Talk:Orders of precedence in the United Kingdom

"The" Prince of Wales
According to letters patent, all children of the eldest son of The Prince of Wales enjoy style of HRH with the rank of Prince or Princess. Is "The Prince of Wales" to be understood as "the person who was The Prince of Wales during the publication of the letters patent" (= Charles) or "the person who is The Prince of Wales right now" (= then Charles, currently William)? These two lead to different conclusions regarding the status of Prince George's future children, if they are born before Charles dies. (At the very least, "The Prince of Wales" is not the same thing as "a/any Prince of Wales", but I guess this has no practical consequences in this case.) 37.33.177.116 (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Various issues
What is an United Kingdom order of precedence? Is that a person, nation or title? -- Taku

See order of precedence, which really to be linked to from the article.

There seems to be some extinct titles on this list, for example Viscount Tonypandy was given an hereditary peerage, but he was bachelor and as he died in 1997 the title is now extinct. Also the title Viscount Stansgate in currently cannot be used until Tony Benn dies. What is the source of this list? Mintguy 18:22, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why are "Gentlemen" listed separately from "Ladies"? The precedence isn't separated like that. Sarah Armstrong-Jones has precedence over her children, the Chatto boys, for example. RickK 20:15, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * According to Burke's, : "At very high levels the two sexes mingle to a certain extent..." The site proceeds to provide three tables: one for Ladies, one for Gentlemen, and one more for the Royal Family. However, other sites, and, suggest that only two tables exist. I have not come across a site that suggests that only one Unified Table of Precedence exists. Lord Emsworth 21:40, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)

And for that matter, why is the Queen listed under "Gentlemen"? Morwen 20:40, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * As one will notice, a similar policy is used for several offices held by women. The "President of the Family Division" is listed under Ladies and Gentlemen. Within the "Gentlemen" category, a note placed next to the office states that the holder is a woman, and directs the viewer to the Table for Ladies. Of course, if this seems unnecessary, it could be abandoned. Lord Emsworth 21:40, Nov 8, 2003 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. This might be worth an explanation in the article, though. Morwen 22:11, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * It will be done soon. On a related note, I think that the England Gentlemen section has grown to over 32 kb. Therefore, it requires division into separate sections for the aid of those with the less capable browsers. I think that "Part I" and "Part II" will do, but I await further suggestions.


 * I should think just before the start of Barons would be a convenient place to break. Morwen 22:24, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Earl of Wessex's new daughter needs to be added to the Ladies. RickK 16:26, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I believe that the child is yet to be named. When the child does acquire a name, I shall be sure to place her on the List. Lord Emsworth 16:53, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)


 * She should be after Eugenie and before Zara, no? john 05:25, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In terms of local precedence, how do these people rank in comparison with national figures? I mean, within the county, who has precedence, the Duke of Norfolk, or the Lord Lieutenant of the County? john 04:59, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The site from Burke's suggests that "At local functions generally, the Lord Lieutenant of the county should take precedence..." I therefore assume that "local functions" refers to official functions in which only the officers of the locality formally take part. I think that at social functions, where those outside the county are likely to be present, the table precedence for England and Wales, etc, should be used.

this list is 93kb. Consider moving the sublists elsewhere like List of Viscounts of Ireland, List of Barons of England, etc. --Jiang 00:23, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Now it's 101. Is there concurrence? --Jiang

I do concur, but I first beg: That separate pages be created for England & Wales, for Scotland, and for Northern Ireland. Thereafter, additional changes may be made and further concerns addressed. I now ask: Is it preferable to follow the convention used heretofore when naming order of precedence pages, and to use the adjectives in naming the new pages: English and Welsh order of precedence; Scottish order of precedence; Northern Irish order of precedence, or is it preferable to name them with nouns: England and Wales order of precedence; Scotland order of precedence; Northern Ireland order of precedence. Secondly, are we to include Wales in the title of the article on England? That is, are we to say: England and Wales/ English and Welsh order of precedence, or are we to say: England/ English order of precedence. --Lord Emsworth 19:26, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Suggest Order of precedence in England and Wales, thus sidestepping the problem. Morwen 19:28, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Morwen. john 19:31, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Then, in an attempt to use a standard formula, we may write: Order of precedence in England and Wales, Order of precedence in Scotland and Order of precedence in Northern Ireland. Note that the usage in other articles seems to be to leave "precedence" in lower case. If there is no objection to the forms set forth, I shall commence the conversion process. On a related note, I think that we can use the UK order of precedence page as: --Lord Emsworth 19:35, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
 * A page providing links to the other orders.
 * An explanation of the order (what presently forms the Notes section)


 * Yes, that sounds good. One thing, though, is that the order of precedence in England and Wales page will almost certainly still be too long.  Among other things, I'd suggest that the lists of Lord Lieutenants of Counties, and Lord Mayors, and so forth, be split off to separate pages.

john 20:21, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I think that the lists of Lord Lieutenants, etc. can be logically split off. The Lord Lieutenants do not have a precedence between themselves. On the other hand, Dukes, etc., have a set precedence amongst themselves. Lord Emsworth 20:29, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * I beg to ask, what exactly makes a page "too long?" If the qualification were known, then one may know exactly what is necessary to shorten it. Lord Emsworth 21:21, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)

Pages are supposed to be no longer than 32K or so, so that people with primitive browsers can still edit them. By the way, are the judges you've listed in proper order of precedence (by seniority, or what not?) I'd also note that there's a British govt. page that lists Privy Councillors, but that since it only lists them by year no proper order could be worked out, and the list is so long it would probably be best to put it on a separate page, anyway. john 23:21, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Judges are indeed in the order provided by the Dept. for Constitutional Affairs. As far as the 32K limit is concerned, I thought that the problem could be solved by dividing the page into sections. --Lord Emsworth 23:35, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)


 * Not sure. If that's true, then I wouldn't worry about it. john 00:38, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The individuals with primitive browsers need only click on the "edit" button adjacent to the section heading. If the section has fewer than 32K of information, then no editing problem should occur. --Lord Emsworth 01:04, Nov 16, 2003 (UTC)

Dowagers
What's your authority for specifying that a dowager peeress or baronetess has to be a direct ancestor of the current peerage/baronetcy holder in order to take precedence of his consort? As far as I know,as long as they are non-remarried widows of previous holders of the title,they rank in order of their husbands' holding of that title whether the current holder is a son,grandson,nephew,cousin,or whatever of their husband.--Louis Epstein/12.144.5.2/le@put.com

Perhaps you're right. I saw it at http://laura.chinet.com/html/titles09.html.

Prince Consorts
Do prince consorts automatically gain precedence over all men? Didn't old Liz have to declare Phil to have precedence immediately after herself. After all prince consort is not even a title in the British royalty. I don't think Albert was declared so by order in council or Act of Parliament? And even then anyone who marries the sovereign is not automatically given any title? If say Philip died and the Queen remarried, the new man would not gain any title unless she created him one? Astrotrain
 * Precisely. And btw it's princes consort. – DBD 12:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Officers of State and Household Officers
Currently, the article states,

''The precedence of other officers - the Lord Great Chamberlain, Earl Marshal, Lord Steward, and Lord Chamberlain - is based on the degree of their peerage. These officers rank above all other peers of their rank. Thus, if the Lord Steward were a Duke, he would outrank other Dukes, and if a Marquess, would outrank other Marquesses, and so forth. The precedence of the Master of the Horse is linked directly to that of the Lord Chamberlain, for the Master follows immediately after the Lord Chamberlain. However, if the Master is of a higher degree of peerage than the Lord Chamberlain, he would rank among his fellow peers of that degree, and not below the Lord Chamberlain.''

Isn't this true only within the House of Lords? It was my understanding that in terms of general precedence, these officers rank above all the Dukes. john k 19:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Succession boxes
Is it really necessary to have succession boxes for the order of precedence? Proteus (Talk) 13:24, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say, no. Especially as it is in dispute what the order of precedence is. Astrotrain 21:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

A couple of issues
First:


 * 1) The Sovereign's daughters-in-law
 * 2) The Sovereign's daughters

This seems to be what people say the order is at present, but I know there's been a lot of dispute about this at alt.talk.royalty, and I seem to remember that, traditionally, only the Princess of Wales ranked above the sovereign's daughters in her own right - other sovereigns' daughters-in-law only ranked ahead of their sisters-in-law when they were with their husbands. It would be easy enough to check on this - did the Duchess of Connaught rank before or after Princess Louise and Princess Beatrice? Did the Duchess of Gloucester rank before or after Princess Mary?

Second:

What's with these supposed recent changes to the order of precedence? Isn't the real issue that the royal family just fucks about with it as they please, with no real rhyme or reason? john k 16:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Until the current Sovereign's reign, there was never any doubt that daughters outranked daughters-in-law (and whenever it's been discussed on a.t.r numerous examples have been cited by many different people of this rule being practised). I'd be inclined to put daughters before daughters-in-law due to overwhelming precedent and the lack of any announcement that the system has been changed.
 * 2) Well, they mess around a lot with the precedence they use, but never seem to mess with the official table of precedence (there haven't even been any press releases saying the order has changed). The way I look at it, the Queen deciding to seat (say) Lady Wessex before the Princess Royal at a dinner is no different to the Duke of Norfolk giving a higher place at a family dinner to his daughters than to his eldest son's wife &mdash; i.e. they are both perfectly entitled to do so, as precedence isn't governed by law, but neither should be taken as an indication that the official table of precedence for use throughout the country has been changed. You'll get people on a.t.r saying things like "precedence is whatever the Queen wants it to be, and she doesn't have to announce changes", but that isn't how any other aspect of the Royal Prerogative is exercised, so I don't see why precedence should be any different. Proteus (Talk) 16:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Visiting sub-royal sovereigns
I know that, traditionally, visiting heads of state rank immediately below the monarch. But what about heads of state who are not Kings, but are, say, sovereign dukes, or whatever? For instance, during the last years of Victoria's reign, her second son Alfred was sovereign Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Did he rank before or after his elder brother the Prince of Wales? Did Charles Edward, Edward VII's nephew and Alfred's successor as Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, rank ahead of where he would rank as a nephew of the king because of his sovereign status? Did he at least outrank his cousin Prince Arthur of Connaught, another nephew who was not a sovereign? There is no real attempt here to explain how the British treat foreign royalty visiting Britain in terms of precedence. This would be useful, wouldn't it? john k 16:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. We could really do with some seatings plans or what not from the end of Victoria's reign. (I'm unsure about this. Do heads of state always rank immediately after the Sovereign, or only when they are acting as heads of state, i.e. on official business or what not? If they're just on holiday or something (or, in this case, at a family get-together), could they just be ranked by their personal precedence (or its rough equivalent in a foreign country)?) Proteus (Talk) 16:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

If they are a Head of State then they, for protocol reasons, are of equal rank to the Queen when they attend as official State visits. (note the protocol at G20 comapring the diference between Heads of Government and heads of State)

As for precedence between the European Royal families I believe one exists but I am not certain how formal it is, nor quite how it operates but I believe it is either to do with time since accession or age of incumbent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.37.250 (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

What's precedence for?
In classic wikipedia style, I realize that we have a ton of articles detailing the exact order of precedence in various countries, but we have very little in the way of explanation about what precedence actually determines. Perhaps we could work something up. john k 10:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I came here to try to figure this out. As far as I can tell from reading multiple pages on precedence and their talk pages the only purpose it serves is to determine who sits where at official dinners. Can anyone elaborate? 69.165.150.160 (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit by 209.247.23.143
''This will change, however, when the new rules governing the succession come into force. Effective with the generation following that of Prince William of Wales, the eldest child of the sovereign will become the heir apparent without regard to gender.''

I've removed this uncited edit - anyone know whether a source can be found? Or is this just speculative frivolity? – DBD 12:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Definitely speculative and perhaps frivolous. -- Ibagli ( Talk ) 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

This page vs. template
The order of precedence of Ladies in the UK according to this page seems very different from the order presented on Template:UK Order of Precedence (Ladies). I am not sure which is correct; could someone with a better understanding of this please correct the faulty one? Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The template corresponds to another page: Order of precedence in England and Wales. The order of precedence in this page seems to be for royal family members only, not including other government officials and peers, therefore it bears no relation to the template. Also, if you look at pages that have that template, they also include a succession box for the order of precedence in Scotland. - Yk3 talk · contrib 09:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Precedence in the female line
There seems to be some problems with this article listing individuals who are in the female line as outranking those in the male line. For example, the wife of Peter Phillips does not out rank Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York. When the order of precedence says "wives of sovereign's grandsons" it means wives of the sovereigns grandsons in the male line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.184.133.37 (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Update. According to "The Daily Telegraph" today, the Duchess of Cambridge, when not accompanied by William, takes precedence after Princesses of the Blood Royal, meaning the Princess Royal, the Princess Alexandra, the Princess Beatrice and the Princess Eugeine of York, and must curtsey to them. She must curtsey regardless when in the prescence of Her Majesty, the Duke of Edinburgh and her father-and stepmother-in-laws. 74.69.126.89 (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The article at the Telegraph's website is here. Opera hat (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Precedence of Cambridge children
Are we agreed that, as things stand, the children of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge must take precedence as children of a Duke of the Blood Royal? DBD 13:29, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * And what precedence is that? After the Duke of Fife? No. At the top is the Sovereign. Next is the Royal Family. After the Royal Family the first in precedence is the Archbishop of Canterbury. HRH Prince(ss) N of Cambridge will be a member of the Royal Family. Opera hat (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure that helps as 'the royal family' has no legal meaning. DBD is probably wrong (in practice) I feel on the 'Younger sons of Dukes of the Blood Royal'. That category was designed for those children who were not princes so seems illogical for G to be included with them. I can't however offer any answer as to where he actually is.Garlicplanting (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Knights bachelor
The article doesn't say where knights bachelor appear. Richard75 (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * After all other knights of the various orders of chivalry.Garlicplanting (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, but the article needs to say so, what is your source? Richard75 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Debretts I have some memory that it used to be in this article or perhaps it was another. Garlicplanting (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll put that in. Richard75 (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Female royal heirs now take higher precedence
I think this article is now out of date due to the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which means elder royal princesses born after 2011 will now succeed to the throne over a younger brother. So, if Prince George has a girl as his first child, she'll succeed to the throne whatever. I'm not sure how this will changes the order of precedence though - if he has two elder girls and a younger boy, will the boy be higher than the middle girl in precedence, as the current rules imply? With three male heirs to the throne lined up, it's going to be a long long time before that's dealt with.Gymnophoria (talk) 14:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 is not yet in place, as Australia has not yet passed legislature to change the succession there and the succession isn't actually changed until legislature is passed in all the realms that require legislation to be passed.
 * legislation came into force on 26 March 2015. Geofpick (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Second of all, when this is actually changed, the orders of precedence will still function the same as there are two different orders of precedence, one for men and one for women. What might change is that the wives may not continue to take precedent over the daughters/granddaughters, etc - according to the list we have here, Sophie comes before Anne, and Kate and Autumn before Beatrice and Eugenie, right now.  In the future, with equal primogeniture in place, this may change, but that's really speculation. Psunshine87 (talk) 15:36, 9 January 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) 03:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, title "The Queen" ALWAYS refers to Her Majesty the Queen, not of these other ingrates. 98.10.165.90 (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Use of sub-pages
Comrades. I have created a sub-page (Orders of precedence in the United Kingdom/Royal family (gentlemen)) and inserted it into each of the three national orders' pages. My hope was that we could make every part of the orders which is common between one or more into a sub-page thusly, such that when there are changes (in incumbents, for instance) only one edit need be made. What do we think? DBD 22:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Format of Royal Family succession boxes
At the moment, these (or some of them) are in the following format:-

