Prince and Princess Michael of Kent Current Events 2: October 2005-March 2006

[auntie]

http://pro.corbis.com/images/0000318796-001.jpg?

Without a beard, Prince Michael looks very similar to his older brother the present Duke.

 

[justi]

The Michaels have talked about needing money in the past, so they as well as the Duke sound as though they've been short of funds.

Money is about to become a bit tighter according to this article

In 2007, when Prince Michael turns 65, the couple will stop receiving financial aid from the Queen.

Article isn't really about that but mentions it in a side note
Channel 4 pulls the plug on ‘Princess Pushy’ film
http://www.royalarchive.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1573&Itemid=2
Gah. In relation to the article I don't blame the channel for pulling the plug- It sounds boring, IMO anyway.

 

[auntie]

You know, I feel bad for the Michaels, I think in a way they are treated unfairly. In QVictoria's, Edward VII's, George V's time, scores of cousins and grandchildren of Monarchs were supported/housed by the monarch, and here we have a couple, who are royal, first cousin to the queen, hardworking, charismatic, ambitious, (and controversiol, I admit)always put down, and they of all, cannot continue living in their home when they retire...

 

[james]

The Kents themselves said at the time of their Silver Wedding that the Queen was going to provide them with a pension when they reached 65 as compensation for having to leave Kensington Palace.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

You know, I feel bad for the Michaels, I think in a way they are treated unfairly

Princess Michael says it is because she is a Roman Catholic and that the Queen hates the Catholic church. True or not, I don't know - but I'm inclined to believe it.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

I don't think HM hates the Catholic Church. I firmly believe she is accepting of all religious beliefs in her realm and the Commonwealth.

I do believe she thinks Princess Michael is a bit glam for her taste and maybe wishes she would bite her tongue on occasion.

Has anyone ever heard or seen any evidence to the contrary which proves HM dislikes Princess Michael because she is Catholic and therefore dislikes the Catholic Church itself?

 

[BeatrixFan]

I don't think the Queen is accepting of ALL religious beliefs but she's certainly more tolerant to some more than others. If she isn't anti-catholic, why won't she intervene and drop the rules on catholics marrying into the RF and taking the throne?

It could be jealousy as to why she dislikes Marie-Christine. A glamorous beautiful elegant woman - and 60 years old to boot.

One rumour (and its just a rumour) is that the Queen told Charles that he musn't have anything to do with Marie-Christine and that William wasn't to be allowed to mix with her children. Certainly the visit figures show that they didn't have much to do with one another. And we know that Anne dislikes her - it was she who coined the name Princess Pushy for Princess Michael.

I believe that the Queen has told her children to stay away from her - and the reasons could be all kinds of things. It could be a private reason, it could be that she thinks she's too above herself or it could be that she wants them to stay away from the catholics in the family.

 

[grecka]

You're talking about a matter of British constitutional law- something the Queen has absolutely nothing to do with. To say that the Queen is anti-Catholic simply because she doesn't overturn the Act of Settlement is like saying she doesn't like the Tories because she hasn't proclaimed Michael Howard prime minister by royal decree. The Queen has nothing to do with politics, so blame Tony Blair and/or the government for not overturning the restrictions on Catholics marrying into the royal family.

 

[Warren]

Princess Michael says it is because she is a Roman Catholic and that the Queen hates the Catholic church. True or not, I don't know - but I'm inclined to believe it.

This is rubbish and I'm surprised it's been posted here. There is not a shred of evidence to support this ridiculous, and offensive, allegation.

 

[Elspeth]

It could have to do with the fact that Prince Michael caused publicity that the Queen would rather not have had, what with marrying a woman who was previously married, Catholic, and being championed by Mountbatten. No doubt the Queen Mother had a few choice words to say on the subject, the Gloucesters apparently were less than amused that Marie Christine had used visits to Barnwell with her husband to get to know Prince Michael (and possibly even to set her cap at Prince William of Gloucester before he died, although that rumour might be pure fiction), and this sort of thing is not what the Queen probably enjoys dealing with. I think the notion of hating the Catholic church, if there's any truth to it, would be some way down the list.

