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)
?Where do they fall? 207.107.246.140 20:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
Are the LLs really ranked alphabetically? —Tamfang (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
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)
Should the Earl of Strathearn be listed here instead of the Duke of Cambridge? StAnselm (talk) 00:09, 30 April 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
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)
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)
See Talk:Orders of precedence in the United Kingdom#Use of sub-pages DBD 22:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Please explain why you are using an English source for a Scottish article... Meenmore (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
See Talk:Orders_of_precedence_in_the_United_Kingdom#Format_of_Royal_Family_succession_boxes Alekksandr (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
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)