Talk:Order of precedence in England and Wales

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)

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)

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)

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 and Princess of Wales, 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)