I agree that it's past time for the government to do whatever it takes to get the prohibition on marriage of a royal to a Catholic removed, but I don't think it's the Queen's business to do it, it's the government's. And this government isn't exactly pro-monarchy. If there's something in the law that's potentially embarrassing or problematic to the monarchy, I don't see the present government exerting itself to do anything about it.

 

[tiaraprin]

Her Majesty is not anti-Catholic. Would she let any member of her family marry a Catholic at all if she was so anti-Catholic?

Her Majesty quite simply cannot abide by the obnoxious behaviour of Marie-Christine. The woman is a walking, talking problem that never learns from her mistakes. MC is quite too full of herself for her own good. She is avaricious, grasping, and steps beyond her status as a minor royal.

 

[Zonk]

Now I am all about helping family...I have a sister who I can't get to move out of my house

And I realize that being a part of the royal family is not the same thing....but how long is the Queen expected to provide financial support for some of her family. Again, I realize that I may be in a minority and it is somewhat of a challenge to support yourself in manner of which you were raised without taking a job that may in conflict with your role (i.e. Sophie and Edward as an example) but really. And I know that they do some charity work that they are not compensated for because they are not on the Civil List but I am sure this was an issue that was discussed when they were first married.

What are they going to do when the Queen dies (not that I am advocating this but hey..it happens) Will they expect Charles to compensate them as well. And please bear in mind that I like the junior Kents.

Now I don't know why the Queen supposedly doesn't care for the Mrs. (Princess) but I believe she does care for her cousin and thats probably why she has put up with the wife so long. And I think the Catholic issues is hogwash as well

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

This is rubbish and I'm surprised it's been posted here. There is not a shred of evidence to support this ridiculous, and offensive, allegation.

Well Warren, it's a theory. It's an idea and it hasn't come from a journalist, it's from a Princess of the realm, so I won't dismiss it totally but I'm willing to see fault in it.

I think the notion of hating the Catholic church, if there's any truth to it, would be some way down the list.

You could be right there Elspeth. HM did allow a Catholic Bishop to preach last year at Christmas and conduct a special service for the Royal Family to which both the Duchess of Kent and Princess Michael attended.

Her Majesty quite simply cannot abide by the obnoxious behaviour of Marie-Christine. The woman is a walking, talking problem that never learns from her mistakes.

I think that could be true in HM's eyes because Marie-Christine certainly has a unique way of doing things. But is she really that bad tiaraprin? When you think about it, she's just had a pretty bad press. The newspapers are always calling her a German when she isn't, they make her out to be a scrounger - when she isn't. Both Prince and Princess Michael work hard and I feel that the Queen has a personal sense of guilt where the Kents are concerned. Princess Marina wasn't treated too well in her later years and maybe there's bad blood there that the Queen tries to make up for by giving them the apartment in Kensington Palace. But maybe she still doesn't want to get too close to them because of their reputation, however unfair it is.

MC is quite too full of herself for her own good. She is avaricious, grasping, and steps beyond her status as a minor royal.

Remember that she's not a commoner by any standards - it's often been said that she's got far more royal blood than the Queen herself. Again, a possible reason for dislike. I don't think Marie-Christine is too full of herself, but I think she's got an idea of what a Princess should be and how a Princess should behave. Imperious and able to do what she likes because of her station in life.

You're talking about a matter of British constitutional law- something the Queen has absolutely nothing to do with.

That's true and I probably shouldn't have bought that into it. Thats the can of worms the RF don't want opening - succession etc.

 

[tiaraprin]

I think Marie Christine has reaped what she has sowed. She isn't the innocent victim that you portray. While yes she does have a prestigious lineage, she still comes out shortstacked as a minor royal.

The idea that she is a princess and therefore has the right to be imperious and do what she wants due to her station in life is quite a repugnant statement. Even Her Majesty does not act in such a pompous manner and does what is best.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

She isn't the innocent victim that you portray

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think she's totally innocent. The Sheik Buisness - she should have known better after the Countess of Wessex incident but apart from that, I think she's made very few mistakes. It seems that there's a huge stockpile of her wrong doings, but I can't see what she's done wrong. Can anyone explain what exactly she's supposed to be guilty of?

 

[Lady Marmalade]

HM cannot as a few people pointed out repeal the act of law barring any royal who marries a Catholic from taking the throne.

That is your constitional law, Beatrixfan, taught in your schools, I would hope, you should know that.

I think what Elspeth, Warren, tiaraprin, and grecka have stated are correct. Part of it she has the wonderful habit of putting her foot in her mouth on occasion and on others may behave a little too regally for a junior member of the royal family married to the second son.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

That is your constitional law, Beatrixfan, taught in your schools, I would hope, you should know that

Thats where you're mistaken Lady M. We don't have lessons in 'constitutional law' and the national curriculum changes with each Government.

Part of it she has the wonderful habit of putting her foot in her mouth on occasion and on others may behave a little too regally for a junior member of the royal family married to the second son

But when? I don't know when all these incidents with Marie-Christine have happened. Maybe it's ignorance on my part but there was the Sheik and the Restaurant (which I believe was a basic misunderstanding) and thats it. In other areas, she's defended Prince Harry, she's proved that you can be Royal and have a career and she's not afraid to put her point across.

 

[Elspeth]

I don't think BeatrixFan was suggesting that the Queen repeal the law, just that she apply a bit of pressure on the government to do something about it. Unfortunately, what'll probably happen is that the government will consider it a low priority and do nothing until backed into a corner by a situation where an heir wants to marry a Catholic, then rush to change things at the last minute and only succeed in making people think it's somehow the royal family's fault.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

I don't think BetrixFan was suggesting that the Queen repeal the law, just that she apply a bit of pressure on the government to do something about it

That is what I meant - sorry, I should have been clearer in my reply. I believe that the Queen should just have a word with the Government and try and alter a few parts of succession around without unleashing a huge debate on the Monarchy.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

I did not know that. Thank you for letting me know. I did not realize the curriculum changes with each government.

The only thing I know about your constitution is that it is mostly unwritten and the longest in the world.

I agree with you about the sheik incident. But she really just should have kept her mouth shut about other members of the Royal Family.

While I do think she is refreshingly entertaining and full of charm, and does know how to dress like a royal and wear a tiara, she just oversteps it sometimes.

I may be alone, but I honestly believe she did not make the statements in New York alleged towards her. I believe they were taken out of context by a group of people looking to always drag up the same old record over and over again.

 

[Jil]

Is Prince Michael of Kent ill? I saw a photo of him at the christening of Princess Maria Chiara (daughter of the Duke and Duchess of Calabria of Italy). He looked old and unwell.When did he go bald? Why was Princess Michael wearing a scarf over her head at the christening? Was it a new type of fashion statement or is she losing her hair? I was shoked to see how Prince Michael looks now!

 

[Elspeth]

Just so we don't have any international misunderstandings here, is it really true that the National Curriculum changes with every government? This sounds a bit as though each government remakes it from scratch as part of the duty of the government, and I really didn't think that was the case. Without getting too far off topic, could you amplify a bit?

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

I did not know that. Thank you for letting me know. I did not realize the curriculum changes with each government.

Well, officially it doesn't. But it always does. When the Conservatives are in, the curriculum is full of the Empire, Christianity, British Trade etc etc but when a Labour Government is in, all those things are dropped and 'socialist' topics are brought in. Neither ever give lessons in politics, law, constitutions etc. It's only through my own reading that I know how the government works, who the RF are, the position of the Church and basic every day topics. It's silly but thats the way they do things here.

The only thing I know about your constitution is that it is mostly unwritten and the longest in the world.

Very true. Politicians bang on about the constitution but we don't have one per se. We have a room full of law books but no actual written thing that we call the constitution.

I agree with you about the sheik incident. But she really just should have kept her mouth shut about other members of the Royal Family.

I agree. You don't tell a stranger about your family whether Princess or pea.

While I do think she is refreshingly entertaining and full of charm, and does know how to dress like a royal and wear a tiara, she just oversteps it sometimes.

I can see your point. I've seen her upstage the Queen a little bit and thats sad because she doesn't have to do that.

I may be alone, but I honestly believe she did not make the statements in New York alleged towards her. I believe they were taken out of context by a group of people looking to always drag up the same old record over and over again

No, you're not alone. I think that those people saw Princess Michael, were embarrased at being asked to keep the noise down by a member of the Royal Family and made a hoo-hah out of it. If it had been Princess Alexandra or the Countess of Wessex, the claim would have been dismissed but Marie-Christine has this air of mistake around her and so it sounded plausible that she could have been racist - but she wasn't. I truly believe that she wasn't.

 

[Elspeth]

It struck me as rather ironic at the time that this group of people were being so disruptive that they'd been asked several times to settle down, and all of a sudden managed to spin things so they ended up being the victims. Whatever Princess Michael said, the fact is that she and everyone else in the restaurant were having their evening ruined by a group of rude and inconsiderate people. It's no wonder that frustration was running high.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Thank you Beatrixfan for the explanations. I do appreciate your help.

I agree Elspeth with you and Beatrixfan. But in my country there are those who like to attribute everything to certain events in the past and they start getting loud and immediately like to darken people's characters publicly.

I think they were ticked off she asked them to quiet down. They then saw this as their opportunity to bring up the same old issues over and over again.

I cannot imagine her saying those exact words in any situation.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Thank you Beatrixfan for the explanations. I do appreciate your help

Its a pleasure!

Whatever MC may have done I don't think she's stupid enough to make racist comments and I'm glad to see that its the general opinion that she didnt make them.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

As I said before, there are those in my country who try and link everything to racism.

They probably figured out she was famous and a member of the royal family and saw an opportunity to play victims.

 

[tiaraprin]

Oh don't get me wrong, I don't think she's totally innocent. The Sheik Buisness - she should have known better after the Countess of Wessex incident but apart from that, I think she's made very few mistakes. It seems that there's a huge stockpile of her wrong doings, but I can't see what she's done wrong. Can anyone explain what exactly she's supposed to be guilty of?

Well, if we go back in time, she has been accused of being a "freeloader" long before Sarah Ferguson got the reputation for that. She has also been accused of cheating on her husband with wealthy American men, one such being Ward Hunt. She has been accused of sneaking out of aforementioned man's house in a disguise when his wife was not present.

 

[Margrethe II]

Well, if we go back in time, she has been accused of being a "freeloader" long before Sarah Ferguson got the reputation for that. She has also been accused of cheating on her husband with wealthy American men, one such being Ward Hunt. She has been accused of sneaking out of aforementioned man's house in a disguise when his wife was not present.

Indeed accused, but not convicted

"MII"

 

[BeatrixFan]

Re:

Well, if we go back in time, she has been accused of being a "freeloader" long before Sarah Ferguson got the reputation for that. She has also been accused of cheating on her husband with wealthy American men, one such being Ward Hunt. She has been accused of sneaking out of aforementioned man's house in a disguise when his wife was not present.

As Margrethe II says, those are accusations. I can't remember them coming to light over here apart from the 'freeloader' bit but then that was a huge debate not only about Princess Michael but about the Kents and the Gloucesters too. I dont think there was a resident of Kensington Palace apart from Princess Margaret and Princess Alice who escaped the 'scrounger' tag when it all blew up about the rents etc.