The Family and Lineage of Princess Michael of Kent

[Vicki J]

I totally agree Russo. Newcomers to the fold who may not be aware of protocol and the ever watching eyes of the tabloid press may slip up and make a gaffe or two. However ladies who were born into royalty and make sure everyone knows about it, should know better and be a bit more careful.
That colonies comment had New York buzzing for a few days.

I read a piece in the express about Princess Michael and I was amazed to discover that although she did have a distant aristocratic relative, she was brought up in Australia and the accent is put on. It said her mum was a hairdresser.

Amazing.

 

[sophie25]

Her mother wasn't a hairdresser, that is an another oft-repeated lie by the media. It supposedly came about because her mother put a dermatologist friend of hers in touch with someone she knew in Sydney who owned a chain of beauty salons through which he then sold face creams he produced. The facts then morphed, once again, into something else completley different.

 

[Vicki J]

I'm sorry but every bio I can find states that her mum was either a hairdresser or managed a beauty salon. Even the BBC states this and I can't see them leaving the wrong information up. I can't find anything that gives the same story as you.

I can't see why anyone would have a problem with it, being a hairdresser is a worthwhile job. And it is true that she lived in the suburbs in Australia for 16 years. She has done well to pull herself up by her bootstrings.

 

[Dierna23]

I only read that her mother owned a beauty salon and I agree that this information appears in many biographies.

 

[sophie25]

The correction regarding her mother being a hairdresser is in the biography "Princess Michael of Kent" by Peter Lane. The dermatologist in question was Dr. N.G. Payot. The book reads,

"When the Countess settled in Austrailia, she noticed how dry were the skins of Australian ladies. She decided to invest in the franchise of Dr. Payot's products for Australia....when I discussed this hairdresser story with members of the Countesse's family they were both annoyed and amused....as one of them told me, "The Countess has never learnt to put a curler in her own hair let alone anyone else's". "I hope" ,said another, "that you finally put an end to this silly story".

 

[Dierna23]

Thank you for this interesting information, Angela. Surely hairdresser is a worthwhile job, but I always had my difficulties imagine the Countess being something like that. She married a polish noble man in second marriage, right? As far as I know Marie-Christine has a half brother from the mother's side. Does she have half-siblings through her father as well?

 

[Patra]

I didnt know this information, thanks for clarifying it for us.

 

[Marc23]

I read a piece in the express about Princess Michael and I was amazed to discover that although she did have a distant aristocratic relative, she was brought up in Australia and the accent is put on. It said her mum was a hairdresser.

Amazing.

Vicky,she doesn't have a "distant aristocratic relative",she was born aristocratic from top to toe(via her father and her mother)...she was born a Baroness whose mother was Countess and grandmother a Princess...


The fact is that she is the most blue blooded person to marry British RF in last 50 years stands ...someone might like it and someone may not but it's a pure fact!



She is also a relative of every current European monarch including Queen Elizabeth II with whom she shares the same ancestry...They have both descended from Prince Ferdinand August von Lobkowicz who died in 18th century...

 

[Marc23]

And just to prove you those facts here is an example how she is related to the current King Albert II of Belgium:

You can see that they have both descended from the very distinguished Austrian Windisch-Graetz family...

 

[Dierna23]

I haven't heard of the book by Peter Lane but I saw that it's for sale at 1p + pp. Is it like the books she writes, with fiction mixed in with facts?

No, it is nothing fictional, it is a biography about Princess Michael of Kent, written by Peter Lane, published in 1986.

 

[Vicki J]

Thank you for your friendly reply to my question Dierna23.

I have seen the lineage on Princess Michaels own website Marc23 but I expect I am like a lot of people in Britain, and never considered Austrian aristocrats as significant. I expect this will wind everyone up but so far most of what I have posted seems to have had that effect, I feel as if most of you are jumping down my throat but if your not allowed to ask for information or discuss things am I on the wrong thread or is it the same on every thread or are the regulars the only ones allowed to ask things?

 

[Marc23]

Vicky J,as you see I have even less posts than you,so I don't consider myself regular here

Well,those Austrian aristocrats you and "a lot of people in Britain" don't consider significant were EQUAL by birth to every Royal Family,unlike "significant aristocrats" in Britain who were not...

Also brother of Marie-Christine Baron Friedrich von Reibnitz is married to a noble...His wife Helen is daughter of Sir Bruce and Lady Roma Rodda-Williams...

 

[Dierna23]

As Marc23 pointed out, Austrian aristocrats were equal to to every Royal Family in Europe and because the European Royal Families are more or less related to each other and aristocrats, such as the Austrian aristocrats, often share the same ancestors with reigning houses, such as the British, it indeed has some significance if you're interested in royalty and history IMHO.

 

[Wisteria]

Also brother of Marie-Christine Baron Friedrich von Reibnitz is married to a noble...His wife Helen is daughter of Sir Bruce and Lady Roma Rodda-Williams...

Sir Bruce Rodda Williams is not a noble, he is a Knight of the British Empire and his wife is not Lady Roma, she is Lady Rodda-Williams because of her marriage, it is a courtesy title and does not signify nobility. I believe that although we have the custom to call wives of Knights "Lady" the correct term is Dame, but someone else will know more about that I am sure.
By the way Vicky J, if we don´t ask questions we can never learn.
Sarah Ferguson is of royal descent on both sides of her family and not just one side as Christine of Kent is, l so I believe it is a bit of an exaggeration to say she is the most blue blooded person to marry into the royal family for umpteen years..

 

[MAfan]

Austrian aristocrats were equal to to every Royal Family in Europe...

This is not properly correct; every Royal Family has an higher rank to every noble family, even in Austria. Maybe you and Marc were referring to the marriages between members of the former ruling families in the Holy Roman Empire, recognized as noble houses in the Austrian Empire, and members of a Royal House: those marriages are considered equal, but the rank of the mediatized families remains lower then the rank of a Royal House.

Moreover, not all the Austrian noble families are mediatized: if all the austrian noble families were equal to every european Royal Family, the wedding in 1900 of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Este to Countess Sophie Chotek von Chotkow und Wognin (later Duchess of Hohenberg) would have been equal instead of morganatic.

 

[Dierna23]

I can't speak for Marc, but that was indeed what I was referring to. Of course the rank of the mediatized families remains lower in comparison with a Royal House.
Thanks for clarifying.

 

[MAfan]

You're welcome, Dierna!
Princess Michael surely comes from very illustrious families, mostly on her maternal side, but not from mediatized families; only her maternal grandmother, Countess Hedwig Szapary, born Princess zu Windisch-Graetz, came from a mediatized family.

 

[Vicki J]

Vicky J,as you see I have even less posts than you,so I don't consider myself regular here

Well,those Austrian aristocrats you and "a lot of people in Britain" don't consider significant were EQUAL by birth to every Royal Family,unlike "significant aristocrats" in Britain who were not..

Marc23

I think you might have misunderstood what I was trying to say. You and others on here might know about the importance of aristocratic families from other countries but most people in the UK don't even know there are other aristocratic or even royal families. It is not something that you learn in school. Even Dukes and their wives are not really known about here and not seen as important, which I don't think they are really, especially now most of them have been kicked out of the house of lords.

You're welcome, Dierna!
Princess Michael surely comes from very illustrious families, mostly on her maternal side, but not from mediatized families; only her maternal grandmother, Countess Hedwig Szapary, born Princess zu Windisch-Graetz, came from a mediatized family.

I'm sorry, what is a mediatized?

 

[NotAPretender]

Mediatized = formerly reigning, now royal but not reigning. Usually due to a consolidation of a country that has many reigning principalities or duchies which were then rolled up into one. Germany is a terrific example of that.

 

[Al_bina]

You're welcome, Dierna!
Princess Michael surely comes from very illustrious families, mostly on her maternal side, but not from mediatized families; only her maternal grandmother, Countess Hedwig Szapary, born Princess zu Windisch-Graetz, came from a mediatized family.

We can say that Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz was an appropriate match for Prince Michael, can't we? Of course, she was not the best choice in terms of her religion. That is an entirely different point.

