Order of Precedence 1: Ending 2022

[Von Schlesian]

Some of us think it still is!

Very true Warren!

 

[Warren]

Back into it!

Very true Warren!

Yes, good to have this thread not only up and running again, but back on track with the really gritty issues!

 

[Margrethe II]

It was a well known fact that Her Royal Highness the Princess Michael of Kent felt terribly awkward at the thought of Diana, Princess of Wales cutsying to her. Apparently she said to Diana that she would never except a cursty from the future King of Englands mother.

"MII"

 

[Elspeth]

The members of the royal family (and Diana was still one of them even without the HRH) don't bow and curtsey to the minor royals anyway, so I have no idea why she thought that was going to be an issue.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

I agree Elspeth. I would not even bow to her.

 

[Princess BellyFlop]

When Princess Michael said she couldn't receive a bow/curtsey from Diana it was out of RESPECT for her as the mother of the heir to the throne but probably also for the person she was. A commoner being introduced to a royal such as Princess Michael and not bowing would be showing lack of respect and lack of good manners. Bad education also.

I would certainly bow/curtsy to even Mary, not a big thing but a small respectful one. And if you follow me on her thread you should know I'm absolutely not a big fan of her.

 

[iowabelle]

Despite being a royal addict, I wouldn't curtsey to Princess Michael. And I probably wouldn't curtsey or bob to Her Majesty, either.

 

[branchg]

When Princess Michael said she couldn't receive a bow/curtsey from Diana it was out of RESPECT for her as the mother of the heir to the throne but probably also for the person she was.

Princess Michael of Kent was not entitled to receive a curtsey from Diana after the divorce, nor was anyone else in the royal family with the exception of the Queen and the Queen Mother, because Diana retained her precedence regardless of the HRH issue. Since the Queen declared Diana's rank to be the same, it would have been a breach of protocol to expect a curtsey from the Princess.

Diana remained the mother of a future king and received the same protocol and deference she enjoyed while married.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Well...actually, since Diana was no longer an HRH, technically speaking, she would probably have to curtsey to Princess Michael. She was the mother of a future king, but she lost all titular dignities and styles upon her divorce...including being curtsied to herself.

 

[tiaraprin]

Despite being a royal addict, I wouldn't curtsey to Princess Michael. And I probably wouldn't curtsey or bob to Her Majesty, either.

Although I am an American, there are certain Royals I would curtsey to out of respect and the fact that I think they are good people. I would curtsey to Her Majesty, Prince William, Prince Harry, The Wessexes, The York Girls, The Gloucesters, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, and Princess Alexandra.

I would NEVER curtsey to Charles, Camilla, Prince Philip, Princess Michael, and The Duke of York.

 

[branchg]

Well...actually, since Diana was no longer an HRH, technically speaking, she would probably have to curtsey to Princess Michael. She was the mother of a future king, but she lost all titular dignities and styles upon her divorce...including being curtsied to herself.

This is true if the royal family followed rigid protocol with each other in private, including curtseys and bows from someone like Peter Philips to his mother or the Duchess of Cornwall as HRH. But, they haven't done this since the reign of George V, so it was irrelevant.

 

[branchg]

Although I am an American, there are certain Royals I would curtsey to out of respect and the fact that I think they are good people.

Diana continued to receive a curtsey or bow after the divorce in most cases, although even when she was stil HRH, she never required it and preferred a simple handshake. Princess Margaret and Princess Michael, on the other hand, were notorious for requiring such formalities even in private.

Americans aren't supposed to curtsey or bow to royalty as a matter of form. Our Constitution forbids all noble titles and dignities and it's considered to be unpatriotic to do so, although certainly some do.
.

 

[Princess BellyFlop]

Princess Michael of Kent was not entitled to receive a curtsey from Diana after the divorce, nor was anyone else in the royal family with the exception of the Queen and the Queen Mother, because Diana retained her precedence regardless of the HRH issue. Since the Queen declared Diana's rank to be the same, it would have been a breach of protocol to expect a curtsey from the Princess.

Diana remained the mother of a future king and received the same protocol and deference she enjoyed while married.

You're probably right and you are definitively more verse than me about order of precedence.

The point I wanted to make was that in countries with royalty there are social classes and social ranks and rules of behavior accepted and followed by people, among them bowing/curtseying to royalty.

