Marriages between royalty and nobility

[MelinaB.]

Originally Posted by lumutqueen

You can't really go by that, if you go back far enough in royal families there will be generations that had no inherit royal blood, just royal titles.
The way they use the titles is what counts, not the fact that they are only 1/4 royal.

I understand your point and you're right.But then,why dividing people into royals and commoners(in the future,I mean)?

[grace marie]

I don't want to be malicious but there is some joke about royalty - we couldn't say that XVIII King is truly king, we never know, if a young throne prince is more similar to a hadsome servant than his royal father.

In the past royal's marriages was a political deal, hardly ever love, so I wouldn't be suprise. And I wouldn't say sb is only 1/4 royal. He/she is royal until they children of the royal couple.

[amedea]

I think I agree with MelinaB., mesalliances risk to reduce tha charm of Royal Families. When they will be normal people it will be hard to understand why they have such privileges and duties.

[Hereditary Thane]

There is no such thing as 1/4 royal blood! You inherit genes from both parents and no scientist has ever isolated a royal gene. Royalty is a family or dynastic concept, a class or caste if you will. The old maxim that it is a wise child who knows its father is as true now as it ever was.

[amedea]

Sorry, Hereditary Thane, but it is centuries that all european royal and noble families reason about percentage of royal or noble blood: you are free to don't like it, but if you don't like it, it means that you don't like royalty!

[Hereditary Thane]

I did not mean to annoy or impose my belifes upon you, Amedea. What I posted is an accepted scientific and sociological fact. I have a long recorded geneaolgy but I would never be so audacious as to say I am 1/8 royal on my mother's side or 1/4 on my father's side. I'd be considered a laughing stock. I am a royalist, not an ostreich.