Marriage Issues

[Odette]

I think that "morganatic" refears when a princess marries a non-royal, not the opposite...

King Alexandros's marriage to Aspasia Manou was morganatic.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Morganatic marriages can be between a male royal and female non-royal, as well as a female royal and male non-royal

 

[Warren]

A morganatic marriage simply means that neither the wife nor any children can take or inherit the husband/father's styles, titles or position.

 

[maria-olivia]

In Belgium , we had one morganitc wedding : Leopold III and Lilian Baels.
She was HRH Princess Lilian de Rethy and was never Queen of the Belgians
Their 3 children were RRHH Princes of Belgium , but could not pretend to be heirs.
Therefore Princess Lilian dreamed royal weddings for her 3 children.
Marie -Christine married a canadian pianist playing the evening in bars and she divorced 3 weeks later ! and Marie-Esmeralda married pregnant a famous british scientist. Prince Alexandre married secretly Lea Wolman and told his mother when Esmeralda married

 

[MAfan]

A morganatic marriage simply means that neither the wife nor any children can take or inherit the husband/father's styles, titles or position.

Or that neither the husband nor the children can inherit the wife/mother's styles or titles.

 

[Warren]

Yes, but there aren't many instances of husbands taking the wife's styles, titles and rank to begin with, let alone being formally disbarred from doing so because of an "unequal" marriage. Such cases would be few and far between.

 

[jonnydep]

Or that neither the husband nor the children can inherit the wife/mother's styles or titles.

but if the morganatic wife is given a title etc , the children can inherit the wife/mothers styles or titles......such as the Battenburgs etc....yes !

 

[MAfan]

Yes, but only in the case described by Warren.

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

It is usually the male who loses the right of passing his style and titles to his children by engaging in a morgantic marriage because high-born women usually don't arrange their own marriages or have titles to pass on, in most cases. However, I believe the government or monarch can get around the morganatic problem through acts of enoblement or passage of laws

 

[snowflower]

It is usually the male who loses the right of passing his style and titles to his children by engaging in a morgantic marriage because high-born women usually don't arrange their own marriages or have titles to pass on, in most cases. However, I believe the government or monarch can get around the morganatic problem through acts of enoblement or passage of laws

I think that morganatic marriage is usually used to describe a situation where the wife and the children don't share the man's rank and titles and the are bound to take their mother's rank. But since it would be hugely embarrasing for the children of a prince to have no title at all, most morganatic wifes were made by the monarch countesses, duchesses or princesses and the children would have that rank. The reason that morganatic spouses were usually women was that few princesses in the past had the right to pass their own titles to their children or to share it with their husband so the term couldn't apply to them exactly. But I am not very sure about this.

 

[Warren]

...So morganatic marriages was a complex issue from that family.

Yes, "unequal" marriages were treated quite differently:
• King Alexander married Aspasia Manos in 1919 - she had to wait two years after his death before being recognised as a Princess of Greece;
• Prince Christopher married Mrs Nancy Leeds in 1920 - she was created Princess Anastasia;
• Prince Peter married Irene Ovtchinnikov in 1939 - she was never accepted by the family nor allowed to enter Greece.

 

[snowflower]

And let's not forget Prince Michael and Marina Karella becuase although she was a commoner and he had to renounce his succession rights in order to comply with the family's line , the marriage was approved by Constantine even in a stricly social way and they got married in the royal Palace with the presence of the entire RF.

 

[roimat]

Yes, but about prince Michael: almost nobody is calling Marina Karalla as "princess Marina", although their 2 daughters, Alexandra and Olga, have the style "princess".

 

[MAfan]

Alexandra and Olga are Princesses because King Constantine II allowed them to use that title, although withouth HRH style.

 

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

Yes, "unequal" marriages were treated quite differently:
• King Alexander married Aspasia Manos in 1919 - she had to wait two years after his death before being recognised as a Princess of Greece;
• Prince Christopher married Mrs Nancy Leeds in 1920 - she was created Princess Anastasia;
• Prince Peter married Irene Ovtchinnikov in 1939 - she was never accepted by the family nor allowed to enter Greece.

And Princess Marie of Greece's second marriage to Admiral Ioannides was morganatic, but it was not of import since, because of their age, the marriage could not produce issue.

Insofar as Prince Christopher was concerned, he resigned his rights to the Throne, but later the resignation was recalled and well after the wedding Mrs Leeds was eventually elevated to HRH Princess Anastasia - she was filthy rich and Prince Christopher literally penniless.

Insofar as Prince Michael's marriage is concerned, Madame Marina Karella was and is Madame Marina Karella, as it was decided by the King back in 1965 when the marriage took place. By definition, therefore, a commoner's - who remains a commoner and does not get elevated to princess or prince - children cannot technically be or even get elevated to princes or princesses. In order for them to get elevated to princesses, King Constantine would first need to elevate Madane Karella to princess, but he has never done that. Thus, even if he [King Constantine] acknowledges them as princesses, they cannot be.

Last but not least, I do not think that any Royal House except the House of Savoia-Aosta [with all its complicated status that resulted in a well publicized physical fight between Vittorio Emmanuelle of Savoia and Amedeo of Aosta during the wedding reception of one of Juan Carlos's children], treats them or addresses them as HRH or princesses.

 

[snowflower]

Even if Princess Marie and Admiral Ioannidis had an issue it wouldn't really matter if the marriage was morganatic since that child would not qualify to be a Prince/ess of the Royal House being the issue of a female member of the Family, and besides Marie's claim to the throne was quite remote at the time. The thing considering morganatic marriages was that until the 1940s both the consitution and the Law had a gap because they didn't specify in the exact words that a marriage of the member of the royal house had to be approved from the monarch. But After the whole drama of Peter's marriage and given the precedent of Alexander's marriage to Aspasia , a law was passed in the late 1940s stating that the marriage of a member of the royal family had to be approved by the Monarch otherwise, even if it was conducted by a member of the clergy and was lawfull according the the laws of Greece, it would be viewed as unvalid and non existent.

 

[Odette]

When King Alexandros died Venizelos addressed Aspasia Manou as "Madam" when he offered his condolences.
After the return of King Constantine in December of 1920 the royal family conferred upon Aspasia Manos the title to Royal Highness so by extension her child would be also styled as HRH. That would be the only way King Alexandros' child would be fashioned as such.

 

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

@ Sunflower @ Odette
You are both correct.
By the way, addressing a royal lady as "Ma'am" does not mean that she does not carry style and/or title. It is the traditional way, in fact, of addressing even the Queen of Great Britain, although I would grant you that, indeed, in Greece in a personal dialogue, a princess and a queen would be addressed as ypsilotati and megaleiotati, respectively.
Now, the case of the princesses daughters of prince Michael, merely great-grand-daughters of a king, grand-daughters of a prince who resigned his rights to the throne and then recalled them, daughters of a prince who resigned his rights to the throne and daughters of a nέe commoner who remains a commoner, has no precedent in Law, Constitution, Custom or Gotha standards. It seems, in essence, to be a fabrication or figment of Vogue's, Town and Country's and the Manhattan Socialites' imagination.
Perhaps, some scholars on the matter could/would elucidate the issue and prove the opposite!

 

[Odette]

Vlaha, Venizelos addressed Aspasia Manou as KYRIA..which is as you know the address one uses as a sign of respect to a married Greek lady. It had nothing to do with the "Ma'am" one may use to address the Queen of England for example.
Where I have an issue is the title one can carry within the family. It is true that Prince Mihail resigned his rights to the throne but he was born a prince and unless the King disallowed it, his children may carry the title of princesses. When it comes to the glossies Marina Karella is also referred to as Princess which is wrong since the King never gave her the title to use. The prince's daughters however, until they married were princesses.

 

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

Vlaha, Venizelos addressed Aspasia Manou as KYRIA..which is as you know the address one uses as a sign of respect to a married Greek lady. It had nothing to do with the "Ma'am" one may use to address the Queen of England for example.

It depends. If he just used Κυρία and not Κυρία Μάνου, maybe he was using British protocol to which he was quite used to due to his close relationship to Lloyd George and his second wife's being British-born and raised Greek of the diaspora, Elena Skylitsi that is.

Where I have an issue is the title one can carry within the family. It is true that Prince Mihail resigned his rights to the throne but he was born a prince and unless the King disallowed it, his children may carry the title of princesses. When it comes to the glossies Marina Karella is also referred to as Princess which is wrong since the King never gave her the title to use. The prince's daughters however, until they married were princesses.

If you gave me one example, just one, of a person born to a commoner who was declared prince or princess in his/her own rights I will accept it. Their mother was and is a commoner so this extends to them until and unless Marina Karella is created a princess. The requirement applies both parents.

 

[snowflower]

How about the daughters of Louise, Princess Royal? Their mother was a Princess of Great Britain and Ireland and their father was His Grace The Duke of Fife, a non-royal peer. Their daughters Lady Alexandra Duff and LadyMaud Duff were created by their Grandfather Edward VII Their Highnesses Princess Alexandra and Maud of Fife taking their rank from their grandfather rather than the father, they were given precedence after all the member of the royal family styled HRH and they were allowed to use the coat of arms of a Princess of Great Britain and Ireland. Their father was never made a royal Duke though.

 

[Vlaha Karatsokaros]

Oh dear!!
Of course, but let see the specifics in the case above, that is of Alexandra Duff and Maud Duff:
1. They were the daughters of the Princess Royal (at that time)
2. They were the grand-daughters of Edward VII
3. They were great-grand-daughters of Queen Victoria
4. The King's decision to elevate them to princesses was published in the London Gazette, that is, as a statute of
the Empire!
5. Even so, Edward VII decided that they would follow the members of the Royal Family and declared them Princesses
and styled them as Highnesses but not royal
6. Their father, albeit strictly speaking a commoner, was nothing but a commoner. He was an Earl in his own rights, a
great-grandson of William IV (even though out of wedlock) and a great-great-grandson of George III. Last but not
least, he was elevated to the rank of Duke and made 1st Duke of Fife, in the British Peerage.

In essence, notwithstanding the constitutional and legal differences involved, the difference alone between a commoner like Madame Karella and a commoner like the Duke of Fife, Earl of Fife in his own rights, is at least chaotic!
Technically speaking though, insofar as Alexandra and Maud Duff were concerned, you are right, although they were made princesses by Statute of the British Empire, while King Constantine can create no Law*. Last but not least, even older Greek Constitutions never recognized titles outside the Royal Family. Thus, no person could be prince/ss, in Greece without being a member of the Royal Family and the Royal House. To put it differently, even when the monarchy was in effect, if one was not a royal highness he/she could not be a prince.

*As Head of a Royal House, however, he has the prerogative to elevate anyone he likes to princely status, particularly now that he is not bound by any constitution. All I am saying, however, is that elevating these ladies to princely status while their mother remains a commoner is inconsequential and rather unprecedented.

 

[snowflower]

I agree and accept all of your points, except the part where you underline that they were made princesses but not royal, because the first children of Prince George Duke of York and Mary of Teck were also mere Highnesses like Alexandra and Maud when they were born and they were still pretty royal .You are right that I am speaking of a technical point, because even if all the points you have made applied are quite correct, Louise's daughters were techincally the daughters of a non royal parent who was never made royal and still were princesses. Also technically, since Prince Philip was created a prince again in 1957, Charles and Anne were also a prince and a princess although they had a royal and a non royal parent when they were born , thanks to their grandfather's Letter Patent ( again, I speak again strictly from a technical point of view without taking into account that their mother was the heiress presumptive and their father was born a royal). So , one can say that there are times when the will of a monarch can determine the rank of his relatives who a born from a royal - non roaul marrige , at least in one monarchy.

 

[Odette]

It depends. If he just used Κυρία and not Κυρία Μάνου, maybe he was using British protocol to which he was quite used to due to his close relationship to Lloyd George and his second wife's being British-born and raised Greek of the diaspora, Elena Skylitsi that is. He may have used it this way or that way and for whatever reason we cannot know, since we can not read minds or know motives. The fact is he addressed her as a Kyria and did not use the honorific appropriate for the widow of a King.
If you gave me one example, just one, of a person born to a commoner who was declared prince or princess in his/her own rights I will accept it. Their mother was and is a commoner so this extends to them until and unless Marina Karella is created a princess. The requirement applies both parents.

We need to accept that the King as the head of the family has the right to elevate to the HRH title commoners themselves let alone children born to them. No need to go too far. All of Pavlos's children are born to a commoner and carry the titles of TRH Princes and Princess of Greece.
We do not have any Dukes and Counts in Greece therefore the King has the prerogative to give them or not give them titles. If the Greeks themselves accept or ignore them it is another story. Within the family they are recognised as much.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Princess Alexandra of England (1891-1959) began a relationship with Prince Christopher around 1910. He was a son of George I and Queen Olga of Greece.
Although Alexander and Christopher hoped to be married, the engagement was terminated when their disapproving parents learned of the liason.
​