The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals > British Royal History

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 02-17-2011, 12:54 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,132
I guess I meant the ones that I know, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway etc.
__________________

__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-17-2011, 01:25 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post

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.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-17-2011, 09:18 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob2008 View Post
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 :-)
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-18-2011, 02:08 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-19-2011, 04:11 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: alpine village, Germany
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
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/file...feb%202011.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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-19-2011, 10:06 PM
PrincessKaimi's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Hilo, Malibu, United States
Posts: 1,325
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).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-22-2011, 03:09 PM
Grandduchess24's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 1,318
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.
__________________
" An ugly baby is a very nasty object, and the prettiest is frightful when undressed."
- Queen Victoria
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-22-2011, 03:56 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,132
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandduchess24 View Post
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?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-22-2011, 04:30 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandduchess24 View Post
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-23-2011, 08:31 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 715
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kataryn View Post
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!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-30-2011, 07:21 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Kettering, United Kingdom
Posts: 17
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-30-2011, 07:44 AM
nascarlucy's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central Florida Area, United States
Posts: 1,346
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 05-01-2011, 04:39 PM
Polly's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mebourne, Australia
Posts: 656
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06-01-2011, 09:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post

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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06-01-2011, 09:29 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,508
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06-06-2011, 04:33 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Montgomery, United States
Posts: 1
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?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06-06-2011, 04:41 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Bucuresti, Romania
Posts: 136
Good question, royalfascination...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06-06-2011, 04:44 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,132
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.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06-06-2011, 04:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Edinburgh, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,500
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.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06-06-2011, 04:57 PM
Bundtrock's Avatar
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Irving, United States
Posts: 46
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.
__________________

__________________
Camilla Bundtrock
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Duchess of Cambridge: Will she become more popular than Diana? tipha01 The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Family 1215 08-24-2013 08:01 PM
Catherine Middleton Jewellery (to April 2011) HRHAmy Royal Jewels 151 04-29-2011 07:39 AM
Catherine Middleton Wedding Tiara suggestions and musings Duchessmary Prince William and Catherine Middleton - The Royal Wedding, 29 April 2011 1392 04-29-2011 05:52 AM
Which name do you prefer for Kate (Catherine) Middleton? ysbel Prince Harry and Prince William 78 06-10-2007 06:23 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit current events duchess of cambridge dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games ottoman poland pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary princess mary fashion queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:03 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]