Christie's Auction of the late Duke and Duchess of Kent's Estate: November 2009


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Any opprtunity to bash MC! I loathe loathe loathe that Daily Mail:voodoo::voodoo::voodoo: It has to be the most pernicious 'chattering Classes' rag ever to evolve!

I'm still waiting for my catalogue to arrive I can't wait to have a good drool! I wander if any of Princess Victoria's effects that she left the George and Marina will be amongst the lots!
 
The article only talks about "I cant believe the Kent's are doing this and that." I see no personal attacks on just specifically MC Princess Michael particularly.
 
I think using pictures of the Michaels rather than one including all of the Kents (thus using pictorial license to imply a collective decision and responsibility - which would be more accurate and therefore appropriate as well as an example of good, fair and rational journalism) or even one of the Duke as the titular head of this branch of the family, pretty much sums up the tactic and angle implied and taken by the Daily Mail :voodoo::voodoo::voodoo: In addition, the references to interior shots at Nether Lypiatt was a cheap dig (which can only be expected from that 'sewer' based Daily Mail :voodoo::voodoo::voodoo:) without balancing this with reminding "dear" Daily Mail :voodoo: readers to the parallel of Coppins!!!!????? Why single out the Michaels when Edward and Katherine sold Coppins too!?

This article is a perfect example of what I have been discussing with others on the Michaels thread.....a blatant example of media manipulation and distortion (obvious or not) of using MC as a scapegoat - implied or otherwise! The press seem to use MC at their convenience (pleasure under perpetual duress more likely!)...I just wonder (tongue firmly in cheek!) why the saintly Katherine Kent's image hasn't been used in connection with this story or that of Princess Alexandra...perhaps I am being cynical! But when it comes to that unspeakable rag the Daily Mail :voodoo::voodoo::voodoo: I must protest!
 
interesting article imo:flowers:.

....One councillor I spoke to this week, after he discovered the cup was on sale for £600, said: 'This is a gross discourtesy. Fifty years may be a long time between the giving of the gift and its sale, but the compact between royalty and the public is a simple one - the public come and wave, the royals come and do their duty.
'If they are rewarded with a gift, it is not given to them personally, but to the office they hold and for the job they did that day. They can't just sell history off like so many lumps of sugar. These things aren't theirs to sell.' .......


Zonk said:
An article regarding the Kent auction.

Amazing how they make seem like its all Princess Michael's fault, when its the theitre family is auctioning off the items. But it is the Daily Mail!

Selling off our silver: The Duke of Kent's family flog gifts given to them by the public to the highest bidder | Mail Online
Click to expand...
 
I quite understand your Councillor's view Susan Alicia, but with regards to Prince Michael's role in the auction I would just like to point out that he has never received an annuity at the tax payers' expense and yet he still comes out and waves, as and when! A job that an HRH title entails but in his case does not have a salary! Thus he has as far as I can tell, fulfilled his side of any Royal-Public obligated 'compact' without ever expecting or having been in receipt of remuneration via the public! What on earth does the public expect him to live on if he has nothing coming into the household accounts! He has no annuity...and yet when he is obliged to turn out on public occasions he and MC are expected to look appropriate....it isn't Prince Michael's fault he was born an HRH and grew up to find himself without any income!

As to the Duke and Princess Alexandra and their respective positions, when it comes to paid royals flogging goodies received ....well....I remain an observer!

The point is, the family, Edward, Alexandra and Michael, have decided collectively to sell the lots....it was a collective decision and I feel that all three are therefore responsible...I just see Prince Michael's position as more akin to that of the less advantageous one accepting the necessary option of selling a few bits in order to keep himself afloat - especially when one remembers that from next year he will be paying a rather large rent whereas his siblings will not!
 
susan alicia said:
interesting article imo:flowers:.

....One councillor I spoke to this week, after he discovered the cup was on sale for £600, said: 'This is a gross discourtesy. Fifty years may be a long time between the giving of the gift and its sale, but the compact between royalty and the public is a simple one - the public come and wave, the royals come and do their duty.
'If they are rewarded with a gift, it is not given to them personally, but to the office they hold and for the job they did that day. They can't just sell history off like so many lumps of sugar. These things aren't theirs to sell.' .......
Click to expand...
I totally agree with him, it was bad enough when Diana gave gifts way and when Fawcett disposed of items, have they not learned from the outcry then? It is discourteous to read of the sale of an item you have gifted.
 
Last edited:
Connie Cutmantle said:
A job that an HRH title entails but in his case does not have a salary! T ---- especially when one remembers that from next year he will be paying a rather large rent whereas his siblings will not!
Click to expand...
Yes. for all these years they have had payment in the form of very low cost accommodation, utility bills paid etc. etc. It is well overdue that they start paying rent for the sumptuous apartments they have occupied.
 
Goodness I feel like I am having a fencing lesson with the editor of Femail! Skydragon....I was merely trying to express a personal opinion pertaining to the positions of the Michaels with regard to the auction.

Here on this thread, I was trying to make a point that was relevant to the auction and which I hope included relevant points of discussion that would draw in comments about Edward, Katherine and Alexandra and not reduce this thread to just another outlet for MC bashing! Direct or not!
 
Connie Cutmantle said:
I was merely trying to express a personal opinion pertaining to the positions of the Michaels with regard to the auction.

Here on this thread, I was trying to make a point that was relevant to the auction and which I hope included relevant points of discussion that would draw in comments about Edward, Katherine and Alexandra and not reduce this thread to just another outlet for MC bashing! Direct or not!
Click to expand...
All any of us do, is express a personal opinion. I haven't seen any MC bashing on here, perhaps you are a little too protective of the woman to read post objectively. You, after all were the one who raised the question of their accommodation and payments from the crown.
 
Marsel said:
One of such ways is leaving the inheritance in trust funds. If you leave the assets in trust funds, with the beneficiary eventually gaining full access to the fund, it may prove to be disadvantageous in the long run (for the beneficiary).
Click to expand...
It can also cause problems when the capital is finally paid out as this amount is added to the estate of the person who was in receipt of the interest paid by the trust fund.
But if you leave the assets in DGT (Discounted Gift Trust – that’s when the beneficiary doesn't have access to main capital but gets either an allowance or percentage from the profits), then the tax can be avoided.
Click to expand...
Again, when the primary beneficiary dies, the capital is counted as part of their estate.:flowers: IT is crippling for many families and many have no choice but to sell the family silver (so to speak).:flowers:
 
Let's stay on topic, which is to discuss the auction of Kent heirlooms. That also includes the dicussion of gifts being sold at the auction.

It not to debate the merits of the Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, the grace and favor apartment's, Katherine Kent, etc.

Any posts that attempt to continue off topic discussion, will be deleted without notice. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact any British supermoderators and/or TRF administrators.

Thank you.

Zonk
British Forums Moderator
 
Last edited:
Thanks for giving more information on the trust funds/inheritance issue, Skydragon! :flowers:
I find the tax a bit too heavy and if a family has to face with multiply deaths in a short period of time, the IT would be truly monstrous.


While I think it is discourteous of the Kents to sell gifts presented by public, I can also understand them: those gifts are undoubtedly important for them (as token of affection and regard), however they are also unneeded and unnecessary - just 'dead ballast' they have no idea what to do with.

This said, I always made a point of keeping every little present ever given to me, be it a birthday card received at school or items of jewellery; it shows they were appreciated. Hence, I can fully understand the displeasure of people who'd given those gifts to the Royal Family in good faith that they would be cherished and kept.
 
Last edited:
Marsel you raise very valid points but gifts are just that gifts. And when someone gives it you, you have the right to do with it what you see fit.

It is tacky, yes it is tacky to sell a gift or "regift" it. But what is the point of keeping stuff that you have no use for...and they just pile up.

That's why I give gift cards (I realize that gift cards could be considered tacky and impersonal but it allows people to buy WHAT THEY WANT).
 
Marsel said:
Thanks for giving more information on the trust funds/inheritance issue, Skydragon! :flowers:

While I think it is discourteous of the Kents to sell gifts presented by public, I can also understand them: those gifts are undoubtedly important for them (as token of affection and regard), however they are also unneeded and unnecessary - just a 'dead ballast' they have no idea what to do with.

This said, I always made a point of keeping every little present ever given to me, be it a birthday card received at school or items of jewellery; it shows they were appreciated. Hence, I can fully understand the displeasure of people who'd given those gifts to the Royal Family in good faith that they would be cherished and kept.
Click to expand...
I always hesitate to expand on one of your excellent posts. :flowers: I wonder if the 'outrage' has more to do with not being notified, would the councilors have been less offended if they had written to them to explain that whilst the gift had been a generous gift, due to the excessive IT, they really have no other option. It is very difficult, we receive many gifts throughout the year, normally Whisky. Mr S is very particular about which Malt he drinks or indeed serves, and so we give away most of it. Jewelery is another difficult area, a personal gift from a friend/family member is normally to your taste and will remain a cherished item, but anyone could be forgiven for selling that ghastly brooch you received/inherited. The trouble with keeping every gift, is that if you are not displaying it, it takes up storage room or costs you a small fortune to have stored at the bank.

I do think the fuss could have been avoided if they had written to the people who gave the original gift. :flowers: However having just read another article concerning this, the theme seems to be that the gift was not a personal gift, it/they were gifts to the office that was held by the recipient, therefore they are not their personal property to dispose of..
 
I have my eye on one of those gorgeous George III salvers - yet I am hoping for more goodies to rhapsodize over in the catalogue....it arrives on Monday and then I shall spend the evening rootling/snuffling until I find something I really want to bid on! I would love one of Princess Victoria's hairbrushes......!(not) But seriously, I would love something from her desk set if I can beat off the competition!!!!!!!!!!! Then again I don't know if any of Princess Victoria's effects have been included...I do hope so!
 
The catalogue might be available 12 midnight, UK time.
 
Gift cards are the most tackiest presents ever; but as the Edwardian actress is quoted as saying, only small cheques are vulgar. I have received recycled royal gifts and all have been appreciated. Unlike a gift cheque card at least some thought and gift wrapping efford has gone into it. In some cultures which I am familiar with there is a strict code in gift giving, which we should perhaps emulate. You never present a gift to someone of "higher" rank unless that person is a kinsman or kinswoman. Far better to have and keep a good friend than to worry over reciprocity of gifts. Or is this off topic for the fiscally obsessed?
 
Last edited:
Considering the Michaels have never carried out "official" duties the "official" presents or most of them must belong to the other Kents so why single princess michael out in the article and print her picture? The DM is really pathetic.
 
Zonk said:
An article regarding the Kent auction.

Amazing how they make seem like its all Princess Michael's fault, when its the theitre family is auctioning off the items. But it is the Daily Mail!

Selling off our silver: The Duke of Kent's family flog gifts given to them by the public to the highest bidder | Mail Online
Click to expand...
I don't see that from reading the article. They clearly state time and again "the family of the Duke of Kent", "the Kents", The Kents - siblings Princess Alexandra, Prince Michael and the Duke himself, plus Princess Michael of Kent, the Kents, Princess Alexandra and the Duke of Kent all feature in the article, the main exception if you read through is at the bottom of the page
Glancing at the glossy 190-page catalogue, experts can detect first and foremost the hand of Princess Michael of Kent, nicknamed Princess Pushy. There are lavish pictures of the interior of Nether Lypiatt, the Michaels' Gloucestershire home, which, incidentally, was sold several years ago. One wonders whether the new owner is as much in the dark about his property being used to flog the Royal Family silver as are the poor donors. Some of the items are offered anonymously, but have the whiff of Princess Michael's exuberant tastes. Other items - heavy furniture now too large for the Michaels in their reduced circumstances - are clearly family heirlooms.
And, occasionally, an off-taste item hints again at Princess Michael who, for a time before the emergence of Princess Diana, was the toast of the town and showered with gifts
Click to expand...
Very difficult and I do wonder at the truth of this statement
But the auction surely breaks royal protocol, for at stake is that crucial, unspoken bond between public and royalty which sets Britain apart from almost every other nation
Click to expand...
or this, which I think is a trifle unreasonable
In a sense, the family can do what they like with these items. But only time will tell whether they will do the decent thing - withdraw them from sale before it is too late to sacrifice centuries of hard-won goodwill and send them back to the people, or their descendants, who so generously gave them in the first place
Click to expand...


