helen needed to curtsey as she wasn't an HRH but Sarah was HRH and so didn't need to curtsey at all - even to a blood princess.

At that time the Margaret wouldn't have had precedence over Sarah anyway as she was the sister of the monarch while Sarah was the wife of the son - precedence was

1. wife of the eldest son of monarch,
2. daughters of the monarch,
3. wives of the sons of the monarch and then
4. sister of the monarch.

IF Margaret wrote such a letter then she was wrong on many counts.

That she disliked Sarah is not new but I doubt that she ever claimed a precedence to which she wasn't entitled under a rule that didn't exist until three years after she died.

There is a difference between official precedence and private precedence within the House of Windsor. Officially Sarah Ferguson at the time did outrank Princess Margaret. However, not on non-state occasions for example private family dinners, Christmas at Sandringham, summer at Balmoral etc. If Prince Andrew was not present she would curtsey to Princess Margaret. It is the Queen whom decides Private Precedence. Also, Prince Andrew was hugely respectful and in awe of his aunt and would feel it right that Sarah did curtsey to Princess Margaret.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen changed the private precedence rules in 2005 - three years AFTER Princess Margaret died. Thus Sarah took precedence throughout her marriage over Margaret.

She changed the rules when Camilla married into the BRF as Anne refused to give way to Camilla in private and the Queen agreed with her. When Charles was married to Diana, even in private Diana took precedence over Anne and Anne accepted that - as did Alexandra. Neither were prepared to accept that situation existing with Camilla - especially Anne so the Queen changed the rules.

Margaret could never have referred to those precedence rules in a letter to Sarah which would have to have been written no later than 1992 - 13 years before the rules were changed.

That is why your story is full of holes as it doesn't fit with the known timeline of the changes to the private precedence rules that HM put in place. While Sarah was Andrew's wife she took precedence both publicly and privately.

You are correct that the Queen decides private precedence and she did - in 2005 - when she she changed the rules from what they had been since the days of George V who set the rules regarding married in wives who weren't themselves royal - the Queen Mum being the first. Margaret died in 2002 and so only ever operated under the rules set by George V and thus never under the 'princesses born' taking precedence over 'married in princesses'.

 

[Ish]

I'm afraid you are wrong on this occasion. They do curtsey in private particularly younger members to older members. However you tend to find younger members of the royal family don't tend to bow and curtsey to one another.

Do you have a source for this? Nothing I’ve read in my years of royal watching (other than clearly inaccurate tabloid fodder) has indicated that members of the royal family typically bow or curtsey to each other when they wouldn’t do the same in public. Thus, as we don’t see William and Kate (for example) bow/curtsey to Charles or Camilla in public, unless given substantial reason to believe otherwise, it seems logical to assume they don’t do so in private. In all likelihood, the family is probably less formal in private than in public - a theory supported by the reports of how things are done at Balmoral when the family is on vacation (right down to the Queen driving herself, and family “backyard” barbecues).

In practice, we see members of the BRF bow/curtsey to the Queen and Prince Philip, but no one else. There’s no reason to believe they do differently in private - unless there is a source to show otherwise.

The Queen changed the private precedence rules in 2005 - three years AFTER Princess Margaret died. Thus Sarah took precedence throughout her marriage over Margaret.

She changed the rules when Camilla married into the BRF as Anne refused to give way to Camilla in private and the Queen agreed with her. When Charles was married to Diana, even in private Diana took precedence over Anne and Anne accepted that - as did Alexandra. Neither were prepared to accept that situation existing with Camilla - especially Anne so the Queen changed the rules.

This has been tossed around a lot since Charles and Camilla married, but again, is there a verifiable source for it? I could see maybe Margaret, who was known for being stuck up, making such a fuss had she still been alive, but Anne and Alexandra? Particularly given as both would realize that one day Camilla (regardless of what her title becomes - let’s not get into that) would be higher than either of them as the wife of the monarch, regardless of her birth?

 

[Iluvbertie]

My source for Anne comes from my distant relatives who mix with the royals ... it was largely Anne who didn't like having to give way to her own ex-lover's ex-wife when in private. She approached Alexandra to back her up and Alexandra, who was still mourning the death of her husband the previous December went along with it.

This was also widely reported at the time in a range of media outlets from the largely tabloids to the more reliable sources.

This is also the time when the idea of HRHs curtseying to others higher in the line of succession began as some of these so-called royal reporters confused precedence with who curtseyed to whom.

