Prince and Princess Michael of Kent Current Events 4: September 2006-September 2009


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prince Michael was 66 on July 4.

Coincidentally, Franklin Roosevelt was one of his godparents (as well as the kings of Greece and Norway and the queen of The Netherlands, among others).
 
I just think he's got that "look", I'm not sure how to explain it, it's that look when a rose has come full bloom and they start that wilt. Not incredibly noticeable, but you know the flower has bloomed and is getting ready for that whole circle of life sort of thing. . .
 
I just think he's got that "look", I'm not sure how to explain it, it's that look when a rose has come full bloom and they start that wilt. Not incredibly noticeable, but you know the flower has bloomed and is getting ready for that whole circle of life sort of thing. . .
You made me laugh..:ROFLMAO::ROFLMAO: He is almost 70.years old....The bloom from that rose has fallen off a long time ago..........but....he can still go out on a date with an unknown who looks mighty young......:ROFLMAO:
 
Pics 7.9.2008

Prince Michael at the "Fly With The Stars" musical gala, London
Palladium, Argyll St., London, England. September 7th, 2008

** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 **
 
Pic 6.9.2008

Like Princess Eugenie and her mother Sarah, Prince and Princess
Michael of Kent have been guests at Maya Flick's birthday party
in Regensburg, Germany, September 6, 2008. The dress code for
that 50th birthday had been to wear red clothes.

----> Pic
 
I think Prince and Princess Michael did a decent job wearing red clothes. Due to some reason, I have never imagined Prince Michael wearing kilt, but he looked regal indeed. In view of Princess Michael's photo, I think that too much of the red cheapened her look. Of course, I can be wrong in assumptions.
 
What a nice picture, Prince Michael strutting his legs and everything! :D He always looks so regal these days, with the white beard and everything. He's starting to resemble some ancestors, and he looks like a Tsar Michael to me...
 
I think Prince and Princess Michael did a decent job wearing red clothes. Due to some reason, I have never imagined Prince Michael wearing kilt, but he looked regal indeed. In view of Princess Michael's photo, I think that too much of the red cheapened her look. Of course, I can be wrong in assumptions.
He looked rather like a Scottish king, did he not? :D
Of course Marie-Christine looked DEE-LISH.
 
I see what you mean, Al_bina about Princess Michael looking a bit "cheap." The head-dress doesn't do her any favours--looks a bit "Moulin Rouge" to me.:) I can't think of another picture of Prince Michael in a kilt except when he was a page at someone's wedding...perhaps the Queen's?

I think Prince and Princess Michael did a decent job wearing red clothes. Due to some reason, I have never imagined Prince Michael wearing kilt, but he looked regal indeed. In view of Princess Michael's photo, I think that too much of the red cheapened her look. Of course, I can be wrong in assumptions.
 
I think the two of them together look as if they're in costume for something. Fortunately for them that's sort of the point...
 
Pics 29.9.2008

Some nice new pics of the couple :flowers:

Prince and Princess Michael of Kent arrived for an unofficial visit to Split,
Croatia. They have been staying in Marmont Hotel in the city centre. The
hotel has been named after Napoleon's general Marmont that used to be
on power in this area. Split, Croatia -29/09/2008

** Pic 1 ** Pic 2 ** Pic 3 ** Pic 4 ** Pic 5 **
 
I've noticed that they holiday together as a couple often which I think proves that they have a happy marraige and not the marraige of convenience that some sections of the press try to make out it is.
 
Photo Call of Prince and Princess Michael's engagement in 1978. I didn't see it posted here yet.
 
beautiful princess Michael!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've noticed that they holiday together as a couple often which I think proves that they have a happy marraige and not the marraige of convenience that some sections of the press try to make out it is.

I can´t see why it would be a marriage of convenience for either parties as Christine didn´t have money and he had to give up his place in the line of succession to the throne as she was a catholic..... he too is not wealthy so it must have been love.
I wouldn´t take it as a sign that they are holidaying together though...
 
I can´t see why it would be a marriage of convenience for either parties as Christine didn´t have money and he had to give up his place in the line of succession to the throne as she was a catholic..... he too is not wealthy so it must have been love.
I wouldn´t take it as a sign that they are holidaying together though...

..... it is often reported that all is not well in the Kent marriage only because of the number of other "very close" male friends that the Princess has had. I don't think it was a marriage of convenience at the outset!
 
Muriel you wrote what I was thinking..... It had to be love at the outset but some of her holidays were not in her husband´s company.
 
Prince and Princess Michael pay a so-called "peppercorn rent" for their Kensigton apartment. Now they will be forced to pay a commercial rate for the above apartment.
... When it was claimed that the couple pay a rent of only £69 per week (although other sources state the figure as £76) for the use of their apartments at Kensington Palace, a committee of MPs demanded they be evicted. The British Monarchy Media Centre, however, refutes these controversial reports and states that, "The Queen is paying the rent for Prince and Princess Michael of Kent's apartment at a commercial rate of £120,000 annually from her own private funds. This rent payment by The Queen is in recognition of the Royal engagements and work for various charities which Prince and Princess Michael of Kent have undertaken at their own expense, and without any public funding." ...
Reference: NationMaster - Encyclopedia: Prince Michael of Kent
 
I am so glad that they are going to be able to keep their home. A few years ago the Princess said in an interview that she and her husband had offered to pay a commercial rent rather than lose the house but that the Palace had said no to this and they would have to leave come what may in 2009. I am glad the Palace has changed it's mind and allowed them to stay under these conditions.
 
Holy Schnikes! :eek: That's a pretty penny! 10K Pounds!
 
A lot of money, BUT when you consider the posh location of Kensington Palace and all: nice apartment, private garden, central location, 24-hour police guards on duty, etc. The equivalent in London would cost much more.
It's a pity that they gave up their beautiful country home because they could not afford both the Kensington Palace digs and the country home.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the Queen says that they will be paying the rent, but that she herself out of family duty will pony up most of the the money every month.
Prince Michael and his wife have pretty much behaved themselves (at least recently) and have stayed together - they do support the Queen - he is a marvelous representative overseas, fluent in several languages, Prince Michael is a real asset to the Royal Family.
 
Yes, it has all the amenities and security, but Marie-Christine has made it a point to say they haven't a lot of money.
 
Holy Schnikes! :eek: That's a pretty penny! 10K Pounds!

And the Queen should really point out that when most of her subjects are struggling to make ends meet it isn't wise for the minor Royals to be shouting about how hard they have it.
 
I think it is very unfair that the Kents have been criticised so heavily for their virtually free use of KP over the years. To put it in perspective, they were given this apartment at a time when the Queen considered such a thing to be within her personal gift with no thought to the taxpayer. She cannot be so blase with regard to publicly owned buildings now but at the time no one thought there was anything odd about the Kents living there. As times moved on attitudes changed but it is not right to call them spongers anymore than it would be to criticise the Queen for exercising what she thought at the time was her right ie to provide a home for them in a State owned Palace. Although, it's interseting that no section of the media has dared to attck the Monarch for her role in this even though it is a central one. Instead the Kents are getting it in the neck as though they had simply took over their apartment with no permission from anyone. I think the Queen herself, to her credit, feels a bit annoyed about this too and that's why she is allowing them to remain there if possible.
 
I remember a story that the Kents were rather annoyed when they were asked to exchange their apartment for a smaller one, I really can´t remember who it was for but I think it was for either Prince Charles,or perhaps Prince William and Prince Harry after their mother´s death, anyone remember this? Whether they moved or not at that time I can´t remember.
They are very minor royals so they can´t expect the Queen to pay for them to live in luxury forever. That is a lot of rent to pay though, I wonder if they can afford it.
 
They are very minor royals so they can´t expect the Queen to pay for them to live in luxury forever. That is a lot of rent to pay though, I wonder if they can afford it.

QEII will also be providing Prince Michael a pension. It would be interesting to know the amount of this annual salary. If it just happens to be the same amount as the annual rent to remain at Kensington Palace it sure seems like an ingenious solution to making good on her promise to allow the Kents to live rent free for life.

:crown8:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom