This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Princess Michael of Kent article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For those being obsessed with their pedigrees: A son has half of his father's genes, a grand-son has one fourth of his grandfather's genes. So if You descend the line You'll soon arrive at 1/64 or 1/128 which is a relationship as close as that between any strangers. And if You take meiosis into account your "grand 6 son" is very likely not to have any of Your genes at all. In other words: Marie Reibnitz is as related to the Medici Queen as any other person of us. (No, that's not how genetics works. You get half your genes from each parent. But that doesn't mean that what you get from you father, for example, is made up equally or Grandma's genes and Grandpa's genes. The genes you get from Dad may be mostly from Grandma or mostly from Grandpa. You don't know. Do an ancestry DNA test and you'll see this!)
Really impractical heading. Princess Michael of Kent as a heading and as the name treats not her as an individual, gives her not an own identity, and is basically disgusting - a result of overeager application of etiquette and formal court/socialite naming paradigm. The header naming (re this class of individuals) should be built to reflect how she is known as an individual. The obvious difficulty to find an elegant individual name in these cases should not thwart us from thinking it and trying. This heading is actually quite he same as to put Camilla under Duchess of Cornwall. 217.140.193.123 7 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
How can she be both the great-granddaughter of Diane de Poitiers and the great-granddaughter of Catherine de Medici? Diane de Poitiers was mistress to Henri II of France while Catherine de Medici was his wife. Princess Michael must therefore be decended from one or the other.
Fangoria magazine stated about 20 years ago that she is related to Vlad III Dracula and Genghis Khan as well. Is this true?
Why is she Princess Michael of Kent. Why wasn't Diana Princess Charles of Wales? Thanks for explaining this. Ahassan05 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)ahassan05
However, given that Prince Michael was giving up his place in line to the throne to marry a divorced Catholic, the likelihood of him being granted a peerage was minimal. Therefore Princess Michael uses that title because she doesn't have the option of being Marie-Christine, Duchess of Somewhere (or similar). 2A00:23C7:8905:CC01:11CE:D648:7C81:9DD4 ( talk) 16:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
There is another problem with her name, though. "Freiin" has been included in her married name, when it does not belong. "Freiin" is the title for the daughter of a Freiherr (Baron), and equivalent to "Baroness." So it either needs to replace "Baroness," as in Marie Freiin von Reibnitz (the German legal format), or be removed altogether.
I have removed the listing of the Princess as Mrs. Thomas Troutbridge and as Mrs. Marie-Christine Troutbridge under the section title. Mrs. T. Troutbridge is not a title nor is Mrs. Marie-Christian Troutbridge these are simply names. From the day of her birth until the day of her marriage to Prince Michael the only title that she had were those of Baroness von Reibnitz. Trust me a lady as socially and class conscience as Princess Michael would never refer to herself as a mere Miss, Mrs, or Ms when she was born a Baroness. Her marriage and divorce from her first husband would have no affect what-so-ever on her title. She would remain Baroness von Reibntiz until the day she died despite 15 marriages unless one of those husbands had a higher title. Princess Michael of Kent never referred to herself as anything less than what she was. The press has often called her the former Mrs. T, but this has no legal basis. Even in the UK a women has the right to retain her own surname after marriage and to retain her own title if it is higher than that of her husband.
Queen Brandissima
-- 88.73.242.208 ( talk) 08:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
This entire discussion is as daft as calling Princess Michael's first husband "Troutbridge".
-- 88.73.242.208 ( talk) 08:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my question. I was just wondering if this is a common practice? And I am sorry if this question sounds dense but why does Prince Michael's title need to have his name in the middle? Prince Charles is not Prince Charles of Wales and and his brother is not Earl Edward of Essex. Is it just random or does it reflect some sort of hierarchy of titles. Thanks again.
It is the same with the aristocracy in general. Wives of nobs are called Duchess of X or Lady Y, not Duchess Sharon of X or Lady Tracy Y. It is a common error creeping in nowadays to refer to the likes of, for example, Lord Coe, as Lord Sebastian Coe. This is wrong, he is either Lord Coe or Sebastian Coe. It is only the son of a hereditary peer (Duke, Marquess, etc.) who is called Lord Christian Name Z. Sweetalkinguy 21:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not really a clumsy title. It's the traditional way a women is styled after her marriage to a British prince. In the UK if you are 'Princess YourName' that indicates that you are a British Princess by birth. If you are 'The Princess YourName' that indicates that you are the child of a King or Queen of the UK. If you are 'Princess HusbandsName' that indicates that you married a British prince but are not a British princess in your own right.
When Charles was born to the then HRH The Princess Elizabeth, The Duchess of Edinburgh and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh he was merely HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh. Had he married Diana before his mother became HM The Queen she would have been known as HRH Princess Charles of Edinburgh unless he had recieved his own peerage by then. If they had married before he was invested as The Prince of Wales she would have been known as HRH The Prince Charles (after his mother became The Queen). As she married Charles after he was invested as The Prince of Wales and after his mother was The Queen she became HRH The Princess of Wales.
I would point out that this is singularily the British method of doing things. In the rest of Europe when a women marries a Prince she generally becomes Princess HerName of X. I would, also, point out that in Germany it is common and correct for women and men to be Duke Name of X, Countess HerName of X, ect... but the German system of royalty and nobility is far more vast and complex than the British version.
Some countries like Jordan even allow women to retain their title and their style of address after a divorce.
It should be noted that only the son of a hereditary Peer with the title of Marquess or higher would be Lord HisFirstName HisSurname, unless he were the heir to his father's peerage then he would use his father's secondary title. While all the daughters of an Earl or above are The Lady HerName FamilyName.
Additionally, Andrew is not The Prince Andrew, Duke of York he is THE Duke of York never just Duke of York. The same goes for The Duke of Kent or The Duke of Gloucester.
Queen Brandissima
You are incorrect! The Prince of Wales was known as HRH The Prince Charles from the time of his mother's acension until the time of his creation and later investment as The Prince of Wales. At no time was The Prince of Wales offically titled as The Duke of Cornwall unless he was actually in Cornwall (as has always been the custom). The Lady Diana Spencer would have been known as HRH The Princess Charles unless she was actually in the Duchy of Cornwall during which time she would have been referred to as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. You would be correct only if it was announced that at the time of the marriage that The Prince Charles and The Lady Diana Spencer would be formerly known as HRH The Duke and The Duchess of Cornwall.
The titles that a member of the royal family hold has no affect on what their "offical" title is. Furthermore, I can't recall a single instance that an heir to the throne has been referred to as The Duke of Cornwall prior to his creation as The Prince of Wales that exists outside of the duchy its self in the Windsor or Hanovarian dynasty (I can't even recall one from a previous dynasty).
Additionally, I should point out that the offical form of address, which is the correct form of address, often has little to do with the actual or legal titles a person has. E.g. Her Royal Highness, Beatrice, Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland is 'offically' HRH Princess Beatrice of York. E.g. Her Royal Highness Sophie, Princess of the United Kindgom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, Countess of Wessex, ect... is 'offically' HRH The Countess of Wessex. The form of address and method of styling that is announced or used by Buckingham Palace or the Lord Chamberlain is how we, the public, should properly refer to said royal or noble person.
Afterall, HRH The Princess Anne is offically addressed with her styles alone. Both HRH and The Princess Royal are styles not titles. Her offical form of address doesn't even include a title. Although, The Princess Royal is often incorrectly referred to as a title.
The offical statement should be used as the "gospel" as to how a particular person should be addressed in writing or person. If it is announced that HRH Prince Henry of Wales is to be known as HRH Prince Harry of Wales that becomes is offical title from that moment until a new announcement is made no matter what other titles or styles he may hold.
HM The Queen is not in the habit of leaving the public to wonder or speculate as to how a living person should be offically addressed.
It is my intention to send a letter to offical offices concerning the matter of forms of address and titles this weekend (specifically the use of the definate article for members of the royal family outside of the royal house, ect..)
Queen Brandissima
-- 88.73.242.208 ( talk) 08:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems that the website www.bestselection.com cited in the article does not work. I have not been able to make it work. Trying a Google search on this and as many variations as I can think of similarly produced no result, apart from what appeared to be an American Kelkoo-style website. Can somebody investigate properly and correct the article if necessary? Sweetalkinguy 21:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the phase she grew up in mozombique.She grew up i n Australia..
Wasn't it revealed a while ago that she was anonymously teaching music at a school? I thought I saw it during an interview with her on This Morning. David 11:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The reference that supposedly supports Princess Michael's descent from the painter Rubens does no such thing. Rubens had two wives and several children, which means that a great many people are probably descended from him. However, a solid reference is required. Lolliapaulina51 ( talk) 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Coat of Arms
The Unicorn on the Princess' coat of arms has the incorrect coronet around its neck. The unicorn bears the coronet of a child of the monarch. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2.122.11.159 (
talk)
18:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
That was completely wrong and I've moved it back. In future, please discuss any proposed page moves here first. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
How is saying she has "more royal blood in her veins than any person to marry into the royal family since Prince Philip" controversial? It's the truth.-- Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy ( talk) 11:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
the section titled controversy seems awful like unsubstantiated gossip? no names are mentioned, and what do jews in the British media have to do with it? 71.194.44.209 ( talk) 01:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Princess Michael of Kent was born on 15 January 1945, in Karlsbad part of the then-German-populated Sudetenland, now known as Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic, near the family estates of her Austrian maternal grandmother, Princess Hedwig von Windisch-Graetz, just prior to the defeat and the end of Nazi Germany and of World War II in Europe, and the following expulsion of the German population later that year.
Princess Michael of Kent claims Henry VIII of England (1491 – 1547) was married to Catherine of Braganza (1638 – 1705) (sic): Exclusive interview with H.R.H Princess Michael of Kent part 2 of 3.avi!? What an author of non-fiction books... -- 91.10.53.71 ( talk) 02:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It's still incorrect, regardless of her literary output. 66.67.32.161 ( talk) 03:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Dreams Come True (UK charity), still a royal patron? Thanks. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Her name is Marie Christine, NOT Michael, which is her husband's name, not hers. This title is blatantly incorrect and incredibly sexist, perhaps motivated by some extreme-right political agenda to treat women as inferior to their husbands or something.
Why isn't Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge called "William, Duchess of Cambridge"?? Göran Olof Thygesson ( Talk) 12:27, 28 November 2014
None of which is relevant. Her title is Princess Michael of Kent, because her husband, Prince Michael of Kent, was the younger (royal) son of the 1st Duke of Kent. He was barely seven weeks old when his father died in a plane crash. Prince Michael holds a courtesy title as the son of the 1st Duke of Kent but he does not possess a substantive title (a peerage) in his own right. It is entirely correct to refer to her as Princess Michael of Kent, because a spouse takes the title or style of their husband, regardless of an age of gender equality (which she herself would poo-poo) 98.10.165.90 ( talk) 01:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Princess Michael of Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Princess Michael of Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
How is she not of royal blood if she was born a baroness? - 2601:840:8200:20E0:B00D:F6BC:EFEC:F723 ( talk) 01:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
A baroness is noble, not royal. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 ( talk) 21:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The article describes the blackamoor brooch as "a stylised figure of an enslaved or servile African man". This does not accurately describe the brooch she was wearing, which portrays instead a black man in rich robes and turban. Blackamoor (decorative arts) says more inclusively "in subservient or exoticized form". -- Elphion ( talk) 15:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
There are two different allegations in this section, the truth of which cannot be confirmed and apparently she hasn't responded to them. The first one is her alleged reaction to "research by Dorothy Cheney and Robert Seyfarth seemed to indicate that rank among female baboons is hereditary." While some may argue in favor of keeping this one, the second one, which has been made by her daughter's ex-boyfriend could potentially be a lie. He has alleged that while he was dating her daughter he realized that she had named two sheep after Venus and Serena Williams. This is just a rumor made by an attention-seeking person and, in my opinion, has no basis whatsoever. Should we keep them or remove them? Keivan.f Talk 06:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Reibnitz. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 05:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Why is there a blurb about something she said about animals under the racism section? That has nothing to do with racism! 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 ( talk) 01:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
"In September 2015, the Princess was in the news for stating publicly that animals do not have rights because they do not pay taxes, have bank accounts or vote." I fail to see what's controversial about this. It just sounds silly to me. Animals don't have "rights" because they're animals, not because they don't pay taxes, etc. Why is her statement a controversy?
