Marriage to Commoners vs Royals/Nobles

[Rudolph]

Baudouin of the Belgians married the pedigreed 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.

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.

I think people are pointing out a royal should marry the person they love.

Some seem to be of the belief that royals should only marry other royals no matter how incompatible they may be.

Prince Guillaume's mother is a 'commoner' and she has been a very good consort. If noble born Stephanie is half as good she will have done well.

Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark is a good consort because of his life experiences and who he is as an individual. Philip may be royal born but his upbringing was as pedestrian as it comes.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I agree about Maria-Teresa Mestre. She is wonderful and Stephanie would do well to emulate her....with the exception of the unseemly and embarrassing whinging to the press MT did about her mother in law, which I am 100% certain Stephanie would never consider under any circumstances even if she had cause.

No matter how "pedestrian" Philip's upbringing was I am willing to bet he was never allowed to forget who he was, and he never considered himself one of the guys. Are there any stories of him socializing with and romancing working class individuals before he married Elizabeth?

And we will agree to disagree that the only thing the members of a Royal house should consider when choosing a partner is love. There are many other things like background , temperament and suitability that should be considered as well.

I am far from Royal and would never marry someone only because I felt some sort of romantic "love" for that person and disregard all else . I would never advise a friend to do so either. The idea is beyond foolish.

 

[Pranter]

Prince Phillip is purported to have cut a wide path thru the ladies...I would imagine they came from both sides of the fence.


LaRae

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I have read rumors about his activities during his marriage. I am not talking about mistresses and side pieces.

My question is did he have any serious romances/relationships with commoners as a bachelor Prince?

 

[Pranter]

Oh I don't know...even if he did, back then things were much more quiet...the media didn't focus on them like now.

I'm not talking about his behavior while married...although we know that sometimes those are long term affairs.


LaRae

 

[Rudolph]

Courtiers as well as the Establishment were dead set against Prince Philip. The thought of a penniless 'European' prince marrying the heir to the British throne was not a popular one.

Many wanted Princess Elizabeth to marry a wealthy British Duke and Prince Philip had to work to win over King George VI.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Courtiers and the Establishment were indeed dead set against Philip, but they eventually caved.

Something they would never have done if his father had been an airline pilot, for example. Elizabeth would have been shown the door just like her Uncle David was.

 

[Pranter]

I think especially because of what happened with Edward there's no way Elizabeth would of been able to marry elsewhere (and poor Margaret got caught in that), not that she wanted too...it's said she met Phillip at 14 and she was pretty fixed on him as a future spouse from that point forward..

 

[Pranter]

I don't know what Edward was shown the door...as I understand it Churchill tried to resolve things by allowing Wallis to be married to him but not be queen...talk of a Morgantic (spelling?) marriage etc. But really...I don't think in the end that Edward wanted the job.


LaRae

 

[Moonmaiden23]

The people themselves were dead set against Wallis Warfield Simpson. "HANDS OFF OUR KING!!" were some of the protest signs in the streets they carried against her.

In this case at least Churchill did not know best.

Boy oh boy were the people right about her. I have read enough about this woman to know that she seemed like an appalling person and would have been a disaster on the Throne. That goes for her dim witted besotted husband as well.

 

[Pranter]

Quite frankly I think the English dodged a bullet ...particularly with the coming war.




LaRae

 

[Rudolph]

So there we have it. Commoners have married into every royal family from Sweden to Denmark, from Luxembourg to Britain. Non seem to be on the verge of collapse over it

 

[Pranter]

And it's been happening for a long long time....wasn't Anne Boleyn from partial common stock? Her father's line maybe? Not that it was a great marriage for Anne but her daughter did rather well.


LaRae

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Anne Boleyn's mother Elizabeth was a member of the ultra noble Howard family while her father's lineage was considerably less illustrious.(Henry VIII might have slept with a butcher's daughter but never in a million years have had one as his queen.) Every single one of Henry's six queens had Royal or at least some noble descent.

Today, Anne would be considered wonderful queen material.

But back then the people hated her(the "goggle eyed whore") and considered her a usurper for replacing the very right Royal daughter of warrior Queen Isabella, Catherine of Aragon. They considered Anne as one of them and therefore not worthy to rule over them as queen.

Note the marked difference in the attitude of the common folk of the 16th century to the current day idea that the Royals must be "relatable" and not seem "better than me".

Anne had the last laugh from beyond the grave. Elizabeth I is considered the greatest of English monarchs, and Catherine's daughter Mary's reign was a catastrophe.

 

[Rudolph]

Britain still has one of the most entrenched class systems in Europe and even there the age of deference is gone. Diana's generation was the last that being Lady So and So really meant anything.

It won't make one jot of difference if Harry marries the girl next door or Lady Penelope Van Nose in the Air. If she doesn't earn her keep she won't be successful.

I imagine most other monarchies in Europe are the same.

 

[Pranter]

Anne Boleyn's mother Elizabeth was a member of the ultra noble Howard family while her father's lineage was considerably less illustrious.(Henry VIII might have slept with a butcher's daughter but never in a million years have had one as his queen.) Every single one of Henry's six queens had Royal or at least some noble descent.

Today, Anne would be considered wonderful queen material.

But back then the people hated her(the "goggle eyed whore") and considered her a usurper for replacing the very right Royal daughter of warrior Queen Isabella, Catherine of Aragon. They considered Anne as one of them and therefore not worthy to rule over them as queen.

Note the marked difference in the attitude of the common folk of the 16th century to the current day idea that the Royals must be "relatable" and not seem "better than me".

Anne had the last laugh from beyond the grave. Elizabeth I is considered the greatest of English monarchs, and Catherine's daughter Mary's reign was a catastrophe.

I'm quite sympathetic to Catherine of Aragon but I knew Anne's mother was at least noble...her father was the questionable one.

This (part noble or royal and part something else) pattern that was seen in Henry's line a couple generations earlier.


LaRae

 

[Mbruno]

And we will agree to disagree that the only thing the members of a Royal house should consider when choosing a partner is love. There are many other things like background , temperament and suitability that should be considered as well.

As I mentioned before, it is not true, even today, that anyone can marry into the royal family. No matter if the chosen bride/groom is noble or a "commoner", royal marriages still have to be pre-approved either by the monarch and the government, or by the parliament depending on the country. If a royal prince or princess marries "for love", but doesn't get the necessary approval, he/she and all descendants of that union are excluded from the line of succession as was the case of Prince Friso of the Netherlands, Princesses Irene and Christina of the Netherlands, Prince Alexandre of Belgium, etc etc

In that sense, all royal brides/grooms (or, all royal brides/groom up to a certain position in the line of succession as in the UK now) go through a vetting process, which is very reassuring for the monarchy as an institution.

BTW, "unworthy commoners" that are frequently despised here like Prince Daniel and Princess Sofia of Sweden have also gone through that process and both the King of Sweden and, most significantly, the elected Swedish government thought they were suitable to join the Bernadotte family !

 

[Cris M]

Prince Alexandre of Belgium

Prince Alexandre was born without succession rights, because of the morganatic nature of his parents marriage.

Although I know some people say this is questionable.

 

[Mbruno]

Prince Alexandre was born without succession rights, because of the morganatic nature of his parents marriage.

Although I know some people say this is questionable.

That interpretation is disputed. Some commentators say there was no legal basis to exclude him from the succession on that reasoning, because he was a legitimate male descendant in male line of King Leopold I. He would have been excluded anyway though when he married Princess Léa in secret without the King's consent.

Prince Alexandre's sisters on the other hand never had succession rights to begin with since cognatic succession only applies to descendants of King Albert II. The status of their parents' marriage is irrelevant then in that case.

 

[Cris M]

I know, I was just pointing out there are different interpretations regarding Prince Alexandre's succession rights.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Are the only scenarios of a royal marrying a commoner going wrong, Masako and maybe kinda sorta Mette Marit? Those are good numbers considering how many of these marriages have taken place. Isn't Princess Kiko also a commoner? She wouldn't be considered a disaster even before her son was born. I think the main point is that a successful royal isn't based on what family you were born into but on who you are as a person. Those with long pedigrees have been good and bad at their jobs, and those with no pedigree have been good and bad at their jobs.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

As I mentioned before, it is not true, even today, that anyone can marry into the royal family. No matter if the chosen bride/groom is noble or a "commoner", royal marriages still have to be pre-approved either by the monarch and the government, or by the parliament depending on the country. If a royal prince or princess marries "for love", but doesn't get the necessary approval, he/she and all descendants of that union are excluded from the line of succession as was the case of Prince Friso of the Netherlands, Princesses Irene and Christina of the Netherlands, Prince Alexandre of Belgium, etc etc

In that sense, all royal brides/grooms (or, all royal brides/groom up to a certain position in the line of succession as in the UK now) go through a vetting process, which is very reassuring for the monarchy as an institution.

BTW, "unworthy commoners" that are frequently despised here like Prince Daniel and Princess Sofia of Sweden have also gone through that process and both the King of Sweden and, most significantly, the elected Swedish government thought they were suitable to join the Bernadotte family !

Realistically, when was the last time permission to marry was denied by the Crown or Government? Was it Mabel in the Netherlands? She was the exception and not the rule.

With all due respect, and especially after the wedding in Sweden last week I stand by my opinion that now anything/anyone goes. As the Beatles once sang All ya need is love!!(and a hardworking Palace p.r. team)

And contrary to being despised as an unworthy commoner Prince Daniel is one of the most liked and respected Royal spouses on this Forum. He has lots of fans. I am one of them.

 

[Mbruno]

Why do you say Masako is an example of a marriage going wrong ? Unfortunately she had a miscarriage, and later had a lovely daughter but was unable to produce a male heir, which is a big deal in a country with agnatic succession like Japan. All that, coupled with peculiarities of the Japanese culture, led to a breakdown. That doesn't make her marriage a failure or a mistake though, nor does it have anything to do specifically with her being a commoner. Empress Michiko, who is married to a monarch who 70 years ago would have been considered divine by his people, is also a commoner and perfectly fine. In fact, if Japanese emperors, who belong to a royal line that goes back more than a thousand years, are free to marry commoners, I suppose any other ordinary monarch can do it as well !

 

[Mbruno]

Realistically, when was the last time permission to marry was denied by the Crown or Government? Was it Mabel in the Netherlands? She was the exception and not the rule.

With all due respect, and especially after the wedding in Sweden last week I stand by my opinion that now anything/anyone goes. As the Beatles once sang All ya need is love!!(and a hardworking Palace p.r. team)

And contrary to being despised as an unworthy commoner Prince Daniel is one of the most liked and respected Royal spouses on this Forum. He has lots of fans. I am one of them.

Princess Mabel is probably the last case of consent being denied upon request. There were other cases though of individuals who were excluded because they didn't ask for consent, but married anyway like Pieter-Christiaan, Floris and recently Amedeo of Belgium.


Having said that, at some point there were doubts about whether Maxima would be approved or not (because of her father's background) and I'm pretty sure, judging from Daniel's and Carl Philip's wedding speeches and how long their respective engagements were delayed, that there was once considerable resistance to approving their marriages.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

So there we have it. Commoners have married into every royal family from Sweden to Denmark, from Luxembourg to Britain. Non seem to be on the verge of collapse over it

The collapse of monarchies will come sooner than you think. And when one collapses, for an example in Sweden or Belgium, the others in Norway, the Netherlands, etc. will become very wobbly too.

When one country opened the Iron Curtain in 1989, soon the one after the other Communist regime collapsed. Who would ever have thought to see a unified Germany, to see all the former East Bloc being members of NATO and EU? Who would ever have thought the proud French giving up their Franc and the self-assured Germans their Deutschmark? It happened and sooner than anyone realized.

Who thought that a Kadhafi, a Mubarak, an Assad, etc.would all fall, one by one, just because in one North-African country (Tunisia) the people came on the street and revolted? Who could have foreseen or even imagined all what happened?

The same with the monarchies. When a modern West-European country decides that monarchy should be ended in a neat and peaceful way, it will work like domino-stones. Exactly like once a modern West-European country legalized same-gender marriages and it spread across Europe. Exactly like one monarchy started to make the succession absolute primogeniture and it spread across Europe. Exactly like Beatrix and even the Pope adbicated and suddenly the "taboo" on abdications in never-thought monarchies like Spain or Belgium was gone too.

With other words. Marrying for popularity but not looking to the fundamental principles of what monarchy and/or nobility means will lead to their downfall. You say, none seem on the verge of collapse. Indeed, but the examples I mentioned above showed how quick things can change.

I can assure you: du moment the Parliament in Sweden, with all gratitude and respect and with gentlemanlike and generous arrangements, decides to end the monarchy and makes Sweden a republic. (It can be any other monarchy anyway). You can be sure that in Brussels or in The Hague or in Madrid politicians will call for a "national debate" and "it is time for our country to adapt to modern time", etc. It is my strong conviction that all monarchies hang on a thin line. That thin line is the specialness of the institution, the attachment the people have to it, the uniqueness of the royal family. As all this has gone, the thin line becomes ultrathin and utmost vulnerable.

Anyway, every individual will have an own opinion on the matter. But be sure, like the amazing and unbelievable examples I have given (the collapse of the Iron Curtain, the German unification, the opening of all EU borders and the birth of a common currrency, the Arab Spring,) that the start always seemed a futile event with unforeseen consequences.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...]

And contrary to being despised as an unworthy commoner Prince Daniel is one of the most liked and respected Royal spouses on this Forum. He has lots of fans. I am one of them.

Daniel is doing a fine job so far but when anyone can do this, it is the best plea to end the circus. By the way, the popularity of the Swedish monarchy, despite all the happy events, is not that high, in comparison with some other monarchies.

And... who says that someone, eeeerhmmmm, let us say Jean-Christophe Bonaparte, Prince Napoléon (here with his sister Princess Caroline in front of their famous ancestor) would not be a great Prince of Sweden, Duke of Västergötland? At the same time such a consort would have added a new dimension to the Royal House, for sure knowing that one of Napoléon's best generals, Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, Maréchal du Empire, became Sweden's first Bernadotte King.

All newspapers would have mentioned it. The Daily Mail would not have written "Crown Princess weds her trainer" but inform the (surprised) public that there still is a Napoléon walking around and that he has conquered the heart of Sweden's beautiful Crown Princess. It is just an example. I know that Daniel is a great dude but his greatness is the best proof that we can end the monarchy today, if you understand what I mean.

 

[Rudolph]

Republicans want to abolish monarchy regardless of who royals marry.
Kaiser Wilhelm was so class conscious he didn't allow Serene Highnesses to mingle with Royal Highnesses and it didn't help save his throne

I'll leave it to the people to decide when to end the monarchy. As it stands now I have no worries my country will be a monarchy for years to come.

 

[Mbruno]

The collapse of monarchies will come sooner than you think. And when one collapses, for an example in Sweden or Belgium, the others in Norway, the Netherlands, etc. will become very wobbly too.

When one country opened the Iron Curtain in 1989, soon the one after the other Communist regime collapsed. Who would ever have thought to see a unified Germany, to see all the former East Bloc being members of NATO and EU? Who would ever have thought the proud French giving up their Franc and the self-assured Germans their Deutschmark? It happened and sooner than anyone realized.

Who thought that a Kadhafi, a Mubarak, an Assad, etc.would all fall, one by one, just because in one North-African country (Tunisia) the people came on the street and revolted? Who could have foreseen or even imagined all what happened?

The same with the monarchies. When a modern West-European country decides that monarchy should be ended in a neat and peaceful way, it will work like domino-stones. Exactly like once a modern West-European country legalized same-gender marriages and it spread across Europe. Exactly like one monarchy started to make the succession absolute primogeniture and it spread across Europe. Exactly like Beatrix and even the Pope adbicated and suddenly the "taboo" on abdications in never-thought monarchies like Spain or Belgium was gone too.

With other words. Marrying for popularity but not looking to the fundamental principles of what monarchy and/or nobility means will lead to their downfall. You say, none seem on the verge of collapse. Indeed, but the examples I mentioned above showed how quick things can change.

I can assure you: du moment the Parliament in Sweden, with all gratitude and respect and with gentlemanlike and generous arrangements, decides to end the monarchy and makes Sweden a republic. (It can be any other monarchy anyway). You can be sure that in Brussels or in The Hague or in Madrid politicians will call for a "national debate" and "it is time for our country to adapt to modern time", etc. It is my strong conviction that all monarchies hang on a thin line. That thin line is the specialness of the institution, the attachment the people have to it, the uniqueness of the royal family. As all this has gone, the thin line becomes ultrathin and utmost vulnerable.

Anyway, every individual will have an own opinion on the matter. But be sure, like the amazing and unbelievable examples I have given (the collapse of the Iron Curtain, the German unification, the opening of all EU borders and the birth of a common currrency, the Arab Spring,) that the start always seemed a futile event with unforeseen consequences.

It is perfectly possible that one day the monarchy may be abolished in Belgium, or in Spain, or in Sweden. But I don't think that has anything to do with the kings or queens of those countries marrying commoners, nor do I think that their marrying nobles would reduce the likelihood of their countries becoming republics. In Belgium BTW, the current and former kings did not marry commoners. In that sense, I believe your argument is flawed as it considers a possible outcome (the abolition of the monarchy), but assigns it to a wrong cause (who the king or queen marries).

In any case, the downfall of the monarchy is, by all accounts, far from imminent in Sweden or even in Spain and Belgium, and much less so in Norway, DEnmark, Britain or the Netherlands. Throughout Europe, monarchies were historically abolished in the course or in the aftermath of major wars, authoritarian regimes, nationalist uprisings, and/or prolonged economic and social crisis. Small, wealthy countries like Denmark or the Netherlands do not fit that pattern and the incentive to change a system of government that works well and to which people are used is not really that significant. In Spain or in Belgium, on the other hand, if the monarchy falls, it will probably happen in connection with a breakup of the country.

 

[Al_bina]

Are the only scenarios of a royal marrying a commoner going wrong, Masako and maybe kinda sorta Mette Marit? Those are good numbers considering how many of these marriages have taken place. Isn't Princess Kiko also a commoner? She wouldn't be considered a disaster even before her son was born. I think the main point is that a successful royal isn't based on what family you were born into but on who you are as a person. Those with long pedigrees have been good and bad at their jobs, and those with no pedigree have been good and bad at their jobs.

The Japanese Imperial family avoids ladies with a questionable past (divorces, awkward photo shoots, lack of high education) in the family. Both daughters-in-law come from common respected families, have excellent education, and speak multiple languages. Unlike its European counterparts, the IHA did not embellish resumes.
Crown Prince Naruhito and Crown Princess Masako were under great pressure to produce a male heir. They failed to do so, and there was a backlash. I wonder how Queen Letizia, Queen Maxima, or Crown Princess Victoria would feel under such pressure.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Daniel is doing a fine job so far but when anyone can do this, it is the best plea to end the circus. By the way, the popularity of the Swedish monarchy, despite all the happy events, is not that high, in comparison with some other monarchies.

And... who says that someone, eeeerhmmmm, let us say Jean-Christophe Bonaparte, Prince Napoléon (here with his sister Princess Caroline in front of their famous ancestor) would not be a great Prince of Sweden, Duke of Västergötland? At the same time such a consort would have added a new dimension to the Royal House, for sure knowing that one of Napoléon's best generals, Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, Maréchal du Empire, became Sweden's first Bernadotte King.

All newspapers would have mentioned it. The Daily Mail would not have written "Crown Princess weds her trainer" but inform the (surprised) public that there still is a Napoléon walking around and that he has conquered the heart of Sweden's beautiful Crown Princess. It is just an example. I know that Daniel is a great dude but his greatness is the best proof that we can end the monarchy today, if you understand what I mean.

Prince Napoleon might have been required to embrace Lutheranism to marry Victoria(if he'd been so inclined) not to mention renounce his own illustrious name and take the Bernadotte name and Arms.

Nope...no way. In fact it would have all been considerably more complicated than the fantasy you have described.

Maybe Charlotte Casiraghi would have been perfect for him if he'd been her type. Aesthetically they would have been amazing, and reinforcing the existing Napoleonic ties to the House of Grimaldi would have been a bonanza for historians and those who are fascinated by tracing genealogy like myself.