Marriage to Commoners vs Royals/Nobles

[maria-olivia]

I was in the Netherlands two weeks ago and during the Dinner a Dutchman said; "Zonder Maxima is Willem Alexander niets "

 

[Pranter]

Translation?


LaRae

 

[Marengo]

Without Maxima, WA is nothing.

 

[eya]

Is very good if duch people thinking like this. After all Maxima is their Queen.

Not to make this all about female 'arm candy'

HRH Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark was born on a kitchen table. Raised as a nomad, passed from family member to family member. He wasn't accustomed to servants or grand homes and yet he proves to be a capable consort to Queen Elizabeth II.

Philip has a very illustrious pedigree but it is his life experiences that make him a good consort, not his belonging to the House of Glucksburg.

Yes the poor Queen Elizabeth. He married a poor homeless guy had not the sun fate and saved him.

Who is this "Prince Stefan of Montenegro" who giving titles and honours?

Am I not correct that Napoleon was from a very modest family though he was very successful at warfare. However HE crowned himself emperor sooo, what about this Prince mentioned above .... he calls himself a Prince but what makes him so? I suspect that most royals started out the very same way so who is to say one is royal or not?

The most royals started out the very same way? What do you mean? They all crowned himselfs royals like Napoleon? So you ,me and all the others here can we become royals so easy?

That was a long time ago, I don't think we could do the same. I suspect the population would just think we were crazy ..... unless of course we had a VERY large army behind us.

A VERY VERY large army agree.

 

[Pranter]

Ah got it...thanks!


LaRae

 

[Lee-Z]

Is very good if duch people thinking like this. After all Maxima is their Queen.

Well...yeah... but the thing is that WA is the King and he is one descending from the by some so revered "royal bloodline", so it's not necessarily a flattering remark for the DRF.
Reality is in the DRF in recent years, the "commoners" are relatively popular compared to the born royals (the reigning monarch often is somewhere in the top positions of popularity, but commoners like Q.Maxima, P.Claus (now deceased) and Mr. Pieter van Vollenhoven scored very well in the polls)

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I was in the Netherlands two weeks ago and during the Dinner a Dutchman said; "Zonder Maxima is Willem Alexander niets "

That is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard. We can turn it around: without Willem-Alexander Máxima would have been nothing. No one would ever have heard from her. She would not have paraded around with the most stunning historic jewels, waving in a Golden State Carriage, opening hospitals with her name or having all military at a battleship immediately jump in a right formation to salute her. E-ve-ry-thing of the most extraordinary life she has since 2001, she owns exactly to a certain man with the name Willem-Alexander...

 

[Lee-Z]

Well....i wouldn't call it nonsense... much of WA's popularity with the "common folk" in the Netherlands is more related to Maxima than to his own activities...
Please note that I'm not talking here about the avid royalista's and general "connaisseurs" of the monarchy, but with the average person in the street, W-A is just not very "visible" (for lack of a better word)

my opinion of course (but based on what i experience in my own environment of people who are not really bothered about the monarchy)

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Well...yeah... but the thing is that WA is the King and he is one descending from the by some so revered "royal bloodline", so it's not necessarily a flattering remark for the DRF.
Reality is in the DRF in recent years, the "commoners" are relatively popular compared to the born royals (the reigning monarch often is somewhere in the top positions of popularity, but commoners like Q.Maxima, P.Claus (now deceased) and Mr. Pieter van Vollenhoven scored very well in the polls)

Prince Claus was no commoner. When we look to Willem-Alexander's great-grandparents, then all of them, one for one, are in the Adelsbuch including all their their descendance including Willem-Alexander and his brothers. Their "quarters" are full, as is the saying in heraldica.

