Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sean.~ said:
Correct. This was done after WW II in order to limit the size of the Imperial family. At the same time several branches of the family became commoners, as they were stripped of their titles and styles. The only exception is when a princess marries a male member of the Imperial family.

Which, if I'm not mistaken, was the only type of royal marriage ever permitted in the history of the Japanese monarchy. I don't think there has ever been a case of an imperial princess marrying a foreign royal, which would be very difficult to imagine even today.
 
I have a question which hopefully has a simple answer....

What was Sarah Ferguson's correct title when she was married to the duke & what was it changed to after they divorced.

Also if the duke were to remarry what would his new wife's title?
Would it take anything away from Sarah's present title? :confused:
 
When she was married she was HRH the Duchess of York, which is the title that would apply to Andrew's next wife if he remarries. When the Yorks divorced Sarah lost her HRH and became known as Sarah, Duchess of York. She keeps this title, regardless of Andrew's marital status, until she remarries.
 
Last edited:
Elspeth said:
When she was married she was HRH the Duchess of York, which is the title that would apply to Andrew's next wife if he remarries. When the Yorks divorced Sarah lost her HRH and became known as Sarah, Duchess of York. She keeps this title, regardless of Andrew's marital status, until she remarries.

Not quite right. Sarah holds a style which reflects her status as a divorcee of a peer. With divorce, she lost her status as the Duchess of York, which can only be held by the wife of Prince Andrew.
 
Sean.~ said:
The style of Lord can not be passed down since it is a style and not a title. His (legitimate) children will only be "X Windsor", unless of course he is granted a hereditary title sometime in the future.

It will be interesting to see if the Sovereign grants a peerage since this would be the first time in British history that a royal descendant would carry the family name "Windsor", which really doesn't exist since it was made up, instead of some dignity befitting descendants of the blood royal.

Mountbatten was made up too, so I don't think anyone really knows what the royal family's name is. George V was a Saxe-Coburg through his father, Edward VII, and a Glucksburg through Queen Alexandra. Edward VIII and George VI were essentially Saxe-Coburg and Hanovers. Elizabeth II is really only half-royal since the Queen Mother was a Scottish aristocrat, while Philip is essentially a Glucksburg and Hesse-Darmstadt.
 
So does this mean she is back to being plain Sarah Ferguson, ex-wife of duke of York?
Why then does everyone refer to her as the duchess of York still?
 
With divorce, she lost her status as the Duchess of York, which can only be held by the wife of Prince Andrew. With divorce, she lost her status as the Duchess of York, which can only be held by the wife of Prince Andrew.

According to royal.gov, her name has been Sarah, Duchess of York, since her divorce. I didn't say that she was "the Duchess of York" after her divorce, I said that after her divorce she's been known as Sarah, Duchess of York.
 
Last edited:
lashinka2002 said:
So does this mean she is back to being plain Sarah Ferguson, ex-wife of duke of York?
Why then does everyone refer to her as the duchess of York still?

She isn't Sarah Ferguson because that was her maiden name. According to the royal family website, her name was Sarah, Duchess of York, after her divorce.
 
Thank you for the quick response.
So if Andrew remarried his new wife would be "HRH _____ Duchess of York" whereas
Sarah is and would be Sarah, Duchess of York?
Seems a little odd... Am I understanding this right?
 
branchg said:
Which, if I'm not mistaken, was the only type of royal marriage ever permitted in the history of the Japanese monarchy. I don't think there has ever been a case of an imperial princess marrying a foreign royal, which would be very difficult to imagine even today.

They married into the Korean RF.
 
lashinka2002 said:
Thank you for the quick response.
So if Andrew remarried his new wife would be "HRH _____ Duchess of York" whereas
Sarah is and would be Sarah, Duchess of York?
Seems a little odd... Am I understanding this right?

Andrew's new wife would actually be "HRH the Princess Andrew, Duchess of York", or "HRH the Duchess of York". And yes, Sarah would still be styled as she is today as the former wife of a peer, unless of course, the Queen granted her a new style prior to the remarriage.
 
lashinka2002 said:
Thank you for the quick response.
So if Andrew remarried his new wife would be "HRH _____ Duchess of York" whereas
Sarah is and would be Sarah, Duchess of York?
Seems a little odd... Am I understanding this right?

If Andrew remarried, his wife would be HRH the Duchess of York and Sarah would remain Sarah, Duchess of York, until she remarried.
 
Warren said:
OK, we have covered The Duke of York, agree that Camilla has been hard-done-by in regard to Court Precedence, and attempted to explain what little (it seems) we know and understand of what goes on behind the Palace walls. So what's the next topic?

How did those members of the extended Royal Family feel when they were not only rudely stripped of their German Princely titles in 1917, but lost their styles of Serene Highness as well? And to add insult to injury they were demoted in the pecking order to join the ranks of the mere Peerage.

And why the inconsistency of allowing Marie Louise and Helena Victoria of Schleswig-Holstein to remain Princesses, with the style of Highness?
.

I believe George V let them remain Royal Highnesses because they were granddaughters of Queen Victoria.

It is interesting though that he demoted his own wife's family. Perhaps due to the fact that their titles came from morganatic blood he didn't see a problem in "demoting" them because in the eyes of many royals, they were not "royal" to begin with. Queen Alexandra and her daughters always poked fun at Queen Mary by referring to her morganatic blood saying "Poor May with her Wurttenberg hands."
 
Thank you for your responses.
I would hope the queen would grant Sarah a different title should Andrew remarry, but then why would Sarah want a different title than her children?
It seems a little silly that both women would be known as duchesses of york.
 
lashinka2002 said:
Thank you for your responses.
I would hope the queen would grant Sarah a different title should Andrew remarry, but then why would Sarah want a different title than her children?
It seems a little silly that both women would be known as duchesses of york.

Well, I don't think we have to worry too much because it doesn't look like Andrew is interested in remarrying.
 
tiaraprin said:
I believe George V let them remain Royal Highnesses because they were granddaughters of Queen Victoria.

It is interesting though that he demoted his own wife's family. Perhaps due to the fact that their titles came from morganatic blood he didn't see a problem in "demoting" them because in the eyes of many royals, they were not "royal" to begin with. Queen Alexandra and her daughters always poked fun at Queen Mary by referring to her morganatic blood saying "Poor May with her Wurttenberg hands."

George V let his cousins retain the dignity of "Princess", even though they held the title through their father's German style and title, because they were born and raised in England as British subjects.

Also, the King did not "demote" Queen Mary's family, he granted them the style and title of Marquesses in the peerage of the UK, but required they reliniquish using their German styles in the UK. The Tecks were considered to be morganatic in the old hierarchy of German royal protocol with the style of Serene Highness, which Queen Victoria thought was ridiculous since Princess Mary was the grandaughter of George III.
 
branchg said:
George V let his cousins retain the dignity of "Princess", even though they held the title through their father's German style and title, because they were born and raised in England as British subjects.

Also, the King did not "demote" Queen Mary's family, he granted them the style and title of Marquesses in the peerage of the UK, but required they reliniquish using their German styles in the UK. The Tecks were considered to be morganatic in the old hierarchy of German royal protocol with the style of Serene Highness, which Queen Victoria thought was ridiculous since Princess Mary was the grandaughter of George III.


You don't consider going from a Serene Highness to a Marquess a demotion?
 
it is unlikely that Harry would marry an Austrian 'archduchess'
Yes, that's not likely. I was not trying to be realistic, I just wanted an answer.
It is unlikely that a Catholic archduchess would change her faith.
But I think it is likely, would Harry or William want to marry a catholic, that the law should be changed by the Queen. What do you think about that?
Sean.~ said:
Just to clarify, Austria neither has an Emperor or Imperial Highnesses. All titles and styles of nobility are illegal in that country. The Austrian laws are much more stricter on this subject than the German ones. Otto von Hapsburg had to renounce all claims in order to be allowed entry (although his family recognizes this as being out of necessity, and he is still the head of his house). Members of the former ruling house use the Imperial Highness as styles of pretension only.
Does that mean German law recognize styles like HRH. I read somewhere that titles were recognized by German law (that for example Alexandra von Hanover will have Princess von Hanover written on her passport). But I've never read anything about styles. Can you tell me?
Also, about Austria: yes, of course, there's officially no more IH like there's no more RH in Greece, etc. But I really don't think the fact that there no Austrian Emperor anymore will bother The Queen. I believe among royalty, Austrian princes or Archdukes are Imperial Hignesses and are treated as such. I think the same rules don't apply for us commoners and among royalty.
I would really be surprised, considering how the BRF treats the Greek RF, for example, if they did not had the same respect for Austrian Princes.
What are your views on the subject?
 
Laws, Germans, Habsburgs

Idriel said:
But I think it is likely, would Harry or William want to marry a catholic, that the law should be changed by the Queen.
The Queen can't change this law Idriel. The prohibition of Roman Catholics (and those married to Roman Catholics) being in line to the British Crown is laid down by Act of Parliament. Only the Parliament (ie the government of the day) can change the law.
Does that mean German law recognize styles like HRH. I read somewhere that titles were recognized by German law (that for example Alexandra von Hanover will have Princess von Hanover written on her passport).
German law doesn't recognise titles. However people are allowed to make their title part of their surname, hence a passport showing "Alexandra Princessin von Hanover".
But I've never read anything about styles.
Again, German law doesn't recognise styles (eg HRH, HSH etc). However, many people, including members of the government, will still use HRH, HSH etc when addressing a Prince, Duchess, whatever. Good manners, respect for the person or family, old-world charm: all of these I guess. Just as some Greeks would greet former King Constantine as "Your Majesty", and some Serbians would greet Crown Prince Alexander as "Your Royal Highness".
I believe among royalty, Austrian Princes or Archdukes are Imperial Hignesses and are treated as such.
Archdukes and Archduchesses of Austria are styled Imperial and Royal Highness. Among Royalty they certainly would be addressed as such. The Habsurgs are one of the oldest dynasties in Europe. Royalty will always respect Royalty; the fact a family may no longer reign is irrelevant. Royalty is a very exclusive caste; they observe their own traditional social rules amongst themselves.
I would really be surprised, considering how the BRF treats the Greek RF, for example, if they did not had the same respect for Austrian Princes.
The Windsors would treat the Archdukes according to their standing; eg Queen Elizabeth would regard the Archduke Otto as the Head of a Royal [Imperial] House and would accord him the appropriate respect.

Hope this helps Idriel.
.
 
Hope this helps Idriel.
This helps a lot! Thank you very much.
Warren said:
The Queen can't change this law Idriel. The prohibition of Roman Catholics (and those married to Roman Catholics) being in line to the British Crown is laid down by Act of Parliament. Only the Parliament (ie the government of the day) can change the law.
I am very shocked actually. After reading these forum for a while, I was brought to think The Queen was the ultimate reference and could do whatever she wanted. Now I know there's one law she can't change.
Somehow that makes her more human :rolleyes: .
Question: would that change be made by the UK parliament only or would they have to ask Canadian, Australian, etc. parliaments too? And the Commonwealth?
 
Changing the Act of Settlement

Idriel said:
I am very shocked actually. After reading these forum for a while, I was brought to think The Queen was the ultimate reference and could do whatever she wanted. Now I know there's one law she can't change.
Somehow that makes her more human :rolleyes: .
Question: would that change be made by the UK parliament only or would they have to ask Canadian, Australian, etc. parliaments too? And the Commonwealth?
The Queen is a Constitutional Monarch; she reigns but does not rule. The Parliament makes the laws, the Queen gives Royal Assent to approve them. She always acts on the advice of her Prime Minister.

Interesting question about a change to the Act of Settlement. Don't know the answer but I would assume the governments of Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc would certainly be consulted. Just as they were during the Abdication Crisis in 1936.

Changing the Act of Settlement 1702 to lift the bar on Roman Catholics is not as easy as it sounds. The Sovereign is the Head of the Church of England for starters. Another problem is that repeal of the Act would leave the way open for those claimants who are disbarred by their Catholicism. There were many people passed over when the Act provided that only Protestant descendents of Sophia, Electress of Hanover could succeed to the Crown.

The "Representative and Heir of King Charles I of England" is today HRH Franz, Duke of Bavaria, Head of the Royal House of Bavaria. He is unmarried; his brother Duke Max Emanuel's eldest child is Duchess Sophie who is married to Alois, the Hereditary Prince of Liechtenstein. Their eldest son, Prince Joseph Wenzel (b 1995) will one day be not only the Reigning Prince of Liechtenstein but the "legitimate" heir of Charles I and thus "rightful" King of Great Britain (in the eyes of Stuart legitimists).

The government of the United Kingdom has not shown any serious interest in addressing the legal issues involved in amending/repealing the Act of Settlement. Perhaps it is all too complex with any number of possible unexpected and unwelcome repercussions!
.
 
Last edited:
Warren said:
The Queen can't change this law Idriel. The prohibition of Roman Catholics (and those married to Roman Catholics) being in line to the British Crown is laid down by Act of Parliament. Only the Parliament (ie the government of the day) can change the law.

German law doesn't recognise titles. However people are allowed to make their title part of their surname, hence a passport showing "Alexandra Princessin von Hanover".

Again, German law doesn't recognise styles (eg HRH, HSH etc). However, many people, including members of the government, will still use HRH, HSH etc when addressing a Prince, Duchess, whatever. Good manners, respect for the person or family, old-world charm: all of these I guess. Just as some Greeks would greet former King Constantine as "Your Majesty", and some Serbians would greet Crown Prince Alexander as "Your Royal Highness".

Archdukes and Archduchesses of Austria are styled Imperial and Royal Highness. Among Royalty they certainly would be addressed as such. The Habsurgs are one of the oldest dynasties in Europe. Royalty will always respect Royalty; the fact a family may no longer reign is irrelevant. Royalty is a very exclusive caste; they observe their own traditional social rules amongst themselves.
The Windsors would treat the Archdukes according to their standing; eg Queen Elizabeth would regard the Archduke Otto as the Head of a Royal [Imperial] House and would accord him the appropriate respect.

Hope this helps Idriel.
.

I guess you answered all of Idriel's questions for me. QEII would accord Otto the status of the head of his house, but is the precedence that might be given to any of the numerous cadet members of the family is questionable, as is royal recognition in future generation. Members of the family *bore* the style of Imperial Highness during the time of the monarchy. These are now titles and styles of pretension only. Some royal courts may continue (now and in the future) to choose to accord them this dignity if they so wish, while others may not. It is all a matter of courtesy, and not diplomacy (although the Austrian government and people might get upset).

Additionally, my point was that there is little contact between the BRF and the Hapsburgs. They are not closely related like they are with the former GRF. Moreover, the Hapsburgs are much more removed from their throne (1918) compared to the GRF (1970s).

With regards to titles, they are illegal in Germany, too, but this has been circumvented somewhat by making a title ones last name. This isn't possible in Austria. The ban on titles and styles is much more strict. Many of the Hapsburgs are still not allowed in the country ( or weren't until recently), and they would not be allowed to use their titles and styles in Austria.
 
Last edited:
The government of the United Kingdom has not shown any serious interest in addressing the legal issues involved in amending/repealing the Act of Settlement. Perhaps it is all too complex with any number of possible unexpected and unwelcome repercussions



Oh, that would be easy. You would just change it from the present going forwards, leaving the past untouched.

There is, unfortunately, excellent reason to believe that both the CofE and the Queen's position as its Head will soon be disestablished. I am quite sure that in my own lifetime changes to the UK monarchy will include a) getting rid of male precedence in the line of succession, a la Sweden, and b) getting rid of the ban on Catholics.
 
Andrew's new wife would actually be "HRH the Princess Andrew, Duchess of York", or "HRH the Duchess of York".

Huh? I don't understand this comment, I thought we had put this issue to bed?

We have established by the Duke of York's site on Buckingham Palace's site that the title is HRH the Duke of York. He ceased to be known as HRH The Prince Andrew upon his marriage and his being created The Duke of York. A future wife would be HRH The Duchess of York, not HRH The Princess Andrew, Duchess of York. There is no such title.

The Royal Family > HRH The Duke of York > Background

Named Andrew Albert Christian Edward, he was known as Prince Andrew until his marriage, when he was created The Duke of York, Earl of Inverness and Baron Killyleagh.

This is standard in the Royal Family. When a higher title is created, the former title ceases to be used. This is not only the case for the Duke of York, but for all members of the Royal Family:

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. Her Royal Highness is the seventh holder of the title.

Edited to add one more section illustrating the same point:

The Royal Family > HRH The Countess of Wessex > Marriage and family


On the day of the wedding, it was announced that The Queen had conferred the titles of The Earl of Wessex and Viscount Severn upon The Prince Edward. Therefore, upon her marriage Miss Rhys-Jones became Her Royal Highness The Countess of Wessex.


I hope that's definitive enough. For the avoidance of doubt, it should be noted that this website is not a private site of the British Royal Family, it is an official government website as evidenced by the .gov in the web address.

Sarah, Duchess of York is correctly addressed as 'Duchess'. I have not been able to work out if this is the correct style for every divorced Duchess or a style granted her as an exceptional case by direct wish of the Queen.
 
Last edited:
Lashinka,


Thank you for your responses.
I would hope the queen would grant Sarah a different title should Andrew remarry, but then why would Sarah want a different title than her children?
It seems a little silly that both women would be known as duchesses of york.

IMO, Sarah is not remarrying because she does not wish to lose her title as Sarah, Duchess of York and the right to be addressed as 'Duchess'. There have been several times she appears to have come close but the 'duchess' bit of her style goes away with remarriage. Diana's mother was plain Mrs. somebody after remarriage having been countess Spencer.

I think titles are somewhat addictive. Look at how interested we all are on this forum!
 
It should be remembered that Andrew really loved Sarah. I have no idea why she did what she did to him, but he was devesated. I hope he does remarry. I can understand why at present he may be a little gunshy.

It would be great if he could have a couple of sons. I love the titles of junior Princes and their wives. Imagine a future HRH Princess Rupert of York (or whatever)!
 
Frothy said:
Huh? I don't understand this comment, I thought we had put this issue to bed?

We have established by the Duke of York's site on Buckingham Palace's site that the title is HRH the Duke of York. He ceased to be known as HRH The Prince Andrew upon his marriage and his being created The Duke of York. A future wife would be HRH The Duchess of York, not HRH The Princess Andrew, Duchess of York. There is no such title.

The Royal Family > HRH The Duke of York > Background



This is standard in the Royal Family. When a higher title is created, the former title ceases to be used. This is not only the case for the Duke of York, but for all members of the Royal Family:

The Royal Family > HRH The Princess Royal > Background



Edited to add one more section illustrating the same point:

The Royal Family > HRH The Countess of Wessex > Marriage and family





I hope that's definitive enough. For the avoidance of doubt, it should be noted that this website is not a private site of the British Royal Family, it is an official government website as evidenced by the .gov in the web address.

Sarah, Duchess of York is correctly addressed as 'Duchess'. I have not been able to work out if this is the correct style for every divorced Duchess or a style granted her as an exceptional case by direct wish of the Queen.





However, for The Duke of Edinburgh the story is slight different.
The title of his biography on the official site is: HRH Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (which is wrong, because he was given the article "the" before the "Prince").
Then the biography states:
In February 1957 it was announced that The Queen had granted to The Duke of Edinburgh the style and dignity of a Prince of the United Kingdom, and that in future he would be known as 'The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh'.
http://http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page443.asp

So, HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is his official title.

I wonder if this has anything to do to with the fact that he was created a prince of the UK after he was given the dukedom. :confused:
 
So, HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh is his official title.

I wonder if this has anything to do to with the fact that he was created a prince of the UK after he was given the dukedom. :confused:



Yes, I would imagine so. As I said, in the UK the higher title is always used. Philip was first created Duke of Edinburgh etc, and allowed to use the *style* Royal Highness, by George VI. (Not sure whether this was in deference to the royal Greek/Danish title which he had renounced prior).But at that time he did not have the rank of Prince of the UK. It was his wife, however, who made him a Prince of the United Kingdom after her accession. So that title ranked higher, and he became HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh.



I hope that when Edward succeeds to the Duchy of Edinburgh he will reconsider and allow Louise to be HRH Princess Louise of Edinburgh. That is a beautiful title, and it would be great to have a specifically Scottish-named princess. Of course Camilla is Princess of Scotland and the Isles, but it's all about the actual name you use and that's in common use.
 
Last edited:
I have a Philip precedence question. Has it been decided what his precedence will be should the Queen predecease him?

And another title question. Why was he not made Prince Consort? I read the answer to that someplace but I forgot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom