Jump to content

Talk:Princess Michael of Kent

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Why does she have a man's name?

[edit]

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[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    • See also Princess Tomohito of Mikasa which is a somewhat similar case. Gryffindor 02:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So because Charles's title is Prince of Wales, not Prince Charles of Wales, Diana simply became Princess of Wales? And Princess Diana is a common but bogus alteration of Diana, Princess of Wales, and referring to Princess Michael as Princess Marie Christine would be an example of the same? (For that matter, looking at the Titles, styles, honours and arms section, was Marie Christine conceived as a double-barrelled name, or was it originally her first two given names and later combined into one name?) — Smjg (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither Diana or Marie-Christine would have been entitled to call themselves Princess [Name], as they were/are princesses by marriage, not birth. Typically however, princes of the United Kingdom are given a peerage on the occasion of their marriage (Charles being an exception, as he was already Prince of Wales, which is the most senior royal title below sovereign anyway). Hence Prince William became Duke of Cambridge and Prince Harry became Duke of Sussex - so while their wives could theoretically have chosen to be known as Princess William and Princess Henry, typically royal brides use the peer title, which entitles them to be Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge or Diana, Princess of Wales ("Princess Diana" being a common reference in the press, but not an accurate one).

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)[reply]

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

German and Austrian aristocrats don't have titles anymore. Those have become part of the surname (Art. 109 Abs. 3 Satz 2 WRV vom 11. August 1919 (RGBl. S. 1383)). So she became Mrs. Thomas Troubridge (sic!) after her marriage. After a divorce she could have gotten back to her maiden NAME (NOT a title). Do educate yourself at least a tiny little bit before writing such blatant nonsense.

--88.73.242.208 (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't the feminine form of "Michael" - Michaela? It is here in Sweden at least =) --Shandristhe azylean 15:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Members of the Austrian nobility lose their rank upon unequal marriage. Therefore, I think Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz did in fact become Mrs. Thomas Troubridge. The fact that she was listed afterwords as Mrs. Marie-Christine Troubridge instead of her original title attests to this. Furthermore, names when used with honorifics are titles - courtesy, of course. Therefore, we should show the proper forms of address for the subject between her first and second marriages. 74.12.104.111 (talk) 07:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no Austrian nobility. It was completely abolished in 1919.
--Peter Putzer (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Michelle is the standard English language equivalent, isn't it? I don't know why the family thought this name was okay. "Princess Robert", "Princess John", etc etc. --98.246.156.76 (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they feminise Prince Michael's name? Surtsicna (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you astrotrain

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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 ..."
You ARE stupid and uninformed, arent't you? With that, your selfconsciously condescending tone, your vain and phoney display of erudition and your choice of a screen name don't go together all that well. The name of Queen Stupidissima and a little bit more humility would suit you better. [In fact, Prince Charles was styled Duke of Cornwall before he became Prince of Wales.] One doesn't even have to break one's back by reading a book, a simple Wikipedia search would have sufficed.

--88.73.242.208 (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Prince of Wales is a different title than Prince, and obeys different rules. The styles and titles of Prince and Princess is automatically granted to children of the sovereign, but not to their spouses. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Prince Roger Nelson a woman too?
-c/o Knight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.151.33 (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What website?

[edit]

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)[reply]


She grew up in Australia

[edit]

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

Music teacher?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Rubens

[edit]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Page move to "Michael, Princess of Kent"

[edit]

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)[reply]

Royal blood

[edit]

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)[reply]

gossip section?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Long sentence

[edit]

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)[reply]

Henry VIII + Catherine of Braganza

[edit]

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)[reply]

Okay, so she got muddled in an interview, what books have you written lately? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's still incorrect, regardless of her literary output. 66.67.32.161 (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please check this and source it up?

[edit]

Dreams Come True (UK charity), still a royal patron? Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect and incredibly sexist/extreme title

[edit]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Not of royal blood"? But she’s a baroness

[edit]

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)[reply]

The article doesn't say she is "not of royal blood". Celia Homeford (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Put another way - barons per se aren't royal. - Nunh-huh 09:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A baroness is noble, not royal. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blackamoor brooch

[edit]

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)[reply]

RfC about the allegations in the "In the media" section

[edit]

The consensus is to remove both allegations. Cunard (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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.fTalk 06:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Reibnitz" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

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)[reply]

Racism

[edit]

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)[reply]


"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Remarriage

[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move 20 June 2023

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. WP:COMMONNAME. (non-admin closure) SilverLocust (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Weak oppose: See Princess Michael of Kent#Books. She has written several books. As an author, she seems to use the current article name (typically introduced with Her Royal Highness on a separate line and in a different font, but not necessarily including that on the cover), without prefixing it with "Marie-Christine". That may seem unusual, but who are we to decide that her name is too strange to be acceptable to Wikipedia? The suggested title is a red link – it doesn't even currently exist as a redirect. Unless some WP:IRS evidence is given that the current article title is not her WP:COMMONNAME, the article should continue to use the name that has been stable here for 12 years. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your reasoning, however The King, before his accession, had written a number of book as "HRH The Prince of Wales" despite his title before his accession being "Charles, Prince of Wales" — and other figures like Meghan, Duchess of Sussex are merely known as "The Duchess of Sussex" on official websites. AKTC3 (talk) 20:04, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "Princess of Wales" and "Princess X of Y" are two very different titles with different usages. Titling an article simply "The Princess of Wales" would not be WP:PRECISE. However, an article titled "Princess Michael of Kent" is WP:PRECISE and is the WP:COMMONNAME (roughly demonstrated by ngrams, which don't show the proposed title at all and her present title is far more common than her maiden name [1]). I personally find the proposed title a little awkward as well.
I understand the rationale behind this RM, but I just can't find any sources or policy to support the move. estar8806 (talk) ★ 01:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Agree with Estar8806. Keep the current article title, which is the unambiguous and unique common name. There is no need to invent an unknown and unrecognisable new article title. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's obvious that the current title is the WP:COMMONNAME and is the name preferred and used by the subject (MOS:IDENTITY). Estar8806 is also right. There has only been one "Princess Michael of Kent" but several princesses of Wales (or duchesses of Edinburgh, or duchesses of Kent, etc.). For other royal women, sources also tend to use their personal first names as well (many sources refer to Prince Edward's wife as Sophie instead of constantly calling her "The Duchess of Edinburgh"); that's not the case with Princess Michael. And she's not unique in this aspect. Princess Tomohito of Mikasa is another example from a different royal family. Keivan.fTalk 21:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Princess_Michael_of_Kent&oldid=1206660493"