Royal Brides Who Were Commoners


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

CharlotteAmalia

Aristocracy
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
143
City
in the south of Germany
Country
Germany
I was looking for royal brides in the UK, that are not of noble birth, but commoners.

I'm just interessed in those who were very close to the thron and married to No. 1 to 5 in the succession (e.g. not Autumn Kelly or minor royals)

Commoners:
Sarah Ferguson
Wallis Simpson
Sophie Rhys-Jones
Mark Phillips
(Catherine Middleton, when married)

Was Anne Hyde noble?
What about the wifes of Henry VIII?

Maybe someone can help me with the list. Thank you! :flowers:
 
I believe Anne Hyde was of noble birth, daughter of Sir Edward Hyde and later 1st Earl of Clarendon, but still a commoner. Of course, when Wallis Simpson married the Duke of Windsor, he was no longer in the line of succession by virtue of his abdication as King. I don't believe Jane Seymour's father was of noble blood but instead he was a member of the English gentry. Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard were both of noble blood but I am not sure about Catherine Paar. The last certainly married well before marrying the King.
 
Under a legal point of view, also Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Lady Alice Montagu-Douglas-Scott and Hanry Lascelles, Viscount Lascelles were commoners when they married respectively to the Duke of York, the Duke of Gloucester and Princess Mary, since their titles were "mere" courtesy titles.
 
Lady Diana Spencer was also a commoner when she married Charles.

Nobles in Britain are the holder of the title only - not their spouse or children.

They were aristocrats but not nobles. Lord Lorne who married Queen Victoria's daughter Louise was also a commoner as was almost the husband of Edward VII's daughter Louise. The reason I say almost was that Victoria created him Duke of Fife for the wedding thus raising him to noble status.
 
^ What is the difference between an aristocrat and a noble?
 
The Hannovers had their fair share:

prince George, duke of Cambridge (1819-1904) a 1st cousin of Queen Victoria and uncle of Queen Mary, married to the actress Sarah Fairbrother.

King George IV married Sarah Fitzherbert and his brother prince Augustus Frederick, duke of Sussex, married 1stly Lady Augusta Murray and 2ndly Lady Cecilia Underwood (later created Duchess of Iverness). Both marriages were considered legally void as they were against the royal marriages act of 1772 (in which it says that they need permission of the monarch).

The two brothers of king George III both married commoners. Prince William Henry, duke of Gloucester and Edinburgh married Maria Walpole in 1766. Prince henry, duke of Cumberland and Strathern married Anne Horton (née Anne Luttrell) Her father was ennobled 3 years before her wedding, though the wedding was still declared legally void.

--

More recently: princess Patricia of Connaught married the Hon. Alexander Ramsay, 3rd son of the earl of Dalhousie.
 
^ What is the difference between an aristocrat and a noble?


The noble is the holder of the noble title. The rest of the family are aristocrats so Diana's father was noble but she and her siblings were aristocrats.
 
Ohhh... So a title is the difference. So Charles Spencer, her brother, is now a noble because he holds a title.
 
I believe Anne Hyde was of noble birth, daughter of Sir Edward Hyde and later 1st Earl of Clarendon, but still a commoner. Of course, when Wallis Simpson married the Duke of Windsor, he was no longer in the line of succession by virtue of his abdication as King. I don't believe Jane Seymour's father was of noble blood but instead he was a member of the English gentry. Anne of Cleves and Katherine Howard were both of noble blood but I am not sure about Catherine Paar. The last certainly married well before marrying the King.

Anne Hyde was not nobly born. Her father came from a gentry family and was only created a Baron three months before her marriage to James, Duke of York (later King). Her mother was the daughter of Sir Thomas Aylesbury, who became a baronet in 1627.
-------------------------------

The Wives of Henry VIII

No need to address Catherine of Aragon here, as she was obviously royal by birth..

I suppose you could say Anne Boleyn was of noble birth, being the granddaughter of the Duke of Norfolk. Her father, Thomas was in turn the grandson of the Earl of Ormonde. But Thomas didn't become an earl himself until 1529, while Henry was planning to marry his daughter.

