Talk:Princess Michael of Kent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British Royalty This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Royalty (a child project of the Royalty and Nobility Work Group), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to British Royalty on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you should visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]


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.

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)
  • Yes. It's well-established, and no one in the UK would dream of calling her anything else. Deb 21:44, 22 July 2005 (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.

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)

Fangoria magazine stated about 20 years ago that she is related to Vlad III Dracula and Genghis Khan as well. Is this true?

Contents

[edit] Why does she have a man's name?

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

  • A woman marrying a man traditonally assumes the female version of his title. The female version of her husband's title is Princess Michael. The female version of Charles's title is Princess of Wales, that is what Diana was known as during her marriage. If Prince Michael of Kent had a peerage, Princess Michael would assume the female form of that title. Astrotrain 21:31, 21 February 2006 (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

But isn't the feminine form of "Michael" - Michaela? It is here in Sweden at least =) --Shandristhe azylean 15:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you astrotrain

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 if 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)

The Queen could have got around the problem of the clumsy title by giving Prince Michael a peerage. If he'd have been a Duke, she could have been Her Royal Highness the Duchess of (Wherever). But no peerage was forthcoming. It also means that, apart from the non-hereditary courtesy titles given to the couple's children (Lord and Lady) there will be no title to hand on to their descendants. Indisciplined 17:40, 1 September 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

"If they had married before he was invested as The Prince of Wales she would have been known as HRH The Prince Charles" Actually, she'd've been HRH The Duchess of Cornwall... † DBD 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] What website?

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)


[edit] She grew up in Australia

I have removed the phase she grew up in mozombique.She grew up i n Australia..

[edit] Music teacher?

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)