ROYAL PRECEDENCE.

Thames Star, Volume IIII, Issue 1731, 21 July 1874, Page 2

ROYAL PRECEDENCE.

There appears to have been some truth; in the statement recently wired to the colonies that unpleasantness had arisen! amongst the members of the Royal Family of England on a question of precedence, details of the matter-having come to hand by the mail through various channels. The most circumstantial and probably the most reliable account of 'the little "jar " is to be found in the columns of , Australasian*®;, The correspon-; dent refers to the matter in the following terms:—.. •.:"■■■.. ■ " ' ; ' ■,' ' :- ■ ■ A curious .paragraph- in the Times of last Monday, and its subsequent contradiction, have set all the town talking about certain matters affecting the i Boyal Family. The Grand Duchess hav- | ing been absent from the last drawingroom, it was stated in the Times that the cause of her absence was one which if , known would fill all loyal hearta with joy. This is the usual polite way of informing the public that the Grand Duchess is in the state in which, as a French writer says, " a woman is most a woman." But seeing that the Grand Duchess has been married - barely three months, it struck everybody that it was a little premature, not to say indecorous, to make any such anmouncement. The paragraph itself was contradicted the next day on the authority of the Duke of Edinburgh, which set people talking, more especially when it is whispered that the original announcement was made to the Times by the Queen hef-self through Sir William Knollys, The key to the mystery I believe to be this, that there is a certain disagreement between the Grand Duchess and other members of. the family on the question of precedence, which kept that

high lady away from the last drawingroom. It is laid that the Duchess of Edinburgh objects to giving the pas at Court lo the Princess Louise (the Mar« chioness of Lome), who, according to the English etiquette, takes precedence as'» princess over all princes, and necessarily - over princes' wires. It is, moreover, hinted—l cannot say with what truth— that the Emperor of Kussia's somewhat sudden visit to England is not altogether unconnected with this affair. - In another portion of the same paper " (date July 4) the writer of " A Lady's . letter from Homo " gives another version,. with further particulars : — Strange to say, that fair and august young person was very near to being the cause of a serious diplomatic difficulty, on the very eve of his arrival. You will observe the paragraphs which have appeared in the Times and Post within the last week on the subject of Her Eoyai liighness's non-appearance at the last drawing-room. The first paragraph—inserted, it is said, -by Her Majesty's desire—attributed the absence of the. Duchess nf Edinburgh to an interesting* cause. Promtly followed, the announcement that such a statement had been made without the sanction of the Duke of Edinburgh The truth is said to b* that the Duchess of Edinburgh refused to accept the precedence accorded to her at the English Court, by the rules of which " w'ves of the sovereign's younger sons " " rank next after " the daughters of the sovereign, " whereby she would be placed immediately below the Marchioness of Lome and little Princess Beatrice. The Queen was, it is said, at first inflexible, regarding the table of precedense as little less sacred than the Thirty-nine Articles. But the absence of the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh from Court on the occa- . sionof the Czar's visit to the Queen would have been a very serious aflair. Accordingly, we learn from the Court Circular this morning that the table of precedence has been quietly set aside very much after the fashion of the Black Sea treaty ; and that the Duchess, who is described as " Her Eoyal and Imperial Highness the , Duchess of Edinburgh (Grand Duchess of .Russia), "is given rank next after the Princess of Wales, and befor* Princess Christian. The ground alleged for this violation of settled order is said to be the lady's "Imperial" rank; but it,is the first time, I rather think, that the Imperial title has been Tecognlsedas conferring any higher degree of royalty in England. Is not the Crown of tho United Kingdom an Imperial Crown P and is not the Queen, for the matter of that, Empress " of India?

Apropos 'of the same question. the lady correspondent writes as follows:— ' There is another, tale of precedence, which may be made to hang thereby. It is Baid the Queen, now that Prince ron Bismarck is turning German dukes into mere peers, and rather poor peers, wishes to hare the Princess Baatrice, like her sister of Lome, married to the heir of a British duke. I am informed that an intimation was accordingly conveyed lately to a noble and very opulent duke, to the effect that Her Majesty would, regard an alliance with his family.as not unbecoming the Royal dignity, His grace's reply was not wanting in ducal dignity, nor, of course, in all due courtesy of expression; but it.amounted to this—* I that if the young lady were to become a member of his family, she should be so to all intents and purposes, and be con* tent to be recognised simply by ker « husband's rank; that being understood, his grace added, there was no young lady in the United Kingdom to whom he should prefer to see his son married. But here, it is said, the negotiation dropped.