2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (
talk)
21:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
1) Why could she not remarry in the catholic Church immediately after the annulment of her first marriage, why was a specific permission from the pope needed? 2) I find it a bit misleading to speak of the "blessing" of the marriage; I imagine the rite performed for the couple was the one that, according to Canon Law, constitutes the actual marriage and not a retroactive blessing. Or did they indeed have a "blessing-only ceremony"? -- Oudeís talk 11:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:COMMONNAME. ( non-admin closure) SilverLocust ( talk) 00:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Princess Michael of Kent → Marie-Christine, Princess Michael of Kent – Though she is officially Princess Michael of Kent, I find it strange that the article is simply that. It's almost like naming Catherine's article simply "The Princess of Wales." I feel that the individuality of this particular subject is compromised when her own name isn't even mentioned in the title. It is not that I'm necessarily against this customary form for wives of sons of royal dukes, I just believe for reasons unique to Wikipedia that her name ought to be mentioned as her simply having the female form of her husband's title is a bit awkward when the subject is about her individually despite her association. I am cognizant that her name, Marie-Christine, is not part of her style as Her Royal Highness Princess Michael of Kent, but I look to articles like Catherine, Princess of Wales, whose name is mentioned first before her title, but her official title is "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales", without her name mentioned here. I think this move would be fair in any sense. AKTC3 ( talk) 15:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Princess Michael of Kent article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For those being obsessed with their pedigrees: A son has half of his father's genes, a grand-son has one fourth of his grandfather's genes. So if You descend the line You'll soon arrive at 1/64 or 1/128 which is a relationship as close as that between any strangers. And if You take meiosis into account your "grand 6 son" is very likely not to have any of Your genes at all. In other words: Marie Reibnitz is as related to the Medici Queen as any other person of us. (No, that's not how genetics works. You get half your genes from each parent. But that doesn't mean that what you get from you father, for example, is made up equally or Grandma's genes and Grandpa's genes. The genes you get from Dad may be mostly from Grandma or mostly from Grandpa. You don't know. Do an ancestry DNA test and you'll see this!)
Really impractical heading. Princess Michael of Kent as a heading and as the name treats not her as an individual, gives her not an own identity, and is basically disgusting - a result of overeager application of etiquette and formal court/socialite naming paradigm. The header naming (re this class of individuals) should be built to reflect how she is known as an individual. The obvious difficulty to find an elegant individual name in these cases should not thwart us from thinking it and trying. This heading is actually quite he same as to put Camilla under Duchess of Cornwall. 217.140.193.123 7 July 2005 22:27 (UTC)
How can she be both the great-granddaughter of Diane de Poitiers and the great-granddaughter of Catherine de Medici? Diane de Poitiers was mistress to Henri II of France while Catherine de Medici was his wife. Princess Michael must therefore be decended from one or the other.
Fangoria magazine stated about 20 years ago that she is related to Vlad III Dracula and Genghis Khan as well. Is this true?
Why is she Princess Michael of Kent. Why wasn't Diana Princess Charles of Wales? Thanks for explaining this. Ahassan05 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)ahassan05
However, given that Prince Michael was giving up his place in line to the throne to marry a divorced Catholic, the likelihood of him being granted a peerage was minimal. Therefore Princess Michael uses that title because she doesn't have the option of being Marie-Christine, Duchess of Somewhere (or similar). 2A00:23C7:8905:CC01:11CE:D648:7C81:9DD4 ( talk) 16:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
There is another problem with her name, though. "Freiin" has been included in her married name, when it does not belong. "Freiin" is the title for the daughter of a Freiherr (Baron), and equivalent to "Baroness." So it either needs to replace "Baroness," as in Marie Freiin von Reibnitz (the German legal format), or be removed altogether.
I have removed the listing of the Princess as Mrs. Thomas Troutbridge and as Mrs. Marie-Christine Troutbridge under the section title. Mrs. T. Troutbridge is not a title nor is Mrs. Marie-Christian Troutbridge these are simply names. From the day of her birth until the day of her marriage to Prince Michael the only title that she had were those of Baroness von Reibnitz. Trust me a lady as socially and class conscience as Princess Michael would never refer to herself as a mere Miss, Mrs, or Ms when she was born a Baroness. Her marriage and divorce from her first husband would have no affect what-so-ever on her title. She would remain Baroness von Reibntiz until the day she died despite 15 marriages unless one of those husbands had a higher title. Princess Michael of Kent never referred to herself as anything less than what she was. The press has often called her the former Mrs. T, but this has no legal basis. Even in the UK a women has the right to retain her own surname after marriage and to retain her own title if it is higher than that of her husband.
Queen Brandissima
-- 88.73.242.208 ( talk) 08:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
This entire discussion is as daft as calling Princess Michael's first husband "Troutbridge".
-- 88.73.242.208 ( talk) 08:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my question. I was just wondering if this is a common practice? And I am sorry if this question sounds dense but why does Prince Michael's title need to have his name in the middle? Prince Charles is not Prince Charles of Wales and and his brother is not Earl Edward of Essex. Is it just random or does it reflect some sort of hierarchy of titles. Thanks again.
It is the same with the aristocracy in general. Wives of nobs are called Duchess of X or Lady Y, not Duchess Sharon of X or Lady Tracy Y. It is a common error creeping in nowadays to refer to the likes of, for example, Lord Coe, as Lord Sebastian Coe. This is wrong, he is either Lord Coe or Sebastian Coe. It is only the son of a hereditary peer (Duke, Marquess, etc.) who is called Lord Christian Name Z. Sweetalkinguy 21:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not really a clumsy title. It's the traditional way a women is styled after her marriage to a British prince. In the UK if you are 'Princess YourName' that indicates that you are a British Princess by birth. If you are 'The Princess YourName' that indicates that you are the child of a King or Queen of the UK. If you are 'Princess HusbandsName' that indicates that you married a British prince but are not a British princess in your own right.
When Charles was born to the then HRH The Princess Elizabeth, The Duchess of Edinburgh and HRH The Duke of Edinburgh he was merely HRH Prince Charles of Edinburgh. Had he married Diana before his mother became HM The Queen she would have been known as HRH Princess Charles of Edinburgh unless he had recieved his own peerage by then. If they had married before he was invested as The Prince of Wales she would have been known as HRH The Prince Charles (after his mother became The Queen). As she married Charles after he was invested as The Prince of Wales and after his mother was The Queen she became HRH The Princess of Wales.
I would point out that this is singularily the British method of doing things. In the rest of Europe when a women marries a Prince she generally becomes Princess HerName of X. I would, also, point out that in Germany it is common and correct for women and men to be Duke Name of X, Countess HerName of X, ect... but the German system of royalty and nobility is far more vast and complex than the British version.
Some countries like Jordan even allow women to retain their title and their style of address after a divorce.
It should be noted that only the son of a hereditary Peer with the title of Marquess or higher would be Lord HisFirstName HisSurname, unless he were the heir to his father's peerage then he would use his father's secondary title. While all the daughters of an Earl or above are The Lady HerName FamilyName.
Additionally, Andrew is not The Prince Andrew, Duke of York he is THE Duke of York never just Duke of York. The same goes for The Duke of Kent or The Duke of Gloucester.
