Talk:Princess Michael of Kent

message: 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)
* She calls herself Princess Michael of Kent, as her website shows. Astrotrain July 8, 2005 11:01 (UTC)
* agree. this has nothing to do with her being surpressed as a woman. if that´s what she calls herself (see her homepage), then let it be.. Antares911 21:23, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you follow the link near the bottom of the page (also here, Princess Michael's Descent from Diane de Poitiers and Catherine de' Medici), you will see that Diane and Catherine were cousins.  As usually happens, a pair of their descendants married, and so the link to Princess Michael. Prsgoddess187 16:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title: What website?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Music teacher? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Rubens

message: 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)
thread_title: Page move to "Michael, Princess of Kent"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Royal blood 

message: 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)
thread_title:  gossip section? 

message: 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.
: Can we please pause for breath by making this at least 2 sentences, preferably 3?  --  Jack of Oz [your turn] 01:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Long sentence

message: 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)
replies: text: Okay, so she got muddled in an interview, what books have you written lately? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Henry VIII + Catherine of Braganza 

message: Dreams Come True (UK charity), still a royal patron? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Can someone please check this and source it up?

message: 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
:William and Michael both hold customary or courtesy titles of "Prince", neither of them are Prince OF anywhere, like the Prince of Wales is. Michael may have the suffix "of Kent" in his name but that is merely to identify him as being from Kent (or perhaps rather because his father was Duke of Kent). There is no such title as Prince of Kent. Spouses of someone who hold a courtesy title of "Prince or Princess" are not entitled to use the title "Prince or Princess" with their own name. Indeed, even Catherine does not use the title "Princess" at all - contrary to popular belief, she is NOT in fact a princess. And if she wanted to use the title "Princess" she would have to go by "Princess William", just like Marie has to. In fact, even a spouse of someone who does hold a title of Prince of Princess OF somewhere does not style themselves officially with their own name - or their spouse's. "Princess Diana" for example is a misnomer and not an official title - her actual title before she divorced was "HRH The Princess of Wales". No name, whether her's or her husband's. Likewise, Catherine's official title is merely "HRH The Duchess of Cambridge". Informally, she may be called "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" but that is because her husband is Duke OF Cambridge, it is not a courtesy title like his title of "Prince" is. They are different types of titles and therefore different rules apply to them. When William becomes Prince of Wales, then Catherine can be known as "Catherine, Princess of Wales" but until then, she could only use "Prince William, Duchess of Cambridge". Therefore, Princess Michael of Kent is not an incorrect title, nor is it sexist or right-wing motivated. Were the roles reversed, a man could not use the title "Prince" with his name if he married a Princess with the courtesy title of "Princess" - he too would have to go by "Prince Marie Christine". But rarely do spouses of either gender choose to use this type of title. The rules of peerage is complex but perhaps you should attempt to understand it before hurling inaccurate accusations at the hard working volunteers who do make the effort to understand it and create and maintain free articles for your enlightenment.
:Also, please leave your signature on any comments you make, as per Wikipedia's policy. I think I've been able to add it for you for now but please use it yourself in the future. Robin (talk) 23:28, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also mention that she's not the only person to be titled like this on Wikipedia. Take a look at Princess Tomohito of Mikasa for example. She's a Japanese royal and her own name is something else. Keivan.fTalk 15:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is farcical to assert that the rules governing titles and styles-of-address are not sexist. You're kidding, right? Tell it to HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS Prince Philip (married a female Monarch), the son-in-law of HER MAJESTY The Queen Mother (married a male Monarch). Tell it to any oldest child of a peer who is female. It's BEYOND BELIEF that anyone would say this is not sexism. And ANYTHING to do with hereditary titles is right-wing. It's based on an inherently anti-egalitarian view of political life. Here in the USA, your parents' achievements do NOTHING to give you a high rank in political life. You have to take your parents' money (or celebrity) and BUY yourself a high rank, rather than have it GIVEN to you. (Meaning of course that because you spent money to acquire influence, you have less left over to spend on a lavish unearned lifestyle.)2604:2000:C682:B600:7D2E:4F68:5270:F31E (talk) 19:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You might think it's sexist, but it's most definitely NOT incorrect.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.113.94.129 (talk) 10:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect and incredibly sexist/extreme title 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150402013753/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/PrinceandPrincessMichaelofKent/Activities.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/PrinceandPrincessMichaelofKent/Activities.aspx
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160303174815/http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3956.asp to http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page3956.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100921205334/http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Catholic-Church/media_centre/local_news/translation_of_remains_of_cardinal_newman_at_his_birmingham_oratory to http://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Catholic-Church/media_centre/local_news/translation_of_remains_of_cardinal_newman_at_his_birmingham_oratory
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924092331/http://www.royalinsight.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Michael.jpg to http://www.royalinsight.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Michael.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: The article doesn't say she is "not of royal blood". Celia Homeford (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Under marriages it says "not being of royal birth, she is therefore not titled Princess Marie Christine." -- AW (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct. She isn't of royal birth. That's not the same as having royal blood. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

text: Put another way - barons per se aren't royal. - Nunh-huh 09:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not of royal blood"? But she’s a baroness 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Blackamoor brooch 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Reibnitz" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: adding "and speciesism" does not fix the problem; the mention should be removed. believing in "speciesism" is silly. 2601:642:C481:4640:0:0:0:D24D (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: 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"?
--Oudeístalk  11:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remarriage