Veiled insult, faux pas or not a big deal?

[MissionItsPossible]

Came across this article in the Mirror just now (Sorry, it's another Meghan one) where she says Prince Michael of Kent wore a 'racist' brooch when meeting her.

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/meghan-markle-greeted-racist-jewellery-11736477

General consensus from the comments suggest she knew exactly what she was doing. I don't know anything about her to know if it's suspect but it seems an odd thing to own let alone wear in public. What's the jury?

Also, is Michael an actual name for a woman, I've never heard of it before

I think she did it for her own amusement and wasn't expecting us plebs to notice. Apparently she's very distressedshe got caught

Rousette, between that and today's blacking up thread I really do wonder what MN is coming to

flowerpot is hardly an important person in the sea of all the posters unanimously condemning this awful woman and her jewellery. Dont lose hope.

Lol at Princess Alexandra the duster!

Haha, perish the thought of a royal ever doing the dusting!

Horrible jewelry.

I suspect it was supposed to be a sly jibe and the woman is probably quite shocked by all this uproar. Shocked it got noticed, I mean.

I wonder just how pissed off she has been over the years to have been stuck as "Princess Michael" instead of a Duchess of Wherever. They are the only one of the Kent trio that didn't have the option of that (Princess Alexandra and Angus Ogilvy declined an Earldom for him). Probably because of the Catholic/divorcee/annullment issues around her. Even her MIL got to use HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Ken once she was widowed so she didn't get stuck with Dowager Duchess title.

The Kent's got their HRH/Prince/Princess titles because they were grandchildren of the monarch on the male line, same way William and Harry did.

I think they got/get away with a lot because the Queen probably remembers just how much the abdication impacted their lives as well as hers. Although obviously a lesser impact it did hit them - the Duke of Gloucester's military career ended then and there as he was the 1st adult in line to the throne and needed to be on standby to be Regent. The Duke of Kent also had way more duties after the abdication, and the children of both ended up with royal roles that they'd never have had otherwise.

lalalalyra that's fascinating, thank you. I need to refresh my memory of the royal family tree since Victoria!

The Kents are related to both the Queen and Prince Philip in a few ways. They're her first cousin and their mother was his first cousin. And thanks to his sisters, he's also related to half the German nobility!

LineyRunner I knew that school project on Princess Marina would come in handy one day!

My grandmother's maiden name was Worsley, which was an object of pride in my mother. We are no way related to the Duchess of Kent though, to my knowledge.

I wonder, once Prince Michael was out of the succession, whether he was eligible to be a Royal Duke and therefore whether the Queen couldn't have offered him anything. But then Angus Ogilvie wasn't in line. Maybe it would be for the sake of their children to have a potential title and the Michaels' children were also excluded from the succession. Presumably they are all back in again now? Or was the recent Act not retrospective? It didn't move Anne ahead of Andrew and Edward did it?

I wonder, once Prince Michael was out of the succession, whether he was eligible to be a Royal Duke and therefore whether the Queen couldn't have offered him anything. But then Angus Ogilvie wasn't in line. Maybe it would be for the sake of their children to have a potential title and the Michaels' children were also excluded from the succession. Presumably they are all back in again now? Or was the recent Act not retrospective? It didn't move Anne ahead of Andrew and Edward did it?

I think the Queen can pretty much offer anyone anything. Neither Anthony Armstrong Jones nor Angus Ogilvy were in the line of succession and were given/offered Earldoms. Same with Capt Mark Phillips. I think it's more likely to do with the controversy around their marriage. She was a divorcee until a month before their wedding, then her previous marriage was annulled.

Prince Michael is back in the line of succession, that was retrospective. Anne didn't change position at that act wasn't retrospective. Presumably because the catholic one didn't make any impact on the line until quite far down.

Meant to say - Prince Michael's children were brought up CofE so they were in the line of succesion. It was just him that wasn't.

Was that by virtue of being descended from their grandfather then, ignoring their father?

I know the Queen can offer anything. I suppose I was wondering whether Prince M would have accepted a lesser honour if he couldn't be a Top Duke!

Even her MIL got to use HRH Princess Marina, Duchess of Ken once she was widowed so she didn't get stuck with Dowager Duchess title.

That made sense from a British royal titles tradition because she was born a princess. There is one instance of a woman not born royal being allowed to be called princess with her own name. The widowed Duchess of Gloucester (the present Duke's mother), who was born Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott, was given permission by the Queen to be styled Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester instead of Dowager Duchess of Gloucester.

The Queen is absolutely devoted to Princess Alexandra and does everything she can to look after her. I do know that.

Was that by virtue of being descended from their grandfather then, ignoring their father?

Children only came out of the line if they are brought up Catholic, chose to become catholic or married a catholic. It's why the abdication was so carefully worded to include Edward VIII and any descendants. Your parents could only take you out of the line by christening you catholic.

That made sense from a British royal titles tradition because she was born a princess. There is one instance of a woman not born royal being allowed to be called princess with her own name. The widowed Duchess of Gloucester (the present Duke's mother), who was born Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott, was given permission by the Queen to be styled Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester instead of Dowager Duchess of Gloucester.

Princess Alice following suit made a lot of sense given the Queen was said to be very fond of both her aunts.

There's not many you can see her doing that for in the current crop!

Fucking hell, I’ll bet Harry wishes Riyaks could still carry out executions, hel’ll he raging about that.

Royals

(The baby licked my phone)

The Queen is absolutely devoted to Princess Alexandra and does everything she can to look after her. I do know that.

I guess the stories about her and Prince Philip can't be true then.

There is one instance of a woman not born royal being allowed to be called princess with her own name. The widowed Duchess of Gloucester (the present Duke's mother), who was born Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott, was given permission by the Queen to be styled Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester instead of Dowager Duchess of Gloucester.

Yes, you can be made a princess in your own right rather than only being born one. Incidentally, though Princess Marina didn't have to give up her own title (presumably because a fourth son was pretty far down the line), Prince Philip had to so when he took British citizenship and got engaged, he was Lt Philip Mountbatten RN, but was made Royal Duke on the morning of his wedding day; he wasn't actually a prince again till the Queen made him one again in the 50s. There was a bit of a stushie when George was born as William described Catherine on the birth certificate as Princess of the UK when she wasn't made a princess. I don't know the accuracy of all that though.

Princess Michael of Kent is only a princess by using her husband's name and not in reality. I think the Kents get a bit of slack due to losing their father so young - wasn't Michael a tiny baby at the time? Otherwise I bet the Queen would have gone NC with the Michaels just as she did with the Windsors until he was dying.

*Yes, you can be made a princess in your own right rather than only being born one. Incidentally, though Princess Marina didn't have to give up her own title (presumably because a fourth son was pretty far down the line), Prince Philip had to so when he took British citizenship and got engaged, he was Lt Philip Mountbatten RN, but was made Royal Duke on the morning of his wedding day; he wasn't actually a prince again till the Queen made him one again in the 50s. There was a bit of a stushie when George was born as William described Catherine on the birth certificate as Princess of the UK when she wasn't made a princess. I don't know the accuracy of all that though.

Princess Michael of Kent is only a princess by using her husband's name and not in reality. I think the Kents get a bit of slack due to losing their father so young - wasn't Michael a tiny baby at the time? Otherwise I bet the Queen would have gone NC with the Michaels just as she did with the Windsors until he was dying.*

Alice wasn't created a princess in her own right, she was just allowed to style herself as Princess Alice, Duchess of Gloucester. There was no LP's issued or anything. She was also a princess by marriage, but HRH Princess Henry of Gloucester isn't much better than HRH The Dowager Duchess of Gloucester really.

The fuss over George's birth certificate was a nonsense really. The wife of a Prince in the UK is a Princess, regardless of what title she actually uses. It's like the whole thing about Camilla not being Queen when Charles is King - no matter what they call her she will be his Queen consort, just as she is HRH The Princess of Wales at the moment.

Michael was only a month or so old when his father died. The Kents, and the Duke of Gloucester, did a lot of work on behalf of the Queen when they were all younger. Not Michael as much, but the Dukes and Princess Alexandra did a lot of engagements before the Queen's children were old enough to do them so that also gets them a lot of slack from the Queen.

Willing to bet she wore it specially. I think that is so like her.

I don't think Meghan will have much to do with her in future, as in, I don't think their paths will cross much.

I read somewhere that William wanted Kate to be Princess Catherine.

The British approach is really old-fashioned and sexist (of course one could argue that the whole notion of inherited titles is old-fashioned and sexist). The Scandinavian royals allow princesses by marriage to be Princess Firstname. And in Sweden, the children of Princess Madeleine are prince and princess, even though she married a commoner.

It will be interesting to see if British practice changes with future monarchs.

Never met Princess Michael, but I have met Prince Michael before. He is surprisingly pleasant. I almost wanted to hate him but he was nice, and weirdly attractive in person.