I have only been watching the royals since the 1970s and have never seen any of them curtsey or bow to Philip unless he is with The Queen and then they are really bowing to her but he is there by default. He is an HRH - the same rank as his children and grandchildren.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Queen's sister Princess Margaret was also no fan of Sarah Ferguson even whilst she was married to her nephew Prince Andrew. One story goes that in the late 80's Sarah Ferguson and Lady Helen Windsor were chatting in the library at Balmoral when Princess Margaret walked in looking for a particular books. Lady Helen stood up and curtseyed to the Princess. Sarah although stood up, did not curtsey. Princess Margaret was furious and gave Sarah the iciest of royal stares and waltzed out of the room. She later wrote a terse letter to Sarah whilst still under the same roof in Balmoral and reminded her that when she is not accompanied by Prince Andrew (who provides her rank and status) she must curtsey to her and all blood princesses. Princess Margaret was always one for correct protocol and reverence.

Thanks for the story, however the rule is that a révérence or a bow is always optional and never customary This brings me to say that it is most unlogic that Sarah "must" have to go down her knees when aunt Margaret comes in.

Second food for thought: how do we know what happened during a private familial encounter in the private library of a private home? Completely with "icy stare" et al... File it under myths and gossips, or is it sucked out of a thumb, à la The Crown?

 

[jacqui24]

I am not sure if that is true. Harry participated in the Spanish State Visit and accompanied them to an engagement though he is the grandson of the monarch.

While it is true that HMQ’s younger children officially have precedence over Charles’ sons, William and Harry are often given precedence over their aunt and uncles in practice as if Charles is already King. This is likely due to the unusual situation where we have a monarch with grandchildren that are in their 30s. It’s likely to facilitate a easier transition down the road.

 

[wartenberg7]

While it is true that HMQ’s younger children officially has precedence over Charles’ sons, William and Harry are often given precedence over their aunt and uncles in practice as if Charles is already King. This is likely due to the unusual situation where we have a monarch with grandchildren that are in their 30s. It’s likely to facilitate a easier transition down the road.

In reality I don´t see they have precedence. Entering a room, like a church etc., William and Harry always take precedence ove Anne, Andrew or Edward.
The way they are seated it´s always William and Catherine besides Charles and Camilla and the Queen in the 1st row (before Harry got married he always sat in the 1st row, too), while the Queen´s children sit behind.
Who takes precedence is dictated by the order of succession, not because HM´s grandchildren are in their 30s, which is visible by the 2 examples I named above (Charles, William, his children - at least when they are old enough to take part in engagements - then Harry and after that the Queen´s children).

 

[Iluvbertie]

In reality I don´t see they have precedence. Entering a room, like a church etc., William and Harry always take precedence ove Anne, Anfrew or Edward.
The way they are seated it´s always William and Catherine besides Charles and Camilla and the Queen in the 1st row (before Harry got married he always sat in the 1st row, too), while the Queen´s children sit behind.
Who takes precedence is dictated by the order of succession, not because HM´s grandchildren are in their 30s, which is visible by the 2 examples I named above (Charles, William, his children - at least when they are old enough to take part in engagements - then Harry and after that the Queen´s children).

Official precedence is children of the monarch ahead of grandchildren. That is why Edward and Sophie have a more prominent role at a State Visit - such as escorting the visitors around - than William and Kate. That is precedence.

What you see are family groups sitting together - not precedence. Seating arrangements are just that - seating arrangements.

 

[wartenberg7]

Official precedence is children of the monarch ahead of grandchildren. That is why Edward and Sophie have a more prominent role at a State Visit - such as escorting the visitors around - than William and Kate. That is precedence.

What you see are family groups sitting together - not precedence. Seating arrangements are just that - seating arrangements.

Nonsense, it is a fact that Harry for instance is way up higher than Edward when it comes to succession. So he takes precence over E. When Diana married Charles, it was announced that she was now 3rd lady of the realm - even as a spouse taking precedence over Anne.
Following your theory the seating, as you mentioned it, is purely accidental. But there is nothing "accidental" when it comes to (royal) protocol or etiquette! There is a reason why "minor royals" enter a church, what ever, first, followed by the Queen´s younger children, then William, Harry and their spouses followed by Charles and Camilla and the Queen last. Sitting down and later leaving an event the other way round: 1st the monarch, then heir and his wife, then children of the heir because they took over the place in succession by birth the heir´s siblings had before. AFTER them the heir´s siblings and then so called minor Royals like the Gloucesters and after them the Kents etc.

When C and C. are abroad during a state visit to the UK, it is William and Catherine sitting next to the Queen and the guests at the banqueting table, the Queen´s children much more down at the sidelines.

Last year Harry accompanied Félipe and Letizia to W. Abbey although elder Royals could have done that, too (on the 3rd and last day of the visit Andrew had an engagement together with them, while Anne, having a share with this job with Princess Michael or the Duchess of Gloucester, accompanied them to the Guildhall). So, the Queen´s children having more prominent roles at state visits than Charles´s sons because they would preceed them is simply not true.

 

[jacqui24]

Official precedence is children of the monarch ahead of grandchildren. That is why Edward and Sophie have a more prominent role at a State Visit - such as escorting the visitors around - than William and Kate. That is precedence.

What you see are family groups sitting together - not precedence. Seating arrangements are just that - seating arrangements.

Members of royal family are seated by precedence, or are supposed to, at official functions. However, as I mentioned, William and Harry are given the exception in reality.

Nonsense, it is a fact that Harry for instance is way up higher than Edward when it comes to succession. So he takes precence over E. When Diana married Charles, it was announced that she was now 3rd lady of the realm - even as a spouse taking precedence over Anne.
Following your theory the seating, as you mentioned it, is purely accidental. But there is nothing "accidental" when it comes to (royal) protocol or etiquette! There is a reason why "minor royals" enter a church, what ever, first, followed by the Queen´s younger children, then William, Harry and their spouses followed by Charles and Camilla and the Queen last. Sitting down and later leaving an event the other way round: 1st the monarch, then heir and his wife, then children of the heir because they took over the place in succession by birth the heir´s siblings had before. AFTER them the heir´s siblings and then so called minor Royals like the Gloucesters and after them the Kents etc.

No, Iluvbertie is right. The official precedence is the the children of monarch first. However, that’s not what they follow in reality when it comes to seating and such. Grandchildren technically do not have precedence over children.

 

[wartenberg7]

Members of royal family are seated by precedence, or are supposed to, at official functions. However, as I mentioned, William and Harry are given the exception in reality.


No, Iluvbertie is right. The official precedence is the the children of monarch first. However, that’s not what they follow in reality when it comes to seating and such. Grandchildren technically do not have precedence over children.

No, this cannot be the case because if the position in the line of succession has nothing to do with precedence, being expressed by who is supposed to sit where and who´s entering first, last etc, then what?!
When Charles and Camilla had been abroad when the Chinese president and his wife paid a state visit to the UK about 3 years ago, William and Catherine picked the presidential couple up to accompany them to Horse Guards Parade to the Queen - a task usually performed by Charles and Camilla - and not the Wessexes, Anne or Andrew /they actually never do that. If both Charles and William and spouses were absent, it would nowadays the Sussexes be to perform this duty, because Harry ranges ABOVE the Queen´s children in the line of succession. That might be strange to the average people, but that´s the way it goes in a monarchy. When you are not the immediate heir, you are slipping down the pecking order every time your elder sibling had a new child.
And that is nothing special about the BRF - that´s the way in other countries, too: Ingrid Alexandra takes precence over Märtha, Kath. Amalia takes precence over Constantijn, little Oscar of Sweden takes precedence over Carl Philip or Madeleine and so on...

 

[Rudolph]

Remember the Commonwealth fashion event at BP earlier this year. Catherine was the first to be received, next was Sophie followed by Beatrice.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...]
And that is nothing special about the BRF - that´s the way in other countries, too: Ingrid Alexandra takes precence over Märtha, Kath. Amalia takes precence over Constantijn, little Oscar of Sweden takes precedence over Carl Philip or Madeleine and so on...

Correct. When Ingrid-Alexandra, Catharina-Amalia and Estelle are adults, we will see them outranking anyone but King & Heir couples in terms of placement and precedence.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And that is nothing special about the BRF - that´s the way in other countries, too: Ingrid Alexandra takes precence over Märtha, Kath. Amalia takes precence over Constantijn, little Oscar of Sweden takes precedence over Carl Philip or Madeleine and so on...

Correct. When Ingrid-Alexandra, Catharina-Amalia and Estelle are adults, we will see them outranking anyone but the King and the Heir in terms of placement and precedence.

The convention is different in some other countries. For instance, Prince Laurent of Belgium appears to take precedence over the children of Princess Astrid, though they outrank him in the line of succession.

Prinses Astrid en Prins Lorenz, Prins Laurent, Prins Amedeo en Prinses Elisabetta, Prinses Luisa Maria, Prinses Maria Laura, Prins Louis, Prins Nikolaus en Prinses Margaretha, Prinses Marie-Astrid, Prinses Maria-Anunciata, Prins Josef-Emmanuel, Prins Guillaume en Prinses Sibilla, Prins Paul-Louis, Prins Léopold, Prinses Charlotte, Gravin Louis-Arnold de Looz-Corswarem, Aartshertog en Aartshertogin Charles-Christian et Marie Astrid, Prinses Léa et dhr. Renaud Bichara, Prinses Maria-Teresa de Bourbon, Graaf en Gravin Jean-Charles Ullens de Schooten Whettnall.

https://www.monarchie.be/nl/agenda/...25ste-verjaardag-van-het-overlijden-van-zijne​

Ingrid Alexandra of Norway, Catharina-Amalia of the Netherlands, and Estelle of Sweden are another matter; they are in the immediate line of succession, while Märtha Louise, Constantijn, and Carl Philip are not. Since children only attend official functions with their parents, it also remains to be seen if Oscar of Sweden will take precedence over Carl Philip when he is an adult.

In Britain, the traditional order of precedence places children of the sovereign over grandchildren of the sovereign. Has Queen Elizabeth II perhaps altered the tradition?

See Debrett's:

Precedence Amongst Gentlemen in England and Wales

The Table of Precedence

The Duke of Edinburgh
The Heir Apparent
The Sovereign’s Younger Sons
The Sovereign’s Grandsons
The Sovereign’s Cousins
Archbishop of Canterbury
Lord High Chancellor
Archbishop of York
[...]

​

 

[wartenberg7]

Remember the Commonwealth fashion event at BP earlier this year. Catherine was the first to be received, next was Sophie followed by Beatrice.

Exactly. And William sat at "table no. 1" with the Queen, not his aunt or uncles.

 

[Somebody]

Remember the Commonwealth fashion event at BP earlier this year. Catherine was the first to be received, next was Sophie followed by Beatrice.

Exactly. And William sat at "table no. 1" with the Queen, not his aunt or uncles.

This disproves your argument. As many have said, William and Harry are the exception as adult children of the heir. If the order of succession was strictly followed Beatrice would have been received prior to Sophie but as she is a grandchild and Sophie the wife of a child, Sophie takes precedence while Edward is lower in the line of succession than Beatrice.

 

[Fijiro]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Remember the Commonwealth fashion event at BP earlier this year. Catherine was the first to be received, next was Sophie followed by Beatrice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wartenberg7 View Post
Exactly. And William sat at "table no. 1" with the Queen, not his aunt or uncles.

This disproves your argument. As many have said, William and Harry are the exception as adult children of the heir. If the order of succession was strictly followed Beatrice would have been received prior to Sophie but as she is a grandchild and Sophie the wife of a child, Sophie takes precedence while Edward is lower in the line of succession than Beatrice.

If the order of succession is strictly followed, if Catherine and Sophie are not accompanied by their spouses, Beatrice outranks both of them.

 

[Somebody]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rudolph View Post
Remember the Commonwealth fashion event at BP earlier this year. Catherine was the first to be received, next was Sophie followed by Beatrice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wartenberg7 View Post
Exactly. And William sat at "table no. 1" with the Queen, not his aunt or uncles.

If the order of succession is strictly followed, if Catherine and Sophie are not accompanied by their spouses, Beatrice outranks both of them.

I'm not sure: if the order of succession is strictly followed (a hypothetical situation) it would not matter whether a spouse was present or not as his place in the order of succession doesn't change.

However, in practice it apparently is the case that princesses of the blood get precedence over their cousins by marriage (I doubt whether that also applies to an aunt who is in a 'higher' category as child(-in-law) of the monarch vs grandchildren.

However, maybe we should move this discussion to the appropriate thread.

 

[wartenberg7]

This disproves your argument. As many have said, William and Harry are the exception as adult children of the heir. If the order of succession was strictly followed Beatrice would have been received prior to Sophie but as she is a grandchild and Sophie the wife of a child, Sophie takes precedence while Edward is lower in the line of succession than Beatrice.

No, it confirms my argument as William is higher in the royal pecking order just by birth than those you claimed they woud proceed.
Beatrice is neither the daughter of the future King nor is she married yet nor does she play an equally active role in the "family firm" like William, Harry or Edward, and by that Sophie for that matter, do. All these things have to be considered when it comes to royal ranking.

