The Lascelles Family


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I believe BOTH his parents were married to someone else at the time of his birth. If there is any resentment, it shouldn't be directed to his brother.....it's called an "accident" of birth. However, he does have my permission to knock about his parents.
 
Fairly recent photograph of Lord Harewood

He and his wife are shown having tea at a local school with their Granddaughter's class. Other than his age, does anyone know why he's in a wheelchair? The last photo I found of his he was in the chair as well. I'm assuming the school visit was for one of the daughter's of their son, Mark, [born before their marriage] rather than a child of one of Lord Harewood's older sons. According to thePeerage.com - Main Page Mark Lascelles has 3 daughters.

Press Releases - Gateways Independent School for girls [scroll down to see the photo]
 
Yes, he has; their names are Charlotte (b.1996), Imogen (b.1998) & Miranda (b.2000). He divorced their mother Andrea Kershaw and married recently Judith Anne Kilburn.
Also Sophie Lascelles married on 11 June, but the identity of her husband is unknown.

Mother of Leo Lascelles is called Laleh Yeganegy; I suppose she is of Iranian descent.
 
Last edited:
HarewoodArms.jpg


Harewood Arms

BBC News - Queen's cousin Lord Harewood dies


The Queen's first cousin, Lord Harewood, has died aged 88 at the family home Harewood House near Leeds.

George Lascelles, the 7th Earl of Harewood, had devoted much of his life to opera and served as the editor of the Opera magazine.

Lord Harewood had served as the chairman of the board of the English National Opera, a governor of the BBC and
president of Leeds United FC.


At the time of his birth he was sixth in line to the throne.

As of the birth of Savannah Phillips, the daughter of Peter Phillips, in 2010, he was 46th in line to the throne.

A family statement said he had died peacefully at his home.


  
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BBC News - Queen's cousin Lord Harewood dies

The Queen's first cousin, Lord Harewood, has died aged 88 at the family home Harewood House near Leeds.
I'm very sorry to hear about Lord Harewood's passing. Ironically enough, I was thinking about the Lascelles family a few days ago and when I saw an update in this thread, I hoped it wasn't sad news. I wonder if the late Earl's cousins will attend the funeral.
 
This is very upsetting! He was one of the first grandchildren of George V and Queen Mary and, if I am right, the first descendent of George V to divorce. A man dedicated to music, especially opera, he will surely be missed.
 
Lord Harewood: Opera-loving cousin of the Queen dies aged 88 | Mail Online

Lord Harewood, a first cousin of the Queen, has aged 88.

George Lascelles, the seventh Earl of Harewood, died peacefully yesterday morning at the family’s Harewood House, near Leeds.

The Earl of Harewood - Telegraph


The Earl of Harewood , who died yesterday aged 88, was a first cousin of the Queen and in later years, after growing a beard, bore more than a passing resemblance to his grandfather King George V; but he did not like to be defined by his royal forebears and his family connections were of no use whatever to him in his chosen career in the music world.

King George V described the birth of his first grandson as a “great occasion in our family life”. The Salvation Army played Gentle Jesus Meek and Mild outside Chesterfield House and revellers at the Chelsea Arts Ball broke into cheers when the announcement was made over a megaphone. As the King had restricted the style of Prince and Princess by decree in 1917, his grandson was styled Master Lascelles. At his christening, held at his parents’ home, Goldsborough Hall in the North Riding of Yorkshire, his godparents included King George and Queen Mary and Princess Alexandra.

He was educated at Ludgrove preparatory school, then in Middlesex, and at Eton, where he greatly enjoyed playing cricket and football. As a boy he was a page to Queen Mary and performed a minor role in various Royal and State occasions, attending the Queen at the 1937 Garter Ceremony and serving as a page at the Coronation of his uncle, King George VI, the same year.

After the war he became — briefly — ADC to the Earl of Athlone, Governor-General of Canada, then went up to King’s College, Cambridge, to read English. He recalled that on one occasion in 1947, when George VI was abroad, he had been hauled from his studies and appointed Counsellor of State, empowered to transact formal business on the monarch’s behalf: “I used to whizz down from Cambridge and the Duke of Gloucester and I constantly had to receive ambassadors and did lots of curious things. Rather jolly.”

In 1949 he married Marion Stein, the daughter of Erwin Stein, an Austrian Jew who had fled to England in 1938. The King and Queen came down especially from Balmoral to join other members of the Royal Family at the ceremony in St Mark’s, North Audley Street. The reception at St James’s Palace was attended by Queen Mary, who arrived with the young Duke of Kent and Princess Alexandra. The marriage produced three sons, but before long it began to run into trouble. In 1964, Harewood fathered a son out of wedlock with Patricia Tuckwell, a young Australian violinist. At first, Marion Harewood was reluctant to agree to a divorce, but eventually she did so and, in 1967, having obtained the Queen’s permission, Lord Harewood married Patricia Tuckwell.

Though his second marriage was to give him great happiness, Harewood was not welcome at court for some years after his divorce, attending neither the Duke of Windsor’s funeral nor Princess Anne’s wedding. Relations seemed to have thawed a little by 1974, when he was allowed to attend the funeral of the Duke of Gloucester, and the Queen met the new Countess of Harewood publicly during her Silver Jubilee celebrations in 1977. As recently as last month he attended the service to mark the Duke of Edinburgh’s 90th birthday at St George’s Chapel in Windsor.


The Earl of Harewood obituary | Music | The Guardian

Grandson of George V whose work with English National Opera helped transform British attitudes

George Lascelles, the seventh Earl of Harewood, who has died aged 88, was unusual for a member of the royal family in deserving a substantial obituary on account of what he did rather than who he was. His overriding concern was to help transform British people's attitude to opera, most notably through his work as managing director of Sadler's Wells Opera (1972-85), via its change of name in 1974 to English National Opera (ENO) and then as chairman (1986-95). The company, built up by Lilian Baylis during the 1930s, had moved from the Sadler's Wells theatre in north London to the larger and more central London Coliseum in 1968, and the new title he obtained for it further enhanced its status. His previous experience had been at the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden, first as a member of the board (1951-53, and again 1969-72), then as casting manager on the staff (1953-60).

Harewood's sincere commitment to music and opera, and his acquaintance with many other singers, musicians and composers, made a real difference. He was, after all, one of the few royals who genuinely valued British music and knew a great deal about it. As Queen Elizabeth herself once put it to the general director, Peter Jonas, in the royal retiring room at the London Coliseum, on a rare royal visit to the ENO when Harewood was chairman of the company, but equally rarely when her cousin was unavailable to greet her, "Funny thing about George. You know, in most respects he's perfectly normal."

The two Lascelles boys took part in royal ceremonial such as their grandfather's funeral procession in 1936 and the proclamation of King George VI after the abdication of his elder brother, Edward VIII. George was at Eton college when he was called upon to be a page at the subsequent coronation.

At the age of 19, he was commissioned as a Grenadier Guards officer, and was severely wounded and then captured in the Italian campaign. He passed through a series of Italian hospitals and German PoW camps, ending up for a time in Colditz because of his "prominent relations".
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for the information wbenson! I didn't realize that the Earl of Harewood had done so much work for the English National Opera. Thank goodness the Telegraph focused on that particular aspect of his life instead of his marriages.

We should all do the same.
 
Updated site: (Descendants of Earl of Harewood):

2.2.3.1.George Lascelles, Earl of Harewood (1923-2011), m.1st 1949 (div 1967) Maria Donata (Marion) Stein (*1926), m.2nd 1967 Patricia Tuckwell (*1926)
2.2.3.1.1.David Lascelles, Earl of Harewood (*1950), m.1st 1979 (div 1989) Margaret Messenger (*1948), m.2nd 1990 Diana Jane Howse (*1956)
2.2.3.1.1.1.Lady Emily Lascelles (*1975), m.2008 Matthew Shard
2.2.3.1.1.1.1.Ida Shard (*2008)
2.2.3.1.1.1.2.Isaac Shard (*2008)
2.2.3.1.1.2.Honourable Benjamin Lascelles (*1978), m.2009 Carolina Velez Robledo
2.2.3.1.1.3.Honourable Alexander Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles (*1980)
2.2.3.1.1.3.1.[by Laleh Yeganegy (*1980)] Leo Lascelles (*2008)
2.2.3.1.1.4.Honourable Edward Lascelles (*1982)
2.2.3.1.2.Honourable James Lascelles (*1953), m.1st 1973 (div 1985) Fredericka (Freddy) Duhrsson (*1954), m.2nd 1985 (div 1996) Lori (Shadow) Lee (*1954), m.3rd 1999 Joy Elias-Rilwan (*1954)
2.2.3.1.2.1.Sophie Lascelles (*1973), m.2011 ............
2.2.3.1.2.2.Rowan Lascelles (*1977)
2.2.3.1.2.3.[by 2nd wife] Tanit Lascelles (*1981)
2.2.3.1.2.4.[by 2nd wife] Tewa Lascelles (*1985)
2.2.3.1.3.Honourable Jeremy Lascelles (*1955), m.1st 1981 (div) Julie Baylis (*1957), m.2nd 1999 Catherine Bell (*1965)
2.2.3.1.3.1.Thomas Lascelles (*1982)
2.2.3.1.3.2.Ellen Lascelles (*1984)
2.2.3.1.3.3.Amy Lascelles (*1986)
2.2.3.1.3.4.Tallulah Lascelles (*2005)
2.2.3.1.4.[by 2nd wife] Honourable Mark Lascelles (*1964), m.1st (div) 1992 Andrea Kershaw (*1964), m.2nd 2011 Judith Anne Kilburn
2.2.3.1.4.1.Charlotte Lascelles (*1996)
2.2.3.1.4.2.Imogen Lascelles (*1998)
2.2.3.1.4.3.Miranda Lascelles (*2000)


Source: Descendants of King Christian IX of Denmark
 
2.2.3.1.1.1.Lady Emily Lascelles (*1975), m.2008 Matthew Shard

There is an Emily Lascelles listed in the credits of the TV show Man Vs Wild with Bear Grylls. I wonder if it is she.
 
Court Circular 15 July 2011 | Facebook
"The Queen was represented by Prince Michael of Kent at the Funeral of the Earl of Harewood which was held in All Saints Church, Harewood, West Yorkshire, this afternoon [15 July 2011]."
Are they serious? I think it's a shame that there was only Prince Michael from the late Lord Harewood's maternal side of the family, present at the funeral. What was more important to them on this day, than the funeral of their first cousin, and a grandson of a Sovereign? Why there were not The Queen, the rest of the Kents and the Gloucesters? When Peter Phillips dies, there would be only Princess Eugenie attended his funeral from The Princess Anne's side of his family?
 
I think it's a shame that there was only Prince Michael from the late Lord Harewood's maternal side of the family, present at the funeral. What was more important to them on this day, than the funeral of their first cousin, and a grandson of a Sovereign? Why there were not The Queen, the rest of the Kents and the Gloucesters?
I had the same first reaction but looking at the Court Circular, only The Queen, The Duke of Edinburgh, The Prince of Wales, The Duchess of Cornwall, The Princess Royal, and The Duke of Kent are recorded as having official engagements (most likely scheduled far in advance) that day. The Gloucesters and Princess Alexandra could have attended, but it just wasn't in the Court Circular. Or perhaps the Lascelles family wanted a rather small service with only close family.

I guess I was expecting something like the funeral of Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester, where senior members of the Royal Family attended. But even though Alice wasn't blood family of The Queen, she was Royal, the mother of Royals, and of course, performed years of service to the Monarchy. Different situations. It's all passed though, no one else seemed to be bothered about this very much anyway.
 
The current tendency is that of "slimming down" the monarchy.

All those years/decades ago, Anne and Mark did the sensible thing and made their children "commoners".

I salute their foresight.
 
What's slimming down the royal family got to do with the lack of royal attendence at the Earl of Harewoods funeral?
 
I am sure you will see larger representation for the royal side of the Lascelles family when the memorial service is held in London.
 
I was saying only that I think its a shame that the late man's whole maternal family was represented only by one man.
Yes, he was a commoner but he was a grandson of a Sovereign, of Royal blood, and he achieved something important to me, for example in the fields of music and opera. So, I think, the Royal Family should honour him and move their lazy and ignorant asses down to Harewood to attend his funeral. Its much easier to make a few minutes-long journey by car to a London's church for the service, isnt it? For God's sake, he was their (the Queen's, the Gloucester's and the Kents') first cousin!
So, giving this example, there would be no King William V and Queen Catherine, nor Harry nor Beatrice in attendance at the funeral of Mark Phillips? And the RF would be represented only by James Mountbatten-Windsor?
 
So, giving this example, there would be no King William V and Queen Catherine, nor Harry nor Beatrice in attendance at the funeral of Mark Phillips? And the RF would be represented only by James Mountbatten-Windsor?

I don't see why William, Catherine, Harry nor Beatrice not even James would attend the funeral of the ex husband of Princess Anne. I doubt they knew the man. You will of course see the attendance of his children Zara and Peter and their respective partners and children.
 
I disagree.

If Mark Phillips was to die, and as a sign of respect for their cousins (Zara and Peter) I can certainly see some members of the BRF attending the funeral to support them emotionally. Sometimes people attend funeral not so much for the deceased but for the living. I've attended the funeral of people that I have met once or twice, but did so because I was friends of their children. You probably won't see a King William (but someone as his representative) but maybe someone else.

That being said, I was a little surprised that no one else in the BRF attended the funeral other than Prince Michael of Kent. He was also a first cousin to the Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra and the Duke of Gloucester. I recall reading somewhere that the scandal of his first marriage and subsequent remarriage, he wasn't invited to a couple of events (like Princess Anne's wedding or something).

I was pleasantly surprised to see a nice obituary of the Earl in the Washington Post the other day. They basically repeated what the other obits stated. Still it was nice to see that he is getting the appropriate kudos for his work with Opera.
 
Zonk said:
I disagree.

If Mark Phillips was to die, and as a sign of respect for their cousins (Zara and Peter) I can certainly see some members of the BRF attending the funeral to support them emotionally. Sometimes people attend funeral not so much for the deceased but for the living. I've attended the funeral of people that I have met once or twice, but did so because I was friends of their children.

Agree, I've done the same. Plus Anne is still on good enough terms with her ex I'm sure she'd attend.
 
Perhaps the Lascelles family did not want all the disruption that would come from a large Royal turnout. Perhaps they wanted to mourn in a relatively private manner, knowing that there would eventually be a memorial service in London that could be attended by the royals as well as friends from the arts.
 
I meant Peter Phillips, of course. So sorry for the mistake. Peter Phillips is a son of the Princess Royal, as was the Earl of Harewood, a son of the previous Princess Royal. Thats where I see a similiar situation.
 
It is important to remember that not everyone shares the same views on funerals, their importance and meaning.

The last funeral I attended was in 1995 for my parents, unless it is my husband, I will never attend another one, I do not believe in them, I have made my own final arrangements, I will be embalmed and have an immediate burial.

I feel the same way about hospital visits, I do not go and when I was in the hospital, I did not want visitors and made my feelings known to family and friends, I was there because I was ill. I needed to rest, recover and leave the setting as quickly as possible.

