Talk:Order of precedence in Scotland

Sons & daughters with substantive titles

The inclusion of for example, The Duke of York and The Earl of Wessex under younger sons of Dukes, and also of Lady Thatcher and The Princess Royal under the Orders of the Garter and Thistle seem to make the list unduly complex as they each have a substantive title of their own which would plave them above these notional positions.

Can they be removed from the lists? or have I missed some reason for their inclusion? garryq 19:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Highland Chiefs

?Where do they fall? 207.107.246.140 20:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

List of younger sons of marquesses proposed for deletion

List of younger sons of marquesses in the peerages of the British Isles, which was split off from this page in December 2006, has been proposed for deletion with the following message:

Wikipedia is not appropriate for directories of individuals who do not meet the notability criteria. This unsourced list was originally split off from Order of precedence in England and Wales. It is not wanted or needed there (or really anywhere else) as most people on the list are not notable.

It is my impression (and opinion) that it is wanted and needed here (and on Order of precedence in Northern Ireland and Order of precedence in England and Wales as well). If anyone else has an opinion on this matter, your input would be most welcome on the article's talk page. Alkari (?) 22:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Order of precedence for Ladies?

Is this correct - currently reads that Granddaughters-in-law are higher than Granddaughters - non blood higher than blood relations? 78.151.177.80 (talk) 12:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that wives gain precedence on the basis of their husband's precedence, and so granddaughters in law take their rank from the grandsons who have higher status than granddaughters - with the same among any other relative generation of the Sovereign or other titled person - i.e. sisters-in-law above sisters, daughters-in-law above daughters, etc. Not agreeing with this practice or principle, just sayin' ! Nodrog75 (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Lord President of the Council

I couldn't spot the Lord President of the Council anywhere in this list. Could it be a mistake? Gugganij (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Lord President of the Council is a British title, not a Scottish one. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Earls' daughters & sons

Why do the daughters of Earls have precedence above Baronesses, yet the sons (other than the eldest) have precedence below barons? It seems odd that a younger daughter of an Earl is Lady [forename][surname] but a younger son is not Lord [forename][surname]. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 10:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

If we were talking about England, I'd say: in English common law of inheritance, there is no seniority between sisters, so all daughters are (in effect) eldest daughters. —Tamfang (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

sons of eldest sons

There is an entry for "Eldest sons of younger sons of peers", but none for sons of eldest sons. ? —Tamfang (talk) 18:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

dubious

The major source for this article is the Burke's Peerage website. This (rather surprisingly) does not list the Prime Minister, the Lord President, the Speaker of the House of Commons, Ambassadors etc as having any precedence in Scotland. I've tagged these entries as dubious until another source can be found. Opera hat (talk) 15:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Not mentioned by Debrett either. Opera hat (talk) 00:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's an older list from Burke's that does mention the Prime Minister, but doesn't take account of the changes following the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. Opera hat (talk) 10:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I get the impression the Scottish order of precedence is a bit of a mess. For example, the Lord High Chancellor has a place (logically, as he is "of Great Britain), the Earl Marshal doesn't (again logically, as he is "of England", although it's unclear whether the Earl Marischal had similar precedence), and the Lord High Constable of England is replaced by the High Constable of Scotland, but what about the Lord High Treasurer and the Lord High Admiral (both "of the United Kingdom") and the Lord High Steward ("of Great Britain")? The Lord Privy Seal and Lord President of the Council are also presumably "of the United Kingdom" and yet are apparently missing. Proteus (Talk) 13:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The original Royal Warrant of 1905 doesn't mention the Lord President etc. Opera hat (talk) 01:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The whole thing seems to be a complete horlicks. Whilst I can see the objective: a Scottish order of precedence in the same way as the local one listed below, it doesn't really work. The English OofP, for example, makes room for Commonwealth Prime Ministers etc: the Scottish one does not recognise any external counterparts. It's also strangely unjustifiable to feature the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain in the 1905 warrant, but not the other UK-wide officials - unless perhaps it is adapting a pre-union OofP, and the Lord Chancellor is standing in for the former Lord Chancellor of Scotland or something equally bizarre. I don't think we're going to resolve this dubiety any time soon. --Breadandcheese (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Lord Lieutenant

Are the LLs really ranked alphabetically? —Tamfang (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to my understanding. The article shows this as a local order of precedence: so in fact all it is saying is that LLs (or LsL, to be entirely accurate!) are at the top in their area and providing a list of them. Although it's little more than educated guesswork, I'd assume the usual standard of length of tenure would apply: although the Lord Provosts of the cities might expect to be at the top of the list too. --Breadandcheese (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternative titles in Scotland?

In the same way as the Prince of Wales is known as the Duke of Rothesay in Scotland, should the Duke of York be known as Earl of Inverness? The Earl of Wessex does not appear to have a Scottish style that might be used. Nodrog75 (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No, only The Prince of Wales is known by his Scottish title alternatively in Scotland, The Princes Andrew and Edward use their United Kingdom (not English, as they were created on their marriages) throughout the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.97.74 (talk) 20:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Earl of Strathearn

Should the Earl of Strathearn be listed here instead of the Duke of Cambridge? StAnselm (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Relative to this point, and my question above regarding the Earl of Inverness, I suspect that keeping this page as it is would be correct, because (reading the relevant pages regarding each title) it is either that: (a) Duke of Rothesay is a title in the Peerage of Scotland, while Earl of Inverness and Earl of Strathearn are titles in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, or: (b) because of the 1469 Act of the Scots Parliament mandating the succession of Duke of Rothesay as being to the King's (Sovereign's) eldest son, not to the heir of the previous holder (in the same way as Duke of Cornwall - in the Peerage of England - has an 'automatic' succession to heirs-apparent of England), while titles such as Inverness and Strathearn (and, it would seem, Prince of Wales) are technically new creations each time. (Points a and b would seem to be closely related!)

So while politically it is perhaps good for those 'high up' in the line of succession to the throne to have titles connected with different parts of the UK, legally it is only the heir-apparent whose (ducal) titles are part of the older peerage(s) of Scotland (and England), and therefore can/should be referred to by his Scots title in Scotland.

I guess there may also be an argument about not using a subsiduary title (Earl) over a 'main' one (Duke) but not being a scholar on these points, I'd appreciate any agreement or otherwise! Nodrog75 (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, and was what I was thinking. Thanks! StAnselm (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Clarence House, HRH SHOULD be referred to as The Earl of Strathearn in Scotland, and as this is a page about precedence in Scotland, The Earl of Strathearn should be used on this page LordSnapcase (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)LordSnapcase

Have you got a source for this? StAnselm (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Can't find anything stating that on either the Clarence House webpage or indeed on royal.gov.uk and as I think about it, Duke of York (as with Duke of Cambridge) is presumably a title in the peerage of the United Kingdom (in this 8th creation, 1986) so is again relevant and applicable across the UK? One of these days I'll find more time to research these arcane mysteries... Nodrog75 (talk) 13:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The Prince of Wales and his wife (as the Prince Charles, Duke of Rothesay, and the Duchess of Rothesay respectively) are the only members of the Royal Family who have styles peculiar to Scotland. All others are simply known by their highest titles wherever they are. Apart from anything else, it would be ludicrous if the Duke of Kent were known as the Earl of St Andrews in Scotland - if he went to Scotland with his elder son they'd both be called the same thing! A backwards example might also illustrate this - the Duke of Edinburgh isn't known as the Lord Greenwich in England (or the Earl of Merioneth in Wales, for that matter). Proteus (Talk) 14:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone changed the article so that the Duke of York was referred to as "The Earl of Inverness" and the Duke of Cambridge as "The Earl of Strathearn". Since this appears to be against the general tenor of the discussion, I have reverted it. The article was also inconsistent: the Duchess of Cambridge was not referred to as "the Countness of Strathearn, the Duke and Duchess of Kent were not referred to as "the Earl and Countess of St Andrews", and the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester were not referred to as "Lord and Lady Culloden". Proteus is clearly right: has anyone ever heard of - can anyone really imagine - the Duke of Gloucester being referred to as "His Royal Highness Lord Culloden"? It would be ridiculous - he's a royal duke, for goodness' sake! The title of "Duke of Rothesay" has special historical associations with the heir to the Crown in Scotland, which explain its continued use in the style in Scotland of its holder. Peers with multiple peerages are customarily styled according to their highest one, and there is no evidence that the Queen has decided differently with respect to the Duke of Cambridge (or other members of the royal family, leaving aside the Duke and Duchess of Rothesay). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neljack (talk • contribs) 12:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The article has again been changed to refer to "The Earl of Inverness" and "The Earl of Strathearn". I have reverted this. There is clearly no consensus in favour of change; indeed there seems to be one against it - as far as I can see, only one person has voiced support on this page for change. I must ask people who disagree with the current position to express their view on this page and not simply edit the article contary to the dominant view of the discussion. Neljack (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As a fairly definitive source, the Court Circulars adopt a clear position on this. In Scotland, Prince Charles is referred to as the Duke of Rothesay. Although I can see no engagements for Prince William in Scotland since he became Duke of Cambridge etc, there are Scottish engagements for the Duke of York - who is referred to as the Duke of York rather than by an exclusively Scottish subsidiary title. I suggest we keep to that. --Breadandcheese (talk) 23:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

The Court Circular referred to the Duke of Cambridge as Earl of Strathearn (and the Duchess as Countess of Strathearn) on his installation as a Knight of the Thistle. I've changed the Earl of Inverness back to Duke of York, though. Opera hat (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Laird

The laird article claims that lairds fall between barons and esquires. If this is true, it should be added to this article; if not, it should be removed from that one. --Macrakis (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of sub-pages

See Talk:Orders of precedence in the United Kingdom#Use of sub-pages DBD 22:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Source is unreliable.

Please explain why you are using an English source for a Scottish article... Meenmore (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you asserting that nothing that appears in the London Gazette applies to Scotland unless it also appears in the Edinburgh Gazette? I think you need a source for that, to be honest. There doesn't seem to be anything in the notices themselves that limits them to England, and the publication's website says: "The Gazette is the UK’s official public record, and is comprised of three publications: The London Gazette (published every weekday), The Belfast Gazette (published on Fridays) and The Edinburgh Gazette (published on Tuesdays and Fridays)." That implies that it is one record that just happens (presumably for historical reasons) to be published in three forms. There does not seem to be anything requiring UK-wide notices to appear in multiple publications. And on a practical level, your stance would require us to believe that judges in a court with UK-wide jurisdiction, even if they are Scottish, have no precedence in part of the UK. Proteus (Talk) 16:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Scotland and England have independent legal jurisdictions. The source is explicitly clear that it relates ONLY to the legal jurisdiction of England. This is not a matter of me requiring you do believe anything. Examine the source please. The source being used does not mention the framework of the Scottish legal system, I think it is essential that the source does as this is after all an article relating to Scotland. It only mentions the English legal system. The onus is on you to provide accurate sources to support your claim. This one-fits-all approach is unsuitable. The Scottish legal system is a hybrid system. The Scottish legal system is not the exact same as the English legal system. Meenmore (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"The source is explicitly clear that it relates ONLY to the legal jurisdiction of England." Could you please show me where? I can't see any mention of England in the notice relating to the Supreme Court or in the headings of the issue in which it appears, and the source for the actual creation of this order of precedence explicitly applies only to Scotland despite appearing in the London Gazette: "Whereas it has been humbly represented unto Us that a Scale of Precedence in Scotland has not be defined with due authority ... And whereas We have deemed it expedient for these and other considerations Us thereunto moving that the place and precedence in Scotland of Peers, Officers of State, Lords of Session, Sheriffs, and other persons having hereditary, official or personal rank should be regulated by Warrant under Our Royal Sign Manual. ... shall have on all occasions place, pre-eminence and precedence in Scotland in their degrees according to their respective positions in the Tables hereunto annexed intituled "The Scale of General Precedence in Scotland" and "The Scale of Precedence for Ladies in Scotland." Our Will and Pleasure, therefore, is that Lyon King of Arms, to whom the cognizance of matters of this nature in Scotland doth properly belong ..." (my emphasis). Proteus (Talk) 09:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The source cited relates only to the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales this is evidently the case as it mentions the Master of the Rolls who is an English judge with no counterpart or equivalent within the legal jurisdiction of Scotland. The source only describes the relationship between the United Kingdom Supreme Court and an English judge. I still have great difficultly understanding how an English orientated source describing the relationship between the President of the aforementioned court and the Master of the Rolls in England has any relevance to the Order of Precedence in Scotland. Meenmore (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Dubious offices

I think that the issue is that most of the following offices were assigned precedence subsequent to the Royal Warrant of 11 March 1905. That precedence was assigned by reference to offices which are not mentioned in that Warrant.

1. Prime Minister of the UK - Royal Warrant dated 4 December 1905 - comes after the Archbishop of York, who does not appear in the Scottish Table of Precedence.

2. Commonwealth PMs - there does not seem to be any authority for their position - they do not appear in the Heraldica table.

3. Speaker of the UK House of Commons - Royal Warrant dated 30 May 1919 - comes after the Lord President of the Council, who does not appear in the Scottish Table of Precedence.

4. Lord Speaker of the UK House of Lords - Royal Warrant dated 4 July 2006 - comes after the Speaker of the UK House of Commons - see (3) above.

5. President of the Supreme Court of the UK - Royal Warrant dated 1 October 2009 - comes after the Lord Speaker - see (4) above.

6. Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the UK - Royal Warrant dated 1 October 2009 - comes after the Master of the Rolls, who does not appear in the Scottish Table of Precedence.

7. Justices of the Supreme Court of the UK - Royal Warrant dated 1 October 2009 - come after the Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the UK - see (6) above. Alekksandr (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Lord Great Chamberlain

He does not appear in the burkespeerage.com post-devolution list or the 1905 warrant on which it is based. I suspect that he may have entered the list in the article because the Burke's Peerage article on Scots precedence pre-devolution read "13-The Duke of Argyll as Hereditary Master of the Household in Scotland. The rest as in England, till: 14-Dukes' younger sons. I have therefore been bold and deleted him. NB that there has not been a Chamberlain of Scotland since 1703. Alekksandr (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Format of Royal Family succession boxes

See Talk:Orders_of_precedence_in_the_United_Kingdom#Format_of_Royal_Family_succession_boxes Alekksandr (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Order of precedence in Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130827092526/http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/hierarchies/precedence-gentlemen-scotland.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/forms-of-address/hierarchies/precedence-gentlemen-scotland.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Earl of Inverness again

Is there a clear source that Andrew is styled "Earl of Inverness" rather than "Duke of York" when in Scotland? A search for the title on the court circular going back 21 years only yields reports of when he's been in Inverness & Inverness-shire itself (similarly he's only called "Baron Killyleagh" in a report on a function in Killyleagh). With more recent titles there seems to be a clear intention to have a distinct Scottish brand (e.g. the Order of the Thistle was conferred on the "Earl of Strathearn" not the "Duke of Cambridge" and "Strathearn" is often used for William and Catherine's activities in Scotland) but has this been retroactively applied to earlier generations? Timrollpickering 21:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Prince Michael

I see there is no place for Prince Michael of Kent in the order of precedence in Scotland? Kowalmistrz (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Major Updates Needed

This list is seriously out of date, containing references to individuals who left office years ago. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC) Such as?--George Burgess (talk) 23:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Scottish barons

According to this article, Scottish barons (feudal barons) rank between the Lyon King of Arms and Sheriffs-Principal. None of the sources given, however, rank feudal barons at this position, and rather seem not to include feudal barons in the order of precedence at all.

Duke of Edinburgh v Earl of Forfar

The Duke of Edinburgh is currently listed as 'HRH The Earl of Forfar', but I wonder whether this is a hang-up from before he was created Duke of Edinburgh – that is, while his original principal title pertained to England, it made sense for his Scottish title, Earl of Forfar, to be used in this context. However, now that his main title pertains to Scotland, surely that is the one that should be used here. Of course, the same idea applies to his wife. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks as if this has been sorted through a simple revert; therefore, I assume that I can draw a line under this. ZeroAlpha87 (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

James, Earl of Forfar

Since Prince Edward was given the earldom of Forfar for use in Scotland, wouldn't James - with access to his father's subsidiary earldoms - be known as Earl of Forfar in Scotland? 2A00:23EE:10D0:6765:AD4B:2D9A:27B9:C680 (talk) 09:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

It's possible that he could. But with no evidence that he has, I don't think we can assume this to be the case. meamemg (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)