Sunday, 24 June 2012

The Queens Tells Kate to Curtsy to 'Blood Princesses'

Duchess Kate is married to the future King and will one day be Queen Consort but newly updated protocols reportedly approved by the Queen state that there are several women in the royal family  to whom she must show reverence. A document has been privately circulated to clarify Kate's status meaning she will have to curtsy to the 'blood princesses' when Prince William is not present. The aforementioned 'blood princesses' are the Princess Royal, Princess Alexandra, Princess Beatrice and Princess Eugenie. Royal historian Brian Hoey predicted when William married Kate that


'Kate will take the rank of her husband, which means that when she's at court, Princess Beatrice and Eugenie should curtsy to her. But I don't think there's any chance they will. While William feels warmly towards his cousins, Beatrice and Eugenie, he's conscious of the fact that they are lesser royals. As future King, he will will wish to see them behaving correctly towards their future Queen - but their attitude is likely to be : "Why should I? I was born royal - Kate wasn't".

It would seem Mr Hoey's prediction was correct. The Order of Precedence was last updated in 2005 after Charles married Camilla so that neither the Princess Royal nor Princess Alexandra would have to curtsy to Camilla when Charles was not present. Despite being married to Princess Edward, the Queen's son, the Countess of Wessex will have to curtsy to Kate. 


MP Ian Austin shared the news via Twitter.


Ian Austin Twitter


From The Telegraph Article

'The Order of Precedence affects other aspects of royal protocol, such as who arrives first at an event. For example, Camilla was forced to wait in the drizzle outside the Guards Chapel, Windsor for the arrival of Princess Anne at a memorial service in 2006, because Charles had not accompanied her'.

Kate curtsying to the Queen at the royal wedding.

AP
Protocol is taken extremely seriously by the royal family and the recent 'update' is reportedly to avoid a battle of egos. While I think it is appropriate for Kate to curtsy to the Queen, Prince Philip, Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall because of their seniority within the royal household I disagree with the notion she should curtsy to Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie when unaccompanied by William. As future Queen Consort I believe the Duchess should be of the same rank as William at all times, not only in his presence.


In accordance with the Queen's wishes only seven royals appeared on the balcony of Buckingham Palace during the jubilee weekend because Her Majesty wanted to focus on the direct line of succession and the future of the throne. Not one of the ladies Kate is required to show reverence too was asked to join the senior royals on the balcony, so one must wonder why Her Majesty presented such a united front to the public yet in private had chosen to update the protocol which would disgruntle William. Royal observers said the Prince would be 'less than happy'.


I would love to hear your thoughts on this, looking forward to your comments.

117 comments:

  1. She only has high rank when with William. This just recognizes that. Its not that unusual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No it is not unusual at all and justified.

      Delete
  2. That is a ton to remember. I don't think Kate should have to curtsy to the people below the rank of William. Also what about the princes? Does Kate have to cursty to Andrew Harry and Edward? I agree that Kate should not have to curtsy to lower rank royals at all no matter if she is with William. When they married she should also take on his status to make them equal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pauline California, USA24 June 2012 22:49

      Oh Jackie I totally agree with you. Why should the beautiful Duchess have to curtsy to the princesses who do nothing but live off their daddy. These two girls do nothing but parties and show up with the queen when they have nothing better to do.
      The Duchess should have to curtsy to the Queen, Prince Phillp and Charles but not Camilla. And maybe to the Princesses Royal.
      To me this a bunch of crap.
      Why is the Queen doing this? And I bet William is pisst.

      Delete
    2. I agree with you Jackie! It seems unfair,,she's married to William,,she automatically becomes royalty,,because their children do!WHat was the protocol for Diana??Did she also follow such rules?I think its a subtle insult to Kate,,every time she does that she will be reminded that she's a commoner married to Royalty. This is so unfair,considering the fact that she does more charity work than B and E do!( I wonder if B and E do any social work at all). Is this the flip side of marrying to royalty???The very thought of curtsying to B and E makes my stomach churn!

      Delete
    3. Curtsying is a thing of the past.
      People should only curtsy before
      God, our Lord.

      Delete
    4. Diana was the wife of the heir to the throne, Kate not. When Charles will ascend to the throne, William will be the heir and then Kate will have the role that has now Camilla. I understand to be in favor of Kate, but you think about who is a member of the family and shows how to treat a B-level. If counting the work done so far, honestly Sophie would count more than Kate and more than Beatrice and Eugenie. If you love Kate just because has become a Royal you must accept the rules that it imposes, as it should do her. You can not have just the good thing is silly to think so.

      Delete
    5. To anonymous #2--Order of precedence has never been about who is hardest working, it's based on the closeness of relationship to the sovereign, following male primogeniture. Women would take the order of their husband, while females would maintain their position based on primogeniture ie. they wouldn't lose their postion in the order simply by marrying someone who did not have equal rank. There is both a male and female order of precedence--the male order (which not only deals with males but also their spouses when they are present) is not being tampered with here; only the female. Normal female precedence would be: the Queen, Camilla, Sophie, Anne, Kate, Autumn, Bea, Eug, Louise and Zara. The order appears to have been changed to: the Queen, Anne, Alexandra, Camilla, Bea, Eug, Kate, Sophie and ?? Not consistent with rank, not consistent with blood, not consistent with work ethic, not consistent with anything--except perhaps the egos involved.

      Delete
    6. I agree with Jackie especially about Beatrice and Eugenie! Kate is lovely.

      Delete
    7. I thought if a Prince marries,then becomes King ,his wife automatically became Queen. ie-The Queen Mother was Queen so why not Kate.Also being married to a Prince she should automatically be treated with the same reverence as her husband,forget all this curtsying !!!! She's lovely and recently gave us our future King.

      Delete
  3. Dear Charlotte, the traditions at court go back a long time in history and the "blood princes and princesses" are in line to the throne, whilst the consorts are not. This is probably one of the historical reasons. The Queen has had to adapt because of the divorces and remariages of several of her children. I'm sure she will have explained to William and Kate why it must be so, and I doubt he is "disgruntled", as say some royal watchers. She has done everything to include Kate and the Middletons in her private sphere, and to show her appreciation and affection for the new Duchess. Kate is intelligent and I'm sure she accepts this protocol. And anyway I doubt very much she will see much of Princess Anne, Beatrice or Eugenie alone and have to curtsy to them ;-) All the very best, Theresa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Queen has included Kate and her family but this a step backward in my opinion. The royals need to modernise to survive.

      Delete
    2. I think it will bother lots of people, but I don't think it will bother William and Kate a bit.

      It is well known that both William and Kate ask people to address them by their christian names. I think the first time that Kate sees Bea and Eugenie she will drop them a quick curtsy and smile.

      Delete
    3. I agree. Surely Kate knows she was not born a royal.

      Delete
  4. i disagree but knew this would happen. it is tradition and she is a commoner marrying into the royal family and is being put in her place. obviously someone (blood royal) complained.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pauline California, USA24 June 2012 22:52

      Ya I bet it was either Camilla or Andrew. These few royals can not get it, the beautiful Duchess is a breathof fresh air to the royal family and they can't understand why the Duchess & her Prince are getting all the attention.

      Delete
    2. I can see why William loves being in Angelsly to protect Kate from the palace backbiting.

      Delete
    3. camilla has to curtsey to the blood princesses too.

      rumor has it it was anne and alexandra.

      Delete
    4. I believe Prince Andrew is having a problem with being put into a lesser Royal status, as well as hid Daughters. I think there is some Family Rivalry there. He wants his Daughters and himself to be included in the line of succession, and for his Daughters to not have to work at real jobs. He wants instead that they do Charity Works like Kate does. There is definately jealousy there, and I'm sure many complaints from Andrew and his Daughters. I think they feel they are being unrecognized as Royals, and this is being done to satisfy them.
      Personally speaking, I don't think Kate should have to curtsy to anyone save the Queen, Prince Phillip, Charles, and Camilla. I believe she should have the same rank as William, with or without his presence, as without him there, she is still acting on his behalf.

      Delete
    5. kate should never have to curtsy to camilla and should never be Qween

      Delete
  5. I totally disagree with Kate having to curtsey to Bea and Eugenie at any time. When Kate becomes Queen Consort, will she still have to curtsey to them when William is not present?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No she wont because the will be Her Majesty The Queen

      Delete
  6. Totally disagree with this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with what anonymous June 27 said. With Mate's growing popularity some royal complained about and the queen just had to put out the future fire that might have come up

    ReplyDelete
  8. The British Monarchy has always and will always do everything it can to protect their bloodline meaning we see the continuation of outdated etiquette.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Pauline California, USA24 June 2012 22:57

    This idea that the beautiful Duchess must curtsy to Bea & Eugenie is a bunch of crap. These two girls do nothing for the royal family but go out and party and maybe be by the Queen's side when they have nothing better to do.
    I agree with you all here that believe that someone in the royal family complain to the Queen so the Queen had to do something. But I don't think thet Duchess will ever be alone with the two little princesses with out William so she will not have to curtsy to them, at least hope not.
    They all should be happy that the Duchess has joined the royal family. She has broguht a breath of fresh air to the family, they all should curtsy to her except teh queen and the prince.
    And I bet William is not a happy camper with all of this.

    ReplyDelete
  10. My opinion, when it comes to Royal protocol, Queen knows best.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The important word in this blog is "reportedly". There hasn't been any confirmation by BP and until there is I'll reserve judgement, especially as I know the source of this story

    ReplyDelete
  12. Charlotte, I saw this report earlier and wondered if it has been confirmed by the Palace? In my opinion, if Prince Andrew's daughters wish to be regarded with honor, they should learn to wear clothing that fits. Regardless of size, a well tailored wardrobe is a must for good grooming. These two are a mess.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They look like their mother that is why .... which is exactly who trumped this up in the first place. She regularly tweets about her daughters because she is not allowed at the Royal events.

      Delete
  13. Agree with protocol since it is tradition, and it's part of being a royal. Although Kate will likely be very old when she becomes Queen, possibly in her 60's, this protocol only applies when Kate is not accompanied by her husband. How many public and private occasions and engagements will there be with Kate going out with Beatrice and Eugenie alone anyway? I don't think that will be a lot. I don't think it's fair to Beatrice and Eugenie to be mocked either.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Where protocol is concerned it's up to the Queen. Kate is smart enough to willingly do what is asked of her and Princess Eugenie and Beatrice know they are " cutting off their nose to spite their face" if they give Kate a hard time. The bottom line is this, Kate is going to be Queen Consort and one day they will all have to curtsy to her-period.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Seems like Andrew asserting his rights as the Queen's favorite.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I agree with this post! If the Queen expects Kate to do so much work for the monarch, with and without William, and she frequently has William & Kate by her side, this new protocol doesn't make sense.

    I agree the British royals are all about protocol, but she married a senior royal and should receive similar respect. PS. do they seriously curtsy each other in PRIVATE?

    I agree with a previous poster that someone must have complained, and I think that would have been Andrew. He's frequently in the news fighting with the Queen when she cancelled the security and royal allowances or Bea and Eugenie. I think he's fighting tooth and nail to keep his daughter's as relevant royals.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If the story is true, this presents some interesting features. The queen has seven grandchildren besides William. As I read this (when William is not present) Kate would need to curtsy to Beatrice, Eugenie and Harry but not to Peter Phillips or Zara (not sure of her married name or if she's using it) who have no title by their mother's wish, or Lady Louise and James (not sure of his title, Viscount something-or-other) the children of Sophie and Edward. It does seem peculiar that Kate would need to curtsy to some grandchildren but not all. Andrew is said to be the Queen's favorite and the Queen may be tired of people making fun of Beatrice and Eugenie. (although I have to say they deserve it.) The queen was urged to minimize the number of family members on the balcony, not sure it was completely her choice. I wonder if this isn't her reaction. From a practical viewpoint, I wouldn't expect it to come up too often. Who does Camilla have to curtsy to when not with Charles? Is there a difference?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am seriously interested to see if any film would be made during my life time to reflect all these dramas. LOL

      Delete
  18. this is a continuation of the order which was published when charles married camilla. this was done at the prompting of anne and alexandra, who basically refused to curtsey to newcomer camilla; newcomer, unpopular and someone who would never bear royal children, unlike diana, so i guess they decided they could take a stand.

    does anyone know if the blood princesses had to curtsey to diana? i think they did, according to the order of the time. i think i remember hearing that anne hated curtseying to diana (anne thought diana was silly), and pretty much refused to curtsey to diana regardless of what the order said. and when camilla married into the family, anne made her feelings clear that she wasn't going to curtsey to camilla, and the queen therefore changed the order to reflect that reality rather than have ppl wonder why lower ranked ladies were not curtseying to higher ranked ladies.

    i understand we're kate fans on this website, but royal orders of precedence are not dictated by popularity. they are dictated by the queen. and yes it does make sense that a system which ranks people based on blood relation to the monarch should give precedence based on that criteria.

    it will be interesting to see what happens when charles becomes king. i find it hard to believe he will be able to make his sister curtsey to kate (or anyone else, incl him!), and may just keep the order of precedence rather than have to deal with the awkwardness. would anne curtsey to camilla if charles wasn't there?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Anne had to curtsey to Diana, and didn't like it much! I'm sorry but Anne just needs to deal with these age old realities. If Queen Mary could curtsey to Queen Elizabeth (the former duchess of York and not a royal by birth) upon the death of her husband, then surely Anne can curtsey to her sisters-in-law.

      Delete
    2. I bet when Charles becomes King, he changes the Order of Precedence.

      Delete
  19. Reading other articles makes this even more confusing. An earlier list had Camilla further down and there was some speculation about where Kate would fit in. Now Camilla is right behind Charles but Kate is separated from William by Harry and Andrew but not by Edward?? Even though Andrew and Edward are both younger sons. I find it all confusing. What happens if Andrew remarries?? Can you sort this out Charlotte?

    ReplyDelete
  20. So essentially there is a double standard being imposed: one must curtsy to someone who is born a royal even if beneath you in rank, if you yourself were not born royal. This is essentially a continuation of the protocal the Queen put in place regarding Camilla, but my understanding was that extended to royal born princesses on a selective basis ie. Anne and Alexandra took precedence over Camilla, but not Beatrice and Eugenie. My guess is that the Queen couldn't really do anything else for Kate given the protocol was but in place for Camilla, but it is interesting that she has extended it to apply to Bea and Eug, and it does seem to contradict the current movement to streamline the monarchy to the direct line of succession. A bit of a clash between the private and public faces of the monarchy, that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I'll be interested to see what happens when Kate has a child. . .that child would be above Beatrice and Eugenie, which means they would have to curtsy to the child, who would be with his/her mom, which means they would have to curtsy to her and she would also have to curtsy to them? Confusing (and I bet changed when that happens).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. KATE HAS TO HAVE A CHILD NOW!!!!

      Delete
    2. This is a very interesting point!

      Delete
  22. This is ...just bloody complicated. LOL I remember watching an old german made movie Sissi. She was complaining about all that fuss of Spanish court rules...I wonder if Kate feels the same headache, but you know, she knows what package deal she has signed up for and I bet she will be happy to do whatever it's needed.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It was rumoured that Princess Anne refused to curtsey to Diana and also to Camilla.
    The announcement on the Buckingham Palace site of William's forthcoming induction into the Order of the Thistle, announces that Her Majesty, acoompanied by Princess Royal and the Countess of Strathearn will be at St. Giles Cathedralon July 5th for the Thistle ceremony.
    Obviously Princess Anne has been given precedence.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Kate should not bow before anyone, neither before GOD!!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Fifi, Texas, USA25 June 2012 12:56

    I think that whatever Her Majesty The Queen dictates, Kate should respectfully follow. She will receive her privileges once she is Queen Consort. Regarding Eugenie and Beatrice, please be kind and treat them as you do Kate.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I have the same reaction : what will happen when Catherine becomes the mother of the future king or queen ?? It would seem so strange if she had to curtsy to the princesses, being the mother of a prince(ss) herself ! And I entirely agree with this clever remark : "It does seem peculiar that Kate would need to curtsy to some grandchildren but not all". My opinion is : according to protocol, William was not to marry a commoner. He did so : I would love the royal family to take this opportunity to modernize. Curtsy to the Queen, maybe to prince Charles as direct heir to the throne, and that's it ! (PS : sorry for poor english, I'm a foreigner !)

    ReplyDelete
  27. I have to say that I’m not too pleased with these changes if the story is true. I wasn’t very familiar with royal protocol until I started following the British and other royal families (in my own country, we don’t have emperors, or nobility for that matter, any more for almost 100 years), but I always thought curtseying/bowing would be a sign of respect towards higher-ranked and/or older members of the royal family. So I totally understand that Kate has to curtsy to the Queen, Prince Philip, Charles and Camilla, maybe also to Anne and Alexandra. (And what about the men? Edward, Andrew, the Duke and the Prince of Kent, the Duke of Gloucester – does Kate have to curtsy to them?)
    However I don’t agree on the fact that she should curtsy to Beatrice and Eugenie. Yes, they were born as princesses, and I understand that this change is based on the fact that the bloodline is more important than members that married into the family, but seen in the light of recent events, this is contradictory. It was widely reported during the Jubilee that the Queen herself and also Charles only want the Queen’s children and the members of the family that are in the direct line of succession (William, Kate and Harry) to carry out official duties in the future. This means that among other members of the family, Beatrice and Eugenie are given less relevance, despite being blood princesses. So it would seem that for official duties, the direct line of succession is more important, while in their private life, it’s the bloodline. I have to say that the protocol is rather confusing to me, it’s not very easy to see who has to curtsy/bow to who and in which situation. Also, as someone mentioned, what will be when William and Kate have a child, or when they will be first in line to the throne one day. Very tricky, and I think that the protocol will undergo further changes in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Fantastic, thought provoking post. Thank you Duchess. :)

    I totally disagree with Kate being expected to curtsey to Beatrice and Eugenie, but I think the reason for all of this is that the Queen is walking a very fine line between Charles' desire to downsize the royal family and Andrew's determination that his daughters are not sidelined and overshadowed. In this situation, I think Charles is absolutely correct; in order for the royals to be viewed favorably in modern and difficult economic times, streamlining is the way to go.

    Pardon the pun, but I think Andrew missed the boat on this one. He should have reminded his daughters, and their mother, that they are princesses many years ago. Relevance cannot be demanded once a degree of damage has been done; it must be earned (at least were the public is concerned). He may have gotten his way within the palace walls, but publicly he is fighting a losing battle and making people even more resistant to his wish that B&E are treated as royal princesses.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I feel that it's completely inappropriate that Kate must curtsy to Beatrice and Eugenie. I mean they act like 'side shows' and they cannot wear clothing that fits or is appropriate for the occasion. I believe they don't earn the respect of Kate's Curtsy's and that Kate should be treated equally like William whether she is with him or not. I DO NOT in this new change!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  30. I think the logic is that Camilla curtsies to Anne and Alexandra as they are blood princess of the same generation. She does not curtsy to Beatrice and Eugenie as they are clearly a lower generation. Using a similar logic, Kate curtsies to blood princesses in her generation - Beatrice and Eugenie. As the article points out, it's not just about curtsying - but about who arrives first, seats first, etc... and I suppose there does need to be an order. The real snub is for the Sophie, the Countess of Wessex. It seems like she has to curtsy to everyone!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sophie is the Queens lady in waiting so to speak. They get on very well and she is the only one who rides with the Queen on Christmas. Her daughter resembles QE as a child. They are very close

      Delete
  31. I think the logic is that Camilla curtsies to Anne and Alexandra as they are blood princess of the same generation. She does not curtsy to Beatrice and Eugenie as they are clearly a lower generation. Using a similar logic, Kate curtsies to blood princesses in her generation - Beatrice and Eugenie. As the article points out, it's not just about curtsying - but about who arrives first, seats first, etc... and I suppose there does need to be an order. The real snub is for the Sophie, the Countess of Wessex. It seems like she has to curtsy to everyone!

    ReplyDelete
  32. i think the whole issue has become more confusing because of the clause where curtseying is decided by whether the spouse is present or not. what if william/charles is in the room but not next to kate/camilla when the blood princesses meet them?

    quite frankly, i think a lot of this has to do with anne's bad manners and being spoilt: "i don't think x is worthy of me curtseying to x so i won't, and i dare anyone to make me."
    everyone loves tradition except when it cramps what they want to do it seems!

    it will be interesting to see what happens after the queen dies, and camilla becomes consort (with whatever title). will anne still see her as not royal enough and refuse to curtsey?

    ReplyDelete
  33. i just thought of more wrinkles:

    what about timothy laurence? does anyone curtsey/bow to him when he is in the presence of anne? if camilla curtseys to anne, does she also curtsey to anne's spouse?

    and how are the blood princesses ranked?
    in theory, anne ranks low among the blood princesses: bea and eugenie are daughters of the son of a monarch, and higher in line of succession than anne. does anne curtsey to them?

    i think the queen started all these orders of precedence to keep peace in her family (most ntoably her daughter who apparently only curtseys to whoever she wants to), but i think she is creating more confusion and strife than necessary (since everyone now knows that the queen will change your rank if you bitch enough) - and also indulging anne to a degree she really should not allow as head of the family.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that as Tim doesn't take on Anne's rank and title, the way a wife takes her husband's, no one in the royal family would bow to Vice-Admiral Laurence, regardless of whether he is with Anne or not. Those curtseys are for Anne, not Tim!