Someone from another country - a republic for example - saying they would not bow/curtsey to a royal while in the kingdom is just rude. It would never come to my mind to «moon» the chief of state of the country just south of mine even though I despise him with all of my heart for many good caring human reasons. If introduced to him I would shake hands, probably a weak handshake. Mind you I should find any excuse (gotta wash my hair that day) to decline such invitation hey hey hey!

 

[Margrethe II]

Well...actually, since Diana was no longer an HRH, technically speaking, she would probably have to curtsey to Princess Michael. She was the mother of a future king, but she lost all titular dignities and styles upon her divorce...including being curtsied to herself.

Indeed Lady Marmalade, you are correct on all accounts, But I also see what branchg is saying.

In private the Royal Family still do (to some extent) execute the formalities of Court protocol. We all know that members of Her Majesty's family curtsy or bow from the head when being presented. I have seen footage of Zara and Princess Beatrice curtsying to their paternal Grandfather (the Duke of Edinburgh) at private family affair (It was taken at the Balmoral Estate quite a few years back).

As my Queen, I would most certainly bow my head on meeting Her Majesty and any other member of the British Royal Family who is to be shown such reverence. I would not only be showing my respet to the indavidual, but the historical and notable position they hold.

I would also show such respect for any Reigning Monarch, Queen/Empress Consort, Crown Prince & Crown Princess.

"MII"

 

[Von Schlesian]

As my Queen, I would most certainly bow my head on meeting Her Majesty and any other member of the British Royal Family who is to be shown such reverence. I would not only be showing my respet to the indavidual, but the historical and notable position they hold.

"MII"

Huzzah!! Thankyou Margrethe II!!! And that's something the republicans in our country can't deny! Her Majesty is our Queen. And the Royal family are also our Royal family. And unless Mr Costello, Mr Turnbull, Mr Williamson, Mr Kennelly etc wish to renounce their Australian citizenship, Her Majesty shall remain their Queen also.
To the non-Australian members on the thread, I apologise for dragging this into it. But their attitudes are strongly in contempt of proceeding and accurate protocol and ettiquette regarding the forms of address and Order of Precedence.

 

[Warren]

Since Diana was no longer an HRH, technically speaking, she would probably have to curtsey to Princess Michael. She was the mother of a future king, but she lost all titular dignities and styles upon her divorce...including being curtsied to herself.

I think the confusion here is about the the HRH. Royal Highness is a style, whereas Orders of Precedence are formalised lists. As discussed previously in this thread The Queen determines the private Royal Family Order of Precedence, in effect her personal pecking order, while the official Order of Precedence is a long list based on all manner of laws and precedents.

And unless Mr Costello, Mr Turnbull, Mr Williamson, Mr Kennelly etc wish to renounce their Australian citizenship, Her Majesty shall remain their Queen also.

I take it then you won't be joining the Costello campaign to topple the PM von Schlesian?

ps.. hasn't this thread got legs?


W

 

[Margrethe II]

He wont be the only one Warren. Costello is an absolute fool and I cant understand what on earth PM Howard sees in such a waste of space and fresh air. They guys a heartless nightmare, who should take a long hard look at his brother. Maybe he could learn a thing or too about human decency and comapssion amongst citizens.

The best thing about John Howard is the fact that his a devoted Monarchist, either he claims to be or just realises where his bread is buttered.

As you can probably tell, I am a very passionate Monarchist (not all that common amongst most 19 year olds) and do believe that having a Queen as our Head of State is an honour and privilege and should be treated as such.

"MII"

 

[Warren]

He won't be the only one Warren.
The best thing about John Howard is the fact that he's a devoted Monarchist.
As you can probably tell, I am a very passionate Monarchist (not all that common amongst most 19 year olds) and do believe that having a Queen as our Head of State is an honour and privilege and should be treated as such.
"MII"

Thank you Margrethe II. I assume from your post that the Australian Order of Precedence has Mr Costello quite some way down the list from the Prime Minister!

Now that you, von Schlesian and I have given TRF members a small insight into Australian politics I think we should move back on track to the British Order of Precedence, where we can discuss the more meaty subject of where Countesses, Duchesses and Princesses (with and without the style of Royal Highness) fit into the scheme of things.

W

 

[Margrethe II]

Thank you Margrethe II. I assume from your post that the Australian Order of Precedence has Mr Costello quite some way down the list from the Prime Minister!

Now that you, von Schlesian and I have given TRF members a small insight into Australian politics I think we should move back on track to the British Order of Precedence, where we can discuss the more meaty subject of where Countesses, Duchesses and Princesses (with and without the style of Royal Highness) fit into the scheme of things.

W

Could'nt agree more Warren. Politics (especially that of a foreign nature to such a vast community of nations) is so terribly repulsive.

"MII"

 

[Oppie]

Ok this is a random question and I don't know if anyone has an answer for it but I'll try anyways.


If William and Harry have a sister, then she would go behind the Duchess of Cornwall Countess of Wessex and Princess Royal for precesdence of ladies, but since they swtich it would she rank above her new step-mother since she is a Princess

 

[Warren]

Ok this is a random question and I don't know if anyone has an answer for it but I'll try anyways.

If William and Harry have a sister, then she would go behind the Duchess of Cornwall Countess of Wessex and Princess Royal for precedence of ladies, but since they swtich it would she rank above her new step-mother since she is a Princess

OK, we have two Orders of Precedence...
The (private) Royal Family Precedence: in which case it is up to The Queen where she would slot in Princess xxx. Possibly after William & Harry. We only know that Camilla ranks behind Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra in regard to the females. As far as I know there is no official list of "first to last" for the Royal Family Order of Precedence which includes males and females.

The Official Precedence ("Precedence in England") where the order is:
The Sovereign
The Duke of Edinburgh (warrant 1952, but not in Parliament)
Sovereign's sons (Precedence Act 1539)
=The Prince of Wales
=The Princess of Wales
=Duke of York
=Earl of Wessex
=Countess of Wessex
Sovereign's daughters
=Princess Anne
Sovereign's grandsons (William, Harry, Peter Phillips) (1726 practice)
Sovereign's granddaughters (Princess xxx, Beatrice, Eugenie, Louise, Zara Phillips)

Now, where does Tim Laurence fit into this? Any ideas?

check out: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm

but note that there is a list for males and a list for females.
Nothing is simple or strightforward in this area!
.

 

[Oppie]

Ok I was wondering about the "private" one, but I didn't think there would be a definite answer.

Tim Laurence, if he is with Anne then he would share her precedence. If he wasn't, as a Rear Admiral would he have his own precedence ?

Edited To Add Do Peter and Zara fit with the other grandchildren or do they get there place from there father ? If so where do they fit ?

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Thank you Warren for your insightful posts, they do help to clarify things.

But, if we travel back to 1996, the HRH style determines if your curtsey or bow. You would not, for example, curtsey to Lady Sarah Chatto or Lady Helen Talyor, but you would curtsey to the Duchess of Gloucester and to Princess Michael for example, not born into royalty, but elevated upon their marriages and therefore entitled to the curtseys. But Diana lost these privileges when she was divorced so technically was reduced back to commoner status even though she is the mother of a future king.

I always found it fascinating that Prince Philip was born a prince of the blood royal of the Greek Royal Family, but became a commoner when he became a naturalized, British citizen and changed his name and dropped the Greek title. It is like smearing over your own bloodline when you all you did was change your name and citizenship, but did not change the family you were born into.

 

[ElisaR]

Although I am an American, there are certain Royals I would curtsey to out of respect and the fact that I think they are good people. I would curtsey to Her Majesty, Prince William, Prince Harry, The Wessexes, The York Girls, The Gloucesters, the Duke and Duchess of Kent, and Princess Alexandra.

I would NEVER curtsey to Charles, Camilla, Prince Philip, Princess Michael, and The Duke of York.

I think that we are a little off topic, but I like this subject.
I would curtsey to any royal, also those I don't like, as Camilla and Princess Michael.
There are some solutions. For example, if were invited to an event where there aren't royals but Camilla, I could decide not to go, or even not to curtsey to her. But if both the Queen and Camilla were there, I would certainly go (to meet the Queen); in that case I would curtsey to Queen, so I would curtsey to Camilla too.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Me too....it would be like a guessing game as to who would curtsey to who....but being an American, I am excused from all that.

ElisaR,

I noticed you were from Italy, and I no they are no longer in power, but, would you curtsey to the Prince Vitorrio Emanuele, Duke of Aosta, the Prince of Two Sicilies, and the daughters of the last King of Italy?

Just curious.

 

[ElisaR]

No. And maybe I wouldn't curtsey to royals of Yugoslavia, Greece and so on.

Italian monarchists would probably curtsy to our ex royals, but their would be a clear message. If I curtsied to them, people would think that I'm against our current system, which is a republic, and that is not the case.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

me neither...the only one I would consider EVER doing that to would be Queen Elizabeth..only as a mark of respect for her.

 

[branchg]

But, if we travel back to 1996, the HRH style determines if your curtsey or bow. You would not, for example, curtsey to Lady Sarah Chatto or Lady Helen Talyor, but you would curtsey to the Duchess of Gloucester and to Princess Michael for example, not born into royalty, but elevated upon their marriages and therefore entitled to the curtseys. But Diana lost these privileges when she was divorced so technically was reduced back to commoner status even though she is the mother of a future king.

I always found it fascinating that Prince Philip was born a prince of the blood royal of the Greek Royal Family, but became a commoner when he became a naturalized, British citizen and changed his name and dropped the Greek title. It is like smearing over your own bloodline when you all you did was change your name and citizenship, but did not change the family you were born into.

In theory, any member of the royal family who is not a Royal Highness must curtsey or bow to someone who is. So, for example, Peter and Zara Philips would have to grant these honours to their mother, their cousins, their aunts and uncles. In practice, the Queen is the only member of the family that receives a curtsey or bow from everyone, although for a state event, strict protocol would probably be followed.

The Princess of Wales is entitled to receive a curtesy or bow from every member of the family who is behind her in precedence as the wife of the heir to the throne. In practice, no one curtsied to Diana within the family.

Philip is an interesting case. He was born a Prince of Greece and Denmark, but actually was entitled to British citizenship automatically as a descendant of Electress Sophia under the Sophia Naturalization Act. Through his mother, Princess Andrew (born HSH Princess Alice of Battenberg), he was a member of the British royal family as a great-great grandson of Queen Victoria through her daughter, Princess Alice, who married the Grand Duke of Hesse-Darmstadt. His grandmother, HGDH Princess Beatrice of Hesse, married HSH Prince Louis of Battenberg, a son of HRH Prince Alexander of Hesse and his morganatic wife, Julia von Hauke (later created HSH Princess von Battenberg).

When Philip married Elizabeth, he was created a Royal Highness and Duke of Edinburgh by George VI. Although technically not a Prince, he was permitted by the King to rank as one (which ruffled a lot of feathers among the Dukes in the Peerage). In 1957, the Queen created him a Prince of the UK and Parliament granted Philip precedence ahead of all other princes of the UK next to Her Majesty.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Thank you branchg, for the information. I knew about Philip's family. BTW..a good book on his mother is "Alice, Princess Andrew of Greece" written by Hugo Vickers.

But after they divorced, while still able to keep her title, Diana, Princess of Wales, no one was technically required to bow or curtsey to her, but since she was no longer an HRH or a quote one quote member of the Royal Family, she would technically have to curtsey to other HRH members. The same would apply to the Duchess of York now.

I know she is the mother of a future king, but that HRH determines who gets the curtsies and bows.....if Sophie divorced, she loses her status, no more curtsies to her.

 

[iowabelle]

Someone from another country - a republic for example - saying they would not bow/curtsey to a royal while in the kingdom is just rude. It would never come to my mind to «moon» the chief of state of the country just south of mine even though I despise him with all of my heart for many good caring human reasons. If introduced to him I would shake hands, probably a weak handshake. Mind you I should find any excuse (gotta wash my hair that day) to decline such invitation hey hey hey!

I didn't say I would be rude to them or moon them. If the royal invited me to shake his/her hand, I would do so, and wait for them to speak first as protocol requires. But I wouldn't curtsey or bob (and I wouldn't make a big production of it, either). I am not a subject of that kingdom and don't feel that I should have to act in any different way than if I were going to meet my own head of state. (In fact, I'd probably be more polite to British royals because... well, I won't go there.)