This is an interesting one. As a daughter of a son of the Sovereign (her father was the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn, third son of Queen Victoria), she was entitled to use the third coronet in that sequence.

She was beautiful and charming, and had many suitors. She was suggested as wife to the King of Spain, the Crown Prince of Portugal and the Tsar's brother, amongst others. Eventually, she chose the Hon Alexander Ramsay, 'only' third son of the Earl of Dalhousie, an aide de camp to her father.

Princess Patricia volutarily decided to relinquish the style and title of 'Her Royal Highness' and 'Princess', and took on that of a daughter of a non-royal Duke, becoming Lady Patricia Ramsay. She was placed in the Order of Precedence ahead of the Marchionesses.

I believe the 1902 picture reflects that royal coronets were not standardised until George V's relinquishing German titles etc. in 1917. She is wearing one for a daughter of the Sovereign and that is wrong by today's standards.

We can't see what she is wearing in the 1911 photo. The Duke, Duchess and Prince Arthur all have the right thing. Princess Margaret appears to have the same as the Duke and Duchess, perhaps because she was also Crown Princess of Sweden.

1937 is correct in that Lady Patricia was a Sovereign's grandchild. The provision reflects that she had relinquished her Royal titles, although not membership of the Royal Family.

1953 is odd and requires further investigation. If it's crosses and strawberry leaves, it's fine and reverting to status.

I think one has to remember that Princess Patricia of Connaught, Lady Patricia Ramsay was an odd-ball for her times and for now. If she had gone ahead and simply married in 1919, she would have become Princess Patricia, the Hon Mrs Alexander Ramsay but there was no precendent!