      Actually Anne would rank ahead of Kate, Bea and Eug in the normal Order of Precedence which does not always follow the line of succession. After the Queen, normal precedence would have Camilla,as wife of the heir; then Sophie, as wife of a younger son of the sovereign; then Anne, as the Sovereign's daughter; then Kate, as wife of the Queen's grandson; and then the Queen's granddaughters (Bea, Eug and Louise)with Princess Alexandra ranking well behind everyone including Lady Sarah Chatto, Viscountess Linley and her brothers' wives.

      I think that when the order of precedence was changed for Camilla, which I understand, originally changed the order only in private, not in public, Anne was ranked first then Alexandra, and then everyone else according to the previous rules. Now these changes have been extended to Bea and Eug but where do you draw the line? Lady Louise is as much a "blood born princess" as Bea and Eug although she goes by her lesser title of Lady. She is the same generation as William, Bea and Eug as grandchild of the Queen. does Kate curtsey to her as well?

      the whole thing is a bit of a hornet's nest--an inconsistent mix of ranking by bloodline and ranking by title, which to be fair has always been the case (otherwise Anne would simply be Mrs Vice Admiral Laurence sitting in the back of Westminster with everyone else) but this seems to be taking it too far, and is confusing--does Camilla curtsey to Andrew and if not, why not, given that she must curtsey to his sister? and does Camilla also have to curtsey to Bea and Eug now?

      Delete
    2. Camilla should bow to everyone forever. IMO

      Delete
  34. It's worth noting none of this has anything to do with succession which takes the queen's children and grandchildren and relatives in order regardless of title, unless they forfeited by marrying a Catholic. (This along with the fact that Anne and her children come after her younger brothers changes in the next generation.) It makes sense to have Kate curtsy to Camilla (however little many of us like her) and Anne and Alexandra have been hard-working royals for years. (And presumably to Andrew and Edward too.) After the queen's children, it would preserve a sense of monarchy to follow the line of succession and have spouses take their precedence from their mate regardless of his/her presence. This would put Kate above all the Queen's grandchildren including Harry and avoid what becomes a fairly silly distinction based on what title various grandchildren were given at birth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry to interfere, bit I must defend Camilla, whom I like second best after Kate, of course :-) My impression is that Camilla does a lot of charity work; besides the Queen and also Kate seem to like Camilla very much - not to forget William and Harry. I see Camilla smiling in so many pictures and she also makes other people smile (including myself). I guess that she really likes what she does and that it is more than pure duty for her; I appreciate that.
      And wasn't it Camilla who has supported Kate from the very beginning on? I like her!

      Marion from Germany

      Delete
    2. I agree Camilla has proved that she is a supportive wife and carries out her duties well.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous, the key words in your comment are "unless they forfeited by marrying a Catholic" ........like Charles did when he married the Catholic, divorced (with a living ex-husband) Camilla Shand Parker-Bowles?

      Delete
  35. Thank you for all your interesting and thought provoking comments. While I know the Order of Precedence is important to the royal family I find it incredibly backward Kate (as wife of the future King) should have to curtsy to the Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie. It sends out the wrong message at a time when the monarchy was beginning to show real steps in modernising.

    Several very reliable royal correspondents and the Telegraph have all written about it, not just the Daily Mail, from asking several reliable people it would appear it's definitely true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't agree more. It DOES send the wrong message at a time when the royal family needs to be seen as modernising (something that is critical for the long term benefit of the monarchy). It also contradicts the visual message the royals sent during the Jubilee celebrations. I suspect that Charles is very pleased with the overall reaction to this because it supports his vision of the future of the monarchy.

      Delete
    2. Exactly. HM was very eager to present Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry as the future of the monarchy but this is a huge step back. I'm also interested to know how it will work when Kate becomes Princess of Wales or has a child. As mother of the future King/Queen will she have to curtsy to Beatrice and Eugenie?

      Delete
    3. Well, it does seem silly for the wife of a future king to have to curtsey to his younger cousins. IMO, Kate should share William's rank even if he isn't present. But not to worry - at some point down the road, I think Charles will remedy this curtsey business long before William has the opportunity to do so.

      Delete
    4. Kate's new title is HRH duchess of Cambridge-this title automatically makes her a royal!!! I hope this does not go the Queen Diana way- a small start to something big- also hypothetically speaking what if Kate, B and E are at an event where Will is not present and Kate refuses to courtesy, do Cinderella's step sisters complain about it?Im sure Kate dint see this coming at the same time as Williams birthday!

      Delete
    5. Protocol is something that is often revised. When Kate has a child and when she becomes Queen Consort, we will most likely see more revisions. For now, this protocol is based on her current position.

      Delete
  36. All of the rankings will of course change once William becomes the Prince of Wales, as he will when Charles becomes King. At that point, the Duchess will become Princess of Wales automatically. Then, she will outrank all of the other "blood royal princesses." The reason Camilla still follows the protocol that she does is that she will never receive the title of Princess of Wales. Also, Kate will not be a consort, she will officially be Queen. It is possible that Camilla will also officially be Queen, but much more likely that she will remain as a consort. The reasons behind this are very complicated. However, if Charles decides to elevate her to Queen, he of course can do that. One of the reasons Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria kept their husbands as consorts was because if the men were elevated to King, they would outrank their wives. However, a direct line King never has to worry about that with his spouse because he of course would outrank his wife no matter what.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Camilla is the Princess of Wales and has been since she married Charles, but chooses to be known by her lesser title of Duchess of Cornwall. She is of no lesser rank than Diana was.

      Delete
    2. Agreed and there are two ranks of King - King Consort and a King granted the title with the crown matrimonial - if conferred this gives the recipient the right to reign equally and to continue to reign alone on the death of the spouse. Presumably this would be the same for a queen.

      Delete
  37. Interesting video from Christmas 2011. About half way down the page. The posting is dated '12/6/2012'

    http://catherine-duchessofcambridge.tumblr.com/

    ReplyDelete
  38. I don't think it's wrong at all that she has to curtsy to blood princesses. it will hardly happen anyway, since she won't attend an event where the with them & without William very often.
    I suppose that all of this is because Camilla has to curtsy to Anne etc., and since she is married to an even higher ranking Royal, naturally Kate would have to do so, too.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hi, it's confusing, does Kate also have to curtsy to the Duke of Gloucester, the Duke of Kent and Prince Michael all of whom are princes of the blood and in the case of the first two, closer to succession than Princess Alexandra. (Does the fact that Prince Michael married a Catholic and is no longer in the succession count?) I do think the queen may be mindful of the fact Beatrice and Eugenie still are fairly high in the order of succession and will stay so until William and Kate have children. Harry will be an interesting case once he marries. Princess Margaret's children don't have royal titles. Does the fact Harry is a male make a difference, even if he marries a commoner. Otherwise, Harry's children would probably have to curtsey to cousins Beatrice and Eugenie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All I Know That Is So Bad,Bad, Bad, The Only Reason I Look At Anything From There Is Because Of Prince William And His Wife And No One Eles Other Then Prince Harry And Prince Phillip.

      Delete
    2. Knock-knock! Does anyone else realize that Prince Charles married a Catholic with impunity? Knock-knock!!!!!

      Delete
  40. Regardless of what I and other readers think about the order of curtsy - I know for a fact that Kate will be as respectful and as graceful as can be, and prove once again that she was a perfect choice for William. She will not let this get to her, and she will do it perfectly, with ease and grace while smiling!

    Now, as far as I am concerned the entire monarchy should cursty to her.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree with your comments. :)

      Delete
    2. Me thinks Kate will take care of this in her own in way in her own time ... she will be winning... :-) Her man just inherited 10Mil and a new house on Strandingham property. They will have an important role in the Olympics, and they will be going to Singapore and Asia later in the year. She's got it all tied up. I think its the duke of york and his x wife coniving placement for the girls who really have nothin to do since they didnt go to college... ( did they?) I love Mrs Wales... love her style -

      Delete
  41. Those two girls are two jeALOUS BRATS, BEA AND EUGENIE

    ReplyDelete
  42. Technically Lady Louise Windsor, Prince Edwards Daughter is also a Princess and has the right to use the title if she so desires when she gets older. It is the same with their Son.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Protocol is protocol and even though Kate may be the Queen of Style, her husband is still second in line for the throne. I think given the glamour and press surrounding Kate and William recently, people have forgotten that Prince Charles still will be the next king. I think this is a polite but very firm reminder from Queen Elizabeth II that while Kate may be the darling of the press and the fashion world, Elizabeth is still in charge and makes the rules and that even Kate is required to follow protocol. And as for already crowning Kate queen (and it's my understanding that she WILL be Queen Consort unless and until William chooses to have her crowned queen), well, I seem to remember the world tasting the sound of "Queen Diana" on their tongues in 1981, 82, in preparation for what they believed would ultimately come to pass and, tragically, never will. We have a saying about not counting chickens until they're hatched ...

    ReplyDelete
  44. I think all this means that Kate will not be at a function without her husband if Beatrice and Eugenie are around. All of the other 'blood princesses' are older, have put in more years of service and deserve the respect of a younger, less experienced woman like Kate. If you ask me, Beatrice and Eugenie have just been un-invited from significant events - the public would not want to see Kate curtsying to younger women who have not 'proven their mettle". But thre I go with my American attitude. I don't think anyone should have to curtsy to anyone else - ever.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Here is what I found on Wikipedia about "orders of precedence in the United Kingdom" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Order_of_Precedence

    In theory (before amendments made by the Queen), Kate takes precedence (as wife of the Sovereign's grandson) over Beatrice and Eugenie (as the Sovereign's granddaughters). Interesting...

    ReplyDelete
  46. Hi Charlotte, just read that Kate and her mother Carole are expected at Wimbledon this week, probably at an Andy Murray match however it is unclear whether Pippa will join them! Might be worth a look out for :)
    Grace

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Grace
      I definitely think we will see Kate at a murray match :)

      Delete
  47. I don't think we should blame B and E for the new "Protocol". The snobbery of the Queen's children is legendary.. Prince Edward is notorious for following protocol at all times, the Princess Royal refused to curtsy to Diana when she was married to Charles, let alone Camillia. Further, besides Charles, none of the Queen's children seem particularly pleased with new ideas to "slim down" the monarchy. The new protocol is probably just a way for the Queen to appease her spoiled children. I say let her appease these "other Royals" in private. We can all just be thankful their days as staples in public life are numbered.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I find very confusing that Kate as to curtsy to certain princesses, and not all of the same rank. The alleged reason was to avoid a battle of egos ? It seems to reveal it to the public...

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hi Charlotte, would you consider writing a post about the Family tree of the Royal family? It would be interesting, as I can see many of your readres aren't british, and may, like me, be a little confused about all these titles and names...
    Beatrice, from Brazil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes of course, Do you mean explaining the titles of the immediate royal family?

      Delete
    2. Yes, titles, names and pictures if possible, of the Queen´s sons and daughters, their husbands, wives and grandchildren. I know only about William, Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie and their parents, thats the part of the family the press speaks about in Brazil.
      Thank you for answering.
      Beatrice

      Delete
    3. There's this wonderful little website called Wikipedia where you can find family trees and all sorts of bios on pretty much every royal person in the world...

      Delete
  50. Nessa Stripes26 June 2012 16:44

    Interesting point: while royals are obliged to curtsey to eachother, on the official website of the Royal Family, it says that when meeting the Queen (anyone), one is not obliged to curtsey but can choose to do it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Who cares? The royal family is irrelevant anyways.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Kate will be queen consort as the wife of a monarch, not queen in her own right. A defined Order of precedence seems fairly new in response to muddle of relationships in current times. Think the Queen would have been wise to limit curtsying and bowing to the top five, based on order of succession, and their spouses. That is herself, Charles, William, Harry and Andrew and their mates. That would limit it to children of a reigning monarch and grandchildren who are the children of an heir apparent. No need to stop curtseying to Andrew or Harry once William has children but it stops things from going too far. Don't have a problem with Princess Royal who was once in the top five herself and Princess Alexandra who never was that high, but has long has a very public role. But once the grandchildren of the queen's younger offspring get involved, it gets very convoluted and unnecessary. Is Louise truly a blood princess to be curtseyed too? Is Zara not, just because her mother is a women, even though that sex distinction is on the way out? These seems like questions that are not beneficial to today's monarchy and suggest resentment of some of the queen's children, rather than mystique.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree !!

      Delete
  53. First of all, this has nothing to do with Kate. It's not an insult towards her, she and the York princesses has been added to the list since they weren't eligible for it when it was made in 2005.
    Second of all, it has nothing to do with curtsying, the order of precedence is not a list of who has to curtsy to whom, so no Kate does not have to curtsy to the York princesses or any other blood princess. Precedence means the line up of people as they enter or leave an event or the receiving line at an event. If Kate and Beatrice was at an official function alone together, Beatrice would enter or leave before Kate. Beatrice is a royal in her own right, Kate is a royal in her husband's right. It's not that odd when you think about it, just extremely old-fashioned. It'll probably be changed when Charles becomes king anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  54. As a matter of practicality - it does make sense to have an order of precedence for formal occasions - entry and exit to events and so forth. It happens everywhere - in every organization with a hierarchy: Parliament, corporations, churches/religious bodies... It's a protocol, and helps resolve situations of who stands where.

    As for who Kate should curtsy to/be behind in the order of precedence, that is tricky. I can see the argument for her curtsying to Princesses Anne & Alexandra as they are blood princesses, who are also in an earlier generation. Even though she is married to the 2nd in line to the throne - I can see an argument for her showing some respect to those blood princesses. As for curtsying to Beatrice and Eugenie - that is a little awkward and strange, as they are in the same generation, and in time, the tables will turn. But the truth is, the biggest insult is asking Sophie, Countess of Wessex to curtsy to all these young kids... that's gotta hurt! After all, she is married to a Prince, and her Mother in Law is the Queen of England!

    ReplyDelete
  55. The order of things here seems so odd to me. Here, in the US, it is the more honored guests who arrive last (and are the first to leave an event) just as a bride would do. Also, I believe age has more respect here. It would be absurd for Sophie to show any reverence (curtsy) to younger girls like Beatrice and Eugenie! Sophie has accomplished so much more in her life than they have yet. She was quite successful on her own with her public relations career and she has been an exemplary mother and wife for some time now. There are so many reasons to respect her contributions to the country. And protocol in the UK would have her, in effect, bowing in subservience to two recent university graduates (did Eugenie graduate - or even attend university?)! This boggles my mind.

    Also, I think this order is short-sighted. It will not prevail when Charles becomes King and when William becomes King, there may be fractured family relations with this decision being the root of it all. A bad idea all around.

    ReplyDelete
  56. I have a question for you Charlotte : nobody seems to call Catherine "Lady Catherine" ; do you know why ? Is she not a Lady ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, she is not nor was she ever a "Lady" as her father is a commoner and doesn't have any titles. Lady Diana Spencer was a Lady because her father was an Earl

      Delete
    2. Thank you for your answer ! I though (after reading an article on wikipedia) that, marrying a Prince, she had become a Lady. But obviously, a lady is the daughter of a Lord who marries a Lord : is that right ?

      Delete
  57. Just found this on the internet and was wondering about it !!!
    http://socialitelife.com/victoria-arbiter-clears-up-the-royal-protocol-story-exclusive-06-2012

    All best, Theresa ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  58. This bunch of ego nonsense got more coverage than the biggest news of the day. The Queen shook the hand of Sein Finn today. She along with many unnamed people came together to work out their differences. Before she went she took care of family business - giving title and fortune and property to her grandson and protocal rules to her family. Do you think she was concerned that something may happend during this meeting today? I think she showed enormous strength and she had to put herself aside and her title to accomplish it. It was amazing - it took a lot of effort - and will be remembered for history. but everyone is talking about this nonsense curtseying.... silly in retrospect...

    ReplyDelete
  59. All of this confusion can solely be attributed to the addition of Camilla to the royal family. In the past precedence was closely based on the succession to the throne (ie prince of wales, his sons, and so on). Spouses of senior royal princes took equivalent places in the order of precedence. Look back to when grand duchess Maria of russia married prince Leopold, duke of Edinburgh. Maria was an imperial highness which outranked royal highness. But since she was the wife of
    Victoria's second son, she was forced to take precedence behind princess alexandria, who was a
    Royal highness from denmark. In the past precedence was based on the seniority of men in the line of succession. Now.... when Camilla married Charles, this was an unusual situation the monarchy never faced before. Princes, especially princes of wales, we're never permitted marry their mistresses. It became apparent to the queen and her senior advisors that chuck would never give up Camilla, so to show signs of modernization, they allowed the marriage. Putting Anne's and Alexandra's personal issues with Diana aside, it is understandable that an institution ba

    ReplyDelete
  60. ....an institution based in tradition would accord a royal mistress, turned princess, the same respect and reverence as a first wife who will bear children. Notice how Sofie was lowered in precedence. The main point is that without stating that Camilla is inferior, the queen has decided to change precedence where all non blood royals are lowere then blood royals. Kate and Sofie are casualties of camillas history and reputation. Do you accept an forgive camilla for her adulterous ways to put the precedence back to it former criteria or do you continue to have an unofficial asterisk representing former royal mistress and accept the new changes. That is for the queen and England to decide. Until then, Kate and Sofie need to continue the pilates and their curtsy exercises.

    ReplyDelete
  61. William isn't married to a monarchy to hope for king of england or has a mate to be revered as a monarchy ....Kate,Sophie and Camilla need to bow to real monarchy it's the rule.They married these men for love not to recieve a title..Then it shouldn't matter for them.Because it won't ever be so for them to be monarchy hier in dna or their idealism of monarchy men.It will teach them a lesson....Charles,William and Edward would need to remarry monarchy women to have a Hrh mate...

    ReplyDelete
  62. They need to curtsy..

    ReplyDelete
  63. K from Munich4 July 2012 10:54

    I´m not an expert on this field, but I guess, Kate is a very strong person who knows the rules and is smart enough to follow them without losing her dignity. In addition to that she knows that William loves her and she loves him and that´s the only thing that counts.

    ReplyDelete
  64. This curtsy stuff is ridiculous in this day and age - can you imagine what that cow Camilla will be like if wimpy Charles becomes King - we are in the 21st century, for goodness' sake - they treat Fergie like she's the plague, but now suddenly her kids are to be curtsied to?? Just another way to demean Kate who, like Diane, shows more normalcy in the royals - the Queen seems to have forgotten that she took over the crown when she was only 22 years old - enough of this . . . it's too upsetting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Queen was 25 when she came to the throne. Camilla has proven she is a worthy mate for Prince Charles. In answer to a previous comment she was not the only adultress around (hence the queries on the paternity of Prince Harry). Camilla does not stand on ceremony and has certainly not gone running to the press but has withstood all the vitriol against her with great dignity. I for one will be happy to see her as Queen Consort, a title to which she is entitled as she is, in fact, Princess of Wales although out of respect she chooses not to use the title.

      Delete
  65. A proper, covenant husband and wife are one flesh and inseparable in the eyes of God even when Humanly apart; so Kate should be just as important as her husband in or out of his presence. Anything less would devalue Marriage. NOBODY should be made to bow or curtsey to Mrs. Parker-Bowles. She has a living first husband and should NEVER have been accepted into the Royal Family. She cheapens The Firm. As for Diana's children, I just cannot understand how they could accept this woman who made their mother's life a living Hell. Don't they love their mother?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have obviously not done much in depth research. All the fuss about Althorp when she was buried (none of the villagers believe she is buried in the island because of the water levels - a ploy by her brother to make money - he was no angel himself the way he treated his first wife). Lights in the church at night when there was a power blackout (her wish was to be buried with her father in the church). I lived 2 miles from there at the time and to quote someone in the pub during the funeral 'might as well have another pint it's not every day she gets buried' - sorry if that sounds cruel but just quoting what I overheard!

      Delete
  66. Elaine C. Crossland12 August 2012 18:22

    If we're going to talk royal bloodlines and who's blood is more blue, then we have to consider Zara and Peter Phillips. Despite the fact that their mother Anne, The Princess Royal,chose to not give them titles they are just as royal(i.e. have just as much royal blood)as William and Harry, Beatrice and Eugenie,Louise and little James who seem so much of a different generation.

    I've never seen Zara or Peter curtsey or bow to their first cousins.They are very informal with each other. Always behaving as equals.Hugs and kisses and pleasantries all around. Autumn of course, does curtsey in appropriate formal settings. They're just friendly and natural with each other.I would think it would be very awkward to expect Lady Louise and Viscount James to have Zara or Peter Phillips bow/curtsey to them.

    Prince Andrew always seems to be pushing his poor inept daughters forward into social situations they just don't look comfortable dealing with--like conversation with Prince Albert and Princess Charlene of Monaco.Both girls look extremely uncomfortable trying to carry on conversations. They haven't been raised with those skills and I don't think they've been to a finishing school.Any influence from their mother is just unfortunate. I would not be surprised at all to see Andrew and Sarah re-marry after the death of the Queen. After all they've continued to live under the same roof with Andrew supporting (bailing out) Sarah on multiple occasions.

    Zara and Peter have never been a drain on the public purse and have always represented the Royal Family in a positive light,although Zara certainly sowed a few wild oats of rebellion in her early 20's, didn't we all. They deserve titles more than some who have titles and do nothing for the 'Firm'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. what alot od bullocks. i know all the people you are so blithely speculating on and can't believe the made up rubbish you are all speculating on.

      GET A LIFE

      Delete

Comments are most welcome! Constructive discussion is always encouraged but off topic or hateful remarks will not be published. If you wish to share your name and where you're from without using the sign in options, simply select the "Name/URL" option on the drop down menu and insert your name, and if you wish the country/state you're from. You can leave the URL blank.