But that's what's eventually going to happen to the Kents, in the long term. Bear in mind that the issue was relevant to the Fifes, earlier on. Princess Louise was born fourth in line, and even moved up to third, to the British throne. Despite not being members of the royal family, both daughters were subject to the 1772 Royal Marriages Act. Her younger daughter Maud was born fifth in the succession. Maud's son, James, was born 13.
All were closer to the throne than Prince Michael of Kent, who was already 16th in line when in 1978 he contracted a fateful marriage to the Catholic noblewoman, Baroness Marie Christine von Reibnetz. The union was subject to the 1772 RMA, but caused the groom -- according to the 1701 Act of Settlement -- to forfeit his rights to the throne.
The Kent dukedom, of course, doesn't bar Catholics. But the point is that despite their remote places in the royal succession 40+ years ago, these issues (the question of rank, relative to royalty vs. nobility) were relevant.
Not unlike the Harewoods ...
If the Duke of Kent dies today, George Windsor, Earl of St Andrews, would become the new Duke and the Kent Dukedom would cease to be a Royal Dukedom. But let's say that he dies, and also Lord Downpatrick, Lord Nicholas Windsor and his three sons die, Prince Michael would become Duke of Kent. Would that mean that the Kent Dukedoms once againt becomes a Royal one? If so, would that be the first one to do so? (I understand of course that this scenario is highly unbelievable, but I use Kent as a model.)
212
Message Thread | This response ↓
« Back to index