Precedence

Here is The Table of Precedence for Women, according to the Stockdale 1818 Peerage:
 

This list does not include widows/dowagers.

Here is the Table of Precedence for Men, according to the Stockdale 1818 Peerage:
 
 

Also, things are complicated by the fact that there are as many as five different peerages, depending upon what time you are talking about:

A peerage was considered to be "of England" or "of Ireland" depending upon the intentions of the granting monarch, and usually reflected in the location of the place from which the peer took his title.

Within each rank (e.g., dukes), Peers of England (created before 1707) precede peers of Scotland (created before 1707); together they precede peers of Great Britain (created between 1707 and 1801), who precede peers of Ireland (created before the Union of 1801), who precede peers of the United Kingdom (created after 1801), who precede peers of Ireland (created after the Union of 1801). The dates of creation further determine the order within each rank.⁽⁷⁷⁾

So, for example, the barony of Castlemaine, created in 1812, was a peerage of Ireland, while Baron Colchester, created in 1817, was considered a peer of England. Lord Colchester would thus take precedence over Lord Castlemaine, even though the latter's title is older.

This order of precedence takes effect within each rank of the peerage; no marquess would ever precede a duke, for example, regardless of the peerages to which they belonged. The Irish Duke of Leinster ranks last on the list of dukes, but precedes the oldest English marquessate.
 

Who would go first, the widow of the 4th Earl or the wife of the 5th Earl?
 

According to Debrett's Correct Form, "[a] dowager peeress, or widow of a baronet, takes precedence of the wife of the incumbent of the title only while remaining a widow." (So you have to hope your mother-in-law remarries someone of lower precedence if you want to sit above her at a formal dinner.)
 

Would a Baroness in her own right have precedence over a Baron's wife because the one is a member of the peerage in her own right and the other is more like a consort?
 

Debrett's: "Precedence of ladies is always derived from the father or husband, except in the case of a peeress in her own right."⁽⁷⁸⁾ A wife bears a rank that is truly equal to her husband's in every respect except in actual comparison to him. She stands in the line of ladies in place of her husband. So the answer to the question is no: the baronesses are sorted out by date of creation, whether theirs or their husbands'.

It might help to think of it this way:  all of the barons and baronesses in their own right are standing in a line according to their dates of creation.  The barons are then joined by their wives, who join the line immediately behind their husbands and preceding the next baron (or baroness in her own right).  The husbands of the baronesses in their own right are left out in the cold.  Almost all of the baronesses in their own right are near the front of the line, since their baronies are among the most ancient, but they may be preceded by barons of older dignities and their wives.

Daughters of peers take the precedence, although not the equivalent title, of their eldest brother.⁽⁷⁹⁾ (See the explanation of parcener.) Since I haven't seen a "mixed" precedence table (only men or only women), I am guessing that only the eldest son of a peer actually took precedence over his sisters (and thus naturally his wife would too). He of course would take his father's next-highest title as a courtesy title. So it would make sense that a mere Lady Sarah would be outranked by her younger brother, the viscount. However, Lady's Sarah's other brothers do not outrank her; since she takes her eldest brother's precedence, she outranks all of her other brothers (and all of their wives). If she is the daughter of an earl, she even gets the courtesy title "Lady" while her other brothers are merely "The Honourable."

However, Winchester's bare statement that the daughters of peers "take the precedence, if not the equivalent title, of their eldest brother," leaves open an interesting (to my mind) question: is the daughter of the Duke of Richmond, whose eldest brother is a mere earl, subordinate to the daughter of the Duke of Marlborough, whose eldest brother is a marquess? Or does Richmond's daughter take precedence because Richmond's dignity is older?

There was a minor scandal when George III married. He had been enamoured of Lady Sarah Lennox, youngest daughter of the 2nd Duke of Richmond. He wanted to marry her, and it probably would have been a popular match (besides the fact he was besotted), because, among other things, she was descended from Charles II. In early Hanoverian politics this was a definite plus, as children of such a union could then claim some legitimacy through the Stuart line.  However, George's mother, the Dowager Princess of Wales, didn't see it that way; she and her minister, Lord Bute, decided it would be more to their liking to import a friendless German princess over whom they could exert control. Sarah's brother-in-law, Henry Fox (later 1^st Lord Holland), had strenuously lobbied for the match with Sarah, and was therefore the reason for its failure -- Bute and the Dowager did not want Fox to have any influence at Court. Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg was duly imported.

But the rules of Precedence dictated that the Princess should be attended at her wedding by the highest-ranking unmarried lady in the land. Since there were no unmarried princesses, that meant the eldest unmarried daughter of the highest-ranking duke who had any unmarried daughters. That duke turned out to be the 2nd Duke of Richmond, and Lady Sarah was his only unmarried daughter. "Well, Sal," Fox wrote to Sarah, "you are the first vargin in England and you shall take your place in spite of them all as chief bridesmaid, and the King shall behold your pretty face and repent."⁽⁸⁰⁾

So clearly, Richmond's daughters take precedence over Marlborough's, regardless of the rank of the secondary titles taken by their brothers.

Studying the Table again provides further logic supporting this answer. We have:

  Duchesses
Marchionesses
Wives of the eldest Sons of Dukes
Daughters of Dukes
Countesses
etc.  

I think that the reason "Wives of the eldest Sons of Dukes" is worded this way in the list helps to clarify this question. First, the wife of the eldest son of a duke whose courtesy title is Marquess is not, for purposes of precedence, a Marchioness. In other words, Marchionesses whose husbands are peers will always precede Marchionesses whose husbands hold their titles by courtesy. Secondly, the wife of the eldest son of a duke will precede all of the daughters of a duke, no matter what her husband's courtesy title is.

How mired can this get? Where is Sir Iain Montcrieffe of That Ilk when one needs him??

Notice that in the Table of Precedence the Princess of Wales, although she is only a consort, comes before the daughters of the monarch, who are "real" princesses by birth. Prince Philip's rank is above The Prince of Wales's, for the simple reason that the Queen proclaimed it so: "By Royal Warrant dated 18th September 1952, it was declared that H.R.H. the Duke of Edinburgh was henceforth to have precedence next to H.M. The Queen, thus having place before the Heir Apparent."⁽⁸¹⁾ In the Table of Precedence for Women, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother has precedence next to the Queen and above the Princess of Wales.⁽⁸²⁾ It is unclear whether the Queen Mother precedes the Duke of Edinburgh, but if I had to guess I'd say she doesn't.

Another curious example of precedence getting mixed up by royal warrant is the case of the Viscountess Grandison. The 4th Viscount Grandison, George Villiers (uncle of Barbara Villiers, Duchess of Cleveland, Charles II's mistress), was predeceased by his son and heir apparent, Edward, who died in 1693.⁽⁸³⁾ Edward's widow, Catherine, received a royal warrant dated 6 January 1699/1700, of the title and precedence of the Viscountcy, as if her husband had survived his father and had become Viscount.⁽⁸⁴⁾ She thus became Viscountess Grandison. She remarried later.⁽⁸⁵⁾ Then Debrett's notes: "she appears to have been insane for some time previous to her death. She died 26 December 1725, aged 63, and was buried in great state, 12 January 1725/26, in Westminster Abbey."⁽⁸⁶⁾

Debrett's also has a footnote about her warrant:
 

"Such a warrant of precedence, though usual enough to the brothers and sisters of Peers, being children of one who would have (had he lived) inherited the Peerage, is unusual to the widow of such a person, and no such warrant has issued since. See, however, a like warrant, 1685/6, in the case of the Countess of Radnor, as also in 1660 in the case of the Countess of Chesterfield. In the case of the Earldom of Chesterfield, which in 1656 devolved on a grandson of the 1st Earl, the mother of the then young Earl was created Countess of Chesterfield, in 1660, while his sisters were granted the same precedence [that of 1628] as if their father had inherited the Earldom."⁽⁸⁷⁾

 
 
On to A Peeress "in her own right"

If you dispute a fact from these pages, please contact me, and if you can, provide a contradicting source. These pages are a work in progress and I expect them to change in the future, although what I present today is as accurate as I can make it.

Laura A. Wallace
laura@chinet.com
12 June 2004

Table of Contents

Peerage Basics
Hereditary Peerages, including Royal Titles
Life Peerages
Courtesy Titles
Rights and Privileges of Peers
Precedence
A Peeress "in her own right"
Dowager Peeresses
Entails, Marriage Settlements, and Dower
Almack's (coming soon!)
Biographical Details of Real Regency People (coming soon!)
Correct Forms of Address
The 1^st Duke of Marlborough
Links to other Sites
Bibliography
Notes