Talk:Order of precedence in England and Wales

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

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)

not correct[edit]

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! (talk) 14:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Updated as per sources[edit]

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[edit]

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)