All were closer to the throne than Prince Michael of Kent, who was already 16th in line when in 1978 he contracted a fateful marriage to the Catholic noblewoman, Baroness Marie Christine von Reibnetz. The union was subject to the 1772 RMA, but caused the groom -- according to the 1701 Act of Settlement -- to forfeit his rights to the throne.
The Kent dukedom, of course, doesn't bar Catholics. But the point is that despite their remote places in the royal succession 40+ years ago, these issues (the question of rank, relative to royalty vs. nobility) were relevant.
Not unlike the Harewoods ...
Not really my question, since afaik Fife long ago became just another non-royal duke who happens to be very remotely in line of succession but that doesn't change the fact he's still the lowest in seniority among non-royal dukes. These are co-equal truths.
That's exactly the question I raised about the Duke of Fife.
By "order of precedence" are you describing an occasion such as a coronation? I can't think of any other public or ceremonial event when this would all come into play. Also, there is that narrower definition of "non-royal ducal seniority" - which surely creates its own line of precdence, by which I mean for instance when the present royal Dukedom of Kent becomes non-royal in the next generation, and so falls in rank within the non-royal category to the "most recent", meaning somewhere behind the Duke of Westminster?
The order of precedence in the UK for males starts with the Sovereign (regardless of sex), the heir apparent (Charles), and then the present Sovereign’s sons in birth order. The Sovereign’s grandsons follow by order of primogeniture. Officers of state are next and then non-royal peers.
So, yes, the Earl of Wessex outranks all dukes save for the Prince of Wales (Duke of Cornwall & Rothesay, Duke of Edinburgh) and the Duke of York. He outranks Cambridge and Sussex in this regard as well.
308
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index