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 don't agree - it's not as if most working mums don't have to fit a school run in, without the help of a nanny and household staff to do breakfast, have clothes ready etc.

Oh I agree. Was just pointing out that she's been the royal doing the least "firm" work for several years, but as I also said, I imagine that will change now.

So being of childbearing age should disqualify them from a role they might otherwise want were it to be offered?

Princess Margaret 1960(?) and then Katherine Worsley and then Princess Alexandra - that way round, I think. Lots of royal weddings to enjoy.

Lots of posters seem to think Zara wouldn't want it because of her young children. Thinking Louise might take it if offered but that makes even less sense to me.

It's only helpful to have extra working members of the royal family if the general public are going to want to turn up and see them. I'm not sure that many people are impressed by minor royals nowadays.

Also, it's believed to be an issue in the royal family if lower ranking members are more popular than higher ranking members. But if you're lower ranking, then to get people interested you really need to be photogenic and popular.

Also, the message we've had over the years is that Zara (especially) and Peter don't want to live their lives with the kinds of restrictions that their mother has, and that she has always made it clear to them that they are not royal. Their position is now exactly the same as Princess Margaret's children, and I think they enjoy being royal adjacent and I don't blame them.

Louise and James have also clearly been brought up to expect that they won't be doing royal duties, and instead will have regular lives similar to other aristocrats. I can't see them choosing to change that.

Yes all Williams cousins have been raised with the expectation that they'll need to make their own way in the world.
But nobody expected Harry to walk away.

Even Anne is questioning the whole 'slimmed down' idea, in a recent interview she commented it was said in a day when their was a lot more of them.

The issue isn't today its in 10 years time when the Wales kids are still in education but only W&K are below retirement age.

Well, Edward and Sophie's children have nothing in for them, do they? They will be needed during their 20s and 30s - exactly the time they would be establishing a career, if they want to, or possibly their own family, or just having fun and exploring life. Then, if they do give those years the The Firm, they will be superseded by the Wales children as they grow up and (presumably) take their place in the hierarchy.
Whereas the alternative is to just steer clear, turn up for the big family events, but enjoy being relatively unrecognisable and get on with their lives.
Maybe the forcible 'slimming down' is a blessing in disguise. Fewer, but more focussed, patronages? What do the much-lauded (on MN) Dutch/Swedish etc bike riding RFs do, they have fewer members? Presumably fewer patronages and military links?

The fewer royals the better. Imagine the Duke of Gloucester attending your event, what's the point? Who would get excited about that? Is it just for the sake of having a royal of any description there?

I always felt a bit sorry for W&K because everyone always criticised HMTQ and King Charles for being too hands-off as parents and for never having “real” jobs. Then you have W&K criticised as lazy for being hands-on parents who had “real” jobs at one point. I suspect they can’t win so are just doing what feels right for their family.

This is incorrect, your parent’s cousin’s child is your first cousin once removed.

Princess Alexander opened my local hospital in 1977,
not that I was there,
and any further openings, of units, were done by Princess Anne

but i guess if the family are losing popularity it wont matter if no one is available!

agree, kate and william will want to be available for their children, to put right the standard upbringing of children in the royal family

I'd quite like to see a man who has served the country for the last 60 years or so.
I thought it was very fitting that he had both a prominent role at the Queen's funeral and at the Coronation.

I'm.not sure though that Edward and Sophie's children aren't being prepared for more public roles. I'd have said that a year ago, but a year ago their parents very quietly got on with their duties and were rarely in the limelight.
As the Edinburghs, and with two other more senior royals very definitely off the scene, whether by choice or necessity, they are much more in the spotlight now and it may be that their children might also be.

In a word, yes. The magic words 'His Royal Highness' are going to drive more publicity than the name of local dignitaries or corporate types. The other publicity-driving option is a celebrity, but unless there is a local one or one with a known charitable link to whatever the event is about, an organisation is going to pay ££££ to get anyone very well-known to do it.

Fascinating thread!

I was interested to hear that Prince Philip's relatives attended the coronation. Other branches of the RF we never seem to hear of are the Bowes-Lyons (Queen Mother's family) and the Harewoods (Princess Mary, sister of George VI married the Earl of Harewood) so they're the same in terms of cousins as the Kent and Gloucester branches.

Anyone know if they were at the coronation?

Both George and Gerald Lascelles (Harewood) died some time ago. I don't think their remaining family were close to the Royal Family.

The Bowes-Lyons would really be his mother's cousins, children. Realistically how many people have close contact with their mothers cousins?

HMQ only having one sister, and her mum, really needed the support o

Hit post too soon.

Needed the support of her cousins hence the Kents and Gloucesters. And probably relatively close relationships with Charles

The current Earl of Harewood was invited to the coronation but wasn't on the guest list. There was a Bowes-Lyon cousin and his wife representing the Queen Mother's side of the family.

A number of the family members invited are not that close to Charles. The Middleton siblings, James and Pippa, for example - would your son's brother and sister in law normally be invited to your family occasions - probably not.

That depends on the closeness of the families, I was at my BILs sisters wedding.
So yes I can understand them being invited it was a massive day for their DD and DGC too.

Yes. Simon Bowes Lyon attended with his wife.