Anger as Princess Michael of Kent wears a controversial blackamoor brooch

Started by FanDianaFancy, December 21, 2017, 10:36:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dianab

i understand her brooch was/is a representation of St. Balthazar which makes sense she wearing that at a Christmas lunch

Kritter

The British Royal Family?s Gift of Unmethodical Madness | Love, Lola ? Musings about life, love, beauty & royalty

QuoteIf Princess Michael didn?t have past incidents like yelling ?go back to the colonies? at black diners at a restaurant in New York City and saying she couldn?t possibly be racist because she thinks black people are ?adorable?, then it would be easier to cut her some slack.  Because really, who wears a racist brooch to meet a biracial woman?  Who would even own a racist brooch?  Jewelry should never be used for evil.  Someone needs to take away that woman?s tiaras while she thinks about what she?s done.

Even if you give Princess Michael the benefit of the doubt, there is basically only one scenario that would explain why she would ?accidentally? wear a racist brooch and that?s if she was thinking to herself, ?I hope Meghan knows I?m not the racist my own words prove me to be, I have lots of black friends like that girl who brought me my coat that one time and? and? that blackamoor brooch. I know, I?ll wear the brooch to make her feel at home, maybe she?s descended from the slave it was modeled after. God, I?m such a good person. I should be Queen.?

Princess Michael has since pseudo-apologized through a representative who noted that it was ?a gift and has been worn many times before.?  I did a quick Google search and couldn?t find evidence of past racist brooch outings (which doesn?t mean it hasn?t been worn before, it just means I gave up before finding the photos) but if it?s indeed had multiple wearings then why didn?t someone mention to Princess Michael that she might not want to wear such an offensive piece, especially since she has tons of brooches that aren?t?  Just a hint of her massive collection:

TLLK

Quote from: dianab on December 23, 2017, 08:54:32 PM
i understand her brooch was/is a representation of St. Balthazar which makes sense she wearing that at a Christmas lunch
Yes @dianab  I have considered that it was a representation of St. Balthazar as well along with the  strain the entire family has been under since Lady Sophie Windsor's terrible accident. However I would have hoped that either PMK or their daughter Lady Arabella might have pointed out to her that maybe this wasn't the right time to wear it. JMO on the matter.

Kritter

It was a racist disgusting thing to do & she should have picked a brooch to match her earrings.   >(

sara8150

Princess Michael of Kent sorry for wearing 'racist' brooch
Princess Michael of Kent sorry for wearing 'racist' brooch - BBC News

Double post auto-merged: December 24, 2017, 04:44:59 AM


Princess Michael of Kent apologises for 'racist jewellery' worn at lunch with Meghan Markle
Princess Michael of Kent apologises for 'racist jewellery' worn at lunch with Meghan Markle | UK news | The Guardian

Double post auto-merged: December 24, 2017, 04:46:24 AM


Princess Michael of Kent sorry for wearing 'racist' brooch to Queen's Xmas with Meghan
Princess Michael of Kent sorry for wearing 'racist' brooch to Queen's Xmas with Meghan | Royal | News | Express.co.uk

Double post auto-merged: December 24, 2017, 04:53:59 AM


Princess Michael of Kent 'very sorry' for wearing 'racist' brooch
Princess Michael of Kent 'very sorry' for wearing 'racist' brooch - ITV News

Double post auto-merged: December 24, 2017, 04:55:46 AM



Double post auto-merged: December 24, 2017, 04:58:28 AM


Why Princess Michael of Kent Is the Most Controversial Royal Family Member
Princess Michael of Kent Is the Most Controversial Royal Family Member | PEOPLE.com

FanDianaFancy

It is Princess Micheal. She did it on purpose.

Of all the  dozens of brooches she has, she PICKED THAT ONE!!!!!
Yeah, right.

Forget about MM. Take out the statement she wanted to make to MM. this was  an indirect statement, disrespect to HRH, Queen Elizabeth.  And to HRH, Prince Henry. PHenery outranks MarieChristinePrincess Micheal.

I am going off subject a bit, but will bring it back to this awful, ugly woman.  Bea and Eug were wrongly titled. Lady Bea and a Lady Eug would have been better and better for them as young woman.Princess without a country and more. Upon marriage, their children will be just Miss and Mister...... Harry?s children should be titled,Lady and Loed or Viscount...etc.

Prince Micheal, first cousin of the Queen, then a princess Elizabeth , were both grandkids, first cousins of the Monarch.  Decades later, almost 100 years later, PrincevMicheal has an outdated title. A man without a country , do to speak, but titled Prince.
Then upon marriage, she became Princess Micheal.

Too many people , per the old custom, of being titled a Prince and Princess.
It should be going in the line , only P and P for  those of the children next in line. All of QE children, but not all of her grandchildren as it once was therefore you had Prince Micheal. Only PCharles children. Only Williams? children. Only George?s children, etc. 

Things brings me back to The Micheals. KP is full to capacity. Micheals and Gloucesters . Heir , William. Henerybis don, not grandson of the deceased Monarch.

The Micheals should have not lived there in the first place or had been given an expiration date when he married.
I think MarieChristines message was a point to HRH and Harry too.
You ain?t taking me from KPalace as I am . Princess...

See an interview where she said the Gloucesters should move to something smaller since they are elderly. See TheDM. This was way before Harry got engaged.