 

[wartenberg7]

Quote:
If the order of succession is strictly followed, if Catherine and Sophie are not accompanied by their spouses, Beatrice outranks both of them.

Again, no! Just imagine the following scene: The royal family has to attend a commerotative service at Westm. Abbey and William was suddenly caught by flu. The Queen would of course proceed, after her C. and C. If the Sussexes were in London and also take part, Catherine would probably go with them (the ladies taking Harry in the middle of them), may be she would even escort Charles and Camilla.
After them the Queen´s children proceeded by Andrew and so on and then Beatrice and Eugenie. Sitting down at the high altar, Catherine would be sitting next to Ch. and Camilla, then Harry/ Meghan, while Beatrice would probably sit next to her father in the 2nd row.

If Catherine in this example of William having taken ill would still take part in a state banquet and, no matter how unlikely, Prcss Beatrice also being present, Catherine would certainly not walk in procession after B. into the banqueting room or sit somewhere at the table down below. If Ch. and C. also being there she would sit close to the top table or even at the top table a little bit outside of it, while B. takes her seat at an upper part of the table sideline.

Sophie is a different matter. She is outranked by B. because Andrew, and by that his daughters, too, are in a higher position in the line of succession than Edward is. But if that would mean that Sophie would at an event walk behind the Queen´s grand daughters, sit behind them etc., because her husband was not present, I doubt. I guess she would be escorting Andrew or walk with Anne and T. Laurence, for instance.

 

[Somebody]

No, it confirms my argument as William is higher in the royal pecking order just by birth than those you claimed they woud proceed.
Beatrice is neither the daughter of the future King nor is she married yet nor does she play an equally active role in the "family firm" like William, Harry or Edward, and by that Sophie for that matter, do. All these things have to be considered when it comes to royal ranking.

If the active role people play needs to be considered, we have to conclude that it is not the line of succession that determines their place in the order of succession.

This heraldica article explains all the rules and even includes where these rules stem from. The royal family does not operate in a vacuum, so the way these rules are applied should reflect how precedence works in general. The queen however is free to use a sslightly different order. She in fact has done so: Camilla being downgraded behind Anne and Alexandra -who is way down in the line of succession- but before her other daughters-in-law and granddaughters (including princesses of the royal blood) is just one example. The other example, so an exception to the general rule, are William and Harry being upgraded to the position they would have when their father is king. This same upgrade doesn't apply to the children of the queen's other sons as in general it is not the line of succession that is leading but the relationship to the monarch.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This disproves your argument. As many have said, William and Harry are the exception as adult children of the heir. If the order of succession was strictly followed Beatrice would have been received prior to Sophie but as she is a grandchild and Sophie the wife of a child, Sophie takes precedence while Edward is lower in the line of succession than Beatrice.

No, it confirms my argument as William is higher in the royal pecking order just by birth than those you claimed they woud proceed.
Beatrice is neither the daughter of the future King nor is she married yet nor does she play an equally active role in the "family firm" like William, Harry or Edward, and by that Sophie for that matter, do. All these things have to be considered when it comes to royal ranking.

If that is the case, it confirms that the ranking order does not strictly follow the order of succession.

 

[Rudolph]

“Precedence not regulated by law is substantially that granted at Court and this is a question for the Crown” - Sir Geoffrey Ellis.

In other word Because royals no longer sit in the House of Lords, where the House of Lords act was in effect , it’s up to The Queen to assign precedence at court.

Harry and especially William have been shown to outrank their uncles. Even Catherine appears to keep her precedence in the absence of her husband.

A couple of years back most of the family attended an event at the Royal Albert Hall and Kate was sat as if William was there but he was absent.

 

[Somebody]

“Precedence not regulated by law is substantially that granted at Court and this is a question for the Crown” - Sir Geoffrey Ellis.

In other word Because royals no longer sit in the House of Lords, where the House of Lords act was in effect , it’s up to The Queen to assign precedence at court.

Harry and especially William have been shown to outrank their uncles. Even Catherine appears to keep her precedence in the absence of her husband.

A couple of years back most of the family attended an event at the Royal Albert Hall and Kate was sat as if William was there but he was absent.

Isn't the idea of female precedence that it is applied when no men are present? But when other men are present that all women retain their rank from their husband?

 

[Rudolph]

Well for example when Edward is absent Sophie is sat after the Princess Royal but at the event at the royal Albert Hall, Kate was sat ahead of Anne not after her which happens to Sophie.