Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022

[branchg]

I do wonder why they've made this public, though, as long as it doesn't affect anything except private business. Certainly the Queen can decide who sits where at the table and who gets offered sherry before who, and who opens Christmas presents first or whatever, but do the rest of us need to know that, as long as it's only what goes on within the family? Making it public does seem to be a way to obliquely letting people know that Camilla's been subtlely downgraded. And if that wasn't the intention, it does seem to have been the effect.

I agree. It seems very odd as court precedence is not something the Household would comment on publicly. In my opinion, I think it is a subtle signal from the Queen to the public that while she accepted the marriage and welcomed Camilla into the fold, she did not wholly embrace her.

The Queen was certainly very reluctant indeed to consent to the marriage, so perhaps this is inevitable in light of her feelings about it. Prince Harry was said to be very unhappy about the marriage and this could be a factor as well.

 

[Frothy]

Branchq,

All you do is make my point for me. The webpage from Debrett's you gave merely lists first the actual title and then the names, second, to show what names the Prince(ss) in question has. If you click on Beatrice or Eugenie, for example, you will see their Christian names similiary listed; HRH Beatrice Anne Louise (or whatever it is).

The webpage does not add "of York" because all it is doing is giving the names. We know that Bea's title is not HRH Princess Beatrice but HRH Princess Beatrice of York, reflecting her father's royal ducal dignity.

Go back to the 'Royal Connections' page which links to the individual page you brough up for the Duke of York. What does it do? Lists the line of succession with the Prince(ss)- es names in brackets underneath. HRH The Duke of York, it says, and then underneath in brackets (Prince Andrew).

We need to get it clearly understood that there is NO title HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York. His title is HRH The Duke of York. The sole website you have provided supports me, not you, on this matter; it gives the address to write to the Prince as HRH the Duke of York; lists his title as such in the line of succession, etc. In terms of writing, it clearly states a royal Duke is written to as HRH the Duke of ---X. The reason it lists the son of the sovereign and gives HRH The Prince Edward as an example is because that page was written before Edward was made Earl of Wessex; there is instruction on how to write to a royal duke but nothing about a royal earl or countess; royal earls and countesses are mentioned nowhere on the page, so at the time, Edward was still simply The Prince Edward. (Duke has a footnote 'for Dukes of the blood royal see Prince' - nothing similiar under Earl).

Anyway, I have in this thread given you links to Buckingham Palace's own website and to the Court Circular, issued by Buckingham Palace. Both list the Duke of York solely as HRH The Duke of York. Unsurprising, because that is his title.

If you are not prepared to accept the view of Buckingham Palace's own website and court-issued documents as to what his title is, then I submit that you are never going to be convinced by anything and certainly not by anything I post.

I don't know why we can't agree to let Buckingham Palace have the last word. The Royal Family But I accept the combined assurances of BP, the Court Circular Court circular - Comment - Times Online and Debrett's Debrett's - The Royal Family and the Order of Succession

that the title is HRH The Duke of York.

If you keep insisting that there's such a title as HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York I'll just keep disagreeing with you, but I think I'll let the folks make up their own minds at this point as we are going in circles.

 

[Frothy]

One more thing. If you follow the drop-down menu from Buck Palace to HRH The Duke of York, this is what you get:

The Royal Family > HRH The Duke of York > Background

BACKGROUND

The Duke of York was born on 19 February 1960 at Buckingham Palace, the second son and the third child of The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh.

He was the first child to be born to a reigning monarch for 103 years.

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.

I hope that can put an end to it - you were right about the divorced Duchess not being called Your Grace, but I'm right about this one

 

[Frothy]

OK. That bold thing again. I did not bold that line. Warren kindly pmed me and told me to go back and edit, bold the whole thing and un-bold it, but that didn't work. I did not emphasise that last line. Apologies for how it came out.

 

[Frothy]

Re: private precedence.

This is another example of what I mean by messed up titles and precedence. Under what universe does it make sense for Camilla to rank before wives of the princes but after the blood princesses? doesn't that mean that wives of the princes themselves rank after the blood princesses? Which, itself, means that the Queen is commenting adversely on the very status of marriage itself. The wives are being denied the rank of their husbands, not just Camilla, but Sophie too. The Duchess of Gloucester should have the rank of the Duke and so forth.

 

[branchg]

Re: private precedence.

This is another example of what I mean by messed up titles and precedence. Under what universe does it make sense for Camilla to rank before wives of the princes but after the blood princesses? doesn't that mean that wives of the princes themselves rank after the blood princesses? Which, itself, means that the Queen is commenting adversely on the very status of marriage itself. The wives are being denied the rank of their husbands, not just Camilla, but Sophie too. The Duchess of Gloucester should have the rank of the Duke and so forth.

Frothy,

All of these things become very arcane when you do not fully understand the interaction between history, precedence, Parliamentary law and the British constitutional monarchy. Hang it up.

 

[tiaraprin]

This is getting so tired. Branchg and Frothy, argue it out in Private Messaging.

 

[Elspeth]

As long as people are arguing on topic and staying civil, there's no problem with continuing the conversation on the threads. On the other hand, there do seem to be indications that things are getting a bit less than civil. Invitations to "hang it up" are out of line. Obviously we have two people who don't agree, but there's no productivity in one just claiming that the other doesn't know what he's talking about.

If there's going to be no more topics of any substance, just personal insults, I'll close the thread rather than have it degenerate.

 

[Frothy]

Excuse me Tiparin, but after providing some proof of The Duke of York's title from the BRF's own website I did say I was done. FWIW, I do agree that the topic's done now (the Duke of York, that is. Precedence as such still interests me).

I want to say that I think branchq is a fount of knowledge, in general, and have enjoyed reading his/her posts both before de-lurking and after.

 

[branchg]

Excuse me Tiparin, but after providing some proof of The Duke of York's title from the BRF's own website I did say I was done. FWIW, I do agree that the topic's done now (the Duke of York, that is. Precedence as such still interests me).

I want to say that I think branchq is a fount of knowledge, in general, and have enjoyed reading his/her posts both before de-lurking and after.

I'm not trying to insult you, Frothy, and I enjoy your responses. I think we can agree the discussion on this subject is done.

 

[tiaraprin]

Excuse me Tiparin, but after providing some proof of The Duke of York's title from the BRF's own website I did say I was done. FWIW, I do agree that the topic's done now (the Duke of York, that is. Precedence as such still interests me).

I want to say that I think branchq is a fount of knowledge, in general, and have enjoyed reading his/her posts both before de-lurking and after.

I'm sorry Frothy and Branchq. It seemed you both were getting quite annoyed. It seemed like a game of "one-upmanship". If it wasn't, I am sorry. That was the way it was coming across to me. My apologies.

 

[Warren]

What's next?

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?
.

 

[Warren]

The Queen's Favour

Re: private precedence.
This is another example of what I mean by messed up titles and precedence. Under what universe does it make sense for Camilla to rank before wives of the princes but after the blood princesses? .

How about another way of looking at Court Precedence...
The Queen has decided that in her household her only daughter The Princess Royal and the recently widowed, dutiful and highly respected Princess Alexandra will be shown not just "due deference", but extra deference (or honour or favour) within the family. This is The Queen's wish, this is how things will be ordered, and within the Royal Family these rules of precedence will be followed. As simple as that.
.

 

[branchg]

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?
.

Well, they weren't actually stripped of their titles by George V since their German princely and ducal styles would still apply if they were living in Germany. The effect was to forbid his relatives who spent all their lives in England from using their German courtesy titles and assuming new peerages or styles as granted by the King.

As male-line granddaughters of the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein and Queen Victoria, Princesses Helena Victoria and Marie Louise were styled Serene Highness since they took their dignity from their father, Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein, who married Queen Victoria's fifth child, Princess Helena. However, Queen Victoria granted the style of Highness in 1866 to any children born of the marriage of Prince and Princess Christian of Schleswig-Holstein.

She also granted the style of Royal Highness to Prince Christian a few days before their wedding. Their children were still Princes or Princess of Schleswig-Holstein and the style was only in effect in the UK, not in Germany, but they were granted additional dignities by the Queen.

George V issued a Royal Warrant in 1917 directing his cousins to stop using the Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Augustenburg ducal styles in the UK. He never formally granted them the titles of Princesses of GB, but permitted them to continue to use the dignity since they spent their entire life in the UK, not Germany.

 

[Warren]

S-H-S-A and Anhalt

As male-line granddaughters of the Duke of Schleswig-Holstein and Queen Victoria, Princesses Helena Victoria and Marie Louise were styled Serene Highness since they took their dignity from their father, Prince Christian of Schleswig-Holstein. However, Queen Victoria granted the style of Highness in 1866 to any children born of the marriage.
She also granted the style of Royal Highness to Prince Christian a few days before their wedding. Their children were still Princes or Princess of Schleswig-Holstein and the style was only in effect in the UK, not in Germany.
He never formally granted them the titles of Princesses of GB, but permitted them to continue to use the dignity since they spent their entire life in the UK, not Germany.

Thanks branchg! Now we have a new topic...
No idea of the answers, but I wonder what sort of precedence the German-titled members of the extended Royal Family had. eg Princess Helena Victoria, although a granddaughter of the late Monarch was up until 1917 a Princess of S-H-S-A, but then continued to be a Princess, but "of nothing". If these styles were legit in the UK, how would they be recognised in Germany? Or would the Empire and each Kingdom, Grand Duchy, Principality etc have its own rules of recognition?

Princess Marie Louise is much more interesting. Married to the (probably gay) Prince Aribert of Anhalt in 1891, she was divorced in 1900 with the support or at least sympathy of Queen Victoria - divorce may have been relatively unusual, but did happen! But the good part of this story is that Prince Aribert's father, Friedrich I, Duke of Anhalt, exercised his rights as a medieval Sovereign Prince to annul the marriage. I wonder if Princess Caroline of Monaco wished her father had such powers when she was battling the Vatican to obtain her annulment!
.

 

[branchg]

Thanks branchg! Now we have a new topic...
No idea of the answers, but I wonder what sort of precedence the German-titled members of the extended Royal Family had. eg Princess Helena Victoria, although a granddaughter of the late Monarch was up until 1917 a Princess of S-H-S-A, but then continued to be a Princess, but "of nothing". If these styles were legit in the UK, how would they be recognised in Germany? Or would the Empire and each Kingdom, Grand Duchy, Principality etc have its own rules of recognition?

I would imagine Princess Helena and Princess Louise, as grandaughters of HM Queen Victoria in the female line, would have taken precedence after the children of George V and Queen Mary and the surviving children of Queen Victoria. Although not formally princesses of GB, they still held the style with the assent of George V.

The granting of British honours, such as Royal Highness or Highness, meant nothing in the German principalities, duchies and states, especially since Helena and Louise, like their Battenberg cousins, were born German princesses and styled after their father's titles and dignities. But, since so many of Victoria's children married German princes and dukes, but lived their entire lives in England with their children, I would think Victoria's gifts of dignity and title meant a great deal to them as British subjects.

 

[Idriel]

The general rule is that a woman may not be reduced in rank by a marriage, only raised in rank. Recently this was extended to allow armigerous women to keep the right to use their coat of arms (in a lozenge) upon their marriage "beneath them" as it were to a non-armigerous man. Previously a woman in this situation would have lost her right to her arms.

And if William marries an Imperial Highness (a Japanese princess for example), what happens?

 

[Idriel]

Upon the deaths of the current Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, their eldest sons will still hold a royal dukedom with the style of His Grace, not HRH.

Will Lord Frederick Windsor be known as HRH the Prince of Kent when his father die? And what about Gabriella?

 

[iowabelle]

Answers to questions

Wow, that would be interesting if William took an interest in a Japanese princess! (Probably not in this universe, though. ) I don't know the answer, but my guess is that the Princess would keep her "Imperial Highness" and then match William's place in the order of precedence in Britain.

As for Frederick and Gabriella, I think they will continue as Lord Frederick Windsor and Lady Gabriella Windsor (or whatever her married name will be), and never Prince Frederick of Kent for Freddy, and certainly neither will be an HRH under the letter of patent in 1917. Right?

 

[Elspeth]

"Will Lord Frederick Windsor be known as HRH the Prince of Kent when his father die? And what about Gabriella?"

They will continue to be known by their current names; the only thing that would change Lady Gabriella's name is marriage, when she'd become known as Lady Gabriella Newlastname unless her husband has a higher rank, in which case she'd be known as The Duchess of Whatever or Princess Gabriella or something. Far as I know, as the son of a younger son and as someone too distant from the direct line of descent from a monarch to become HRH, Lord Frederick will keep his title as is.

 

[branchg]

Wow, that would be interesting if William took an interest in a Japanese princess! (Probably not in this universe, though. ) I don't know the answer, but my guess is that the Princess would keep her "Imperial Highness" and then match William's place in the order of precedence in Britain.

As for Frederick and Gabriella, I think they will continue as Lord Frederick Windsor and Lady Gabriella Windsor (or whatever her married name will be), and never Prince Frederick of Kent for Freddy, and certainly neither will be an HRH under the letter of patent in 1917. Right?

Technically, a Japanese princess with the style of Imperial Highness would be permitted to hold the style of Imperial and Royal Highness upon marriage to William, however, this would have to be decided upon between the Emperor and the Queen, with the approval of both Governments.

Lord Frederick Windsor is correctly styled, although I'm not sure if he will be able to pass his courtesy style to his children. Lady Gabriella would retain her style unless she married a man of superior rank or voluntarily relinquished it with marriage to a commoner.

 

[Idriel]

Thank you for the answers.

Frothy,

I'm very sorry to bring the Yorks back here but I was wondering why on the Debbrett's site they present Andrew as:
YORK, HRH The Duke of; HRH The Prince Andrew Albert Christian Edward
But Bea is:
YORK, HRH Princess Beatrice of; Princess Beatrice Elizabeth Mary

Why not YORK, HRH Princess Beatrice of; HRH Princess Beatrice Elizabeth Mary, like her dad.

BTW, this tread is great!

 

[Idriel]

Technically, a Japanese princess with the style of Imperial Highness would be permitted to hold the style of Imperial and Royal Highness upon marriage to William, however, this would have to be decided upon between the Emperor and the Queen, with the approval of both Governments.

Thank you.
Austria has no longer a emperor but still has Imperial highnesses.
If Harry (let's change a bit) was to marry an Austrian princess, with whom this matter will be discussed? The senior prince (or Grand -Duke, I'm not sure , I'm a neophyte).

 

[branchg]

Thank you.
Austria has no longer a emperor but still has Imperial highnesses.
If Harry (let's change a bit) was to marry an Austrian princess, with whom this matter will be discussed? The senior prince (or Grand -Duke, I'm not sure , I'm a neophyte).

It would be decided between the Queen and the Head of the Imperial House of Hapsburg, currently HIRH Archduke Dr. Otto von Hapsburg. And, the Queen would still need to consult with the Prime Minister for advice.

 

[Elspeth]

At the moment, Japanese princesses lose their titles when they marry, at least when they marry commoners. I don't think it'd be any different if they married foreign royal or serene highnesses or aristocrats.

 

[iowabelle]

I forgot, Elspeth, I think you're right.

It's curious that the Japanese princesses lose their titles and formally cease to be members of the Royal Family when they marry commoners. And if a Japanese princess were to marry William, technically that would be a step down for the princess since she's an "Imperial Highness" and William is merely a "Royal Highness." So she'd probably lose her title anyway.

Anyone up for discussing the Japanese order of precedence? JUST KIDDING!

 

[Sean.~]

Thank you.
Austria has no longer a emperor but still has Imperial highnesses.
If Harry (let's change a bit) was to marry an Austrian princess, with whom this matter will be discussed? The senior prince (or Grand -Duke, I'm not sure , I'm a neophyte).

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.

Additionally, it is unlikely that Harry would marry an Austrian 'archduchess' because a). he probably doesn't know any, and b). because an Austrian 'archduchess' would, most likely, be a Catholic. Members of the BRF are not allowed to marry Catholics without losing their place in the succession.

It is unlikely that a Catholic archduchess would change her faith.

 

[Sean.~]

At the moment, Japanese princesses lose their titles when they marry, at least when they marry commoners. I don't think it'd be any different if they married foreign royal or serene highnesses or aristocrats.

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.

 

[Sean.~]

Technically, a Japanese princess with the style of Imperial Highness would be permitted to hold the style of Imperial and Royal Highness upon marriage to William, however, this would have to be decided upon between the Emperor and the Queen, with the approval of both Governments.

Lord Frederick Windsor is correctly styled, although I'm not sure if he will be able to pass his courtesy style to his children. Lady Gabriella would retain her style unless she married a man of superior rank or voluntarily relinquished it with marriage to a commoner.

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.

 

[Sean.~]

I hope that can put an end to it - you were right about the divorced Duchess not being called Your Grace, but I'm right about this one

I've just now read this exchange regarding the Duke of York. As a lay expert on these things, I can state with some authoriy that Frothy is correct, there is no such title as HRH The Prince Andrew, the Duke of York. He is HRH the Duke of York.