Precedence - Who Outranks Who?

[Wisteria]

In my opinion, an anointed and crowned monarch who reigns by the Grace of God always outranks a person who was elected and who rules by the grace of politics.

Absolutely spot on.

 

[Lumutqueen]

In my opinion, an anointed and crowned monarch who reigns by the Grace of God always outranks a person who was elected and who rules by the grace of politics.

Quite right, thats is the reason we should not abolish ANY monarchy in the future. We need the stability they in my opinion bring.
x

 

[Lilla]

In the last years of late President Fidel Castro's presidency, he outranked most monarchs because he had been the head of state of Cuba for almost a lifetime.

 

[COUNTESS]

God anoints no one. That is just man made drivel. All are equal in God's eyes. Monarchs got to their spot, but strong ancestors with big swords who fought and often stole territory. Ruled with an iron fist and endowed their future generations. Presidents are elected by their constituents. They are neither better nor worse than their constituents.

 

[Kotroman]

Nobody said that God anoints someone I said that, in my opinion, a monarch who is anointed in a holy ceremony by a religious leader ranks higher than a person who holds a position because he/she made lots of nice promises which are never going to be fulfilled.

BTW, "by the Grace of God" is a phrase used by monarchs. I used it to indicate their being above politics, while presidents rule "by the grace of politics".

 

[COUNTESS]

Presidents rule by the grace of their people. The Kaiser used that phrase, too, and he was a lunatic. Monarchs are above politics, because that is the only way they can exist, now. People have them as show pieces. The dirty work, real work is done by the elected. And, many of todays monarchs do not hold "holy cermonies", as they, too, know their part in the paegent. Monarchs are in their position because of birth; smart, dumb, evil, good, there they are.

 

[lover_of_royalty]

Emperor vs King - some questions

Hi,

My name is Laura, I'm new here and got some questions. It quiet important I get these right.

1, Does a Emperor bow to a King (ranks and all)?

2, If someone marries someone with a high title e.g. HSH marries HRH - do they know be HS&RH??? Would a woman of higher ranking lose her original title and therefore take all her husbands ranks and titles?

Thanks.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Take Caroline, Princess of Hanover.
She was a HSH up until the point she married Prince Ernst, then she became and HRH, and Princess of Hanover, a title ranking higher than her original title.
Queen Victoria elevated all the sons who married her daughters to the rank of HRH.
An emperor ranks higher than a King, I believe, so it would be the other way round. A king bows to an Emperor.

 

[lover_of_royalty]

In my opinion, King/Queens are their Head of State by birth why Presidents etc are their by been voted there. Therefore a King/Queen should greet Royalty in the right way. On the other hand, as with the President Obama situtation, as Emperor out ranks all other, they should bow.

 

[Alison20]

Banda Windsor (No.9) wondered why Mme Chirac curtesied to HM QE. This is because Mme Chirac was the wife of the Head of State and the Queen was the actual Head of State. Although wives used to take most of the status and precedence of their husbands, they really were always 'one step behind'. However, Prince Consorts do not have the same rank as their reigning Queen wives, although they usually get precedence just behind her.

 

[EmpressRouge]

Generally speaking, women take on the rank of their husbands unless she had a higher rank to begin with. So while HSH Princess Caroline of Monaco upgraded to HRH The Princess of Hanover, Princess Margaretha of Luxembourg kept her HRH even though she married HSH Prince Nikolaus of Liechtenstein.
However, Royal and Imperial Highness were styled as equals since HI&RH was used for
1. House of Habsburgs: Prince/ss Imperial and Archduke/duchess of Austria and Prince/ss Royal of Bohemia and Hungary
2. House of Hohenzollern: Imperial Prince/ss of Germany/Royal Prince/ss of Prussia
3. House of Orleans-Braganza: Imperial Prince/ss of Brazil, Royal Prince/ss of Orleans/France
4. Romanov Grand Duchesses who married into Royal families outside of Russia.

Technically, an emperor ranks higher than a king because a empire is composed of many kingdoms, (and duchies, principalities, etc). Example: the German empire comprised of the kings of Prussia, Württemberg, Bavaria, et al. Furthermore, all heads of state are equal in international diplomacy. Thus, while Prince Albert II of Monaco is "only" a Serene Highness, he, as the sovereign, would be equal to President Obama and the Emperor of Japan, but outrank Royal Highness the Prince of Wales who is not yet a head of state.

 

[irishthanhy]

All Heads of State are equal in rank; their rank being "Head of State" of an independent sovereign nation.

However, they are not equal in precedence, and this is where the Royals more often than not have the upper hand.

This is so very true. Barack Obama came under fire for apparently bowing to monarchs because people of equal rank (Head of State) do not bow to each other. (i.e. The Grand Duke of Luxembourg and The Prince of Monaco wouldn't bow to Queen Elizabeth II because even though she is a Queen vs. their Grand Duke and Prince they are all Heads of State as the reigning monarch. Elizabeth II would, however, come before Grand Duke Henri who would come before Prince Albert II in the order of Precedence.)

I think Presidents enjoy the style of "His/Her Excellency" when on official state visits.

The President of the United States is specifically NOT His/Her Excellency, but Mr. President or "The Honorable...".

 

[CrownPrincess5]

A lot of Kings and Queens nowadays are there only for ceremonial purposes. They are not really involved with the affairs and politics of their country. Whereas, presidents and prime ministers have more power and political control than king and queens...even though they are voted into office.

 

[MAfan]

2. House of Hohenzollern: Imperial Prince/ss of Germany/Royal Prince/ss of Prussia

The members of this House (that is not to be mixed up with the Princely House of Hohenzollern[-Sigmaringen]) are only Royal Highnesses, Princes of Prussia; only the (titular) German Emperor and King of Prussia and his wife are Imperial and Royal Majesties, and only the German Crown Prince and Crown Prince of Prussia and his wife are Imperial and Royal Highnesses.

 

[EmpressRouge]

The members of this House (that is not to be mixed up with the Princely House of Hohenzollern[-Sigmaringen]) are only Royal Highnesses, Princes of Prussia; only the (titular) German Emperor and King of Prussia and his wife are Imperial and Royal Majesties, and only the German Crown Prince and Crown Prince of Prussia and his wife are Imperial and Royal Highnesses.

Oops, my bad. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Haakon-Magnus]

I've not seen it in practice I think, but wouldn't Akihito outrank Elizabeth II by dint of being the Emperor? Meaning he would enter a room first based on imperial rank, rather than his length of service?

I would suppose in a setting where the other person isn't royal, he would enter at the same time, based on them both being heads of state.

 

[Artemisia]

I've not seen it in practice I think, but wouldn't Akihito outrank Elizabeth II by dint of being the Emperor? Meaning he would enter a room first based on imperial rank, rather than his length of service?

I would suppose in a setting where the other person isn't royal, he would enter at the same time, based on them both being heads of state.

According to accepted international practice, the precedence among Heads of State is based on the order that they took office. That means that King Bhumibol of Thailand (who became King in 1946) is the highest-ranking Head of State, immediately followed by Queen Elizabeth II (Queen since 1952).

Emperor Akihito has been a Monarch since 1989 and is thus outranked not only by King Bhumibol and Queen Elizabeth, but also by Sultan Qaboos bin Said Al Said of Oman (reigns since 1970), Queen Margrethe II of Denmark (reigns since 1972), King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden (reigns since 1973), King Juan Carlos of Spain (reigns since 1975), Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands (reigns since 1980), Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah of Brunei (reigns since 1984), and King Mswati III of Swaziland (reigns since 1986).

It is true Emperors and Empresses were once given precedence over Kings and Queens. In fact, it is said Queen Victoria was granted the title of Empress of India by an Act of Parliament because she felt it was not appropriate her own daughter (who was German Empress) outranked her. Nowadays, however, the precedence is decided by the length of reign, not title. That's mainly because earlier Emperors were, well, rules of Empires - vast territorial domains which usually had local rulers (dukes, princes or even kings) who accepted the Emperor or Empress as their suzerain. These days, there are no longer Empires in the traditional meaning of the word.

 

[AdmirerUS]

That Victoria knew how to run the world and get her way .

 

[NGalitzine]

Not sure it has entirely gone away.
If you look at the entry of the reigning European monarchs at the 1981 wedding of Charles and Diana you will see the first to enter is Grace & Albert de Monaco (as the least important guests), followed by Franz Joseph & Gina of Liechtenstein (he was then the worlds longest reigning monarch) followed by the Grand Duke and Duchess of Luxembourg, followed by kings & queens in reverse order of accession. So the line up was princes first, then grand duke, then kings and queens.

 

[kalnel]

Will Beatrix revert to the precedence of "an ordinary princess" after her abdication, or will she have special status as a former queen? Anyone know how this was handled with her mother?

 

[Warren]

...So the line up was princes first, then grand duke, then kings and queens.

This is the perfect example of reverse precedence where the "least" come first.
It was poignantly illustrated at the Diamond Jubilee Thanksgiving Service where HM, alone, was the last person to enter the cathedral. (However, on the way out the Queen led the royal procession with her family following in order of Wales - Cambridge - Harry - York - Wessex etc).

 

[Artemisia]

Not sure it has entirely gone away.
If you look at the entry of the reigning European monarchs at the 1981 wedding of Charles and Diana you will see the first to enter is Grace & Albert de Monaco (as the least important guests), followed by Franz Joseph & Gina of Liechtenstein (he was then the worlds longest reigning monarch) followed by the Grand Duke and Duchess of Luxembourg, followed by kings & queens in reverse order of accession. So the line up was princes first, then grand duke, then kings and queens.

I think the precedence has changed since Charles and Diana's wedding though. Now, the precedence seems to be based chiefly (if not entirely) on the length of the monarch's reign, instead of his/her title (Emperor, King, Queen, Grand Duke...). A good example of that was the sitting arrangement for the official portrait taken during the Jubilee Lunch for Monarchs which accorded precedence based on the number of years spent in the office, including former monarchs.

 

[Artemisia]

This is the perfect example of reverse precedence where the "least" come first.
It was poignantly illustrated at the Diamond Jubilee Thanksgiving Service where HM, alone, was the last person to enter the cathedral. (However, on the way out the Queen led the royal procession with her family following in order of Wales - Cambridge - Harry - York - Wessex etc).

I've been wondering about the precedence the Cambridges and Harry are accorded during such official events. It seems as though they come immediately after the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, whereas "officially" they should have been after the Duke of York and the Wessexes.

Do you think William and Harry now do de facto have precedence over their uncles, or it's just a matter of convenience (they walk after their father, as a family)?

 

[CelestialPrincess]

I think Monarchs should always have a higher standing then Presidents. They are not elected and reign for the rest of their lives from the time of their ascension, and it is thought to be their god given right while Presidents are in for 8 years at most

 

[NGalitzine]

I think Monarchs should always have a higher standing then Presidents. They are not elected and reign for the rest of their lives from the time of their ascension, and it is thought to be their god given right while Presidents are in for 8 years at most

That rather depends on the country they are president of. Mugabe has been around for decades and if anyone would receive him his length of time in office would give him precedence over many monarchs. Fortunately he is pretty much persona non grata everywhere.

 

[Ish]

I've been wondering about the precedence the Cambridges and Harry are accorded during such official events. It seems as though they come immediately after the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, whereas "officially" they should have been after the Duke of York and the Wessexes.

Do you think William and Harry now do de facto have precedence over their uncles, or it's just a matter of convenience (they walk after their father, as a family)?

It could be that they're basing precedence on the line of succession to a degree. Both Princes William and Harry will inherit before the Duke of York or Earl of Wessex, thus it makes sense why they might be given precedence over them. The Queen has long seemed to take more of an interest in them, especially Prince William, owing to his destiny, so to speak, so perhaps she has elevated them?

I read somewhere recently that the Duchess of Cambridge's precedence has been set to below that of all Princesses by birthright (including Princess Alexandra) when she is alone, but equal to her husband's when she is with the Duke of Cambridge. Is there any legitimacy to this, or is it just a tabloid rumour set to make the Queen look line a grouch and the Duchess like a commoner?

 

[CelestialPrincess]

That rather depends on the country they are president of. Mugabe has been around for decades and if anyone would receive him his length of time in office would give him precedence over many monarchs. Fortunately he is pretty much persona non grata everywhere.

Oh yeah, but I mean when people are saying that like the President's of the United States have precedence over monarchs they never really do

 

[Artemisia]

It could be that they're basing precedence on the line of succession to a degree. Both Princes William and Harry will inherit before the Duke of York or Earl of Wessex, thus it makes sense why they might be given precedence over them. The Queen has long seemed to take more of an interest in them, especially Prince William, owing to his destiny, so to speak, so perhaps she has elevated them?

I read somewhere recently that the Duchess of Cambridge's precedence has been set to below that of all Princesses by birthright (including Princess Alexandra) when she is alone, but equal to her husband's when she is with the Duke of Cambridge. Is there any legitimacy to this, or is it just a tabloid rumour set to make the Queen look line a grouch and the Duchess like a commoner?

You may be right: while it has always been clearly stated that precedence is not based on and doesn't follow the Line of Succession, that may be changing. After all, one's place in the Order of Precedence is entirely at Sovereign's will.

Again, there is a difference between Official and Private Order of Precedence. The Queen's decree that Princesses by marriage should have lower precedence that Princesses by birth is only about the Private Order and didn't affect Kate's (or anyone else's) position in the Official Order of Precedence.

The general consensus is that Princesses of the same (more or less) generation are meant. Thus, the Duchess of Cornwall is the second woman in the Kingdom after the Queen in the Official Order, but comes after Princess Anne and Princess Alexandra (Princesses by birth of the older generation) in the Private Order. The Duchess of Cambridge is the fourth woman in the Kingdom in the Official Order (after the Queen, the Duchess of Cornwall and the Countess of Wessex) but 8th in the Private Order (after the Queen, Princess Anne, Princess Alexandra, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Countess of Wessex, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie).

However, when Prince William is present, Kate takes her ranking from him. It would appear that in the Private Order for Men (if one does exist), William actually has higher precedence that his uncles, which means Kate's precedence would be lower than only that of the Queen and Camilla but higher than Sophie's and all the Princesses by birth.


I should add that while understanding the Official Order of Precedence is fairly easy and I am quite certain of everything I wrote, the Private Order may sometimes be interpreted differently. This is my personal point of view (based on observation and the scarce information that exists), and others may agree or disagree with it. And one more thing: unless we are talking about state or very official events, the precedence and ranking business is a fairly relaxed affair. Royals don't go around curtseying to each other based on precedence.

 

[Ish]

I should add that while understanding the Official Order of Precedence is fairly easy and I am quite certain of everything I wrote, the Private Order may sometimes be interpreted differently. This is my personal point of view (based on observation and the scarce information that exists), and others may agree or disagree with it. And one more thing: unless we are talking about state or very official events, the precedence and ranking business is a fairly relaxed affair. Royals don't go around curtseying to each other based on precedence.

That makes sense, and thanks for clearing that up. I did read that Zara Phillips has said she always makes sure to curtsey to HM, and I have seen images of Royals curtsying or bowing to her as well, but then HM is a special case.

So, basically Catherine is supposed to curtsey to the Princesses of York if her husband is not there (and VI's versa if he is), and Zara is supposed to curtsey to all of them, but this doesn't typically happen. All are supposed to curtsey to HM, and this does happen. Correct?

 

[Iluvbertie]

I've been wondering about the precedence the Cambridges and Harry are accorded during such official events. It seems as though they come immediately after the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, whereas "officially" they should have been after the Duke of York and the Wessexes.

Do you think William and Harry now do de facto have precedence over their uncles, or it's just a matter of convenience (they walk after their father, as a family)?

What would be interesting would be to see how they would enter if Charles wasn't there - would William and Harry then come after Andrew and Edward or still take their precedence based on their father's and their place in the line of succession?