The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > General Royal Discussion

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #101  
Old 06-24-2014, 04:24 AM
Marengo's Avatar
Administrator
Royal Blogger, TRF Author
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 17,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
All people are the same in the eye of God but very few will disagree that we treat Elizabeth II quite differently than Annie Smith, despite their equalness in the eyes of God...

I also disagree that Alexandra and Camille are the same. The last one is a Princess of Hannover, a grand royal dynasty. In essence Mr Peter Phillips is no different for a Prince Harry, both are grandsons of the Queen but their perception and their standing could not differ more.

However, ultimately it are the royals themselves. In some threads some remarked that the new King of Spain is probably Europe's most royal King. That might be so, but he himself ended that "perfect" royal ancestry, like many of his temporaries, so probably he does not care. It is interesting that it seems Grand Duchess María Teresa, herself a commoner and had to find her place at the Court, strongly "steered" her eldest son towards "suitable" candidates. The marriages with Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz, Stéphanie de Lannoy, Rodolphe van Limburg-Stirum and Elisabetta Rosboch von Wolkenstein seem to indicate that brides "with a certain background" are still preferred.
I think that much/ most of the Brussels aristocratic circle marries fellow aristocrats. In some families it is rare to find commoners. The Belgian noble association organises a lot of events etc. where everybody meets each other so the chance that a noble will find a noble partner is higher. And of course much of the higher classes put their children on the same schools, catholic youth movements, scouting groups etc. Still, parents preferring their children to marry somebody from a simular social background is not restricted to the nobility.

In the Netherlands the marriages between nobles are less common (though statistically they still marry each other or the patriciate quite often). But the nobles mix more with 'new' elites. For example: the wife of the baron van Wassenaer is a neonatologist and related to the governor of South-Holland, his maternal grandfather is Gerard Wiarda, the late president of the High Counsil. In that light, the marriage partners for the Dutch princes fits with the trend in the group: all academically educated women from upper-middle class backgrounds (save Pss. Annette who has a university degree in psychology but who is from a working class family IIRC). Much of the kings friends come from the nobility/patriciate, are university educated, several of them at Harvard, and have managment jobs in the business world.
__________________

__________________
TRF Rules and FAQ
Reply With Quote
  #102  
Old 06-24-2014, 04:26 AM
Moonmaiden23's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 6,309
Too funny and true Osipi!

My birth family doesn't have a drop of Royal or noble blood but every time I brought a date home my father wanted to know first and foremost what kind of student he was, had he ever been in trouble with the law and what kind of family he came from. That last part was ALWAYS important to him. No riff-raff need apply.

It's the same in many of the remaining dynasties. Some-not all-come from a certain strata of society that they are not interested in seeing diminished by marriages that they feel are not worthy of them. Some things will never change.
__________________

__________________
"Be who God intended you to be, and you will set the world on fire" St. Catherine of Siena
Reply With Quote
  #103  
Old 07-04-2014, 10:25 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariel View Post
Replying to your January 2014 post, Ish, I consider your information better than that of the Mormon genealogy records. I happen to have a close-by source of the Mormon records because there is a Mormon church, with a records tie to Salt Lake City, less than a mile from my house.
In doing research into my own genealogy of the Middle Ages, I consulted many sources, not one, because I didn't have an absolutely perfect and reliable source to consult. I found "Normans in Scotland", a book by Graeme Ritchie, which helped immensely, even through its footnotes, in directing me to truer genealogical material for my own family in Scotland. Sometimes one looks and looks and only after a long time one finds the "truth." Edison said he invented 999 lightbulbs before he invented one which works.
In the case of obviously enthroned royal families, their records are kept for many many generations by reliable people, so their task is negligible when pinpointing royal descent.

Once again, without actually looking at the Mormon sources I can't really comment on the validity of their claims. All I can say for certain is that the website familysearch.org isn't supported; it's an open site that lets people make trees with no sources.

The Earls Grey are individuals with well recorded families. If sites like the Peerage don't list a child for one of them named Charlotte then chances are they didn't have an acknowledged daughter with that name - and the Peerage lists no such child.

In the case of Robert Woods himself... The whole theory that Edward and his long term mistress had a child that all record of was later erased by Victoria when she was Queen is ridiculous. There are a few different legends that seem to happen here. First of all, it's ascribing far too much power to Elizabeth. Any illegitimate child of Edward's would have been born well before Victoria came to power, meaning that she would have to destroy 20+ years of record linking her half-brother to her father. Given as this would include any private references made in people's diaries, it's not particularly feasible to believe that Victoria had such power.

The second is the fact that the whole idea about Robert Woods is that his parents had him but didn't acknowledge him and instead gave him up for adoption by a Canadian couple. Which... Sure it's within the realm of possibility, but not really likely. This was a long-term relationship. Edward's brothers had acknowledged the children born to their long-term mistresses, and Edward himself had acknowledged children by previous mistresses. The story that Edward had a child with Madame de Saint-Laurent is really just a legend.
Reply With Quote
  #104  
Old 07-04-2014, 10:43 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 2,900
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mariel View Post
In the modern era, DNA can rule out SOME specific familial diseases. I imagine that this has been done in the cases of non-reigning royals who marry. Quietly, of course.
In the case of a "dominant" gene, which descends to 50% of children (or 75% when both parents have it) there is NO chance of the children having the same mutation if a parent does not have it. So the outlook for royals marrying cousins today could be simpler, in terms of checking out mutation problems scientifically. If a British royal wanted to marry a German cousin, their DNA would be well-mapped and at least the obvious defects could be ruled out, and love could bloom!
I think other traits than we know of descend through families, however, not just traits for physical impairment. Traits of personality descend. Most of you probably have observed this.

Once again, this isn't how genetics works. If a trait is determined by only 1 gene and a person has the markers for both the dominant and recessive trait (Gg) and their spouse just has the recessive markers (gg) then their children each have a 50% chance of receiving the dominant trait, but they could or could not receive it - it is not a guarantee that 50% of their children will receive it. If both parents are Gg then the children have a 75% chance of receiving the dominant trait, but if either parent is GG then they have a 100% chance of receiving it.

Not all traits are determined by just one genetic marker though, so things become even harder to predict. Consider hair colour - that's determined by at least two markers, which is why there are so many different hair colours.

As for royals' DNA being mapped... I strongly doubt that their DNA has been well mapped. We know that some have had at least aspects of their DNA mapped in order to identify the remains of people (i.e. Prince Philip's DNA was used to determine the identity of the remains of the family of Nicholas II), but I strongly doubt there has been an extensive testing of any royal's DNA in order to determine what genetic diseases they have. Royals tend to be pretty private about things, particularly health, and I somehow doubt they'd allow for access to do that (even without cloning considerations).
Reply With Quote
  #105  
Old 07-05-2014, 04:26 AM
Tilia C.'s Avatar
Super Moderator
Picture of the Week Coordinator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: O, Germany
Posts: 4,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23 View Post
Too funny and true Osipi!

My birth family doesn't have a drop of Royal or noble blood but every time I brought a date home my father wanted to know first and foremost what kind of student he was, had he ever been in trouble with the law and what kind of family he came from. That last part was ALWAYS important to him. No riff-raff need apply.

It's the same in many of the remaining dynasties. Some-not all-come from a certain strata of society that they are not interested in seeing diminished by marriages that they feel are not worthy of them. Some things will never change.
Or things change very, very slowly. Nowadays Dad may still ask all his questions, but in the end he has to accept your decision.

And somehow this slow social change goes for all social classes/groups; not just for royals and aristos. Imagine that 100 or 150 years ago a farmer's son wanted to wed the dairy maid. Daddy farmer would have had a mayor fit, because a daughter-in-law had to be a farmer's daughter with a couple of cows and a chest of linen as dowry, and the skills needed by a farmer's wife. The same goes for tradesmen, craftsmen, doctors or parson: they all looked for wives with the right dowry, the right family and business connections, and knowledge of the trade. A daughter of a baker would just know better how to lead a baker's household than the daughter of the smith. Besides the right father-in-law might improve your business connections, or your position within your guild. So craftsmen would arrange marriages within their own guild and tradesmen arranged their marriages within their own trade, if possible.

Nowadays women have their own jobs, they don't "marry" their professions anymore. That freed people to marry for love, and also led to a general disapproval of arranged marriages. A good development, imo.

There is a hitch for reigning royal houses, because there the partners still "marry their job". But then we now have the perception that a profession can be learned by (nearly) anyone and does not have to be inherited. If a farmers daughter can study architecture, then a shop keeper's daughter can learn how to represent her country as a Queen.

I put the "nearly" in brackets because I still believe that it needs some personal qualities and talents to learn certain things. Eg you need the brains to study medicine, and if you are highly intelligent but faint a the sight of blood - well, maybe better study something else.
Reply With Quote
  #106  
Old 08-27-2014, 04:29 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Posts: 1,223
I find even the title of this thread rather odd... Well, because they fall in love like any one else!
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 08-27-2014, 04:31 AM
lucien's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Amsterdam, Netherlands
Posts: 6,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by wartenberg7 View Post
I find even the title of this thread rather odd... Well, because they fall in love like any one else!
exactly...
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 01-26-2015, 07:19 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,603
Commoner/Royal marriages can and do work. However each spouse should respect and love his/her spouse and do everything with their God-given capabilities to make the marriage successful.
Princess Martha Louise of Norway and Ari Behn and Princess Caroline of Monaco and Stefano Casiraghi are examples.
Unfortunately tragedy struck and Stefano died.
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 01-26-2015, 09:11 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Torrance, United States
Posts: 2,903
CP Harald of Norway and Sonja Haraldsen, Princess Beatrix and Claus van Amsberg, are two other notable examples.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 01-26-2015, 09:31 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,919
Perhaps we should define "work".

I think it depends on the couple. Aristocrat/royal marriages don't necessarily work (Diana/Charles) but Sophie & Andrew seem give all the appearance of being happy as clams.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 01-26-2015, 11:39 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roslyn View Post
Perhaps we should define "work".

I think it depends on the couple. Aristocrat/royal marriages don't necessarily work (Diana/Charles) but Sophie & Andrew seem give all the appearance of being happy as clams.

Do you mean Sophie & Edward? Technically Diana was a commoner because she didn't have a peerage. Other than Prince Philip and Princess Marina, everybody in the BRF has married a commoner for the last 3 generations. Even Princess Mary and Viscount Lacelles (he didn't inherit the Earldom yet so still a commoner) and Princess Margaret ( Tony Armstrong-Jones didn't take the peerage until Margaret got pregnant) married commoners.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 01-26-2015, 11:58 PM
Roslyn's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tintenbar, Australia
Posts: 3,919
Yikes! Yes, I did indeed mean Sophie and Edward.

AriscoCat's original question expressly excluded aristocrats and was directed at commoners in the broad, not technical, sense.
__________________
"That's it then. Cancel the kitchen scraps for lepers and orphans, no more merciful beheadings, -- and call off Christmas!!!"
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 01-27-2015, 06:40 AM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 3,171
To me it just depends on the two people involved no matter what their background is. Until you actually go and do it, I don't a person can fully know what involved with being with a royal.

People said at the time that Diana was the perfect choice for Charles because she would know what to do because her family background but it turned it horrible because they were not a match for each other personally. Then on the opposite side, you have Kate who doesn't have an aristocratic's background but shares a common interests and experiences with her husband thru their time at St Andrews.

Divorce in royal families is a recent thing. Margaret was the first divorce since Henry VIII in the BRF so all the arranged marriages between two royals lasted but where they successful?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 01-27-2015, 08:05 AM
Marty91charmed's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Near Verona and Venice, Italy
Posts: 5,500
I think that love is the main matter: if you love the other person and you know he/she is your soulmate nothing can come between. But I also think you have to be aware of the a posible life under the spotlight: I think that matter should be discussede since the beginning of a relationship...That's the reason i think a couple should wait at least 4/5 years to get married. In order to give the non royal partner the chance to get accustomed to the situation...
__________________
"Yet, walking free upon her own estate
Still,in her solitude, she is the Queen".
Reply With Quote
  #115  
Old 01-27-2015, 09:39 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Christmas Island
Posts: 5,569
Sometimes a royal marriage is no longer with a commoner because the intended spouse has been elevated into the nobility. In 2010 the Duke of Parma (Prince Carlos Hugo de Bourbon de Parme) elevated his son's fiancée Ms Annemarie Cecilia Gualthérie van Weezel with the title Countess de Molina.

Weeks later, after the death of the Duke, his son married and according to the official site of the House of Parma "S.A.R. Il Principe Carlo Saverio, Duca di Parma e Piacenza ha sposato la Contessa de Molina". The same happened to Ms Viktória Cservenyák, whom was created Countess de Montizón before her marriage to Prince Jaime de Bourbon de Parme.

So technically the Duke and his brother both married a noble lady (and therefore made a "dynastic" marriage). Of course one can argue about the nobility but in principle there is no difference between Henri d'Orléans creating Micaela Cousiño y Quiñones de León Princesse de Joinville and Carlos Hugo de Bourbon de Parme creating Annemarie Cecilia Gualthérie van Weezel Countess de Molina.
Reply With Quote
  #116  
Old 01-27-2015, 08:59 PM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,415
Someone who is a commoner and who has lived a normal life outside of the lime life is perceived as being someone who is more in touch with regular people than someone who is royal or who hasn't had a lot of contact with regular people.

Sometimes this is a good match with a royal and sometimes it isn't. A lot of it depends on the personalities of the two individuals and how well they get along with each other.
Reply With Quote
  #117  
Old 01-27-2015, 11:28 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippyboo View Post
To me it just depends on the two people involved no matter what their background is. Until you actually go and do it, I don't a person can fully know what involved with being with a royal.

People said at the time that Diana was the perfect choice for Charles because she would know what to do because her family background but it turned it horrible because they were not a match for each other personally.
Diana was nineteen and I think that was the main problem. Throw in the fact that she had to take on so much so quickly and it's no wonder she cracked.

Quote:
Then on the opposite side, you have Kate who doesn't have an aristocratic's background but shares a common interests and experiences with her husband thru their time at St Andrews.
Kate hasn't had the same level of pressure placed on her. At nineteen she was going to school and wasn't under much stress. She's had a decade of dating and then a lot of time off to develop into her role.

I think it's how they handle the changes that defines them.
Reply With Quote
  #118  
Old 01-28-2015, 02:33 PM
CyrilVladisla's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Conneaut, United States
Posts: 2,603
Is a lot of importance put on how long the Royal knows the commoner? True, some people can get to know an individual in a short amount of time. However, for other people, it may take a lot longer to get to know an individual rather well.
Reply With Quote
  #119  
Old 06-06-2015, 12:27 PM
Olyashka's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Joachim of Belgium's Heart, Philippines
Posts: 136
I also wonder why royals and hardcore old-school royalists disagree with royals marrying commoners for the reason it will dilute their royal blood to the Nth degree until it disappears? Is there a rule in genetics that could support that belief of theirs?
For whoever prince/princess it is, it doesn't mean their genetics will be fully overruled by the commoner's blood, regardless of how many royal-commoner intermarriages that might/will happen in their family through generations.
__________________
"And now I know what they're saying as our hearts go to their graves. And we made our love on wasteland...and through the barricades." - Through the Barricades (1986) sung by Spandau Ballet
Reply With Quote
  #120  
Old 06-06-2015, 01:51 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Texas, United States
Posts: 150
From what I have noticed, England for example, they tend to stick with marrying from noble families. The selection is a quite huge one. There are so many names and families they have plenty of choices. Sure is nice being a commoner. Really, if they married a common person a lot of scrutiny might happen on a limited amount of personal funds to deal with it. No one wants to see royals wed someone who was too poor to file a lawsuit to protect themselves from libel, defamation of character or even hire an attorney to deal with contracts or publicity if needed. They have great morals and values, the royals do, but anyone they got with before marriage in the dating phase would simply have to have enough money or enough money in their family not to have to eat the cost of being affiliated with the royals. Really, borrowing a lump sum off a date to defend yourself in a civil suit just isn't going to make for happy wedlock. Then, noble families are unlikely to turn on one another in a fit of baby pictures and yearbooks to media outlets. Perhaps it's not like that or even a reason, but, that is the way it seems, it just makes the most sense.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Marriage to Commoners in Denmark Maura724 Royal House of Denmark 16 06-12-2016 09:46 AM
Marriage to Commoners vs Royals/Nobles karima Royalty Past, Present, and Future 362 06-23-2015 05:39 AM
A marriage between Prince Hisahito and Princess Aiko? Lox Prince Akishino, Princess Kiko and family 78 09-10-2014 02:00 PM
Marriage between Royals and Commoners. Part 1: Current Rulers Ennyllorac Picture of the Month, Special Features, Blogs and Articles 12 11-11-2008 01:43 PM




Popular Tags
ascot 2016 autographed signed best gown best hat best outfit catherine middleton style coup d'etat crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mary evening dresses crown princess mary eveningwear crown princess mary fashion crown princess mette-marit current events current events thread danish royal family death duchess of cambridge elisabeth fashion poll felipe vi grand duke jean greece kate middleton king abdullah ii king felipe king felipe and queen letizia king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander member introduction murdoch national day opening of parliament picture of the week prince bernhard prince charles prince joachim princess eugenie hats princess madeleine princess mary princess mary daytime fashion princess mary eveningwear princess mary fashion princess mary hats princess sofia maternity wear princess sofia pregnancy style queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen margrethe queen mathilde queen mathildes style queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania royal royal fashion state visit sweden the duchess of cambridge the duchess of cambridge casual wear the duchess of cambridge daytime fashion the duchess of cambridge eveningwear the duchess of cambridge fashion the duchess of cambridge hats


Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities


Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:44 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2016
Jelsoft Enterprises