The Queen’s Most Embarrassing Royal Cousin
8 reasons why royals are fed up with Princess Michael of Kent.
Royal family members are prone to controversies, and that too on a royal scale. One of the prominent names in such a list includes Marie Christine or Princess Michael of Kent.
The Australian girl was married into the royal family and since then made several infamous headlines regarding her haughty behaviour or trash talk that lacks sensitivity — the reason many labels her as “ “Princess Pushy ‘’ in royal circles.
Interestingly, her lineage goes back to French, German, and Hungarian nobility — although her father was a Nazi party member.
Before marrying into the British royal family, Baroness Marie Christine von Reibnitz was married to an English backer Thomas Troubridge. The couple divorced in 1977. After receiving the annulments, she got hitched to King George V of England’s grandson, Prince Michael of Kent.
Marie Christine was catholic, and as per the Act of Settlement of 1701, Prince Michael, upon marriage with her, had to forfeit his claim to the throne.
Interestingly, when Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 was released, it gave prince Micheal his position back, who now sits on 45th rank. Since 2013, the woman has ranted everywhere about how it was so unfair to them. She never stopped complaining that despite her “royal lineage,” her husband had to renounce his claim.
Additionally, upon her marriage with Prince Michael of Kent, Marie Christine took a dumb move of taking up Princess Micheal’s name as she was ineligible of qualifying as a princess — owning noble bloodlines, indeed, differs from being born royal.
The list below details why she qualifies as the most embarrassing royal family member:
1. She wore an offensive racist brooch to lunch
Back in 2017, Princess Michael’s made headlines in several magazines when she wore a racist blackamoor brooch in lunch with Meghan Markle, of biracial descent.
Why was the blackamoor brooch offensive? It was not just a piece of jewelry but a narrative as it had figures of exoticized Africans over it.
The brooch did not have a figure of African American slaves, but it did represent the era of European colonialism.
The royal was later sorry — though her ex-chef was sure that the choice of her brooch was intentional. Critics did point fingers at such acts of extreme bigotry.
2. Her racist slur at a restaurant
Sadly, another incident reflecting her messed up racial ideology made headlines way earlier than 2017’s lunch — when the woman dined in New York in 2004.
Five black diners in the restaurant were too loud for her royal ears, so she not only slammed her hand down on the table but also demanded the group to go back to their colonies. Later she twisted the meaning of the racist line she threw on the group and attempted to clear her image:
I did not say ‘back to the colonies’; I said you ‘should remember the colonies.’ Back in the days of the colonies, there were rules that were very good.
3. Princess Michael called Princess Diana “Uneducated”
Hardly, any of Princess Micheal’s interviews lacked a controversial statement that echoed supremacy. Similar was the case in a 2014 interview the Canadian television, where she was reluctant to speak about the royal family but then did anyway.
She did recall Diana’s goodness and highlighted why she deemed it to be the cause of her suffering. According to her, Princess Diana suffered because she lacked education.
…like probably many people of little education who find themselves, like pop stars or film stars, suddenly lauded by the whole world, it is very difficult if you have not had a mother bringing you up who was quite stern and strict. She did not have a mother bring her up, and she did not have much education, so it is much harder to cope with the eulogy.
4. Dinner with her is a nightmare for many
The awareness about Princess Micheal’s unpleasant reputation is plugged into the minds of every member of the royal family. Even once the Queen commented about her: “. . . she sounded a bit grand to us.”
Furthermore, the son of Princess Margaret also highlighted the awful standing of Princess Micheal. When asked in an interview for a wish on his worst enemy, he replied it to be a “dinner with the princess of Micheal of Kent”.
5. Importance of bloodlines and breeding for her
For princesses, bloodline is of immense importance — not just of animals but also of humans. Instead of marrying anywhere, according to her, the “brits” must be more conscious.
The couple both bred animals and a related conversation sparked up in one of her 2005 interviews, where she stated:
The English take the breeding of their horses and dogs more seriously than they do their children. God forbid that the wrong drop of blood should get into their labrador. But their children marry everywhere.
6. Princess Michael stated how she was one of the most royal members of the family
The woman is all about herself. Before enjoying a successful career as a novelist, Princes Micheal worked as an interior designer, but once her writing career, Kickstarter made several headlines.
It is usually on the promotion of her book events when she blurts all out, without even processing her words. Once, she stated to a fashion magazine which reads:
The fact is, of those who have married into the family since Prince Philip, I had more royal blood.
Being correct doesn’t make such statements, saturated with a superiority complex, acceptable.
Yes, the blood of the French royal line runs in her blood. Why say it all and that too repeatedly. Even those born in the royal family never parrot such a statement every day.
7. Another trace of her superiority complex
She considers her life, herself, and her children the best. According to her, none of the royal family’s children earned a better degree than her children, asserting how her children are more educated than their cousins.
8. Her stance on animals right: they don’t have rights as they don’t pay taxes
No doubt assail in the fact: Princess Micheal is an animal lover and she works with many animal charities. But such a fact did not stop her from adopting awful beliefs surrounding animal rights.
Once in 2015, she marked that because animals do not pay taxes they do not have rights. She detailed:
Well, I’m a great animal lover and involved in a lot of conservation, but animals don’t have rights. They don’t have bank accounts, they don’t vote. We have an obligation to animals, but to say they have rights? You only have rights if you pay your taxes. You earn your rights.
More from the author:
References: