Talk:Order of precedence in England and Wales
|
|
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:
- Each time new honours are awarded (i.e. New Year's and Queen's Birthday)
- Once between each general review specified by 1 above
- Reviews of the appropriate sections take place:
- Upon the appointment of a new Prime Minister of the U.K., Minister, or Great Officer of State
- 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)
- "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) (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldstords/ldso--r.htm), 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 (http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm), Stockdale 1818 Peerage (http://www.chinet.com/~laura/html/titles07.html). 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:
- 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 |
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)
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:
- List of Ambassadors and High Commissioners to the United Kingdom - Emsworth 21:46, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Knights and Ladies of the Garter and Thistle - Emsworth 22:05, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Prime Ministers - Emsworth 22:23, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Archbishops, bishops, Moderator of the General Assembly - Emsworth 22:39, Feb 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Would you not describe an Order or post of office as "Defunct" rather than "obsolete"?
Seperate 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
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.
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)
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
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)
- 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)
- Yes, Burke's is generally useless as a definitive source. Debrett's is just unhelpful, though:
- François Velde's site (see here (http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm)) 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)
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 (http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&threadm=78d30s%24a80%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522cosmo%2Bgordon%2522%2B%2522hrh%2522%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D78d30s%2524a80%25241%2540nnrp1.dejanews.com%26rnum%3D2), 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)
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)
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)