All great-grandparents of Willem-Alexander, Friso and Constantijn:

Gabriel von Amsberg (1822-1899) (Nobility of the Grand-Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin)

Marie von Passow (1831-1904) (Nobility of the Grand-Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin)

Leopold Graf von Vieregge (1832-1893)

Agnes Freiin von Gutschmidt (1842-1942)

Julius Freiherr von dem Bussche-Haddenhausen (1827-1882)

Juliane von Salviati (1834-1892) (Nobility of the Kingdom of Prussia)

Eberhard Freiherr von dem Bussche-Ippenburg (1851-1937)

Barbara von Chelius (1856-1949) (Nobility of Grand-Duchy of Baden)

Ernst-Casimir Prinz von Lippe-Biesterfeld (1842-1904)

Karoline Gräfin von Wartensleben (1844-1905)

Aschwin Freiherr von Sierstorpff-Cramm (1846-1909)

Hedwig Freiin von Sierstorpff (1848-1900)

Friedrich-Franz II Herzog von Mecklenburg-Schwerin (1823-1833)

Marie Prinzessin von Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt (1850-1922)

Willem III van Oranje-Nassau, Koning der Nederlanden (1817-1890)

Emma Prinzessin von Waldeck und Pyrmont (1858-1934)

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Well....i wouldn't call it nonsense... much of WA's popularity with the "common folk" in the Netherlands is more related to Maxima than to his own activities...
Please note that I'm not talking here about the avid royalista's and general "connaisseurs" of the monarchy, but with the average person in the street, W-A is just not very "visible" (for lack of a better word)

my opinion of course (but based on what i experience in my own environment of people who are not really bothered about the monarchy)

The non-visibility of gentlemen counts for all male royals. Look at King's Day. All gentlemen are overlooked, the attention is fully on the female members of the royal family. This happens everywhere. At every EU Summit it is the beautiful Mrs Helle Thorning Schmidt, the outgoing Danish Prime Minister, whom stands out after Merkel. The rest is a grey amorph drab.

 

[Marengo]

Well, prince Claus was only noble by a small margin, the family was a mere 'von' since 1891. And considering the high amount of nobles in Germany I would say that a member of the Dutch patriciate - as Pieter van Vollenhoven - is certainly not any 'less'.

I was not present at the dinner table with maria-olivia and her Dutch friend, but obviously the friend didn't mean that Maxima would have access to jewels, carriages etc. without WA. Although any wife of WA would most likely be popular with the public, Maxima has taken it to another level. I doubt that any noble or royal could do a better job. The same goes for the Queens of Norway and Sweden btw. They are by no means less competent than f.e. the very noble Queen Paola or even the very royal Queen Sofia.

To say that WA would be nothing without his wife is a bit harsh and IMHO not fair, but it is clear that his wife is the star of the pair. I don't think it is a problem, they seem perfectly fine with it as is the case for most of the Dutch public.

 

[Mbruno]

That is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard. We can turn it around: without Willem-Alexander Máxima would have been nothing. No one would ever have heard from her. She would not have paraded around with the most stunning historic jewels, waving in a Golden State Carriage, opening hospitals with her name or having all military at a battleship immediately jump in a right formation to salute her. E-ve-ry-thing of the most extraordinary life she has since 2001, she owns exactly to a certain man with the name Willem-Alexander...

I don't normally agree with your extreme royalist positions, but I must you admit you have a point here. Maxima Zorreguieta, Silvia Sommerlath, Letizia Ortiz, Sonja Haraldsen, or possible future royal consorts like Mary Donaldson, Camilla Parker-Bowles and Catherine Middleton have been handed a life most "commoners" can only dream of solely by virtue of marrying whom they have married.

That doesn't mean of course that they are not competent at the "job" they took as royal spouses , or at least some of them are (Camilla, Mary. Letizia, and especially Kate haven't proven themselves yet IMHO).

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Stephanie is a bad example? She don't have personality ,elegance,ability? Are you serious? How do you know that? Is married only 2.5 years . Mathilde 15 years and don't have to say about Maria Teresa. How can compare this?

Thank you. I love this tendency by some to bash Stephanie because she is not as flashy as the other Royal spouses.

She might not be "elegant," enough for some but how the %$# does anyone who has not met her face to face know about her personality and ability-or non ability-to "connect with others?" How can she be compared with women who have been Royal consorts for 10, 15 years?

