Talk:Order of precedence in England and Wales

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Next to "Baron Haden-Guest" has been placed the note that the title is held by the actor Christopher Guest. There is no need to place such a note next to anybody's title, in my humble opinion. I propose to remove such a reference. Lord Emsworth 02:55, Nov 23, 2003 (UTC)


This article is so detailed it needs "as at .. November, 2003" notice in the first line. Andrew Yong 07:25, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In terms of locking the date, I would suggest that we update it on the New Year to accommodate all changes between 25 November and then, and that then we update at some regular frequency - every three months or so? john 20:23, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I would agree as to the locking. I propose as follows:

  • A "General Review" take place:
  1. Each time new honours are awarded (i.e. New Year's and Queen's Birthday)
  2. Once between each general review specified by 1 above
  • Reviews of the appropriate sections take place:
  1. Upon the appointment of a new Prime Minister of the U.K., Minister, or Great Officer of State
  2. Upon a Royal birth

-- Lord Emsworth 23:35, Dec 27, 2003 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the Great Officers of State take precedence before all Peers, whether or not they are Dukes. It's only in Parliament that they rank before all others of their grade of the peerage.

Hmm...that is not what Burke's says. Do you have a source? john 19:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm
"The Great Officers of State do not have the same rank in and out of Parliament. In Parliament, their office confers upon them precedence before the other peers of their own rank, but not before peers of higher rank. Outside Parliament, their place does not depend on their peerage." Proteus 20:14 GMT, 11th January 2004

Also, between "eldest sons of Marquesses" and "younger sons of Dukes" should be the eldest sons of the eldest sons of Dukes (like the Earl of Burlington, eldest son of the Marquess of Hartington, eldest son of the Duke of Devonshire). As their fathers rank as Marquesses but after all substantive Marquesses, they rank after Earls but after the eldest sons of substantive Marquesses. This pattern continues further down the table, as if Lord Burlington were to have a son, he would rank as a Viscount, but after all substantive Viscounts, the eldest sons of substantive Earls, and the eldest sons of eldest sons of substantive Marquesses. Proteus 18:27 GMT, 11th January 2004

Feel free to make additions, of course. john 19:51, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I'll have access to a 1999 Burke's from tomorrow, so I'll try to make a start then. Proteus 20:14 GMT, 11th January 2004

Alright, then. Do the court officials (Lord Chamberlain, Lord Steward, Master of the Horse), also function in this manner, or not? john 00:20, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The act that governs precedence in Parliament is The Act FOR PLACING OF THE LORDS (31º Henry VIII c. 10), which stipulates,
It is, therefore, now ordained and enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord President of the King's Council, and the Lord Privy Seal, being of the degree of Barons of Parliament, or above, shall sit and be placed ... above all Dukes...
And it is also ordained and enacted by authority aforesaid, That the Great Chamberlain, the Constable, the Marshal, the Lord Admiral, the Great Master, or Lord Steward, and the King's Chamberlain shall sit and be placed after the Lord Privy Seal in manner and form following; that is to say, every of them shall sit and be placed above all other personages, being of the same estates and degrees that they shall happen to be...
Thus it would appear that in and out of Parliament, the Lord High Chancellor, the Lord High Treasurer, the Lord President, and the Lord Privy Seal have absolute precedence. However, the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Earl Marshal, the Lord Steward, and the Lord Chamberlain are above other individuals of the "same estates and degrees" - in Parliament only. Note also that in Parliament the Duke of Edinburgh does not have his high royal rank; rather, he ranks beneath all other Dukes. -- Lord Emsworth 01:05, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

