Talk:Order of precedence in England and Wales

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

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)

Royal Family[edit]

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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

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. (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


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 (talk) 09:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Women Bishops[edit]

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. (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)