Order of precedence in England and Wales

Next to "Baron Haden-Guest" has been placed the note that the title is held by the actor Christopher Guest. There is no need to place such a note next to anybody's title, in my humble opinion. I propose to remove such a reference. Mosquito ringtone Lord Emsworth/Lord Emsworth 02:55, Nov 23, 2003


This article is so detailed it needs "as at .. November, 2003" notice in the first line. Abbey Diaz Andrew Yong/Andrew Yong 07:25, 25 Nov 2003

In terms of locking the date, I would suggest that we update it on the New Year to accommodate all changes between 25 November and then, and that then we update at some regular frequency - every three months or so? Nextel ringtones John Kenney/john 20:23, 20 Dec 2003

I would agree as to the locking. I propose as follows:
*A "General Review" take place:
#Each time new honours are awarded (i.e. New Year's and Queen's Birthday)
#Once between each general review specified by 1 above
*Reviews of the appropriate sections take place:
#Upon the appointment of a new Prime Minister of the U.K., Minister, or Great Officer of State
#Upon a Royal birth
Majo Mills Lord Emsworth/Lord Emsworth 23:35, Dec 27, 2003

I'm pretty sure the Great Officers of State take precedence before all Peers, whether or not they are Dukes. It's only in Parliament that they rank before all others of their grade of the peerage.

:Hmm...that is not what Burke's says. Do you have a source? Free ringtones John Kenney/john 19:51, 11 Jan 2004

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

::"The Great Officers of State do not have the same rank in and out of Parliament. In Parliament, their office confers upon them precedence before the other peers of their own rank, but not before peers of higher rank. Outside Parliament, their place does not depend on their peerage." Sabrina Martins User:Proteus/Proteus 20:14 GMT, 11th January 2004

Also, between "eldest sons of Marquesses" and "younger sons of Dukes" should be the eldest sons of the eldest sons of Dukes (like the Earl of Burlington, eldest son of the Marquess of Hartington, eldest son of the Duke of Devonshire). As their fathers rank as Marquesses but after all substantive Marquesses, they rank after Earls but after the eldest sons of substantive Marquesses. This pattern continues further down the table, as if Lord Burlington were to have a son, he would rank as a Viscount, but after all substantive Viscounts, the eldest sons of substantive Earls, and the eldest sons of eldest sons of substantive Marquesses. Mosquito ringtone User:Proteus/Proteus 18:27 GMT, 11th January 2004

:Feel free to make additions, of course. Abbey Diaz John Kenney/john 19:51, 11 Jan 2004

::I'll have access to a 1999 Burke's from tomorrow, so I'll try to make a start then. Nextel ringtones User:Proteus/Proteus 20:14 GMT, 11th January 2004

Alright, then. Do the court officials (Lord Chamberlain, Lord Steward, Master of the Horse), also function in this manner, or not? Majo Mills John Kenney/john 00:20, 12 Jan 2004

:The act that governs precedence in Parliament is http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld/ldstords/ldsor.htm, which stipulates,

:''It is, therefore, now ordained and enacted by the authority aforesaid, That the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Treasurer, the Lord President of the King's Council, and the Lord Privy Seal, being of the degree of Barons of Parliament, or above, shall sit and be placed ... '''above all Dukes'''...
:''And it is also ordained and enacted by authority aforesaid, That the Great Chamberlain, the Constable, the Marshal, the Lord Admiral, the Great Master, or Lord Steward, and the King's Chamberlain shall sit and be placed after the Lord Privy Seal in manner and form following; that is to say, every of them shall sit and be placed '''above all other personages, being of the same estates and degrees that they shall happen to be'''...

:Thus it would appear that in '''and''' out of Parliament, the Lord High Chancellor, the Lord High Treasurer, the Lord President, and the Lord Privy Seal have absolute precedence. However, the Lord Great Chamberlain, the Earl Marshal, the Lord Steward, and the Lord Chamberlain are above other individuals of the "same estates and degrees" - in Parliament only. Note also that in Parliament the Duke of Edinburgh does not have his high royal rank; rather, he ranks beneath all other Dukes. Cingular Ringtones Lord Emsworth/Lord Emsworth 01:05, Jan 12, 2004

So, then, out of parliament, the Lord Steward, Lord Great Chamberlain, and so forth, only have the precedence of their specific peerage? in hainesport John Kenney/john 01:25, 12 Jan 2004

:Not exactly, I think. According to my understanding, outside of Parliament, these officers would have precedence together, along with the Lord Chancellor, Lord President, etc, regardless of rank. In Parliament, the precedence would depend upon rank. The only way that the Parliamentary and non-Parliamentary positions would be equal was if the officers were all dukes, as they anyway rank above all dukes outside, and would rank above all dukes if this hypothetical were true inside Parliament. being claudine Lord Emsworth/Lord Emsworth 01:36, Jan 12, 2004

Sorry for changing Lady Linley. I thought that all peers, by courtesy or otherwise, use "The", but an investigation of the website of the Royalty indicates otherwise. service desires Lord Emsworth/Lord Emsworth 22:06, Jan 12, 2004

:Courtesy Marquesses and Earls have "the" in conversation when their full title is used (it would be odd to say "I saw Marquess of Hartington yesterday"), but normally they are just called, for example, "Lord Hartington". In formal circumstances (on an envelope, for instance, or on a list such as this), they don't have "the". Courtesy Viscounts and Barons (and normally Earls without "of", like Earl Grosvenor and Earl Percy) never have "the", and are always referred to as, for example, "Viscount Mandeville" or "Lord Seymour". a round User:Proteus/Proteus 10:12 GMT, 13th January 2004

I believe that the current interpretation of the Great Officers and Court officials is incorrect. I'm fairly certain that (other than the Lord Chancellor, Lord President, Lord Privy Seal, and Lord Treasurer), they rank ahead of other peers of their level when doing their duties in their offices, but only rank normally otherwise. This is almost certainly the case for the court officials, and I'm almost sure it's true for at least the Lord Great Chamberlain, as well... quickly inundated John Kenney/john 23:15, 12 Jan 2004

The following indicate that the officers are above the other peers: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm, http://www.chinet.com/~laura/html/titles07.html. But the reliable Burke's makes the indication that precedence is based on one's rank, and does not provide limitations for such. I have not come across any site that suggests that the officials rank according to their normal rank, though. shines upon Lord Emsworth/Lord Emsworth 23:32, Jan 12, 2004

Yes, you seem to be right. Heraldica is usually very reliable, and seems to indicate what you say... the mongolian John Kenney/john 00:41, 13 Jan 2004

The current table of precedence in Burke's is dodgy and should probably be avoided. Many experts on precedence (including the editor of Cracroft's Peerage) have found issue with it: for instance, the Princess Royal should rank above the Countess of Wessex, and Viscount Linley, as the Sovereign's nephew in the female line, probably shouldn't have any special precedence at all, although so many people think he should that if you removed him from this page someone would add him in again. donors angry User:Proteus/Proteus 10:12 GMT, 13th January 2004

:But Heraldica suggests that Viscount Linley would form a part of the table as the place of precedence is for the "Sovereign's nephews", whether the line be male or female. unregulated outdoors Lord Emsworth/Lord Emsworth 11:35, Jan 13, 2004

::I know. Unfortunately, it's a disputed point. This post on alt.talk.royalty is the start of a small thread on this subject:

::http://groups.google.com/groups?group=alt.talk.royalty&selm=38755A8B.F97585F9%40internetcorp.net&rnum=1

::Relevant bits:

::"I think that it is even debatable to give "Viscount Linley" the precedence of a Sovereign's nephew (since he is the son of the Sovereign's sister not brother, and not a prince), but I am willing to see that that is a case where precedence scholars could differ."

::And in reply to this:

::"The children of Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, all derive their precedence from their father, not their mother. Mosley is all wrong here. If he were to take for example the wording of the "Scale of General or Social Precedence of Ladies" literally, rather than according to its logical meaning, then between "The Queen's Nieces" and the "Duchesses of England", he would interpolate all sorts of Bowes-Lyons, Elphinstones, etc. under the heading "The Queen's Cousins"."
:: (This person is the aforementioned editor of Cracroft's Peerage)

::The thread also criticises the placement of Lady Wessex below the Princess Royal.

Page mangled on Jan 19

It looks like the page was mangled on 1/19/2004. Specifically, the
gentlemen order stops and starts again at 1 after 81. Ladies appears
intact, but I didn't look very closely.

:I have undone the mangling. european antitrust Lord Emsworth/Lord Emsworth 19:13, Jan 25, 2004

Updates
I am now, as of February 1, commencing the update of the order of precedence pages. as uncle Lord Emsworth/Emsworth 21:22, Feb 1, 2004

Done so far:
*gardner one List of Ambassadors and High Commissioners to the United Kingdom - murphy to Lord Emsworth/Emsworth 21:46, Feb 1, 2004
*Knights and Ladies of the Garter and Thistle - his winners Lord Emsworth/Emsworth 22:05, Feb 1, 2004
*Prime Ministers - backhand agassi Lord Emsworth/Emsworth 22:23, Feb 1, 2004
*Archbishops, bishops, Moderator of the General Assembly - accommodation will Lord Emsworth/Emsworth 22:39, Feb 1, 2004

* Would you not describe an Order or post of office as "Defunct" rather than "obsolete"?

Seperate articles

Especially in the local precedence list this page has become a list of office holders, surely it should be separated so that the alphabetical list of High Sheriffs etc is with the High Sheriff article.
The item makes no mention of ordinary mayors (as opposed to elected mayors)
The precedence should be
Lord Lieutenant
High Sheriff
Mayor, Lord or otherwise
etc
Without the alphabetical lists it would be easier to see precedence in any given area, with a notes about ranking visiting dignitaries – thus at a function in Sunderland would the long serving Mayor of Gateshead rank before nor after the new Lord Mayor of Newcastle?
Why are aldermen listed? They no longer exist, except as an honorific in the gift of a local council, in the same way as an honorary freedom net billion Garryq/garryq 02:53, 17 Apr 2004

Aldermen are retained because they COULD still exist. tHe office still has precedence even though it has no practical function - perhaps as it is an honour the precedence is even more important. MWNN


Order of the Thistle


Why is the Duke of Edinburgh listed again? The Prince of Wales is not listed either under Garter or Thistle assets greater Garryq/garryq 02:53, 17 Apr 2004

:Aren't several others listed more than once? The POW probably should be as well.

Archbishop of Wales
Where does he fit in the precedence? byron l John Kenney/john 03:03, 17 Apr 2004

:Nowhere, I expect - the of trade off Church in Wales is not established. Morwen/Morwen 20:25, May 18, 2004 =

The Church of Ireland was not established after the 1870s, but its bishops still had special precedence in Ireland (and, I think, still do in Northern Ireland), even after that. John Kenney/john 23:53, 18 May 2004

Question

Why does great nephews/nieces listed here as coming before the sovereigns brothers and sisters, when in fact the United Kingdom page does not list them?

Why does grandsons come before brothers but granddaughters come after sisters? User:Astrotrain/Astrotrain

Are non royal relations really so high in precedence?

Do the Phillipses and Princess Margaret's children really rank so high in precedence? I recall some debate about this earlier, but no resolution. John Kenney/john User_talk:John Kenney/k 19:43, 13 Feb 2005

:Well, as you can see from the discussion further up this page, I'd say "no", since it's my opinion that only HRHs have precedence before the Archbishops and Great Officers of State, but unfortunately I have Burke's against me (which, I might note, has never stopped me thinking something before). Proteus/Proteus User_talk:Proteus/(Talk) 19:51, 13 Feb 2005

::Burke's is notable for being frequently wrong, though, isn't it? What does Debretts say? John Kenney/john User_talk:John Kenney/k 20:21, 13 Feb 2005

:::Yes, Burke's is generally useless as a definitive source. Debrett's is just unhelpful, though:
:::*The Duke of Edinburgh
:::*The Prince of Wales
:::*The Sovereign's younger sons
:::*The Sovereign's grandsons (according to the seniority of their fathers)
:::*The Sovereign's cousins (according to the seniority of their fathers)
:::*Archbishop of Canterbury
:::It seems to be left open to the reader's interpretation as to what that means. (And, indeed, a literal interpretation would place various Harewoods and Strathmores above the Archbishop of Canterbury.) Proteus/Proteus User_talk:Proteus/(Talk) 20:40, 13 Feb 2005

::::François Velde's site (http://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/order_precedence.htm) gives the order: the Duke of Edinburgh, the Sovereign's sons, the Sovereign's grandsons, the Sovereign's brothers, the Sovereign's uncles, the Sovereign's nephews, grandsons of former Sovereigns who are Dukes, grandsons of former Sovereigns who are not Dukes, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Lord Emsworth/Emsworth 21:47, 13 Feb 2005

:::::I find it very hard to believe that if Lord Snowdon had died in 1998, his son would have been placed on the Roll of the House of Lords above the Lord Chancellor and the Archbishop of Cantebury on the basis of being the Sovereign's nephew. (In fact, it would be rather easy to check this. Was Lord Harewood placed above the Archbishops and Great Officers during the reign of George VI? Somehow I doubt it.) All the Rolls I've seen have only had HRHs above Canterbury. Proteus/Proteus User_talk:Proteus/(Talk) 22:21, 13 Feb 2005

House of Lords worked differently, no? There, the Duke of York had the lowest precedence of all dukes, didn't he? John Kenney/john User_talk:John Kenney/k 22:23, 13 Feb 2005

:Nope. See http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&threadm=78d30s%24a80%241%40nnrp1.dejanews.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%2522cosmo%2Bgordon%2522%2B%2522hrh%2522%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26selm%3D78d30s%2524a80%25241%2540nnrp1.dejanews.com%26rnum%3D2, for instance, which shows that in 1924 the Duke of York (the future George VI, Sovereign's son, title created 1920) ranked before the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (Sovereign's uncle, title created 1874). Thus, until 1999, the Duke of York ranked before the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent on the Roll of the Lords. Proteus/Proteus User_talk:Proteus/(Talk) 22:33, 13 Feb 2005

::Edinburgh would have been lowest in the House of Lords; he is not considered a Duke of the Blood Royal. Lord Emsworth/Emsworth 22:55, 13 Feb 2005