What were Letizia, Mathilde, Mary and Kate etc doing after 2.5 years of marriage besides breeding?

Most crucially, are the Luxembourgers complaining about their HGD? I mean the real citizens, not the tabloids who have assured us that Princess Alexandra has about a dozen illegitimate children stashed away at Berg Castle, and that the Grand Duchess MT is sleeping with her bodyguard.

On the contrary. A Luxembourger on the Place Royale FB described the former Countess Stephanie de Lannoy as "notre magnifique Grande Duchesse Hereditaire"...just a couple of weeks ago.


https://www.facebook.com/PlaceRoyale/posts/10152749465147161

 

[Moonmaiden23]

[Stephanie is a bad example IMO because she might be a nice person but she doesn't have what it needs to become a great representative of her country. No personality, no elegance, no ability to really connect with people. I don't see her adding much to the popularity of the LRF (but on the other hand she probably will never be a disgrace either). Her m-i-l, the commoner Maria Teresa, was a much better choice.

IMO Mathilde of Belgium isn't so popular because of her noble family but because of her personality. In this case everything fitted together perfectly. She has what it needs, and the family is just a bonus]// quote ricarda

How do you know this? Have you met Stephanie or any of these women personally?

Do you know anyone who has conversed with her? Have you read the reaction of anyone who actually has met the HGD and feels that she "has no personality, no elegance, no ability to really connect with people"?

How is Mathilde's personality...devout, well mannered, reserved...that different from the much younger Stephanie's?

How do you know that MT is a "better choice"? Based on what?

What is the feeling of the only people who count here...the citizens of the Grand Duchy?

Because message boards devoted to mostly ridicule and hate don't matter much.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

That is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard. We can turn it around: without Willem-Alexander Máxima would have been nothing. No one would ever have heard from her. She would not have paraded around with the most stunning historic jewels, waving in a Golden State Carriage, opening hospitals with her name or having all military at a battleship immediately jump in a right formation to salute her. E-ve-ry-thing of the most extraordinary life she has since 2001, she owns exactly to a certain man with the name Willem-Alexander...

What you are suggesting is superficial. Maxima brought WA credibility. Do you think WA would have any credibility with the population if he married an unitelligent and uncultured noble woman? And believe me, they exist.

If you think that women are only interested in jewels, princes, palaces etc, you have a very poor view of women.

 

[Al_bina]

I would not judge intelligence of an aristocratic woman, but I would never call her uncultured. Certain finer points in upbringing of wealthy and aristocratic families are instilled from a very early age. These finer points still separate one societal class from another.

King Willem-Alexander's spouse did/does not improve his credibility. She just happens to contribute to his popularity.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I like and admire Queen Maxima immensely, but I agree 100% with your assessment of her contribution to her husband.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Clipped some of the quote. But, Bravo! And, Brava! Reading some posts, but not all, has made me so angry. This is one that has calmed me down some.

And, no, nothing I'm saying is being "politically correct". I'm speaking my own feelings, and I'm the only one who has the right to say what I truly feel.

I agree reading some of these posts has made me rather angry, it's also made me wonder the nationality of everyone in here, though it seems that those who live in countries with a monarchy still don't hold such archaic ideas.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

What you are suggesting is superficial. Maxima brought WA credibility. Do you think WA would have any credibility with the population if he married an unitelligent and uncultured noble woman? And believe me, they exist.

If you think that women are only interested in jewels, princes, palaces etc, you have a very poor view of women.

The King of the Netherlands will never win the popularity polls. Like his very much respected mother never won the popularity polls. Like even his beloved grandmother often had to see that her flamboyant spouse Prince Bernhard was more popular with the masses than she.

That is the fate of many Sovereigns. The late Prince Claus even had lots of resistance (Claus Raus! was chalked on the walls), but by his death he was for years polled as the most beloved member of the royal family. B.t.w. it is true that Claus von Amsberg would have been a grave mésalliance but stating "he is a commoner" while we can simply trace all the parents, all the grandparents and all the great-grandparents of King Willem-Alexander in the registers of Nobility is factual wrong.