​
 
Skydragon said:
I always hesitate to expand on one of your excellent posts. :flowers: I wonder if the 'outrage' has more to do with not being notified, would the councilors have been less offended if they had written to them to explain that whilst the gift had been a generous gift, due to the excessive IT, they really have no other option. It is very difficult, we receive many gifts throughout the year, normally Whisky. Mr S is very particular about which Malt he drinks or indeed serves, and so we give away most of it. Jewelery is another difficult area, a personal gift from a friend/family member is normally to your taste and will remain a cherished item, but anyone could be forgiven for selling that ghastly brooch you received/inherited. The trouble with keeping every gift, is that if you are not displaying it, it takes up storage room or costs you a small fortune to have stored at the bank.
Click to expand...

I am inclined to agree with you - if they had just warned of the sale beforehand, much of the fuss could have been avoided.

Keeping all the gifts is unpractical, which is why I understand the Kents' situation. I only get away with it because at 16, I haven't received many 'bulky' items and my gifts are therefore easy to store. Still, in years to come, I understand it will be impossible to store everything, unless I'm prepared to rent a separate space just for storage.

I do think the fuss could have been avoided if they had written to the people who gave the original gift. :flowers: However having just read another article concerning this, the theme seems to be that the gift was not a personal gift, it/they were gifts to the office that was held by the recipient, therefore they are not their personal property to dispose of..
Click to expand...

I have read a similar thing in the modified article from Daily Mail (with a rather telling new headline 'Kents are selling off OUR silver’).
If the gifts weren't even theirs, this may develop into something rather nastier. I do hope that's incorrect.
 
Marsel said:
I have read a similar thing in the modified article from Daily Mail (with a rather telling new headline 'Kents are selling off OUR silver’).
If the gifts weren't even theirs, this may develop into something rather nastier. I do hope that's incorrect.
Click to expand...
I hope these people do not pursue the matter, I think the Kents will have sought the advice of, not only HM but senior staff at Buckingham Palace. I fail to see how the givers can now declare they were not personal gifts, does that mean if I give a present to Charles, he cannot dispose of it purely because he is a member of the royal family?
Perhaps anticipating a public row, the Kents will use the proceeds from these particular items - more than 40 of them - to go towards their favourite charities. But although they will not benefit directly from the auction, one saleroom habitué I spoke to observed: 'They add interest to the sale overall and bulk out the catalogue. That helps get prices up on the items they will personally benefit from.
Click to expand...
So they decided to take advantage of many of the lots appearing in the same auction, much as any of us would do, it also saves bidders having to travel down or phone umpteen times.:D With hindsight, a letter to those concerned might have saved all of this, but it is Britain, so probably not!

'
 
I have read the article, and I am aware that the Kent family is mentioned frequently. I referred to the Daily Mail placing an emphasis on Princess Michael, because if you go to the website (which has since changed), on the right side of the site, where the Mail details a brief synopsis of the stories, is the headline Princess Pushy is selling off OUR stuff. That was my point.

If one didn't take the time to read the article, and just saw the headline, one would think that it didn't involved anyone else but Princess Michael.
 
Last edited:
Zonk said:
If one didn't take the time to read the article, and just saw the headline, one would think that it didn't involved anyone else but Princess Michael.
Click to expand...
That is a common problem, some people only read the online headline, never a very good idea. The headline changed three times within a very short time but the gist of the article remained the same, that the entire Kent family were selling the items.

I believe it is remiss of the media not to emphasize that the money raised from the sale of the articles, that seems to be causing the Mail to get upset, is going to charity, perhaps we should rewrite the headline!
 
