The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Royal Highlights > Royal Genealogy

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 03-02-2013, 04:51 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
And the Brazilian Imperial Family is one of the most rigid when regarding Dynastics Marriages. If the Lignes were considered good enough, they are good enough.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 03-02-2013, 05:18 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangre_Real016 View Post
Prince Antonio's marriage to Princess Christine of Ligne is one fine example.. the House of Ligne...[is] considered by some sovereign houses to be good enough for them.
Yes, just as a Wrede was good enough for a Habsburg, etc etc etc. I think you are/were trying to find a one-size fits all rule regarding marriage equality within the Gotha and the simple fact is that there is no single overall rule and the application of rules is adaptable (Royal Catholic Bourbon and morganatic Protestant Battenberg? Fit for a King! Who would have thought?).

Different Houses take different stances and within their own familial conventions most have proved to be sufficiently flexible to allow "exceptions", whether voluntary or imposed by circumstance. Most of the families concerned have survived a non-Part I/Part II marriage; the reality is more that those who continue to insist on (or must adhere to) specific or rigid qualifications run into trouble. The current Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg impasse is one example, while the near-miss of the Bernadotte's death wish for self-inflicted dynastic extinction appears ludicrous in retrospect.
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 03-02-2013, 10:05 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
with all due respect, never did i denied such fact.. i believe that it has mentioned multiple times in this thread that each family have their own rules for dynastic marriage.. what i was referring to is in "theory" which completely says by virtue on its rules that a dynastic union should be of people of equal rank..

throughout this thread's discussion, we have seen how Bourbon/Rohan, Grimaldi/Hamilton, Orleans-Braganza/Ligne, Hohenzollern/Raventlow, Zahringen/Beauharnais, Saxe-Coburg/Kohary etc unions were considered dynastic, while a Hohenzollern/Radziwill union was denied, Habsburg/Windisch-Graetz, Romanov/Yusupov union were considered unequl and a Romanov-Bagration union is in question..

this is the beauty of this thread.. people are able to know and be informed of the rules and the amendments done to these rules.. and that there is no one-size fits all rule regarding marriage equality within the Gotha
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 03-03-2013, 07:58 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangre_Real016 View Post
true.. that is actually what matters.. and few would question that a marriage of a Orleans-Braganza prince to a Ligne princess would not be considered dynastic as the House of Ligne is among the few families from the Gotha's Section III that is closest to be considered dynastic..
Well,maybe the criteria for this dynastic marriage in this case was belonging to uradel families which de Ligne family certainly is...

Let's not forget that even every ruling family had it's own rules which followed...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 03-04-2013, 11:54 AM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
Well,maybe the criteria for this dynastic marriage in this case was belonging to uradel families which de Ligne family certainly is...

Let's not forget that even every ruling family had it's own rules which followed...
well, possibly.. not sure really.. perhaps the Lignes Uradel status is enough for the Orleans-Braganza.. but some families like the Romanovs doesn't really care about a family's antiquity, as you said, a Romanov cannot even dream of marrying a Obolensky princess despite it being far more ancient than them..

true.. some families would work for others, and some would not.. a Countess d'Udekem d'Acoz may be considered good enough to be Queen of Belgium, but not good enough for a Hohenzollern prince and it would take a Isenburg princess to make a dynastic union.. while a Countess Raventlow is good enough for the Hohenzollern heir.. tricky right? lol
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 03-04-2013, 12:34 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,352
It's not so much "tricky" but simply a situation where different families, different Houses and different States had diferent attitudes to the formalising of their internal rules, traditions and conventions. Some "marriage guidelines" were based on formal Family Laws, some were laid down and formed part of the State's constitution, probably most had no formal rules at all. In these cases decisions could be made case by case or through family consensus or tradfition, or by a Fürst's individual whim based on his likes, dislikes, personal disputes, family feuds, favours owed and favours owing, precedent, religious stance, social and territorial ambition, and of course the state of his balance sheet and cash flow.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 03-04-2013, 09:56 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangre_Real016 View Post
well, possibly.. not sure really.. perhaps the Lignes Uradel status is enough while a Countess Raventlow is good enough for the Hohenzollern heir.. tricky right? lol
Prince Sigismund was never an heir...he may be in line for an heir,but he was never an Heir...so his potential marriage would not be treated the same as the marriage of an actual Heir,which Georg Friedrich was,since his father died...
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 03-06-2013, 12:38 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
Prince Sigismund was never an heir...he may be in line for an heir,but he was never an Heir...so his potential marriage would not be treated the same as the marriage of an actual Heir,which Georg Friedrich was,since his father died...
wasn't he his nephew's heir before he had his sons? well, despite that fact, his father considered his marriage to a Countess Raventlow dynastic, and say if Georg Friedrich failed to comply to his grandfather's will to secure heirs from a dynastic union, them Prince Sigismund and his sons would be heirs to the Hohenzollern dynasty.. am i correct? or could have Georg Friedrich marry a non-sovereign, non-mediatised noble say a daughter of an English duke, can he still legitimize his claim by basing such union with that of his uncle?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 03-06-2013, 09:32 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangre_Real016 View Post
wasn't he his nephew's heir before he had his sons?
He was just in line,but was never an actual heir...And sometimes the rules are different for the actual Heir and the others...

Emperor Charles of Austria wasn't allowed to marry a Hohenlohe Princess,while his brother was allowed,so the rules are different for the actual Heir and the rest in line...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangre_Real016 View Post
well, despite that fact, his father considered his marriage to a Countess Raventlow dynastic, and say if Georg Friedrich failed to comply to his grandfather's will to secure heirs from a dynastic union, them Prince Sigismund and his sons would be heirs to the Hohenzollern dynasty.. am i correct?
I guess,as the Heirs to Hohenzollern dynasty are decided by unwritten House Laws...

As there isn't any written document left about the House Laws,during the Kingdom of Prussia and the Empire of Germany it was up to the Head of the family to decide consulting all other legitimate male family members... The practice of the house was clearly to set high standards to marriages,but they never mentioned them in particular.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sangre_Real016 View Post
or could have Georg Friedrich marry a non-sovereign, non-mediatised noble say a daughter of an English duke, can he still legitimize his claim by basing such union with that of his uncle?
I don't think so,as he is an direct Heir who contracts marriage as such,not as 2nd or 3rd Prince in line...It may be good enough to be considered as a marriage dynastic,but the rules for the actual Heir's marriage were more specific thanks to Wilhelm's will where he sort of "made" the Heir to Hohenzollern dynasty and an Heir to his fortune the same...and people can sometimes mix that,although it was the first time someone has written something that has existed as unwritten Law...So,I guess he sort of made the written rules for the marriage requirement of the Head of the family!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 03-20-2013, 01:05 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
...the Heirs to the Hohenzollern dynasty are decided by unwritten House Laws...
just a random question.. say Georg Friedrich wasn't able to marry dynastically.. then that means, Prince Christian Ludwig of Prussia, eldest son of Prince Christian-Sigismund of Prussia and Countess Nina Helene of Reventlow would be next in line and logically would be the heir.. so if that is the case, would he still be required to marry equally even if his own mother is a non-sovereign/non-mediatised noblewoman?

also, what if Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia or Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia say, married The Lady Gabriella Windsor, daughter of HRH Prince Michael of Kent and Baroness Marie Christine von Reibnitz, would their union be considered equal? if i am not mistaken if King George V did not issue the Letter Patent that limits those who are considered as British Princesses, then Lady Grabiella would have been known as Her Highness Princess Gabriella of Kent.. am i correct?
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 03-20-2013, 01:22 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Yes, she would have been HH Princess Gabriela of Kent.
But I'm not certainly if this marriage would considered an equal one. She can be the daughter of a Prince, but she's a commoner.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 03-20-2013, 02:50 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
true.. but that is due to the Letter Patents.. but ancestry-wise, she has impeccable royal ancestry.. her father the child of both royal parents (Prince George, Duke of Kent and Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark) while her mother is a member of the Uradel nobility with blood ties with mediatised houses as her mom's maternal grandmother was Princess Maria Heduvige of Windisch-Gräetz.
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 03-20-2013, 02:55 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Yes, but, in my opinion, for the Romanov and Orlenas-Braganza's points of view, the marriage would be unequal.
But I heard that Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna will change the House Laws, if Grand Duke George decides to marry a commoner. I hope he finds a Princess.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 03-20-2013, 04:09 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire View Post
But I heard that Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna will change the House Laws, if Grand Duke George decides to marry a commoner. I hope he finds a Princess.
thing is, even Grand Duchess Maria's claims are being questioned by some of her relatives.. they said that Maria is a product of an unequal union because her father the Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia married Princess Leonida Bagration of Mukhrani..

thing is, the House of Bagration, probably the oldest house house in Europe who once ruled as Kings of Georgia until it was annexed by the Russian Empire.. Even so, the Treaty of Georgievsk which was signed by both Empress Catherine II of Russia and King Heraclius II of Georgia which guaranteed the royal status of the Bagrations.. but still, when Princess Tatiana Constantinovna of Russia married Prince Konstantin Alexandrovich Bagration of Mukhrani, their union was considered morganatic.. ironically, it was said that her father, Grand Duke Constantine Constantinovich of Russia got a lyyer from the Emperor and Empress saying that "they would never look upon her marriage to a Bagration as morganatic, because this House, like the House of Orléans, is descended from a once ruling dynasty." Nonetheless, legally Tatiana Konstantinovna's marriage was morganatic.. this is from where other claimants base their views that Grand Duchess Maria is not the rightful heir..

now if Grand Duke George would choose to marry to commoner wife, i personally think i would cause more damaged to their family's claim to the throne.. i think he should marry dynastically to ensure his family's claim..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 03-20-2013, 04:14 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
It just seems so odd that families that lost their thrones a century ago are still so hung up on the idea of "equal marriage" while those monarchies that have thrived and survived have abandoned the idea.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 03-20-2013, 04:29 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
It just seems so odd that families that lost their thrones a century ago are still so hung up on the idea of "equal marriage" while those monarchies that have thrived and survived have abandoned the idea.
They're following their traditions. Nothing more.

The Brazilian Monarchy didn't fall because the members of the Imperial Family were marrying Royals, nor the Russin Monarchy. They were overthrown by coups.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 03-20-2013, 05:25 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto (ON) & London (UK), Canada
Posts: 5,261
The reason for their fall is not terribly relevant. What is relevant is that they lost their thrones a century or more ago and today these people are just commoners with an interesting set of ancestors. It seems more than a bit antiquated for a head of a family to tell someone we can't recognize your marriage because it is not equal when in many cases the country they once ruled over no longer exists (ex. Prussia and any of the petty German states) so your wife and children cannot be HRH Princess.
I did read online that Archduke Karl is planning on de-morganautizing (lol) all of the Habsburg marriages since 1918 which will create a flood of new Archdukes and Archduchesses which is funny enough in itself but I guess a tiny step into the 21st century.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 03-20-2013, 05:37 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Makati, Philippines
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by NGalitzine View Post
It just seems so odd that families that lost their thrones a century ago are still so hung up on the idea of "equal marriage" while those monarchies that have thrived and survived have abandoned the idea.
its probably because those who only have the name tends to hold on to tradition while those who have power can actually bend the rules.. we'll that is how i think it is..

well, 50 years ago, one cannot say the same thing.. someone like Kate Middleton could have never become a prospect Princess of Wales, much more to be the Queen of England with her pedigree.. back then, all of the sons of Knud, Hereditary Prince of Denmark were stripped of their tittles because they married commoners.. and no commoners until Letizia was a prospect Queen of Spain.. Grand Duchess Josephine Charlotte said to have looked down on her daughter-in-law for being a commoner.. only those who have followed the tradition into marrying someone of noble blood are Belgium and Liechtenstein.. others broke tradition..
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 03-20-2013, 07:51 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 709
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire View Post
Yes, she would be HH Princess Gabriela of Kent.

But I'm not certainly if this marriage would considered an equal one. She can be the daughter of a Prince, but she's a commoner.
True,but it can also depend from which point of view,as some Houses require only full membership of the a certain House for equal marriage purposes and Lady Gabriella is a full member of the ruling House,no matter she is only a Lady...

For example,if the choice for equal marriage would be between Lady Gabriella Windsor,as the daughter of a Prince,full member of the reigning House with most equal blood among younger royals,who is considered a commoner just by a twist of fate or the mediatized Countess von Graevenitz,equal to the royals by the birth right,but with merely noble ancestry for quite a while,what do you think who would be chosen and why?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 03-20-2013, 08:22 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Rio de Janeiro and Petrópolis, Brazil
Posts: 1,124
Well, depends.

If Prince Rafael of Brazil decide to marry qualquer any of the two (Lady Gabriella or Countess), none of the two marriages would be considered dynastic by his uncle, Prince Luiz, the Head of the Imperial Family. Because the Brazilian Imperial Family only accept marriage between Princely, Royal and Imperial Houses.

But, in my opinion, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna would accept as dynastic a marriage between Grand Duke George and the Countess.
.
__________________

__________________
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





Additional Links
Popular Tags
birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince felipe crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan kate middleton king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman picture of the month pom president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess ariane princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess claire princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit wedding william



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:16 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]