I suggest that: - 1. The line 'The Duke of York' simply duplicates information which is in the title of the article. 2. If it read 'As a son of the Sovereign', it would tell the reader at a glance why the subject is in that position in the order of precedence. 3. As things stand, the reader has to click on the link to an article which explains this. 4. For those who take precedence after the RF, the corresponding line reads eg 'as Archbishop of Canterbury'. 5. It would be best if all succession boxes had a consistent format, as far as possible.

Thoughts? Alekksandr (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It sounds reasonable, but hasn't the order of precedence recently been revamped so that a grandson of the Sovereign precedes sons of the Sovereign in practice? That makes #2 less helpful. Also, #4 is also repetitive (like #1) because the episcopal title would be in the succession box right above. Surtsicna (talk) 19:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * 1. Wiki currently deals with the distinction between the 'traditional' rules and current practice by two separate boxes - see eg Prince_Andrew,_Duke_of_York. 2. I feel that #4 would be helpful in a case like Edward_Fitzalan-Howard,_18th_Duke_of_Norfolk - he takes his precedence in England and Wales (and in NI, according to Burke's) from being Earl Marshal, but his precedence in Scotland from being premier Duke in the Peerage of England. Alekksandr (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2017 (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) 18:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Lady Amelia's precedence is that of the daughter of a duke's eldest son, while her style is that of an earl's daughter (because her father is styled as an earl). There is no title or precedence assigned to the male-line great-great-grandchild of a monarch, past or present. Because Amelia's father is heir-apparent to his father's dukedom, he use's his father's highest subsidiary title of earl. If her father were not the heir to a peerage, he would be styled as the male-line great-grandson of a monarch, i.e. as the younger son of a duke, "Lord Firstname Windsor", (although without precedence as such). In that case, since the children of younger great-grandsons of monarchs' have no title, style or precedence, she would be "Miss Amelia Windsor". So Amelia's prefix of "Lady" derives from the fact that her father is styled by courtesy as an earl, and she, also by courtesy, as an earl's daughter. FactStraight (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Children of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex
Why aren't Lady Louise and James, Viscount Severn on this list? They are grandchildren of the sovereign. Theoretically, they are princess and prince. Lady Cassidy School (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Daughters of dames
Are daughters of Dames given the same precedence as daughters of knights or baronets? Or are the children of Dames given any precedence? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Order of Precedence for women is wrong
The Order of Precedence for women listed here is wrong - eg it states that daughters-in-law of the monarch are senior to actual daughters of the monarch. It claims to be based upon an entry in the Heraldic site (which itself is a “fan site” and not an authoritative source) - however even then it doesn’t quote Heraldica correctly. Debrets, a much more authoritative source clearly lays down the precedence here. Unless anyone argues to the contrary, I will edit this page to match debretts. The Thieving Gypsy (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Order of precedence for women is still incorrect. I agree we need to follow Debrett's here as they are the premier source. There is no mention of the women's order of precedence changing whether their husband is present or not. For example - Princess of Wales has precedence in her husband's presence but when alone she falls below Princesses of the Blood Royal like the Princess Royal and the York Sisters. Refer to top of Chapter 2 here: https://debretts.com/royal-family/tables-of-precedence/
 * Unless there is an objection, I will overhaul the Women section to include these differences and match Debrett's. Heraldica really isn't a reliable source and should not be the primary source for any information over Debrett's.  Even Harper's Bazaar and People's magazine has better information on Women in the order of precedence then Wikipedia right now (and they all rely on Debrett's as a reliable source.) SassyMay (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2024 (UTC)