So, then, out of parliament, the Lord Steward, Lord Great Chamberlain, and so forth, only have the precedence of their specific peerage? john 01:25, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Not exactly, I think. According to my understanding, outside of Parliament, these officers would have precedence together, along with the Lord Chancellor, Lord President, etc, regardless of rank. In Parliament, the precedence would depend upon rank. The only way that the Parliamentary and non-Parliamentary positions would be equal was if the officers were all dukes, as they anyway rank above all dukes outside, and would rank above all dukes if this hypothetical were true inside Parliament.-- Lord Emsworth 01:36, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for changing Lady Linley. I thought that all peers, by courtesy or otherwise, use "The", but an investigation of the website of the Royalty indicates otherwise. -- Lord Emsworth 22:06, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Courtesy Marquesses and Earls have "the" in conversation when their full title is used (it would be odd to say "I saw Marquess of Hartington yesterday"), but normally they are just called, for example, "Lord Hartington". In formal circumstances (on an envelope, for instance, or on a list such as this), they don't have "the". Courtesy Viscounts and Barons (and normally Earls without "of", like Earl Grosvenor and Earl Percy) never have "the", and are always referred to as, for example, "Viscount Mandeville" or "Lord Seymour". Proteus 10:12 GMT, 13th January 2004

I believe that the current interpretation of the Great Officers and Court officials is incorrect. I'm fairly certain that (other than the Lord Chancellor, Lord President, Lord Privy Seal, and Lord Treasurer), they rank ahead of other peers of their level when doing their duties in their offices, but only rank normally otherwise. This is almost certainly the case for the court officials, and I'm almost sure it's true for at least the Lord Great Chamberlain, as well... john 23:15, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The following indicate that the officers are above the other peers: Heraldica, Stockdale 1818 Peerage. But the reliable Burke's makes the indication that precedence is based on one's rank, and does not provide limitations for such. I have not come across any site that suggests that the officials rank according to their normal rank, though. -- Lord Emsworth 23:32, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to be right. Heraldica is usually very reliable, and seems to indicate what you say... john 00:41, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The current table of precedence in Burke's is dodgy and should probably be avoided. Many experts on precedence (including the editor of Cracroft's Peerage) have found issue with it: for instance, the Princess Royal should rank above the Countess of Wessex, and Viscount Linley, as the Sovereign's nephew in the female line, probably shouldn't have any special precedence at all, although so many people think he should that if you removed him from this page someone would add him in again. Proteus 10:12 GMT, 13th January 2004

But Heraldica suggests that Viscount Linley would form a part of the table as the place of precedence is for the "Sovereign's nephews", whether the line be male or female. -- Lord Emsworth 11:35, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
I know. Unfortunately, it's a disputed point. This post on alt.talk.royalty is the start of a small thread on this subject:
http://groups.google.com/groups?group=alt.talk.royalty&selm=38755A8B.F97585F9%40internetcorp.net&rnum=1
Relevant bits:
"I think that it is even debatable to give "Viscount Linley" the precedence of a Sovereign's nephew (since he is the son of the Sovereign's sister not brother, and not a prince), but I am willing to see that that is a case where precedence scholars could differ."
And in reply to this:
"The children of Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, all derive their precedence from their father, not their mother. Mosley is all wrong here. If he were to take for example the wording of the "Scale of General or Social Precedence of Ladies" literally, rather than according to its logical meaning, then between "The Queen's Nieces" and the "Duchesses of England", he would interpolate all sorts of Bowes-Lyons, Elphinstones, etc. under the heading "The Queen's Cousins"."
(This person is the aforementioned editor of Cracroft's Peerage)
The thread also criticises the placement of Lady Wessex below the Princess Royal.

Contents

[edit] Page mangled on Jan 19

It looks like the page was mangled on 1/19/2004. Specifically, the gentlemen order stops and starts again at 1 after 81. Ladies appears intact, but I didn't look very closely.

I have undone the mangling. -- Lord Emsworth 19:13, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Updates

I am now, as of February 1, commencing the update of the order of precedence pages. -- Emsworth 21:22, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)

Done so far:

  • Would you not describe an Order or post of office as "Defunct" rather than "obsolete"?

[edit] Separate articles

Especially in the local precedence list this page has become a list of office holders, surely it should be separated so that the alphabetical list of High Sheriffs etc is with the High Sheriff article. The item makes no mention of ordinary mayors (as opposed to elected mayors) The precedence should be Lord Lieutenant High Sheriff Mayor, Lord or otherwise etc Without the alphabetical lists it would be easier to see precedence in any given area, with a notes about ranking visiting dignitaries – thus at a function in Sunderland would the long serving Mayor of Gateshead rank before nor after the new Lord Mayor of Newcastle? Why are aldermen listed? They no longer exist, except as an honorific in the gift of a local council, in the same way as an honorary freedom garryq 02:53, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Aldermen are retained because they COULD still exist. tHe office still has precedence even though it has no practical function - perhaps as it is an honour the precedence is even more important. MWNN

[edit] Order of the Thistle

Why is the Duke of Edinburgh listed again? The Prince of Wales is not listed either under Garter or Thistle garryq 02:53, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Aren't several others listed more than once? The POW probably should be as well.

I'm confused by this section - it doesn't seem to tally with the list of Knights of the Thistle elsewhere on Wikipedia. For instance, Eric Anderson is omitted. Similarly with the section on their wives.

[edit] Archbishop of Wales

Where does he fit in the precedence? john 03:03, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Nowhere, I expect - the Church in Wales is not established. Morwen 20:25, May 18, 2004 (UTC)=

The Church of Ireland was not established after the 1870s, but its bishops still had special precedence in Ireland (and, I think, still do in Northern Ireland), even after that. john 23:53, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Why does great nephews/nieces listed here as coming before the sovereigns brothers and sisters, when in fact the United Kingdom page does not list them?

Why does grandsons come before brothers but granddaughters come after sisters? Astrotrain

[edit] Are non royal relations really so high in precedence?

Do the Phillipses and Princess Margaret's children really rank so high in precedence? I recall some debate about this earlier, but no resolution. john k 19:43, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, as you can see from the discussion further up this page, I'd say "no", since it's my opinion that only HRHs have precedence before the Archbishops and Great Officers of State, but unfortunately I have Burke's against me (which, I might note, has never stopped me thinking something before). Proteus (Talk) 19:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Burke's is notable for being frequently wrong, though, isn't it? What does Debretts say? john k 20:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yes, Burke's is generally useless as a definitive source. Debrett's is just unhelpful, though:
  • The Duke of Edinburgh
  • The Prince of Wales
  • The Sovereign's younger sons
  • The Sovereign's grandsons (according to the seniority of their fathers)
  • The Sovereign's cousins (according to the seniority of their fathers)
  • Archbishop of Canterbury
It seems to be left open to the reader's interpretation as to what that means. (And, indeed, a literal interpretation would place various Harewoods and Strathmores above the Archbishop of Canterbury.) Proteus (Talk) 20:40, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
François Velde's site (see here) gives the order: the Duke of Edinburgh, the Sovereign's sons, the Sovereign's grandsons, the Sovereign's brothers, the Sovereign's uncles, the Sovereign's nephews, grandsons of former Sovereigns who are Dukes, grandsons of former Sovereigns who are not Dukes, the Archbishop of Canterbury. -- Emsworth 21:47, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I find it very hard to believe that if Lord Snowdon had died in 1998, his son would have been placed on the Roll of the House of Lords above the Lord Chancellor and the Archbishop of Cantebury on the basis of being the Sovereign's nephew. (In fact, it would be rather easy to check this. Was Lord Harewood placed above the Archbishops and Great Officers during the reign of George VI? Somehow I doubt it.) All the Rolls I've seen have only had HRHs above Canterbury. Proteus (Talk) 22:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I thought that the Precedence Act, 1539 clearly states that when referred to the Sovereign's nephews, that it meant Sovereign's brothers' or sisters' sons. I found the source on this website http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm , hence I always thought that Lord Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto should be included. -Eddo


House of Lords worked differently, no? There, the Duke of York had the lowest precedence of all dukes, didn't he? john k 22:23, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nope. See this atr thread, for instance, which shows that in 1924 the Duke of York (the future George VI, Sovereign's son, title created 1920) ranked before the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (Sovereign's uncle, title created 1874). Thus, until 1999, the Duke of York ranked before the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent on the Roll of the Lords. Proteus (Talk) 22:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Edinburgh would have been lowest in the House of Lords; he is not considered a Duke of the Blood Royal. -- Emsworth 22:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We talking about Duke of Edinburgh? In that case, he is a Duke of Blood Royal tho. Not the British royal house, but blood royal nonetheless. -- KTC 00:17, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Abp of York

