I am not sure about the story posted in The Telegraph, and The Mail-- who is the source? Did this person really read this? I have serious doubts about the story. I think that both Charles and William would have something to say about the issue of precedence and that the Queen would listen! Camilla and Catherine are future Queens Consort. Seniority has something to do with precedence as well. Philip and Anne are senior royals who have spent lifetimes serving the crown and are due some respect.
Then, there is the issue of Beatrice and Eugenie's not being official members of the working royals.. There just are so many problems with the story.
Have a look at this thread -
Order of Precedence; the topic of curtseying and precedence has been discussed there.
To be succinct, the article is nonsense; although blood Princesses (Anne, Alexandra, Beatrice, Eugenie and possibly, Louise) do have precedence over Princesses by marriage (Camilla, Kate, Sophie and others), it is only for private precedence - not official one.
The Official Ranking For Women:
- The Queen (the Sovereign)
- The Duchess of Cornwall (wife of the Heir Apparent)
- The Countess of Wessex (wife of the Sovereign's younger son)
- The Princess Royal (the Sovereign's daughter)
- The Duchess of Cambridge (the wife of the Sovereign's grandson)
The Private Ranking For Women 1: *
- The Queen
- The Princess Royal
- Princess Beatrice
- Princess Eugenie
- Lady Louise (assuming she is counted as a Royal Princess, which she legally is)
- Princess Alexandra
- The Duchess of Cornwall
- The Duchess of Cambridge
- The Countess of Wessex
The Private Ranking For Women 2: *
- The Queen
- The Duchess of Cornwall
- The Duchess of Cambridge
- The Countess of Wessex
While Private raning number "1" should be in operation considering 2005 edict, the official website of the British Monarch makes it clear that Camilla still has precedence immediately after the Queen, followed by, surprisingly, Kate (under normal circumstances, she should have been followed by Sophie, then Kate).