Talk:Order of precedence in Scotland

message: The inclusion of for example, The Duke of York and The Earl of Wessex under younger sons of Dukes, and also of Lady Thatcher and The Princess Royal under the Orders of the Garter and Thistle seem to make the list unduly complex as they each have a substantive title of their own which would plave them above these notional positions.
Can they be removed from the lists?  or have I missed some reason for their inclusion?  garryq 19:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sons & daughters with substantive titles 

message: ?Where do they fall? 207.107.246.140 20:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Highland Chiefs

message: List of younger sons of marquesses in the peerages of the British Isles, which was split off from this page in December 2006, has been proposed for deletion with the following message:
:Wikipedia is not appropriate for directories of individuals who do not meet the notability criteria. This unsourced list was originally split off from Order of precedence in England and Wales. It is not wanted or needed there (or really anywhere else) as most people on the list are not notable.
It is my impression (and opinion) that it is wanted and needed here (and on Order of precedence in Northern Ireland and Order of precedence in England and Wales as well). If anyone else has an opinion on this matter, your input would be most welcome on the article's talk page. Alkari (?) 22:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of younger sons of marquesses proposed for deletion

message: Is this correct - currently reads that Granddaughters-in-law are higher than Granddaughters - non blood higher than blood relations? 78.151.177.80 (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that wives gain precedence on the basis of their husband's precedence, and so granddaughters in law take their rank from the grandsons who have higher status than granddaughters - with the same among any other relative generation of the Sovereign or other titled person - i.e. sisters-in-law above sisters, daughters-in-law above daughters, etc. Not agreeing with this practice or principle, just sayin' ! Nodrog75 (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of precedence for Ladies? 

message: I couldn't spot the Lord President of the Council anywhere in this list. Could it be a mistake? Gugganij (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord President of the Council 

message: Why do the daughters of Earls have precedence above Baronesses, yet the sons (other than the eldest) have precedence below barons? It seems odd that a younger daughter of an Earl is Lady [forename][surname]  but a younger son is not Lord [forename][surname]. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If we were talking about England, I'd say: in English common law of inheritance, there is no seniority between sisters, so all daughters are (in effect) eldest daughters. —Tamfang (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earls' daughters & sons 

message: There is an entry for "Eldest sons of younger sons of peers", but none for sons of eldest sons. ? —Tamfang (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  sons of eldest sons 

message: The major source for this article is the Burke's Peerage website. This (rather surprisingly) does not list the Prime Minister, the Lord President, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Ambassadors etc as having any precedence in Scotland. I've tagged these entries as dubious until another source can be found. Opera hat (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not mentioned by Debrett either. Opera hat (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here's an older list from Burke's that does mention the Prime Minister, but doesn't take account of the changes following the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. Opera hat (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

text: I get the impression the Scottish order of precedence is a bit of a mess. For example, the Lord High Chancellor has a place (logically, as he is "of Great Britain), the Earl Marshal doesn't (again logically, as he is "of England", although it's unclear whether the Earl Marischal had similar precedence), and the Lord High Constable of England is replaced by the High Constable of Scotland, but what about the Lord High Treasurer and the Lord High Admiral (both "of the United Kingdom") and the Lord High Steward ("of Great Britain")? The Lord Privy Seal and Lord President of the Council are also presumably "of the United Kingdom" and yet are apparently missing. Proteus (Talk) 13:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The original Royal Warrant of 1905 doesn't mention the Lord President etc. Opera hat (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

text: The whole thing seems to be a complete horlicks. Whilst I can see the objective: a Scottish order of precedence in the same way as the local one listed below, it doesn't really work. The English OofP, for example, makes room for Commonwealth Prime Ministers etc: the Scottish one does not recognise any external counterparts. It's also strangely unjustifiable to feature the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain in the 1905 warrant, but not the other UK-wide officials - unless perhaps it is adapting a pre-union OofP, and the Lord Chancellor is standing in for the former Lord Chancellor of Scotland or something equally bizarre. I don't think we're going to resolve this dubiety any time soon. --Breadandcheese (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  dubious 

message: Are the LLs really ranked alphabetically? —Tamfang (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to my understanding. The article shows this as a local order of precedence: so in fact all it is saying is that LLs (or LsL, to be entirely accurate!) are at the top in their area and providing a list of them. Although it's little more than educated guesswork, I'd assume the usual standard of length of tenure would apply: although the Lord Provosts of the cities might expect to be at the top of the list too. --Breadandcheese (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lord Lieutenant 

message: In the same way as the Prince of Wales is known as the Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, should the Duke of York be known as Earl of Inverness?  The Earl of Wessex does not appear to have a Scottish style that might be used. Nodrog75 (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative titles in Scotland? 

message: The laird article claims that lairds fall between barons and esquires.  If this is true, it should be added to this article; if not, it should be removed from that one. --Macrakis (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Laird

message: See Talk:Orders of precedence in the United Kingdom#Use of sub-pages DBD 22:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of sub-pages 