Once again I would come to the core essence of my problem with "commoners" invading the Royal Houses: when will the point of no return have been reached that we hardly can speak about "royal" anymore, when the members of the royal family more and more become as distant related to royalty and nobility like you or me? At least King Willem-Alexander has chosen an "exotic" lady from a family at the other side of the world (like his Danish counterpart). In the Netherlands you can already see that a Princess Laurentien or a Princess Mabel (and the Van Vollenhoven Princesses) are not taken au sérieux. ("Girl, you are no Princess. You pretend to be a royal, you play a Princess, don't get an air!). Anyway, I have no influence, I can only watch and see. Maybe Princess Catharina-Amalia will marry the fitness instructor and make him "Prince" but I predict the imagination of the people is not that unlimited and it will end the whole vaudeville it has become. Sadly enough because I am very attached to the historic royal families, I am a monarchist but my flexibility has limits, I am honest enough to admit and I hope that someone may hold that opinion indeed, in this über-political-correct forum where someone risks to be slashed for holding an conservative opinion (what a surprise) on an arch-conservative institution as a hereditary monarchy.

 

[Lee-Z]

My 2cts (for what it's worth, I myself am but a lowely peasant ):
For me what a royal should be, is an ambassador for their country (both in the country itself and abroad), discreet in every day life and a role-model for the citizens of the country.
This requires a certain amount of training and natural ability in these matters is a big bonus.

A person who has grown up in a royal household will get this training from an early age, at least in theory (I think in history and currently there have certainly been examples of a royal who didn't have the skills even after living with royals their entire life).
But that doesn't mean that a person can *only* learn this in a *royal* household. There are also families who, for instance, have been in the government of a country for a long time and by that position also have to learn the skills and raise their children with it.

For example (I will use the Dutch RF because I'm from the Netherlands):
Q.Maxima, P.Laurentien and P.Marilene, although not from noble or royal families themselves, have fathers who had a high post in their respective country's politics.
Laurentien's father, Laurens Jan Brinkhorst, was Minister of agriculture, minister of Economic Affairs in the Netherlands and member of the European Parliament for a number of years (among other top positions)
Marilene's father, Hans van den Broek, has been Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Netherlands (and also held other top positions). Both men were/are well-respected in their line of business.
All these women do their current jobs very well, they know how to conduct themselves and to "serve" (for lack of a better word) their country. For me they do their jobs just a well as their respective royal husbands.
If I look at our neighbouring country Belgium: I have the same feeling about Q.Mathilde, who I think is on equal par with the ladies above.

There is no difference in my appreciation for these ladies because of their bloodline, Q.Mathilde is not "better" or "better suited" than for instance P.Laurentien only *because* she's a noble.
P.Constantijn is not better suited for his position than his wife P.Laurentien *because* he's a royal.

For me, it's not the DNA that happens to be in your body or the blood that runs through your veins, but the way you deal with the requirements of your position. This is not just the case for a royal position but equally goes for a person who has a certain job or position in his/her community that requires certain skills/conduct.
Some have the advantage of "naturally" getting the training from an early age, some have to learn it at a later age because their life takes a turn that their ancestors hadn't taken before.

It's about what you make of your life that counts, not the silver spoon that you were fed with as a child.

 

[Muhler]

Once again I would come to the core essence of my problem with "commoners" invading the Royal Houses: when will the point of no return have been reached that we hardly can speak about "royal" anymore, when the members of the royal family more and more become as distant related to royalty and nobility like you or me? At least King Willem-Alexander has chosen an "exotic" lady from a family at the other side of the world (like his Danish counterpart). In the Netherlands you can already see that a Princess Laurentien or a Princess Mabel (and the Van Vollenhoven Princesses) are not taken au sérieux. ("Girl, you are no Princess. You pretend to be a royal, you play a Princess, don't get an air!). Anyway, I have no influence, I can only watch and see. Maybe Princess Catharina-Amalia will marry the fitness instructor and make him "Prince" but I predict the imagination of the people is not that unlimited and it will end the whole vaudeville it has become. Sadly enough because I am very attached to the historic royal families, I am a monarchist but my flexibility has limits, I am honest enough to admit and I hope that someone may hold that opinion indeed, in this über-political-correct forum where someone risks to be slashed for holding an conservative opinion (what a surprise) on an arch-conservative institution as a hereditary monarchy.

Well, the second you get the title you are a royal. That applies to nobles as well no matter how high or low they are.
Whether that person does a good job as a royal is an entirely different matter. - But that applies to people born royals as well. History is littered with royals who failed!
So the princesses you named are not "pretending" to be royals, they are royals, trying to do their jobs.

Queen Marie Antionette. Royal, perfect pedigree. She ended up losing her head.
That was after a massive Pr-campaign against her, after a bad harvest resulting in a troublesome political situation.
But first and foremost she and her, by all accounts, honorable and conscientious husband lost their heads because they had become too aloof, had isolated themselves and become too meaningless for they subjects. Louis XVI discovered to his surprise that he was genuinely popular outside Paris!
Perhaps, had he married someone with a less impressive pedigree, but more bright, more in tune to with the ordinary people, a long glorious monarchy might not have ended in the guillotine that fateful day almost 250 years ago.
So even back then personality and dedication mattered more than pedigree.

In the beginning of the 1900's we had a French Princess Marie who married into the DRF. She had a pedigree longer than my arm! Yet, she wore tattoes on her arms, at least intially the head on the papers of her letters saying something like: "I'm who I am, take it or leave it" (from memory). When she heard the fire bells she dropped what she held and rushed out into to street towards the fire, gala dress or not and joined the firefighters. No doubt being of very little use, but she was there.
The Danish tribe loved her! She was wonderfully eccentric and a walking scandal but she didn't harm anyone, she did her job for the DRF when the show was on. People knew her and she was there for the tribe.
Personality matters pedigree or no pedigree.

Calling the forum ûber-politically correct is a bit harsh I think.
No one has been hard on you, no one has told you to shut up or to get lost, no one has ridiculed you.
The majority just don't seem to agree with you. That's all. I'd say all of us seasoned posters have been in that situation at some point.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

But the concept of a monarchy is hereditary succession which is only defendable because it is the leading family which has been playing a prominent role in history. In 1403 Engelbrecht of Nassau became Baron of Breda and in the more than 600 years since then the family has been a prominent part of Dutch history.

What you wrote is about the merites of the "commoners" involved. I am the first to admit that all these folks have their own personal merites. But then we should not maintain a monarchy but a meritocracy (read: elect a merited, respected lady or gentleman to become your President), like in Italy or in Germany, for an example.

Monarchy is not based on ratio, but on feeling. When Princess Catharina-Amalia will engage with a, let me say something, a Waldburg-Zeil-Hohenems, says me more than just when the dad is the dude-next-door. And the more dudes (or girls) next-door, the less "royal" or "noble" the Royal House will be and then the justified question will pop up: what does "Royal House" actually still mean?

We will see how it develops. Time goes fast. Catharina-Amalia will already enter the gymnasium in a few months. Only a few years and then the first speculations will appear in press. It has been rumoured that Maria Teresa was "most pleased" with her son's choice for Stéphanie de Lannoy. It seems she was mordicus against the relationship of her son with Pia Haraldsen (a Norwegian TV personality, comédienne and author) which she deemed as "most unsuitable for a Prince of Luxembourg" (echoes from her grandmother- and mother-in-law..... )It is very well possible that Máxima, however herself a "commoner" will "stimulate" that her three daughters will choose a partner "befitting" their position because she maybe will see the same risk. She seems shrewd and intelligent enough. We will see. It will be interesting to see what will happen to the younger generation.

 

[Rudolph]

Not to make this all about female 'arm candy'

HRH Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark was born on a kitchen table. Raised as a nomad, passed from family member to family member. He wasn't accustomed to servants or grand homes and yet he proves to be a capable consort to Queen Elizabeth II.

Philip has a very illustrious pedigree but it is his life experiences that make him a good consort, not his belonging to the House of Glucksburg.

 

[Pranter]

Yep...I read in one of his biographies that when he married Princess Elizabeth one of the courtiers was trying to instruct him about something to do with one of the houses/palaces and he stopped them dead by saying yes I know my mother was born there.

I think they quite forgot about his 'blood lines' due to his very modest/unstable upbringing.


LaRae

 

[Iluvbertie]

The 'house' in question was Windsor Castle - where both his mother and grandmother were born and a great-grandmother was born in Buckingham Palace.


My concern though is that with this system which pretends that they are 'better' than everyone else and that they have rights denied everyone else that when they marry the girl 'next door' the question must be asked 'why does the girl on the left side of my house get to have her children and grandchildren etc placed in such a position but not the girl who lives on the other side'? With all these marriages for 'love' and no regard to history they will make that question a real one in the future - what makes them special and thus entitled to their position in society?

 

[Rudolph]

Monarchies in Europe have been marrying the girl next door for at least two generations and opinion polls show they are as popular as ever. Republicans want to abolish the monarchy at all costs, no matter who royals marry.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

But who claims that when a Prince William would have married Lady Melissa Percy, to name an example, that she would have been less "popular" than Kate? Not so long ago another Lady conquered the hearts of the British...

I dare to say that a Lady Annabel Montagu-Douglas-Scott (daughter of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry) or a Lady Isabel Fitzalan-Howard (daughter of the Duke of Norfolk) would at least be as "popular" as Kate, but it would keep the idea of the royal family as "something special", the feeling in the underbelly.

Du moment that the royal family is like your or my family (or worser, see Mike Tindall with his brawls, his thuggish friends and his midget-warping in a bar) we simply can ask, why do we still have a so-called "royal" family we look up to and we revere????

 

[Rudolph]

Maybe Melissa Percy would be popular, who knows but William didn't love her nor did he want to marry her and the BRF hasn't enjoyed this level of popularity since the days of Lady Diana. Ironic isn't it.

Take Denmark. Its difficult to imagine anyone being as popular a Consort to Fred as Mary is. She works hard and takes her role to heart.

Mary is as elegant and poised as any noble or royal and the people of Denmark adore her. That's good for the DRF.

 

[Mirabel]

But who claims that when a Prince William would have married Lady Melissa Percy, to name an example, that she would have been less "popular" than Kate? Not so long ago another Lady conquered the hearts of the British...

I dare to say that a Lady Annabel Montagu-Douglas-Scott (daughter of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry) or a Lady Isabel Fitzalan-Howard (daughter of the Duke of Norfolk) would at least be as "popular" as Kate, but it would keep the idea of the royal family as "something special", the feeling in the underbelly.

Prince Charles married the widely-popular Lady Diana Spencer, who had an impressive pedigree.
The outcome was disastrous.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Baudouin of the Belgians married the pedigreed highborn Dona Fabiola de Mora y Aragon, and the result was one of the happiest marriages and greatest love stories in modern Royal history.(Baudouin himself insisted on an aristocrat, he would not have had it any other way.)

His nephew Philippe also chose an aristocrat, descended from ancient Polish and Flemish nobility. I have rarely seen a more connected and happier couple than Philippe and Mathilde.

Prince Joachim of Denmark married commoner Alexandra Manley in a fairytale love match. The result was a divorce.

The Crown Prince of Japan fell for a brilliant and well connected commoner named Masako Owada. The result was an emotional breakdown and an "adjustment disorder" that has lasted almost 20 years.

There have been seriously disturbing rumors about the state of the marriage of Prince Haakon of Norway and the former Mette-Marit Hoiby which reached a crescendo last summer and which the Palace has never bothered to deny.

My point is that posters who continuously use the disastrous example of Charles/Diana as the reason why Royals should choose always commoners are forgetting the scores of very solid and successful Royal/Royal and Royal/aristocrat marriages. It works both ways, and depends on the people involved.

Charles and Diana were emotionally and temperamentally unsuited for one another. The marriage would likely have failed even if her father had been a mail carrier.