Queen Brandissima
You are incorrect! The Prince of Wales was known as HRH The Prince Charles from the time of his mother's acension until the time of his creation and later investment as The Prince of Wales. At no time was The Prince of Wales offically titled as The Duke of Cornwall unless he was actually in Cornwall (as has always been the custom). The Lady Diana Spencer would have been known as HRH The Princess Charles unless she was actually in the Duchy of Cornwall during which time she would have been referred to as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. You would be correct only if it was announced that at the time of the marriage that The Prince Charles and The Lady Diana Spencer would be formerly known as HRH The Duke and The Duchess of Cornwall.
The titles that a member of the royal family hold has no affect on what their "offical" title is. Furthermore, I can't recall a single instance that an heir to the throne has been referred to as The Duke of Cornwall prior to his creation as The Prince of Wales that exists outside of the duchy its self in the Windsor or Hanovarian dynasty (I can't even recall one from a previous dynasty).
Additionally, I should point out that the offical form of address, which is the correct form of address, often has little to do with the actual or legal titles a person has. E.g. Her Royal Highness, Beatrice, Princess of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland is 'offically' HRH Princess Beatrice of York. E.g. Her Royal Highness Sophie, Princess of the United Kindgom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland, Countess of Wessex, ect... is 'offically' HRH The Countess of Wessex. The form of address and method of styling that is announced or used by Buckingham Palace or the Lord Chamberlain is how we, the public, should properly refer to said royal or noble person.
Afterall, HRH The Princess Anne is offically addressed with her styles alone. Both HRH and The Princess Royal are styles not titles. Her offical form of address doesn't even include a title. Although, The Princess Royal is often incorrectly referred to as a title.
The offical statement should be used as the "gospel" as to how a particular person should be addressed in writing or person. If it is announced that HRH Prince Henry of Wales is to be known as HRH Prince Harry of Wales that becomes is offical title from that moment until a new announcement is made no matter what other titles or styles he may hold.
HM The Queen is not in the habit of leaving the public to wonder or speculate as to how a living person should be offically addressed.
It is my intention to send a letter to offical offices concerning the matter of forms of address and titles this weekend (specifically the use of the definate article for members of the royal family outside of the royal house, ect..)
Queen Brandissima
-- 88.73.242.208 ( talk) 08:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
It seems that the website www.bestselection.com cited in the article does not work. I have not been able to make it work. Trying a Google search on this and as many variations as I can think of similarly produced no result, apart from what appeared to be an American Kelkoo-style website. Can somebody investigate properly and correct the article if necessary? Sweetalkinguy 21:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the phase she grew up in mozombique.She grew up i n Australia..
Wasn't it revealed a while ago that she was anonymously teaching music at a school? I thought I saw it during an interview with her on This Morning. David 11:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The reference that supposedly supports Princess Michael's descent from the painter Rubens does no such thing. Rubens had two wives and several children, which means that a great many people are probably descended from him. However, a solid reference is required. Lolliapaulina51 ( talk) 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Coat of Arms
The Unicorn on the Princess' coat of arms has the incorrect coronet around its neck. The unicorn bears the coronet of a child of the monarch. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2.122.11.159 (
talk)
18:00, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
That was completely wrong and I've moved it back. In future, please discuss any proposed page moves here first. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 03:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
How is saying she has "more royal blood in her veins than any person to marry into the royal family since Prince Philip" controversial? It's the truth.-- Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy ( talk) 11:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
the section titled controversy seems awful like unsubstantiated gossip? no names are mentioned, and what do jews in the British media have to do with it? 71.194.44.209 ( talk) 01:39, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Princess Michael of Kent was born on 15 January 1945, in Karlsbad part of the then-German-populated Sudetenland, now known as Karlovy Vary, Czech Republic, near the family estates of her Austrian maternal grandmother, Princess Hedwig von Windisch-Graetz, just prior to the defeat and the end of Nazi Germany and of World War II in Europe, and the following expulsion of the German population later that year.