 

[MAfan]

Well, in a period when Royals were starting to marry commoners, even a Baroness could be an appropriate match for a Prince, above all if the Prince is a "minor royal" like Prince Michael is.
The problem of the religion is a different point, you're right; but again, being a "minor royal" may have helped Prince Michael, since he was quite far in the Line of Succession and his marriage to a Catholic didn't cause big problems.

Of course, if the Prince of Wales was to marry a Catholic baroness surely the opposition would have been stronger, and I'm pretty sure that the Queen would not have allowed the marriage; but this is just my opinion.

 

[Marc23]

Well,at some point some of you are right...mediatized families are in general terms ranked below royals,but as far as the marriage prospects are concerned they were recognized as equals...

Sophie Chotek case is not the right one because Chotek family was never a ruling family like Windisch-Graetz family was,so Chotek family,although of very high nobility doesn't belong to mediatized(equal) list of families...

Marie-Christine indeed is the most blue blooded person to marry into the royal family in last 50 years in terms of her royalty "equal" ancestors,unlike Sarah Ferguson,Diana whose "equal" ancestors produced illegitimate issue and only through them are they descended from them etc...

She is noble from her fathers side also although her mothers ancestry is more illustrious one...Reibnitz family was a noble one from the beginning of 14th century and were made Barons in 1724.

Wife of Sir is styled Lady,not Dame!

 

[Al_bina]

Mafan,
You can not deny that the Kent clan is far more noble than the current Windsor family. Emphasising Prince Michael's status as a minor royal does not change the fact that Baroness von Reibnitz was a more apporpriate choice than all daughters-in-law in the reigning clan or the current official/unofficial girlfriends of Prince Charles' sons.

 

[MAfan]

Sophie Chotek case is not the right one because Chotek family was never a ruling family like Windisch-Graetz family was,so Chotek family,although of very high nobility doesn't belong to mediatized(equal) list of families...

Sophie Chotek's case is the right one, if taken in the right context: I was replying to and denying a post that stated that Austrian nobles held the same rank of all the European Royals, and Sophie Chotek's case proves my point.

Only the mediatized families' members can marry equally to a member of a Royal Family; Windisch-Graetz family is a mediatized one, Chotek, Reibnitz and Szapary are not and therefore their members can't contract an equal marriage to a member of an european Royal House.

Another different matter is if the Head of an European Royal House allows a member of his family to marry a noble from a not mediatized family or a commoner (for example, Archduke Karl and Baroness Francesca von Thyssen-Bornemizsa, not an equal marriage under the profile we're talking about, but allowed by the Head of the Imperial Family and therefore dynastically valid).

Mafan,
You can not deny that the Kent clan is far more noble than the current Windsor family. Emphasising Prince Michael's status as a minor royal does not change the fact that Baroness von Reibnitz was a more apporpriate choice than all daughters-in-law in the reigning clan or the current official/unofficial girlfriends of Prince Charles' sons.

I fear I've bad explained my point: I don't deny what you're saying, at all, I agree with you; I only think that his position of minor royal - not due to his ancestry, but due to his minor royal tasks and distant position in the Line of Succession - may have helped the Queen to allow his marriage.
If William asked her permission to marry a Catholic, I think she would refuse it because he is the second in the LoS (and the future King and Head of the Anglican Church).
I hope to have explained better.

 

[Marc23]

Sophie Chotek's case is the right one, if taken in the right context: I was replying to and denying a post that stated that Austrian nobles held the same rank of all the European Royals, and Sophie Chotek's case proves my point.

Only the mediatized families' members can marry equally to a member of a Royal Family; Windisch-Graetz family is a mediatized one, Chotek, Reibnitz and Szapary are not and therefore their members can't contract an equal marriage to a member of an european Royal House.

Another different matter is if the Head of an European Royal House allows a member of his family to marry a noble from a not mediatized family or a commoner (for example, Archduke Karl and Baroness Francesca von Thyssen-Bornemizsa, not an equal marriage under the profile we're talking about, but allowed by the Head of the Imperial Family and therefore dynastically valid).

