Talk:Order of precedence in England and Wales/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Member of the Order of Merit

Why are they not list? According to the page on the Order they would follow a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Bath —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.247.237.157 (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe there may be some misunderstanding...under Crown Honours, there is a "Precedence of Letters" as follows (in extract), with OM (Order of Merit) following GCBs but taking precedence over GCSIs in the post-nominal letters listed after one's name....but that does not mean a holder of an Order of Merit award takes precedence over a knight in the table of precedence. Similarly, a holder of a Victoria Cross does not take precedence above a Knight of the Garter in the table of precedence (but would rather place the letters VC before a GC or KG after his name if he was fortunate enough to have all of those honours)...

VC Victoria Cross
GC George Cross
KG/LG Knight of the Garter; Lady of the Garter
KT/LT Knight of the Thistle; Lady of the Thistle
GCB Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath
OM Order of Merit
GCSI Knight Grand Commander of the Star of India (no longer conferred)
GCMG Knight Grand Cross of the Order of St Michael and St George
GCIE Knight Grand Commander of the Indian Empire (no longer conferred)
VA Order of Victoria and Albert (no longer conferred)
CI Order of the Crown of India (no longer conferred)
GCVO Knight Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order
GBE Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire
CH Companion of Honour
KCB/DCB Knight/Dame Commander of the Bath
Trajanis (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Baron Haden-Guest

Next to "Baron Haden-Guest" has been placed the note that the title is held by the actor Christopher Guest. There is no need to place such a note next to anybody's title, in my humble opinion. I propose to remove such a reference. Lord Emsworth 02:55, 23 November 2003 (UTC)

Locking the date

This article is so detailed it needs "as at .. November, 2003" notice in the first line. Andrew Yong 07:25, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In terms of locking the date, I would suggest that we update it on the New Year to accommodate all changes between 25 November and then, and that then we update at some regular frequency - every three months or so? john 20:23, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would agree as to the locking. I propose as follows:

• A "General Review" take place:

1. Each time new honours are awarded (i.e. New Year's and Queen's Birthday)
2. Once between each general review specified by 1 above

• Reviews of the appropriate sections take place:

1. Upon the appointment of a new Prime Minister of the U.K., Minister, or Great Officer of State
2. Upon a Royal birth

-- Lord Emsworth 23:35, 27 December 2003 (UTC)

Great Officers of State and certain sons of peers

I'm pretty sure the Great Officers of State take precedence before all Peers, whether or not they are Dukes. It's only in Parliament that they rank before all others of their grade of the peerage.

Hmm...that is not what Burke's says. Do you have a source? john 19:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm

"The Great Officers of State do not have the same rank in and out of Parliament. In Parliament, their office confers upon them precedence before the other peers of their own rank, but not before peers of higher rank. Outside Parliament, their place does not depend on their peerage." Proteus 20:14 GMT, 11th January 2004

Also, between "eldest sons of Marquesses" and "younger sons of Dukes" should be the eldest sons of the eldest sons of Dukes (like the Earl of Burlington, eldest son of the Marquess of Hartington, eldest son of the Duke of Devonshire). As their fathers rank as Marquesses but after all substantive Marquesses, they rank after Earls but after the eldest sons of substantive Marquesses. This pattern continues further down the table, as if Lord Burlington were to have a son, he would rank as a Viscount, but after all substantive Viscounts, the eldest sons of substantive Earls, and the eldest sons of eldest sons of substantive Marquesses. Proteus 18:27 GMT, 11th January 2004

Feel free to make additions, of course. john 19:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'll have access to a 1999 Burke's from tomorrow, so I'll try to make a start then. Proteus 20:14 GMT, 11th January 2004

Alright, then. Do the court officials (Lord Chamberlain, Lord Steward, Master of the Horse), also function in this manner, or not? john 00:20, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The act that governs precedence in Parliament is The Act FOR PLACING OF THE LORDS (31º Henry VIII c. 10), which stipulates,

It is, therefore, now ordained and enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord President of the King's Council, and the Lord Privy Seal, being of the degree of Barons of Parliament, or above, shall sit and be placed ... above all Dukes...

And it is also ordained and enacted by authority aforesaid, That the Great Chamberlain, the Constable, the Marshal, the Lord Admiral, the Great Master, or Lord Steward, and the King's Chamberlain shall sit and be placed after the Lord Privy Seal in manner and form following; that is to say, every of them shall sit and be placed above all other personages, being of the same estates and degrees that they shall happen to be...

Thus it would appear that in and out of Parliament, the Lord High Chancellor, the Lord High Treasurer, the Lord President, and the Lord Privy Seal have absolute precedence. However, the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Earl Marshal, the Lord Steward, and the Lord Chamberlain are above other individuals of the "same estates and degrees" - in Parliament only. Note also that in Parliament the Duke of Edinburgh does not have his high royal rank; rather, he ranks beneath all other Dukes. -- Lord Emsworth 01:05, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

So, then, out of parliament, the Lord Steward, Lord Great Chamberlain, and so forth, only have the precedence of their specific peerage? john 01:25, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not exactly, I think. According to my understanding, outside of Parliament, these officers would have precedence together, along with the Lord Chancellor, Lord President, etc, regardless of rank. In Parliament, the precedence would depend upon rank. The only way that the Parliamentary and non-Parliamentary positions would be equal was if the officers were all dukes, as they anyway rank above all dukes outside, and would rank above all dukes if this hypothetical were true inside Parliament.-- Lord Emsworth 01:36, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for changing Lady Linley. I thought that all peers, by courtesy or otherwise, use "The", but an investigation of the website of the Royalty indicates otherwise. -- Lord Emsworth 22:06, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Courtesy Marquesses and Earls have "the" in conversation when their full title is used (it would be odd to say "I saw Marquess of Hartington yesterday"), but normally they are just called, for example, "Lord Hartington". In formal circumstances (on an envelope, for instance, or on a list such as this), they don't have "the". Courtesy Viscounts and Barons (and normally Earls without "of", like Earl Grosvenor and Earl Percy) never have "the", and are always referred to as, for example, "Viscount Mandeville" or "Lord Seymour". Proteus 10:12 GMT, 13th January 2004

I believe that the current interpretation of the Great Officers and Court officials is incorrect. I'm fairly certain that (other than the Lord Chancellor, Lord President, Lord Privy Seal, and Lord Treasurer), they rank ahead of other peers of their level when doing their duties in their offices, but only rank normally otherwise. This is almost certainly the case for the court officials, and I'm almost sure it's true for at least the Lord Great Chamberlain, as well... john 23:15, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The following indicate that the officers are above the other peers: Heraldica, Stockdale 1818 Peerage. But the reliable Burke's makes the indication that precedence is based on one's rank, and does not provide limitations for such. I have not come across any site that suggests that the officials rank according to their normal rank, though. -- Lord Emsworth 23:32, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to be right. Heraldica is usually very reliable, and seems to indicate what you say... john 00:41, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The current table of precedence in Burke's is dodgy and should probably be avoided. Many experts on precedence (including the editor of Cracroft's Peerage) have found issue with it: for instance, the Princess Royal should rank above the Countess of Wessex, and Viscount Linley, as the Sovereign's nephew in the female line, probably shouldn't have any special precedence at all, although so many people think he should that if you removed him from this page someone would add him in again. Proteus 10:12 GMT, 13th January 2004

But Heraldica suggests that Viscount Linley would form a part of the table as the place of precedence is for the "Sovereign's nephews", whether the line be male or female. -- Lord Emsworth 11:35, 13 January 2004 (UTC)

I know. Unfortunately, it's a disputed point. This post on alt.talk.royalty is the start of a small thread on this subject:

http://groups.google.com/groups?group=alt.talk.royalty&selm=38755A8B.F97585F9%40internetcorp.net&rnum=1

Relevant bits:

"I think that it is even debatable to give "Viscount Linley" the precedence of a Sovereign's nephew (since he is the son of the Sovereign's sister not brother, and not a prince), but I am willing to see that that is a case where precedence scholars could differ."

And in reply to this:

"The children of Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, all derive their precedence from their father, not their mother. Mosley is all wrong here. If he were to take for example the wording of the "Scale of General or Social Precedence of Ladies" literally, rather than according to its logical meaning, then between "The Queen's Nieces" and the "Duchesses of England", he would interpolate all sorts of Bowes-Lyons, Elphinstones, etc. under the heading "The Queen's Cousins"."

(This person is the aforementioned editor of Cracroft's Peerage)

The thread also criticises the placement of Lady Wessex below the Princess Royal.

Page mangled on Jan 19

It looks like the page was mangled on 1/19/2004. Specifically, the gentlemen order stops and starts again at 1 after 81. Ladies appears intact, but I didn't look very closely.

I have undone the mangling. -- Lord Emsworth 19:13, 25 January 2004 (UTC)

Updates

I am now, as of February 1, commencing the update of the order of precedence pages. -- Emsworth 21:22, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

Done so far:

• List of Ambassadors and High Commissioners to the United Kingdom - Emsworth 21:46, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Knights and Ladies of the Garter and Thistle - Emsworth 22:05, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Prime Ministers - Emsworth 22:23, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Archbishops, bishops, Moderator of the General Assembly - Emsworth 22:39, 1 February 2004 (UTC)

• Would you not describe an Order or post of office as "Defunct" rather than "obsolete"?

Separate articles

Especially in the local precedence list this page has become a list of office holders, surely it should be separated so that the alphabetical list of High Sheriffs etc is with the High Sheriff article. The item makes no mention of ordinary mayors (as opposed to elected mayors) The precedence should be Lord Lieutenant High Sheriff Mayor, Lord or otherwise etc Without the alphabetical lists it would be easier to see precedence in any given area, with a notes about ranking visiting dignitaries – thus at a function in Sunderland would the long serving Mayor of Gateshead rank before nor after the new Lord Mayor of Newcastle? Why are aldermen listed? They no longer exist, except as an honorific in the gift of a local council, in the same way as an honorary freedom garryq 02:53, 17 April 2004 (UTC)

Aldermen are retained because they COULD still exist. tHe office still has precedence even though it has no practical function - perhaps as it is an honour the precedence is even more important. MWNN

Order of the Thistle

Why is the Duke of Edinburgh listed again? The Prince of Wales is not listed either under Garter or Thistle garryq 02:53, 17 April 2004 (UTC)

Aren't several others listed more than once? The POW probably should be as well.

I'm confused by this section - it doesn't seem to tally with the list of Knights of the Thistle elsewhere on Wikipedia. For instance, Eric Anderson is omitted. Similarly with the section on their wives.

Archbishop of Wales

Where does he fit in the precedence? john 03:03, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nowhere, I expect - the Church in Wales is not established. Morwen 20:25, May 18, 2004 (UTC)=

The Church of Ireland was not established after the 1870s, but its bishops still had special precedence in Ireland (and, I think, still do in Northern Ireland), even after that. john 23:53, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Question

Why does great nephews/nieces listed here as coming before the sovereigns brothers and sisters, when in fact the United Kingdom page does not list them?

Why does grandsons come before brothers but granddaughters come after sisters? Astrotrain 21:30, 25 July 2004 (UTC)

Are non royal relations really so high in precedence?

Do the Phillipses and Princess Margaret's children really rank so high in precedence? I recall some debate about this earlier, but no resolution. john k 19:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, as you can see from the discussion further up this page, I'd say "no", since it's my opinion that only HRHs have precedence before the Archbishops and Great Officers of State, but unfortunately I have Burke's against me (which, I might note, has never stopped me thinking something before). Proteus (Talk) 19:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Burke's is notable for being frequently wrong, though, isn't it? What does Debretts say? john k 20:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Burke's is generally useless as a definitive source. Debrett's is just unhelpful, though:

• The Duke of Edinburgh
• The Prince of Wales
• The Sovereign's younger sons
• The Sovereign's grandsons (according to the seniority of their fathers)
• The Sovereign's cousins (according to the seniority of their fathers)
• Archbishop of Canterbury

It seems to be left open to the reader's interpretation as to what that means. (And, indeed, a literal interpretation would place various Harewoods and Strathmores above the Archbishop of Canterbury.) Proteus (Talk) 20:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

François Velde's site (see here) gives the order: the Duke of Edinburgh, the Sovereign's sons, the Sovereign's grandsons, the Sovereign's brothers, the Sovereign's uncles, the Sovereign's nephews, grandsons of former Sovereigns who are Dukes, grandsons of former Sovereigns who are not Dukes, the Archbishop of Canterbury. -- Emsworth 21:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe that if Lord Snowdon had died in 1998, his son would have been placed on the Roll of the House of Lords above the Lord Chancellor and the Archbishop of Cantebury on the basis of being the Sovereign's nephew. (In fact, it would be rather easy to check this. Was Lord Harewood placed above the Archbishops and Great Officers during the reign of George VI? Somehow I doubt it.) All the Rolls I've seen have only had HRHs above Canterbury. Proteus (Talk) 22:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I thought that the Precedence Act, 1539 clearly states that when referred to the Sovereign's nephews, that it meant Sovereign's brothers' or sisters' sons. I found the source on this website http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm , hence I always thought that Lord Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto should be included. -Eddo

House of Lords worked differently, no? There, the Duke of York had the lowest precedence of all dukes, didn't he? john k 22:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nope. See this atr thread, for instance, which shows that in 1924 the Duke of York (the future George VI, Sovereign's son, title created 1920) ranked before the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (Sovereign's uncle, title created 1874). Thus, until 1999, the Duke of York ranked before the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent on the Roll of the Lords. Proteus (Talk) 22:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edinburgh would have been lowest in the House of Lords; he is not considered a Duke of the Blood Royal. -- Emsworth 22:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We talking about Duke of Edinburgh? In that case, he is a Duke of Blood Royal tho. Not the British royal house, but blood royal nonetheless. -- KTC 00:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, he's a Duke of the Blood Royal because he's a Duke and holds the styles and/or titles "HRH The Prince" and "Prince of the United Kingdom (etc.)" DBD 17:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Abp of York

Is Sentamu already Abp of York? His article says he will switch over sometime later this year. john k 16:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but I assume you're right. The BBC is calling him the Archbishop of York already, but they're useless so that can hardly be taken as evidence. Proteus (Talk) 17:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean wait for an official investiture before updating the page? The church seems to take him as a done deal, see this article. GeoffCapp (Talk) 02:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Precedence of non-HRH "Royals" revisited

Royal Warrant of 9 November 1905:

The KING has been graciously pleased to declare that His Majesty's eldest Daughter, Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Victoria Alexandra Dagmar (Duchess of Fife), shall henceforth bear the style and title of Princess Royal.

His Majesty has also directed that the Daughters of Her Royal Highness shall bear the style, title, and attribute of Highness, and also the style of Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names, and that they shall have precedence and rank immediately after all members of the Royal Family enjoying the style of Royal Highness.

Surely this example of female-line grandchildren of the Sovereign being "promoted" to a precedence below that which we (and Burke's) credit Peter and Zara Phillips with shows that Burke's is wrong, and thus that the only people with precedence as members of the Royal Family above the Great Officers and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are those styled "Royal Highness"? Proteus (Talk) 17:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. john k 17:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't agree. The Sovereign's prerogative to raise or lower precedence by Letters Patent or Royal Warrant is subject to Parliamentary legislation. The 1539 Act of Parliament establishes that the children of the King's brothers and sisters take precedence after the Archbishops but before the Great Officers of State when in Parliament. But that legislation establishes that only the Sovereign and the Sovereign's sons rank above the archbishops -- yet we know that in reality the Sovereign's children, grandchildren through sons, brothers, uncles and nephews through sons are all accorded rank above the Archbishops today -- but I cannot see any statutory basis for that high rank. It seems that through practice and exercises of Royal Prerogative it has been forgotten or neglected that the 1539 Act sets precedence within and without Parliament, and includes "children of the Sovereign's sisters", etc. Lethiere 02:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Or that the Sovereign's prerogative to raise or lower precedence by Letters Patent or Royal Warrant is not subject to Parliamentary legislation, and that she can do as she wishes. Proteus (Talk) 07:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no circumstance in which an exercise of the Royal Prerogative by patent or warrant can legally outweigh a law passed by Parliament and signed into law by the Sovereign -- which the 1539 law was. Lethiere 00:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

So what exactly is the issue here? Where was Lord Harewood ranked from 1947 to 1952, when he was the king's nephew? This seems like something that ought to be resolved by looking at actual practice, rather than our own interpretations of abstract theory. john k 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. What's "abstract" about the 1539 law? If we can verify actual placement at the last British coronation, that would not, ipso facto, invalidate any law dictating that precedence should be otherwise. All we should note is what the law requires and what was actually done. Things get done in defiance of law all the time -- that doesn't change statutory law. Sometimes people err, sometimes they deliberately choose to ignore the law. WP's role isn't to bless that by acting as if the law doesn't exist. Also, observing "actual practice" is precisely what has caused the various tables of precedence to contradict one another: The precedence of the husband of the Princess Royal is not specified in any law or royal decree, but he can always be "observed" escorting his wife in court ceremonies when both are present. Someone then "records" that observation as if it is an official and permanent change in precedence, publishes it -- and confusion proliferates. There are lots of people for whom no official precedence has ever been assigned, so nothing authoritative is known. The children of the Sovereign's sisters, however, is not among that group. Lethiere 00:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree that we should note both what the law requires and what is actually done. john k 07:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I thought this issue has been resolved already being that we were taking out non-HRH such as Peter and Zara Phillips, Lord Lindley, and The Lady Sarah Chatto. Why have they been restored to the list by user PrinceofCanada. I thought that the citation to Burke's Peerage has been challenged being that Burke's is inconsistent. Eddo 15:23, 06 October 2008 (UTC)

But what's inconsistent about the House of Lords Precedence Act of 1539, referred to in the discussion above? FactStraight (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The House of Lords Precedence Act doesn't say anything about great-nephews/great-nieces, it only says King's Brothers or Sisters' sons. If we use the act to include Lord Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto, it wouldn't extend to include their children. There is a table on the heraldica website on precedence, that recognizes the Precedence Act, and includes Lord Linley, but excludes Peter and Zara Phillips. The Precedence Act doesn't mention grandchildren at all. What I'm getting at here is that the Precedence Act, although still on the statute books, is outdated, and even if it is still valid law, it isn't followed to the letter anymore. When was the last time you saw Lord Linley or Peter Phillips invited to a state event such as a State Dinner for a State Visit, or the annual Diplomatic Corps Dinner. If they all outrank The Dukes of Kent and Gloucester, then surely they would be invited at least to a few events once in a while. PrinceofCanada basically took Burke's chart without taking in consideration that it is oudated and never updated. Peter Phillips is now married, Lord Linley has a daughter now, none of this is on our etc etc. It has been the consensus for a long long time now that these female line relations should not be included. Also, the table at http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm which is a more reliable website than Burke's doesn't even list Peter Phillips. I am going to revert to our pre-PrinceofCanada edits. Please consider the fact that it is illogical that plain Master Daniel Chatto would outrank His Royal Highness The Duke of Gloucester et al. Also, someone made an argument that both sets of data should be included, well instead of including the contested information and having a footnote saying that is inconsistent, why don't we just include what is not contested, and then footnote the fact that some people believe that a few other ppl should be on the list. I think this is a reasonable compromise. Eddo 23:51, 22 October 2008

This comment doesn't address the fact made above in this discussion that our individual observations of precedence cannot be used to contradict or ignore an un-repealed law of the land. Nor have I seen on this page a "consensus" to delete untitled persons of the blood royal from their legally assigned precedence -- nor do I understand how such a consensus could over-ride law even if it existed. FactStraight (talk) 07:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but the 1539 Act applies to precedence within the House of Lords. As such, it is does not limit the Sovereign's right to deal with precedence among people not in the House or in situations outside the House. Note that it applies to the sons of the king's brothers and sisters, but not the daughters, who were unable to sit in the House of Lords. That said, the Act does set the skeleton for much of the order of precedence. If we have no evidence people have been moved or removed by some legal document, whether a statute, letters patent, or a royal warrant, we should not do so. If certain people simply are not invited to events where the order of precedence matters, they don't lose their places, which appears to be one of the arguments above, rather their places become irrelevant for the time being. Moreover, the royal warrant that begins this thread does not prove what is set forth to prove. It provides that the Princess Alexandra's children were being given the style "Highness" and being taken from wherever they were in the OOP and put just after the HRHs. Nothing in that says that they didn't rank above the Great Officers and archbishops. In fact, it may have been done to give them precedence over their two-year old cousin, the son of Princess Maud. In the end, to repeat, without evidence of a change, we should not change. It is a simple matter of verifiability. -Rrius (talk) 09:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To respond to both comments above. Yes, this law is still on the statute books; however, old statutes are ignored all the time. The Third Act of Succession of Henry VIII allowed him to set the line of succession by his will. However, this was ignored and James I succeeded instead of the heir of Henry VIII's younger sister, despite the fact that the Act of Succession says that Henry VIII's will will outline the succession. I'm not saying we should ignore statutes, however, we should not dig up old statutes and apply every single provision to present day situations. In doing so, you are engaging in statutory interpretation and thus it is POV. Also, are you a judge? If not, what you think this statute says does not matter. You cannot simply read legislation and apply it on it's literal meaning. Various issues and wording are interpreted differently than how a layperson would read it. We don't know how "brother's or sister's sons" are going to be interpreted today. You are not a Law Lord. Nothing in the statute says daughters, nothing says about great-nephews, great-nieces. If you're going to apply the literal meaning of the statute, you have to take into account all of this as well. Moreover, the statute doesn't say anything about female-line grandchildren. To respond to the specific comment above. The warrant does prove it. They were being placed immediately behind those holding HRHs. However, if we go by the OOP that is set out now, where female line grandchildren are included after all male-line grandchildren, then they would already have been in the OOP and above people such as the King's brothers and sisters, ie. The Duke of Connaught, and The Princess Beatrice. Instead, they were given precedence immediately behind those HRH after they have been given the styles of HH. Why would the King give them higher titles, and then suddenly move then down in the OOP. It shows that they were given a higher position in the OOP, from what they had as daughters of duke to positions immediately behind those holding HRH. Also, which son are you talking about? Are you referring to the son of Princess Maud of Fife (who wasn't born until 1929 long after this warrant) or the son of The Princess Maud, who at that time was styled Princess Maud of Denmark. In this situation, Prince Alexander was a Prince of Denmark and thus a member of a foreign royal house. He might not have even been included in the OOP. Using the Precedence Act is POV, because you are interpreting yourself as to how this statute would work today. We are not in a position to do this. Yes, I agree, the Precedence Act formed the basis of how precedence worked. However, over the last few hundreds of years, some aspects have been dropped, or interpreted differently by those in power and position of doing so. We, however, are not in a position to do, we should not substitute our interpretations of an old statute from what is observed to be the proper OOP as established by the Royal Household. Eddo 09:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC).

As far as I know, English precedence consists of a mix of law, royal decrees, and custom. I'm not aware of any laws or decrees that assign generic precedence to any females (the Sovereign aside); their precedence is traditionally derived from (though not necessarily the same as) that of their husbands or brothers. Why is the law's straightforward phrase "brother's or sister's sons" banned from application to precedence in this article as "statutory interpretation", yet your interpretation of a Royal Warrant concerning Edward VII's granddaughters is offered as proof? If you aren't asking us to ignore an unrepealed law, yet don't want the article to reflect it, nor to cite it, what source may we rely upon in your estimation -- and why? What I challenge is the premise that precedence among persons of the blood royal is invariably tied to possession of an English/British royal style per se, since the precedence of such persons pre-dates any consistent use of "prince/princess" and "HRH" -- and I have seen no law or decree which has changed their (categorical) precedence relative to one another since then. Reliable sources for changes are needed here. But the most reliable source on this matter seems to me to be the 1539 law: degree of kinship to the reigning monarch is its basis, not title -- which is what I've always understood to be the basis of precedence among royalty. In any event, surely our personal observations about OOP cannot be relied upon as sources for this article. When you refer to the "proper OOP as established by the Royal Household", where is that published? If not published, on what source are you basing the version of the OOP to which you have reverted the article? FactStraight (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You do raise a good point. I guess we are interpreting the Royal Warrant as well. However, the Precedence Act is so old (esp with the fact that it only refers to sons) that it forces US to read more into the statute. We have to, for example, read into the Act that when it refers to sons, that it would also refers to daughters, we have to read into the fact that by common law wives take the rank of their husband, and thus include any of these "sons'" wives? Would we include female-line grandsons (ie. Peter Phillips) who is current not one of the sovereign's brother's or sister's sons, but he would eventually be once Charles becomes King? What about their children, currently represented by the children of Lord Linley and Lady Sarah? That is what happened here when user PrinceofCanada included all these people, so much was "read" into the Precedence Act that wasn't there. We shouldn't be doing this. Granted, we are in a way interpreting the Royal Warrant as well. But we don't have to read so much into the Royal Warrant. We see for example that they were being raised to a level immediately below all those holding HRH. From this, we conclude that prior to the Royal Warrant, they must have had a position in the OOP lower than what they were being raised to. At that time, King Edward VII still had several siblings left, The Duke of Connaught, and Princess Henry of Battenberg (The Princess Beatrice). As well, there other male-line grandchildren of King George III alive, such as Prince George, Duke of Cambridge, and the Grand Duchess of Mecklenburg-Streilitz (Princess Augusta of Cambridge) who regularly visited the United Kingdom. If the Precedence Act had been applied the way user PrinceofCanada suggested, then the Fife princesses would have already ranked above these people. Why would Edward VII specifically put them in a position immediately behind those carrying HRH when they already ranked above several of those holding HRH. This is one simple conclusion that we can draw from the Royal Warrant. I apologize for my vagueness re "proper OOP as established by the Royal Household", I understand that one isn't officially published. I was refering to the fact that we see the Gloucesters and Kents at official functions, and that they are ranked to what we have the OOP right now. I believe the list that we have right now is one where we do have least amount of things that we have to "read" into. Sorry if this is a bit unclear. I'm currently in law school and have lots of things on my mind right now. I will attempt to clarify later. AS A TEMPORARY COMPROMISE, why don't we have a footnote linked somewhere on the OOP, saying in the footnote, that people such as the Linleys and Phillips could potentially be ranked at a certain spot. I would have done this already; however, I don't have the skills or the time to learn how to make such an edit and not screw up the format of the page. Eddo 19:48 31 October 2008 (UTC).

The problem is that "we" aren't allowed to read anything into the OOP, if we are going to stick literally to Wiki standards: we must attribute all assertions about precedence to reliable sources. The 1911 Britannica assigns the Sovereign's granddaughters and nieces specific rank among the Sovereign's relatives, and explains that precedence in that group is based first upon degree of consanguinity and secondly upon order of succession to the throne. The Britannica and Heraldica agree that the precedence of the Sovereign's sisters' sons has been extended to them outside as well as within Parliament; Heraldica explicitly accords Viscount Linley precedence based upon that premise. In terms of the temporary compromise you propose, I'd accept it provided that it includes Viscount & Viscountess Linley among the Queen's relatives; and will agree to leave the question of the Princess Royal's children and Viscount Linley's sister to a future discussion, pending a further review of the reliable sources. FactStraight (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Proteus's initial statement took the royal warrant as proof that those specific people had been lower in precedence than the archbishops and Great Officers. My point was that it did not. It only proved that they had been promoted from somewhere to just below the HRH's. I'm not sure that Prince Alexander would have been taken out of the British OOP just because his father was a Prince of Denmark. Even if he had, the class would have included any theoretical future children of Princess Victoria. In the end, the question is what we can prove, not by synthesis, but by verifiable sources. So, what can we prove? -Rrius (talk) 14:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Prince Alexander, I don't know how members of foreign royal houses are treated on the OOP. Although his mother was a British princess, he was still technically a foreign royal. I do not believe that he would be ranked in the same group that any children of Princess Victoria, given that while he was living in the United Kingdom, he had the style of "Highness" being a grandson of the King of Denmark. If Princess Victoria married a commoner, those children will not have the same rank as the grandson of the King of Denmark. Re the Royal Warrant, I agree that it does not prove that those specific people had been lower in precedence than the archbishops et al, but this doesn't mean that they had been higher. You are right in that it proved that previously, they were lower than what they were promoted to, being immediately below those holding HRH. What do you think about my compromise above? Eddo 19:55 31 October 2008 (UTC).

I do not agree that the Royal Warrant for Princess Victoria's daughters clearly "elevates" rather than "elucidates" their status. At that time, there was also a category for princes of the blood royal who were styled Highness (occupied by Hanoverian princes not resident in the UK and using, everywhere, HRH in connection with their claimed Hanoverian titles), and it is clear that the Royal Warrant fixes these granddaughters of a Sovereign above that category of the monarch's relatives. But since I've seen no documentation on what the Fife girls' precedence was previously (nor, for that matter, UK princes who were HH), I don't think that we may conclude (as much as we may speculate) that it was below any particular class of royalty, archbishops, or officers of state. Prince Alexander of Denmark (who was HRH as a son of the Danish king's firstborn son) was irrelevant because, like all foreign royalty and some foreign princes, he was accorded "honorary" rank among or equal to the Sovereign's relatives whenever occasion arose in the UK. The OOP has only ever assigned categorical place to those whose precedence derives from English/British rank or kinship to the British sovereign. FactStraight (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Nothing big here; however, Prince Alexander (later King Olav V of Norway) was not an HRH until his father became King of Norway. His father Haakon VII, was Prince Carl of Denmark, the second son of King Frederick VIII. Thus while he was simply the son of a younger son of a Danish King, he was only HH until his father became King of Norway. Also, did you want to put in that footnote that will state the contended information (inside the footnote and not actually in the list)? I don't want to screw up the formatting. Eddo 22:06 01 November 2008 (UTC).

I object to the suggested "compromise" because it preserves intact the status quo ante, despite the edits &/or comments of four different persons who've questioned your changes. It does not represent a compromise, as far as I can see, but locks in the change you made to the article reflecting the view that no one has precedence among the royal family save those who have a "royal" style. A compromise needs to include some of what others have added to the article. Please see above my reply of yesterday to your other comment. FactStraight (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I didn't interpret your post correctly. I object to the inclusion of Lord and Lady Linley that would also entail the exclusion of Lady Sarah, as per the notion that the sister (unless married above (or below to a peer)) takes the rank of her eldest brother. Keep in mind, that I do not agree to the inclusion of Lady Sarah. I understand that the Heraldica article includes Lord Liney. However, the artlce also refers and includes the Squibb table http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm#Modern which does not include Lord Linley, despite the fact that Lord Linely was alive in 1981. As well, Heraldica speaks highly of Sir Charles Young's work, on which the Squibb table was based. Please refer to the Memorandum from the Lord Chancellor of 1878 paragraph 4 http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_144_44_86252.htm , where His Lordship states that the Precedence Act only has application in Parliament and in the Council and nowhere else. The Lord Chancellor is the highest legal officer of the realm, equivalent to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I believe that the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, barring a conflicting decision from the House of Lords (Lords of Appeal in Ordinary), would be the correct interpretation of the law. Eddo 13:15 02 November 2008 (UTC).

Sorry for the double post, I found this in the Court Circular. http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page4113.asp?submitted=submit2&quick=latest&fromDay=15&fromMonth=6&fromYear=2006&toDay=15&toMonth=6&toYear=2006&MRF=Q&keywords=Enter+keyword&submit2=Submit&ID=11259 Here, it shows Lord and Lady Linley et al coming after the Gloucesters and the Kents. A further search in the past indicates that, with respect to the Court Circular, when The Princess Margaret was alive, Lord and Lady Linley were listed immediately behind her as " with" or "accompanied with", similar to how the younger royals are listed as "with". This seems to indicate, that on their own, they do not appear to rank above the Gloucesters and Kents, although in the past, when accompaying their mother, they were listed immediately behind her. Eddo 13:27 02 November 2008 (UTC)

You have now convinced me and I stand corrected. I agree that Princess Margaret's and Princess Anne's children should be left out of the order of precedence (outside of Parliament) and, more importantly, that the category of the Sovereign's sisters' children should be left out. Thanks for taking the trouble to locate the applicable documentation. FactStraight (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Top of the Ladies order of precedence

At Talk:Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, this, has been brought to my attention. See this question:

Q: I read that HM The Queen has just reviewed the precedence list to include The Duchess of Cornwall. Apparently, HRH The Duchess of Cornwall is only fourth on the list, after The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra. I was under the assumption that due to her being the wife of The Prince of Wales, the Duchess is the second highest ranking woman in the Royal Family after the Queen. Why then is the Duchess only fourth on the precedence list?

A: In order to reflect the Duchess's wish to be called The Duchess of Cornwall rather than The Princess of Wales, The Queen took the opportunity to clarify the precedence list for members of the Royal Family.

The Duchess's place in this list reflects the fact that she is a Duchess and not a Princess; thus she comes after The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra.

Now, Royal Insight is a stupid site, and the rationale they give is ridiculous - if this has happened, what clearly happened is that Anne and Alexandra were given special precedence. Is there any evidence for this besides Royal Insight, though? john k 19:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It was reported in the papers a while ago that the Queen had altered the private precedence of members of the Royal Family (for purely family functions and the like). I've seen no indication whatsoever that official precedence has been altered in any way. This is just yet another example of Royal Insight getting totally confused (they should make me editor, then it'd be right :-) ). Proteus (Talk) 13:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Military Honors?

Perhaps it's a stupid question: Wikipedia tells me that the Victoria Cross is the highest distinction that can be awarded in the UK. Now where are those who bear it seated? Next all the Ladies' granddaughters? Hard to believe. --Michael

Recipients of awards, including the Victoria Cross, generally don't have special positions on the Order of Precedence, as precedence is generally accorded by virtue of what someone is or what position they hold rather than what they have been given. Proteus (Talk) 13:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Italics?

A simple question - what's the significance of entries in italics? Tevildo 13:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

People who are higher up the order by virtue of another position. Many of the Knights of the Garter, for instance, are peers, and so rank higher than the other Knights by virtue of their peerages. Proteus (Talk) 13:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I see, thanks. That was my initial thought, but I was a little confused by Gordon Brown (#64) and Lords Woolf and Phillips (#66 and #67) - would it be unreasonable to include reasons for the "upgrades" in cases such as this? I assume the Chancellor of the Exchequer is also a Privy Counsellor and the two Law Lords have higher-ranking peerages, seperate from their legal ranks? Tevildo 19:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Brown is a privy counsellor, Woolf and Phillips are both barons. john k 20:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen

The "Gentlemen" section ends with "Gentleman". First, shouldn't this be plural like all the rest? And second, who are they? Is this a title? Are certain people excluded from being a gentleman? The article doesn't seem to clarify. Does this mean anything more than "Others"? Piet 13:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

gentleman is a rank. In theory, some people are excluded (such as yeomen and others below the rank of gentleman). Such people have never been included in the order of precedence because it is assumed that they won't be mixing with the others who are included. It's all pretty obsolete, although not without interest. Chelseaboy 15:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Is there a reason why it isn't used in plural in the list? I'm not correcting it because I'm not a native English speaker. Piet 15:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right, and will edit accordingly.Chelseaboy 11:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Younger sons of Dukes/Marquesses

I see that youngers sons of Dukes/Marquesses in this list are generally given here in the form "The Lord John Smith". Wouldn't "Lord John Smith" be more correct? They are only courtesy titles. Chelseaboy 11:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No. "The Lord" is correct. Proteus (Talk) 23:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

King's and Queen's Scholars

Is there any authority, please, for any precedence of King's Scholars and Queen's Scholars above Esquires? I was a QS and I would be most surprised that "the sons of decay'd gentlemen" should have any such precedence. Also, the title of H.M. Scholars at Westminster changes from King's to Queen's Scholars according to the reigning sovereign. Perhaps someone might have got confused by the precedence at a coronation in Westminster Abbey, where of course members of the College are "at home"? Burnettrae 13:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have the vague memory of having seen this list on or explained by an official source. However this article may be correct but it badly needs an official link from somewhere to confirm its accuracy.Anyone?Alci12 13:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added a Burke's link but that only covers some of the precedenceAlci12

Burke's, however, only goes down to "younger sons of knights bachelor." john k 14:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is why I said "only covers some of the precedence" :-) it's the best I could find for now and better than nothing. Feel free to add a better link.Alci12

Warrant of Precedence

I'm not strictly sure where this should go, perhaps on talk peerage to work it out. We don't, unless someone can tell me where it is, have anything on warrants of precedence. They generally match this list but do have some additions that couldn't be assumed ie wives and children of people offered a peerage, but dying before it was granted, who have been given the style dignity...(blah) as though their father/husband had been created a peer. Sadly my memory forgets but the most recent was in about '79-81 a life peerage for an MP who died after the offer, acceptance and announcement but before the sealing, but I can't remember it at the moment. Will struggle to remember.

