Talk:Orders of precedence in the United Kingdom

message: 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)
thread_title: "The" Prince of Wales

message: 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)
thread_title: Prince Consorts

message: 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)
thread_title:  Officers of State and Household Officers 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Visiting sub-royal sovereigns 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What's precedence for? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Definitely speculative and perhaps frivolous. --Ibagli (Talk) 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit by [[Special:Contributions/209.247.23.143|209.247.23.143]] 

message: I think this article could do with citing some sources Tomgreeny 01:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This page vs. template 

message: 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)
replies: text: The article at the Telegraph's website is here. Opera hat (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedence in the female line 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Precedence of Cambridge children 

message: The article doesn't say where knights bachelor appear. Richard75 (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: After all other knights of the various orders of chivalry.Garlicplanting (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, but the article needs to say so, what is your source? Richard75 (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll put that in. Richard75 (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knights bachelor 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Titles vs. First Names 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Use of sub-pages 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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#External_links. 2. I feel that #4 would be helpful in a case like Edward_Fitzalan-Howard,_18th_Duke_of_Norfolk#External_links - 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)
thread_title: Format of Royal Family succession boxes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Great-great grandchildren of former sovereigns? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Children of Prince Edward, Earl of Wessex 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Daughters of dames