I think you made my statements out of context...If you read my posts I said that she indeed entered with most "equal" blood into the family in last 50 years and has descended from most "equal" families,not that she is married equally...

Those families are Windisch-Graetz,Schwarzenberg,Arenberg,Oettingen-Oettingen,Savoy,Auersperg,Lobkowicz,Colloredo-Mansfeld and so on...

Baroness Francesca Anna Dolores von Thyssen-Bornemizsa de Kaszon et Imperfalva is a good example of this...although she is born noble and even herself descended from Habsburgs(via her mother) she could not be considered equal by birth...

 

[MAfan]

Ok, I understand your point; btw, Savoy Family is not a mediatized one, since it's a Royal House, ruling on the Kingdom of Sardinia and later on the Kingdom of Italy.

I know it's off topic, but in which way is Archduchess Francesca's mother a descendant from Habsburgs?

 

[Vicki J]

I fear I've bad explained my point: I don't deny what you're saying, at all, I agree with you; I only think that his position of minor royal - not due to his ancestry, but due to his minor royal tasks and distant position in the Line of Succession - may have helped the Queen to allow his marriage.
If William asked her permission to marry a Catholic, I think she would refuse it because he is the second in the LoS (and the future King and Head of the Anglican Church).
I hope to have explained better.

If her family were not mediatized then in her own country she would not have been able to marry into Prince Michaels family, is that right. His family were royal while hers wasn't.

Al_bina if I understand this right, the Kent family can't be more royal because they are only comparable with the Queen and Prince Philip's parents both of which were royal. Only one of their children has married and that is who could be compared to Prince Charles and his brothers and sisters and their spouses and of course his wife is an actress. So I don't see how they could be more royal, which they couldn't be anyway because Britain doesn't follow that sort of system.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Sir Bruce Rodda Williams is not a noble, he is a Knight of the British Empire and his wife is not Lady Roma, she is Lady Rodda-Williams because of her marriage, it is a courtesy title and does not signify nobility. I believe that although we have the custom to call wives of Knights "Lady" the correct term is Dame, but someone else will know more about that I am sure.
By the way Vicky J, if we don´t ask questions we can never learn.
Sarah Ferguson is of royal descent on both sides of her family and not just one side as Christine of Kent is, l so I believe it is a bit of an exaggeration to say she is the most blue blooded person to marry into the royal family for umpteen years..

The wife of a Knight is styled 'Lady' to his 'Sir' but a woman who is knighted in her own right is a 'Dame' and her husband has no matching style.

So Dame Nellie Melba, Dame Joan Sutherland were both 'knighted' in their own right but Lady Jessie Bradman is so styled because she was the wife of Sir Donald Bradman who was the one who was knighted.

Sorry for using Australian examples but off the top of my head I couldn't think of any British ones where I knew the wife's name having forgotten the name of Sir Ian Botham's wife.

 

[Wisteria]

Thanks IluvB very well explained. I found this little bit in Wiki.

"Knights Grand Cross and Knights Commander prefix "Sir", and Dames Grand Cross and Dames Commander prefix "Dame", to their forenames. Wives of Knights may prefix "Lady" to their surnames, but no equivalent privilege exists for husbands of Dames.

I think I know where I had my mix up. They don´t have the prefix to their First names but they have Lady "surname of husband".
On reading that the husbands don´t have any title I remember Dame Margaret
Thatcher´s husband Dennis, saying what I thought at the time was very amusing,"I am the love without name". LOL.

But not to get off the subject, Christine of Kent´s brother is not married to a noblewoman.

 

[Marc23]

Ok, I understand your point; btw, Savoy Family is not a mediatized one, since it's a Royal House, ruling on the Kingdom of Sardinia and later on the Kingdom of Italy.

I know it's off topic, but in which way is Archduchess Francesca's mother a descendant from Habsburgs?

Again,you don't read my post...I said from "equal" families,not just meditized...


I know it's off topic but Francesca descended from Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf I Habsburg as well as some others..for example Kings of England,Scotland,France,Aragon as well as Komnenos,Angelos Emperors of Byzantium etc. even from Friedrich I Barbarossa...you can check her ancestry on genealogics.org