Royal and Noble Families: Dynastic Laws and Marriage Rules


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Well,it's natural reaction when you are snubbed by someone who is not as rich and by someone who virtually "steels" all important positions in European thrones due to official rank of higher/equal birth...It was not easy just sitting and watching from the side when you are unable to change things in your favor...

probably.. its basically the the same here in my country during the Spanish Colonial Era.. the ruling noble class in my country back then were known as the Principalia, they are landed elite who's rank and position were hereditary until the royal decree of 20 December 1863, when Queen Isabella II of Spain made it possible to be acquired through election.. my family were members of the Principalia with scions of our family held the title of Cabeza de Pueblo Viejo for a hundred years via hereditary right.. other members of the elite were the Insulares, the pure bred Spaniards, born in Spanish soil that migrated in the Philippines to seek their fortune.. the Principalias and the Insulares often clashed.. to the Insulares, the Principalias were just rich polynesian natives lucky enough to mix with Spanish blood and granted ruling rights by the Spanish crown to prevent revolt while for the Principalias, these Insulares were nothing more than lowborn Spanish beggars who wanted to amass wealth.. this is very much like the rich British noble with few "royal" connections with the poor minor German princes with just the right noble quarterings..

True,but the rules of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld were different from the rules of this same house ascending to some throne...I mean not as strict...Equality was defined in this Ducal House as:"Fürstliche oder gut Gräfliche Häuser",which means that only "Princely or good Countly houses" were accepted...And after all,Maria Antonia was a daughter of a Prince...

hmmm??? but wasn't Maria Antonia's father was just a Count upon her birth and was just created "Prince" in 1815 and to To make her a suitable bride for a prince, the emperor had raised her father (whose ancestors had been created counts in the Hungarian nobility in July 1685 and barons in February 1616) to Prince Koháry of Csábrág and Szitnya in Austria's nobility on 15 November 1815..

This is an interesting alliance allowed just because the bride was very rich,daughter of a Prince and just because the second son was in question...if it was the Crown Prince it would be treated differently for sure....

True..
 
hmmm??? but wasn't Maria Antonia's father was just a Count upon her birth and was just created "Prince" in 1815 ..
True,but the rule(lasted until 1855) "Fürstliche oder gut Gräfliche Häuser" can be very subjective,as one,for example,Head of the family,can decide that this " Count Kohary" comes from "good Countly House",while for example one "Graf Hauke" could not have been treated the same.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, Prince Karl Anselm of Thurn und Taxis married Countess Marie Isabelle of Eltz, despite her not being a member of a soveriegn or mediatised house.. other women who were members of none sovereign or mediatised houses who intermarried with the Prince House of Thurn and Taxis were Countess Aurora Batthyány of Német-Ujvár, Countess Maria of Thun and Hohenstein, Princess Eleonore of Ligne, Countess Gabriele Kinsky of Wchinitz and Tettau.. Though given that these ladies were born to some of the oldest and most illustrious noble families in Europe..

...the rule (lasted until 1855) "Fürstliche oder gut Gräfliche Häuser" can be very subjective,as one,for example,Head of the family,can decide that this " Count Kohary" comes from "good Countly House",while for example one "Graf Hauke" could not have been treated the same...
most possibly.. also, the antiquity of the family may also be considered seeing that the House of Kohary was already and ancient noble family whereas the Haukes were mere soldiers before elevated to the rank of counts in the 1800s.. also, could a countess von Eltz, Thun and Hohenstein, Batthyány, Kálnoky, Báthory, Kinsky or even Nádasdy be considered good enough?

what if a Saxe-Coburg and Gotha prince decided to marry a Italian noblewoman? say an Orsini di Gravina, a Visconti di Modrone, a Medici di Ottaviano or even Gonzaga, can they treated equal?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous:
It is an interesting question,but if we saw a Saxe-Coburg-Mensdorff marriage being treated as equal by the standards of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld at that time,I don't see any problem with Eltz or Nadasdy...It may be considered a messaliance,but not as morganatic marriage if the Head of the House agrees...

As stated in the rules of this House in question,it is said:"Fürstliche...",so it's required to be only Princely House,without going into the question of either being a sovereign,mediatized or personaliter,so I guess Kinsky,Thun und Hohenstein or Batthyany would have been enough...

Of course,different standards were used in case this House was on the actual throne of some country...King Edward VII didn't want to allow his daughter Victoria to marry his second cousin Count Albert von Mensdorff-Dietrichstein...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i wonder why Edward didn't allow his daughter to marry the count to think that Count Albert von Mensdorff-Pouilly-Dietrichstein was his own relation and the count's grandmother was sister to both his maternal grandmother and paternal grandfather.. what baffles me is that, King Edward VII allowed his eldest daughter, the Princess Royal to marry his own subject, Alexander Duff, 6th Earl of Fife and later Duke of Fife.. whereas i remember him to be one of the people most against the marriage of her sister Princess Louise to the then John Campbell, Marquess of Lorne, later Duke of Argyll saying that a marriage between her sister and a non-mediatised noble is unacceptable..

Also, i was wondering, what if Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia end marrying Princess Elisabeth de La Tour d'Auvergne-Lauraguais, would their marriage be considered equal? can the House of La Tour d'Auvergne's rank of Prince étranger enough to consider them euql to the Romanovs? they were the sovereign Duke's of Bouillon until 1766 right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No,de la Tour Bouillon family were only treated equal because of their sovereign Bouillon Duchy,but after the main line died out,there was a dispute over the Duchy and inheritance...So,Lauraguais line was not treated equal anyway.

i wonder why Edward didn't allow his daughter to marry the count...
Difficult to say why,but although Mensdorff family inherited lands and titles from Dietrichstein-Proskau family,they didn't inherit their former sovereign status...which meant that Count Mensdorff could become upon his father in law death Prince von Dietrichstein-Nikolsburg,but his family just could not inherit the status this family had before dying out...So,Dietrichsteins were in section II of Gotha,while Mensdorff family remained in section III still...It is interesting that both King Edward VII and his mother Queen Victoria descended from that same Dietrichstein family...
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No,de la Tour Bouillon family were only treated equal because of their sovereign Bouillon Duchy,but after the main line died out,there was a dispute over the Duchy and inheritance...So,Lauraguais line was not treated equal anyway.

I see.. so the De la Tour d'Auvergne-Lauraguais line is similar to the Visconti di Modrone line of the House of Visconti and the Medici di Ottaviano line of the House of Medici.. they are collateral lines of the house but did descended from the main sovereign line..

another question, say if a daughter of the Earl of Portland would end up marrying the Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia or George Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, would their union be considered equal seeing the that British Earls of Portland are also the mediatised Counts of Bentick in the Holy Roman Empire.. also i remember that late Lady Anne Cavendish-Bentinck was proposed to by Prince Charles, Count of Flanders, son of Albert I, King of the Belgians and Duchess Elisabeth in Bavaria, but she turned him down as she preferred to marry John Osborne, 11th Duke of Leeds but her family was opposed to it.
 
:previous:
No,as Counts of Bentinck-Aldenburg,though considered mediatized(not by all "for various reasons" as said) were never Standesherren in the Holy Roman Empire...they were only made Standesherren in Oldenburg and were "lightly" given the predicate "Erlaucht" only in 1845...

So,I don't believe that Counts of Bentinck would be even "tolerable" for the Imperial family...the same case as the Prince of Orange and Countess von Limburg-Stirum...although her family was considered mediatized,they in fact were not,as only 2 branches of the family that could be considered equal died out in 1800 and 1809.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I see, so from what i remember, Standesherren were the noble house who managed to preserved their status as part of the Holy Roman Empire before joining the Confederation of the Rhine were still considered as equal to other sovereign houses of Europe, although this new equality was a concept which did not receive much currency outside the German states.

Also, irrc, in the 1900s, a new rule was introduce in the Habsburg criteria for equality for the members of the Imperial House. By those time, aside from Catholic members of sovereign, formerly-sovereign and mediatised houses, other possible partners for a member of the Imperial House must belong to an ancient noble lineage, have a certain number of noble quarters and have held a noble fief for at least 300 years. When a person meets requirements, then they are considered "good enough" to be married into the family..

so based on the new house law, can a Donna de Medici dei Principi di Ottaviano or a Donna Boncompagni-Ludovisi considered good enough? also, does British noble estates considered similar to fiefdoms? I am wondering because if yes, the so, British noble families who can trace their family origins before 1400, has no commoner "in a typical sense" blood-line and has held a noble estate for 300 years can marry into the House of Habsburg? just asking though.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No,because the Habsburg family had made a list of "acceptable" families at some point in the second half of 19th century...and it did not always include all mediatized families...British families were never an option,except for the ruling one,which was again German.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you for this reminder Warren ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
so based on the new house law, can a Donna de Medici dei Principi di Ottaviano or a Donna Boncompagni-Ludovisi considered good enough? also, does British noble estates considered similar to fiefdoms? I am wondering because if yes, the so, British noble families who can trace their family origins before 1400, has no commoner "in a typical sense" blood-line and has held a noble estate for 300 years can marry into the House of Habsburg? just asking though.
.

So,apart from the reigning christian families,only marriages with these non-ruling families were accepted as equal,with the proof of their ancestry:

-Arenberg-Recklinghuasen

-Auersperg

-Bentheim zu Steinfurt

-Bentheim-Teklenburg und Rheda

-Colloredo-Mansfeld

-Croy

-Esterhazy

-Fugger-Babenhausen

-Fürstenberg

-Hohenlohe-Langenburg-Langenburg

-Hohenlohe-Langenburg-Oehringen

-Hohenlohe-Langenburg-Kirchberg

-Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Bartenstein

-Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Bartenstein-Faxtberg

-Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingfürst

-Isenburg-Offenbach-Birstein

-Khevenhüller-Metsch

-Leyen und zu Hohengeroldseck

-Leiningen

-Lobkowitz

-Looz-Coswarem

-Loewenstein-Wertheim-Rosenbrg

-Loewenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg

-Metternich-Winneburg-Beilstein

-Oettingen-Spielberg

-Oettingen-Wallerstein

-Orsini und Rosenberg

-Salm-Horstmar

-Salm-Kyrburg

-Salm-Reifferscheid-Krautheim

-Salm-Reifferscheid-Krautheim

-Salm-Salm

-Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg

-Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein

-Schwarzenberg

-Schönburg-Waldenburg

-Schönburg-Hartenstein

-Solms-Braunfels

-Solms-Lich und Hohensolms

-Starhemberg

-Thurn und Taxis

-Trauttmansdorff

-Waldburg-Zeil-Trauchburg

-Waldburg-Zeil-Wurzach

-Waldburg-Wolfegg-Waldsee

-Wied

-Windisch-Graetz
 
Last edited:
So,apart from the reigning christian families,only marriages with these non-ruling families were accepted as equal,with the proof of their ancestry:
but aren't these families mediatised? so therefore, they are not truly considered non-ruling in essence..

So, for a marriage of a member of the Imperial Family to be equal the spouse had to belong to one of the following:
  1. the Imperial Family of Austria-Hungary (House of Habsburg-Lorraine)
  2. a fellow ruling or formerly-ruling Christian royal family
  3. a member of a princely house that had the right of equality of birth according to article 14 of the Act of German Confederation (1815) [ie, the mediatised houses]; and... *in accordance with the 1825 Act of the Emperor Franz I; and *who were mentioned by name in the list attached to the (1900) declaration.

    • List of Mediatised Princely Houses which the Habsburgs considered as acceptable marriage partners:
      • Mediatised houses domiciled in the Austrian Monarchy
        • Auersperg
        • Colloredo-Mansfeld
        • Esterházy von Galántha
        • Kaunitz-Rietberg
        • Khevenhüller
        • Lobkowicz
        • Metternich
        • Orsini-Rosenberg
        • Salm-Reifferscheid-Krautheim
        • Schwarzenberg
        • Schönburg-Waldenburg
        • Schönburg-Hartenstein
        • Trauttmansdorff
        • Windisch-Graetz
      • Mediatised houses domiciled outside of the Austrian Monarchy
        • Arenberg (Duke)
        • Bentheim-Steinfurt
        • Bentheim-Tecklenburg
        • Croy (Duke)
        • Fugger-Babenhausen
        • Fürstenberg
        • Hohenlohe-Langenburg-Langenburg
        • Hohenlohe-Langenburg-Oehringen
        • Hohenlohe-Langenburg-Kirchberg
        • Hohenlohe-Langenburg-Bartenstein
        • Hohenlohe-Langenburg-Bartenstein-Faxtberg
        • Hohenlohe-Langenburg-Schillingfürst
        • isenburg-Offenbach-Birstein
        • Leyen
        • Leiningen
        • Looz-Corswarem (Duke)
        • Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg
        • Löwenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg
        • Oettingen-Spieldberg
        • Oettingen-Wallerstein
        • Salm-Salm
        • Salm-Kyrburg
        • Salm-Reifferscheid-Krautheim
        • Salm-Horstmar
        • Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg
        • Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein
        • Solms-Braunfels
        • Solms-Lich and Hohensolms
        • Waldburg-Wolfegg-Waldsee
        • Waldburg-Zeil-Trauchburg
        • Waldburg-Zeil-Wurzach
        • Wied
        • Thurn and Taxis

  1. a member of a non-mediatised house of alter Adel status, or can prove an ancient noble lineage, *have a certain number of noble quarters (exacting conditions relating to the nobility of 16 direct ancestors, 8 paternal and 8 maternal) and *have held a noble fief for at least 300 years.

a member of a non-mediatised house of alter Adel status, or can prove an ancient noble lineage, *have a certain number of noble quarters (exacting conditions relating to the nobility of 16 direct ancestors, 8 paternal and 8 maternal) and *have held a noble fief for at least 300 years.
I was thinking that this criteria is probably what made Princess Yolanda of Ligne a suitable and acceptable wife for Archduke Karl Ludwig, fouth son of Emperor Charles I of Austria and Princess Zita of Bourbon-Parma
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was thinking that this criteria is probably what made Princess Yolanda of Ligne a suitable and acceptable wife for Archduke Karl Ludwig, fouth son of Emperor Charles I of Austria and Princess Zita of Bourbon-Parma


Well,the marriage didn't occur during the monarchy,so the rules could be a bit more flexible...

But,strange thing is that de Ligne family belongs to the part III of Gotha,just because they sold their immediate possessions few years before the actual mediation,while the other branch of the family is listed higher-Arenberg...
 
yeah.. and from what i know, the Arenbergs are actual agnatic descendants of Jean de Ligne.. one family yet the other is mediatised, and the other isn't..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yeah.. and from what i know, the Arenbergs are actual agnatic descendants of Jean de Ligne.. one family yet the other is mediatised, and the other isn't..

Yes,because de Ligne family sold their immediate possessions few years before the actual mediation...otherwise,they would too be considered mediatized...

But,so far,I haven't seen a case where a member of the House of Ligne was treated "unequal" in terms of marriage with other "higher-ranked" families...
 
Last edited:
very true.. the Habsburgs of themselves saw them as equal, as so are the Orleans-Braganza of Brazil and the Dukes of Castel Duino, the Italian branch of the House of Thurn and Taxis..

other higher-ranked families may also treat them as equal say houses like Say-Wittgenstein-Berleburg or possibly even Hohenzollern.. but say, how about the Romanovs? is a Princess of Ligne be somewhat considered equal to some extent?

also, the reason is probably because, the Lignes is one of the most prestigious and respectable Princely houses of Europe.. they even almost became sovereigns themselves when in February of 1831, the Belgian National Congress offered Eugène, 8th Prince of Ligne the Crown of Belgium itself, but he turned it down and so it was given to Prince Leopold of of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld, later Leopold I, King of the Belgians.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
how about the Romanovs? is a Princess of Ligne be somewhat considered equal to some extent?

It could have been similar to Romanov-Bagration case...never ending story for and against :(
 
Last edited:
It could have been similar to Romanov-Bagration case...never ending story for and against :(

True.. But the thing is, unlike the Bagrations, who's some members who managed to marry into sovereign, formerly sovereign families etc, were questioned, the Lignes' dynastic status as equals to higher ranked families were never put into question..

To think that the House of Ligne mainly relies on its prestige and dynastic connections to be considered equals to higher rank families, while the Bagrations were once actual rulers of their own independent state plus the fact the the Treaty of Georgievsk, which was sign by Empress Catherine The Great of Russia and Herculius II of Georgia in 1783 guaranteed the House of Bagration its dynastic royal status despite being annexed by Russia..

Also, wouldn't the questioning of a possible Romanov-Ligne union contradict the laws of other powerful sovereign houses such as the Hapsburgs, Orleans-Braganza and Bourbon-Parma? I mean these houses also possess strict house laws in terns of dynastic unions, but they considered the Lignes to be their equals in terms of dynastic union.. wouldn't the questioning of a possible Romanov-Ligne union invalidate these already established dynastic unions?
 
Last edited:
Also, wouldn't the questioning of a possible Romanov-Ligne union contradict the laws of other powerful sovereign houses such as the Hapsburgs, Orleans-Braganza and Bourbon-Parma? I mean these houses also possess strict house laws in terns of dynastic unions, but they considered the Lignes to be their equals in terms of dynastic union.. wouldn't the questioning of a possible Romanov-Ligne union invalidate these already established dynastic unions?

It is very difficult to say,because neither of those families/de Ligne marriage occurred during their actual reign,but later,so one could not know how they would be treated...

I share your opinion about de Ligne family...their place is in the group B,but technically,they not there...

In case of Russia/de Ligne marriage I don't think Romanovs would allow it at first,but,maybe some solution could be found like in the Romanov/Beauharnais case,which was very special...
 
true.. unlike that of the Bagrations, Yusupovs, and even the Radziwills, the Lignes never got the chance to marry a scion of an actual ruling house during the height of the practice of morganatic marriages.. So we don't know if they are truly considered equal like they are now..

In case of Russia/de Ligne marriage I don't think Romanovs would allow it at first,but,maybe some solution could be found like in the Romanov/Beauharnais case,which was very special...
ah, yes.. possibly..

I share your opinion about de Ligne family...their place is in the group B,but technically,they not there...
couldn't agree more.. imho, the Lignes are far more illustrious than most of the virtually unknown mediatised comital houses.. can't help to compare such instances with that of the world in ASOIAF where families like the Greyjoys were considered higher than say the Hightowers, when it fact the later possess far more wealth and prestige than the other.. :D

aside from the Lignes, the only other family that is in the third section which can be considered dynastic equals to "higher-ranked" families would be the Rohans.. the Kinskys, Radziwills, Czartoryskis or Batthyánys, well possibly, but very unlikely.. not sure about the Visconti di Modrones, Medici di Ottajanos or Gonzaga di Vescovatos though.
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous:
I'm afraid all of your touting on their behalf won't raise the status of any of the families you've been campaigning for in the marriage equality stakes. While you (and I) hold the Lignes eminently acceptable, if they weren't on the list (or in Part II), they weren't on the list and no number of testimonials extolling their noble virtues would make any difference. Unless of course there was a pressing reason for doing so, in which case a neat sleight of hand aka pragmatism was the order of the day.

I was surprised during my own research some time ago to discover that the principle of marital equality supposedly enjoyed by the Mediatised Houses wasn't necessarily applied equally. For example, in 1900 the Hasburgs drew up some new and complex House Rules concerning Imperial marriages and at the same time attached to them two lists of "approved" Mediatised Houses (those from within Austria and those from without). Some didn't make it, although they had been Mediatised with Imperial approval in 1806 or 1815 or whenever. Tough, the Habsburgs wanted that little extra "exclusivity" to separate them from the royal pack so if a family wasn't on the list, they weren't let in the door. Life could be so unfair, even for a Mediatised Imperial Count. :D
 
:previous:
I'm afraid all of your touting on their behalf won't raise the status of any of the families you've been campaigning for in the marriage equality stakes. While you (and I) hold the Lignes eminently acceptable, if they weren't on the list (or in Part II), they weren't on the list and no number of testimonials extolling their noble virtues would make any difference. Unless of course there was a pressing reason for doing so, in which case a neat sleight of hand aka pragmatism was the order of the day.

Couldn't agree more with you about this...

I was surprised during my own research some time ago to discover that the principle of marital equality supposedly enjoyed by the Mediatised Houses wasn't necessarily applied equally. For example, in 1900 the Hasburgs drew up some new and complex House Rules concerning Imperial marriages and at the same time attached to them two lists of "approved" Mediatised Houses (those from within Austria and those from without). Some didn't make it, although they had been Mediatised with Imperial approval in 1806 or 1815 or whenever. Tough, the Habsburgs wanted that little extra "exclusivity" to separate them from the royal pack so if a family wasn't on the list, they weren't let in the door. Life could be so unfair, even for a Mediatised Imperial Count. :D

Yes,we discussed earlier that list Habsburgs made in 19th century,and only acceptable were mediatized Princes,not Counts... :( unlike in Russia and some other countries...
 
Just to clarify such misinterpretations, I myself is not pursuing any form of campaign for certain houses and apologized if it came off that way for some reason.. We are merely discussing the possibilities and probabilities of other houses acceptance to other higher ranked families.. We very much aware of such things but we never thought that discussion of other houses illustrious pedigrees and their possible acceptance to other higher ranked families would go out as a form of folly campaign.. We all know that no form or amount of discussion would change their rank among houses, and i think it would be absurd for someone to think as such anyways, am i correct my good sirs?

Couldn't agree more with you about this... Yes,we discussed earlier that list Habsburgs made in 19th century,and only acceptable were mediatised Princes,not Counts... :( unlike in Russia and some other countries...

True.. Were there any objections to such rule imposed by the Habsburgs themselves? I guess not..
 
Last edited:
unlike in Russia and some other countries...

Did the Romanovs made any specification of which mediatised houses are acceptable to them like the Habsburgs? Or all mediatised (both princely and comital) houses are considered good enough for them? Same goes for the Hohenzollerns?
 
Did the Romanovs made any specification of which mediatised houses are acceptable to them like the Habsburgs? Or all mediatised (both princely and comital) houses are considered good enough for them? ?

Here is what Prince Nikolai Romanov said about Russian marriage rules:

"Russia, with its very Germanic notion of dynastic propriety, found itself accepting all the Almanach de Gotha rulings.

And so if some unfortunate Russian Grand Duke wanted to marry a Princess Obolensky, descendant of the Grand Dukes of Kiev, who reigned in Russia, at the time his Romanov ancestors were probably still lurking in the woods, draped in pelts or wading through the marshes of East Prussia or Pomerania, he would have had to change his plans.

That marriage would have been impossible, but an Austrian lady, say a daughter of an Illustrious Highness, Count von Harrach zu Rohrau und Thannhausen, lord of the county of Rohrau, Freiherr zu Prugg und Pürrhenstein, lord of Starkenbach, Jilenice, Sadowa & Storckow, would have been acceptable!"

So,for a Grand Duke Countess von Harrach would have been in some sort of way acceptable,unlike Princess Obolensky!

Same goes for the Hohenzollerns?

It's a little bit different thing in Prussia...a marriage between King Friedrich Wilhelm III and Countess Auguste von Harrach was treated morganatic,despite the fact that her family belonged to the equal ones,but the Countess in question didn't belong to the main branch that achieved that honor and status and therefor was not treated equal...otherwise,she probably would have been...

It is also difficult to say something more because Hohenzollern family in Prussia did not have any document left in which they say something about equal marriage family rules apart from the fact that Head of the family decides with the votes from the rest!

Here is a quote from "Morganatic and Unequal Marriages in Germany" for Auguste:

"Auguste belonged to a junior branch of the family, descended from Otto Friedrich (d. 1639), younger son of Karl I Bernhard who was created count in 1627. It was the elder branch, descended from Karl Leonhard (d. 1645) that became reichsständisch (albeit as a personalist) in 1752. It was the head of the elder branch who received in Austria in 1830 (six years after the marriage) the qualification of Erlaucht pursuant to the German Confederation's decision of 1829 conferring such treatment to mediatized comital families. Auguste was 5th cousin once removed with the head of the elder branch."
 
Last edited:
So,apart from the reigning christian families,only marriages with these non-ruling families were accepted as equal,with the proof of their ancestry:


-Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg

-Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein

How about the other branch of the house such as Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn, are they also considered equal in some way?
 
How about the other branch of the house such as Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn, are they also considered equal in some way?
Yes,as altgräflich Counts(had the title before 1582)...Before being styled zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn in 1834 as Prussian Princes,they were also part of Sayn-Wittgenstein(Berleburg)Ludwigsburg line which was mediatized in 1806...

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/German-Mediatization

So,based on that,all branches of the Sayn Princely family were considered equal...not speaking about de-morganized ones...
For example,in a correspondence with Emperor Nicholas II Princess Leonilla zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn signed herself as "your devoted friend and cousin..."
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ask Windsor

Just puzzled about this:-

1. If the rules have now changed and had Prince William had a daughter she would of been Queen:-

Not including George in this as he will be King his wife Queen Consort.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BUT

Is it not true to say:-

Example:

1. If William (as King) has 3 further Sons, their Wives will be 3 PRINCESSES;

2. If William (as King) has 3 Daughters, their husbands will be MR SMITH, MR JONES, MR CLARK.

So how have things changed???

Many thanks.
 
Back
Top Bottom