The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Weddings (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f31/)
-   -   Prince Michael of Kent & Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz: 30 June 1978 (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f31/prince-michael-of-kent-and-baroness-marie-christine-von-reibnitz-30-june-1978-a-26250.html)

Dierna23 12-12-2009 04:33 AM

Prince Michael of Kent & Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz: 30 June 1978
 
On 30 June 1978, Prince Michael was married, at a civil ceremony, at the Rathaus, Vienna, Austria, to Baroness Marie-Christine von Reibnitz, the only daugther of the Silesian nobleman Baron Gunther Hubertus von Reibnitz, and his Hungarian-born wife, Maria Anna Carolina Franziska Walpurga Bernadette, Countess Szapáry de Muraszombath, Széchysziget et Szapár.

The Kents' marriage was controversial because the Baroness was not only a Roman Catholic, but also a divorcée. She was previously married to banker Thomas Troubridge; they separated in 1973, divorced in 1977, and had their marriage annulled by the Roman Catholic Church a year later, two months before her marriage to Prince Michael. Under the terms of the Act of Settlement 1701, which governs the laws of the succession to the British Throne, Prince Michael forfeited his place in the line of succession through marriage to a Roman Catholic.[source: Wikipedia]

A few pictures from the wedding:

http://i45.tinypic.com/14am0yp.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/11vthg2.jpg with Lord Louis Mountbatten and Princess Anne
http://i49.tinypic.com/303gxhg.jpg
http://i48.tinypic.com/r7oxuo.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/egcm5z.jpg
http://i48.tinypic.com/o5ngg8.jpg
http://i50.tinypic.com/qrc0vt.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/dpeja1.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/2nbzp4z.jpg
http://i47.tinypic.com/313tbtv.jpg group photograph with the family
http://i45.tinypic.com/mh6kv8.jpg the bride with her mother and Princess Olga of Yugoslavia

Marc23 12-13-2009 02:21 AM

Great pictures and a great find..can someone name other people in the photos?

pdas1201 12-13-2009 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc23 (Post 1030285)
Great pictures and a great find..can someone name other people in the photos?

Picture 3: The bride with Lady Elizabeth Shakerley (sister of the Earl of Lichfield)
Picture 5: The couple with the groom's older brother, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent.
Picture 6: (L-R): Duke of Kent, Princess Alexandra, The couple, Angus Ogilvy (standing behind the couple), Lady Helen Windsor, Princess Anne and Lord Mountbatten.
Picture 9: Lady Elizabeth Shakerley walking behind the bride, no idea about the other two men.
Picture 10: (L-R): Baron Friedrich von Reibnitz (bride's brother), Count Laszlo Szapary (bride's uncle), Angus Ogilvy, Baron Gunther von Reibnitz (bride's father), Princess Anne, Lady Helen Windsor, Lord Mountbatten, Princess Alexandra and Duke of Kent.

Patra 12-13-2009 09:06 AM

I just loved these photos, thanks so much for posting them. I think Prince Michael has gotten more handsome as he has aged. Princess Michael, has always been a stunning european beauty, IMO.

Dierna23 12-13-2009 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marc23 (Post 1030285)
Great pictures and a great find..can someone name other people in the photos?

I'm sorry, I should have named all the people in the pictures. Thanks for this addition, pdas1201. :flowers:

Their marriage was only a civil marriage, because Princess Michael is catholic, so they didn't found a church to marry in. A couple of years later they were allowed to marry in a church and they renewed their wedding vows in a private ceremony held in the Archbishop's House near Westminster Cathedral on 25th July 1983. Here are two pictures of this occasion:

http://i582.photobucket.com/albums/s...3/78978866.jpg
http://i582.photobucket.com/albums/s...3/78978852.jpg

Their engagement picture:

http://i50.tinypic.com/ipqf6r.jpg

Another picture from the civil wedding 1978 at Vienna:

http://i46.tinypic.com/k34n4x.jpg

pdas1201 12-15-2009 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dierna23 (Post 1030564)
I'm sorry, I should have named all the people in the pictures. Thanks for this addition, pdas1201. :flowers:

Their marriage was only a civil marriage, because Princess Michael is catholic, so they didn't found a church to marry in. A couple of years later they were allowed to marry in a church and they renewed their wedding vows in a private ceremony held in the Archbishop's House near Westminster Cathedral on 25th July 1983. Here are two pictures of this occasion:

You're most welcome, Dierna23:flowers:

I just wanted to clarify something you wrote above. There was no church wedding and only a civil ceremony because Marie Christine was a divorcee not because she was Catholic. The Anglican and Catholic Church refused to recognize the union. They weren't allowed to get married at an English registrar's office either, so they got married in Vienna.

Prince Michael lost his place in the succession due to his marriage to a Catholic as per the 1701 Act of Settlement. Since, their children were raised Anglican, they kept their place in the succession.

And as you posted above, they were allowed to get remarried in a Catholic ceremony in 1983.

MAfan 12-15-2009 04:12 AM

Why weren't they allowed to marry at an English registrar's office?

Dierna23 12-15-2009 04:39 AM

:previous:

In Great Britain members of the Royal Family aren't allowed to get married in a register office. To be honest, I don't know the exactly reasons for this rule.
But they had to marry abroad because of that.

pdas1201 12-15-2009 04:57 AM

I am not aware of any rule about royal family members not being allowed to marry at the registrar's office. I believe it hasn't been done before but I don't know if there is a set rule in place stating that it can't be done. Actually, I don't see why not.

As for the reasons, I would think it was due to the fact that she was not only Catholic but a divorcee marrying into the royal family. The marriage was already controversial, so it might have been thought better that no English registrar take part in it, best to let them get married on foreign shore.

MAfan 12-15-2009 05:01 AM

But Charles and Camilla did, didn't they?

Dierna23 12-15-2009 05:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdas1201 (Post 1031019)
I am not aware of any rule about royal family members not being allowed to marry at the registrar's office. I believe it hasn't been done before but I don't know if there is a set rule in place stating that it can't be done. Actually, I don't see why not.

As for the reasons, I would think it was due to the fact that she was not only Catholic but a divorcee marrying into the royal family. The marriage was already controversial, so it might have been thought better that no English registrar take part in it, best to let them get married on foreign shore.

It makes sense to me as well. That members of the BRF aren't allowed to marry at the register office I read in an autobiography about Princess Michael, I just don't know how reliable this book is. ;)

There were a plenty of difficulties indeed. Marie-Christine planned to marry in a catholic church, but therefor she would have needed a dispensation from the the Roman Catholic Church. This was refused by the Roman Catholic Church because she had already declared in public that her future children would be raised Anglican.

pdas1201 12-15-2009 05:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAfan (Post 1031021)
But Charles and Camilla did, didn't they?

Indeed, Prince Charles also married a divorcee but I think in that situation even with the controversy it was decided mutually that a civil ceremony would be an ideal situation. There was a service of blessing held after wards, meaning that the church accepted the wedding. So, the solution worked out perfectly, the couple (even though one is a divorcee) got married and after wards even received a blessing from Church. In the case of the Kents, that never happened. Both the Catholic and Anglican Churches refused to recognize the union. I also think it might have to do in part with the fact that the Baroness was Catholic and Camilla wasn't. Otherwise, there would have been a much bigger issue at hand. Also, times were different. Now the monarchy has been forced to become more lenient to walk "hand in hand" with the present time.

IloveCP 01-13-2012 11:00 PM

Wish she would have worn something more elegant,even though it was a simple event.

NGalitzine 01-13-2012 11:07 PM

It was originally planned to be a much grander event but the Pope would not give a dispensation for the mixed marriage as Michael would not promise to raise the children as Catholics. The Queen had required Michaels promise that the children would be Anglican in order to give her required approval to the marriage.
In her gown and tiara for the reception at the British embassy that evening she looked quite nice.

CyrilVladisla 05-15-2014 04:25 PM

At the wedding reception, Prince Michael of Kent and Marie-Christine opened the dancing with Lehar's "Gold and Silver Waltz".

tdarlene 05-15-2014 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdas1201 (Post 1031027)
Indeed, Prince Charles also married a divorcee

Prince Charles is a divorcee himself, but as an heir to the throne it is better for him being married than living in 'sin'.

RoyalDaisy 05-15-2014 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tdarlene (Post 1665401)
Prince Charles is a divorcee himself, but as a heir to the throne it is better for him being married than living in 'sin'.

Actually, taking your point, "is" a divorcee - he would have been a widower when he married.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises