Talk:United Kingdom order of precedence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]: "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] and [3], 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 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)

Contents

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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. 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)

[edit] Officers of State and Household Officers

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)

[edit] Succession boxes

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

  • I would say, no. Especially as it is in dispute what the order of precedence is. Astrotrain 21:36, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of issues

First:

  1. The Sovereign's daughters-in-law
  2. The Sovereign's daughters

This seems to be what people say the order is at present, but I know there's been a lot of dispute about this at alt.talk.royalty, and I seem to remember that, traditionally, only the Princess of Wales ranked above the sovereign's daughters in her own right - other sovereigns' daughters-in-law only ranked ahead of their sisters-in-law when they were with their husbands. It would be easy enough to check on this - did the Duchess of Connaught rank before or after Princess Louise and Princess Beatrice? Did the Duchess of Gloucester rank before or after Princess Mary?

Second:

What's with these supposed recent changes to the order of precedence? Isn't the real issue that the royal family just fucks about with it as they please, with no real rhyme or reason? john k 16:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

1) Until the current Sovereign's reign, there was never any doubt that daughters outranked daughters-in-law (and whenever it's been discussed on a.t.r numerous examples have been cited by many different people of this rule being practised). I'd be inclined to put daughters before daughters-in-law due to overwhelming precedent and the lack of any announcement that the system has been changed.
2) Well, they mess around a lot with the precedence they use, but never seem to mess with the official table of precedence (there haven't even been any press releases saying the order has changed). The way I look at it, the Queen deciding to seat (say) Lady Wessex before the Princess Royal at a dinner is no different to the Duke of Norfolk giving a higher place at a family dinner to his daughters than to his eldest son's wife — i.e. they are both perfectly entitled to do so, as precedence isn't governed by law, but neither should be taken as an indication that the official table of precedence for use throughout the country has been changed. You'll get people on a.t.r saying things like "precedence is whatever the Queen wants it to be, and she doesn't have to announce changes", but that isn't how any other aspect of the Royal Prerogative is exercised, so I don't see why precedence should be any different. Proteus (Talk) 16:53, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Visiting sub-royal sovereigns

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)

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)

[edit] What's precedence for?

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)

[edit] Edit by 209.247.23.143

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)

Definitely speculative and perhaps frivolous. --Ibagli (Talk) 00:20, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

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