Talk:United Kingdom order of precedence
|
|
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, [1] (http://www.burkes-peerage.net/Sites/Peerage/SitePages/page62-4.asp): "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, [2] (http://laura.chinet.com/html/titles07.html) and [3] (http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm), 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 (http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/peerage/sitepages/page62-4d.asp) 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:
- A page providing links to the other orders.
- An explanation of the order (what presently forms the Notes section)
--Lord Emsworth 19:35, Nov 15, 2003 (UTC)
- 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. Afterall prince consort is not even a title in the British royality. 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