The most common use today is for distant relations inheriting peerages to give precedence to their brothers/sisters/aunts/uncles etc. See a recent example.

"The QUEEN has been graciously pleased by Warrant under Her Royal Signet and Sign Manual to ordain and declare that Charles George Yule Balfour, brother of Roderick Francis Arthur, Earl of Balfour, shall henceforth have, hold and enjoy the same title, rank, place, pre-eminence and precedence as the son of an Earl which would have been due to him had his father, Eustace Arthur Goschen Balfour, survived his cousin, Gerald Arthur James, Earl of Balfour, and thereby succeeded to the title and dignity of Earl of Balfour." Alci12 14:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Date on top

This is obviously not the order of precedence as of October 29, 2004, as (for one thing, I haven't checked for any others) it includes the Duchess of Cornwall, who did not marry the Prince of Wales until Aprill 2005 and thus did not exist in 2004! The date needs to be corrected-- I don't know how up-to-date the list is, or I would do it myself. Someone should do this-- TysK 06:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Order of Precedence for the new post Lord Speaker

does anyone know about the Lord Speaker's order of precedence in the UK? Dancheng 14:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sons of peers

Currently, the eldest sons of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls, and the younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses, are all being listed individually under their entries in the order of precedence. This seems rather unnecessary to me, especially since the Dukes, Marquesses and Earls themselves aren't being listed individually.

I'm rather concerned that listing all these people is making the page too long and awkward. Do we really need to be listing peers' sons here? Perhaps, if their order is relevant, those sub-lists could be moved to separate pages?

Alkari 00:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In light of no objections being raised, I have today (10 December 2006) moved the following lists to separate articles:

• Eldest sons of Dukes to list of eldest sons of dukes in the peerages of the British Isles
• Younger sons of Dukes to list of younger sons of dukes in the peerages of the British Isles
• Eldest sons of Marquesses to list of eldest sons of marquesses in the peerages of the British Isles
• Younger sons of Marquesses to list of younger sons of marquesses in the peerages of the British Isles
• Eldest sons of Earls to list of eldest sons of earls in the peerages of the British Isles
• Lord Lieutenants to list of Lord Lieutenants of the United Kingdom
• High Sheriffs to list of High Sheriffs of the United Kingdom

If anything I have done seems unwarranted or incorrect, please don't hesitate to correct it and let me know.

Alkari 02:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there no way we could list them in some form of expandable list (like the expandable template boxes you get at the bottom of articles)? That way we could list pretty much everyone on this page without it being long when you first look at it. Proteus (Talk) 20:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

addition

Where should Lady Nicholas Windsor be added? It would seem that she goes in the same place as her husband (between countesses and wives of marquesses' eldest sons), but as he's in a unique situation I don't know for sure. TysK 23:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Alci12 17:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ladies

67.35.192.104 has just moved Anne, Alexandra, Beatrice and Eugenie above Camilla. This seems dubious, to say the least – can someone who knows more than I either confirm (and provide a source) or deny this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alkari (talk • contribs) 05:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

This issue seems to have been addressed. Alkari 08:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Baronets

Don't they take precedence over all knights, per Baronet: "The name baronet is a diminutive of the higher peerage title baron. The rank of a baronet is between that of a baron and a knight."? -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 21:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

They take precedence over all but Knights of the Garter and the Thistle. Knights of St. Patrick would rank above them if any existed. --Ibagli (Talk) 00:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dead Link

The external link to "Burke's Peerage" to "http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/peerage/sitepages/page62-4.asp" cannot be found. I guess the content was probably just remove, so I don't want to remove it right away. Would somebody who knows where the link should be going please change it, or if it isn't there anymore just remove it? thanks, The Silent Walker 14:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

ladies

Oughtn't we to clarify how to rank dowagers? "Duchesses" doesn't provide all that much help. Unlike the situation with Dukes, where there can only be one for any given title, there can be multiple duchesses, and we ought to clarify who goes first. My understanding would be that the wife of the current holder goes first, and that the dowagers then follow by seniority, but I don't really know. Anyone? john k 07:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The reverse. The wives take precedence according to their husbands; the wife of the 1st earl would precede that of the 2nd. The reverse is true as I read it for children; they take precedence ahead of their aunts or uncles. Looking quickly for a link to cite the best I can find is 1911 EB [1] Alci12 16:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Children rank according to the order of their births (eldest first), regardless of which holder they are children of (so the ranking would go "daughters of Dukes of Norfolk (eldest first); daughters of Dukes of Somerset (eldest first); daughters of Dukes of Richmond and Gordon (eldest first); etc.). Proteus (Talk) 15:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

List of younger sons of marquesses proposed for deletion

List of younger sons of marquesses in the peerages of the British Isles, which was split off from this page in December 2006, has been proposed for deletion with the following message:

Wikipedia is not appropriate for directories of individuals who do not meet the notability criteria. This unsourced list was originally split off from Order of precedence in England and Wales. It is not wanted or needed there (or really anywhere else) as most people on the list are not notable.

It is my impression (and opinion) that it is wanted and needed here (and on Order of precedence in Scotland and Order of precedence in Northern Ireland as well). If anyone else has an opinion on this matter, your input would be most welcome on the article's talk page. Alkari (?) 22:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Local precedence

Is it worth keeping people's names in this section, seeing as any may change at a moment's notice and we may not necessarily know that? -- Roleplayer 11:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The Subject of HRH The Duchess of Cornwall

As is the wish of the Her Royal Highness she does not come before the Princess Royal or Princess Alexandra. In a discussion with the Queen with Princess Anne, being that she should have to curtsey to the Duchess is incontrevertable. Within the Royal Family there is a precedence and that is being that the Duchess falls fourth in the line of precedent. Antother good example of royal discretion is the case with Lady Louise Wessex not being refered to as a Princess. Royal Insight however inacurate on the occasion is the official word from Buckingham Palace and the office of the Private Secretary. So, yes, because of the Duchess's wishes she is indeed fourth in the order of precedent coming after Princess Alexandra of Kent. This will change when the Prince of Wales becomes King. Questions or concerns please contact me.

What was changed was the Order of Precedence at family, private, and semi-official events. The Official Order of Precedence used at for example State Functions, can't be changed without Letters Patent or a Royal Warrant to that effect. The Official Order of Precedence is also dictated by the common law notion that a wife takes the rank of her husband. Therefore, The Queen's daughters-in-law (The Duchess of Cornwall and The Countess of Wessex) remain ahead of The Queen's daughters (The Princess Royal) in the Official Order of Precedence, as no official Letters Patent or Royal Warrant were issued. Definitely, The Duchess of Cornwall can defer precedence to the Princess Royal whenever she wishes, that can be done casually, but at State Functions, or on the Court Circular, you see that The Duchess of Cornwall takes precedence over The Princess Royal. Eddo 17:05, 08 October 2007 (UTC)

Bishops' wives

Bishops' wives aren't mentioned at present. But bishops rank surprisingly high when men (as, at present, all English bishops are, of course), e.g. ahead of all members of the cabinet who sit in the House of Commons. So should we not find a slot for bishops' wives in the female order of precedence? Chelseaboy (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, they don't derive any precedence from their husbands. Our coverage on the precedence of women is rather lacking, I'm ashamed to say. But holders of what might be termed "official precedence" (precedence attaching to them by virtue of some office or position, e.g. since they are the Earl Marshal, a Privy Counsellor, or the Lord Bishop of Winchester), unlike holders of "personal precedence" (precedence attaching to them by some kind of personal status, e.g. since they are a Peer of the Realm, a Knight of the Garter, or a Member of the Order of the British Empire), generally (I'd be inclined to say "always", since I can't think of any counter-examples) don't transmit their precedence to their wives or other members of their family. It's a little odd, since it means the wife of an MBE ranks higher than the wife of the Prime Minister, but no one said precedence was supposed to make sense... Proteus (Talk) 20:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that is interesting. I had an idea that a woman always took precedence from her husband but the idea of a distinction between personal and official precedence for these purposes does sound right. Does any source spring to mind? Chelseaboy (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Not for how I've explained it, since it's really just my interpretation of how it seems to work. But wives of Privy Counsellors, bishops, Secretaries of State, judges, etc., certainly don't feature in any table of precedence. The main problem is that, in an area that is still very male-dominated, and was to an even larger extent when it was an important area, the precedence of women has never attracted much attention, and is generally at best a "table of precedence for ladies" tacked on the end of a much more detailed male list (the list in Debrett's Correct Form doesn't even have an entry for "Secretaries of State" in the female list). An authoritative explanation is pretty much out of the question. I suppose that until relatively recently, wives of these sorts of people would only have been at official functions in company with their husbands, and so would have been assigned equal precedence by courtesy. There was never any need to know what the precedence of the wife of the Archbishop of Canterbury was, since she would never have been anywhere on her own. And it's a shame, since this oddness in many ways makes the precedence of women much more interesting. (It's an even greater shame that precedence has not kept up with the times. It was always bound to become of academic interest only when it remains based on the relative importance of offices in the 16th century or earlier rather than the 21st — the fact that various House of Commons whips, for instance, rank above most of the Cabinet is rather absurd.) Proteus (Talk) 21:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Order of Merit

The article Order of Merit states: "The Order of Merit ranks immediately below Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath." Yet, User:Proteus says it has no place in the order of precedence. Which is correct? --G2bambino (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that Wikipedia articles aren't sources? If you want to claim that the Order of Merit carries precedence, and so insert it here on that basis, the onus is on you to prove that it does. Quite apart from the fact that it doesn't appear on any tables of precedence (here for example), the Queen's website states that "Members receive no rank or title apart from the initials OM after their name." Clearly its letters appear after GCB, which is obviously why some confused person has put that statement in that article, but letters are not the same as precedence (holders of the Victoria Cross and George Cross also have no precedence, for instance, despite the high positioning of their letters). Proteus (Talk) 06:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I pointed out a contradiction; I did not use one article to support another. By raising the issue here, I hoped that someone more knowledgeable on the subject would offer the correct information; however, nobody did, until now. Thanks for the clarification. BTW, this only came up as I was researching the place of the Royal Victorian Order in the English order of precedence for post-nominals; having found no article that deals specifically with the latter, I came to be under the impression that it was the same as that for persons. Hence, the confusion as to why OM wasn't included. --G2bambino (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The order of post nominals of honours is linked to the order of wear [2] and has nothing to do with the order of precedence. The order of wear is mentioned on the article covering the British Honours System. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Chancellor of the High Court

Does anyone know why the Chancellor of the High Court is not listed with the President of the Queen's Bench Division and the President of the Family Division? What is the source for those two heads of division being listed where they are? -Rrius (talk) 06:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The Supreme Court Act 1981 gives an order of precedence with the Vice-Chancellor immediately after the President of the Family Division. The office of Vice-Chancellor was renamed "Chancellor of the High Court" by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. As such, I am adding the office to the list. -Rrius (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Offspring of the Earl of Wessex

When the Earl of Wessex married in 1999, it was announced that, in accordance with their wishes, their children would not be styled as Princes or Princesses with the style Royal Highness, but rather as the children of an Earl. Can anybody explain why their son James is listed as "Prince James of Wessex" (rather than Viscount Severn), while their daughter is listed as "Lady Louise Windsor" (rather than Princess Louise of Wessex)? In keeping with the wishes of the Earl and Countess, I would suggest the lesser forms would be appropriate; but in any event, they should be treated consistently. Talanpoe (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Honorific prefixes

According to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), honorifics and titles are permissible as long as they are not utilised in the inline of the article but, I quote, 'may be legitimately discussed in the article proper'. Considering this "article" is a continuous list of names and positions it does not really have an 'article proper' in the sense of discussion and history etc. like a biography does. So I would think that the honorifics/styles/titles/prefixes are permissible as there are no stringent rules outlining the limitations on them. And, in fact, in Order of Precedence tables instituted on the holder's article they do have their honorific styles i.e. that of 'HRH' and 'The Rt Hon.' by virtue of their office listed. And, if such, on the larger compact list of all Orders of Precedences (i.e. this list), then surely these should be removed also from the individual holder's article? --PoliceChief (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe the exclusion here has less to do with whether they are permissible than with whether they are desirable. -Rrius (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Precedence of Grandsons of Sovereigns

why is the Earl of Harewood (a grandson (through a daughter) of a previous sovereign) placed in such a high level of precedence (above the Archbishops) and Peter Phillips (a grandson (through a daughter) of the current sovereign) left out? This doesnt seem consistent.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.154.177.201 (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Precedence of the new Justices of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

starting in October 2009, the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom will convene at the renovated Middlesex Hall in London....

this new judicial body will take over the functions of the Law Lords (in the House of Lords)....

where will these 12 Justices (including the President) fit into the Table of Precedence?

logically they (or at least the President) should rank higher than the Chief Justice of England.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.154.177.201 (talk) 10:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

this new elevated judicial body will be seated in October of 2009....where do the incumbents fit in the table of precedence??

(as noted above, it would be logical for the President of the Supreme Court to be ranked higher than the current Chief Justice of England....)

new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

President: Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers

Deputy Pres.: Lord Hope of Craighead

Justice: Lord Saville of Newdigate

Justice: Lord Rodger of Earlsferry

Justice: Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe

Justice: Baroness Hale of Richmond

Justice: Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood

Justice: Lord Mance

Justice: Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury

Justice: Lord Collins of Mapesbury

Justice: Sir Brian Kerr

Justice: Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony Trajanis (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that actually answers the question being asked. The question is where the President and other Justices will rank relative to the rest of the Order of Precedence, not how they will rank among themselves. -Rrius (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The answer to the initial question is that we don't know. Presumably the Queen will assign positions in the Order of Precedence as happened when the office of Lord Speaker was created, but we won't know anything until it happens. -Rrius (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

... yes, I did ask "where do the incumbents fit in the table of precedence??" so I have the same question....[I inserted the members of the new Supreme Court just for reference]... Logically, I believe the "President of the Supreme Court of the UK" will ultimately be inserted immediately above the "Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales" and the other 11 "Justices of the Supreme Court" will be inserted immediately above (or a bit higher then) the "Master of the Rolls" Trajanis (talk) 07:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

any word on where the new Supreme Court Justices fit into the table? The Supreme Court will officially open at Middlesex Guildhall on October 1, 2009.....Trajanis (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Royal Warrant dated October 1, 2009 establishes precedence of Supreme Court Justices

From the London Gazette, issue 59201 (01 Oct 2009):

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was established pursuant to the provisions of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 with effect from 1 October 2009 and provides for there to be offices of President of the Supreme Court, Deputy President of the Supreme Court and a number of Justices of the Supreme Court.

The QUEEN has been pleased by Royal Warrant bearing date 1 October 2009 to declare the rank and precedence of the President of the Supreme Court shall be placed in order immediately after the Lord Speaker and the rank and precedence of the Deputy President of the Supreme Court shall be placed in order immediately after the Master of the Rolls and the rank and precedence of the office of Justice of the Supreme Court shall be placed in order immediately after the Deputy President of the Supreme Court. [3] --189.4.208.67 (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In the future, provide the reference in the article space. -Rrius (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Precedence of Royal Family revisited

The categories is unneeded. This is because the categories are already in the Order of Precedence in the United Kingdom main article. As well User:DBD have inserted Peter/Zara/Autumn Phillips and the Earl of Harewood, who have been previously excluded after lengthy debate in the talk section "12 Precedence of non-HRH "Royals" revisited", which have recent entries from me. Please refer to talk section 12 above!! Eddo 17:37, 08 March 2009 (UTC)

debate aside, have we taken into account the House of Lords Precedence Act of 1539??

UK Statute Law Database

for example, in that law (under Henry VIII) clearly the Sovereign's nephews (in the male or female line) take precedence;

"the Kinges Nephewe or the Kinges Brothers or Sisters Sonnes"

see also detailed discussion of precedence of sons of sovereign's daughters (and sisters) in Classic Encyclopedia (based on 11th Edition Encyclopedia Brittanica Precedence Article

in that vein, I do not think it correct to delete Peter Phillips or Viscount Linley (as sons of the Sovereign's daughter and sister, respectively) from the Table of Precedence....

Trajanis (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the late reply, I've been away for a few days. Yes, we have taken into account the House of Lords Precedence Act of 1539. If you read Talk Topic 12 Precedence of non-HRH "Royals" revisited above, towards the end, you'll find that the Precedence Act only has application with respect to physically inside the House of Lords and perhaps at a Privy Council meeting. This was the legal views of the Lord Chancellor at a time when the Lord Chancellor was the highest legal officer in the Realm. A few years ago, when I only knew about the Precedence Act, I thought that female-line grandsons should be included, but this was before I knew that the Precedence Act had a limited application as interpreted by the top legal officer of the United Kingdom. Therefore, I believe that Peter Phillips, Lord Linley, and Lord Harewood should remain out of the table. Eddo 10:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.83.2.191 (talk)

Commonwealth Prime Ministers

There is a question on Talk:List of Commonwealth prime ministers as to what it is to be a 'Commonwealth Prime Minister' under the order of precedence. Does it mean Commonwealth realms only? Does it mean the Heads of Government of all the Commonwealth countries? Does it only mean those with the title 'Prime Minister'? It would be useful to have clarification, and even more useful to have references for this list. Thanks. Bastin 10:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Knights of the Garter and the Knights of the Thistle

The changes were made to the listings to update new members (and to remove deceased members) and to note that royal knights are not listed....previously only 2 royal knights were listed (with other royal knights being inconsistently omitted)...

please do not "undo" without reason.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.154.177.201 (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The following male foreign sovereigns are Knights of the Garter (should they also be included in the table?):

HRH The Grand Duke Jean of Luxembourg (1972)

HM King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden (1983)

HM King Juan Carlos I of Spain (1988)

HIM The Emperor Akihito of Japan (1998)

HM King Harald V of Norway (2001) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trajanis (talk • contribs) 12:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The following male members of the royal family are Knights of the Garter (they should all be included or excluded from the list, but not partially included)

HRH The Duke of Edinburgh KG KT OM GBE AC QSO CD PC (1947)

HRH The Duke of Kent KG GCMG GCVO (1985)

HRH The Duke of Gloucester KG GCVO (1996)

HRH The Duke of York KG KCVO ADC(P) (2006)

HRH The Earl of Wessex KG KCVO SOM ADC(P) (2006)

HRH Prince William of Wales KG (2008)

Does anyone have any evidence one way or the other whether Royals and Strangers should be included? -Rrius (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, use edit summaries. Deletions of text without explanation looks like vandalism. -Rrius (talk) 16:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally do not believe that royal Knights should be listed at this lower knightly level on the table of precedence because they already rank at the very top of the precedence table. In a similar vein, HG The Duke of Norfolk is not again listed at the baronial level (even if he also holds a subsidiary title as Baron Howard of Glossop). A person should only be listed once (at his/her highest rank) on the table of precedence.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trajanis (talk • contribs) 08:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

But that isn't necessarily the way the table works. The very fact that italics are used to identify people noted above on it bears that out. The subsidiary title issue is simply different. Each category can be thought of as "Person whose highest rank of nobility is X". or "Wife of person whose highest rank of nobility is X" In any event, I'm having trouble seeing the difference in this regard between royal knights and non-royal peers who are knights. The other peers are also listed earlier in the table, yet you have not deleted them from the list. There may well be a good reason for excluding the Royals, but so far it hasn't been presented. -Rrius (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I believe that non-royal peers who are knights should also be deleted in the listing (and have now done so) because they are already ranked higher in the table of precedence and should not be listed again at a lower ranking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trajanis (talk • contribs) 04:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question of why just these folks. There are other repeated people. So far the only justification is that you don't happen to like the repetition of these people even though repetitions are extensive in the table—just look at the sheer amount of italics in the table to see that. -Rrius (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Excepting "Privy Counsellors" could you kindly identify where these repetitions are located? Perhaps this can be addressed.Trajanis (talk) 05:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

That is a pretty sizable exception, but at least one other is Lord Mandelson. The point is that those Privy Councillors are repeated for the sake of completeness. By listing only the non-peers and non-royals, we create the impression that only those non-peers are members, your parenthetical notwithstanding. Frankly, I don't see the harm in including them, but either way, so far there is no rule for who's in and who's out. Formulating some consistent rule is more important to me than what the result of the rule is in this case. -Rrius (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Baroness Royall a Secretary of State?

According to the table, Baroness Royall is listed at "Secretaries of State, if of the degree of a baron". She's President of the Council and Leader of the House of Lords, but I don't think she's a secretary of state. As such, I'm removing her from that spot. -Rrius (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

First Secretary of State

Just wondering if the First Secretary of State (currently Peter Mandelson) should be on here? 81.155.83.176 (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The appointments of First Sec and DPM have no special precedence. They'd rank as a Secretary of State (probably ranking first among those). But Mandy's Lord Pres, so he outranks Secs of State by a fair margin anyway. DBD 08:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization

I've reorganized the top part, for the royal family, in the men's section, because I think it useful to explain the actual rules, and not just the people. I added in Viscount Linley because the precedence act of 1539 is what gives nephews precedence, and specifically includes sons of the monarch's sister as equivalent to sons of the monarch's brother. This may not actually occur in practice - if someone can demonstrate that, he can be removed, but there should probably be some kind of notice. john k (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Officers of State Household Officers

Velde's list suggests that all the great officers of state and all the household officers rank ahead of the dukes, except in parliament. Since none of them are in parliament anymore anyway (except the Earl Marshal and the Lord Great Chamberlain, I guess), shouldn't we list them all before the dukes? john k (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

where do Members of Parliament rank?

where do commoner, non-deocrated (and non-privy counsellor) MPs rank?

are they merely esquires? Trajanis (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be my understanding. john k (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Fact tags

User:Opera hat added fact tags for Viscount Linley and The Earl of Harewood. I'm not sure what the edit, which should not have been marked as minor, is challenging. Is it challenging that Linley is The Queen's nephew or that her nephews rank there? It does not appear to challenge that non-duke grandsons of former sovereigns rank where stated or that Prince Michael is one such, so it seems that Harewood's status as a non-duke grandson of a former sovereign is being challenged, but that doesn't make sense since he is pretty clearly a grandson of George V and not a duke. So what's up here? -Rrius (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should probably have tagged them as "dubious - discuss" and not "citation needed". The issue, which has been a subject of debate before, is whether female-line descendants of Sovereigns have the same precedence as male-line descendants. I didn't think there'd been any consensus in favour of that position. Opera hat (talk) 03:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking back over the prior discussions, I would support simply removing those entries and adding comments as to why they should not be listed and referring specifically to the discussions held here establishing the consensus that they should not be included. -Rrius (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Opera hat (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but: What's the point?

I know that several Wikipedia articles are just lists, many of which lack a description of what the list means. So maybe this article is conceived in that same pattern. But although English is my native langauge, I am but a mere American, and don't understand what "precedence" means here. What is it is used for? I gather it is not the same as order of succession. So I feel that I'm missing the sentence or two at the beginning of the article which tells me what a fellow can do with an order of precedence. Sorry if the question/suggestion is too idiotic. -John Hosking 83.78.154.148 18:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's used in formal settings - the order that people are listed in formal lists, the way people are seated at formal dinners, that kind of thing. It used to be more important than it is now - for my dissertation research, I was looking at the diary of the Austrian ambassador to France in the 1850s, and he seems to just naturally right out who was present at various dinner parties by order of precedence, without any conscious effort. We have an article on Order of precedence, but it's not that much better about explaining in detail what it means. I think "the way people sit at formal dinners and the order in which they are formally listed as attending things" is probably the main functional importance. john k 02:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

John, the above answer is the best literal one you are likely to get. But I think (as a fellow American), you are looking for something more substantive. You have to remember that for centuries, the English had a very distinctly stratified social structure in which it was nigh impossible to move up the social ladder (outside of very rare examples). Whereas Americans have always been socially competitive based on the acquisition of wealth and property, the English have been competitive based on title and heritage. To be the penniless Duke of Marlborough was ranked MUCH higher socially than the millionaire owner of a few factories. The Order of Precedence merely codifies this stratification in a formal manner. It's all about how the society organizes itself. Hope that helps a bit. -Ben Porter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.226.241 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The above comments are highly valid. I have noticed that Americans don't tend to greatly differentiate between economic class and social class, they tend to regard them as the same thing. In Europe social class tends to trump economic class. In the UK for instance a librarian or social worker who is the son of a noble is upper class, whereas a business magnate who is the son of a factory worker is a much admired self-made man, but not usually considered upper class. Europeans often emphasise social origin and personal deportment, whereas Americans are more concerned about how much money you have. Because librarians and social workers don't make much money they are not assigned much status in the US (despite the value to society of their work). The historic importance of Tables of Precedence are probably akin to the rich lists of the modern day. They told you who "mattered" 121.73.7.84 (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Precedence of Lord Frederick Windsor

The website of Prince Michael of Kent (father of Lord Frederick) <http://www.princemichael.org.uk/faqs/index.html#2> states that his children have the style and titles of the "younger children of a non-royal English duke".

Therefore, I believe that this table incorrectly lists the precedence of Lord Frederick (he should be on par or just ahead of younger sons of dukes). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.154.177.201 (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you read wrong — the FAQ (at least now [4]) reads "style and title" not precedence. Although that would make sense, we can't assume that precedence and style go hand in hand DBD 23:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Grandsons who are heirs apparent

My assumption is that the eldest son of the eldest son of a duke ranks alongside the eldest sons of marquesses (or just behind them). But what about when his father is dead? Does he then still rank as the grandson of a duke, or does he then rank as though he were the eldest son of the duke? john k (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I would imagine he takes his deceased father's precedence. He takes his title, after all. I think the category "eldest sons of dukes" really represents "heirs apparent to dukes". Presumably, for instance, the 5th Marquess of Londonderry, when styled Viscount Seaham as heir apparent to the Earldom of Vane held by the 3rd Marquess of Londonderry, ranked as the "eldest son of an earl" even though he clearly wasn't. Proteus (Talk) 17:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This seems sensible to me. Another related question - who took precedence, George III during his time as Prince of Wales, or his uncle the Duke of Cumberland? Presumably the Prince would have taken precedence, no? But his brothers would have ranked below their uncle? john k (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I would have thought so. I don't have any contemporary source, but Burke's lists "the Prince of Wales" (rather than "the eldest son of the Sovereign") as occupying a special place in the order of precedence. Unfortunately, like most things to do with this topic, there don't really seem to be any real rules - just a general pattern based on where people have been put in the past, and no attempt to plan for unusual circumstances. (If, for instance, William and Harry had been girls and Charles had then died, the elder girl would now be heiress apparent and possibly suo jure Princess of Wales - what position would she have in the order of precedence? Surely not below the Countess of Wessex?) Proteus (Talk) 15:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

As to the first question of whether the Prince of Wales would outrank the Duke of Cumberland, Prince > Duke in pretty much all occasions, so the Prince of Wales always outranks all Dukes (except the Duke of Edinburgh as the Queen has issued special Warrant to make him second only to herself). Also, the title Prince of Wales does not pass from father to son upon the father's death. For instance when Frederick, Prince of Wales (son of George II) pre-deceased his father in 1751, his son (the future George III) did not automatically become Prince of Wales. The future George III was created Prince of Wales under a new creation almost a month after his father's death. There has never been a suo jure Princess of Wales. The most likely possibility for this would have been The Queen between when her parents became George VI and Queen Elizabeth without any male children and already into their 40's. Given the abdication crisis had just happen, I have to imagine that there wasn't much push towards any more Royal innovation like creating a suo jure Princess of Wales. --Ben Porter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.226.241 (talk) 04:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Duke of Cumberland was a Prince, so you're wrong. As for there not being a push for a suo jure Princess of Wales, of course there hasn't: there hasn't been an opportunity since people have started worrying about gender equality. The proposition assumed a world in which William and Harry were girls, so a certain amount of imagination is required. Frankly, they came close with Bloody Mary, so it isn't absurd to think someone might actually sign letters-patent in this day and age. -Rrius (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

First Lord and Commonwealth PMs

The table lists the PM after the Archbishop of York as "First Lord of the Treasury and Prime Minister". That gives the impression, intended or not, that the PM holds that position either by virtue of being First Lord or that the two roles are stapled together and placed in that position. Of course in reality, the PM is in modern times always First Lord, but the order of precedence is the very embodiment of formalism. It seems unlikely, though not impossible, that the First Lord of the Treasury would rank above the Lord High Treasurer. I say that, because in other cases where a office is held in commission, the commissioners rank lower than an individual holder would. For instance, a Keeper of the Great Seal would rank where the Lord Chancellor does, but commissioners of the Great Seal would rank below peers. The one table I found online that actually claimed its source was a book simply said "Prime Minister". Does anyone have a dispositive source (preferably, one that that accounts for all the commissioners of the Treasury)?

The second issue is the very next line. It says that Commonwealth PMs rank just below the UK's PM. The table does not seem to mention other foreign heads of government or heads of state. Presumably, foreign heads of state would rank just below the Queen, but do we have any source for that or for where other Prime Ministers would rank? -Rrius (talk) 18:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Only since 1905 has the PM (and First Lord of the Treasury) held that rank in the order of precedence. Since 1905, the PM has always also been the first treasury commissioner, so I'm not sure we can differentiate meaningfully. What I do think this suggests is that we ought to perhaps follow the precedent of François Velde's very useful discussion of the issue, where he actually cites the relevant law, and its date, for each position where precedence is determined by statute rather than custom (ETA: he also lists, when he can, the date at which various customary precedences were established). In terms of the other question, I'm not sure. I agree that foreign heads of state would always rank right after the monarch, but as I've said elsewhere, I would imagine that all foreign heads of government would probably rank right below the head of government. The only other position for them would be with "ministers, envoys, and other very important visitors from foreign countries." But this would mean that Angela Merkel or Silvio Berlusconi would rank after their own ambassadors in London and after every single duke. john k (talk) 03:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be quite easy to differentiate meaningfully. We could do as Velde does, and just put "Prime Minister". If for some reason people think that it is vital to include "First Lord", we could put it after "PM" in parenthesis. I would note, however, that Jack Straw is listed as "Lord High Chancellor", not "Lord High Chancellor (and Secretary of State for Justice)" -Rrius (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the commonwealth PM's, it seems to me that these are just below the UK PM by virtue of the fact that these people who have been entrusted by the Sovereign to run the government of one of her several realms. Since the Balfour Convention created all the realms as equals, the PM's of the various realms must be equal as well.

As to foreign government leaders, I think it would depend on whether they are heads of state, heads of government or both. For instance, if President Obama visited from the US, he would rank next to the sovereign as head of state (even though he is also head of government), however if Angela Merkel of Germany visited, she would rank with the PM as she is head of government, but not head of state (she is Chancellor, but not President of Germany). Foreign counterparts would rank with either the Sovereign if head of state, or PM if only head of government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.226.241 (talk) 05:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Disputed

Upon her marriage, the Queen Mother (as Duchess of York) became the fourth lady in the land behind the Queen (Mary), Queen Alexandra and The Princess Mary. This fits the general principle that wife of the eldest son rank above daughters but wives of younger sons to not. According to our list however the current Princess Royal ranks below the Countess of Wessex and I have seen this on other lists too. Do we need to revise? GBS thewiki (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC).

The list here is entirely wrong. The whole page is rubbish. See correct tables here. DrKiernan (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What is this article based on, then? If it's wrong, we should obviously change it. -Rrius (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It must be based on Burke's [5][6] but that contradicts Debrett's. I think the problem comes because precedence is not just determined by law but also by the whim of the monarch [7]. Burke's was written in 1999, before Camilla and Sophie married, hence Mosley got it wrong because he was working without the benefit of seeing what rules applied in practice. In 2005, the Queen determined that Camilla would be "No. 4"[8]. i.e. the sequence would be: the Queen, the Princess Royal, Princess Alexandra of Kent, the Duchess of Cornwall. I have a 1970s source, written before all the divorces, which puts the Princess of Wales (if any) second, followed by the Sovereign's daughters, followed by the wives of the Sovereign's younger sons, so that would be the traditional sequence, however, it has all changed in the interim. In addition, Debrett's puts the Princesses of York before Camilla, so that contradicts the Daily Mail. I presume that currently the wives of the Sovereign's sons rank below the granddaughters of Sovereigns, but the article would best benefit if it actually cited some sources for its contentions. Currently, much of the page is original research. DrKiernan (talk) 09:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this reply is so late; however, I cannot accept the Debretts article as accurate. I do acknowledge that Debretts tends to be more reliable than Burke's. However, something is definitely wrong with the Debretts table. It places The Sovereign's daughters, granddaughters and cousins above the wife of the heir apparent!! That would place a Princess of Wales behind her own potential daughters and nieces. When Queen Alexandra was Princess of Wales, she did not fall behind her own daughters (Princesses Louise, Victoria and Maud of Wales) or behind her nieces (Princesses Marie, Beatrice, Victoria Melitia of Edinburgh, Princesses Margaret and Patricia of Connaught, Princess Alice of Albany) all of whom were male-line granddaughters of Queen Victoria. My apologies if I missed a princess. As well, when Diana, Princess of Wales was The Princess of Wales, she was not placed behind Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York.

When Grand Duchess Marie Alexandrovna of Russia married The Prince Alfred, Duke of Edinburgh, she was, according to sources, granted precedence after The Princess of Wales. If all daughters-in-law took precedence over daughters, then why did have to be "granted" precedence, she should already have had it as the wife of the second son. This seems to imply that wives of younger sons take precedence after daughters. [[User:eddo|Eddo (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

As is strenuously noted, the private precedence afforded to Anne, Alix and Camilla has no bearing on their actual precedence. So let's forget about that for a start. In terms of actual precedence, Camilla is the wife of the heir apparent, the Prince of Wales. Heraldica's page is a very useful source, as "shows its working" as to how it arrives at its order. I would think in general we can count on the principle of precedence that women take their husband's place and are then followed by their sisters-in-law. However, said general principle also places younger sons after daughters, which I have never seen contemplated in the case of the royals before and seems to me not to make a lot of sense... DBD 09:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Heraldica implies a sequence: Queen, Duchess of Cornwall, Princess Royal, Countess of Wessex, with Princess Alexandra before Princess Michael, as daughters take precedence over the wives of younger sons. That still doesn't match the sequence in the article. Anyway, as Heraldica doesn't mention Camilla specifically, it probably can't be used as a source for her precedence.

As the lists published by reliable sources differ, then per WP:NPOV you will have to give each of them due weight in the article. DrKiernan (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

As has been discussed numerous times on this page, Camilla the wife of the Prince of Wales has chosen to be known as the Duchess of Cornwall and take the precedence afforded by that title alone due to private preference. I think it is reasonable to assume that this is due to the remaining public memory of the last Princess of Wales, so referring to her in that manner would not be acceptable. This does not change the law, however. If Camilla began referring to herself tomorrow as The Princess of Wales, she would be entitled to do so because she is married to the POW. Also, in the event that Charles becomes King, she may still be referred to publicly as the Duchess of Cornwall, but that does not change the fact that she would legally be Queen Consort (assuming there is no change to the current law).

Because of the public outcry that would ensue if we referred to Camilla as Princess of Wales and due to The Princess Royal not wanting to curtsy her brother's new wife, it was chosen to take the decision to change the order of precedence privately. As this is a unique situation historically, principles cannot really apply, and thus, we can only go on what we can observe at functions and lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.226.241 (talk) 05:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

But precedence is not simply a matter of what happens at the Queen's functions — it has to be determinable by other people. If someone holds a function and wants to invite various members of the Royal Family, they need to know how they rank in order of precedence. This may happen very rarely now, but precedence has always been based on a solid set of rules that allow it to happen. Now the Queen can of course decide how she ranks people at her own functions. She's the Queen — she can do what she wants, and no one is going to complain. But that doesn't mean she's altering the way the system works, unless she officially says it does. It might be an interesting aside to describe how things work in the Royal Household, but the real purpose of this list is to describe the official order, as set down by official proclamations. And as far as that has always been concerned, the Sovereign's daughters outrank the wives of the Sovereign's younger sons. Proteus (Talk) 23:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)