Royal Brides Who Were Commoners

[PrincessKaimi]

Oh, thank you so much, Kataryn, Iluvbertie, VasillosMarkos, for all your help. I still don't think I've got it (totally) but it is becoming clearer.

My comment about "fractional" royalty was in response to post #23, in which it is stated that Elizabeth II is only "half-royal," a notion I had never heard before (that of being half or quarter royal...as obviously, if one an be half-royal, they can be a quarter-royal and so on).

In a later post, someone says that since Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was elevated to the status of HRH the Queen by her husband (did I get that right) that certainly Elizabeth II was born royal (which is what I had always assumed, so was surprised to hear the half-royal part).

But I never knew that one could be a royal commoner before. And obviously, I have been misunderstanding the term "commoner" all my life!

 

[Kataryn]

Yes,and sadly,one with the most distant noble connections...the rest of the "commoners" who married into the royal family had more or less noble background in recent generations(Lady Diana,Queen Mother,Sarah Margaret Ferguson,Alice of Gloucester),unlike Catherine Elizabeth...

Why sadly? That's how life is: people have no choice when it comes to their birth. From then on they can do something to better their life. Which is what Catherine Elizabeth Middleton has done: went to good schools, worked hard, got the results of her exams she needed to choose the right university for her, met another student who found her to his liking and is now marrying her university sweetheart after years of being not only his love, lover but his best and most loyal friend. These are achievements she is responsible for. That was something she could actively work and live towards: to become a academic with honors and to become a lovable personality the right man wants to marry.

Now to be "sad" that she wasn't born the daughter of a duke or a Royal princess is just so... well, undemocratic. As if the Human Rights had never been proclaimed...

 

[Lady Meg]

Even Catherine Middleton can trace her ancestry to noble persons,nearest ones died in 17th century and also some others...The nearest was Talbot family and through them she is distantly related to most other noble Houses...

I love how everyone thinks that Kate is related to the Talbot family when it cannot be substantiated. The only source that outlined her supposed ancestry was The Daily Mail. If you did the research and looked it up -- there are two generations that do not pan out.
Those who use the official books which were written over a decade ago such as Burke's Peerage know that her supposed ancestor William Davenport and Grace Alloway are NOT listed anywhere except for those newspapers, etc just put out.
This claim that William Davenport was a son of Elizabeth Talbot and Henry Davenport has not been proven as correct. In the article from the Daily Mail it states the Kate is a descendant of Elizabeth Knollys by Sir Thomas Leighton, their daughter Elizabeth Leighton married a Sherrington Talbot; their son Sherrington Talbot married a Jane Lyttelton -- this is ALL correct up to this point.. then it goes off with some undocumented names that don't seem to add up as they are not mentioned in both of the sources below and others. In the Daily Mail article it then goes on to state that their supposed daughter Elizabeth Talbot marries a William Davenport. Crofts Peerage's Sherrington Talbot who married Jane Lyttelton doesn't even mention an Elizabeth Talbot who married a William Davenport. The same goes for the book Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes (Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003), volume 1, page 838. But then if you go over to Burke's Peerage here Burke's Peerage there is a mention of an Elizabeth Talbot, daughter of a Sharington Talbot, but there is NO mother and NO mention of that Elizabeth Talbot who married Henry Davenport ever having a William Davenport that went on to marry a Grace Alloway and it only states

"Henry Davenport Esq who m 82 Oct 1665 Elizabeth dau of Sharington Talbot Esq of Lacock co Wilts and d. in July 1698 leaving with other daus who died unmarried, a dau Mary m 1st to the Rev William Hallifax DD who rf in 1720 and 2ndly to the Rev Prideaux Sutton of Itreedon co Worcester and two sons Sharington the elder a major general in the army who rf unm in Ireland 5 July 1719 and Henry Davenport Esq baptized 26 Feb 1677 8 who m 1st Mary Lucy dau of Daniel Charden Esq and had by her a son Sharington of whom presently and two daus Mary Elizabeth m to John Mytton Esq of Halftone and Mary Luce rf unm Mr Davenport m 2ndly Barbara second dau of Sir John Ivory of Ireland by Aline his wife dan of Sir John Talbot of Lacock co Wilts and by her who rf in 174ft left at his decease in 1731 a son William in holy orders DD rector of Bree don who m Mary dau of John Ivory Talbot of Lacock and had issue The only son of the first marriage".

 

[Kataryn]

Well, not "everyone" thinks that and certainly not everyone is interested...
I have no doubt that if Catherine becomes the mother of a future king or queen, historians will trace her ancestry and do that seriously. Till then, I believe it's moot, as Catherine has the support of HM and if she is noble enough a human being to appeal both to william and the souverain, that should be enough for us lowly commoners. My opinion, of course.

