The Kents

[Belindabelle]

Just looking at the official coronation photograph of the modern slimmed down monarchy.

I see the Duke of Kent. I know his wife the Duchess (my favorite) retired from public life some years ago.

What happened to prince and princess Michael of Kent. I know they were at the coronation but how come the Duke outranks them and they are not part of the new firm.

Can anybody explain.

Their children aren't working royals so probably not.

Fun fact - the Duke of Gloucester's daughter married a Māori, the first to marry into the RF, and it was their son & daughter who were the closest relatives to have their place in the succession changed by the rule about girls not coming after boys anymore. It was applied slightly retrospectively so their son moved down a place and their daughter (who is older) moved up.

No he won't because they aren't working royals.

In answer to another of your questions from an earlier post, if the Kent's had died before the queen then no their children wouldn't have been in the picture on their place as they aren't working royals.

I do wonder if Edward's children will become working Royals when they are older? There aren't many "younger" ones around. When you look at the lists of engagements,Edward, Anne, Sophie and even the Duke of Gloucester seem to do quite a lot. Or they might just reduce the role of working Royals so there are fewer things to do.

Prince Michael of Kent got caught shilling for access to Putin which somewhat damaged the brand.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57042823

The Duke of Gloucester is actually senior to the Duke of Kent. The Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra are 87 and 86 respectively. I think they are fantastic for their age. Both are still active patrons, as in fact is Prince Michael. (I do have a,soft spot fir the Duchess of Kent. I think she's quite frail these, days.)

The Duke of Gloucester is 78. I really like him. He was an architect. I remember pictures of him in the newspapers when I was young, cycling to work. It was a big thing back then that he was working in a profession. He had to give it up when his older brother died and he became the heir.

Yes, appart from his own children, I do wonder who William will have in his firm of working Royals.

Some dukedoms are royal & some aren't, which can get confusing. The Dukes of Kent, Gloucester, Cambridge & Sussex are royal (others too I'm sure) but Devonshire, Northumberland, Grosvenor etc aren't.

A royal duke outranks a mere prince, which is why William and Harry were both made dukes on their wedding days - it was a promotion.

Ahh I knew this, I was living in NZ at the time and remember it being in the news.

This is very interesting.

So when the Duke of Kent and the Duke of Gloucester die the titles pass to the oldest child but they are not deemed to be part of the working Royal family so they dont take part in any official roll.

No, that’s incorrect. Your parents’ first cousin is your first cousin once removed. Your second cousin is their children.

It all gets a bit complicated when those titles are passed down because the dukedoms will no longer be royal dukedoms because the children of the current dukes are a long way down the line of succession and do not or will not ever be known as HRH.

Princess Alexandra (aka That Ogilvy Woman) was one of the more popular young royals in the 1960’s. She was 5th or 6th in line to the throne at birth and close to her cousins Elizabeth and Margaret.

I thought her brother Prince Michael was out of the limelight due to serious illness, could be wrong though.

It is quite sad that in just a few years time that portrait will have totally changed, I think all those cousins are older than Charles.

Maybe Archie and Lilibet will come over on a gap year, realise they could live in a palace after all, and sign up to the family firm.

Wrong.

My first cousins children are my first cousins once removed.
My first cousins children are my children's second cousins.

I've already apologised for getting it wrong @KnickerlessParsons & @Notsuretoputit - happy to stand corrected.

Archie and Lilibet would be like David (Linlay) and Sarah Armstrong Jones rocking up to assist Charles?

No, they wouldn't. For one thing, Lady Sarah Chatto and David Armstrong Jones, Earl of Snowden, are not royal. Archie and Lilibet are prince and princess. But I seriously doubt that they will take on working royal roles when they are adults.

Like HMQ he's going to have to turn to his cousins, maybe not as many as she did but I can't see him wanting to force his kids into Royal duties before they hit 30, similar to him and Harry.

But by then not many of today's Firm will still be fit and able.

Funfact.
Princess Alexandra (the Ogilvy woman) was the first royal birth at which the Home Secretary wasn't standing outside ready to check that the small person had actually come out of the big one and wasn't just a usurper smuggled into position.
Or maybe she was the last one at which it did happen. Can't remember.

I think it's lovely how the elderly cousins are still obviously so close.

Lady Sarah Chatto & David Linley are royals - they are grandchildren of King George VI and niece and nephew of Queen Elizabeth.

At the time of David Linley's birth, the order of succession would have been something like
Charles
Andrew
Anne
Margaret
David Linley

so not that different from
William
George
Charlotte
Louis
Harry
Archie
Lilibet

I always find it fascinating what impact a new generation has on the order of succession and think that being on a branch of the cousins must be quite a nice place to be.

I read Susannah Constantine's (as in Sue of Trinny & Sue) autobiography recently and at first couldn't work out why it was a big deal that she'd gone out with David Linley and then realised that it was similar to Bea & Eugenie and at a time when there was more interest in the royals and so it would have been all over the papers.

I think at some point William will have to ask Beatrice, eugenie, Lady Louise, etc to help out. Because the Kents are getting on and at some point even Anne will want to scale things down. Which will leave William, Kate, Edward and Sophie………which isn’t enough really.

And in 15 years time William’s kids will still be of an age where he probably wants to give them the opportunities to have more of a normal life for a bit, so universities, maybe armed forces……they’re not going to be working royals at 18yo or even 21yo.

I find it fascinating that at one point the Gloucesters and Kents were equal to the Queen really... they were all the children of the brother/sister of the King, who then abdicated for George, Elizabeth's father.

At some point soon realistically some other youngsters will need to become "working Royals" (or the Wales and Edinburghs will need to do more!)

Another fun fact is that we have two Prince Edwards - the Duke of Kent is also an Edward (the Duke of Gloucester is Prince Richard).

@PuttingDownRoots agreed
I think Charles had the vision that slimmed would mean only the Monarchs siblings and children would be working Royals.

Which is fine for his generation, 4 siblings and 2 kids, he didn't account for Andrew being disgraced and Harry disappearing.

But for William it's going to leave him and Kate really struggling.
So yes I fully agree William will need to ask some, not all, of his cousins to become working Royals.
Age and life stage wise I think Zara & Peter are probably going to be best placed. Also if it wasn't for the old men are more important than women rule (big word that i cant spell) knocking Ann down the line they'd be higher up the line than any of the other cousins.

Read up on Councillors of State it's quite interesting and something I didn't know about until Beatrice recently became one. They are the next 4 members of the RF after the spouse to be called upon to carry out royal duties if necessary. Wiki says that after Beatrice it could be Eugenie and Peter Phillips as the main entry requirements are reaching the age of 21.