English and British Royal Marriages

[Ella Kay]

Originally Posted by COUNTESS

I believe you could say it was Anne Hyde, who married James II. She was his first wife. Of course, you could also say Anne Boelyn, albeit a second wife, then Jane Seymour, Kathrine Howard or Katherine Paar. All English and married to a king.

Jinx, Countess! :) I think that Anne must be it, though, if we're looking for an English woman who married an heir to the throne. Anne, Jane, and the two Katherines married a reigning king.

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Jo of Palatine

You sure about that? All Scots that I ever knew (quite some) would agree with Sky - who is at least part-Scot herself.

Perfectly right Jo, no self respecting Scot would take kindly to being called Scotch, that is only correct for the drink!

Originally Posted by PrinceOfCanada

Quite sure, but with a caveat: most Scottish people would bristle if a non-Scots person referred to them as Scotch. This comes from my grandmother, who is from Edinburgh.

The majority of Scots would bristle if it came from anyone!

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by EmpressRouge

I'm not sure exactly how the quote went, but it was something to that effect. It was in an older version of the Wikipedia article about Princess Marina.

I'm sorry EmpressRouge, it was not a rebuke aimed at you, I realised it was a quote from a source.

[Mermaid1962]

I understand that the word "Scottish" is a bit of an insult as well...something about it being an English term.

Originally Posted by Skydragon

Perfectly right Jo, no self respecting Scot would take kindly to being called Scotch, that is only correct for the drink!The majority of Scots would bristle if it came from anyone!

[Skydragon]

Originally Posted by Mermaid1962

I understand that the word "Scottish" is a bit of an insult as well...something about it being an English term.

No, not at all. Scottish for Scots is the same as English for the English or Welsh for the Welsh. The only word that is unacceptable is to be called Scotch.

[Mermaid1962]

Interesting. I was told otherwise by a professor from Scotland in the early 80s. I stand corrected, though.

Originally Posted by Skydragon

No, not at all. Scottish for Scots is the same as English for the English or Welsh for the Welsh. The only word that is unacceptable is to be called Scotch.

[Polly]

So far as royal mistresses who marry a king is a topic of discussion, check out the career of the beauteous and influential, and much despised Elizabeth Woodville 1437 - 1492. She was the lover, then Consort, of Edward IV.

[Jo of Palatine]

Originally Posted by Polly

So far as royal mistresses who marry a king is a topic of discussion, check out the career of the beauteous and influential, and much despised Elizabeth Woodville 1437 - 1492. She was the lover, then Consort, of Edward IV.

Just goes to show how much more power a king back then had... Or how much more liberal the morals were then. A lot of what we consider today of the very strict codex of the past was only introduced by queen Victoria - lots of her ancestors surely led a more than morally lax life.

As for marrying equally: I doubt this was so important a point in England and Scotland in general in the past. It was more a thing of political neccessity for the English and Scottish kings to form alliances - the English tried to preserve their French inheritance from Eleonor of Aquitaine and their influence in the French and Flemish provinces bordering the North Sea and the Channel while the Scottish kings searched France's back-up against England. So marrying into the European Royal families was important - as it was later to marry into the German Houses of the North to protect Hannover from Prussia.

Only after WWI Royal alliances were not longer important as political means and immediately the Royals started to marry commoners - first ladies from noble families and lately middle class girls.

BTW - Elizabeth Woodville at least was the daughter of a Luxembourg-princess, who was not only cousin to the Luxembourgian emperors of the Holy Roman Empire but whose sisters had married important dukes from the reigning dynasty in France, who owned lands close to the Channel and the North Sea (Bretagne and Maine). Elizabeth's uncle from her mother's side was the enormously influential Connetable de St. Pol, who through his marriage to Joan of Bar controlled the Channel-harbour of Dunkerque. The Connetable's son from his marriage to a Savoy-princess became Great-Chancellor of France during the time Elizabeth Woodville was queen of England - quite an important relative!

Elizabeth thus brought enormously important connections to the French and Germany dynasties to her husband and her son-in-law, the first Tudor-king.

In a way this marriage was as dynastic as the others - Jaqcueline of Luxembourg, her mother, had married into the English Royal family first, so was a dynastic bride herself. Her first husband was the third son of Henry IV., John of Lancaster, duke of Bedford, the infamous duek of Bedford who had Jeanne d'Arc tried and executed. When he died, Jacqueline married Elizabeth's father Richard Woodville.

[Leslie2006]

Originally Posted by Nitefeatherz

Marrying royal to royal always seemed like genetic suicide to me...you can't have a restricted gene pool like that because eventually if you marry royalty to royalty you never add new blood and EVERYONE is related to everyone else which leads to more genetically related problems...you get the idea. Granted they didn't know as much about science and genetics as we do today but still.

I agree! And you're certainly right about the genetic problems. One word: Hapsburg! They were the perfect example of a bad result of intermarrying.

[Lady Ann]

Originally Posted by Polly

So far as royal mistresses who marry a king is a topic of discussion, check out the career of the beauteous and influential, and much despised Elizabeth Woodville 1437 - 1492. She was the lover, then Consort, of Edward IV.

This Queen Consort was the grandmother of Henry VIII right! Apple did not fall far from the tree.....All in mind her daughter, Elizabeth of York and Henry VII were said to be very in love.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Prince of Chota

I don't think that marrying commoners would be the death sentence for the British royals. Perhaps somewhere on the continent it is looked down upon, but there has never really been much of a demand for royal-only brides in the UK. The closest thing was the importation of a German-style monarchy under the early Hanoverians (and with all their affairs and carrying on, I doubt there was too much respect for married life beyond Queens Caroline and Charlotte, who didn't rank too highly by birth, themselves). English monarchs have most often married members of the British nobility (who, unless peeresses in their own right, are commoners). So a Kate or Chelsea wouldn't exactly signal the end of monarchy in Britain.

I have been doing some research and thought you might be interested to know that before Charles married Diana the last acknowledged either heir apparent or monarch who actually married a non-royal personage was Henry VII.

Going in reverse order, and only dealing with the heir apparent and/or monarch at the time of their marriage these are the marriages:

Edward VII married Princess Alexandra of Denmark
Queen Victoria married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
George IV married Princess Caroline of Brunswick
George III married Princess Charlotte of Mecklingburg-Strelitz
Charles II married Princess Catherine of Braganza
Charles I married Princess Henrietta of France
Mary I married Philip II of Spain
Henry VIII married Princess Katherine of Aragon
Henry VII married Elizabeth Woodville.

So since the late 1400s until the late 1900s the monarch or heir apparent who married did so to someone of royal birth.

Isn't it amazing though how many of the monarchs didn't marry when they were either the monarch or heir apparent but even then most of them conducted royal marriages.

Edward VI - didn't marry
Elizabeth I - didn't marry
James I and VI - Princess Anne of Denmark
Mary II - married William of Orange and shared the throne with her
Anne - married Prince George of Denmark
George I - married Doreathea of Celle (daughter of a Duke born an HH)
George II - married Princess Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach
William IV - married Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meinengen
George V - married Princess Mary of Teck (was 2nd in line at the time and therefore not heir apparent)


That list leaves James II and George VI as the only monarchs who married non-royal spouses since Henry VIII. James IIs first wife was Anne Hyde but his second was Princess Mary of Modena and thus a royal wife. George VI's spouse was the redoubtable Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons.

To say that they British royals haven't been as insisting on royal spouses doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Since Henry VII married Elizabeth of York there have been 22 monarchs - 2 never married, 2 married more than once and even then of those 8 wives 3 were royal, thus excluding Henry VIII's multiple wives only 2 spouses since the late 1400s have been non-royal.

[Vasaborg]

Originally Posted by Ella Kay

Anne Hyde, wife of James II? Charles II was king when they married, and Anne was an English commoner.

She was the daughter of Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon.

[MAfan]

George V - married Princess Mary of Teck (was 2nd in line at the time and therefore not heir apparent)

They married in 1893, and he already was second in the line of succession, since his brother Albert Victor had died the year before.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Vasaborg

She was the daughter of Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon.

And still a commoner - just as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons and Diana Spencer were commoners.

By the way - you attributed your quote incorrecty to Ella Kay when it was in my post.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by MAfan

They married in 1893, and he already was second in the line of succession, since his brother Albert Victor had died the year before.

I said he was second in line and the section of my post that you quoted even says that I said he was second in line.

Second in line is NOT the heir apparent.

At the time of his marriage the heir apparent was his father - The Prince of Wales.

Just as now - Charles is the heir apparent and William is second in line.

[Vasaborg]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

And still a commoner - just as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons and Diana Spencer were commoners.

By the way - you attributed your quote incorrecty to Ella Kay when it was in my post.

Since i am only a member a few days, im sure you will forgive me.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Vasaborg

Since i am only a member a few days, im sure you will forgive me.

I hope you don't think I was having a go at you or anything like that.

I was, I hope, only pointing out that there had been a misappropriation of the quote.

We all make mistakes - me more than most people I know.

Of course I 'forgive' you and I hope that you will really enjoy your time here.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie

I have been doing some research and thought you might be interested to know that before Charles married Diana the last acknowledged either heir apparent or monarch who actually married a non-royal personage was Henry VII.

Going in reverse order, and only dealing with the heir apparent and/or monarch at the time of their marriage these are the marriages:

Edward VII married Princess Alexandra of Denmark
Queen Victoria married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
George IV married Princess Caroline of Brunswick
George III married Princess Charlotte of Mecklingburg-Strelitz
Charles II married Princess Catherine of Braganza
Charles I married Princess Henrietta of France
Mary I married Philip II of Spain
Henry VIII married Princess Katherine of Aragon
Henry VII married Elizabeth Woodville.

So since the late 1400s until the late 1900s the monarch or heir apparent who married did so to someone of royal birth.

Isn't it amazing though how many of the monarchs didn't marry when they were either the monarch or heir apparent but even then most of them conducted royal marriages.

Edward VI - didn't marry
Elizabeth I - didn't marry
James I and VI - Princess Anne of Denmark
Mary II - married William of Orange and shared the throne with her
Anne - married Prince George of Denmark
George I - married Doreathea of Celle (daughter of a Duke born an HH)
George II - married Princess Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach
William IV - married Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meinengen
George V - married Princess Mary of Teck (was 2nd in line at the time and therefore not heir apparent)


That list leaves James II and George VI as the only monarchs who married non-royal spouses since Henry VIII. James IIs first wife was Anne Hyde but his second was Princess Mary of Modena and thus a royal wife. George VI's spouse was the redoubtable Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons.

To say that they British royals haven't been as insisting on royal spouses doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Since Henry VII married Elizabeth of York there have been 22 monarchs - 2 never married, 2 married more than once and even then of those 8 wives 3 were royal, thus excluding Henry VIII's multiple wives only 2 spouses since the late 1400s have been non-royal.

Actually, British royals have not insisted on royal spouses, and the first list bears that out.

Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, was not a descendant of a King and therefore was not royal. His father, grandfathers and great-grandfathers on both sides, were all Dukes. The fact that he held the title of a German prince does not make him royal. In Germany, all the children of Dukes were considered 'princes' of their house. This was due to the structure of German nobility.

Caroline of Brunswick was the daughter of the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel and Princess Augusta Frederika of Wales. Her paternal grandfather was also a Duke, married to Princess Philippine Charlotte of Prussia. She may not be definitively 'royal' by virtue of the fact that her relationship to the King of Great Britain and the King of Prussia is through the female line.

Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz was also the daughter of a German Duke. In fact, her lineage is quite remote from any royal house. All her ancestors were solidly princes, dukes or counts. She was of ducal and princely blood, but not royal. The only kings in her ancestry were two of her 4th great-grandfathers, Gustav I of Sweden and Frederik I of Denmark and Norway.

You are correct, however, about the royal status of Alexandra of Denmark, Catherine of Braganza, Henrietta of France, Philip II of Spain and Catherine of Aragon. They were all children of Europe's reigning houses at the time of their marriages, with the exception of Philip II, who was already a reigning monarch.

In the second list, except for Anne of Denmark, William of Orange, and George of Denmark, all of the marriages again were to ducal German houses, and not to royals.

I suppose the royal status of William of Orange could technically be debated, since his was a princely house, but the House of Orange were rulers, and once he was crowned with Mary II, he became royal in any case.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Incidentally, Mary of Modena, too, was the daughter of the Duke of Modena and his wife Laura Martinozzi, who had no title at all, although she was born into Italian nobility. Mary of Modena was not of royal blood, and therefore was not royal, although she carried the title of 'princess' as the daughter of a Duke.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

I wonder how "Scottish" the Queen Mum really was.

There are some sources that say she was really born in England (Hertfordshire?) and there was a considerable amount of intermarriage between the Scottish and English aristocracy.

Have I created a firestorm?

I would say that Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon, the Queen Mother, is about half Scots and half English.

Her mother was English, the granddaughter of William Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland, and his wife Dorothy (nee Cavendish), daughter of the 4th Duke of Devonshire.

The Duke of Portland added the surname Cavendish to his when they married, and his great-grandfather was from the Netherlands.

The Queen Mother is also descended from the Earls of Oxford and Mortimer, the Earls of Gainsborough and the Duke of Newcastle.

Obviously, her paternal side is Scots, with her father being the 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.