English and British Royal Marriages

[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.

[Jo of Palatine]

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.

In any case it was a terribly unpolite thing to say when the "fount of all honours" agreed to the matches, thus declaring them "equal" and foreign titles are notoriously un-recognized in the UK. Which one can understand on hearing such an arrogant comment. As if Marina herself was responsible for her ancestors' marriages, so could claim their glory!

[PrinceOfCanada]

Well yes of course it was impolite. I don't think that is being argued here.

[HMTLove23]

if she was the 1st woman to marry into the royal family in 300 years.

who was the last one??????

[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.

[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.

[Ella Kay]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Ella Kay]

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.

Actually, I believe it was mine -- back at the bottom of the first page.

[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.

[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.

[Warren]

Originally Posted by HM Queen Catherine

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.

Welcome to the Forums HM Queen Catherine, and thanks for your contributions to the historical topics.

Regarding the 'royalness' of the German spouses, the usage of "royal" in this context is descriptive rather than technical. Prior to 1805 the only true "royals" in what is now Germany would have been the Prussians as Prussia was the only Kingdom. When speaking of the marriages, it's just easier to refer to the reigning Ducal and Princely families as 'royal' rather than use something like 'equal', which is a Germanic concept in itself. The alternative is to refer to 'royal-ducal' or 'royal-princely' marriages, which sort of takes the sheen off it.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Warren

Welcome to the Forums HM Queen Catherine, and thanks for your contributions to the historical topics.

Regarding the 'royalness' of the German spouses, the usage of "royal" in this context is descriptive rather than technical. Prior to 1805 the only true "royals" in what is now Germany would have been the Prussians as Prussia was the only Kingdom. When speaking of the marriages, it's just easier to refer to the reigning Ducal and Princely families as 'royal' rather than use something like 'equal', which is a Germanic concept in itself. The alternative is to refer to 'royal-ducal' or 'royal-princely' marriages, which sort of takes the sheen off it.

Thank you very much Warren, for your kind welcome. I hope all of my contributions will be helpful to others on this forum, and as a student of British and European history, I am very excited to have found it!

I do understand what you mean in terms of the usage of "royal" being descriptive, but I felt it should be explained in the technical sense, so there is no misunderstanding about the status of those British marriages. Saying they were "royal" marriages is not technically accurate, although the titles do make them seem more glamorous, I must admit.

Germany, of course, is different from most other European countries in their concept and structure of nobility. It is often confusing and often misunderstood, especially when dealing with the various Ducal Houses.

True royals prior to the establishment of the Kingdom of Prussia in 1805, would have been invested in the family of the Holy Roman Emperor, who was also King of the Germans and King of Italy. The German Empire started with Charlemagne, who was crowned Emperor of the Romans in 800 AD.

Of course, the Kingdom of Germany was never entirely hereditary, and the "Kings of the Romans", as they were styled, were elected by the leading nobility. To confuse matters even more, the "Kings of the Romans" were not always crowned as Emperors.

But I would argue that the Imperial ruling house of the Holy Roman Empire were the true royals of Germany prior to 1805. The most recent ruling houses being the House of Hapsburg-Lorraine, the House of Lorraine, the House of Wittelsbach and the House of Hapsburg.

The only other royal house of Germany prior to 1805 was the Kingdom of Bohemia, which was established in 1212, and was the most powerful state of the Holy Roman Empire. In the case of Bohemia, it was a kingdom in its own right and an independent member of the Holy Roman Empire. It later became part of the Austrian Empire, and was finally dissolved in 1918.

Since 1805 and the establishment of the Kingdom of Prussia, the other royal houses were from the Kingdom of Württemberg, the Kingdom of Bavaria, the Kingdom of Hanover, and the Kingdom of Saxony. In that respect, it could also be argued that the Grand Duchies of Hesse and Baden were also royal houses.

I know its complicated.. I don't know how German students ever keep it all straight in history class! But since I'm married to a German myself, I have a great resource when I have questions!

[Marsel]

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.
...
Henry VII married Elizabeth Woodville.

Elizabeth Woodville was Henry VII's mother in law, not wife. Henry VII was married to Elizabeth York, King Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville's daughter and York heiress to the throne.

The main difference between the British Royal Family and most other Royal Families is the absence of the idea of morganatic marriages. In theory, British Monarchs, Princes and Princesses could marry anyone they wanted (as long as the Monarch's approval was sought and received), unlike French (Louis XIV and his second, morganatic wife), Russian (where even some of the Royal Families, like Bagrations, weren't good enough for the Grand Duke and Duchesses) and many other Families.
However the British obviously preferred marrying fellow Royals, for it was a good opportunity for alliances and usually brought impressive dowries.
Duty was far more important than love, unless you were Henry VIII, of course.

[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 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.

[HM Queen Catherine]

Originally Posted by Lady Ann

Might sound like a dumb question but I always read how Lady Diana Spencer was the first English Woman to Wed and Hier to the throne in 300 years was not the Queen Mother and English Woman. Does any one know what is ment by this? Thanks in advance ....

Diana Spencer was the first English woman to marry an heir to the throne in 300 years. That is a correct statement, as Charles was The Prince of Wales at the time of their marriage.

Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, was Scots and English, but she was never married to The Prince of Wales. George VI never held this title, and was only King because his brother abdicated.

Before that, marriages had been made between Britain and the royal and ducal houses on the continent, since the time of George I.

The only exception was George IV, who married Maria Anne FitzHerbert when he was The Prince of Wales in Sep 1785, but their marriage was deemed invalid by English Civil Law, even though Pope Pius VII declared it was valid. Had it been allowed to stand, The Prince of Wales would not have been able to inherit the Crown, because Maria was Roman Catholic.

So the last valid marriage between a British royal and an English woman was the marriage of James II to Anne Hyde in 1660. But he was not The Prince of Wales, nor at that time was he heir to the throne. He was the Duke of York when they married.