Prince And Princess Michael Of Kent news and pictures 2: 2005-Mar06 - Page 4

**Elspeth** · #61 11-03-2005, 08:07 PM

Possibly both. The Duke and Duchess have sold jewellery, and it would seem that they wouldn't have had to do that if they didn't need the money. 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.

florawindsor · #62 11-04-2005, 01:22 AM

Prince Michael has a consulting company of his own, but I don't know if he makes much money from that company

auntie · #63 11-04-2005, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by james

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

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

justi · #64 11-06-2005, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth

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

Quote:

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.ph...=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 · #65 11-07-2005, 04:14 PM

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 · #66 11-07-2005, 05:21 PM

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 · #67 11-07-2005, 05:23 PM

Quote:

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 · #68 11-07-2005, 07:35 PM

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 · #69 11-07-2005, 08:42 PM

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 · #70 11-07-2005, 10:58 PM

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** · #71 11-07-2005, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan

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** · #72 11-07-2005, 11:20 PM

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 · #73 11-07-2005, 11:51 PM

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** · #74 11-07-2005, 11:52 PM

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 · #75 11-08-2005, 08:41 AM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · #76 11-08-2005, 09:09 AM

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 · #77 11-08-2005, 09:59 AM

Quote:

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 · #78 11-08-2005, 02:40 PM

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 · #79 11-08-2005, 02:45 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 regal