Jane Seymour's family were not nobles, but through her mother she could trace her descent from Edward III, who was her 6th great grandfather. They were a landed gentry family, whose most recent brush with nobility was Jane's great-great grandfather, Lord Clifford.

Anna of Cleves, of course, was the noble daughter of the Duke of Cleves. His ancestral line were all dukes for the 5 generations before him. Her mother was also the daughter of a German duke, the Duke of Jülich-Berg, whose ancestry were dukes for at least 6 generations. Technically, Anna was princess of Cleves before her marriage (a ducal princess in the German nobility)

Katharyn Howard was also a nobly born granddaughter of the Duke of Norfolk, but her mother came from the knightly Culpepper family of Oxenheath.

Katherine Parr was from a knightly family. Her father was Sir Thomas Parr of Kendal, and her mother was the daughter and co-heiress of Sir Thomas Green of Boughton and Greens Norton. Her father was Comptroller of the Household to Henry VIII and Sheriff of Northampton and Lincoln.

Apart from Henry's first and fourth wife, they were all commoners. And yet they were all descendants of Edward I -

Catherine of Aragon and Katherine Parr through John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster; Anne Boleyn, Anna of Cleves and Katharyn Howard through Thomas of Brotherton, Earl of Norfolk; and Jane Seymour through Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence.
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for these long informations! :flowers:

In summary: If Catherine Middleton will become Queen consort, she will not be the first Queen consort, who was a commoner before the marriage. Commoners, who became Queen consort or Princess of Wales, were also Camilla Shand (legally Princess Charles of Wales), Diana Spencer, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Anne Hyde, Katherine Parr, Katherine Howard, Jane Seymour, Anna Boleyn.
Several of those where of noble birth or aristocratic: Diana Spencer, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Anne Hyde, Katherine Parr, Katherine Howard, Jane Seymour, Anna Boleyn.
 
Antony Armstrong-Jones can also beadded to the list as Princess Margaret was third in line of succession at their marriage.
 
Well Anne Boleyn was created Marquess of Pembroke in her own right prior to her marriage to ensure that any illegitimate children born to her and Henry would be of noble birth.
 
Don't forget Lady Elizabeth Woodville, wife of Edward IV and maternal grandmother of Henry VIII, since her daughter, Elizabeth of York, married Henry VII. I believe Lady Elizabeth was the first commoner to marry into the royal family. And Joan of Kent, wife of Edward, the Black Prince (eldest son of Edward III; he predeceased his father) is worth mentioning, though she was a king's granddaughter. She was the mother of Richard II.
 
Isn't anyone who is not royalty considered a commoner, whether or not they are members of the aristocracy?
That is what I was always told.
 
Isn't anyone who is not royalty considered a commoner, whether or not they are members of the aristocracy?
That is what I was always told.


A better way of looking at it by asking whether or not the person could have a seat in the old House of Lords. If they could they weren't a commoner but if they couldn't there were so Diana was a commoner but believe it or not so is Princess Anne.

The difference was commons or lords and anyone who couldn't take a seat in the House of Lords was a commoner so the Queen, until she became Queen technically was a commoner - although a royal commoner. Yes the Queen could have stood for election to the House of Commons after she turned 21 (as can Anne, William, Harry, Beatrice, Eugenie, Peter and Zara today but not Charles, Andrew or Edward).
 
Elizabeth Woodville, married to Edward IV. A great beauty, but their marriage upset courtiers like the Earl of Warwick who expected a royal match as part of European political diplomacy. Most of Henry VIII's wives were commoners. Although of aristocratic descent from the Howards, Anne Boleyn was also descended from a London merchant (Geoffrey Boleyn) from Norfolk who became lord mayor of London.

Ms Middleton may well be descended from the fifteenth-century gentry family of that name. Although one would generally hope that one's country's princes marry fellow royalty who have been brought up to the job, marriages for love are always preferable. The country can rightly rejoice.
 
Elizabeth Woodville, married to Edward IV. A great beauty, but their marriage upset courtiers like the Earl of Warwick who expected a royal match as part of European political diplomacy. Most of Henry VIII's wives were commoners. Although of aristocratic descent from the Howards, Anne Boleyn was also descended from a London merchant (Geoffrey Boleyn) from Norfolk who became lord mayor of London.

Ms Middleton may well be descended from the fifteenth-century gentry family of that name. Although one would generally hope that one's country's princes marry fellow royalty who have been brought up to the job, marriages for love are always preferable. The country can rightly rejoice.


It seems to me that marriages for love have no higher success rate than those for other reasons and surely having a compatible companion who understands the pressures and the politics of the households etc is preferable to having someone thrown to the wolves?
 
I do understand your point. In earlier times princes entered into marital alliances with another royal house and produced heirs. Job done. Sometimes they would later find themselves widowered and would then marry for love - this tended to work and the marriages lasted.

Love matches, which really are true love do work as mutual devotion can produce the patience and diligence required as long, of course, as the spouse realises that duty to the country and the royal house to which they both now belong is all. The spouse should, however, expect the support, not only of her husband and his family, but also HM Government and the people, and treated respectfully by the press.

We must wish them well. God bless them.
 
Sorry, this all started, because i didn't know, that the daugther/son of a peer is not noble. I found out through this thread.

I first measured nobility from a german point of view. A Earl and his wife, all of his children and his male-line grand children are noble persons. In Germany the system of "grading" courtesy titles is unknown. The son of a Earl/Graf is an Earl/Graf, as well as his younger brothers and male-line grand children.

Obviously, it is just a historic point of view, because nobility was abolished in Germany (=republic) in 1918.

I was looking for royal brides in the UK, that are not of noble birth, but commoners.

I'm just interessed in those who were very close to the thron and married to No. 1 to 5 in the succession (e.g. not Autumn Kelly or minor royals)

Commoners:
Sarah Ferguson
Wallis Simpson
Sophie Rhys-Jones
Mark Phillips
(Catherine Middleton, when married)
 
I'm a bit confused. If only the holder of a title is a noble, then Anne Boleyn was not born a noble, right? I'm just trying to understand.
 
I'm a bit confused. If only the holder of a title is a noble, then Anne Boleyn was not born a noble, right? I'm just trying to understand.


Definitely not - she was a woman to start with.

She was raised to noble status in her own right when created Marquess of Pembroke but until then she was a commoner.
 
Anne’s mother was Elizabeth, the daughter of the second Duke of Norfolk and the sister of the third. Her father, Thomas, was a merchant. Thereby, she was born a commoner.
 
Elizabeth II was only half royal since her mother was a commoner. However, Philip was a genuine born royal which improves the stock. Ironically, Philip was married with the name Lt Mountbatten. This non-royal style was engineered to satisfy public opinion. Philip went to the lengths of renouncing his royal status shortly before marrying the heir to the UK throne. In the same way, Camilla's title of Princess of Wales is simply not used.

Compare:
Philip and Elizabeth - two royals - have stuck together.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12424132

The marriages of Camilla, Diana, Fergie, Armstrong-Jones, Mark Phillips, Alexandra Fredericksborg did not last.
 
Well, I find this all very interesting - especially the part about Elizabeth II being a commoner until she took the crown (and Princess Anne as well). One would think a Princess was not a commoner. That Prince Philip was royal whereas Queen Elizabeth was a commoner...I had no idea.

What a strange system, beleaguered with intricacies.

Is the Queen in agreement with the idea that she was a commoner until her coronation?

Since this is the British system, Prince Philip's mother was royal - but wouldn't have been royal under the British system, correct? Because the two houses she belonged to are German - and the Germans have different rules? (Am I getting this or am I totally off?)

So a marriage between a commoner (Elizabeth II) who becomes royal and a royal works out, whereas other kinds of commoner/royal marriages do not?

Would Anne Boleyn or Diana Spencer be considered aristocrats then? Certainly Princess Anne must be an aristocrat.

I find the calculation-of-royal (as a fractional process or otherwise) so interesting.

So, Elizabeth, Princess of Wales was a commoner when she married royal Prince Philip? And marrying him did not make her royal? Nor the titles she held? This is so confusing.

The rule about the House of Lords is also confusing. Elizabeth isn't eligible for it now, is she? So Queens are the exception to the rule?
 
Elizabeth II was only half royal since her mother was a commoner.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but I don't bellieve that is quite right. At the time of Elizabeth's birth in 1926, her mother was a Royal Highness due to her marriage with Prince Albert so Elizabeth II was born to two royals. Elizabeth the Queen Mother was raised to royal rank when she married. Before that she was a commoner albeit from a very distinguished and aristocratic family.

Well, I find this all very interesting - especially the part about Elizabeth II being a commoner until she took the crown (and Princess Anne as well). One would think a Princess was not a commoner. That Prince Philip was royal whereas Queen Elizabeth was a commoner...I had no idea. \

So a marriage between a commoner (Elizabeth II) who becomes royal and a royal works out, whereas other kinds of commoner/royal marriages do not? So, Elizabeth, Princess of Wales was a commoner when she married royal Prince Philip? And marrying him did not make her royal? Nor the titles she held? This is so confusing.
Iluvbertie can explain it better but I believe she wrote Elizabeth was a royal commoner, not just a commoner. And Elizabeth II was never styled as the Princess of Wales. She was born Elizabeth of York and was heiress presumptive when her father took the throne but she was never invested as the Princess of Wales. Indeed, I don't believe there is any precedent for a Princess of Wales in her own right, just Pss of Wales as the wife of the Prince of Wales.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I find this all very interesting - especially the part about Elizabeth II being a commoner until she took the crown (and Princess Anne as well). One would think a Princess was not a commoner. That Prince Philip was royal whereas Queen Elizabeth was a commoner...I had no idea.

What a strange system, beleaguered with intricacies.

There is a different concept of being one of the "Common Men" (including women) in Britain than in other countries. In most European countries there used to be different classes of people which were especially named. 1. class ("Stand" in German) was the aristocracy. That within divided in Royality and the higher and lower aristocracy. 2. class was the clerus. 3. Class was the Bourgeoise or the "free burghers" 4. Class the pheasants or unfree people. In Europe "commoners" were members of the 3.and 4. class. (That all changed with the upcoming of democracy and the idea of equality of the people, except that a lot of people still want to see a difference between people and people.)

These classes of course existed in Britain as well, but they have nothing to do with the term "common" or "commoner". The idea in Britain was that there was the souverain on top. The monarch had peers and at first he was one of them, the first among his peers. From this pool of peers emerged the idea of a parliamentary system. A good article about this development is Parliament of England - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

All other people, the Royal family as well as the wifes of peers to the lowliest scullery maid was a commoner, as they were not the peers of the monarch.

But - of course that didn't mean they were equal. Feudalism in Britain had his own rulkes of rank (of which a lot are still in exiistence). Of course a Royal princess and daughter of the monarch has had a much higher station in society than a peer of the rank of Viscount or even duke , though he was a peer and she a commoner. This station in life, call it rank or precedence still is determined through the closeness to the monarch or a peer. Thus the term "Precedence of the daught of a duke" is socially determined and has a certain meaning, as well as the term "Royal Highness and rank of a prince or princess of the UK". The daughter of a duke has a higher rank than a Baron, even though he is a peer and she is a commoner. But she holds a rank of the higher nobility and he one of the lower. So in a line-up according to rank a duke's daughter would be ahead of the Baron.

In Europe a Royal princess or a Count's daughter would be of the 1. Class - nobility thus a noble woman and of course not a member of the 4. Class - commoners. In Britain she would be a member of the highest social rank
but still be called a commoner.

Just to explain that the term "Commoner" has different meanings in Britain and Europe in times of feudalism.
 
Well, I find this all very interesting - especially the part about Elizabeth II being a commoner until she took the crown (and Princess Anne as well). One would think a Princess was not a commoner. That Prince Philip was royal whereas Queen Elizabeth was a commoner...I had no idea.

Basically in Britain everyone is a commoner unless they could take a seat in the House of Lords (and Elizabeth couldn't do so so hence she was a commoner - but royal).

What a strange system, beleaguered with intricacies.

Is the Queen in agreement with the idea that she was a commoner until her coronation?

I am sure she realises that technically she was a commoner until her accession (6th February 1952) which was 18 months before her coronation. She became the Queen the instant her father died, not when the Crown was put on her head.

Since this is the British system, Prince Philip's mother was royal - but wouldn't have been royal under the British system, correct? Because the two houses she belonged to are German - and the Germans have different rules? (Am I getting this or am I totally off?)

Philip's mother was born a Princess in her own right and married a Prince in his own right so was regarded as a Princess but not a Princess of the UK. Just as William would be recognised as a Prince in Denmark but not as a Prince of Denmark (since the changes in their rules in 1953), or Frederick isn't a Prince of the UK but both are recognised as Princes so Alice was recognised as a Princess but 'of Greece' after her marriage to HRH Prince Andrew of Greece. Whatever her birth status she married the son of a King and thus there was no question that she was a Princess.

So a marriage between a commoner (Elizabeth II) who becomes royal and a royal works out, whereas other kinds of commoner/royal marriages do not?

The difference is probably in the fact that Elizabeth, although technically a commoner, was also a royal. Being royal doesn't stop a person being a commoner. Elizabeth was clearly raised within the British royal establishment and Philip was also largely raised in similar families and with similar connections - his grandmother lived in Kensington Palace. The change in lifestyle wasn't as great and they both understood the requirements of marriage within that sphere.

There are three groups - royals, nobles and commoners. Royals can be both noble and commoner - Philip, Charles, Andrew and Edward have all been enobled, as they have been given titles. The rest of them are commoners. The Queen now is above them all. Unless they are noble they are commoners - although royal commoners.

Would Anne Boleyn or Diana Spencer be considered aristocrats then? Certainly Princess Anne must be an aristocrat.

They would be regarded as aristocrats as the daughters of nobles. All of these ladies had fathers who had titles and thus the children of these men were certainly aristocrats.

I find the calculation-of-royal (as a fractional process or otherwise) so interesting.

I don't understand this comment.

So, Elizabeth, Princess of Wales was a commoner when she married royal Prince Philip? And marrying him did not make her royal? Nor the titles she held? This is so confusing.

Elizabeth was born royal. She was born an aristocrat as the daughter of a duke. She was still a commoner as she couldn't take a seat in the House of Lords in her own right. She didn't need to be 'made royal' as she was born royal as a male line grandchild of a King - in the same way that Beatrice is a royal today - both were born as the eldest daughter of The Duke of York.

Elizabeth, on her marriage held no titles in her own right except HRH The Princess Elizabeth. On her marriage she added Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth and Baroness Greenwich. Until she became Queen these were her only titles - HRH The Princess as the daughter of the King and the others as a wife.

The rule about the House of Lords is also confusing. Elizabeth isn't eligible for it now, is she? So Queens are the exception to the rule?

Elizabeth is above the House of Lords now. She could never take a seat as she never had a title in her own right. The monarch doesn't sit in the House of Lords or have the right to vote on any decision there - so no Elizabeth isn't eligible to sit in the House of Lords.

With the new House of Lords, since 1999, her husband and sons are also no longer eligible but Philip, Charles and Andrew had all taken their seats before the 1999 reforms. Had they not had titles entitling them to seats in the Lords they could have stood for election to the Commons. Now they can do that - as can many of the other people who had previously had seats in the Lords - such as Diana's brother.
 
Last edited:
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...
 
Nonetheless, she is a commoner. Nobility is not only a matter of the blood, as my mother said.
 
Nonetheless, she is a commoner. Nobility is not only a matter of the blood, as my mother said.

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...
 
Back
Top Bottom