Talk:Order of precedence in England and Wales/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Low ranking Privy counsellors in the order of precedence

Why are the Privy counsellors so low at the list of order of precedence? They are placed behind the Knights of the Garter and Knights of the Thistle, and even behind the eldest sons of Barons. The knights do not have a style and the eldest sons of Barons only "The Honourable". Instead, the Privy counsellors do have the higher ranking style "The Right Honourable". Should it be more correct therefore, to place them just behind the members of the cabinet (who do all have the style The Right Honourable) and in front of the eldest sons of Viscounts (who only have the style The Honourable)? Demophon (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Queen is the person who decides the order of precendence; it is one of the few areas where her word is law. 94.3.17.162 (talk) 02:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Is that really true? Much of the order of precedence is defined by statute. john k (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Precedence of Esquires between themselves

The number of Esquires is, of course, huge. How do Esquires rank inter se? For example, who takes precedence between a QC and the senior ranks of the army? Chelseaboy 18:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question to which I know of no official answer ever having existed. Obviously we have a clear position for the sons of peers and knights as being ahead of other esquires. There seem on the face of it likely choices, by paternal precedence (if any), by age or seniority. The historic tables seem (though without any official authority) to break them down into peers/knights/by creation/by office/all others. Alci12 11:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it depends on the occasion. I imagine civilian QCs would rank below all army officers at a military gathering and army officers would rank below all QCs at a legal gathering. It rather goes to show that the order of precedence is a template for more context-specific lists rather than reflecting any occasion that one can possibly think of when everyone in this article is lined up in precisely this order. It's still quite fun though. Chelseaboy (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine there must be some form of official list somewhere. Buckingham Palace, for instance, must encounter situations requiring untitled people who nevertheless hold official status to be placed in order of precedence. The starting point would presumably be the distinction (archaic, but still observed in some situations, for example by the College of Arms) between Esquires and Gentlemen, but where to go from there I have no idea. Proteus (Talk) 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, since both QCs and commissioned officers gain their status from the dates of the letters patent or commission respectively, perhaps the answer in THAT case is to give precedence according to the date of creation (assuming that is the source of Esquire rank). And, I suppose, it might follow that an Esquire by descent could rank above all of them. Chelseaboy (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I would assume that military and naval officers would be placed according to their rank (with officers of the same rank placed according to the seniority of their branch and then by their own seniority in that rank), but where QCs would fit into that would be an interesting question (although I'm pretty certain your suggestion that they would be ranked amongst themselves by when they were appointed would be correct). And presumably academics would fit in somewhere, presumably ranked amongst themselves by the level of their highest degree (DD down to BA (is that the lowest degree?)), but again ranked in some unknown way amongst the others. It would certainly be very interesting to see if some form of guidance does exist. Proteus (Talk) 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, now that is tricky territory! I daresay degress could be "ranked" by their class (doctorate, master's, bachelor's etc.), but surely no specific degree type (DD, DPhil, MPhys etc.) could be ranked above another of the same class – I for one would take deep offence to the suggestion that a BSci is "better" or "worthier" than a BA, and I'd expect the same applies vice versa... DBD 21:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, each university does rank its degrees in that way — it's necessary in order to determine the order of post-nominal letters for people who hold more than one degree of the same level (i.e. is it "BA, LLB" or "LLB, BA"?). And don't worry, as I'm a BA myself I have no desire to insult my own degree! The problem is that different universities presumably rank them in different ways... I don't really know now, but we are getting into absurdly detailed discussions here with absolutely no authority whatsoever! I'm impressed, even given the sort of stuff I normally talk about on Wikipedia! :-) Proteus (Talk) 22:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a minefield, for example the universities of Oxford and Cambridge use a logic all of their own. Also its still not clear, according to my research, if a degree does include you as a ranked esquire. One account implies its only those holding the MA from Oxford or Cambridge. What about those holding titles by Royal Charter, ie C.Eng chartered engineer, are they to be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.148.144.94 (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The Crown is the fount of honour, so a person holding an appointment from the Crown such as a military officer, a QC or a clergyman of the Established Church would rank ahead of a person who held an appointment from another body such as a University, no matter how eminent (not sure about Regius Professors though!) Opera hat (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Foreign royalty

One thing this list has always been unclear on is how foreign royalty are treated. I would assume that foreign heads of state would rank right after the Queen, and ahead of the Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales. But was this always the case? Would the Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha have, as a reigning monarch, had precedence ahead of his brother, the Prince Consort? Did the Duke of Edinburgh get precedence ahead of his older brother after he succeeded his uncle in Saxe-Coburg in 1893? More broadly, how were reigning foreign monarchs below the rank of king who were in England treated in the order of precedence?

Getting beyond reigning monarchs, there's the even more vexing question of junior members of foreign royal families, not to mention people from morganatic lines like the Duke of Teck or the princes of Battenberg, who actually lived in England, and for whom the question would thus not be purely academic. In general, I think this article is too focused on contemporary precedence, which is largely unimportant in the greater scheme of things, while neglecting the historical dimensions, which are actually more broadly significant, in that people actually cared about such things in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, while, more or less, nobody does anymore. john k (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

As it's not governed by Royal Warrants, Orders in Council, Acts of Parliament, etc., I suppose that the precedence of foreign royalty (and foreigners generally) is really that assigned to them by courtesy by the monarch of the day, and I would imagine that that would depend on their status in the UK. Clearly a foreign head of state on a state visit would be assigned precedence next to the monarch, but I would imagine that the same person in the UK in a private capacity (in the 19th and early 20th centuries, probably as a member of the extended British Royal Family) would be assigned a precedence commensurate with their importance, or would merely rank by virtue of whatever British titles or status he possessed. To take perhaps a rare modern example, I doubt if the Bishop of Urgell were to visit the UK in a private capacity and were to attend an official function he'd be assigned precedence immediately after the Queen, even though he's Co-Prince of Andorra (and thus a foreign head of state). I'd imagine the only way we could determine exactly how this works is to obtain lists of people in order of precedence (state functions? seating plans?) and try to work it out from there. Proteus (Talk) 17:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

An interesting, if unclear, anecdote from David Cannadine's Ornamentalism:

In the summer of 1881 King Kalakaua of Hawaii was visiting England and, in the course of an extensive round of social engagements, he found himself the guest at a party given by Lady Spencer. Also attending were the prince of Wales, who would eventually become King Edward VII, and the German crown prince, who was his brother-in-law and the future kaiser. The prince of Wales insisted that the king should take precedence over the crown prince, and when his brother-in-law objected, he offered the following pithy and trenchant justification: 'Either the brute is a king, or he's a common or garden nigger; and if the latter, what's he doing here?'

No word, though, on whether King Kalakaua was ranked ahead of the prince of Wales himself. The implication of the story appears to be that the precedence would have seen the prince of Wales first, then the king of Hawaii, then the German crown prince - otherwise wouldn't Cannadine write that the prince insisted that the king should take precedence over both of them? john k (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the implication certainly seems to be that both were outranked by the Prince of Wales - it seems to be a question of how foreign royalty rank amongst themselves when in the United Kingdom, rather than how they rank amongst British royalty. I would guess that members of foreign royal families (unless acting in an official capacity) would be placed between the British Royal Family and British peers, but I don't know whether they'd be put before or after the Great Officers of State et al. Proteus (Talk) 15:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to assume that a party thrown by Lady Spencer in 1881 would have had the Prince of Wales as the guest of honor, thus being by definition first in the order of precedence for the that occasion. Purely a guess, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.22.226.241 (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, another piece of evidence - a while back I copied out the list of royals at the Funeral of Edward VII from the Times and created an article about it, because I thought it was interesting, and so many of the attendees have articles of their own. I wrote down the personages in they order they proceeded in the horseback procession (there were three in a row, so I assumed the one in the center was first in precedence, then the one on the right, then the one on the left, followed by the one in the center in the next row back, and so forth). I assume the order they went in would be based on some modified version of the order of precedence. Looking at it, I find there's a lot of cases where it's quite hard to be particularly clear on why the order was chosen in the exact way it was. Some things are obvious (the foreign kings rank in the order that they ascended the throne), others rather less so. Obviously drawing any firm conclusions from it would be OR, but it's interesting nonetheless. One wonders if old editions of Debrett's discussed issues like this. john k (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