 

[Marc23]

I love how everyone thinks that Kate is related to the Talbot family when it cannot be substantiated. The only source that outlined her supposed ancestry was The Daily Mail.

I don't read Daily Mail ;-)

I fount it in:

http://www.genealogics.org/index.php

 

[nascarlucy]

It seems like anyone who marries a royal has royal blood somewhere in their background, even if it's a drop of it. Some individuals have more of it than others. Others may have it on the fringes, so to speak. It seems like they are drawn to each other. If there was a question about whether royal blood runs in someone veins or if they were related to nobility , wouldn't DNA answer the question one way or another or at the very least show a link?

 

[wbenson]

Nuclear DNA isn't reliable as proof of ancestry once you get back around 4 or 5 generations (at that point, any similarity in the genetic structure is more likely to be from random chance than from hereditary factors). You can go farther back with mitochondrial DNA, but that only helps if someone has a matrilineal line to the supposed ancestor. In any case, they'd need a sample to compare it to.

 

[rob2008]

Due to his lineage, Philip was more royal than Elizabeth when they married. I believe he used to tease her about this. However there is no disputing they have both always been royal as well as Royal, even if at some time technically "Commoners". I would rather that royalty protected their lineage instead of what they think will benefit their popularity. It is far better for the dynasty, for the constitutional process and for the country if Princes only married Princesses who are able to employ an appropriate "common touch"; rather than marry a non royal woman ("Commoner") who then adopts a "royal air".

 

[Lumutqueen]

If only their were enough Princess/Princes in the world.

 

[Warren]

There are literally hundreds in the Germanic royal and princely families, plus dozens of Austrian Archdukes and Archduchesses. As their titles tend to pass down through the male lines from generation to generation, there's more than enough supply of princes and princesses to meet the demand.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I guess I meant the ones that I know, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway etc.

 

[Kataryn]

There are literally hundreds in the Germanic royal and princely families, plus dozens of Austrian Archdukes and Archduchesses. As their titles tend to pass down through the male lines from generation to generation, there's more than enough supply of princes and princesses to meet the demand.

But I wonder if that is what the majority of "subjects" of the reigning Royals actually want. (The fact that the princes are marrying commoners show that they at least don't want to marry a princess). Isn't it easier in today's time to connect to a commoner bride and feel that the Royal families are modernizing on opening to the idea of equality of people?

Royality of today still has its purpose: but it's different from the purposes of former times. And marriage has always been subject to politics - nothing is as modern and "in time" as politics....

If you see the exeptions of the rules made in Royal families due to politics (while mere members of nobility on marrying beyond their station destroyed , at least in continental Europe, their descendants status for generation), then it's quite evident that there were always laws for the Royals (decided by their member in charge) and for the others, including the highest nobility.

 

[Marc23]

Due to his lineage, Philip was more royal than Elizabeth when they married. I believe he used to tease her about this.

This is true Although not on Civil List and a minor royal,Prince Michael is,for example,more royal than the Queen due to his lineage

 

[Iluvbertie]

This is true Although not on Civil List and a minor royal,Prince Michael is,for example,more royal than the Queen due to his lineage

Not just Prince Michael but his sister and brother.

As there are only two people on the Civil List - the Queen and Philip - I found that comment strange.

 

[Kataryn]

This is true Although not on Civil List and a minor royal,Prince Michael is,for example,more royal than the Queen due to his lineage

An excellent example for the idea that it is sometimes necessary to check reality and divide it from one's own philosophy on Royalty. Last that I checked (http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/pdf/website list 9 feb 2011.pdf), The Queen was "The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty" in her Privy Council - how this be topped by Prince Michael? Royalty is not a thing of the past alone, but of the present. And at present Elizabeth II. is queen - she is on top, no matter where her mother came from.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

Kataryn, thank you for that comment. I keep getting confused by this notion that pops up on these forums about "fractional" royalty or "who is more royal." Queen Elizabeth II is, in my view, as Royal as one gets.

The emphasis on calculating degrees of royalness from ancestry, when a person is presently Queen, seems odd to me.

Families that have peripatetic royal ties (they have married their children hither and yon but only to other royals) may be royal, but in the ordinary sense of the word, they may not be noble. Nobility is not automatically conferred by blood or by marriage (not in its sense as virtuous and, well, noble).

 

[Grandduchess24]

Is it a good thing for a royal to marry a commoner or is it better to Marry another royal? Because that seems to be a topic for the monarch to give the ok for the marriage.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Because that seems to be a topic for the monarch to give the ok for the marriage.

A royal to commoner marriage is just as accepted as a royal to royal marriage. What makes you think that the monarch would only okay a royal to royal marriage?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Is it a good thing for a royal to marry a commoner or is it better to Marry another royal? Because that seems to be a topic for the monarch to give the ok for the marriage.

In the present reign the Queen has given consent to many royal to commoner marriages - the only royal to royal one I can think of off hand it Prince Ernst of Hanover to Princess Caroline of Monaco but within her more direct family they have all been to commoners.

 

[Marc23]

The Queen was "The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty" in her Privy Council - how this be topped by Prince Michael? Royalty is not a thing of the past alone, but of the present. And at present Elizabeth II. is queen - she is on top, no matter where her mother came from.

I mean in terms of ancestry,not in terms of current royal hierarchy...don't mix those things...

By that philosophy Crown Princess Mary of Denmark is more "royal" than Princess Elisabeth of Denmark who is just HH compared to Mary's HRH,but whose ancestors are fully royal,unlike Donaldson family ancestors!

 

[PaulaB]

It has a lot more to do with the heamophilia that got spread through many of the royal families through the decendents of Queen Victoria. Also foreign Princesses now are not expected to make dynistic marriages but are choising to marry their countrymen. By the way you forgot two commoners marrying royalty. Chaucer's granddaughter Alice married the Duke of Suffock. Also Katherine Sywnford married John of Gaunt in 1396 and its through that marriage that the Tudors claimed the throne.

 

[nascarlucy]

Until recent times, most royals have married other royals or people of nobility who have royal blood in their ancestory (several times removed). Most of those in the nobility class have some royal blood in them, it just go back several generations. Catherine seems to have no royal blood in her ancestory at all (I'm sure if she did, they would have said).

Actually that's a good thing because usually a commoner who has no royal blood or the royal blood is many times removed whose in good health and has no genetic illnesses strengths the gene pool. Their children are generally very healthy and would be less likely to get diseases such as heamophilia.

 

[Polly]

I believe that it is indeed possible to marry without the monarch's consent once over the age of 25, and after giving The Privy Council one year's notice. The late Princess Margaret had this choice but wasn't prepared to give up her prominence or position as one of the heirs to the throne.

As for royal blood: if we all go back many generations and skip the centuries, a very large number could claim 'descended from royalty'.

We know, for example, that the Rt.Hon. Michael Abney-Hastings,14th Earl of Loudon, is regarded by some genealogists and historians as the rightful king of England. He lives in a small country town in NSW, Australia, is a rice farmer and forklift operator and looks and sounds like a typical Aussie farmer, as do his family. They think it all a great joke and are embarrassed by titles such as Lady Amanda, Lady Lisa, Lady Rebecca, and Lord Mauchline (son Simon), and never use them. They were 'exposed' by a Channel 4 documentary in the UK some years ago called 'Britain's Real Monarch' and weren't at all grateful for the attention.

One hundred years ago, a noted genealogist attempted to list everyone descended from British royal blood but gave up when he'd noted over 40,000. It's estimated that today, there would be many hundreds of thousands,if not millions, of royal descendants.

 

[NGalitzine]

There are literally hundreds in the Germanic royal and princely families, plus dozens of Austrian Archdukes and Archduchesses. As their titles tend to pass down through the male lines from generation to generation, there's more than enough supply of princes and princesses to meet the demand.

I wonder how long we are expected to consider these former reigning families "royal". Their homelands are republics who tossed them off their thrones almost 100 years ago, even more in the case of the Orleans. Really they are all private citizens, commoners with an interesting set of ancestors.

 

[COUNTESS]

Royalty was just made up, too. It was the guy with the biggest sword. They were just as common as their subjects, but kept them in fear and made up this story about being in charge, because God put them there.

 

[royalfascination]

Is Camilla a commoner?

I am new here so forgive me if this question has been asked , but isn't Camilla a commoner? I just wonder why the news reports that Kate Middleton is the first commoner to marry a future king in 350 years? If Camilla is a commomer, and I thought she was, the wouldn't she be the first commoner to marry a future king in 350 years?

 

[ClaudiaE]

Good question, royalfascination...

 

[Lumutqueen]

She's the granddaughter of a Baron and the fact she married Charles after Diana & Andrew, that might have something to do with the 'first' aspect.

 

[Renata4711]

Camilla wasn't born royal, therefore she is a commoner.

There is nothing wrong with being a commoner.
They can be poor or super-rich.

 

[Bundtrock]

I think the problem is that such was reported in the United States and not many here have a firm grasp on terminology used to distinguish social rank in the UK.

There is a great deal of confusion between being born Royal, becoming Royal and achieving social Rank.