Royal Brides Who Were Commoners


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
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.
Diana was a commoner too, even though the scion of an ancient noble house.
 
The confusion comes from the fact that in Britain, anyone and everyone who is not a born Royal is considered a commoner.

So that is why Diana Spencer, with a lineage that was traced back to the Royal Stuarts and even beyond...was still considered a commoner even though she was obviously an aristocrat with blue blood.

ICAM that it is confusing and makes no sense, but that's the way they see it.
 
The confusion comes from the fact that in Britain, anyone and everyone who is not a born Royal is considered a commoner.

So that is why Diana Spencer, with a lineage that was traced back to the Royal Stuarts and even beyond...was still considered a commoner even though she was obviously an aristocrat with blue blood.

ICAM that it is confusing and makes no sense, but that's the way they see it.

This is not the case.. It has nothing whatsoever to do with bloodlines or social status.

A commoner is a person who is not the Sovereign and not a peer.

If you are not the Sovereign and do not hold a peerage.. then according to British law you are a commoner.

That goes for every member of a peer's family that holds a courtesy title (i.e. Lady Diana Spencer) and every member of the royal family who does not hold a peerage (i.e. HRH Prince Harry).

So legally speaking, Prince William was just as much a commoner as Catherine Middleton until the morning of their wedding. Now that he is The Duke of Cambridge, he is no longer a commoner.. but his wife still is. She doesn't hold a peerage in her own right and only takes her title from him.

Likewise - HRH The Duchess of Cornwall, HRH The Countess of Wessex, HRH The Princess Royal, HRH Prince Harry of Wales, both Princesses of York and both the Wessex children - are all commoners in the eyes of the law.

This does not mean that they are not royal - clearly The Queen's children are royal and the BRF occupies the highest level of social rank in the UK - but the media tends to distort the legal definition of a commoner to sell papers and get viewers, etc.

They confuse what a Commoner actually is with bloodline or social rank.. when they are two entirely different things.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the clarification HM QueenCatherine, but I am even more confused now than ever.:whistling:

Thank goodness that Britain seems to be the only country with a monarch that delineates the lines between commoner and Royalty in such a complicated way.
 
Thanks for the clarification HM QueenCatherine, but I am even more confused now than ever.:whistling:

Thank goodness that Britain seems to be the only country with a monarch that delineates the lines between commoner and Royalty in such a complicated way.

Its really quite simple.. British law divides people into three categories: Sovereign, Peer and Commoner. If you don't belong to either of the first two categories.. then you belong to the third.

Obviously, there is only one Sovereign.. and to be a Peer you have to hold a title in your own right. The heirs of peers often hold courtesy titles (like the Earl of Arundel), but they are not holders in their own right.

It is not an issue delineated by the Sovereign at all. This division evolved with the British Parliament, and used to be the benchmark for men who could stand for election to the House of Commons.

Of course, in the Middle Ages, the term Commoner only applied to men.. since women were chattel and could not stand for election in any case.

Hope this helps.
 
So....Queen Elizabeth was a commoner until she was Queen? Interesting....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Regardless of what the dry (and unknown) law say I think most people would consider children and grandchildren of peers as part of the nobility/aristocracy, as they spend their life in the same aristocratic social circle, enjoy the benefits of their position, etc.

Of course we need to ask if Kate Middleton was really a commoner? Title or not title her parents are still millionaires and so she was raised accordingly and is a part of the British upper class as much as William.

To be honest I don't think William (and his friends) had problems associate with upper class "commoners" as Middleton, it's that the main reason for this being a big deal is the media wanted to turn the wedding into a fairytale story.
 
I don't consider Kate an aristocrat at all. Her parents are self made millionaires which puts her in a difference set than Diana who was born rich, raised rich, and married rich. Kate's parents are nouveau money and are self made; to me that makes them better than the "aristocracy" but to the aristocracy they are probably looked down upon.
As to royals marrying commoners, I was always under the impression that marrying aristocracy or "lower" was a necessity because there aren't that many royal houses left like before WWI.
 
Last edited:
There is a difference between being noble and being part of the aristocracy.

Being noble means having a title in your own right.

Being an aristocrat means being part of a noble family - so Diana was an aristrocrat but a commoner. Earl Spencer is both a noble and an aristocrat.


So all nobles are aristrocrats but not all aristocrats are noble - only the title holder in the family is noble - William is now noble. Kate isn't noble but she is now royal.
 
:bang:
And I want to move to England! Hopefully i won't have to deal with this crazy stuff.
 
Back
Top Bottom