Is Sentamu already Abp of York? His article says he will switch over sometime later this year. john k 16:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but I assume you're right. The BBC is calling him the Archbishop of York already, but they're useless so that can hardly be taken as evidence. Proteus (Talk) 17:17, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Does that mean wait for an official investiture before updating the page? The church seems to take him as a done deal, see this article. GeoffCapp (Talk) 02:25, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Precedence of non-HRH "Royals" revisited

Royal Warrant of 9 November 1905:

The KING has been graciously pleased to declare that His Majesty's eldest Daughter, Her Royal Highness Princess Louise Victoria Alexandra Dagmar (Duchess of Fife), shall henceforth bear the style and title of Princess Royal.
His Majesty has also directed that the Daughters of Her Royal Highness shall bear the style, title, and attribute of Highness, and also the style of Princess prefixed to their respective Christian names, and that they shall have precedence and rank immediately after all members of the Royal Family enjoying the style of Royal Highness.

Surely this example of female-line grandchildren of the Sovereign being "promoted" to a precedence below that which we (and Burke's) credit Peter and Zara Phillips with shows that Burke's is wrong, and thus that the only people with precedence as members of the Royal Family above the Great Officers and the Archbishops of Canterbury and York are those styled "Royal Highness"? Proteus (Talk) 17:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. john k 17:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I can't agree. The Sovereign's prerogative to raise or lower precedence by Letters Patent or Royal Warrant is subject to Parliamentary legislation. The 1539 Act of Parliament establishes that the children of the King's brothers and sisters take precedence after the Archbishops but before the Great Officers of State when in Parliament. But that legislation establishes that only the Sovereign and the Sovereign's sons rank above the archbishops -- yet we know that in reality the Sovereign's children, grandchildren through sons, brothers, uncles and nephews through sons are all accorded rank above the Archbishops today -- but I cannot see any statutory basis for that high rank. It seems that through practice and exercises of Royal Prerogative it has been forgotten or neglected that the 1539 Act sets precedence within and without Parliament, and includes "children of the Sovereign's sisters", etc. Lethiere 02:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Or that the Sovereign's prerogative to raise or lower precedence by Letters Patent or Royal Warrant is not subject to Parliamentary legislation, and that she can do as she wishes. Proteus (Talk) 07:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no circumstance in which an exercise of the Royal Prerogative by patent or warrant can legally outweigh a law passed by Parliament and signed into law by the Sovereign -- which the 1539 law was. Lethiere 00:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
So what exactly is the issue here? Where was Lord Harewood ranked from 1947 to 1952, when he was the king's nephew? This seems like something that ought to be resolved by looking at actual practice, rather than our own interpretations of abstract theory. john k 15:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. What's "abstract" about the 1539 law? If we can verify actual placement at the last British coronation, that would not, ipso facto, invalidate any law dictating that precedence should be otherwise. All we should note is what the law requires and what was actually done. Things get done in defiance of law all the time -- that doesn't change statutory law. Sometimes people err, sometimes they deliberately choose to ignore the law. WP's role isn't to bless that by acting as if the law doesn't exist. Also, observing "actual practice" is precisely what has caused the various tables of precedence to contradict one another: The precedence of the husband of the Princess Royal is not specified in any law or royal decree, but he can always be "observed" escorting his wife in court ceremonies when both are present. Someone then "records" that observation as if it is an official and permanent change in precedence, publishes it -- and confusion proliferates. There are lots of people for whom no official precedence has ever been assigned, so nothing authoritative is known. The children of the Sovereign's sisters, however, is not among that group. Lethiere 00:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I agree that we should note both what the law requires and what is actually done. john k 07:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top of the Ladies order of precedence

At Talk:Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, this, has been brought to my attention. See this question:

Q: I read that HM The Queen has just reviewed the precedence list to include The Duchess of Cornwall. Apparently, HRH The Duchess of Cornwall is only fourth on the list, after The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra. I was under the assumption that due to her being the wife of The Prince of Wales, the Duchess is the second highest ranking woman in the Royal Family after the Queen. Why then is the Duchess only fourth on the precedence list?

A: In order to reflect the Duchess's wish to be called The Duchess of Cornwall rather than The Princess of Wales, The Queen took the opportunity to clarify the precedence list for members of the Royal Family.

