Talk:Order of precedence in England and Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Prince consort[edit]

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. (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. (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)

Providing sources[edit]

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)

great-grandchildren of the Sovereign[edit]

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 (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 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (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)