Marriage Between Two Heirs?


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

BritishRoyalist

Courtier
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
924
City
Somewhere
Country
United States
I don't know this has been asked before and if this has ever happened either. I have been wondering what if a Futre King married a Futre Queen of another Country? Let just suppose that the Future King and Heir to the Britsh Throne marries The Future Quern and Heir to the Sweedish Throne? Can that happen? And how would that change Titles and Succession?
 
I suppose one of the two has to remove himself/herself from the succession line, and the next in line to the throne then becomes the heir apparent.
 
It has happend in the past again and again; this is how France came into beeing, how Elsass changed between the Habsburger and the french Bourbonen; how Habsburg became riche (Felix Austria Nube)

Nowadays that would be difficult, because the concept isn't the same anymore; It's no longer, that some dynasty belongs a country but the royal house belongs to the country ;)
 
I suppose one of the two has to remove himself/herself from the succession line, and the next in line to the throne then becomes the heir apparent.
You mean their kids if they had any or One of the spouse (future Kung/Quuen) would have to remove themselves from theline of succession? That probably make most sense. It sure would cause some complications not just for them but for both Royal Houses.
 
Well, there was some cases when a heiress married a foreign Dynasty, he renounced the rights to his country's Throne. That happens with Princess Elizabeth of the United Kingdom and Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, and with Princess Isabel of Brazil and Prince Gaston of Orleans.

But with two heir apparents, the situation would be much more trickier. I don't think would be fair for one of them to have to renounce. You can be the consort of a country and Monarch of another country without trouble.

In my opinion, the major problem will be the children. In order to have succession rights, you have to be a citizen of the country, and I don't know if dua-citizenship could be a possibilty.

Maybe the first child would inherit a Throne, and the second child the other.
 
But it would be dificult either way. The country with the second child as heir, would protest for not having the first-born in their country to inherit the throne, they would think that they were the losers and less important.

Nowadays, two heirs marrying each other and rule both of their respective countries is "impossible". One of them will have to be removed from the succession line, and dare I say, the women will abdicate (not that I think its fair or not, but the public view of a man abdicate in favour of a women is absurd). In the succession law of Sweden, the heir will loose their right to succed the throne in case he/she marries another heir, so if Estelle were to marry Cambridge Baby (if boy), she will loose her right, not Cambridge Baby.
I'm not sure about the other Monarchies though.

But one thing is possible, is that love between heirs might happen in the future, there's always a probability. I won't say Elisabeth, Amalia or Ingrid, but Christian and Leonor (or with Estelle) could fall in love, or Cambridge Baby (if girl) with Christian, or Cambridge Baby (if boy) with Estelle.
I strongly believe that some heirs might have felt something with each other or one-side crush, but because of the Heir issue, it was just a small crush and nothing more. Victoria was the only female heir at her time, maybe she felt at least a little innocent crush, dare I say, for Felipe? Or in the previous generation as well...
Well I'm not saying Love, just a crush or physical attraction, I've read that all of us have had at least 100 physical attraction with the opposite gender in our lifetime.
 
But it would be dificult either way. The country with the second child as heir, would protest for not having the first-born in their country to inherit the throne, they would think that they were the losers and less important.

Nowadays, two heirs marrying each other and rule both of their respective countries is "impossible". One of them will have to be removed from the succession line, and dare I say, the women will abdicate (not that I think its fair or not, but the public view of a man abdicate in favour of a women is absurd). In the succession law of Sweden, the heir will loose their right to succed the throne in case he/she marries another heir, so if Estelle were to marry Cambridge Baby (if boy), she will loose her right, not Cambridge Baby.
I'm not sure about the other Monarchies though.

But one thing is possible, is that love between heirs might happen in the future, there's always a probability. I won't say Elisabeth, Amalia or Ingrid, but Christian and Leonor (or with Estelle) could fall in love, or Cambridge Baby (if girl) with Christian, or Cambridge Baby (if boy) with Estelle.
I strongly believe that some heirs might have felt something with each other or one-side crush, but because of the Heir issue, it was just a small crush and nothing more. Victoria was the only female heir at her time, maybe she felt at least a little innocent crush, dare I say, for Felipe? Or in the previous generation as well...
Well I'm not saying Love, just a crush or physical attraction, I've read that all of us have had at least 100 physical attraction with the opposite gender in our lifetime.

Why would Estelle loose her right and Cambridge baby (if boy) not loose his? Why should she have to give up Sweden? Why can't Cambridge baby (if boy) give up his right, and Estelle keep hers? That seems pretty unfair! Are you saying that because she is the heir to Sweden's throne that she is lesser than Britain's heir? I have to absolutely disagree with this (if this is your thinking -I am not assuming this), and/or are you saying that Cambridge baby (if boy) is higher or of more importance because he is a boy? I have to completely disagree in general!

But, this is for sure why it would be hard in this day and age to merge two heirs -wont and or can't happen! Impossible!
 
Why would Estelle loose her right and Cambridge baby (if boy) not loose his? Why should she have to give up Sweden? Why can't Cambridge baby (if boy) give up his right, and Estelle keep hers? That seems pretty unfair! Are you saying that because she is the heir to Sweden's throne that she is lesser than Britain's heir? I have to absolutely disagree with this (if this is your thinking -I am not assuming this), and/or are you saying that Cambridge baby (if boy) is higher or of more importance because he is a boy? I have to completely disagree in general!

But, this is for sure why it would be hard in this day and age to merge two heirs -wont and or can't happen! Impossible!

What kathia_sophia said isn't that one is less than the other - it's that the succession law in Sweden doesn't allow for the heir to marry another heir while retaining their place in the succession.
 
I think this would be a matter for the couple to decide upon (as in if they're happy enough to get married they'll proceed with whatever changes they have to make it their lives). Obviously for Sweden it's straightforward case of the Swedish heir renouncing his or her rights to the succession. It's nothing to do with what is fair - after all, if it's a love match it will not matter to the individual having to move and renounce their rights to the throne and of-course most heirs will or should know their country's laws so it wouldn't be a surprise for them to have to give anything up.
 
Why would Estelle loose her right and Cambridge baby (if boy) not loose his? Why should she have to give up Sweden? Why can't Cambridge baby (if boy) give up his right, and Estelle keep hers? That seems pretty unfair! Are you saying that because she is the heir to Sweden's throne that she is lesser than Britain's heir? I have to absolutely disagree with this (if this is your thinking -I am not assuming this), and/or are you saying that Cambridge baby (if boy) is higher or of more importance because he is a boy? I have to completely disagree in general!

But, this is for sure why it would be hard in this day and age to merge two heirs -wont and or can't happen! Impossible!
I was not discriminating, I was just stating that thats the law in Sweden and not my personal opinion why Estelle will give up her right to the Swedish Throne if she married an heir.
You should read carefully what others write before you thrown your anger at fellow Royal Forum members.;)
 
I didn't know about this Swedish law. Does it apply only to heirs apparent, or to anyone in the direct line of succession?
 
To quote Wikipedia:

a Crown Prince/Princess of Sweden would lose heir apparent status if they marry without approval of the monarch or, contrary to Swedish law, married the heir to another throne.
 
I was not discriminating, I was just stating that thats the law in Sweden and not my personal opinion why Estelle will give up her right to the Swedish Throne if she married an heir.
You should read carefully what others write before you thrown your anger at fellow Royal Forum members.;)

No anger thrown :). Honestly! Your right, I probably should have done my reading, as I obviously never knew that the heir to the Swedish throne had to abandon their rights. Makes perfect sense though.

One would assume that Cambridge baby would have to do so too if it came down to it.
 
One or the other would have to give up their own throne to be consort in the other country. Otherwise both countries would be dissatisfied with the amount of time their monarch was spending in their spouses country playing consort. There would also be the mess of which child would be heir to which throne since neither country would be likely to accept a personal union of their countries under the same monarch and both countries would likely expect the eldest child to be heir to their throne according to their own laws of succession. What would happen if only 1 child were born? What would happen if political differences arose between the 2 nations? The end result is that one nation would likely ask their monarch to abdicate or perhaps call for an end of their monarchy.

Although Anne Marie was never the direct heir to the Danish throne she was required to give up her succession rights when she married the King of Greece. I imagine the same scenario would be followed today with an heir wanting to marry another heir. Maybe they would flip a coin to determine who would do it or maybe they would each go their separate ways.
 
I would think in modern times one of the heirs would have to renounce. BUT in the past hasn't this happened before? Isabella and Ferdinand for example? And I believe someone mentioned France; or did those situations occur with two monarchs from "generally" the same area and uniting them?
 
I don't know this has been asked before and if this has ever happened either. I have been wondering what if a Futre King married a Futre Queen of another Country? Let just suppose that the Future King and Heir to the Britsh Throne marries The Future Quern and Heir to the Sweedish Throne? Can that happen? And how would that change Titles and Succession?

Didn't that happen with Mary Tudor (Mary I) and Phillip of Spain?

(But I think his father was still alive at the time so he didn't become King until after Mary died.)
 
Didn't that happen with Mary Tudor (Mary I) and Phillip of Spain?

(But I think his father was still alive at the time so he didn't become King until after Mary died.)

Philip of Spain married Mary I in 1554. He became King of Spain in 1556, and Mary died in 1558, so for two years the countries were united through the matrimony of their monarchs.

However, Philip's marriage to Mary was his second marriage. He had married first Maria Manuela, Princess of Portugal, with whom he had a son, Carlos, Duke of Asturias. Despite Carlos' mental instability, he was his father's heir (at least until Philip had him imprisoned, during which time Carlos died and was succeeded as heir apparent by Philip's son from his third marriage).

Thus, going into the marriage it was assumed that Philip's son from his first marriage, would inherit Spain, and the (hypothetical) son of Mary and Philip would inherit England. The English would not be upset about getting Philip's second son, as they would get their sovereign's eldest, while the Mary/Philip son couldn't be upset about getting just England, as he would have been Philip's second son.
 
I didn't know about this Swedish law. Does it apply only to heirs apparent, or to anyone in the direct line of succession?
The Swedish Order of Succession says that a prince or princess of the Swedish Royal House can't become regent of an other country by election, inheritance or marriage without the permission of the monarch and the Swedish parliament. Without the permission the prince or princess will loose their and their children's right to succeed the Swedish throne. (Successionsordningen §8)
 
Another example:

William III&II and Mary II

William governed as Stadtholder Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland and Overijssel from 1672 on and became English King in 1689, reigning together with his wife there.
 
The Swedish Order of Succession says that a prince or princess of the Swedish Royal House can't become regent of an other country by election, inheritance or marriage without the permission of the monarch and the Swedish parliament. Without the permission the prince or princess will loose their and their children's right to succeed the Swedish throne. (Successionsordningen §8)

Regent is very different from consort.
 
Regent is very different from consort.
Yes it it, the Swedish Order of Succession is talking about becoming a regent, not about becoming a royal consort of another country. That would mean that it could technically be possible for Estelle to be both queen of Sweden suo jure and queen of Denmark as queen consort, but that a child from such a marriage would be excluded from inheriting the Swedish throne.
 
Another example:

William III&II and Mary II

William governed as Stadtholder Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland and Overijssel from 1672 on and became English King in 1689, reigning together with his wife there.

A Stadtholder was not a King. We had a Republic at that time. "De Republiek der Zeven Verenigde Nederlanden" The Stadholder was appointed by the gouvernement. Officially the Stadholder did not inherit the title. Because the government choose every time someone of the same family, it looks like it was a title that one inherited, but it was not.
 
The Swedish Order of Succession says that a prince or princess of the Swedish Royal House can't become regent of an other country by election, inheritance or marriage without the permission of the monarch and the Swedish parliament. Without the permission the prince or princess will loose their and their children's right to succeed the Swedish throne. (Successionsordningen §8)

Yes it it, the Swedish Order of Succession is talking about becoming a regent, not about becoming a royal consort of another country. That would mean that it could technically be possible for Estelle to be both queen of Sweden suo jure and queen of Denmark as queen consort, but that a child from such a marriage would be excluded from inheriting the Swedish throne.

Actually a child from that marriage could inherit the Swedish throne - he or she just couldn't inherit both thrones.

Say Estelle were to marry the Cambridge Baby and have 2 kids. They each become monarch of their respective nations, suo jure, and consort of their spouse's nations. Then one day Cambridge dies, and their eldest child becomes monarch of Britain. Now that eldest child is excluded from the line of succession to the Swedish throne - making the second child monarch of Sweden on Estelle's death.

Or, conversely, Estelle dies first, and the eldest child inherits her throne, making him or her ineligible to inherit another throne by Swedish law. Therefore he/she renounces his rights to the British throne, and when Cambridge baby dies the second child becomes monarch.
 
So that means that both the first-child and the second-child have chances in both of their parents countries. Now that's not unfair anymore, it all depends on the first death among their parents. So I suppose they would be educated with both cultures and costumes, because it would be hard to predict which one they would reign in the future.
 
That's the way that I interpret it, at least. It doesn't say that a heir cannot be in the line of succession to another throne, just that they can't inherit another throne without permission.

I would argue that having multiple children and letting them inherit based on who dies first is the solution to the general "problem" of heirs marrying in a modern world. This way there's no need for any argument about which throne gets which heir, or what not.

There is also the fact that there are different conditions to succession - notably gender. So, say an heir of a nation that allows for the eldest child, regardless of gender, to inherit marries the heir of a nation that doesn't, and the first born child is a daughter - then the heir is a different person. It gets tricky when you have different religions at play - if a Catholic heir marries a Protestant heir then that makes things tricky, at least depending on the monarchy.
 
But if you see how much work it is to be "only" monarch in one country, it would mean that both Young Cambridge and his wife Estelle actually live at the airports of London and Stockholm and in the planes, while as soon as they touch down there is work to do... And more good causes to neglect. Hardly worth living, that life, throne or no throne...
 
Philip of Spain and Mary Tudor are one example. Philip was effectively ruling his father's domains at the time, as Charles V had retired to a monastery. Another is Mary Queen of Scots and the Dauphin of France, but he died before he could become king. I don't think there's usually any law that either has to give up their rights to the succession.

Philip II's grandparents, Philip of Burgundy and Juana of Aragon, and Philip of Burgundy's parents, the Emperor Maximilian and Mary of Burgundy, were further examples, as were Anne of Brittany and Charles of France, and Eleanor of Aquitaine and first Louis of France and then Henry of England. In Juana's case, she only became queen of Aragon and Castile due to the death of her siblings, and in the other cases a powerful husband was deliberately chosen as it was felt that a state ruled by a female monarch was vulnerable and needed protection. Oh, and Ferdinand and Isabella, of course - the deliberate decision to unify two kingdoms, which Henry VIII and Edward I both hoped to do by marrying their sons to Scottish queens but which in their cases never happened.

No-one ever had to give up their rights of succession in any of those cases.
 
But if you see how much work it is to be "only" monarch in one country, it would mean that both Young Cambridge and his wife Estelle actually live at the airports of London and Stockholm and in the planes, while as soon as they touch down there is work to do... And more good causes to neglect. Hardly worth living, that life, throne or no throne...

Hardly worth living? Not necessarily. After all Her Majesty, the Queen, is constitutional Monarch of several countries, too, and it works. :flowers:
 
I agree. I think if two heirs fell in love and wanted to get married they could make it work. I think the one real big issue would be religion.

Say Prince X of the Catholic royal family of Y fell in love and married Princess A of the Protestant royal family of B, and both Y and B had the religious beliefs of it's heirs, monarchs, and consorts determined by law, then either one or both will have to give up the their succession rights and/or religion.
 
I agree. I think if two heirs fell in love and wanted to get married they could make it work. I think the one real big issue would be religion.

.

I think the real issue would be each countries reactions to their monarch spending time outside the nation playing consort to another nations monarch. When they travel on a state visit how would they be received, as monarch and consort or a 2 reigning monarchs. I think both nations would become dissatisfied with their monarchs and support for the monarchy would drop like a lead balloon. There would certainly be complaints about money being spent on a foreign monarch even when they are playing the consort role.
I doubt any nation would allow this to happen in todays world and one would have to agree to renounce their succession rights before marriage.
Certainly no country would allow the succesion to their throne to be the random lottery draw of eldest child succeeds to first throne available and number 2 gets the 2nd throne. What happens if only one child is born to the marriage.

I expect they would follow the example of Anne Marie of Denmark who was required to give up her succession rights in order to marry the reigning King of Greece.
 
Back
Top Bottom