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.

I think there will just be fewer working Royals as time goes on. The Kents, Gloucesters and Princess Alexandra have been working Royals for years, so it would be discourteous of Charles to 'retire' them before they have a wish to retire. But I don't think they will be replaced.

The non-working Royals do each have some charitable patronages, but they never represent the Monarch.

I think they might fan out some of the charities to Charles nieces and nephews - if they are interested in taking them up and, if no obvious match of expertise/experience such as Princess Eugenie and scoliosis, a willingness to put in the hours over the years to earn credibility.

Representational and military duties are going to pile up on the remaining working Royals. The Kents are likely to retire soon. There are signs that they might draft in Tim Lawrence (eg he took the Royal Salute at the Royal Hospital Chelsea last year) but I doubt he would have anything other than a peripheral role

The children of Prince Michael of Kent are not Catholic so they are still in the line of succession. Lord Nicholas Windsor, the son of the Duke of Kent converted to Catholicism following the example of his mother the Duchess of Kent and lost his place in the line of succession (but not in succession to the Dukedom of Kent.) Some of the Duke's grandchildren also converted and lost their place in the line of succession, most prominently, Lord Downpatrick, who is second in line to the Dukedom.

When Prince Michael married Princess Michael, he lost his place in the line of succession because she was Catholic. But the law was later changed so that marrying a Catholic is no longer a disqualifier (being Catholic still is), and he popped back in the line of succession.

It's all academic and ridiculous really though isn't it? Like most of the arcane rules surrounding royalty. The Kents/Gloucesters etc are never going to succeed to the throne (barring some major catastrophe).

I think concern is a bit over the top. A small monarchy is a good one. The queen having her cousins as "working royals" was always excessive.

Maybe Bea and Eugenie will step up, but I think the Tindalls would be ridiculous because Anne deliberately didn't give Zara a title and she's more like a commoner, like her brother.

Duke of Gloucester is 30th in line, Duke of Kent 40th and Princess Alexandra 56th.

The recent interview with Princess Anne about the slimmed down monarchy shed a bit of light on this- she expressed concern that with an even more slimmed down group of working royals, there would have to be a drastic reduction in the places they go and the things they turn out to. Not because they are lazy, but because practically there simply wouldn't be enough of them working to cover everything.

I imagine as the older ones drop off, then Beatrice, Eugenie, and possibly Zara and Peter may do more while William's children are still too young.

Well at the time the Queen succeeded to the throne, she was only mid-twenties with two very small children. Her sister Margaret was a young single woman. So it's understandable at the time she looked to her first cousins for support (and maybe she was close to them).

Each soon to be dropped down one place when Eugenie has her baby.

In 10 years you'll only have William and Kate below retirement age, Ed & Sophie will both be pushing 70.
That's not a lot of people to do all the things they do.

Being too slim means events are more likely to be cancelled / postponed should one of them be ill as they'll be nobody to step in in their place

She was very close to them. They were her cousins. And of course as has been said, at the time they were very high in the line of succession. They were George V's grandchildren, the King's nephews/niece. I imagine they never thought they would do anything else in their lives but royal duties.

Zara has a career of her own,and 3 young children so I can't imagine she would be that keen to take on royal engagements even if she was asked to. Her brother may be happy to if he was asked. He hasn't really carved out a career in the past few years, except arranging events at his mother's estate.

For more working royals, the logical choices would be the York princesses and Louise and James, who are technically princess and prince. I think Beatrice and Eugenie would like to be working royals, but not so sure that Louise and James would.

Was there anybody there representing Prince Philips side of the family (as Charles father)?

Or was it all weighted towards the maternal line, due to his mother being the Queen?

What makes Bea & Eugenie more logical choices than Zara & Peter?

Andrew would love it if his daughters became higher profile; I can imagine him rubbing his hands in glee.
I would think that Beatrice’s involvement in his disaster tv interview would put her judgement in doubt.

I read that Philipp, Prince of Hohenlohe-Langenburg, great nephew of the late Duke of Edinburgh, was at the coronation. Also Princess Alexandra's mother, Princess Marina, was Prince Philip's first cousin, so Princess Alexandra is a cousin of the King on his father's side as well as his mother's.

What makes Bea & Eugenie more logical choices than Zara & Peter?

Because they are royal in that they have royal titles. I suppose it shouldn't matter in this day and age, but I think to many, it still does.

That would be like the Middletons doing royal engagements.

Beatrice is a Counsellor of State i.e one of the next four adults in line to the throne and able to represent the King. Eugenie is the next adult in line after that. Technically higher in importance than Princess Anne and Duke of Edinburgh, let alone their children.

@Justbetweenus I think it was meant to be representing his family at the Coronation! Not for engagements.

The titled is easily solved.
Peter and Zaras children are all older than Bea and Eugenies (one is pregnant, the other may yet have more babies).

Other than titles I can't see how Bea & Eugenie are better placed than the Philips

Yes I'll give them that they are higher up the pecking order only because of the men is more important than woman rules, which have since been binned.

I once read somewhere that Princess Michael of Kent comes of Austrian nobility and when she first married Prince Michael of Kent and met the royal family she banged on about her family owning most of the Vienna Woods, so that the royals called her 'Mrs Woods' behind her back. Also that Queen Elizabeth II joked that she was 'a bit too grand for us'. The Daily Mail says she is nicknamed 'Princess Pushy'. I found that via Google. I don't read the DM.

I read that the Duchess of Kent didn't attend the Queen's funeral. I don't know how wid eggs "close family" group was at the final private committal was, maybe she did attend that part and not the public parts. But it does all point to her being unwell, sadly.

Those of us of a certain age all remember Jana Novotna sobbing on her shoulder when she lost Wimbledon.