I also am a very private person when it comes to grieving, I do not want an audience and I do not like to share other people's grief. I happen to agree with the late Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mother, one should not impose their troubles on others.
 
I meant Peter Phillips, of course. So sorry for the mistake. Peter Phillips is a son of the Princess Royal, as was the Earl of Harewood, a son of the previous Princess Royal. Thats where I see a similiar situation.
Now I know you meant Peter I see the point of your comparison. I feel the Earl was even more deserving of the attendance of more royals at his funeral, he was a Counseller of State twice -
1944 - 1951 on the death of Princess Maud till when Princess Margaret turned 21 yrs
1952 - 1956 on the death of King George VI till when Prince Edward, The Duke of Kent turned 21 yrs.

Correction, I believe in 1944 he became a Counsellor because he turned 21 yrs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You're right, Ada. I forgot about it. He acted at least several times as a Counsellor, performing the King/Queen's duties.
 
royals at the funeral

I think the security headache was a major factor. Prince Charles and Camilla had been to Harewood House in the last few years. Prince Michael attended the funeral.
 
Were any of the Lascelles in attendance at Harewood House for the Variety Clubs gala attended by the Prince and Princess of Monaco? Perhaps still in mourning for the late Earl?
 
According to the Court Circular, nearly all of the senior royals were represented at the Service of Thanksgiving for the life of The Earl of Harewood on September 30. The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh were represented by Princess Alexandra, and The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester attended.
 
According to the Court Circular, nearly all of the senior royals were represented at the Service of Thanksgiving for the life of The Earl of Harewood on September 30. The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh were represented by Princess Alexandra, and The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester attended.

I read that the senior royals were represented at this funeral but what I found odd was that Prince Michael represented Edward and Sophie...how do they work who represents the seniors? I always assumed it was and equerry or ladies-in-waiting but I guess I was wrong.
 
I was saying only that I think its a shame that the late man's whole maternal family was represented only by one man.
Yes, he was a commoner but he was a grandson of a Sovereign, of Royal blood, and he achieved something important to me, for example in the fields of music and opera. So, I think, the Royal Family should honour him and move their lazy and ignorant asses down to Harewood to attend his funeral. Its much easier to make a few minutes-long journey by car to a London's church for the service, isnt it? For God's sake, he was their (the Queen's, the Gloucester's and the Kents') first cousin! So, giving this example, there would be no King William V and Queen Catherine, nor Harry nor Beatrice in attendance at the funeral of Mark Phillips? And the RF would be represented only by James Mountbatten-Windsor?
Perhaps the Lascelles family did not want all the disruption that would come from a large Royal turnout. Perhaps they wanted to mourn in a relatively private manner, knowing that there would eventually be a memorial service in London that could be attended by the royals as well as friends from the arts.
I’ve only seen this thread relatively recently and wonder if I could possibly help by giving a little bit of background information?

First, regarding funerals: First, one has to distinguish between ROYAL FUNERALS and funerals of Royal Relatives or close Royal associates or friends.

The general rule of the Royal family [and because it is a ‘general rule’ means that there will always be exceptions) is that if there is a Royal Funeral [which can be a State funeral, but need not be] members of the Royal Family will attend: there are all sorts of ‘different Royal Funerals’: by way of example I would mention the Funeral of King George VI , The Funeral of Diana Princess of Wales, The Funeral of the Duchess of Windsor: these respectively were a State Funeral, ‘ a Funeral that was officially NOT a State Funeral but regarded as [I think the phrase was a ‘Special Funeral’] and what palace and government sources called a ‘private royal funeral’. Members of TRF will easily be able to recall that there was an important presence of Royals at all these funerals.

If there is a funeral of a ROYAL RELATIVE [which could include divorced spouses etc] the general rule [and again, because this is a general rule, there will always be exceptions] is that there is NO significant senior Royal turnout; the Royal presence will usually be usually be confined to one or very occasionally two ‘minor’ Royals. This is not due to any lack of respect or laziness, but, as NGalitzine [who is always ‘on the ball’ on so many matters of protocol if I may say so] so correctly summarises, it is to avoid the proceedings – and more accurately the FOCUS of the proceedings – being dominated by the Royal Presence. As well as a public expression of grief, in the UK funerals are very much a family affair as well, and the focus should be on the grieving family which would not necessarily be the case if (say) Senior members of the BRF attended. For a start, from the point of protocol, the arrival of (say) the Queen and the Prince of Wales would have to be acknowledged formally, whereas of course, the focus of the occasion should be on the deceased and his family. It is also quite a practical matter for another reason: as people have intimated through their posts, royal engagements are fixed some time in advance and the general rule is that these are almost always NEVER cancelled.

I should also perhaps emphasise that Lord Harewood was NEVER a member of the ROYAL FAMILY [it is up to the Queen to decide who is a member of the ROYAL FAMILY and this is not the same as being a ROYAL RELATIVE. And being a member of the ROYAL FAMILY is nothing to do with either closeness to the monarch [either by birth or succession or even association] or being in receipt or otherwise of the civil list or equivalent: for example, Buckingham Palace is quite clear on the point that Prince Michael is regarded as a member of the Royal Family whereas Zara Philips is not.

The Earl of Harewood is of course a Royal relative but is not and has never been a member of the Royal Family. He did not have a Royal Funeral and therefore the ‘usual rules’ were followed. It is therefore not a case of a failure of the BRF to [and I quote]’ move their lazy and ignorant asses down to Harewood to attend his funeral’
I read that the senior royals were represented at this funeral but what I found odd was that Prince Michael represented Edward and Sophie...how do they work who represents the seniors? I always assumed it was and equerry or ladies-in-waiting but I guess I was wrong.
Molly, the Service was actually a Memorial Service, not a funeral service

So far as Memorial Services [often known also as Thanksgiving Services] are concerned, the rules for funerals as stated above apply but in a slightly modified form. I should start by saying that in the UK, by custom and practice, Memorial Services are traditionally held for important people a few months after their deaths. The occasion is both solemn and celebratory. [Sometimes, however, rather confusingly, some funeral services are called Thanksgiving Services by the family concerned, usually when there is a combined Funeral and Memorial Service]

The Queen hardly ever attends a Memorial Service; she is almost always represented by either a senior Royal [if a royal relative is concerned] or a senior member of her household if the memorial service is for an important but none royal person.

As a general point, ‘First Division Royals’ [HM, DofE, PoW etc] usually do not attend Memorial services either in their own capacity or as representatives for even more senior royals, partly to avoid shifting the emphasis away from the subject matter of the service, but also because they are often ‘booked up’ for engagements: ‘First Division Royals’ tend to undertake the most engagements. However, at very important Memorial Services, it is always possible that First Division Royals will attend – probably because the date of the Memorial Service might be fixed to enable them to attend. Prince Michael of Kent, Princess Alexandra and Prince Edward and Sophie are often more likely to be free and therefore tend to get chosen by First Division Royals to represent them.

I will add a little bit of a footnote by mentioning a couple of contrasting memorial services: the Memorial Service for King Hussein of Jordan [held in St Paul’s Cathedral] was attended by Duke of Edinburgh, the Prince of Wales and the Duke and Duchess of Kent; this no doubt reflected the fact that Queen Noor and King Abdullah and many members of the Jordanian Royal Family were also present [as well as other members of other Royal families – Queen Sofia of Spain for example. [Memorial Service for a Monarch therefore requires significant Royal Presence]. Secondly, consider the contrast of the Memorial Service for favourite Royal photographer Sir Norman Parkinson, when the Princess Royal sent her hairdresser Michael Rasser to represent her at the service! [A first for a royal hairdresser].

I hope that some of the foregoing is of interest,
Alex
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom