Morganatic Marriages In European Monarchies

[Russian]

Excuse, but I have a question.

How you concern to morganatic marriages?

I wish to tell to you, that I do not like such marriages.

Why princes and princesses contact marriage with persons of not regal advantage?


1. Turn of absolutely inadmissible and scandalous mismarriages of the beginning of XXI century in royal families of Norway, Denmark, Spain shake bases of their authority. Aspiring as much as possible to democratize the monarchy, they reduce them to a level of usual theatrical properties.

2. The latest news from Belgium, the Netherlands and Denmark do not leave doubts that princes have decided to destroy own monarchy. Now in their Kingdoms any child without dependence from its floor can borrow a throne!

3. It is naturally considered as a positive step since keeps within idea of political correctness and emancipation of women. The birth of the daughter at prince of Asturia at once has pushed prime minister Sapatero to declare the beginning of change of the present dynastic legislation of Spain on which the daughter of the successor of the Throne can inherit only after the brother. In opinion of social democrat Sapatero " it breaks the rights of women in royal family ", and that introduction of the Swedish model abolishes the rights of a dynasty since the name and a title pass on a man's line, nobody excites it. And that the future infanta of Spain will marry any football player, the bodyguard or the comedian, it and so it is clear.

4. For example, in the Romanian royal house the same history. After death of Мichael I by the successor its senior daughter who has entered a left-handed marriage with the simple guy by name Rada Duba. Thus, instead of dynasty of Hohenzollern-Sigmarinens in the Romanian royal house to affirm the dynasty of Duba! And it provided that dynasty of Hohenzollern-Sigmarinens safely is well!

5. One question: how to be what daughters of successors of the Scandinavian thrones obviously as well as their fathers will create families on love, instead of with feeling of a duty? How to be what their posterity begins to belong to a new dynasty when it is still alive old - true and lawful?

6. Where there are European monarchy, mixing up with simple people?

 

[Toledo]

Royals are just people like everyone else who happen to have an ancestor that took power somewhere and passed it to future generations in his family. So they have the same blood as you and I. Well, in my case it has a lot of sugar because I love sweets!
But, a non-royal person marrying a royal does not raise eyebrows like in the past. If they love each other any barrier will break down, starting with class prejudice.

 

[lise]

I have no problem with marriages between royals and non-royals if they are in love and the non-royal is prepared to take on royal reponsiblity I see no reason to stop the marriage. I'd rather see royals marrying non-royals they love insead of royals marrying royals for duty.

 

[princess olga]

Russian, you bring up a very valid and interesting point, and one that, in my opinion, goes straight to the core of why billions of people (including myself) can be ambivalent about the very concept of monarchy, of royalty and its place in a society.

While I on the one hand completely agree with Lise's comment, as in, I'm all for royals marrying whomever they happen to love, I agree with you that there is also definitely another side to that coin. And that side is: the more these (reigning) royals opt for a spouse out of the vast crowd of available commoners, the more that happens, the more everyone will think: "well, gee, if that waitress/banker/journalist/fillintheblank girl can marry the heir to the throne, being a good monarch can't be that hard, now could it?!"

Or, worse, they see a, say, Mette Marit getting hitched to the Crown Prince of their country and think, "well, gee, MY daughter could do that too!" Which, and I agree with that, could very well spell the beginning of the end of the concept as a whole, because it erodes the necessary distance and mystery surrounding any monarch.

So in short, I don't know what the right answer is here but I certainly agree that this is a question that will come up more and more.

p.s. as far as cutting a good royal, I happen to think Mette Marit's doing a good job.

 

[princess olga]

Royals are just people like everyone else who happen to have an ancestor that took power somewhere and passed it to future generations in his family. So they have the same blood as you and I.

Couldn't agree more Toledo, however, Russian has a good point here: the more these royals pick a non-'blue-blooded' partner, the more the very fact that these royals are really nothing different than the rest of us, will be blatantly, increasingly, clear for all to see. This can of course ultimately trickle down to the point of escalation: where people decide to jettison the whole concept [of having a king in their midst] altogether. (Not that there's anything per se wrong with that: France, Finland, Singapore and the filthy rich US of A are examples of places that get by just fine without a monarch--Russian may beg to differ with me on this one

 

[norwegianne]

To a certain point, I agree with Russian - the notion of royalty is based on royals marrying royals...

But - if you take a look in the Royal Cousins thread, you can see that a deduction that has been made is that - prior to the recent influx of marrying commoners - was that the royals were simply too inter-related. Olav of Norway and Märtha of Sweden being a prime example. Olav - the son of two cousins who married - married his own cousin, Märtha. Märtha's parents were also related to each other, if not that closely. Getting some new blood in, every now and then for the next generations, will be good.

Also, isn't the term morganatic wrong when it comes to the royal marriages mentioned by Russian in the first post? As I understand it, morganatic marriages mean that the wives do not gain their husband's rank, and the children of the marriage do not inherit anything in terms of the dynasty. But, Ingrid Alexandra, Christian, Victoria, Catharina-Amalia - Elisabeth and Leonor are in line to the throne in their countries - and will stand to inherit. (Leonor possibly pending a brother and/or a change in the constitution, if I've understood it correctly.).

I might have misunderstood, though.

 

[Duc de Chatres]

I love this subject because it is really controversial and my views tend to be conservative, based on experices from the past twenty or so years. For starters, I strongly believe the position is one for which a person MUST be trained FROM BIRTH. The experience with Diana and Fergie shows this clearly. True, the princess had some very fine qualities that enhanced the image of monarchy but there were others that have left a sour taste and I need not go into that but what I am thinking about is the way she upstaged the Prince of Wales instead of playing the part expected of her-a supportive member of the cast in the background, then using her immense media power to the detriment of the family. Princesses trained from birth know this, and even the Duke of Edinburgh lives by this code-he is there to support the principal partner, The Queen.
Another reason I detest morganatic marriages is that royalty must be seen to be different. When the girl next door marries a future king, their subjects will see minimal differences between themselves and the royal family. This will reduce deference and eventually lead to people thinking "if he's like me, why should we have a king anyway?"
Then there is the whole idea that the upbringing of royal children throughout Europe has changed drastically in the last forty years or so from a uniform policy to... It was easier before-a princess would be imported from a foreign court and she already knew the form and what was expected of her. There were minimal 'surprises' of the Diana and Fergie kind (please note I greatly admired how the Princess of Wales breathed new life into the monarchy).
The last reason is silly but I think Europe will be greatly deprived in the future if you won't have a King of Britian married to a Danish princess who's sister is the Queen of Sweden and whose first cousin is the King of Spain, who in turn is married to the sister of the King of Belgium who's uncle is the Grand Duke of Luxembourg. Complicated family trees make for interesting observation and conversation.

 

[foiegrass]

i guess if they all keep marrying commoners, then the special thing about them being royalty would be gone ?

 

[auntie]

My main concern regarding morgonatic marriages is that the royal Jewells are slowly being lost to the families, in previous generations the bride brought to the house she was marrying to a nice addition of royal Jewels, and now, with all the morgonatic marriages going on no new jewells are flowing into the coffers! We have a crown princess with only one tiara(Belgium)! What will the next generation of Royals wear to the royal weddings?

Also, here is a thought: I have noticed that the nobilty and aristocraticy do tend to marry in the upper class, more than most of the Crown Princes or any royal princesses of this generation have!

Another thought is that I feel that people don't mind other royals marrying commoners, but their royals (ie:from their country) should marry within their class!

 

[Furienna]

Royals marrying royals is a thing of the past. Already many decades ago, four Swedish princes chose to marry "common" women instead of keeping their rights to inherit the thrown. As the generation after this grew up, it became clear, that you couldn't keep royals from marrying commoners any longer, and in that generation of royals, only our king's sister Birgitta married another royal, a Prince Johann of Hozenhollern. The princesses Margareta, Desirée and Christina married commoners, even if Desirée's husband is a nobleman and hardly is a commoner, and king Carl XVI Gustaf himself hardly met any criticism for marrying Silvia Sommerlath, who became our queen, even though she wasn't royal either. None of the king's and queen's children have married yet, but they will hardly marry other royals.

Back in the day, arrenged marriages was the rule for royals. Princes became heirs from birth, but what other use could there be with having a princess, if you couldn't marry her off to a prince or king of another country? And all marriages had to be "equal" to keep that grace of the royal houses. But as it turned out, many of these marriages became very unhappy. Of course, a "love marriage" can end up unhappy too, and some arrenged marriages ended up happy enough, but with an arrenged marriage, where the bride and groom don't know each other before the wedding, the risk of future unhappiness is very big. Norwegianne also brought up the important point, that the royal houses ended up being more or less related to each other, and many royals even got married to their cousins. New blood is needed in every generation, even among royals.

I can agree, that it can be hard for a commoner to cope with being a royal, but as I understand it, common-born queens Silvia and Sonja are both doing a good job, and I think the many common-born crown princess will be good queens too. And at this time and age, it should be more important if an heir loves his bride than if she's a princess.

 

[CrownPrinceLorenzo]

Even if they marry commoners, they'd still be Royals because they'll still reign.

 

[princess olga]

Also, isn't the term morganatic wrong when it comes to the royal marriages mentioned by Russian in the first post? As I understand it, morganatic marriages mean that the wives do not gain their husband's rank, and the children of the marriage do not inherit anything in terms of the dynasty.

I might have misunderstood, though.

No, you have it exactly right, Norwegianne. As it turns out, the definition means two different things depending on geography.

1. a morganatic marriage in German speaking areas means unequality of birth between spouses. That's the definition Russian seems to relate to on this thread.

2. However, the <French> definition is different: there it's refferred to as a union in all but legal name. Or, a secret marriage. I.e. back in the day, when royal marriages meant unions of power, not typically love, the male part of the union might have a 'morganatic wife', as in, his long-term mistress.

 

[Duc de Chatres]

Morganiatic marriages will always prove to be problematic. Maybe in the Scandanavian countries the concept of monarchy is different. But I think for the good of the Crown, any future King of Britian should restrict himself to aristocratic girls who will know what will be expected of them since the princess market doesn't exist anymore.

 

[CrownPrinceLorenzo]

Not really. Marriages for Monarchies isn't about power anymore. They can marry whoever the hell they want.

 

[Furienna]

Yes, really! I don't care who William and Harry will marry. And for our Swedish royal children Victoria, Carl Philip and Madeleine, that would be even harder, for there's hardly any nobility left in Sweden.

 

[soCal girl]

While I would love to see a royal marriage (i.e. Prince William and Princess Madeleine) just for fun, it isn't realistic anymore. Royals used to marry off their daughters/sons to ensure good relations with other countries but that isn't relevant anymore since the monarchy holds no true power. It's also hard since everyone is somehow inter-related. I think (or hope) that the next generation might do some inter-mingling. There's a pretty good balance between boys and girls. Amalia, Alexia, Elisabeth, Gabriel, Emmaunel, Christian, Ingrid Alexandra, Sverre Magnus, Leonore, Nicolas, Amyeric, Louise, etc. etc. I think it's fine that royals choose to marry for love, I just hope that one time a royal falls in love with another royal.

 

[Furienna]

That's excactly what I think too! I would let a royal marry whoever they loved, but I would also love some new intermarriages. I hope there will be at least one marriage between two royals in the next generation.

 

[princess olga]

Morganiatic marriages will always prove to be problematic. Maybe in the Scandanavian countries the concept of monarchy is different. But I think for the good of the Crown, any future King of Britian should restrict himself to aristocratic girls who will know what will be expected of them since the princess market doesn't exist anymore.

The thing is that the future king of Britain WAS in fact married to a girl who, according to your definition, was arguably even more aristocratic than the prince of Wales himself. If you would compare Diana Spencer's family tree to that of Charles, you'd find that she's related to more English kings than even Charles is!
Yet that very fact didn't prevent their marriage from eventually braking down. Or for example, princess Irene of the Netherlands who married the very royal Carlos Hugo de Bourbon Parma. Ended in divorce.

Contrast that with the by all appearances extremely successful union of King Carl Gustaf of Sweden. Queen Silvia of Sweden was a commoner until at least age 30, yet I'd have a hard time pointing out a royal consort who's better suited to her place in the fold than Silvia is.
I don't think this has anything to do whatsoever with the Swedish concept of monarchy--Silvia would in my opinion have done equally well in, say, Britain.

That said I don't necessarily disagree with you on the whole, because in a way it would diminish the overall perceived 'specialness' of the group of people we call royals. All the same, judging from what I see in the media, the job of royal consort isn't exactly rocket science. Neither is it on the scale of, say, running a global business like, for example, General Motors. The skill set it requires seems to come down to a combination of that of a Diplomat/PR-Spokesperson or politician/Social Worker. Having clean-cut looks and an interest in fellow human beings is also a requirement. Depending on the country, it would also help to have some sort of strategic vision of where you think your country should be headed, but necessary it ain't.

Now, in my view, there are millions of people who could, with some training, fit those job requirements with relative ease.
Don't forget that most of these royals have tons of help: assistants who organize your calendar, ghost writers to pen that witty-and-wise speech, stylists to put together outfits that convey thoughtfulness for the assignment while cutting a good picture, etc.

Sometimes one can wonder how much these royals actually figured out for themselves! This is why 'morganatic' marriages according to the 'German' definition, can work just fine. Question is: Do royal 'delegates', as in, 'the people', buy into whichever commoner grabs the scepter, and will they indefinitely?

 

[Furienna]

Our Carl Gustaf and Silvia are a good example of a succesful marriage between a royal and a commoner. Doesn't Harald and Sonja of Norway fall into that cathegory too? I also think all crown princesses like Mette-Marit, Mary, Maxima, Mathilde and Letizia will become good queens one day. Even Camilla will probably be as good as Brittish queen as Diana could have been.

 

[Lady Jennifer]

But I think you can be a commoner & know what will be expected of you. Its not Cinderella. You have to go into it with both eyes open & not expect it to be all tiaras & fancy dresses. I actually think commoner's who marry into the Royal Families do a better job (sometimes). They've been on the other & they know & have seen how the Royal Families are held up on a pedestal. But that is just my $0.02 in the matter.

Morganiatic marriages will always prove to be problematic. Maybe in the Scandanavian countries the concept of monarchy is different. But I think for the good of the Crown, any future King of Britian should restrict himself to aristocratic girls who will know what will be expected of them since the princess market doesn't exist anymore.

 

[Toledo]

Our Carl Gustaf and Silvia are a good example of a succesful marriage between a royal and a commoner. Doesn't Harald and Sonja of Norway fall into that cathegory too? I also think all crown princesses like Mette-Marit, Mary, Maxima, Mathilde and Letizia will become good queens one day. Even Camilla will probably be as good as Brittish queen as Diana could have been.

Marrying commoners brings up a whole new perspective to the world of Royals. Royal families don't work in offices, like many of us, dealing with the mood swings of fellow workers. They don't take the bus or (most of them) drive nor go to stores unnoticed. They live from birth to death in a world surrounded by people constantly supervising their every move, what they say and who they meet and for how long. So, commoners like the new line of Crown Princesess we all comment about, open a window to their spouses and their offsping of what is the real world out there. What is to go to work, shop and prepare your own food, make a party for your close friends etc.

These commoner spouses are the best thing to happen to Royalty since the guillotine was dismantled. Not to mention of the much needed DNA contribution into these blue bloods, if they kept interbreeding some of them could grow tails or fins.

 

[Lady Jennifer]

These commoner spouses are the best thing to happen to Royalty since the guillotine was dismantled.

It also brings in a fresh batch of genes....that way your not marrying your nieces sisters husbands brothers 1st cousin's daughter .

 

[Toledo]

It also brings in a fresh batch of genes....that way your not marrying your nieces sisters husbands brothers 1st cousin's daughter .

One of my books on Royal gossip claims the most dangerously inbreed royal family is the Portuguese in the 18th and 19th century. If I recall they had an uncle marrying his niece. Just the thought of it revolts my stomach. Too weird. And I believe the current pretender, Prince Duarte is married to a cousin 20 years younger and he made a comment he would like one of his small kids to marry our little Princess Leonor.
Thanks but no, thanks! I'm crossing my fingers so Leonor marries either a football (soccer) player or a Toreador. The Toreadors have the best DNA in Spain since they all marry the most beautiful women found of the model catwalks.

 

[Queen Malka]

I think its romantic whenever a royal marries someone of non-royal blood. Look at Princess Mary for instance, what a real-life fairy-tale! But aside from fairy-tales, royals are REAL people. How would you like it if you were restricted to marrying within a selected group? Imagine the possibilites you'd have to give up!

 

[royaltywatcher]

Also, here is a thought: I have noticed that the nobilty and aristocraticy do tend to marry in the upper class, more than most of the Crown Princes or any royal princesses of this generation have!

You know, that's true! There seems to be more intermarrying in the aristocracy (or at least peer marrying) than in the royal families. With the exception of Prince Charles, the crown princes really went right down to the middle class or the professional class to find wives. Maybe the members of the aristocracy are aware of their families' prestige, but the royal families having nothing to prove so they marry whomever takes their fancy!

 

[foiegrass]

however, there are princes/princesses who marry within their own class. like princess astrid of belgium & archduke lorenz. and the hereditary prince of liechetestein & sophie, duchess of bavaria...

 

[soCal girl]

I would love for another Astrid and Leopold story to happen again (minus the tragic ending ). They truly loved each other and it was the perfect royal match. Princess of Sweden falls in love with the Prince of Belgium. Some modern day version of this would be great, plus this forum would be going nuts!

 

[royaltywatcher]

however, there are princes/princesses who marry within their own class. like princess astrid of belgium & archduke lorenz. and the hereditary prince of liechetestein & sophie, duchess of bavaria...

That's true, I was trying to think of some but the only one I could come up with was Princess Caroline of Monaco and Prince Ernst of Hanover, who kind of lend a new meaning to marrying within your own class.

 

[Prince of Chota]

Russian,

Your claims about dynastic lines are quite unfounded and unresearched. Take, for example, the marriage of Empress Maria-Theresa of Austria to Francis of Lorraine, thus founding the Hapsburg-Lorraines. Besides, if it's truly legitimacy that you're worried about, you should know that Sweden's Bernadottes have long challenged the norm as adopted heirs to the Swedish throne--they come from Napoleonic military stock from the south of France.

The idea of morganatic marriages essentially no longer exists. And, I might add, although these women who marry the European heirs in question are technically common, their backgrounds and families are hardly commonplace. Their circumstances in today's world might be equated to that of nobility several centuries ago. Keep in mind, as well, that today's world does not have as large a system of noblesse--so families that would have been ennobled in the past are simply wealthy today.

I must also say that I'm not entirely sure you have a strong belief in the system, if you truly doubt the abilities of Scandinavian princes and princesses to rule their countries with "duty". I see no reason why Victoria should not rule as well in Sweden as Victoria did in Britain. Besides, the House of Hannover dealt with a surname switch when it became Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, why should Bernadotte fret?

My opinion on this matter is that a generation of new blood is due for the reigning houses of Europe, and while they should take care not to dilude the mystique of royalty, there is also incredible danger in living in the past. Any institution of monarchy that makes its existence seem outdated to its subjects puts itself in serious jeopardy. Also, with the tangle of international royal marriages in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, royal houses are genetically in danger without a more diverse gene pool.

That's true, I was trying to think of some but the only one I could come up with was Princess Caroline of Monaco and Prince Ernst of Hanover, who kind of lend a new meaning to marrying within your own class.

The problem with the very idea of morganatic marriage, though, is that almost anyone can be declared unfit. Many in Europe would disagree with you that Princess Caroline is fit to marry a Royal Highness like Prince Ernst August (who I must say has his own troubles). You see, for centuries the Grimaldi dynasty has been a noble outcast, due to the way in which they gained power, and in many minds, the princely family of Monaco is the (forgive me) trash of European royalty. They certainly would not rank high enough to marry a prince of Hannover--one of the Kurfuersts. And there is hardly need to mention the would-be morganatic marriage of Caroline's own parents, her father a prince and her mother an American (strike one) and an ACTRESS (likened to a prostitute)! It is for these silly prejudices that I reject the system of morganatic marriage (or at least the existence of the word). Grace Kelly would have ranked among the nobility of Philadelphia were there an instituted system of nobility in the United States. So morganatics clearly misses the mark.

 

[Furienna]

You know, that's true! There seems to be more intermarrying in the aristocracy (or at least peer marrying) than in the royal families. With the exception of Prince Charles, the crown princes really went right down to the middle class or the professional class to find wives. Maybe the members of the aristocracy are aware of their families' prestige, but the royal families having nothing to prove so they marry whomever takes their fancy!

But wasn't Crown princess Mathilde of Belgium an aristocrat? She will be the first queen of the Belgians, who was born in Belgium. All previous queens were taken from other countries to not offend either the dutch half or the french half of the belgians. Our Astrid of Sweden is a good example of this. And were Fabiola and Paola really princesses? One was Italian, and one was Spanish, but were their princesses or just aristocracy?