Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022

[Elspeth]

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.

It's usually the way things work out when a man is divorced and remarries. The first Mrs Smith is still Mrs Smith; the fact that there's a second Mrs Smith doesn't alter that. It's been traditional for a married woman to be Mrs John Smith but a divorced one to use her own first name, but these days it's much less likely that women wish to be known by their husbands' names, so the distinction is getting less clear. On the other hand, since so many married women are using their maiden names nowadays, it helps distinguish who's who.

 

[Idriel]

And another title question. Why was he not made Prince Consort? I read the answer to that someplace but I forgot.

Here what I found on the internet (I have no idea how reliable this site is through):

Unlike the wife of a British monarch, there is no corresponding role for the husband of a reigning Queen. In compensation, the Queen allowed Philip a free hand in the upbringing of their children, allowing Philip to decide on their education and future careers.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh#Consort

I think Victoria created the title Prince Consort for Albert because she was so in love with him and wanted to give him a special status. But according to this site, that title is not automatically granted to the spouse of a Queen.

I have a Philip precedence question. Has it been decided what his precedence will be should the Queen predecease him?

From the same source:

After her accession to the throne, the Queen also announced that the Duke was to have place, pre-eminence and precedence next to the Queen on all occasions and in all meetings, except where otherwise provided by Act of Parliament. This means the Duke is the first gentleman of the land, and takes precedence over his son, the Prince of Wales.

I guess King Charles would be the only person allowed to change that. But truly I'm clueless so I let place to the experts.
I also think that's a nice gesture from the Queen to allow Philip to be above his son in hierarchy.
I know in Denmark it's not the case and that Henry did "runaway" once because he was upset Frederick took precedence on him during the absence of the Queen.
Kind of funny!

 

[ElisaR]

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.[...]

Perhaps this is the reason. Now I remember that also the late Duchess of Gloucester had such a title: Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester.
However, it's difficult to establish what title is more important, as the dignity of prince/princess and a peerage are two different things. I think that UK princes are given peerages because "prince" is only a courtesy title (I read somewhere).
Philip is usually (or always?) called The Duke of Edinburgh. We could say this is his other official title.
On the other hand it always was Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester (also on Debrett's), but this was to distinguish them from her daughter-in-law.

There was a very interesting difference in name and occupation between Philip and Charles on his... I don't know the name: the document of the marriage with signatures of bride, groom and witnesses...
I saw a picture of it, but I can't find it anymore. It's very interesting.

 

[branchg]

People are getting confused between the difference between how you are styled and your formal name and titles. All sons of the sovereign under letters patent are entitled to be prince of the UK with the style of HRH. As a matter of practice, the Sovereign usually grants each son a dukedom with subsidiary peerages upon marriage in order to provide a new family line and style for their descendants, who lose the right to carry the prefix Royal Highness after the first generation, but continue to hold a royal peerage through the eldest male with the style of a peer.

They are then addressed by their ducal style "HRH the Duke of York", which is their title, but remain "HRH the Prince Andrew" as well. When they marry, their wives become princesses of the UK with the style of HRH and addressed by their peerage titles.

 

[branchg]

Prince Philip is another strange situation. When he married Princess Elizabeth, he was granted the style of HRH by George VI and received the title "Duke of Edinburgh". This was controversial at the time since there has never been a royal duke carrying the style of Royal Highness who was not a prince of the UK as the son or grandson of the Sovereign. In 1957, the Queen granted him the dignity of Prince of the UK and declared his style to be "HRH the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh".

All royal dukes carrying the style of Royal Highness are princes of the UK, which takes precedence over all other dignities since they are sons and grandsons of the Sovereign. As a matter of form, they are usually styled after their peerage because their children will carry the family "name" through the eldest son (if any, otherwise the peerage returns to the Crown). In successive generations, the eldest male descendant remains a duke of the blood royal with the style of His Grace, but not Royal Highness.

 

[iowabelle]

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?

I think that the much of the courtesy extended to the Greeks has to do with their family ties to Prince Philip.

 

[iowabelle]

Diana's mother was plain Mrs. somebody after remarriage having been countess Spencer.

Diana's mother never got to be Countess Spencer. The marriage ended while she was Viscountess Althorp.

 

[branchg]

I think that the much of the courtesy extended to the Greeks has to do with their family ties to Prince Philip.

Yes, and also the fact that Constantine and Anne-Marie also live in London, so the Queen has the opportunity to see them much more than the Austrian imperial family. But she treats all of the heads of the various royal houses, whether reigning or not, with the same courtesy she herself receives as Sovereign. This is royal protocol.

 

[Sean.~]

Yes, and also the fact that Constantine and Anne-Marie also live in London, so the Queen has the opportunity to see them much more than the Austrian imperial family. But she treats all of the heads of the various royal houses, whether reigning or not, with the same courtesy she herself receives as Sovereign. This is royal protocol.

Not really. Many of the so-called heads of royal houses wouldn't even be allowed anywhere near the interior of Buckingham Palace, let alone the Queen.

 

[branchg]

Not really. Many of the so-called heads of royal houses wouldn't even be allowed anywhere near the interior of Buckingham Palace, let alone the Queen.

This is very true, however, with regard to the German ducal and princely families, the Queen has often received them privately at Balmoral via Prince Philip or Lady Pamela Hicks at her home. Most the remaining houses are Catholic or Orthodox and traditionally very distant from the British monarch as Head of the Church of England.

 

[branchg]

You don't consider going from a Serene Highness to a Marquess a demotion?

No, because their German dignities and styles were meaningless since they were British and the Weimar Republic abolished all of their styles, titles and status anyway after World War I ended and the Prussian Emperor was exiled to Holland. They retained the honour of British peerages under the Sovereign.

 

[Frothy]

Hi branchq,

Yes, perhaps where we have been posting at cross-purposes:

sAs a matter of practice, the Sovereign usually grants each son a dukedom with ubsidiary peerages upon marriage in order to provide a new family line and style for their descendants, who lose the right to carry the prefix Royal Highness after the first generation, but continue to hold a royal peerage through the eldest male with the style of a peer.

They are then addressed by their ducal style "HRH the Duke of York", which is their title, but remain "HRH the Prince Andrew" as well. When they marry, their wives become princesses of the UK with the style of HRH and addressed by their peerage titles

My concern here has not been with princely rights, for I assure you I fully agree with you about the dignity of Prince of the UK, Where we are disagreeing is, I think, on the title or style. The child of the Sovererign under letters Patent has the right to be a Prince(ss) of the UK with the style HRH. Where you and I apparenly disagree, that is if I am reading you correctly which I might not be, is that you are interpreting that grant to read that the HRH/Princely style must include the Christian names of the Prince(ss) in question.

On the contrary it seems from the BRF website that Christian names are only used with the Prince(ss)s style where no higher dignity applies.

It seems that the BRF website very explicitly states in all cases that once the higher title was granted, the style that used the Christian name was retired: Andrew ceased to be HRH The Prince Andrew, certainly it is explicitly stated that Anne ceaed to be HRH The Princess Anne, and Edward ceased to be HRH The Prince Edward.

Thier rights as HRHs and Prince(ss)es of the blood royal under the 1917 letters are not affected. Where we are disagreeing is over the title. the HRH + Christian name ceased to be used, and became incorrect to be used, where a royal ducal or royal earoal (?) dignity, a higher dignity, had been put in its place. That is why we have what we have in the BRF website for the Countess of Wessex, see above. She was not The Princess Edward because he had become HRH The Earl of Wessex, thus, as it says explicitly, she became HRH The Countess of Wessex, and *not* HRH The Princess Edward.

What all this proves is that there is no title HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York (and subsquently HRH The Princess Andrew) but that the title is only, and solely, HRH The Duke of York.

HRH The Prince Andrew, Duke of York is not a real title, is not official, and actually does not exist; the Prince in question bears the official title HRH The Duke of York and no other (unless we are talking subsidiary titles).

 

[Frothy]

re:styling a male consort of the Monarch. Remember that 'Prince Consort' is not the highest style available to the Queen in question. There have been King Consorts of both England and Scotland. Phillip II of Spain was King Consort of England (Mary I) and Boswell was King Consort of Scotland (Mary, Queen of Scots).


I do not understand given this why the title of Consort (Prince or King) was denied to Phillip.

 

[Frothy]

Iowabelle,

thanks for the heads-up on Viscountess Althorp, I didn't know.

Elspeth

It's usually the way things work out when a man is divorced and remarries. The first Mrs Smith is still Mrs Smith; the fact that there's a second Mrs Smith doesn't alter that. It's been traditional for a married woman to be Mrs John Smith but a divorced one to use her own first name, but these days it's much less likely that women wish to be known by their husbands' names, so the distinction is getting less clear. On the other hand, since so many married women are using their maiden names nowadays, it helps distinguish who's who.

Yes - as a married woman, I use my married and maiden names interchangeably depending on the occaision - my maiden as a professional name and my married as a social name. Royal women and men even do the same (Edward).

But I don't see that a divorced woman should be shamed or forced into using her maiden name if she doesn't want to. To use the maiden name would be inaccurate unless it has been her constant choice. She *has* been married and there may be legititimate children of the marriage. Sarah is not Sarah Ferguson, she is Sarah, Duchess of York, correctly greeted as 'Duchess' and mother of two Princesses of York. She has the rights to her ducal style as written because a divorcee is not the same as a single woman. The fact she is mother to two Princesses proves it!

 

[branchg]

There is no higher dignity than being a prince of the UK, except being HM the King. Being granted a dukedom, or other peerage, is designed to grant an additional title to pass down to your male descendants, who cannot hold the style of Royal Highness after the death of your son, but will continue to hold the royal style as long as there is an eldest male to inherit the title.

The new peerage becomes your new style and you are then correctly addressed and titled as "HRH the Duke of Whatever", but that doesn't mean you lose the dignity of HRH the Prince Christian Name, which is yours at birth under letters patent as a son of the sovereign.

So, for example, Andrew was born "HRH the Prince Andrew", but styled and titled "HRH the Duke of York" upon marriage. Sarah, as his wife, became "HRH the Princess Andrew", but since Andrew held a peerage, was correctly styled and titled as "HRH the Duchess of York". The dignity of Royal Highness is hers because she married a prince of the UK, not because he is Duke of York.

So this is the only point I was trying to make. The dukedom of York is not "higher" than the precedence held by Andrew as a prince of the UK and HRH. It is simply his correct title as a royal duke.

 

[Warren]

Unhappy Battenbergs

You don't consider going from a Serene Highness to a Marquess a demotion?

Well, yes! Even worse for Prince Leopold of Battenberg. Not only did he lose his Princely title, but also his style of Highness, and at the stroke of a pen became Lord Leopold Mountbatten. If I had a Princely title and had it taken away and replaced with a mere "Lord" I would be most unimpressed!

I believe HH Prince Alexander of Battenberg who became Marquess of Carisbrooke was rather unhappy with his unwanted change of name and loss of style. I would also guess that Lord Louis Mountbatten would have been very put out with the loss of his Princely title!
.

 

[Sean.~]

I would also guess that Lord Louis Mountbatten would have been very put out with the loss of his Princely title!

He was and, from what I recall, lamented about it later in life. Not surprising considering his illusions of grandeur and ambitions (Queen Mary was quite put off by him on what particular incident. Interestingly, his daughters signed the guest book while visiting Hesse using their Princely titles. This may have been done for simply sentimental reasons. Who knows.

 

[Sean.~]

This is very true, however, with regard to the German ducal and princely families, the Queen has often received them privately at Balmoral via Prince Philip or Lady Pamela Hicks at her home.

Only the ones that are related via Philip or the Battenbergs/Mountbattens ever make it in, and not even always then. There is some relation with some Honhenlohe-Langenbursgs and some of the Hesses, but very little contact with the Badens ( the exception being the Grand Duke's sister). No one from the BRF was even invited to the Hereditary Grand Duke's wedding. There is some contact with the Georg of Hanover's family, but not the entire family (according to Saskia of Hanover). Philip didn't even attend his sister's funeral a few years ago, nor did he attend the funeral of his first Cousin, Olga of Yugoslavia, who was the last of Prince Nicholas's daughters. Conversely, he was at the funeral of Margaret of Hesse back in 96, who was only distantly related to him by marriage.

And you can even forget about the Bavarians, the Wurrtembergs, Leiningens, and Toerring-Jettenbachs (again, close relatives), etc. etc. Conversely, many of these these families (all of the ones listed & then some ) *are* given the time of day by the King and Queen of Spain.

 

[Sean.~]

Diana's mother never got to be Countess Spencer. The marriage ended while she was Viscountess Althorp.

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

 

[tiaraprin]

No, because their German dignities and styles were meaningless since they were British and the Weimar Republic abolished all of their styles, titles and status anyway after World War I ended and the Prussian Emperor was exiled to Holland. They retained the honour of British peerages under the Sovereign.

Uh, why then is King Constantine still accepted by the British Royal family besides being part of Philip's family?? They never acknowledged Philip's sisters! Why does the King or Romania and the King of Bulgaria still receive acknowledgement?

I stilll would bet everything that they considered themselves demoted. The only one who remained a Royal Highness in Queen Mary's family was HRH Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone. She was born a British Princess through her father, HRH Prince Leopold of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Duke of Albany.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean.~
He was and, from what I recall, lamented about it later in life. Not surprising considering his illusions of grandeur and ambitions (Queen Mary was quite put off by him on what particular incident. Interestingly, his daughters signed the guest book while visiting Hesse using their Princely titles. This may have been done for simply sentimental reasons. Who knows.



Lord Mountbatten was one of the biggest royal snobs you could find. Why do you think he pushed so hard for Philip to marry Elizabeth?? He knew when she ascended the throne, the name of the royal house would change!! When Queen Mary got wind of his bragging, she called in Winston Churchill to have the name remain Windsor!! It was only after Queen Mary's death and the birth of Andrew that the Queen added Mounbatten to the name. I am sure that didn't even completely appease Lord Mountbatten either. I am sure he just wanted the House of Mountbatten to appease his ego, the loss of his princely rights, and get back at the Queen Mum who disliked him intensely.
__________________

 

[Sean.~]

tiaraprin]Uh, why then is King Constantine still accepted by the British Royal family besides being part of Philip's family?? They never acknowledged Philip's sisters! Why does the King or Romania and the King of Bulgaria still receive acknowledgement?

They receive acknowledgement by *some* courts as former heads of state (they all reigned) . It is a courtesy. They are not treated as reigning heads of states per se.

In the case of Simeon, he was (until recently) PM of Bulgaria and thus treated accordingly. AFAIK he does not have close relations with QE II and family, except for being invited to the odd event. Michael had some relations with the BRF through his mother and grandmother (Greek and British Princesses respectively), but again, I wouldn't say that the two families are close. In any case, he is treated & recognized officially by the Romanian state as a former head of state, thus acknowledgement of the same by the British court is appropriate.

Conversely, none of the cadet or morgantic members of the minor German royal houses under discussion had ever reigned. They were junior members of junior houses who lived in GB. They were British, really.

Moreover, it wasn't George V that demoted them, but the Wiemer Republic. It was better for them to become members of the aristocracy (something many of today's nouveau riche would do anything for, as a title is still considered the pinacle) in the country in which they lived than go back to post-war Germany and try to use their titles of pretension. They wouldn't have been successful in trying to use their German titles in post-war GB, due to the anti-German sentiment. Sure they may have been traumatized or may have felt "demoted", but IMO they got a fairly good deal considering their petty princely ranks & the situation at the time. Better to be a Marquis or a lord than a plain Mr or a pretend prince descending from a morganic branch of of a non-existent state.

Finally, I'm not sure I get your point with respect to Philip's sisters. They were acknowledged as his siblings, and there was never any pretension that they were not related. They were not at his wedding because of their German marriages and the post-war sentiment, but they were at family events later. Indeed, Berthold and Margarita of Baden were quite prominent at the coronation and had high precedence.

 

[HMQueenElizabethII]

The order of precedence for female members of the Royal Family is:

1. The Queen
2. Queens Dowager (most recent first)
3. The Sovereign's daughters-in-law
4. The Sovereign's daughters
5. The Sovereign's sons' daughters
6. The Sovereign's sisters-in-law
7. The Sovereign's sisters
8. The Sovereign's father's sisters-in-law
9. The Sovereign's father's sisters
10. The Sovereign's brothers' daughters-in-law
11. The Sovereign's brothers' daughters
12. The Sovereign's father's brothers' daughters-in-law
13. The Sovereign's father's brothers' daughters

The Queen recently changed the order of precedence that put the Duchess of Cornwall fourth in the order of precedence, next to herself, the Princess Royal, and Princess Alexandra, the Hon. Lady Ogilvy. [1] This may indicate a change in royal precedence. No further details have been given.

The Court Circular also lists Prince William of Wales

 

[Idriel]

Question 1: Did The Prince Consort (Albert) had the British nationality?
Question 2: Isn't a King above a Queen in hierarchy? If yes, If Philip was made King Consort, wouldn't him be "above" his wife?

 

[ElisaR]

[...]Philip didn't even attend his sister's funeral a few years ago, nor did he attend the funeral of his first Cousin, Olga of Yugoslavia, who was the last of Prince Nicholas's daughters. Conversely, he was at the funeral of Margaret of Hesse back in 96, who was only distantly related to him by marriage.[...]

I think that Philip and his sister Sophia were close. But I don't know why he didn't attend her funeral: I think that had something to do with security and the fact that her family wanted a low key event. Anyway the whole story is absurd.

 

[branchg]

Question 1: Did The Prince Consort (Albert) had the British nationality?
Question 2: Isn't a King above a Queen in hierarchy? If yes, If Philip was made King Consort, wouldn't him be "above" his wife?

Prince Albert was German as Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. He became British when he married Victoria.

Yes, the title of King is "higher" than Queen, which is why a male consort will never be allowed to assume the dignity unless (like William of Orange) they already are a reigning Sovereign.

 

[Sean.~]

Prince Albert was German as Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. He became British when he married Victoria.

Yes, the title of King is "higher" than Queen, which is why a male consort will never be allowed to assume the dignity unless (like William of Orange) they already are a reigning Sovereign.

Not in today's world, Precedence is derived from the amount of time on a throne. And a consort -- whether a King or a Queen --, is never "higher" than his/her reigning spouse. Ever. In any case, there have been King Consorts in some countries in the past, just not in Britain.

 

[Sean.~]

I think that Philip and his sister Sophia were close. But I don't know why he didn't attend her funeral: I think that had something to do with security and the fact that her family wanted a low key event. Anyway the whole story is absurd.

Depends on ones definition of close. They certainly were not everyday close like my sister and I are (and we too live in different countries), and he certainly is not close with his nieces and nephews from her marriages to Hesse or Hanover.

 

[Idriel]

Prince Albert was German as Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. He became British when he married Victoria.

Yes, the title of King is "higher" than Queen, which is why a male consort will never be allowed to assume the dignity unless (like William of Orange) they already are a reigning Sovereign.

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

 

[ElisaR]

Depends on ones definition of close. They certainly were not everyday close like my sister and I are (and we too live in different countries), and he certainly is not close with his nieces and nephews from her marriages to Hesse or Hanover.

I don't know how much they were close, but I read she went to England every year. Her last visit was in 2001, some weeks before Philip's birthday.

 

[branchg]

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

Which was ridiculous since Victoria was a Hanover and had barely a drop of English blood herself.