message: Please explain why you are using an English source for a Scottish article... Meenmore (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you asserting that nothing that appears in the London Gazette applies to Scotland unless it also appears in the Edinburgh Gazette? I think you need a source for that, to be honest. There doesn't seem to be anything in the notices themselves that limits them to England, and the publication's website says: "The Gazette is the UK’s official public record, and is comprised of three publications: The London Gazette (published every weekday), The Belfast Gazette (published on Fridays) and The Edinburgh Gazette (published on Tuesdays and Fridays)." That implies that it is one record that just happens (presumably for historical reasons) to be published in three forms. There does not seem to be anything requiring UK-wide notices to appear in multiple publications. And on a practical level, your stance would require us to believe that judges in a court with UK-wide jurisdiction, even if they are Scottish, have no precedence in part of the UK. Proteus (Talk) 16:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Scotland and England have independent legal jurisdictions. The source is explicitly clear that it relates ONLY to the legal jurisdiction of England. This is not a matter of me requiring you do believe anything. Examine the source please. The source being used does not mention the framework of the Scottish legal system, I think it is essential that the source does as this is after all an article relating to Scotland. It only mentions the English legal system. The onus is on you to provide accurate sources to support your claim. This one-fits-all approach is unsuitable. The Scottish legal system is a hybrid system. The Scottish legal system is not the exact same as the English legal system. Meenmore (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "The source is explicitly clear that it relates ONLY to the legal jurisdiction of England." Could you please show me where? I can't see any mention of England in the notice relating to the Supreme Court or in the headings of the issue in which it appears, and the source for the actual creation of this order of precedence explicitly applies only to Scotland despite appearing in the London Gazette: "Whereas it has been humbly represented unto Us that a Scale of Precedence in Scotland has not be defined with due authority ... And whereas We have deemed it expedient for these and other considerations Us thereunto moving that the place and precedence in Scotland of Peers, Officers of State, Lords of Session, Sheriffs, and other persons having hereditary, official or personal rank should be regulated by Warrant under Our Royal Sign Manual. ... shall have on all occasions place, pre-eminence and precedence in Scotland in their degrees according to their respective positions in the Tables hereunto annexed intituled "The Scale of General Precedence in Scotland" and "The Scale of Precedence for Ladies in Scotland." Our Will and Pleasure, therefore, is that Lyon King of Arms, to whom the cognizance of matters of this nature in Scotland doth properly belong ..." (my emphasis). Proteus (Talk) 09:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

text:  The source cited relates only to the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales this is evidently the case as it mentions the Master of the Rolls who is an English judge with no counterpart or equivalent within the legal jurisdiction of Scotland. The source only describes the relationship between the United Kingdom Supreme Court and an English judge. I still have great difficultly understanding how an English orientated source describing the relationship between the President of the aforementioned court and the Master of the Rolls in England has any relevance to the Order of Precedence in Scotland. Meenmore (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source is unreliable. 

message: I think that the issue is that most of the following offices were assigned precedence subsequent to the Royal Warrant of 11 March 1905. That precedence was assigned by reference to offices which are not mentioned in that Warrant.
1. Prime Minister of the UK - Royal Warrant dated 4 December 1905 - comes after the Archbishop of York, who does not appear in the Scottish Table of Precedence.
2. Commonwealth PMs - there does not seem to be any authority for their position - they do not appear in the Heraldica table.
3. Speaker of the UK House of Commons - Royal Warrant dated 30 May 1919 - comes after the Lord President of the Council, who does not appear in the Scottish Table of Precedence.
4. Lord Speaker of the UK House of Lords - Royal Warrant dated 4 July 2006 - comes after the Speaker of the UK House of Commons - see (3) above.
5. President of the Supreme Court of the UK - Royal Warrant dated 1 October 2009 - comes after the Lord Speaker - see (4) above.
6. Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the UK - Royal Warrant dated 1 October 2009 - comes after the Master of the Rolls, who does not appear in the Scottish Table of Precedence.
7. Justices of the Supreme Court of the UK - Royal Warrant dated 1 October 2009 - come after the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the UK - see (6) above.
Alekksandr (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Dubious offices

message: He does not appear in the burkespeerage.com post-devolution list or the 1905 warrant on which it is based. I suspect that he may have entered the list in the article because the Burke's Peerage article on Scots precedence pre-devolution read "13-The Duke of Argyll as Hereditary Master of the Household in Scotland. The rest as in England, till: 14-Dukes' younger sons. I have therefore been bold and deleted him. NB that there has not been a Chamberlain of Scotland since 1703. Alekksandr (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Lord Great Chamberlain

message: See Talk:Orders_of_precedence_in_the_United_Kingdom#Format_of_Royal_Family_succession_boxes Alekksandr (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Format of Royal Family succession boxes

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Order of precedence in Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130827092526/http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/hierarchies/precedence-gentlemen-scotland.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/hierarchies/precedence-gentlemen-scotland.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there a clear source that Andrew is styled "Earl of Inverness" rather than "Duke of York" when in Scotland? A search for the title on the court circular going back 21 years only yields reports of when he's been in Inverness & Inverness-shire itself (similarly he's only called "Baron Killyleagh" in a report on a function in Killyleagh). With more recent titles there seems to be a clear intention to have a distinct Scottish brand (e.g. the Order of the Thistle was conferred on the "Earl of Strathearn" not the "Duke of Cambridge" and "Strathearn" is often used for William and Catherine's activities in Scotland) but has this been retroactively applied to earlier generations? Timrollpickering 21:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earl of Inverness again 

message: I see there is no place for Prince Michael of Kent in the order of precedence in Scotland? Kowalmistrz (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Michael 

message: This list is seriously out of date, containing references to individuals who left office years ago. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Updates Needed 

message: The Duke of Edinburgh is currently listed as 'HRH The Earl of Forfar', but I wonder whether this is a hang-up from before he was created Duke of Edinburgh – that is, while his original principal title pertained to England, it made sense for his Scottish title, Earl of Forfar, to be used in this context.  However, now that his main title pertains to Scotland, surely that is the one that should be used here.  Of course, the same idea applies to his wife. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks as if this has been sorted through a simple revert; therefore, I assume that I can draw a line under this. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of Edinburgh v Earl of Forfar