Princess Michael of Kent claims Henry VIII of England (1491 – 1547) was married to Catherine of Braganza (1638 – 1705) (sic): Exclusive interview with H.R.H Princess Michael of Kent part 2 of 3.avi!? What an author of non-fiction books... -- 91.10.53.71 ( talk) 02:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
It's still incorrect, regardless of her literary output. 66.67.32.161 ( talk) 03:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Dreams Come True (UK charity), still a royal patron? Thanks. In ictu oculi ( talk) 05:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Her name is Marie Christine, NOT Michael, which is her husband's name, not hers. This title is blatantly incorrect and incredibly sexist, perhaps motivated by some extreme-right political agenda to treat women as inferior to their husbands or something.
Why isn't Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge called "William, Duchess of Cambridge"?? Göran Olof Thygesson ( Talk) 12:27, 28 November 2014
None of which is relevant. Her title is Princess Michael of Kent, because her husband, Prince Michael of Kent, was the younger (royal) son of the 1st Duke of Kent. He was barely seven weeks old when his father died in a plane crash. Prince Michael holds a courtesy title as the son of the 1st Duke of Kent but he does not possess a substantive title (a peerage) in his own right. It is entirely correct to refer to her as Princess Michael of Kent, because a spouse takes the title or style of their husband, regardless of an age of gender equality (which she herself would poo-poo) 98.10.165.90 ( talk) 01:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Princess Michael of Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Princess Michael of Kent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
How is she not of royal blood if she was born a baroness? - 2601:840:8200:20E0:B00D:F6BC:EFEC:F723 ( talk) 01:58, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
A baroness is noble, not royal. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 ( talk) 21:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
The article describes the blackamoor brooch as "a stylised figure of an enslaved or servile African man". This does not accurately describe the brooch she was wearing, which portrays instead a black man in rich robes and turban. Blackamoor (decorative arts) says more inclusively "in subservient or exoticized form". -- Elphion ( talk) 15:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
There are two different allegations in this section, the truth of which cannot be confirmed and apparently she hasn't responded to them. The first one is her alleged reaction to "research by Dorothy Cheney and Robert Seyfarth seemed to indicate that rank among female baboons is hereditary." While some may argue in favor of keeping this one, the second one, which has been made by her daughter's ex-boyfriend could potentially be a lie. He has alleged that while he was dating her daughter he realized that she had named two sheep after Venus and Serena Williams. This is just a rumor made by an attention-seeking person and, in my opinion, has no basis whatsoever. Should we keep them or remove them? Keivan.f Talk 06:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Reibnitz. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 05:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Why is there a blurb about something she said about animals under the racism section? That has nothing to do with racism! 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 ( talk) 01:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
"In September 2015, the Princess was in the news for stating publicly that animals do not have rights because they do not pay taxes, have bank accounts or vote." I fail to see what's controversial about this. It just sounds silly to me. Animals don't have "rights" because they're animals, not because they don't pay taxes, etc. Why is her statement a controversy?
2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (
talk)
21:05, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
1) Why could she not remarry in the catholic Church immediately after the annulment of her first marriage, why was a specific permission from the pope needed? 2) I find it a bit misleading to speak of the "blessing" of the marriage; I imagine the rite performed for the couple was the one that, according to Canon Law, constitutes the actual marriage and not a retroactive blessing. Or did they indeed have a "blessing-only ceremony"? -- Oudeís talk 11:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:COMMONNAME. ( non-admin closure) SilverLocust ( talk) 00:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Princess Michael of Kent → Marie-Christine, Princess Michael of Kent – Though she is officially Princess Michael of Kent, I find it strange that the article is simply that. It's almost like naming Catherine's article simply "The Princess of Wales." I feel that the individuality of this particular subject is compromised when her own name isn't even mentioned in the title. It is not that I'm necessarily against this customary form for wives of sons of royal dukes, I just believe for reasons unique to Wikipedia that her name ought to be mentioned as her simply having the female form of her husband's title is a bit awkward when the subject is about her individually despite her association. I am cognizant that her name, Marie-Christine, is not part of her style as Her Royal Highness Princess Michael of Kent, but I look to articles like Catherine, Princess of Wales, whose name is mentioned first before her title, but her official title is "Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales", without her name mentioned here. I think this move would be fair in any sense. AKTC3 ( talk) 15:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)