tive seats at the board? In order clearly to comprehend
this point, it is necessary to explain the ancient usage as to
Royal precedence, and the manner in which it has been affected by
the 31st Henry VIII. The Royal Family are to be considered in two
lights, according to the different senses in which the term
_Royal Family_ is used--the larger sense includes all who may
_possibly_ inherit the Crown; the confined sense, those within a
certain degree of propinquity _to the reigning Prince_, and to
whom the law pays an extraordinary respect; but, after that
degree is past, they fall into the rank of ordinary subjects. The
younger sons of the king, and other branches of the Royal Family,
not in the immediate line of succession, were only so far
regarded by the ancient law as to give them a certain degree of
precedence over peers and other officers, ecclesiastical and
temporal. This was done by the 31st of Henry VIII., which assigns
places in the Parliament Chamber and Council to the king's sons,
brothers, uncles, and nephews, &c.--'therefore, after these
degrees are past, peers, or others of the blood royal, are
entitled to no place or precedence, except what belongs to them
by their personal rank or dignity, which made Sir Edward Walker
complain that, by the creation of Prince Rupert to be Duke of
Cumberland, and of the Earl of Lennox to be duke of that name,
previous to the creation of James to be Duke of York, it might
happen that their grandsons would have precedence of the
grandsons of the Duke of York.'[13]

[13] Blackstone, vol. i. p. 226.

Prince George of Cambridge, then, being neither son, brother,
uncle, or nephew to the Queen, and having no personal dignity, is
not entitled to any precedence over the Archbishop of Canterbury,
or the great officers of state; the 31st Henry VIII. would place
him below them all; but the 3rd Victoria (supposing such an Act
to have passed) would have placed Prince Albert below Prince
George, but above the Archbishop, who is himself above Prince
George, thus giving to the Master of the Ceremonies the solution
of a somewhat difficult problem of precedence--namely, how to
place A above B, B above C, and C above A. This _reductio ad
absurdum_ at least proves that the amended Act would not only not
have settled the question of precedence satisfactorily, but would
not have settled it at all.

It may seem surprising or paradoxical to assert, and many may
with difficulty believe,