Marriage to Commoners vs Royals/Nobles

[Ish]

If we're counting Diana as a "commoner" then George VI has them all beat for marrying Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in 1923.

 

[Countessmeout]

If we're counting Diana as a "commoner" then George VI has them all beat for marrying Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in 1923.

True enough. For the modern royals, the first actual commoner marriage would be Princess Margaret to Anthony, who was made an earl after marriage. Followed by Anne and Mark Philipps. Prince Andrew would be the first son of a modern monarch. And certainly they weren't paving the way for foreign royals who had done it previously before.

Diana was the 'cinderella' image I think because she wasn't the traditional aristocratic socialite. Everyone tends to picture the pre-school teacher who cleaned flats, forgetting she grew up at Sandringham playing with Andrew and Edward, and her father was a viscount/earl.

 

[Ish]

True enough. For the modern royals, the first actual commoner marriage would be Princess Margaret to Anthony, who was made an earl after marriage. Followed by Anne and Mark Philipps. Prince Andrew would be the first son of a modern monarch. And certainly they weren't paving the way for foreign royals who had done it previously before.

Diana was the 'cinderella' image I think because she wasn't the traditional aristocratic socialite. Everyone tends to picture the pre-school teacher who cleaned flats, forgetting she grew up at Sandringham playing with Andrew and Edward, and her father was a viscount/earl.

Actually, if you think about it, Margaret isn't the first modern marriage between a royal and a commoner, not even in Britain. In Britain, she's beaten by her infamous uncle David, the former Edward VIII, who married Wallis Simpson in 1937.

There are predecessors to that marriage as well. Prince Sigvard of Sweden married Erica Patzek in 1934. Alfonso, Prince of Asturias, married Edelmira de Sampedro-Ocejo y Robato in 1933. And of course Carol II of Romania tops them all with his 1918 marriage of Zizi Lambrino.

 

[Countessmeout]

Sorry I guess I should have specified I was referring to the modern BRF and not monarchies in general.

The difference between Margaret and her Uncle, David had to give up his place in the royal family to marry his commoner (though it was more the fact she was a divorcee). Margaret is the first in the modern BRF who married a commoner and maintained her place in the family and succession. She even gained a title.

Same goes for Sweden. CG certainly is not the first to marry a commoner, but the others before him lost their titles and place in the family to do so. It is why Bertil and Lilian waited so long to marry. Women didn't have a place in succession so it didn't matter to CG's sisters when they married.

Prince Alfonso had to renounce his rights to the throne to marry a commoner as well.

CG, Harald, Rainier and others certainly were not the first to marry commoners, but they were the ones who made it acceptable for an heir to marry a commoner and maintain their place in succession.

 

[Pranter]

Anne Boleyn was not royal either...that's going way back.


LaRae

 

[NotHRH]

Anne Boleyn was not royal either...that's going way back.


LaRae

Yeah, but she had "connections" - ??????

 

[Pranter]

If her mother hadn't married 'beneath her station' to a man from the trades who knows the course of history ....I think that probably happened more than people realize even back then.


LaRae

 

[Countessmeout]

Anne may not have been royalty but she was highly connected, and aristocratic maternally. Her father may have only been made an Earl after Anne hooked up with the king, but his father was a knight of the bath by Richard III and high sheriff, and his grandfather was Lord mayor of London. His mother was Lady Margaret Butler, the daughter of the Earl of Ormond. She was co-heiress to her father's fortune, outside of Ireland where a male cousin inherited, and the land and money Mary Boleyn and her husband William inherited after the death of her parents, came from her. Of course Anne's mother was the daughter of the Duke of Norfolk.

Henry VIII may not have married princesses as was expected, with the exception of Katherine of Aragon and Anne of Cleves, but his wives were all well-connected and most at least partially aristocratic (maternal side). Katherine Howard was of course Anne's cousin, and artistocratic on her dad's side. Edmund Howard was very poor (Elizabeth Boleyn's brother) and left her in the care of his stepmother, the dowager duchess of Norfolk. Jane Seymour is actually related to them as well. Her father was gentry, knighted for service to Henry VII an VIII but her mother was first cousins with Elizabeth Boleyn and Edmund Howard. Margery, Elizabeth and Edmund were all the grandchildren of Elizabeth Chenney. Elizabeth was married twice. Her only child from her first husband was a daughter who married the Duke of Norfolk and was mother to Elizabeth and Edmund. Wit her second husband she had 7 kids. It was her daughter Anne from this marriage who was mother to Jane's mother Margery.

Katherine Parr was of the wealthy landed gentry. Her father was a knight and lord of the manor. Her mother Maude was an heiress, and was connected with Catherine of Aragon. After the death of her second husband Baron Latimer, Lady Latimer (Katherine) used her mother's connections to gain a place in the household of Lady Mary, where she caught the king's eye.

 

[Meraude]

Anne Boleyn was not royal either...that's going way back.

There was also the commoner Anne Hyde, mother of two queens (Mary and Anne). Her father got a title, but it was after her marriage to the future James II.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

You know what, I'm 2 years late but I have something thong to say: I think Duc has a point regarding the long term role of RFs. In the short term its all happy and marrying for love and a marriage that will actually last; but over the long long term people who look back 1
75-100yrs in the past and see that King WhatsaMaCallit VI had 3 generations of teachers, garbage men, and waitresses in his ancestry then people may question what is so royal about him.
On the other hand perhaps a lot of royal families would rather the slow erosion of the royalness of it all as opposed to the fast implosion of say marrying a Lady Diana Spencer who did more damage than Mette, Sophia, Maxima, Kate and her Uncle Gary combined.
Lastly, a few of these royals have eroded the mystique around themselves by having affairs and getting divorced.
I definitely understand the point Duc is making about erosion because of commoner marriages; I do think Sofia and Carl Phillip have especially lowered the bar.

 

[Mbruno]

Hi all,

In the regards of your responses, can we fairly question the relevance of the Monarchy today?

If the monarchy were considered irrelevant in the countries that are still monarchies, then it would have been already abolished. I suppose the answer to your question should be straightforward then.

 

[AristoCat]

You know what, I'm 2 years late but I have something thong to say: I think Duc has a point regarding the long term role of RFs. In the short term its all happy and marrying for love and a marriage that will actually last; but over the long long term people who look back 1
75-100yrs in the past and see that King WhatsaMaCallit VI had 3 generations of teachers, garbage men, and waitresses in his ancestry then people may question what is so royal about him.
On the other hand perhaps a lot of royal families would rather the slow erosion of the royalness of it all as opposed to the fast implosion of say marrying a Lady Diana Spencer who did more damage than Mette, Sophia, Maxima, Kate and her Uncle Gary combined.
Lastly, a few of these royals have eroded the mystique around themselves by having affairs and getting divorced.
I definitely understand the point Duc is making about erosion because of commoner marriages; I do think Sofia and Carl Phillip have especially lowered the bar.

I truly do believe that these royals need to get it into their heads that the only reason they are where they are is because their ancestors always made sure to be the best in every possible area. They didn't disrespect their parents and they never made apologies for their ancestors. They were the most ruthless and did it on behalf of the nation, not on their own personal behalf. Not just honest work, but grunt work; the men married for brides who brought big bucks to the treasury and the women married to secure treaties and spread the royal line around the world to make sure that in the event of a revolution, that a family tie would ensure a safe welcome.

 

[Curryong]

In previous centuries Princesses were often treated as pawns on a giant chess board in order to secure binding treaties with other countries, and sometimes the heirs to thrones were too. A great many unhappy marriages were the result, and we don't know how many divorces there would have been had divorce been permissible then. Go back to that sort of world, even if it was possible? I don't think so!

 

[AristoCat]

Neither would I.

Royals need to find other ways of distinguishing themselves, to show WHY they are at the top and why they should remain there and have respect as their due.

 

[Osipi]

In previous centuries Princesses were often treated as pawns on a giant chess board in order to secure binding treaties with other countries, and sometimes the heirs to thrones were too. A great many unhappy marriages were the result, and we don't know how many divorces there would have been had divorce been permissible then. Go back to that sort of world, even if it was possible? I don't think so!

I think you've defined the definition of royal marriages in the past pretty well. Sometimes even, for the most part, they weren't marriages as we know them to be now but rather royal alliances and treaties.

Most likely too is that this practice of marriage between royals and aristocrats and the upper echelons that spawned the unwritten code that there was the marriage and then there were the discreet love affairs. The marriage was for the status and the titles and the land and the affairs of the heart for personal fulfillment. We've seen examples of this kind of thing even in the 20th century still.

With the changing social environment and the need for alliances and treaties left to the government, the old way of doing things no longer apply as bloodlines and marriage of "suitable" personages that build up a "pure" bloodline or whatever else was deemed proper in the older ages began to become irrelevant and people began to realize that royal, aristocratic, noble or commoner, they had the right to marry for love, happiness and self fulfillment with a partner they cared about.

Personally I think its a change for the better. A person may be entitled to be royal but its also important that they're realized as being human also like everyone else on the planet.

 

[COUNTESS]

Royal is just a made up designation, by the guy who had the biggest sword. Over the years for both good and bad the concept held in some places. That is their prerogative. But "royal" is just a farce. They are no better then the waitresses or garbage people mentioned above. Just a fancy designation they held for themselves, obtained as aforementioned.

 

[Mirabel]

Royal is just a made up designation, by the guy who had the biggest sword. Over the years for both good and bad the concept held in some places. That is their prerogative. But "royal" is just a farce. They are no better then the waitresses or garbage people mentioned above. Just a fancy designation they held for themselves, obtained as aforementioned.

I agree.

For example, CP Victoria married her personal trainer, but the Bernadotte dynasty was founded by one of Napoleon's field marshals, who hadn't a drop of royal blood.
So actually she is no more royal than her husband is. So how could he be a poor choice?

There are probably many cases like that.

 

[AristoCat]

I wonder how different things would be if royals actually accomplished something of substance that no one could claim their title bought for them. There is a lot out there where they can prove themselves and that is what they should do.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Royals need to find other ways of distinguishing themselves, to show WHY they are at the top and why they should remain there and have respect as their due.

It's somewhat of a pointless discussion as royalty comes out of a feudal system which we no longer have in play (for the most part). It is truly a vestige.

We continue to have a hierarchy of status/power but it is based on money and the control of capital. There are no feudal oaths of fealty (except in 'organized crime' - personal loyalty to a single individual is a throwback to feudalism). Capitalism does not have attendant upon it tips of the hat, nods of the head, or genuflections/curtsies. We would be aghast if any capitalist/corporatists demanded that of anyone. (Though please note that any organization that does have feudal overtones will indeed have those kinds of personal professions of loyalty, e.g. 'The Godfather').

Point being royalty does not have any 'respect that is their due'. Since the Enlightenment the game has been a bit different.

 

[MARG]

In previous centuries Princesses were often treated as pawns on a giant chess board in order to secure binding treaties with other countries, and sometimes the heirs to thrones were too. A great many unhappy marriages were the result, and we don't know how many divorces there would have been had divorce been permissible then. Go back to that sort of world, even if it was possible? I don't think so!

Unhappy marriages only applied when there were political alliances. When there was just money even if the alliance broke down, there tended to be a lot of widowers.

 

[Bine221]

During the last days I have seen some documentaries about the Romanovs as well as the Habsburgs - and in both documentaries the "deseases" (Habsburg Lips as well as Haemophilia) were addressed. Both as a result of not enough gene interchange.
This is what is a positive result of the long term role of reigning houses with "commoners".... to get a refresh of the gene-pool again.

Secord aspect..... the political alliances marriages.
Example Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria and Belgian Princess Stephanie - the lived completely different lives and finally hated each other. And this may have been one (of many) reason(s) that he finally committed suicide. Here a marriage of love between a Royal and a Commoner may help at least to obviate that a marriage may be wrong from the beginning. Also the fact, that a separation is possible today (unthinkable 100 years ago) may help preventing an eternal "marital feud" which also helps for a better bond between the RF and the people and a better reputation (pls see Charles & Diana and their war in the media).

So for the long term I see positive aspects for the wedding between commoners and members of the RF.

Bye Bine

 

[AristoCat]

I just think that 'suitable' should mainly be about mental and emotional stability and someone who gets it that they are supposed to support, not star in some kind of soap opera. Someone who gets it that they're supposed to put themselves at their spouse's service and that it's never going to be all about them. No future royal consort should go into this marriage thinking that they're the ones who should be nurtured and take center stage.

It's not nice, but it's how it is.

 

[Lady Nimue]

I just think that 'suitable' should mainly be about mental and emotional stability and someone who gets it that they are supposed to support, not star in some kind of soap opera. Someone who gets it that they're supposed to put themselves at their spouse's service and that it's never going to be all about them. No future royal consort should go into this marriage thinking that they're the ones who should be nurtured and take center stage.

It's not nice, but it's how it is.

Well, we know who we are talking about in recent history. A more 'unsuitable' bride (albeit with all the bloodlines and 'breeding') there never was as it turns out in that instance. I think now there is sharp eye to such unsuitability. Hard lesson, dearly paid for.

 

[Osipi]

Well, we know who we are talking about in recent history. A more 'unsuitable' bride (albeit with all the bloodlines and 'breeding') there never was as it turns out in that instance. I think now there is sharp eye to such unsuitability. Hard lesson, dearly paid for.

The stark fact remains that problems in the marriage can happen no matter what "bloodline" or status or whether prince or pauper. That is what, to me, shows that "labels" on a person cannot and do not in any way, shape or form make them "suitable" for marriage to a royal.

Even a marriage sometimes that starts out with all the proper boxes checked off but still seems to be a marriage made because it seemed to be a "society fit" marriage doesn't assure long partnership and love. Example being the then Duke of York and Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon. She wasn't sure at all she wanted into the royal life of a Duchess and Bertie had to propose several times before she accepted him. No one could have known at the time they were destined to be King and Queen. She was his stability, his support system and a strong person for him to lean on.

A commoner such as Sarah, Sophie, Kate or anyone else for that matter may be just what the doctor ordered for a "royal" but not because of their status or any other external factor but because the couple fit together like peanut butter and jelly. Its not until after the marriage that the couple actually find out if they endure or if that sandwich turns to oil and vinegar as time passes.

When it comes to marriage between *anybody*, its the experience of the marriage itself that is the prime test of its endurance. The two people in the marriage determine its success as interacting human beings. The externals such as what we deem to be "suitable" for marriage to a royal amount to one hill of magic jumping beans when the cards are all laid out on the table.

 

[Denville]

I agree.

So actually she is no more royal than her husband is. So how could he be a poor choice?

There are probably many cases like that.

JC Bernadotte was indeed a soldier, of no particular "good family".. but his family marred into the royal families of Europe and so technically yes she is "more royal" than her husband.

 

[Denville]

A commoner such as Sarah, Sophie, Kate or anyone else for that matter may be just what the doctor ordered for a "royal" but not because of their status or any other external factor but because the couple fit together like peanut butter and jelly. Its not until after the marriage that the couple actually find out if they endure or if that sandwich turns to oil and vinegar as time passes.

When it comes to marriage between *anybody*, its the experience of the marriage itself that is the prime test of its endurance. The two people in the marriage determine its success as interacting human beings. The externals such as what we deem to be "suitable" for marriage to a royal amount to one hill of magic jumping beans when the cards are all laid out on the table.

Its true that problems can arise in any marriage, between couples that adored each other or hardly knew each other. Or where one of them was (As Blackadder puts it) a footman and the other was the Duchess of Whereever...
but the general idea was that (a) someone close in rank to the RF, whether another royal or someone upper class, would know the score of Royal life better and would therefore fit in better..and (b) would be less open to the charge that they had married out of ambition, if they were the one of lower rank.
As people have said, it doesn't always work. Diana was "well bred", her family were couriters, and she clearly "didn't know the score" that well, and she and Charles were oil and water.
Kate is middle class, but she and Will have been lucky enough to live in an age, where they were able in spite of massive media intrusion, to spend a lot of time together, to get to know each other realy well before they committed..

 

[Mirabel]

JC Bernadotte was indeed a soldier, of no particular "good family".. but his family marred into the royal families of Europe and so technically yes she is "more royal" than her husband.

And now Daniel has married into the royal families of Europe.
So, he and Victoria are now equally royal!

 

[Mbruno]

I believe we have to distinguish three categories in this thread.


1) Marriage to "commoners", e.g. Máxima, Laurentien, Letizia, Mary, Mette-Marit, Daniel, Sofia (Hellqvist), Chris O'Neill, Sophie, Kate and, in a previous generation, Sonja, Silvia and Maria Teresa.

2) Marriage to "nobility", which includes e.g. Fabiola, Paola, Mathilde, Stéphanie, Henri, Claus, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, or Diana. I would also include marriage to "gentry" like Sarah or Camilla into this category, as they fit the broader "continental" (rather than British) definition of nobility, as do daughters of peers like Diana or Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (I know, technically "commoners" in the UK, but definitely nobility by continental standards).

3) Marriage to other royals, the last major examples of which were: Elizabeth and Philip, Juan Carlos and Sofia, Constantine and Anne-Marie, Ernst August Sr. and Caroline, and Alois and Sophie of Bavaria (note: there seems to be a much larger number of inter-dynastic marriages involving two non-reigning families, but I am not counting those).

Broadly speaking, I would say category 1 above is becoming the norm nowadays, and is likely to remain so in the future. That has to do not only with changing social attitudes and the changing nature of the monarchy, but also with the fact that royals increasingly live more "normal" lives today in the sense of going to normal schools and universities (as opposed to being tutored in a palace) and generally mingling / having social relations with what was formerly called "middle-class people". I would still make a distinction though between marriage with the "upper middle-class" (or "patrician class" as signified more by wealth rather than birth), which IMHO includes people like Kate, Chris O'Neill or Máxima, who would normally be in the same social circles as royals these days, and marriage to others who, without intending to sound pedantic, would be normally seen as being definitely of lower social standing, as was the case with some recent royal marriages in Norway and Sweden.

Having said that, category 2 (i.e marriage to nobility in the broader sense, but not royalty) is still a possibility that should not be dismissed. Some royal families like the Belgian Coburgs for example seem to still set the bar at marrying at least nobility, although Laurent already married an upper middle-class woman (Claire), whereas Astrid married another (non-ruling) royal and Philippe married a noble woman as his father and uncle had done before.

To a certain extent, especially in the UK, nobility in that broader sense is also part of the same social circle of modern royals with the added bonus, relatively to "new" upper middle-class, of a "family name". Contrary to what is often assumed though, in terms of education or being better"prepared" or adjusted to royal life, I don't really see nobility having any inherent advantage over upper middle-class that has, especially in the UK, a similar upbringing.

The category that does have, however, an advantage in terms of knowing royal life from birth are obviously royals themselves, especially if they come from an actual reigning family. Marriages between royals, however, are increasingly less frequent and, I'm afraid, won't be back in the future. There are increasingly fewer reigning families, so the choices are limited, and inter-dynastic marriages, as others have said, are no longer a matter of international diplomacy . On the other hand, marrying a foreign bride or groom from a deposed family in continental Europe adds little value to current reigning families compared to marrying local middle-class brides/grooms, who would be more popular domestically.

 

[Rudolph]

Peter York, the author of The Official Sloane Ranger Handbook (the one with Lady Diana on the cover), was asked in an interview a few years ago if Kate was a 'Sloane' and he didn't hesitate.

"The impulse behind the question over whether she’s a Sloane is a snobbish one,” he said, “Of course she is. She's from a well-off Home Counties family, she went to Downe House, Marlborough and St Andrews, for God’s sake."

So the fact she doesn't have 'Lady' in front of her name is meaningless in 2017.

The Middletons are in the top 0.5 percent of earners in Britain. Kate has a private school education that only 7 percent of Brits enjoy.

We need to keep 'commoner' in perspective.

 

[Mbruno]

And now Daniel has married into the royal families of Europe.
So, he and Victoria are now equally royal!

Not quite. CP Victoria has several generations of royal ancestors besides all the former Bernadotte kings per se. For example, her father descends from Queen Victoria of the UK both in paternal and maternal line, and he also descends from the former (i.e. pre-Bernadotte) kings of Sweden via the wife of King Gustav V. I don't think you can seriously compare Victoria's family tree to Daniel's.

Peter York, the author of The Official Sloane Ranger Handbook (the one with Lady Diana on the cover), was asked in an interview a few years ago if Kate was a 'Sloane' and he didn't hesitate.

"The impulse behind the question over whether she’s a Sloane is a snobbish one,” he said, “Of course she is. She's from a well-off Home Counties family, she went to Downe House, Marlborough and St Andrews, for God’s sake."

So the fact she doesn't have 'Lady' in front of her name is meaningless in 2017.

The Middletons are in the top 0.5 percent of earners in Britain. Kate has a private school education that only 7 percent of Brits enjoy.

We need to keep 'commoner' in perspective.

My point exactly above.