By warrant of 3 May 1816 the Prince Regent granted Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg precedence after sons of the King's brothers and sisters. He later became King of the Belgians, but continued to be listed in British orders of precedence according to his warrant - though I doubt very much if he would have been placed there in his capacity as a visiting monarch. Opera hat (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Members of the royal family

I know that this has been discussed already, but to give Samuel Chatto (and Lord Linley) precedence before the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent (both grandsons of a sovereign in the male line, royal dukes and princes) seems very wrong to me. Same for Peter and Zara Phillips (and BTW, if you list Peter, shouldn't Autumn be listed as well? And Linley's wife? And what about Margaret's daughter and her other three grandchildren? Seems pretty inconsistent to me, actually). What also struck me is the fact that this section is titled "members of the Royal Family". I always thought that neither Anne's children nor Margaret's descendants were actual members of the Royal Family, which only included the children and grand-children of a monarch in the MALE line (and female spouses), so they could not be listed under that heading anyhow, could they? --91.0.52.50 (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

First, Chatto and Linley are where they are because we have a reliable source saying where they go. As for what "royal family" means, there are multiple definitions. The heading is using the relatively broad sense of "those sharing close kinship with the Queen" rather than "Princes of the United Kingdom". The female-line descendants are included, again, because a reliable source says they go where we've put them. If you feel people have been excluded due to inconsistency, fix it. Some people have been missed because of changes in the real world, while others have been excluded because of varying stances taken at this page over time. -Rrius (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So according to the Precedence Act 1539, nephews in the male or female line (Linley) take precedence after the sovereign's uncles, but regarding the placement of great-nephews (regardless of them being male- or female-line) (in this case Margaret's grandchildren) or grandchildren of the Sovereign in the female line (Zara and Peter) the Precedent Act gives no information. Additionally, the Precedent Act has been "overturned" in several instances (for example, placing grandsons above brothers) and as it does not adress every possible position, some "rules" (most notably those regarding grandsons of former sovereigns) have never actually been written down somewhere but have simply become rules through pratice. That's just what got me wondering. I can see that regarding the female-line nephews and grandchildren (especially the latter), there can not be a consent for lack of information and we can't be sure of their position until it is clarified by the Royal Court (which won't happen). However, I am still not convinced, that Samuel Chatto belongs on that list at all (likewise his brother and cousins). He is only the great-grandson of a Sovereign and for my part at least I have never seen a source that says anything about the placement of great-grandson (regardless of them being male- or female-line) in the Order of Precedence. If such a source exists, I'll stand corrected, but as it is now, I don't think great-nephews should be included. Accordingly, I would propose deleting Samuel Chatto. To achieve consistency, Autumn Phillips and Lady Linley (Serena?) should be included, as they take their positions from their husbands, and Lady Sarah Chatto as well (if we accept that nephews belong on that list, it should also extend to nieces). --91.0.52.50 (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So, from what I gathered reading the various sources regarding the placement of female members of the Royal Family, the list according to tradition should be something like this:

- Queen (regnant or consort)

- Dowager Oueens (most recent first)

- daughters(-in-law)

- granddaughters(-in-law)

- sisters(-in-law)

- aunts(-in-law)

- nieces(-in-law)

- granddaughters(-in-law) of former sovereigns

Up to this point, there should be a pretty strong consent.

Regarding the placement within a certain category (e.g. daughters/daughters-in-law) we can look towards the placement of non-royals. Here, usually, the wife of the oldest son takes precedence over all daughters (who are ranked according to age, if they are not already married and derive their places from their husbands), but the wifes of younger sons list below daughters. For the Royal Family at present this would mean Camilla first, then Anne and Sophie last. The complete list, accoudingly, would be as follows:

- Queen

- Duchess of Cornwall

- Princess Royal

- Countess of Wessex

- Princess Beatrice of York

- Princess Eugenie of York

- Lady Louise (Mountbatten-)Windsor (Princess Louise of Wessex)

- [Autumn Phillips]

- [Zara Phillips]

- [Viscountess Linley]

- [Lady Sarah Chatto]

- Duchess of Gloucester

- Duchess of Kent

- Princess Alexandra of Kent

- Princess Michael of Kent

(The people put in []-brackets are not undisputed, as it is not clear yet wether one can gain precedence through one's mother - strictly according to tradition this appears not to be the case and personally I don't think they should be listed here, but since there is no defintite proof we can not be sure.)

Now the Queen has appartenly decided to raise both Anne and Alexandra to second and third place respectively for private functions only, probably because they were both born princesses and to recognize the work they have done for her and for the monarchy throughout their lifes. This however is a private decision taken by the Queen and it only concerns two individuals. There is no evidence that the Queen intended to change the whole order of precendece as determined by tradition. Instead of changing the "rules" or downgrading Camilla or whatever, she simply raised Anne and Alexandra (again: this only seems to concern privat functions, as Camilla is still the second lady at state dinners and such), while the rest of the list remains the way it is. It has been specifically stated that Camilla comes fourth after the Queen, Anne and Alexandra and there has never been any evidence that the Queen intended to raise her granddaughters above her daughters-in-law in the way it is displayed here.

My proposition, accordingly, would be to display the above list, as it seems to be the "official", traditional one used at official functions. There should be a note, explaining that for private functions Anne and Alexandra have been raised to second and third, while the rest of the list remains unchanged. (Likewise there seems to be some indication that William has been raised above his uncles, which should also be noted).

As long as we can not be certain regarding the placement of Anne's and Margaret's descendants, they may be listed, but perhaps in brackets or in italics with a footnote explaining that their placement is not certain and certainly not undisputed (same goes for Peter Phillips and Viscount Linley). This way there will be less confusion, but at the same time we can make sure that we have explored every possibility and have clearly stated where there is still uncertainity regarding some placements. --91.0.71.223 (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC) (same as the above, my computer likes to change my ID around)

That's a large block of text you've got there. In skimming your contribution, I saw exactly one source, but I don't think the 1539 Act is the only relevant source. In any event, The inclusion of female-line descendants of the Queen, whatever your personal opinion, is based on a reliable source. Do you have a reliable source on contemporary precedence that backs your opinion. I urge you to give a brief answer because I doubt I am the only one who hasn't read your two long contributions and won't read a third. -Rrius (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I based my opinion on the sources already listed above on this talk-page. Funny thing is, I have yet to see your reliable source regarding the inclusion of female-line descendants. The 1539 Act could be used for Linley (nephew of the current sovereign in the female line), but you have yet to actually name a source that justifies the inclusion of Zara and Peter Phillips, for example. --91.0.85.53 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The title of the 1539 Act is "An Acte for the placing of the Lords in the Parliament"[1]. So how exactly can its provisions apply to Lord Linley, who is not even a peer, let alone a member of the House of Lords? Opera hat (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I largely agree with the anon - whatever the queen may do in private precedence, what matters is public precedence. If the Duchess of Cornwall ranks ahead of the Princess Royal at state dinners and the like, that is what is most important, because at this point that's what order of precedence essentially is, although the other stuff can be mentioned of course. john k (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

How many non-royal dukes are there?

The author lists as a category 24 eldest sons of non-royal dukes but only 23 non-royal dukes (above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cato the Younger (talk • contribs) 00:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably because one of the eldest sons is Lord Arundel, whose father ranks higher than other Dukes as Earl Marshal. Opera hat (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That's absolutely correct. There are 24 non-royal dukes. I wrote that. The Duke of Norfolk (who is one of the 24 non-royal dukes) ranks in an even higher category above all other non-royal dukes because he holds the position of "Earl Marshal". His son, Lord Arundel, is one of the 24 eldest sons of non-royal dukes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trajanis (talk • contribs) 09:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Earls' daughters & sons

Why do the daughters of Earls have precedence above Baronesses, yet the sons (other than the eldest) have precedence below barons? It seems odd that a younger daughter of an Earl is Lady [forename][surname] but a younger son is not Lord [forename][surname]. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.7.84 (talk)

This is because traditionally with the children of peers (not only those of earls), all daughters have the same rank as their oldest brother, but younger sons are listed below the oldest, probably to highlight the fact that the oldest son is the heir and will succeed to the father's titles while younger sons will likely remain what they are. So for sons this simply means that the oldest ranks far above all of his younger brother (with some distance). Regarding daughters and daughters-in-law, the wife of the oldest son outranks all others. She is followed directly by all actual daughters (sisters of her husband) because they, as mentioned above, share the same rank. Wifes of younger sons take their husband's rank and are accordingly listed far below daughters. It has to be said that by "daughters" we actually mean to say "unmarried daughters", seeing as a married woman assumes her husband's position (be it above or below her own), with one exception: if the daughter of a peer marries a man below the rank of baron, she retains her own rank (given according to her father's position) even after marriage.

I can't for the life of my explain why exactly those rules apply or how they came to be, but as far as I am aware this is the general order by which children of peers are ranked. --91.0.71.223 (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A peeress in her own right would maintain her own rank if it was higher than her husband's, no? The Countess Mountbatten of Burma, for example, always ranked as a countess, not a baroness, right? john k (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

@ 91.0.71.223, thanks for the explanation - its something i've never been able to find out before, and quite relevant to this article. It makes sense that since females are not their brother's rivals inheritance-wise, their equal rank poses no issue. By clearly and intentionally giving younger sons a lesser rank, male primogeniture is reinforced. It makes perfect sense now. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The way I understood it was that English inheritance law recognised difference of age among males but not among females, which is why baronies by writ fall into abeyance between daughters when the same peerage would be inherited by sons in order of age - all the daughters are equally senior so have equal rights of inheritance as co-heiresses. Similarly with regard to precedence, all the daughters are effectively the eldest daughter, so rank alongside eldest sons. Opera hat (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not true in Scottish inheritance law, though. Does Scottish precedence treat daughters differently than English? I had thought they were basically the same, except that some specifically Scottish offices get higher precedence in Scotland. john k (talk) 16:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but the current table of precedence, even as used in Scotland, largely follows English tradition. I don't know how daughters would have been ranked in Scotland before the Union. Opera hat (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Peers: Numbers and exceptions

Unless anyone objects, I propose to remove the following:

• Specific numbers of people within categories (e.g., "6 Dukes of Scotland" and "Eldest sons of 116 viscounts"). These are, in my opinion, unnecessary and potentially confusing—it's not too difficult to imagine someone wondering why six Scottish dukes are being singled out and where the rest of the Scottish dukes rank. Since there's already a link to the list of dukes in the peerage of Scotland, anyone who does want to know more about them can easily get that information. The women's order already lacks the numbers, further suggesting that they're not really needed.
• Lengthy lists of people within categories who rank higher for other reasons (see, e.g., the lists following the earls, barons and baronets). As well as being difficult to maintain (and possibly incomplete now), these also seem unnecessary; since those people have already been listed higher on the page, it should be obvious that they do in fact rank higher.

If there are good reasons I've overlooked for keeping the numbers and lists of exceptions, by all means please point them out. If not, I will make the changes shortly. Alkari (?), 10 October 2010, 04:11 UTC

I don't even understand your first point. There are six Dukes in the peerage of Scotland, so why not say it? I don't understand the harm. As to the second point, it's not really that hard to maintain at all. In fact, it tends to be one of the easier things to keep up with. Noting that a given baron or duke or Supreme Court justice ranks higher may not be of any interest to you, but I think it is helpful to readers. -Rrius (talk) 04:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I explained the first point very well—sorry. What I meant was that, especially for someone who's not too familiar with the peerage, "6 Dukes of Scotland" could easily be read as "six of the Dukes of Scotland rank here" (which leads to the confusion I was talking about) rather than "the Dukes of Scotland, of which there are six, rank here". As for the lists of exceptions, I concede your point and withdraw my proposal. Alkari (?), 11 October 2010, 03:57 UTC

Grandsons and Great Grandsons of Dukes (and Grandsons of Marquesses)

Most grandsons and great grandsons of Dukes and grandsons of Marquesses have courtesy titles...do they have any position on the table of precedence?Trajanis (talk) 18:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The eldest son of the eldest son of a duke would rank after the eldest son of a marquess, I think. The eldest son of the eldest son of a marquess would rank after the eldest son of an earl. The eldest son of the eldest son of the eldest son of a duke would rank after the eldest son of the eldest son of a marquess. That, at least, is my understanding. john k (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense...if you can quote any source (I cannot seem to find any), I will add those positions to the table. ThanksTrajanis (talk) 09:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any sources. Why should Lord Mornington, who's not even the son of a peer, rank ahead of Lord Hereford, who's the Premier Viscount of England? Opera hat (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

His father ranks ahead of the Premier Earl of England despite not being a peer. I don't see how there's any clear distinction. john k (talk) 00:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

But there are plenty of sources for the precedence of children of peers. I do see what you're saying - as "eldest sons of younger sons of peers" have an entry, down near the bottom after Companions of the Imperial Service Order, you'd think there should be a place for eldest sons of eldest sons of peers, and the one you've described is a logical one (though I'm not sure about unto the third and fourth generation). But if there isn't a source for it, you can't put it there just because it makes sense. Opera hat (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way: the Premier Earl of England is the Duke of Norfolk as Earl of Arundel. The Earl of Shrewsbury was the "Premier Earl on the Roll" when there still was a Roll of Parliament; since 1999 there has just been an alphabetical list of members of the House of Lords, on which Lord Shrewsbury is the Earl with the highest precedence. Opera hat (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we do need a source. Obviously eldest sons of eldest sons of peers must have higher precedence than eldest sons of younger sons of peers. My basic understanding was just that the eldest son of a duke is effectively a marquess, in terms of precedence; the eldest son of a marquess is effectively an earl in the same way; and so forth. So that the eldest son of an effective marquess is an effective earl. But, as you say, a source is needed. john k (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is what I found so far, although I admit it is only a start:

Not a source, but a description from Privilege of peerage: "Children of the eldest son of a peer also obtain a special precedence. Generally, the eldest son of the eldest son of a peer comes immediately before his uncles, while the younger sons of the eldest son of a peer come after them. Therefore, eldest sons of eldest sons of dukes come before younger sons of dukes, and younger sons of eldest sons of dukes come after them, and so forth for all the ranks. Below the younger sons of barons are baronets, knights, circuit judges and companions of the various orders of Chivalry, followed by the eldest sons of younger sons of peers."

Two sources talk about the precedence of grandchildren of peers: Website Heraldica: General and special orders of precedence and Burke's Peerage and Gentry: Precedence (see keywords like children and grandchildren).

Maybe this helps you guys further? Diodecimus (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the text to incorporate the option of eldest grandson of peers etc. Unfortunately, it is already partially reverted. Diodecimus (talk) 11:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's because your contributions were unsourced. Opera hat (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but a lot of edits here are now also unsourced. Diodecimus (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's true. Opera hat (talk) 00:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This page [2] with a source states:

Children of the eldest son of a peer also obtain a special precedence.

Generally, the eldest son of the eldest son of a peer comes immediately before his uncles, while the younger sons of the eldest son of a peer come after them. Therefore, eldest sons of eldest sons of dukes come before younger sons of dukes, and younger sons of eldest sons of dukes come after them, and so forth for all the ranks. Below the younger sons of barons are baronets, knights, circuit judges and companions of the various orders of Chivalry, followed by the eldest sons of younger sons of peers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trajanis (talk • contribs) 11:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems to derive directly from the wikipedia article Diodecimus quoted above. john k (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That page is explicitly a copy of a Wikipedia page. —Tamfang (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Men vs Women

Why is Her Majesty included in the Men's section of this article, and repeatedly included in the Woman's section also?? I think Her Majesty would very much dislike being referred to as a man, surely she should only appear in the Women's section?? PoliceChief 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Because HM takes precedence over every single person in the UK (&her other realms &c &c &c) when she is present. Therefore she appears on both lists. Similarly, whenever Charles accedes to the throne, he will also appear on both lists. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 14:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Why is are there separate sections for Men and Women anyway? Do all Men automatically take precedence over all women (excluding the queen)? If so, perhaps there should be a separate section "The Sovereign", which takes precedence over all others? (Logically, we should then rename the other sections to be "Other Men", "Other Women" - ie other than the sovereign - which would avoid the need to duplicate the sovereign in his/her own gender's section). In any case, I think some explanation of the Men/Women distinction is required. I believe that males generally take precedence over females when it comes to succession to the throne, but as per the article on order of precedence, the two orders are not necessarily the same. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

In succession to the throne, it is males over females only among the children of a particular member of the royal family. Otherwise, when George VI passed away the throne would have passed straight to Charles. Even if the order of precedence matched the order of succession to the throne, there would just as well be an order in which men and women are mingled together. -- Smjg (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we not merge the Men's and Women's lists together?? Why are they separate?Trajanis (talk) 08:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Crown produced separate tables for men and women, so mashing them together would be WP:OR. -Rrius (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

This view surely cannot be correct? Given that one of the main reasons for having an order of precedence (as confirmed in the talk article above) is to provide an order of announcement for people at events, and to help in determining seating positions, this cannot be true. At any official function, men and women are NOT sat separately in different rooms, nor with all the men sitting on one table and all the women sitting on another! Women can be are mentioned in announcements to the room in their own right, and are NOT simply listed following all the men. Does anyone know the source document that the Royal Household uses to intermingle the two lists, when they determine a list of precedence of guests at an official party or event? --Rob Blakemore (talk) 12:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they take one from each list in alternation? —Tamfang (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe so. If an Archbishop, a Duke, a Marquess, a Countess, a baronet's widow and the daughter of a CBE were invited to a formal dinner, the baronet's widow would go in with the Duke, ahead of the Marquess. Opera hat (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The Earl of Harewood

Does The Earl of Harewood (son of Princess Mary, Princess Royal, the only daughter of King George V) really outrank the Archbishop of Canterbury?? He is not an "HRH", and he descends from a female line.... Trajanis (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard that he ranks above an ordinary earl. john k (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

And I'm pretty sure Peter and Zara Phillips, Lord Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto shouldn't be as high as they are, either. I've removed them before but they keep being reinstated. Opera hat (talk) 14:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Linley and Chatto are to be placed where they are based on the actual wording of the Precedence Act of 1539, which refers to ""or

"the King's brothers' or sisters' sons." But the precedence of grandchildren of the current monarch is not determined by statute, but by practice, and I've never heard of non-agnatic grandchildren being granted precedence immediately after the monarch's children. Nor is the precedence of grandchildren of former monarchs determined by statute. The Phillipses and Lord Harewood ought distinctly to be removed; Linley and Chatto should stay. john k (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

While admitting that Lord Linley could be described as "the King's sister's son", and that as a general rule daughters rank as eldest sons, the full title of the Act you mention, 31 Hen. 8 c. 10, is "an Acte for the placing of the Lords in the Parliament", and the short title "House of Lords Precedence Act 1539".[3] As one might expect, it concerns precedence in the House of Lords. Neither Lord Linley nor Lady Sarah are or ever have been members, so are not covered by the Act. Alternative source needed if they are to stay. Opera hat (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The distinction between precedence within the House of Lords and without is mentioned in the warrant of 1952 determining the precedence of Prince Philip, i.e. next after the Queen "except where otherwise provided by Act of Parliament". Outside the House of Lords, he ranks above everyone except the Queen. Inside the House of Lords, his precedence is provided by the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539, so he ranked last among the Dukes until losing his seat altogether in 1999. Opera hat (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...on the other hand, the 1539 act is the basis for much precedence outside of parliament as well, no? I'm happy with removing them, as well, but I think their case is still a bit stronger than the others. If you want to remove them, I certainly won't revert. john k (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The longer this debate goes on the more ridiculous I feel our current position is. It seems clear that female-line grandchildren don't rank amongst the Royal Family, and yet we seem happy to accord that status to female-line nephews, who are in all practical respects further down the pecking order. Does Lord Linley really rank higher than Peter and Zara Phillips? And is it remotely conceivable that when the Queen dies and the Prince of Wales succeeds, Lord Linley will drop from ranking above the Archbishop of Canterbury to ranking below Viscounts? And that Peter and Zara Phillips - now being female-line nephew and niece of the King - will suddenly gain an exalted rank they never had when their grandmother was on the throne (only to lose it again once Prince William succeeds)? Most importantly, although we've had plenty of discussions about 16th century Acts of Parliament, has anyone ever produced an actual example of someone like Lord Linley being ranked higher at an official function (a state banquet, say) than the Great Officers of State, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and visiting heads of government? Proteus (Talk) 23:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. But do people like Lord Linley even get invited to such functions? (Rather telling in itself, if not.) Opera hat (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, Lord Linley does rank higher than Peter and Zara Phillips - as the eldest son of an Earl, whereas they are the eldest son and daughter of a Lady of the Garter. Opera hat (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I would have thought the most likely period when one could find references to female-line nephews/nieces of the reigning Sovereign attending official functions as British subjects, rather than as foreign royalty, would be temp. Edward VII (Princess Helena Victoria, Princess Marie Louise, Princess Louis of Battenberg, possibly Prince Alexander of Battenberg) and temp. George V (Princess Arthur of Connaught, maybe Lady Carnegie). But I don't really know where to start looking for evidence of precedence at such events. The Fife daughters were explicitly granted precedence after other members of the Royal Family by Edward VII. Opera hat (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that this, like quite a few things relating to the Order of Precedence, is unclear and disputed, and therefore the only thing consistent with NPOV is to note that it is unclear and disputed (and explain the different views).

With regard to the Precedence Act 1539, I certainly agree that custom or practice cannot override it. But, as the long title indicates, it only applies in the House of Lords. It is true that it is the basis for the Order of Precedence outside the House, but this is merely a matter of practice. Thus where practice outside the House differs from the Act, it is practice that governs. Neljack (talk) 23:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• As I've said in the edit summaries, we have a source for the higher rankings. Debrett's, as I recall. People can debate the interaction of the letters patent and the House of Lords Precedence Act all they want, but we should follow the sources that actually tell us where people rank. -Rrius (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That would be fine if they all agreed. I don't think I've ever seen two tables of precedence the same. Proteus (Talk) 00:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, quite. Debrett's website, for example, puts the wife of the heir apparent after the Queen's cousin. Opera hat (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And although, as they don't specify individuals within their descriptions, it's not clear whether they include Peter Phillips amongst "The Sovereign's Grandsons", it is clear that they don't rank Lord Linley highly, as there's no mention of "The Sovereign's Nephew". Proteus (Talk) 00:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Female-line grandchildren are not grandchildren

Supplement to the London Gazette, 9 November 1905: "His Majesty has also directed that the daughters of Her Royal Highness [i.e. of his daughter Princess Louise, Duchess of Fife] [...] shall have precedence and rank immediately after all members of the Royal Family enjoying the style of Royal Highness." Edward VII obviously intended to honour his female-line granddaughters by giving them the title Princess and the style Highness. If they already ranked ahead of granddaughters of former sovereigns such as HRH Princess Alexander of Teck and HRH Princess Patricia of Connaught, why would he have demoted them? Opera hat (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Peter Phillips

His article says he's in the order of precedence, a grandson of the female line from the Queen; but not according to this article. Which is correct? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The only reliable source I've seen, Debrett's, refers to "grandsons of the Sovereign", not "male-line grandsons of the Sovereign". The only other source marshalled against this position is an act regarding precedence in the House of Lords. I'm perfectly willing to accept that female-line grandsons don't rank among their male-line cousins, but something more reliable is needed before ignoring the actual source we have. -Rrius (talk) 01:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

An example of the order of precedence in action: the Royal Family at Westminster Abbey on Friday. In the second row are the Duke of York, Princess Beatrice of York, Princess Eugenie of York, the Earl of Wessex, the Countess of Wessex, the Princess Royal, VAdm Timothy Laurence (children and male-line grandchildren of the Sovereign). Third row the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, Princess Alexandra (grandchildren of former Sovereign). And then Peter and Zara Phillips (female-line grandchildren of the Sovereign) with their other halves are behind them ahead of other more remote Windsors. Lord Harewood wasn't even invited (though admittedly he is 88). Opera hat (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mar exception redundant

• Eldest sons of non-royal Earls and of Countesses in their own right (ordered according to the precedence of peerage holders; excepting Susan, The Mistress of Mar, heir to The Countess of Mar)

Why except her? She's not a son, and she's not an heir-apparent. —Tamfang (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and I have removed her. Waltham, The Duke of 17:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Other mistakes

I believe there are other mistakes also.

Spouses of former soverigns is missing.

Surely uncles of the Soverign (such as brother of the Queen Mother) would not be included in the order of precedence.

Also uncles of the Soverign should not be listed. Son's of previous Soverigns should however be listed. Rodchen (talk) 07:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Does the Duke (and thus Duchess) of Cambridge take precedence over the Duke of York and Earl of Wessex? If so he should be ranked as such. In addition doesn't the Princess of Wales (Camilla) take fourth in the Private order of precedence after the Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra b/c she uses the style of a duchess, not the PoW? And if that is the case, before Camilla and Charles married, did the Countess of Wessex, who took 2nd in precedence, accompany the Prince of Wales, since he was unmarried, or did the Earl of Wessex take precedence? Does anyone know how it worked? 74.69.127.200 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Lord Great Chamberlain

Is currently listed at the top of the list of Marquesses, but as a Great Officer shouldn't the office be listed between Lord Privy Seal and Lord High Constable? -- 86.181.42.57 (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

yes, you are correct if the Lord Great Chamberlain is a Duke and in actual performance of his duty, or when in attendance on the person of the Sovereign for the time being or when introducing a peer into the House of Lords. However, no Lord Great Chamberlain has been a Duke since 1779. Since 1990 the post has been held by the Marquess of Cholmondeley, who accordingly ranks at the head of the Marquesses rather than at the head of the Dukes. Moreover, he holds the post of Lord Great Chamberlain strictly speaking as a deputy, but is styled and given precedence as if he were a full Lord Great Chamberlain.Trajanis (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Princess Sophia's Precedence Act

The Princess Sophia's Precedence Act 1711 still seems to be in force, which might put a lot of people before the Archbishop of Canterbury. --Rumping (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

In practice, obviously, that isn't done, but this is an interesting point. The law refers to the Protestant heirs of the body of Sophia—does that mean all her living Protestant descendants, or only the senior one (by primogeniture) for the time being? If the former, that suggests your interpretation; if the latter, it only means the reigning Sovereign (who does of course rank before Canterbury). Perhaps someone more familiar with 18th-century laws of succession could clarify. Alkari (?), 31 October 2011, 21:32 UTC

Heirs of the body means the heir-general and his or her successors, not all issue of the body. (In the Act the future George I is described as Sophia's heir-apparent, not an heir of her body, which he could not be until her death.) I assume this provision was included to ensure that if Sophia and the Duke of Cambridge both died before the Queen, the new heir-presumptive to the Crown would still have precedence. As you say, since the death of Queen Anne in 1714, the heir of the body being Protestant of Electress Sophia has been the same person as the Sovereign, who takes precedence over everyone, so the Act has been pretty much redundant since then. The exception is from 1936 to 1972, when the heir of the body of Electress Sophia was not the Sovereign, but the Duke of Windsor ranked ahead of the Archbishop of Canterbury anyway as a brother of the Sovereign until 1952, then as an uncle of the Sovereign until his death. Opera hat (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Although of course if the changes to the succession which have been announced are brought into effect, the possibility of a divergence would again arise. I wouldn't be surprised, though, if the changes are accompanied by a general clear-up of a lot of monarchy-related legislation, and this Act has surely got to be near the top of the list for the chop. Proteus (Talk) 17:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course. But the first person to have precedence under the Act who would not already have it by virtue of his or her relation to the Sovereign would have to be a grandchild or more remote descendant of Prince William, which is a good way off yet. Opera hat (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Sons-in-law of the sovereign?

Are sons-in-law of the sovereign meant to be included in this list anywhere? LarryJeff (talk) 23:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

To my knowledge, no. In general, although women may derive precedence from their husbands, men do not derive precedence from their wives. Alkari (?), 14 December 2011, 08:20 UTC

With the Queen's husband apparently being an exception to that rule? LarryJeff (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no – he outranks the Prince of Wales et al., but he had to be specifically granted that precedence; he didn't acquire it automatically by virtue of being the Queen's husband. Alkari (?), 15 December 2011, 02:45 UTC

Precedence of Chancellor of the Exchequer

Is it correct that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has the lowest place in the order of precedence of all the Cabinet level ministers? Paddyman1989 (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

other members of Cabinet have even lower precedence. For example, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has lower precedence. Other members of Cabinet, The Chief Secretary of the Treasury and the Minister without Portfolio (Minister of State) are not even on the Table of Precedence.

However, the current Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is also the Leader of the House of Lords and happens to be a hereditary baron (The Rt Hon. The Lord Strathclyde PC) so he has higher precedence by virtue of his peerage title. In addition, the position of Minister without Portfolio (Minister of State) is currently held by a life baroness (The Rt Hon. The Baroness Warsi PC) so she also has higher precedence by virtue of her peerage title.Trajanis (talk) 07:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

So why is George Osborne in italics when he is only in the list once? In the "Privy Counsellors" section, it has he "ranks higher as a Privy Counsellor." How can this be? Mm jimmy (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You are reading it incorrectly. George Osborne is also a privy counsellor (one of many) and that position technically ranks slightly higher than his position as Chancellor of the Exchequer. The "Privy Counsellors" et alii (and others) section to which you refer also includes the following positions:

The Chancellor of the Order of the Garter

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

Trajanis (talk) 09:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Dowager Countess of Harewood

What about the Dowager Countess of Harewood? Kowalmistrz (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If you are referring to The Princess Mary, Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood, she died in 1965 Trajanis (talk) 10:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Essentially, an unremarried Dowager stays where she was before her husband karked it. DBD 11:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The Dowager Countess of Harewood ranks before the current Countess of Harewood. Her late husband was not a grandson or nephew of the current Sovereign, so had no precedence other than in his rank as Earl. I think. Opera hat (talk) 12:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The Dowager Countess of Harewood was married to the 7th Earl of Harewood (a grandson of King George V, through the female line (i.e., via Princess Mary, Princess Royal)). I do not believe that a grandson (through a female line) of a former sovereign has any special royal precedence. As such, the Dowager Countess should only rank as a non-royal countess.Trajanis (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Then I suggest you to look into the article we are actually discussing here... Just like the Queen's female-line grandchildren today, Peter and Zara Phillips, the late Earl of Harewood, who was a female-line grandson of George V, had precedence among the other members of the Royal Family and before any other peers. It is customary that a wife ejoys her husband's rank and takes his precedence. Because of that, Mrs Peter Phillips currently takes precedence after the Duchess of Cambridge and before Princess Beatrice of York. During her husband's lifetime, now the Dowager Countess of Harewood had a place in the order of precedence after Princess Michael of Kent, another former sovereign's granddaughter-in law whose husband is not a royal duke, and before Princess Alexandra. Now, the question is does the Countess retain her place in the order of precedence after her widowhood until she eventually remarries? I think she does. Kowalmistrz (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There have been numerous arguments discussions in the past as to whether female-line relatives of the Sovereign rank alongside male-line relatives of the same degree. I don't know which is correct. But it is definitely wrong to say that Mrs Peter Phillips ranks ahead of Princess Beatrice. Opera hat (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, Opera, that's in the article.... The female-line grandchildren of the Sovereign (the Phillipses) and the previous Sovereign (children of the Princess Margaret) are included in the order of precedence, according to Wiki. I suppouse the previous Princess Royal's two sons, the Lascelleses, were also included when they were alive. Were they? As a wife takes the rank and precedence of her husband, their wives should be also included in the first category in the order of precedence, like the wife of Peter Phillips, Autumn, is. If Autumn Phillips is included, why the widow of the late of Earl of Harewood is not? Kowalmistrz (talk)

The article is a mess and almost completely unreferenced. To answer your question: the 1911 Britannica (volume 22, page 268) says "the precedence of the members of the royal family depends on their relationship to the reigning sovereign and not on their relationship to the predecessors of the reigning sovereign". Under the 1539 Act on which the order of precedence is based, Peter Phillips' precedence would derive from his being a grandson of Queen Elizabeth II and Lord Linley's as a nephew of Queen Elizabeth II; the fact that Lord Linley also happens to be a grandson of the late King George VI is incidental. It appears to be only custom rather than law that places grandchildren of former sovereigns who are Royal Highnesses such as Prince Michael of Kent where they are; I'm not convinced this custom extends to grandchildren of former sovereigns who are not members of the Royal Family, like the late Lord Harewood. Yes, this interpretation would mean that in 1952 Lord Harewood went from ranking as a nephew of the sovereign to ranking as an 1812 earl, but there are crazier inconsistencies - e.g. when a duke's daughter marries a baron's son, she ranks considerably above her husband until he succeeds his father, whereupon her rank drops to that of a baroness. Opera hat (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

This table here describes the category of The Sovereign's cousins as the sons of the brothers and sisters of the Sovereign's royal parent (through whom he or she inherited the throne); ordered according to the rules of primogeniture. The late Earl of Harewood was a son of the sister of the Sovereign's royal parent so he was included. Thus, his widow should be also included. So, although you are absolutely right that someone's place in the order of precedence comes from that person's relation to the current monarch and not his or her precedessors, Prince Michael's and the Queen's other HRH cousins' precedence is not customary but legally derives from them being the Soveriegn's royal cousins. Kowalmistrz (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Another wikipedia article is not a reliable source for anything - see WP:CIRCULAR. Where is the legislation or royal warrant that shows the sovereign's cousins having any precedence as such? It's certainly not cited in the article Orders of precedence in the United Kingdom. Opera hat (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Dropping from a member of the Royal Family to an Earl is surely more of a drop than from a Marchioness (as the daughter of a Duke) to a Baroness (as the wife of a Baron). And the normal rules prevent people dropping too far - a Duke's daughter takes her husband's rank if he is a peer, but not if he is anything lower. The way we currently have it means that Peter Phillips will drop from the grandson of a Sovereign (Queen Elizabeth II) to the nephew of a Sovereign (King Charles III/George VII) to an Esquire (King William V). That's quite a drop! (And patently absurd. Just think - one day you outrank the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Prime Minister, all the Great Officers of State, the entire judiciary, every member of both Houses of Parliament, and the entire Diplomatic Corps, and the next you're outranked by David Beckham. Precedence can be pretty mad, but not that mad.) Proteus (Talk) 19:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

But that is if the 1539 Act "for the placing of the Lords in the Parliament" even applies outside the House of Lords. In 1905 Ladies Alexandra and Maud Duff, female-line granddaughters of the reigning sovereign, Edward VII, were granted precedence after all members of the Royal Family. Why would this have happened if they were already senior members of the Royal Family as granddaughters of the sovereign? Obvious answer: they weren't, and Peter Phillips isn't. Within the Lords, one would really need to check Garter's Roll to see whether Lords Carisbrooke and Harewood were ranked (in 1917-1960 and 1952-1999, respectively) above the Archbishop of Canterbury as female-line nephews/grandsons of former sovereigns. Do the pre-1999 Journals of the House of Lords include the Roll of the Peerage at the start of each Parliament? Opera hat (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Lord Selkirk of Douglas

...is presently described as ranking not as a life peer, but as the younger son of a Duke. However, the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article on precedence (volume 22, pages 271-272) says

Within the limits of the peerage derivative rank is as a rule always merged in personal, as distinguished from official, substantive rank. If, for example, the younger son of a duke is created a baron or inherits a barony, his precedence ceases to be that of a duke's younger son and becomes that of a baron. But where the eldest son of a duke, a marquess or an earl is summoned to the House of Lords in a barony of his father's, or succeeds as or is created a baron, he is still, as before, "commonly called" by some superior title of peerage, as marquess, earl or Viscount, and retains his derivative precedence on all occasions, except in parliament or at ceremonies which he attends in his character as a peer. The younger sons of all peers, however, who are created or who inherit peerages — which they often do under special limitations — are everywhere placed according to their substantive rank, no matter how inferior it may be to their derivative rank. But if the son of a duke or a marquess, whether eldest or younger, or the eldest son of an earl is consecrated a bishop his derivative rank is not merged in his substantive rank, because it is official, and his derivative and personal rank implies the higher precedence. Again, the daughters of dukes, marquesses and earls who become peeresses by marriage or creation, or who inherit as peeresses, are placed according to their substantive and not according to their derivative rank, although they may thereby be assigned a far lower precedence than that to which their birth entitles them.

Is there a source to say this has changed since 1911? Opera hat (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

your point is well taken and I have made adjustments to the reference to Lord Selkirk of Douglas.Trajanis (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Sovereign's great-grandchildren

Why are the daughters of Mr Peter Phillips included in the order of precedence? In that case, why the great-grandchildren of previous Sovereigns are not included? That would be the children of Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto (George VI), the children of the Duke of Gloucester, Duke of Kent, Prince Michael of Kent, Princess Alexandra, the late Earl of Harewood and the late Hon. Gerald Lascelles (George V), and the Duke of Fife himself, who is a great-grandson of Edward VII. Kowalmistrz (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

... the reference to female line great grand daughters of the Queen has been deleted.Trajanis (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

female precedence

Why is the long-form chart different than the precedence boxes on people's pages (like on "Kate" and William's pages)? In the boxes, the Duchess of Cornwall and the Countess of Wessex take precedence over the Princess Royal and to confuse things further, Zara Phillips MBE takes precedence over the Princess Alexandra, Lady Oglivy. But on this page, the Princess Royal takes precedence, followed by the Queen's granddaughters: Beatrice of York, Eugenie of York, Louise of Wessex, and Zara Phillips MBE. then the Princess Alexandra. I know it was announced when Camilla married Charles that there were (or are?) two orders of precedence, one for state occasions where the Duchess of Cornwall takes precedence when she's with the Duke of Cornwall, and one for private occasions, where the Princess Royal is second. BUT I thought that the Princess Alexandra, Hon. Lady Ogilvy was third, in recognition of her decades of royal service. Instead the Queen's granddaughters take precedence. And to confuse me more, the Duchess of Cambridge seems to take precedence over the Countess of Wessex, who is the wife of one of the Sovereign's sons. I thought Catherine was ordered to curtsy to "blood princesses", inculding her cousins-in-law. I'm confused as to how a 9-year-old untitled granddaughter takes precedence (in public or private) over the wife of the Heir Apparent. Before you reply, I KNOW the Order of Precedence is diff. in private, but I thought that only applied with Anne and Alexandra. If Camilla enters a room at Sandringham this Christmas where the Lady Louise is, Camilla's supposed to curtsy to her? Because as it is written up, "Lady" Louise of Wessex takes precedence as a granddaughtr over the "Duchess of Cornwall" the wife of the Heir-Apparent. I don't THINK SO. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

former Prime Ministers

Do former First Lords of the Treasury have a place in the order of precedence or do they have to take precedence from their membership in the Privy Council or some other way? 74.69.11.229 (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

To give you the short answer, it's the latter. Most former office-holders have no place in the order of precedence by virtue of their having held an office (bishops are a notable exception, though their status is arguably more than just an office). This seems to apply to the Lords of the Treasury as well: indeed, not even serving Lords of the Treasury seem to rank in the order collectively, judging by the entry on the Lord High Treasurer and the lack of an entry for Lords of the Treasury (along the lines of the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal). The Prime Minister does have the rank of the obsolete office of Lord High Treasurer, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer's rank is pretty low, even below that of Privy Counsellors (and therefore practically meaningless). But I digress. First Lords continue to rank as Privy Counsellors when they leave office, or as Knights of the Garter or peers if applicable; of course, if they are entitled to higher precedence by birth, they keep that, although it is rare these days. Waltham, The Duke of 17:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the exception given for bishops. A person is a bishop for life, even if they retire, so their maintaining their precedence would come from the fact that they are still bishops, no? . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, of course; I did not remember this, but it makes sense. The "exception" comment was my own, and I have struck it. Waltham, The Duke of 12:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Cabinet

How is the order of Secretaries of State in the Cabinet section, determined? I assumed it would be date of joining the Privy Council, but it doesn't seem to be.--82.35.251.109 (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to be in the Prime Minister's discretion, and to be influenced by the importance of the posts as much as by that of their holders. I'll try to provide some details in a footnote, though sources are hard to come by. Waltham, The Duke of 17:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Footnote added, with some delay. There is also this, but I'm trying to find a less sensational source for the list. Waltham, The Duke of 15:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Providing sources

I have studied carefully the gentlemen's list (I mean to deal with the ladies list after I finish this one first), and I have determined where there are sourcing gaps which need to be filled; most of the list can be reliably sourced to Burke's (several pages), and only a few updates and details are missing. I thought I'd avoid using fifty citations to the same page by stating somewhere that Burke's is the main source and that everything on the page is sourced to that unless stated otherwise... But it turns out this might cause problems, either with newly added information of unknown provenance or with information that is cited both to Burke's and to another source (rather than only to the latter).

So, any ideas before I proceed with such a big change? I'd really like to see a fully sourced table that people can trust, though I don't know if I would go to the extent of also providing sources for who holds each office (doesn't it count as common knowledge?). Not to mention the exceptions, which are probably original research so long as they do not concern people already mentioned higher up in the list, or in the other table. Finally, there is the matter of the recently re-introduced numbers for peers, which will require frequent maintenance and are almost impossible to prove. We need to strive for a reliably sourced list, and such elements prevent us from reaching that goal. Waltham, The Duke of 20:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Message to Trajanis and to anyone else who would like to weigh in on this.

As part of my streamlining and sourcing of the list, I have removed certain exceptions from the ranks of peers in the table for gentlemen. My logic is pretty simple: "earls" means "living men who hold an earldom and no higher peerage title than an earldom", and this includes neither countesses (of any sort) nor former earls (who have disclaimed their titles and become commoners). The order of precedence lists people, not titles; people interested in an exhaustive order of precedence will have no choice but to visit the separate lists of peers anyway, and they will see there who the current peers are and what exceptions exist, if any. (This is also an argument for not including numbers of peers, especially for lower ranks, where people die all the time.) The changes I've made to the lead explain this clearly, and people are unlikely to be confused by the absence of non-earls in the sub-section for earls. Including information for its own sake makes the list unnecessarily complex and thus harder to parse, which is why I've removed it, even though I was the one who went to the trouble of researching those notes on the Earl of Selkirk and Viscount Stansgate.

Worse, the more duplication exists between this list and others, the more likely it becomes that they will diverge because one of them will be updated sooner or more accurately than the other—and it probably won't be this one. Wikipedia has enough trouble maintaining its growing number of articles with its dwindling corps of editors; proper organisation of information across different articles is the key to reducing the workload in the long term. Even if you and I are willing to maintain certain pages now, we cannot know for how long we'll be in a position to do this, so we have to plan for the future. Waltham, The Duke of 14:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have corrected the link above, because the page had been moved. Waltham, The Duke of 11:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Prince consort

If duke of Edinburgh was not appointed at the place after the queen, what would be his real place? I've heard generaly prince of wales is after the sovereignChamika1990 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not completely sure but I think he would rank second or third, after the Prince of Wales but over his younger sons. I'm honestly not completely sure. Evidently "officially" in Parliament the Prince of Wales outranks the Duke b/c he's heir apparent, but since they very rarely attend Parliament together, the issue seems to be ignored, as the Duke escorts the Queen and is seated beside her, whereas the Prince sits in a less elaborate chair to her right. I'm not entirely sure about his precedence not granted by warrant, though. 74.69.121.132 (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a consort of the Queen has any statutory precedence, so I think it would all be dependent on the monarch giving him a place. In the pre-1999 House of Lords, the Duke of Edinburgh ranked last among dukes, I believe - behind not only all the other royal dukes , but behind the Archbishops, the Great Officers of State, and all the regular dukes. john k (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Velde's site has a good discussion of this here. As far as I can tell, it's always been ad hoc. Prince George got precedence through an act of parliament providing for his naturalization (which made him "the first nobleman of England," whatever that means. Prince Leopold was given precedence by royal warrant immediately after nephews of the King. Prince Albert was given precedence next after the queen by royal warrant, except in parliament where his precedent was determined by statute. Same deal with the Duke of Edinburgh, apparently. john k (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you for that JohnK, it may clear that up, but it might have confused the issue, b/c the Prince Andrew was granted the Dukedom of York and William was granted the Dukedom of Cambridge, which means that William is the lowest-ranked Dukedom, not Edinburgh. It also raises the separate issue of the Duke of Cambridge supposedly taking precedence over the Duke of York and Earl of Wessex. According to this page, officially, William is outranked by his uncles as they are sons of the Sovereign. But he's listed next in the Court Circular, which supposedly means he takes precedence over them. Also at the Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebration, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge sat beside the Prince of Wales and Duchess of Cornwall, while the Duke of York was much further away, which suggests he does take precedence over them. But traditionally sons take precedence before grandsons. 74.69.121.132 (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I think I remember reading once that sons of the Prince of Wales effectively rank as sons of the Sovereign. If this is so, it would parallel the old French system where sons of the Dauphin were fils de France not petit-fils de France. Opera hat (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

You're wrong or right depending on exactly what you mean! There are certain places where the law sets precedence under the Precedence Act 1539 where your comments aren't correct. However at social events or dinner parties the sovereign can and does place people as she pleases so the order you mention above is correct. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

great-grandchildren of the Sovereign

Again I'm confused as to why the Phillips' daughters are listed after the granddaughters of the Sovereign but Prince George of Cambridge has not been clarified as ranking after the grandsons of the Sovereign (or even taking precedence over Prince Henry and James of Wessex). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.9.224 (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

All of these questions are probably pointless anyway. I'm not sure that the order of precedence is ruled by any fixed set of rules. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The order of precedence is (outside of Parliamen) governed by the Sovereign's will. Nonetheless there is an order of precedence which applies unless and to the extent the Sovereign alters it, either permanently, temporarily or for a single exceptional occasion. That precise order (traditionally, separated by gender) can be found in Burkes, Debrett's and, for that matter, in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. As I recall the only great-grandchild who may have had precedence was the firstborn son of the Prince of Wales. No other have it prescriptively, although it is sometimes presumed and described based on observation. FactStraight (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The royal.gov.uk page on precedence says that "Generally speaking, the children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of a Sovereign, as well as their spouses, are members of the Royal Family. First cousins of the monarch may also be included. Children are included on coming of age or after they have completed their education." Which makes it a lot easier: all these infants can be left off the list altogether. Opera hat (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it does. link is referring to 'court precedence' not 'precedence' some of which is defined by law. Our page is precedence not court precedence. Garlicplanting (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Lord High Steward

How come the position of Lord High Steward is not on this list? Surely the position holder (when appointed - ie at coronations) would rank quite highly? Argovian (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

My understanding had been that the Lord High Steward ranks between the Abp. of Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor, but at the moment I can't find a citation for that – will search further. Alkari (?), 30 December 2013, 03:41 UTC

Yes, based on what I've read on the Great Officers pages on Wikipedia, that would seem to make sense. Argovian (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No definition

This page is the "Order of Precedence" of what? The page is a big list and doesn't define what the list means or why it exists. I was looking for an order of succession to the throne and I'm guessing that isn't what this is. So what is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.208.0 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Err "The following is the order of precedence in England and Wales as of July 2014." The inline link further says "An order of precedence is a sequential hierarchy of nominal importance of items. Most often it is used in the context of people by many organizations and governments, for very formal and state occasions, " Seems fairly obvious? Garlicplanting (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

not correct

Since the Court Circular lists people in Order of Precedence, the Duke of Cambridge, as eldest son of the Prince of Wales, takes precedence before the younger sons of the Sovereign. The "official" precedence order of sons before grandsons is ignored in this case, like James, Viscount Severn's princely rights being bypassed. In addition, the Duchess of Cambridge, despite being the granddaughter-in-law of the Sovereign, takes precedence with the Duke before the Countess of Wessex and the Princess Royal. Please alter this accordingly. Cheers! 66.67.32.161 (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Updated as per sources

The order of precedence for ladies depends on whether or not they are accompanied by higher ranking husbands. I have put the general order of precedence, which assumes they are unaccompanied, on the article instead and explained that if a lady's husband is accorded higher rank, when she is with her she takes her precedence from him (e.g. when with the Prince of Wales, Camilla ranks above Princess Anne; when alone, she ranks below all the Queen's children and grandchildren. Sotakeit (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Titles vs. First Names

This issue comes up repeatedly on royalty-related articles, where I think there is a difference in focus from our many articles on British peerages, which seem to have become an inadvertent model for worldwide royalty articles. With respect to use of such locutions as "Anne, Princess Royal" vs "The Princess Royal" or "Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall" vs "The Duchess of Cornwall", it's appropriate to use them in articles for the same reason it is to use them in naming Wikipedia articles: Wikipedia's point of view is not Anglo-centric; rather, it is a global encyclopedia written in English. And it's perspective is encyclopedic not ephemeral. I agree that at the Court of St. James's, and perhaps for Commonwealth journalists and others following the doings of members of that court, appropriate usage is "the Queen", "The Duchess of Cornwall", "The Princess Royal", "The Prince of Wales", etc. But for global Wikipedia there is never any such person as "the Queen", and for encyclopedic Wikipedia (as distinct from periodicals like court circulars and newspapers) the "Prince of Wales" is viewed as much (or more) historically as currently. It is unhelpful to readers to say "The Prince of Wales is expected to succeed the King on the throne" without indicating specifically who the persons referred to were/are -- unless one is writing generally, in which case that is, of course, suitable usage. The principles that, e.g., children of a Commonwealth monarch are "The Prince Firstname" or that "Mary, Duchess of Somewhere" is the widow of a Duke of Somewhere rather than the wife of one or holder of the peerage in her own right, are conventions appropriate and presumptive for Commonwealth residents/readers -- but not for others who read an encyclopedia in English. It is unnecessarily inconvenient to have to click or search back in an article to determine which Prince of Wales is being referred to in an article when use of the person's name (on first reference) will immediately distinguish that individual from other possible holders of the same title: The only reason for that inconvenience is to compel Wikipedia to adhere to the Commonwealth's court etiquette in presenting information. I turn to Wikipedia to learn about English culture (among other things) -- not to be subjected to it. When in London "the Queen" is Elizabeth II, in Amman she is Rania, when in Amsterdam she is Máxima and when in Kuala Lumpur she is Haminah. Since English Wikipedia is (we hope) read in all five capitals, there is no circumstance in which "the Queen" is used in which we should not already have been told in context her name as well as her title. And so on for other titleholders. FactStraight (talk) 02:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Royal Family

The article says "Grandchildren of former sovereigns in the female line (e.g. Lady Sarah Chatto and Viscount Linley), great-grandchildren of sovereigns and their spouses receive no special precedence." The reference to a newspaper article does not bear that out. It also contradicts the section on men, where Viscount Lindley is correctly listed. The standard reference books include Lord Linley and Lady Sarah as nephew and niece of the Sovereign. When listed in the Court Circular, they are given this precedence. It shuld be noted that the female order of precedence is simply an unofficial extrapolation from the male one. And the order of precedence does not hold good at Court as regards female members of the Royal Family.Strawbridge2017 (talk) 01:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Precedence of Prince George of Cambridge

In my view there has to be a degree of common sense in this. It is inconceivable that the Earl of Ulster (son of the Duke of Gloucester) and Earl of St Andrews (son of the Duke of Kent) should take precedence of HRH Prince George of Cambridge. And I am sure this will be borne out by the Court Circular in due course.Strawbridge2017 (talk) 01:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Ladies

The section for Ladies has been constructed on the basis of Court precedence which is not the subject of this page. I am therefore going to aletr it within a week if there are no objections.Strawbridge2017 (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

the precedence of Princess Charlotte

If this is correct, in an official capacity, Princess Charlotte would not be permitted to be carried by the Duchess of Cambridge in an official procession but rather held by a lady-in-waiting or whomever after Lady Gilman. This is absurd and can't be in practicality, how it is actually carried out. This would be that the eldest granddaughter of the Queen is accorded the same precedence as the Queen's cousin-niece and that can't possibly be right. Is that how it is actually done, in the Abbey or whatnot at services or whatever? Look and see how it's done. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Councillors

Are all councillors of equal precendence whether of County Councils, Parochial Parish Councils, Rural COmmunity COuncils, Town and Parish COuncils and in fact higher in precedence than London Assembly Members, MEPs or MSPs when they are in England - for example in court settings or national (UK being the nation and not England) events. As that is what is suggested at the moment by the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.82.138.188 (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Women Bishops

Admission of women to the episcopate in the Church of England leads to interesting issues:

a. The Bishop of Gloucester (election confirmed 15 June 2015) is female. b. There is one serving female suffragan bishop (Stockport) and two appointed (Hull and Crediton).

Presumably they will be slotted into an equivalent position in the order of precedence for ladies as their brethren do in the order of precedence for gentlemen.86.181.168.254 (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Missing Minister without Portfolio.

Isn't Robert Halfon in the Cabinet too? Slightnostalgia (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Commissioners

Where do the Lords Commissioners of a Great Office of State, other than Keeper of the Great Seal, fit in? (At present that would be the Lords Commissioner of the Treasury or junior whips.) Speaking of the Treasury, is there some place for the Parliamentary Secretary or Chief Whip? --131.159.0.2 (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Countess of Snowdon and Lady Chatto

Where should Lady Sarah Chatto and the Countess of Snowdon exactly be placed on the order of precedence as the niece and niece-in-law of the Queen? Keivan.f^Talk 06:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Use of sub-pages

See Talk:Orders of precedence in the United Kingdom#Use of sub-pages DBD 22:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

holy roman empire

why is here no order of precedence of the holy roman empire of german nation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.8.188.72 (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Great Officers of State

We previously discussed this subject at Talk:Order_of_precedence_in_England_and_Wales/Archive_1#Great_Officers_of_State_and_certain_sons_of_peers and Talk:Order_of_precedence_in_England_and_Wales/Archive_1#Officers_of_State_Household_Officers. As stated in the first of those, their precedence is different inside Parliament (at least until 1999, when most of them vacated it) and outside it. (1) In Parliament, Section 5 of the House of Lords Precedence Act 1539 says that they sit ahead of other peers of the same rank. Presumably the words after 'that is to say' cover what would happen if two or more of them were of the same rank. (2) Outside Parliament (which I suggest is the position which should be reflected by the article) Section 10 of the 1539 Act says that the order is as follows: - "Lorde Chauncelor, the Lorde Tresorer, the Lorde Precident, the Lorde Privey Seale, the Great Chamberleyn, the Constable, the Marciall, the Lorde Admyrall, the Graunde Maister or Lorde Stewarde, the Kinges Chamberleyn, and the Kingse Chief Secretorie". I think that this is what is meant by Heraldica's statement (quoted by Proteus on 11 January 2004) that "Outside Parliament, their place does not depend on their peerage". Also Lord Emsworth's statement on 12 January 2004 that "outside of Parliament, these officers would have precedence together, along with the Lord Chancellor, Lord President, etc, regardless of rank". The article should therefore follow the list in Heraldica. In other words: -(1) immediately after Ambassadors and High Commissioners and immediately before the Lord High Constable's slot, we would put the Lord Great Chamberlain. (2) Immediately after the LHC's slot, we would put the Earl Marshal. (3) Lord Steward of the Household (4) Lord Chamberlain (5) Master of the Horse. Thoughts? Alekksandr (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Now done. Alekksandr (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Format of Royal Family succession boxes

See Talk:Orders_of_precedence_in_the_United_Kingdom#Format_of_Royal_Family_succession_boxes Alekksandr (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Commonwealth PMs and Envoys, Ministers etc

Since this page was created on 15 November 2003, it has shown "Commonwealth Prime Ministers, while visiting the UK, in order of appointment" immediately after the UK PM and "Ministers, Envoys, and other very important visitors from foreign countries" immediately after "Eldest sons of royal dukes (who are not already ranked higher)". However, there was not then, and is not now, any reference for those statements. Those entries do not appear on the table of precedence on Heraldica. Googling ["Commonwealth Prime Ministers" "precedence"] does not appear to produce any results. Alekksandr (talk) 12:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Burke's Peerage 1939, P 2959, says re Ambassadors "of late years place has been allowed them in this country, after Dukes and before Marquesses". That was of course before the decision of 24 December 1948, giving them precedence immediately after the Lord Privy Seal. Envoy (title) seems to have disappeared by the end of the 1960's and Minister Resident is also now defunct - see A Diplomat’s Handbook of International Law and Practice. I therefore propose to delete this line. Alekksandr (talk) 22:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

P50

The characters "P50" appear at the end of three entries in the table. Those are "The Archbishop of Canterbury (Justin Welby), P50", "The Lord High Chancellor (David Lidington MP), P50", and "The Archbishop of York (John Sentamu), P50". There is no explanation, and I cannot find a Wikipedia page that seems relevant. What does this annotation mean?

Agemegos (talk) 07:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Chancellor of the Exchequer

Why does the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who on the No. 10 website is ranked 3rd after the PM and her de facto deputy (constitutional or not) and is generally considered the second most powerful minister after the Prime Minister, rank as a mere Privy Counsellor in the OoP, well below the other Secretaries of State? 98.10.165.90 (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Great-great grandchildren of former sovereigns?

Is there protocol for the great-great grandchildren of former sovereigns? For example, Lady Amelia Windsor is the great-great granddaughter of George V and Mary of Teck. Her grandfather is Prince Edward, Duke of Kent, a first cousin to Elizabeth II. Her father is The Earl of St Andrews. Would her order of precedence be higher, as a member of the royal family, or would she be placed with all other daughters of British earls? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Children of Princes of the Blood Royal rank after Earls, except where otherwise defined, rather than as the children of Dukes. ie after countesses not after the (unmarried) daughter of Marquesses.Garlicplanting (talk) 12:48, 26 April 2019 (UTC)