The Duchess's place in this list reflects the fact that she is a Duchess and not a Princess; thus she comes after The Princess Royal and Princess Alexandra.

Now, Royal Insight is a stupid site, and the rationale they give is ridiculous - if this has happened, what clearly happened is that Anne and Alexandra were given special precedence. Is there any evidence for this besides Royal Insight, though? john k 19:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It was reported in the papers a while ago that the Queen had altered the private precedence of members of the Royal Family (for purely family functions and the like). I've seen no indication whatsoever that official precedence has been altered in any way. This is just yet another example of Royal Insight getting totally confused (they should make me editor, then it'd be right :-) ). Proteus (Talk) 13:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Military Honors?

Perhaps it's a stupid question: Wikipedia tells me that the Victoria Cross is the highest distinction that can be awarded in the UK. Now where are those who bear it seated? Next all the Ladies' granddaughters? Hard to believe. --Michael

Recipients of awards, including the Victoria Cross, generally don't have special positions on the Order of Precedence, as precedence is generally accorded by virtue of what someone is or what position they hold rather than what they have been given. Proteus (Talk) 13:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Italics?

A simple question - what's the significance of entries in italics? Tevildo 13:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

People who are higher up the order by virtue of another position. Many of the Knights of the Garter, for instance, are peers, and so rank higher than the other Knights by virtue of their peerages. Proteus (Talk) 13:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I see, thanks. That was my initial thought, but I was a little confused by Gordon Brown (#64) and Lords Woolf and Phillips (#66 and #67) - would it be unreasonable to include reasons for the "upgrades" in cases such as this? I assume the Chancellor of the Exchequer is also a Privy Counsellor and the two Law Lords have higher-ranking peerages, seperate from their legal ranks? Tevildo 19:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Brown is a privy counsellor, Woolf and Phillips are both barons. john k 20:47, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gentlemen

The "Gentlemen" section ends with "Gentleman". First, shouldn't this be plural like all the rest? And second, who are they? Is this a title? Are certain people excluded from being a gentleman? The article doesn't seem to clarify. Does this mean anything more than "Others"? Piet 13:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

gentleman is a rank. In theory, some people are excluded (such as yeomen and others below the rank of gentleman). Such people have never been included in the order of precedence because it is assumed that they won't be mixing with the others who are included. It's all pretty obsolete, although not without interest. Chelseaboy 15:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer. Is there a reason why it isn't used in plural in the list? I'm not correcting it because I'm not a native English speaker. Piet 15:13, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I think you're right, and will edit accordingly.Chelseaboy 11:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Younger sons of Dukes/Marquesses

I see that youngers sons of Dukes/Marquesses in this list are generally given here in the form "The Lord John Smith". Wouldn't "Lord John Smith" be more correct? They are only courtesy titles. Chelseaboy 11:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

No. "The Lord" is correct. Proteus (Talk) 23:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] King's and Queen's Scholars

Is there any authority, please, for any precedence of King's Scholars and Queen's Scholars above Esquires? I was a QS and I would be most surprised that "the sons of decay'd gentlemen" should have any such precedence. Also, the title of H.M. Scholars at Westminster changes from King's to Queen's Scholars according to the reigning sovereign. Perhaps someone might have got confused by the precedence at a coronation in Westminster Abbey, where of course members of the College are "at home"? Burnettrae 13:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have the vague memory of having seen this list on or explained by an official source. However this article may be correct but it badly needs an official link from somewhere to confirm its accuracy.Anyone?Alci12 13:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added a Burke's link but that only covers some of the precedenceAlci12
Burke's, however, only goes down to "younger sons of knights bachelor." john k 14:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I said "only covers some of the precedence" :-) it's the best I could find for now and better than nothing. Feel free to add a better link.Alci12

[edit] Warrant of Precedence

I'm not strictly sure where this should go, perhaps on talk peerage to work it out. We don't, unless someone can tell me where it is, have anything on warrants of precedence. They generally match this list but do have some additions that couldn't be assumed ie wives and children of people offered a peerage, but dying before it was granted, who have been given the style dignity...(blah) as though their father/husband had been created a peer. Sadly my memory forgets but the most recent was in about '79-81 a life peerage for an MP who died after the offer, acceptance and announcement but before the sealing, but I can't remember it at the moment. Will struggle to remember.

The most common use today is for distant relations inheriting peerages to give precedence to their brothers/sisters/aunts/uncles etc. See a recent example.

"The QUEEN has been graciously pleased by Warrant under Her Royal Signet and Sign Manual to ordain and declare that Charles George Yule Balfour, brother of Roderick Francis Arthur, Earl of Balfour, shall henceforth have, hold and enjoy the same title, rank, place, pre-eminence and precedence as the son of an Earl which would have been due to him had his father, Eustace Arthur Goschen Balfour, survived his cousin, Gerald Arthur James, Earl of Balfour, and thereby succeeded to the title and dignity of Earl of Balfour." Alci12 14:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date on top

This is obviously not the order of precedence as of October 29, 2004, as (for one thing, I haven't checked for any others) it includes the Duchess of Cornwall, who did not marry the Prince of Wales until Aprill 2005 and thus did not exist in 2004! The date needs to be corrected-- I don't know how up-to-date the list is, or I would do it myself. Someone should do this-- TysK 06:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, but: What's the point?

I know that several Wikipedia articles are just lists, many of which lack a description of what the list means. So maybe this article is conceived in that same pattern. But although English is my native langauge, I am but a mere American, and don't understand what "precedence" means here. What is it is used for? I gather it is not the same as order of succession. So I feel that I'm missing the sentence or two at the beginning of the article which tells me what a fellow can do with an order of precedence. Sorry if the question/suggestion is too idiotic. -John Hosking 83.78.154.148 18:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

It's used in formal settings - the order that people are listed in formal lists, the way people are seated at formal dinners, that kind of thing. It used to be more important than it is now - for my dissertation research, I was looking at the diary of the Austrian ambassador to France in the 1850s, and he seems to just naturally right out who was present at various dinner parties by order of precedence, without any conscious effort. We have an article on Order of precedence, but it's not that much better about explaining in detail what it means. I think "the way people sit at formal dinners and the order in which they are formally listed as attending things" is probably the main functional importance. john k 02:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Order of Precedence for the new post Lord Speaker

does anyone know about the Lord Speaker's order of precedence in the UK? Dancheng 14:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Precedence of Esquires between themselves

The number of Esquires is, of course, huge. How do Esquires rank inter se? For example, who takes precedence between a QC and the senior ranks of the army? Chelseaboy 18:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question to which I know of no official answer ever having existed. Obviously we have a clear position for the sons of peers and knights as being ahead of other esquires. There seem on the face of it likely choices, by paternal precedence (if any), by age or seniority. The historic tables seem (though without any official authority) to break them down into peers/knights/by creation/by office/all others. Alci12 11:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I suspect it depends on the occasion. I imagine civilian QCs would rank below all army officers at a military gathering and army officers would rank below all QCs at a legal gathering. It rather goes to show that the order of precedence is a template for more context-specific lists rather than reflecting any occasion that one can possibly think of when everyone in this article is lined up in precisely this order. It's still quite fun though. Chelseaboy (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I would imagine there must be some form of official list somewhere. Buckingham Palace, for instance, must encounter situations requiring untitled people who nevertheless hold official status to be placed in order of precedence. The starting point would presumably be the distinction (archaic, but still observed in some situations, for example by the College of Arms) between Esquires and Gentlemen, but where to go from there I have no idea. Proteus (Talk) 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
On reflection, since both QCs and commissioned officers gain their status from the dates of the letters patent or commission respectively, perhaps the answer in THAT case is to give precedence according to the date of creation (assuming that is the source of Esquire rank). And, I suppose, it might follow that an Esquire by descent could rank above all of them. Chelseaboy (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I would assume that military and naval officers would be placed according to their rank (with officers of the same rank placed according to the seniority of their branch and then by their own seniority in that rank), but where QCs would fit into that would be an interesting question (although I'm pretty certain your suggestion that they would be ranked amongst themselves by when they were appointed would be correct). And presumably academics would fit in somewhere, presumably ranked amongst themselves by the level of their highest degree (DD down to BA (is that the lowest degree?)), but again ranked in some unknown way amongst the others. It would certainly be very interesting to see if some form of guidance does exist. Proteus (Talk) 21:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Ooh, now that is tricky territory! I daresay degress could be "ranked" by their class (doctorate, master's, bachelor's etc.), but surely no specific degree type (DD, DPhil, MPhys etc.) could be ranked above another of the same class – I for one would take deep offence to the suggestion that a BSci is "better" or "worthier" than a BA, and I'd expect the same applies vice versa... † DBD 21:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
As I understand it, each university does rank its degrees in that way — it's necessary in order to determine the order of post-nominal letters for people who hold more than one degree of the same level (i.e. is it "BA, LLB" or "LLB, BA"?). And don't worry, as I'm a BA myself I have no desire to insult my own degree! The problem is that different universities presumably rank them in different ways... I don't really know now, but we are getting into absurdly detailed discussions here with absolutely no authority whatsoever! I'm impressed, even given the sort of stuff I normally talk about on Wikipedia! :-) Proteus (Talk) 22:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sons of peers

Currently, the eldest sons of Dukes, Marquesses and Earls, and the younger sons of Dukes and Marquesses, are all being listed individually under their entries in the order of precedence. This seems rather unnecessary to me, especially since the Dukes, Marquesses and Earls themselves aren't being listed individually.

I'm rather concerned that listing all these people is making the page too long and awkward. Do we really need to be listing peers' sons here? Perhaps, if their order is relevant, those sub-lists could be moved to separate pages?

Alkari 00:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In light of no objections being raised, I have today (10 December 2006) moved the following lists to separate articles:

If anything I have done seems unwarranted or incorrect, please don't hesitate to correct it and let me know.

Alkari 02:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there no way we could list them in some form of expandable list (like the expandable template boxes you get at the bottom of articles)? That way we could list pretty much everyone on this page without it being long when you first look at it. Proteus (Talk) 20:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] addition

Where should Lady Nicholas Windsor be added? It would seem that she goes in the same place as her husband (between countesses and wives of marquesses' eldest sons), but as he's in a unique situation I don't know for sure. TysK 23:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Alci12 17:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ladies

67.35.192.104 has just moved Anne, Alexandra, Beatrice and Eugenie above Camilla. This seems dubious, to say the least – can someone who knows more than I either confirm (and provide a source) or deny this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alkari (talk • contribs) 05:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

This issue seems to have been addressed. Alkari 08:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baronets

Don't they take precedence over all knights, per Baronet: "The name baronet is a diminutive of the higher peerage title baron. The rank of a baronet is between that of a baron and a knight."? -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 21:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

They take precedence over all but Knights of the Garter and the Thistle. Knights of St. Patrick would rank above them if any existed. --Ibagli (Talk) 00:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Link

The external link to "Burke's Peerage" to "http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/peerage/sitepages/page62-4.asp" cannot be found. I guess the content was probably just remove, so I don't want to remove it right away. Would somebody who knows where the link should be going please change it, or if it isn't there anymore just remove it? thanks, The Silent Walker 14:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ladies

Oughtn't we to clarify how to rank dowagers? "Duchesses" doesn't provide all that much help. Unlike the situation with Dukes, where there can only be one for any given title, there can be multiple duchesses, and we ought to clarify who goes first. My understanding would be that the wife of the current holder goes first, and that the dowagers then follow by seniority, but I don't really know. Anyone? john k 07:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The reverse. The wives take precedence according to their husbands; the wife of the 1st earl would precede that of the 2nd. The reverse is true as I read it for children; they take precedence ahead of their aunts or uncles. Looking quickly for a link to cite the best I can find is 1911 EB [1] Alci12 16:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Children rank according to the order of their births (eldest first), regardless of which holder they are children of (so the ranking would go "daughters of Dukes of Norfolk (eldest first); daughters of Dukes of Somerset (eldest first); daughters of Dukes of Richmond and Gordon (eldest first); etc.). Proteus (Talk) 15:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of younger sons of marquesses proposed for deletion

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 Scotland and Order of precedence in Northern Ireland as well). If anyone else has an opinion on this matter, your input would be most welcome on the article's talk page. Alkari (?) 22:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Men

Why is Her Majesty included in the Men's section of this article, and repeatedly included in the Woman's section also?? I think Her Majesty would very much dislike being referred to as a man, surely she should only appear in the Women's section?? PoliceChief 21:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Local precedence

Is it worth keeping people's names in this section, seeing as any may change at a moment's notice and we may not necessarily know that? -- Roleplayer 11:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Subject of HRH The Duchess of Cornwall

As is the wish of the Her Royal Highness she does not come before the Princess Royal or Princess Alexandra. In a discussion with the Queen with Princess Anne, being that she should have to curtsey to the Duchess is incontrevertable. Within the Royal Family there is a precedence and that is being that the Duchess falls fourth in the line of precedent. Antother good example of royal discretion is the case with Lady Louise Wessex not being refered to as a Princess. Royal Insight however inacurate on the occasion is the official word from Buckingham Palace and the office of the Private Secretary. So, yes, because of the Duchess's wishes she is indeed fourth in the order of precedent coming after Princess Alexandra of Kent. This will change when the Prince of Wales becomes King. Questions or concerns please contact me.

What was changed was the Order of Precedence at family, private, and semi-official events. The Official Order of Precedence used at for example State Functions, can't be changed without Letters Patent or a Royal Warrant to that effect. The Official Order of Precedence is also dictated by the common law notion that a wife takes the rank of her husband. Therefore, The Queen's daughters-in-law (The Duchess of Cornwall and The Countess of Wessex) remain ahead of The Queen's daughters (The Princess Royal) in the Official Order of Precedence, as no official Letters Patent or Royal Warrant were issued. Definitely, The Duchess of Cornwall can defer precedence to the Princess Royal whenever she wishes, that can be done casually, but at State Functions, or on the Court Circular, you see that The Duchess of Cornwall takes precedence over The Princess Royal. Eddo 17:05, 08 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bishops' wives =

Bishops' wives aren't mentioned at present. But bishops rank surprisingly high when men (as, at present, all English bishops are, of course), e.g. ahead of all members of the cabinet who sit in the House of Commons. So should we not find a slot for bishops' wives in the female order of precedence? Chelseaboy (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, they don't derive any precedence from their husbands. Our coverage on the precedence of women is rather lacking, I'm ashamed to say. But holders of what might be termed "official precedence" (precedence attaching to them by virtue of some office or position, e.g. since they are the Earl Marshal, a Privy Counsellor, or the Lord Bishop of Winchester), unlike holders of "personal precedence" (precedence attaching to them by some kind of personal status, e.g. since they are a Peer of the Realm, a Knight of the Garter, or a Member of the Order of the British Empire), generally (I'd be inclined to say "always", since I can't think of any counter-examples) don't transmit their precedence to their wives or other members of their family. It's a little odd, since it means the wife of an MBE ranks higher than the wife of the Prime Minister, but no one said precedence was supposed to make sense... Proteus (Talk) 20:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, that is interesting. I had an idea that a woman always took precedence from her husband but the idea of a distinction between personal and official precedence for these purposes does sound right. Does any source spring to mind? Chelseaboy (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Not for how I've explained it, since it's really just my interpretation of how it seems to work. But wives of Privy Counsellors, bishops, Secretaries of State, judges, etc., certainly don't feature in any table of precedence. The main problem is that, in an area that is still very male-dominated, and was to an even larger extent when it was an important area, the precedence of women has never attracted much attention, and is generally at best a "table of precedence for ladies" tacked on the end of a much more detailed male list (the list in Debrett's Correct Form doesn't even have an entry for "Secretaries of State" in the female list). An authoritative explanation is pretty much out of the question. I suppose that until relatively recently, wives of these sorts of people would only have been at official functions in company with their husbands, and so would have been assigned equal precedence by courtesy. There was never any need to know what the precedence of the wife of the Archbishop of Canterbury was, since she would never have been anywhere on her own. And it's a shame, since this oddness in many ways makes the precedence of women much more interesting. (It's an even greater shame that precedence has not kept up with the times. It was always bound to become of academic interest only when it remains based on the relative importance of offices in the 16th century or earlier rather than the 21st — the fact that various House of Commons whips, for instance, rank above most of the Cabinet is rather absurd.) Proteus (Talk) 21:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)