Last edited:
Ooooh Arhhhhh.......(sated from all the drooling I have been doing (Better even than those midnight feasts of chocolate and left-overs from the fridge!!!!)...pouring or maybe that should spell 'pawing' over the pages of my copy of the catalogue!) I literally snatched it out of the courier's hands when he called this morning!

The provenance notes are very useful and I spent ages trawling through the catalogue with a pencil and a wad of post-its....I wish! But seriously, there are a wide variety of things and I was really enchanted by some of the silver, a piece here that belonged to George II (or at least bears his cypher), pieces there, owned by William IV, Queen Victoria and a fair bit which belonged to Edward VII and Queen Alexandra! I find it charming that Queen Mary liked giving old silver to her grandson for his birthdays when he was still a child...I feel it reveals something quite touching of her character and her veneration of history!

I am still reeling though,(Snatching up my fan and imbibing a much needed glug of 'medicinal' Sancerre) that the portrait of Louise, Duchess of Argyll is 'the' de Laszlo! Omg......and that the estimate is a mere 10,000 to 15,000 pounds!!!!! I can't believe that figure....it seems soooo low....but then again when the Lord Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto flogged some of Ma'am darling's things I recall the estimates then were also ludicrously low too!!!! I do hope that the portrait is bought for the Royal Collection (I have my finger's double crossed)....it is such a significant piece IMHO! God forbid it finds it's way to some Russian Oligarch's private gallery or any other collection/gallery outside of the UK!

The Duke of Clarence's finger prayer book has a little annotation inside believed to have been written by Marie Louise of S-H to her sister....although I always thought Helena Victoria was referred to as Thora rather than 'Helene' by her immediate family!

Anyway, I did not find a single one of Princess Victoria's hairbrushes to tempt me...but there are some rather lovely bijou things going under the hammer! I love the emerald, rock crystal and diamond scent bottle from Asprey est. 4,000 - 6,000 gbp...but not quite enough at that price! Ironically, the oldest and in my humble opinion, most strikingly lovely lot is a wonderful elm, pine and green painted kitchen table - late 17th to early 18th century which once belonged to Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone! It reeks of age and glows with patina....and is estimated identically to the scent bottle!

Sandringham tea towels, Cartier leopard earrings, a picnic set, bergere chairs, a charm bracelet and a china headed doll 'sold by Queen Mary in 1885 amongst other things...goodness it is quite an eclectic hodge podge!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't understand the Daily Mail's outrage or expectations. These items were gifts with no strings... while it would be lovely to think that Princess Alexandra thinks your Granny's doilies were the most precious things ever!, maybe they aren't to her taste. How many storage units should the lady rent? And does the Daily Mail expect that the Kents should hire detectives to find the heirs of the people who made these gifts?

I think we all understand that the Kents aren't the wealthiest of royals, and some of them are getting older. It probably would be easier to make arrangements if the heirlooms were disposed of for cash.

And the sale gives us an interesting view at the objects they've collected and inherited... and an opportunity for some of us to make purchases of these treasures.
 
:previous: Had the Mail led with the headline, 'Charities to benefit', it would probably not have generated the extra sales. A suggested scandal (Selling off our silver), gains them extra readers. :flowers:
 
Skydragon said:
... [snipped] Christie's eCatalogues ... [snipped]
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link! :flowers:
I truly enjoyed looking through the catalogue. Princess Marina of Kent is a patrician beauty personified.:wub::wub::wub::wub:
I wish I could afford to bid for tapestries and paintings, especially the portrait of Duchess of Argyll (pp.58-59).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
  • Sticky
The Duke and Duchess of Sussex and Family, News and Events 10: August 2024 -
36 37 38
Replies
1K
Views
135K
Curryong
C
Marengo
The Duke and Duchess of Kent News and Events 2: Sep 2022 -
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
11K
iceflower
iceflower
M
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau
Replies
1
Views
2K
Tatiana Maria
T
Marengo
  • Locked
Netflix Docu-Series of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex (2022)
49 50 51
Replies
2K
Views
187K
Ista
Ista
Y
"A Royal Life" by HRH The Duke of Kent and Hugo Vickers (2022)
Replies
2
Views
3K
Lady Daly
Lady Daly

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom