Royal and Noble Families: Dynastic Laws and Marriage Rules


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Mariel

Serene Highness
Joined
Jun 6, 2012
Messages
1,031
City
Los Alamos
Country
United States
I did some study on the mistress of the Duke of Kent who was Queen Victoria's father. This mistress, with whom he lived for 23 to 27 years (reports on her are various, including her name) had a mother from the House of Colonna, which I found wonderful and fascinating--she had an ancient descent! This mistress's records were either kept secret or falsified in later years, and those of her children with the Duke of Kent are even more mysterious. She and the Duke are reported to have had anywhere from zero to seven illegitimate children. But reports I read (some time ago) said that at least one of them was Robert Woods, who was given into the care of the Duke's employee from Kent, Robert Woods. Robert Woods is recorded in Mormon records as having married Charlotte Grey, daughter of Earl Grey (they were not Mormons but the Mormons keep great genealogy records of everyone whose name they can find). I researched these people because I have a Woods ancestor in Kent--I believe that the Robert Wood I found was a generation off from the supposed ancestor of the Duke of Kent and "Madame," so I quit trying to find more information on these people.
However, the descent of "Madame" from the House of Colonna interested me much more than the descent of the Duke of Kent. How exciting to be a Colonna, of the House which produced popes, poets, and politicians for many centuries?
If you look online or in books you will find that information on the Duke's mistress is SO varied that nothing may be assumed to be true de facto. Her "real name" was probably Therese de Montgenet, from France, but she was often called by a false name of Madame de St. Laurent, or Julie de St. Laurent.
 
If Edward and Julie ever did have children why would he have hidden them? His brothers certainly made no attempt to hide their illegitimate children and many of them went on to have successful careers in the UK and marry into aristocratic families. Also why would Julie not have included them in her will instead of leaving her estate to surviving siblings? She appears not to have had any children from her previous lovers either so it is quite possible she was unable to have children.
 
What is most interesting is that the family of Princess Michael of Kent,the Reibnitz family is older then the Spencer family.
Common ancestor of the House of Reibnitz was Ritter Henricus de Rybnicz,first mentioned in 1288...
true enough.. but i think it should be noted that the Spencer is said to have been descendants of the French House of Tancarville which has been around since 927..

.. also,

the House of Medinaceli is founded by Bernal de Foix who was created Count of Medinaceli. He was a descendant of the House of Foix which has been aroun since 1010.. Bernal de Foix married Isabel de la Cerda a legitimate great-great grand daughter of King Alfonso X of Castile. The House de la Cerda is the senoir most male line descendant of King Alfonso X of Castile but was usurped by King Sancho IV of Castile..

the House of Spencer is said to have been descendants of the French House of Tancerville who had been Chamberlains of Normandy since the 920..

the House of Tagle is said to have been descended from the visigothic knight Sancho Velarde who fought during the Age of Reconquista in the side of King Pelayo of Asturias in 710..

the House of Alba is descended from the House of Burgundy founded in 982 through the line of Maria Enriquez, daughter of Fadrique Enríquez, Count of Melba and Rueda, who himself is the great great grandson of Fadrique Alfonso, Lord of Haro, son of Alfonso XI of Castile..

and there are many more.. ^_^
 
Last edited by a moderator:
true enough.. but i think it should be noted that the Spencer is said to have been descendants of the French House of Tancarville which has been around since 927..

Is said is not the same as registered...Many Houses claim or are said to be descendants of the Christ,Caesar and so on ;)

We were talking about when they were first mentioned in a document or registered...The House of Spencer claim that they are cadet branch of the French House Le Despencer,whose first Baron was created in 1295,but that is still not proven...

As there are still no proofs for this connection according to genealogy sites the first proven ancestor of the Spencer family is Thomas Spencer 1365-1435...

Many other genealogy sites list his son Henry as the first one...

The point of my reply was that many Houses you mentioned on your list are in fact older then you listed them as such...

Anyway,I mentioned some and you later added some noble ones also,so we agree :)
 
yeah.. ^_^

its is true though that the lineage of the House of Spencer is very much contested by some historian.. also, from what i know, the earliest known actual Spencer, not Despencer was William Spencer of Defford in 1333.. here is the link..

http://www.althorp.com/downloads/familytree.pdf

anyways, i remember that the major criteria for one noble family to be considered as an Uradel or Immemorial Nobility is that the family must be known before 1350 or 1400..

it was also said that Uradel families lend to look down on the Briefadels or "Letter Nobility" as parvenus even if the family has been noble for centuries..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Again, it shows that House von Reibnitz is older then House of Spencer ;) Their certain family tree begins with Konrad von Rybnicz,who was born in 1270,whose son Konrad jr. held the possession of Kaubitz and whose one grandson held the possession of Falkenberg and the other grandson possession of Wederau...

You are right about Uradel and Briefadel,just in some sources they don't say that the require is that family is just mentioned,but the fact that is required that the family is titled before 1400,somewhere even 1350...

Many people mix the terms Uradel and Hochadel...While Hochadel is always Uradel,Uradel is not always Hochadel(families that held sovereign territory under Holy Roman Empire)...

Some Princely families belong to Uradel families,but they were not considered Hochadel because they did not hold sovereign rights....Such families are the families of Prince von Blücher(1214),Prince von Schoenaich-Carolath-Beuthen(1324),Prince von Hatzfeld(1138),Prince von Bismarck(1270)...

While,some families held only the title of Count but were among Hochadel families such as von Harrach-Rohrau-Thannhausen,Wurmbrand-Stuppach,Kuefstein...while some Princely families could not get there ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i guess, the class standing of the Uradel still stands nowadays.. i remember that Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia's 2 oldest sons were disinherited by their father for marrying commoners.. his 3rd son, Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia married Countess Donata of Castell-Rüdenhausen, a member of a mediatised noble family, which makes their union dynastic and their son Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia now stands as the head of the House of Hohenzollern.. interestingly, Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia's 4th son, Prince Christian-Sigismund of Prussia is next in line after his nephew despite him marrying Countess Nina of Reventlow, a member of Danish noble House of Raventlow.. the House of Raventlow has been around since 1223 and has provided Denmark one of its queens, Anne Sophie Reventlow, Queen of Denmark and Norway.. it seems that the ancient standing of the House of Raventlow, despite not being one of the Hochadel families is good enough to be considered as an dynastic equal for the House of Hohenzollern since Prince Christian-Sigismund of Prussia, as well as his sons remain in the line of succession, something noteworthy seeing the House of Hohenzollern strictly follows the House Law of dynastic union..

sadly, same cannot be said with the House of Romanov who's some members still views that most ancient and once sovereign House of Bagrationi as not their equal and claims that the union of Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich of Russia and Princess Leonida Bagration of Mukhrani is not dynastic despite this claims being a clear violation of the Treaty of Georgievsk which ensured the royal status of the House of Bagrationi..

imho, newer families, even if themselves are sovereign should be honored to contact any form of union with an Uradel noble house..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I love your example...But,that is a decision of the Hohenzollern Head of the family...Even before Nina,Emperor Wilhelm II decided that a marriage of his son Oscar with Countess Ina Marie von Bassewitz-Levetzow-Rupin would also be treated as equal...

Not to mention decision to treat his wife Augusta Viktoria as equal.There were problems with her paternal grandmother who was described as "a mere Danish Countess" despite the fact that she was an offspring of the illegitimate line of the ruling House of Oldenburg(Dannenskiold-Samsoe),while her mother's Hohenlohe-Langenburg family was considered as "good enough"...

Of course,there were some double standards at the time because Wilhelm's sister Viktoria was forbidden to marry Prince Alexander von Battenberg,ruling Prince o Bulgaria just because his mother Julia was a mere Countess von Haucke,former lady in waiting of the Russian Empress...

Unlike the strict German Court Queen Victoria didn't mind that and married her youngest daughter Beatrice to Julia's youngest son Heinrich(known as Henry in Britain),while her granddaughter Victoria married her other son Ludwig,known as Prince Louis of Battenberg in Britain or Marquess of Milford Haven afer 1917...

But lets get back to Nina and Ina-Marie...If you compare ancestors of both Countesses you will notice that they are very similar...

Countess Nina is legitimate line descendant of the several Kurfürsten von Brandenburg,several Dukes of Prussia,several Kurfürsten of Saxony,descendant of several Holy Roman Emeprors,William the Rich of Nassau and his wife Juliane von Stolberg-Wernigerode and several other equal families such as Hessen-Darmstadt,Anhalt-Zerbst,Mecklenburg,Lippe,Schwarzburg,Salm,Solms,Erbach,Barby,Mansfeld,Waldeck and so on...

If you look at Ina-Marie's ancestry,she has descended also from of all those grand families,but unlike Nina she is descendant though an illegitimate line...She is descendant of Duke August von Braunschweig-Lüneburg(1568-1636) and his lover Ilse Schmiedichen,Frau von Lüneburg(1582-1650)...Other old families,apart from those equal ones,she has descended from are von der Schulenburg,Bülow,Rantzau,Moltke,Maltzahn...

Ina-Marie's family also traced it's ancestry up to 13th century(1254) when Bernhardus de Bassewicze was first mentioned. So,if Ina-Marie was recognized as equal,there isn't any reason why Nina would not be recognized as such at the time of her marriage,some 64 years after Ina...
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
thanks..

Unlike the strict German Court Queen Victoria didn't mind that and married her youngest daughter Beatrice to Julia's youngest son Heinrich(known as Henry in Britain),while her granddaughter Victoria married her other son Ludwig,known as Prince Louis of Battenberg in Britain or Marquess of Milford Haven afer 1917...

yeah.. i think the British court is never really strict in following the rule of equal marriage.. also, if you remember, Queen Victoria's fourth daughter, Princess Louise was allowed by her mother to marry John Campbell, Marquess of Lorne, and future 9th Duke of Argyll.. i believe that Louise's brother, the future Edward VII, was strongly opposed to a marriage with a non-mediatized noble and should consider the union as unequal.. Queen Victoria approved of the marriage as she views that that princes of small impoverished German houses were "very unpopular" in Britain and that Lord Lorne, a "person of distinction at home" with "an independent fortune" was "really no lower in rank than minor German Royalty" seeing as the House of Campbell is one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful noble house in Scotland and has been around since 1260..

I believe i have read somewhere that the Queen Mother didn't want the then Princess Elizabeth to marry Philip Mountbatten aka Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark and wished that her daughter instead marry a British Peer.. I believe, John Spencer, Viscount Althorp was one of the considered candidates..

also, there was Albert I, Prince of Monaco who married Lady Mary Victoria Douglas-Hamilton.. it was said that Albert's grandmother Caroline Gibert de Lametz tried to make a match between Albert and Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge, the first cousin of Queen Victoria, and sought the help of Napoléon III (Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte) and his wife, Empress Eugénie but he Emperor convinced Caroline that Queen Victoria would never allow a relative of hers to marry into a family who were making a living out of gambling and instead suggested his third cousin, Lady Mary Hamilton.. the House of Hamilton may not have been royalty, but they are the premier ducal house of Scotland, with an ancient lineage as they've been around since 1245 and rich enough for a marriage with any royal house in Europe, not to mention that she is the granddaughter of the Grand Duke of Baden..
 
I love your example...But,that is a decision of the Hohenzollern Head of the family...Even before Nina,Emperor Wilhelm II decided that a marriage of his son Oscar with Countess Ina Marie von Bassewitz-Levetzow-Rupin would also be treated as equal...

...

Yes but he didnt consider the marriage euqal until after the fall of the German Empire when he became a lot less tense about some things.
 
Yes but he didnt consider the marriage euqal until after the fall of the German Empire when he became a lot less tense about some things.

Of course,but we did compare her case to the case of Countess Nina zu Reventlow who only lately married into the family...

The point was-if Ina-Marie was recognized as equal by the Kaiser in 1920,why Nina would not be recognized as such by the Head of the family 64 years after...

The same could be said for the marriage between Prince Wilhelm of Prussia and Countess Antoinette Hoyos zu Stichsenstein in 1944...it was also treated as equal!

Obviously,due to many circumstances the family had to lower the standard of equality a little bit...
 
Last edited:
the House of Hamilton may not have been royalty, but they are the premier ducal house of Scotland, with an ancient lineage as they've been around since 1245 and rich enough for a marriage with any royal house in Europe, not to mention that she is the granddaughter of the Grand Duke of Baden..

Well,that's true,but there are many,many Houses like that who were treated as of lower birth...many other older families such as Orsini,Doria and so on...

Almost every ruling family followed Germanic Almanach de Gotha system for equality...

Here is what Prince Nikolai Romanov wrote about it:

"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!"

It was simply the system at that time...
 
Last edited:
:previous:
couldn't agree more.. they forgot the the House of Orsini has produced many sovereign consorts such as Duchess Consorts of Modena and Parma.. and at-least, the House of Savoy allowed the marriage of Princess Leopoldina of Savoy to Prince Andrea IV Doria-Pamphilj-Landi.. in medieval France, Catherine de Medici's descent from the ancient House of La Tour d'Auvergne was what made her acceptable as a bride for Henry II of France..

i think the Almanach de Gotha had very strong influence in the idea of dynastic marriage in continental Europe.. what they did is they elevate the status of some parvenu mediatised families and deemed ancient noble families to be of lower birth.. so in essence, back then, a king from the parvenu House of Bernadotte is far to high of a standing for some lady born let say from the ancient House of La Rochefoucauld or the practically unknown yet ancient House of Tagle.. to think that these people have governed lands and draped in silk and gold when the Bernadotte's are still farming crops or something.. to think that the Almanach do Gotha has excluded were members of such historically notable families as the Rohans, Orsinis, Czartoryskis, Galitzines, Dorias, La Rochefoucaulds, Kinskys, Radziwills, Merodes, Colonnas, Dohnas and Albas..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:previous:
the House of Savoy allowed the marriage of Princess Leopoldina of Savoy to Prince Andrea IV Doria-Pamphilj-Landi..

True,and allowed her brother Eugenio to marry Elizabeth Anne Magon de Boisgarin,her sister Caterina to marry Prince Colonna,their nephew Giuseppe to marry Pauline de Quelen de Vauguyon and their daughter Gabriella to marry Vittorio Massimo,Prince di Arsoli...

But,let's not forget that all these marriages apart from the last one happened while they were collateral branch of the main Savoy family which ruled Sardinia until 1824...

And IMO even after Carignano line came to the throne Savoy family 3 years later allowed Gabriella to marry Prince di Arsoli simply because she was too from collateral Savoy-Carignano-Villafranca line...so,again,bot the main branch!

It is reversibly similar to the case marriage between King Friedrich Wilhelm III of Prussia and Countess Auguste von Harrach zu Rohrau und Thannahusen:

Despite being from an old and mediatized family,she was not considered equal because she didn't belong to the main branch of the family who earned that "equalness" after that mediatization...
 
Last edited:
NGalitzine,in answer to your question why the Duke of Kent (l8th-19th century) hid his children born to his mistress, while his brothers did not hide theirs. Some records state that Queen Victoria, who was the Duke of Kent's last (and legitimate) child, destroyed records of her father's children. I have no idea if this is true, as most things published about the Duke and his Julie are in conflict. They traveled widely during the time he was an army officer, and the children are said by one source to have been born in Canada, in South America, and on a ship at sea. Presumably if these children exist, he did not find his army situation conducive to raising a family, and perhaps did not even want a family. Julie/Therese was Catholic, like the mistresses of his brothers, and therefore he could not marry her, but when they retired to a modest home in Belgium, one source says he intended then to marry her; but he was called to save the Hannover line by marrying a German princess and moving back to England. Whether there are actually children is unknown, but the story of Robert Woods, at least, sounds plausible. If Robert Woods existed he is said to have had many children with Charlotte Grey, daughter of Earl Grey, and therefore there could be many descendants of his line. Not me, though, as my Robert Woods of Kent was born in a different generation. What interested me about Julie/Therese in re this thread is that her mother was a Colonna, one of the old noble families listed here. Most sources said she already had a child before she moved in with the Duke, and that the daughter lived with them in Canada.
I had a very brief correspondence with my Woods cousins in Kent when I was a college freshman, but my Woods cousin did not like my picture because, like most girls of that time, I was wearing lipstick. They were very uptight, I gather. My grandfather met the whole family when he went back to Kent where he was born in Cooling.
 
Last edited:
Julie/Therese was Catholic, like the mistresses of his brothers, and therefore he could not marry her

Being Catholic was not just an issue...

George IV in fact secretly married Maria Fitzherbert,paternal granddaughter of Sir John Smythe,3rd Baronet of Acton Burnell,whose family owned Acton Burnell Castle and Acton Burnell Hall,while her maternal uncle was Charles William,Earl of Sefton who owned Croxteth Hall...

His brother William IV did not marry,but had a longstanding affair with Dorothea Jordan,granddaughter of Nathaneal Bland,Vicar General of Ardfert and Aghada...

So,like Julie,they were not without some connections,but in royal world they were "nobodies" at that time,that's why it was impossible for Princes to contract a marriage without great deal of consequences...

As they were not equal...no matter how noble they might have been and how old their families were...
 
Last edited:
As they were not equal...no matter how noble they might have been and how old their families were...

true.. and all thanks to the Almanach de Gotha who changed the view on many and crated a perception that a member of a mediatised German house who rules an insignificant minute state is far above a scion of even the oldest and noblest houses which never really ruled a state.. to think that during the ancient regime, antiquity of nobility and not royal quarterings was the true measure of rank.. that is why, noble heiresses of great vassal houses were the chosen individuals to serve as consorts such as Eleonor, Duchess of Aquitaine..
 
So,like Julie,they were not without some connections,but in royal world they were "nobodies" at that time,that's why it was impossible for Princes to contract a marriage without great deal of consequences...

but don't you think, a Colonna are still a bit too grand to compare to a Molyneux.. i mean, the Colonnas were one of the most powerful papal families and even produced a couple of popes.. Vittoria Colonna could have been the Duchess of Braganza or Duchess of Savoy, but she chose to be the wife of a noble soldier that a consort.. but i do mostly agree with you..
 
I see your point,of course ;)

But,in reigning royal terms at that time being even a Colonna might not help...not to forget that they are a family of Jewish origin,which was at that time also unacceptable...

A Radziwill Princess was also unacceptable for the future Emperor Wilhelm I,who was not an heir at that time...The Mecklenburg-Strelitz cousins were the most loud against her...no matter how old her family was and that they were Raichfuersten...But they discovered that they have bough the title from an Emperor in 16th or 17th century and did not want to hear about it anymore!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
yes, i have read that before.. to think that the House of Radziwill were among the richest princely families in Europe and i think Princess Elisa was Wilhelm's one true love.. i also remember Emperor Franz Joseph's granddaughter Archduchess Elisabeth Marie of Austria, as she was asked to renounce her rights to the throne by marrying Prince Otto Weriand of Windisch-Grätz.. thing is, despite his status as a member of a mediatised house, the Habsburgs still views him as not their equal.. also, i'm can't recall where but i believe that i have read somewhere that Archduke Charles of Austria, future Emperor Charles I wanted to marry a certain princess of Hohenlohe but he was ordered to marry someone of royal blood so he then married Princess Zita of Bourbon-Parma.. also, i can't recall if Princess Princess Irina Alexandrovna of Russia was asked to renounce her rights to succession after her marriage to Prince Felix Yusupov..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
i also remember Emperor Franz Joseph's granddaughter Archduchess Elisabeth Marie of Austria, as she was asked to renounce her rights to the throne by marrying Prince Otto Weriand of Windisch-Grätz.. thing is, despite his status as a member of a mediatised house, the Habsburgs still views him as not their equal..

Yes,from the time of Rudolf IV there was a tradition that every Archduchess had to sign that document-to renounce their rights to the throne upon contracting a marriage...The only exception was an Archduchess who was the heir with no existent male members(case of Maria Theresia)...

Again,the problem with this marriage is that it was not treated as morganatic(official consequences),but rather as a messalliance(unofficial consequences) and those two words are often mixed in their meaning...

The other problem was that Otto belonged to collateral branch of the family and he was only a Prince while only the Head of the family is Fürst.To solve this problem,Emperor Franz Josef bestowed the title of Fürst(Secundogenitur) to Otto in 1902 before he married Elisabeth...

Poor guy was ordered to marry Elisabeth by the Emperor himself...They met at a Court ball while Otto was engaged to some Countess von Schönborn,who was also present at the ball where Elisabeth smashed the rules by asking Otto to dance with her 3 times...at that time,due to their position,Archduchesses had to ask for a dance and it should not be repeated more then once with the same dancer...

When his fiancee saw what was going on,she ran home angry,but that did not help...
 
Last edited:
i believe that i have read somewhere that Archduke Charles of Austria, future Emperor Charles I wanted to marry a certain princess of Hohenlohe but he was ordered to marry someone of royal blood so he then married Princess Zita of Bourbon-Parma..

Yes,but he was an Heir to the throne at that time and that was the main reason why he was ordered to sought a greater alliance...

His brother Maximilian married Princess von Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfürst and there was no problem as union was treated equal...

Not to forget other equal marriages of the Habsburg family members(up to 1918) with mediatized Houses which were treated equal...Here are some of them:

Archduke Friedrich married Princess Isabella von Croy-Dülmen in 1878...

Archduke Maximilian married Princess Maria Franziska von Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfürst in 1917...

Archduchess Maria Henrietta married Prince Gottfried von Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfürst in 1908...

Archduchess Maria Christina married Prince Emanuel von Salm-Salm in 1902...

Archduchess Margarethe married Fürst Albrecht von Thurn und Taxis in 1890...

Archduchess Maria Anna married Fürst Johannes von Hohenlohe-Bartenstein in 1901...

Archduchess Hedwig(granddaughter of Franz Josef) married to Count Bernhard zu Stolberg-Stolberg in 1918...

Archduchess Elisabeth(other granddaughter of Franz Josef) married Count Georg von Waldburg-Zeil-Hohenems in 1912...


Apart from those marriages who were treated as equal prior to fall of the Empire(November 1918),there were two marriages with the family members of Almanach de Gotha,part III which were treated as morganatic...Those were marriages of Archduchesses Renata and Mechthildis to Princes Hieronymus and Ozgried Czartoryski...

Upon those marriages they renounced all of their titles, and the treatment of Imperial and Royal highness which Archduchess Elisabeth Marie kept after her marriage to Prince Otto von Windisch-Graetz and that was the difference between morganatic and non-morganatic marriage...

Their father Archduke Karl Stephan allowed these marriages of his daughter to old,rich and powerful Polish families hoping to gain support for Polish Crown...
 
That's shocking to see which families were NOT in the Almanac de Gotha. On what do these Goths base their exclusive right to be called royal? (that is a real question, not rhetorical).
My father's maternal family were "recorded" as donating to monasteries, along with their chiefs, the future "Stuarts", in the 12th century. I guess they had no titles other than "knight" but had a lot of land and hence could donate to Paisley and Melrose. So one could say there were records of them in the 11th and 12th centuries and after that until they lost much of their land in the Jacobite wars. If nobility is based on ancient records, they had them. On what is nobility based, ancient records? Or something else?
 
to think that the House of Radziwill were among the richest princely families in Europe and i think Princess Elisa was Wilhelm's one true love..

Yes,but at the time of Prussia-Radziwill love marriage their relations discovered that Radziwill family bought,rather then earned their title of Reichsfürst and that disqualified them from being treated equal in this case...

Because of this,both Eliza and her father Anton-who married Luise,a Hohenzollern Princess,were treated as unequal...

Due to their wealth,they were treated tolerably in highest society circles in Berlin...

In fact,Anton's parents Friedrich and Helena were very much liked by Louise's father and by the King himself...But,due to the pressure from his ministers due to discovery,the King could not accept the marriage of Anton and Luise as equal...
 
Last edited:
also, i can't recall if Princess Princess Irina Alexandrovna of Russia was asked to renounce her rights to succession after her marriage to Prince Felix Yusupov..

Yes,she did have to,just like princess Tatiana did...

Although in Tatiana's case Emperor Nicholas II assured her father that:

"They would never look upon her marriage to a Bagration as morganatic, because this House, like the House of Orleans, is descended from a once ruling dynasty."

and suggested that the groom Prince Teymuraz signs his marriage contract as "Prince Grudzinsky" no matter that his branch of the family is overall senior,but not senior male line descendants from the latest the Kings of Georgia...
 
:previous:
but then, why is it the most members of the current House of Romanov deems the marriage of Vladimir Cyrillovich, Grand Duke of Russia and Princess Leonida Bagration of Mukhrani to be unequal.. and say that their daughter, Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia is not the heir to the Russian Throne..

...Those were marriages of Archduchesses Renata and Mechthildis to Princes Hieronymus and Ozgried Czartoryski...
i understand.. wait, wasn't Archduchess Renata married Prince Jerome Radziwil? also, i find it weird that while most Germans consider these princely families unequal to them, other royal families such as the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies consider marriage to Polish princely families such as Czartoryskis and Sapiehas to be equal..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's shocking to see which families were NOT in the Almanac de Gotha...
according to the Almanach de Gotha, they have 3 divisions..

the first section consist of reigning and formerly reigning families such as the Habsburgs, Bourbons, Hanovers, Hohenzollerns, Oldenburgs, Romanovs, Savoys, Wittelsbach, Mecklenburgs, Ascanias, Zahringen, etc..

the second section consist of mediatised families of princely rank such as the Thurn and Taxis, Furstenberg, Arenberg, Hohenlohe, Windisch-Graetz, Lieningen, Isenburg, Salm, etc..

the third section consist of non-reigning princely and ducal families such as the Orsinis, Albas, Czartoryskis, Doria Pamphiljs, Marlboroughs (Spencers), Radziwills, Galitzines, Rohans, Kinskys, La Rochefoucaulds, Colonnas, etc..

thing is, since 1841, they moved the mediatised families of comital rank to section two as well, so making families such as Bentick, Harrach, Fugger, Schonborn-Glauchau, Rosenberg, etc, despite being of lower rank yet holds a degree of sovereignty, are considered equal to marriage purposes with that of reigning families..

what happened is, the Almanach de Gotha made some of the oldest and most noble families such as the Orsinis, Doria-Pamphiljs, Rohans, Colonnas, La Rochefoucaulds, Montmorencys, Czartoryskis, Eltzs, Kinskys, Spencers, Hamiltons, Howards, Percys, Medinacelis, Borgheses and others not mentioned appear to be of lower birth compared to more recent families yet of royal or mediatised rank such as Thurn and Taxises or Bernadottes.. some of formerly sovereign families such as the Bagrations, Birons, Boncopagni-Ludovisi did not enjoy the same precedence despite their status of formerly reigning families..
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes,from the time of Rudolf IV there was a tradition that every Archduchess had to sign that document-to renounce their rights to the throne upon contracting a marriage...
Archduchesses had to renounce their right to the throne but stayed members of the House of Habsburg. In case of Crown prince Rudolf's only child and daughter Elisabeth, it was the emperor's wish (or so some historians claim) for her to marry unequally, as she was the only male-line descendant of the emperor and the Pragmatic Sanction was not very clear about the inheritance rights for girls when the emperor's direct line became extinct but other branches of the family existed.
So it was better to remove her from any inheritance claims through an unequal marriage. But in private the emperor loved her dearly and left a large part of his fortune to her, which she could keep after 1918 because she was no longer a member of the House of Habsburg and thus was extempt from the Habrburg-laws. She left a lot of her possessions to the Austrian state and they are displayed at museums in Vienna.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Archduchesses who had to renounce their right to the throne,but stayed members of the House of Habsburg have not entered morganatic marriages...

Archduchess Elisabeth-Marie stayed a member,while Archduchesses Renata and Mechthildis didn't...she made just a messalliance,while those two Archduchesses entered morganatic marriages and had to cease membership of the House of Habsburg,while Marie-Elisabeth didn't...

There was a problem because at that time there were many eligible male members of the Habsburg clan who could inherit the throne and Marie-Elisabeth was just the only daughter of the Emperors only son...and an Archduchess could inherit the throne ONLY if there were no male members of the family left...and there were plenty of them at the time...

In fact,Emperor Franz Josef wanted to make Marie-Elisabeth an Empress and made a plan with Kaiser Wilhelm II about the marriage between her and his son Prince Eitel-Friedrich,who would convert to Catholicism and inherit the Austro-Hungarian throne upon marrying her...

But,he didn't do that as he feared the reaction of other family members and wanted to wait for a while to see how things would go on...And Marie-Elisabeth wanted to marry only Otto...and her every wish was a command for him,so he had to step it up...

For example,he was very joyful when they would walk in the garden and she would order him to carry her things back to the castle...he just loved spoiling her!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
the Almanach de Gotha made some of the oldest and most noble families...appear to be of lower birth compared to more recent royal or mediatised families...
I think this depended on how the family developed in the Empire,not how old the family was...

Many of those families "earned" their position due to their services to the House of Habsburg and based on that gained the money and power to obtain sovereign territory within the Holy Roman Empire,while some other old families didn't...

So,it was all matter of how the family developed in time and circumstances within the Empire and based on their progress the more honors were obtained...and those honors were later the qualification for the equal status they had...

And all other reigning families accepted them,some to a lesser and some to a higher degree...

also, i find it weird that while most Germans consider these princely families unequal to them, other royal families such as the House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies consider marriage to Polish princely families such as Czartoryskis and Sapiehas to be equal..
Every royal family has it's own rules and exceptions when they wanted or were willing to make such,depending on situation and of the decision of the Head of the family...

For example,in Austria,the bride for the Head of the family had to have 16 equal ancestors...

While Empress Sissi's paternal great-grandmother was Marie-Adelaide de Mailly-Nesle who did not fit into either Part 1 or 2 of the Gotha...But,she was a niece of the politically influential mother of the Emperor and that had to be settled down...

And while in Germany Empress Augusta Viktoria's paternal great-grandmother was Henriette Kaas,from an untitled nobility...But,at that time she was the perfect political choice because of all those Schleswig-Holstein questions emerging...

i understand.. wait, wasn't Archduchess Renata married Prince Jerome Radziwil?
Jerome was one of the names of her 3 sons ;)
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom