The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   General Royal Discussion (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f12/)
-   -   If a Future King married a Future Queen? (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f12/if-a-future-king-married-a-future-queen-34956.html)

BritishRoyalist 04-12-2013 11:23 AM

If a Future King married a Future Queen?
 
I don't know this has been asked before and if this has ever happened either. I have been wondering what if a Futre King married a Futre Queen of another Country? Let just suppose that the Future King and Heir to the Britsh Throne marries The Future Quern and Heir to the Sweedish Throne? Can that happen? And how would that change Titles and Succession?

Marchesina 04-12-2013 11:35 AM

I suppose one of the two has to remove himself/herself from the succession line, and the next in line to the throne then becomes the heir apparent.

Nice Nofret 04-12-2013 11:39 AM

It has happend in the past again and again; this is how France came into beeing, how Elsass changed between the Habsburger and the french Bourbonen; how Habsburg became riche (Felix Austria Nube)

Nowadays that would be difficult, because the concept isn't the same anymore; It's no longer, that some dynasty belongs a country but the royal house belongs to the country ;)

BritishRoyalist 04-12-2013 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marchesina (Post 1539071)
I suppose one of the two has to remove himself/herself from the succession line, and the next in line to the throne then becomes the heir apparent.

You mean their kids if they had any or One of the spouse (future Kung/Quuen) would have to remove themselves from theline of succession? That probably make most sense. It sure would cause some complications not just for them but for both Royal Houses.

BrazilianEmpire 04-12-2013 11:55 AM

Well, there was some cases when a heiress married a foreign Dynasty, he renounced the rights to his country's Throne. That happens with Princess Elizabeth of the United Kingdom and Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, and with Princess Isabel of Brazil and Prince Gaston of Orleans.

But with two heir apparents, the situation would be much more trickier. I don't think would be fair for one of them to have to renounce. You can be the consort of a country and Monarch of another country without trouble.

In my opinion, the major problem will be the children. In order to have succession rights, you have to be a citizen of the country, and I don't know if dua-citizenship could be a possibilty.

Maybe the first child would inherit a Throne, and the second child the other.

kathia_sophia 04-12-2013 01:14 PM

But it would be dificult either way. The country with the second child as heir, would protest for not having the first-born in their country to inherit the throne, they would think that they were the losers and less important.

Nowadays, two heirs marrying each other and rule both of their respective countries is "impossible". One of them will have to be removed from the succession line, and dare I say, the women will abdicate (not that I think its fair or not, but the public view of a man abdicate in favour of a women is absurd). In the succession law of Sweden, the heir will loose their right to succed the throne in case he/she marries another heir, so if Estelle were to marry Cambridge Baby (if boy), she will loose her right, not Cambridge Baby.
I'm not sure about the other Monarchies though.

But one thing is possible, is that love between heirs might happen in the future, there's always a probability. I won't say Elisabeth, Amalia or Ingrid, but Christian and Leonor (or with Estelle) could fall in love, or Cambridge Baby (if girl) with Christian, or Cambridge Baby (if boy) with Estelle.
I strongly believe that some heirs might have felt something with each other or one-side crush, but because of the Heir issue, it was just a small crush and nothing more. Victoria was the only female heir at her time, maybe she felt at least a little innocent crush, dare I say, for Felipe? Or in the previous generation as well...
Well I'm not saying Love, just a crush or physical attraction, I've read that all of us have had at least 100 physical attraction with the opposite gender in our lifetime.

USCtrojan 04-12-2013 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathia_sophia (Post 1539099)
But it would be dificult either way. The country with the second child as heir, would protest for not having the first-born in their country to inherit the throne, they would think that they were the losers and less important.

Nowadays, two heirs marrying each other and rule both of their respective countries is "impossible". One of them will have to be removed from the succession line, and dare I say, the women will abdicate (not that I think its fair or not, but the public view of a man abdicate in favour of a women is absurd). In the succession law of Sweden, the heir will loose their right to succed the throne in case he/she marries another heir, so if Estelle were to marry Cambridge Baby (if boy), she will loose her right, not Cambridge Baby.
I'm not sure about the other Monarchies though.

But one thing is possible, is that love between heirs might happen in the future, there's always a probability. I won't say Elisabeth, Amalia or Ingrid, but Christian and Leonor (or with Estelle) could fall in love, or Cambridge Baby (if girl) with Christian, or Cambridge Baby (if boy) with Estelle.
I strongly believe that some heirs might have felt something with each other or one-side crush, but because of the Heir issue, it was just a small crush and nothing more. Victoria was the only female heir at her time, maybe she felt at least a little innocent crush, dare I say, for Felipe? Or in the previous generation as well...
Well I'm not saying Love, just a crush or physical attraction, I've read that all of us have had at least 100 physical attraction with the opposite gender in our lifetime.

Why would Estelle loose her right and Cambridge baby (if boy) not loose his? Why should she have to give up Sweden? Why can't Cambridge baby (if boy) give up his right, and Estelle keep hers? That seems pretty unfair! Are you saying that because she is the heir to Sweden's throne that she is lesser than Britain's heir? I have to absolutely disagree with this (if this is your thinking -I am not assuming this), and/or are you saying that Cambridge baby (if boy) is higher or of more importance because he is a boy? I have to completely disagree in general!

But, this is for sure why it would be hard in this day and age to merge two heirs -wont and or can't happen! Impossible!

Ish 04-12-2013 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USCtrojan (Post 1539102)

Why would Estelle loose her right and Cambridge baby (if boy) not loose his? Why should she have to give up Sweden? Why can't Cambridge baby (if boy) give up his right, and Estelle keep hers? That seems pretty unfair! Are you saying that because she is the heir to Sweden's throne that she is lesser than Britain's heir? I have to absolutely disagree with this (if this is your thinking -I am not assuming this), and/or are you saying that Cambridge baby (if boy) is higher or of more importance because he is a boy? I have to completely disagree in general!

But, this is for sure why it would be hard in this day and age to merge two heirs -wont and or can't happen! Impossible!

What kathia_sophia said isn't that one is less than the other - it's that the succession law in Sweden doesn't allow for the heir to marry another heir while retaining their place in the succession.

Jacknch 04-12-2013 02:16 PM

I think this would be a matter for the couple to decide upon (as in if they're happy enough to get married they'll proceed with whatever changes they have to make it their lives). Obviously for Sweden it's straightforward case of the Swedish heir renouncing his or her rights to the succession. It's nothing to do with what is fair - after all, if it's a love match it will not matter to the individual having to move and renounce their rights to the throne and of-course most heirs will or should know their country's laws so it wouldn't be a surprise for them to have to give anything up.

kathia_sophia 04-12-2013 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by USCtrojan (Post 1539102)
Why would Estelle loose her right and Cambridge baby (if boy) not loose his? Why should she have to give up Sweden? Why can't Cambridge baby (if boy) give up his right, and Estelle keep hers? That seems pretty unfair! Are you saying that because she is the heir to Sweden's throne that she is lesser than Britain's heir? I have to absolutely disagree with this (if this is your thinking -I am not assuming this), and/or are you saying that Cambridge baby (if boy) is higher or of more importance because he is a boy? I have to completely disagree in general!

But, this is for sure why it would be hard in this day and age to merge two heirs -wont and or can't happen! Impossible!

I was not discriminating, I was just stating that thats the law in Sweden and not my personal opinion why Estelle will give up her right to the Swedish Throne if she married an heir.
You should read carefully what others write before you thrown your anger at fellow Royal Forum members.;)

Frideswide 04-12-2013 03:25 PM

I didn't know about this Swedish law. Does it apply only to heirs apparent, or to anyone in the direct line of succession?

Ish 04-12-2013 03:38 PM

To quote Wikipedia:

Quote:

a Crown Prince/Princess of Sweden would lose heir apparent status if they marry without approval of the monarch or, contrary to Swedish law, married the heir to another throne.

USCtrojan 04-12-2013 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kathia_sophia (Post 1539129)
I was not discriminating, I was just stating that thats the law in Sweden and not my personal opinion why Estelle will give up her right to the Swedish Throne if she married an heir.
You should read carefully what others write before you thrown your anger at fellow Royal Forum members.;)

No anger thrown :). Honestly! Your right, I probably should have done my reading, as I obviously never knew that the heir to the Swedish throne had to abandon their rights. Makes perfect sense though.

One would assume that Cambridge baby would have to do so too if it came down to it.

NGalitzine 04-12-2013 05:31 PM

One or the other would have to give up their own throne to be consort in the other country. Otherwise both countries would be dissatisfied with the amount of time their monarch was spending in their spouses country playing consort. There would also be the mess of which child would be heir to which throne since neither country would be likely to accept a personal union of their countries under the same monarch and both countries would likely expect the eldest child to be heir to their throne according to their own laws of succession. What would happen if only 1 child were born? What would happen if political differences arose between the 2 nations? The end result is that one nation would likely ask their monarch to abdicate or perhaps call for an end of their monarchy.

Although Anne Marie was never the direct heir to the Danish throne she was required to give up her succession rights when she married the King of Greece. I imagine the same scenario would be followed today with an heir wanting to marry another heir. Maybe they would flip a coin to determine who would do it or maybe they would each go their separate ways.

XeniaCasaraghi 04-13-2013 07:56 PM

I would think in modern times one of the heirs would have to renounce. BUT in the past hasn't this happened before? Isabella and Ferdinand for example? And I believe someone mentioned France; or did those situations occur with two monarchs from "generally" the same area and uniting them?

Mirabel 04-13-2013 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BritishRoyalist (Post 1539066)
I don't know this has been asked before and if this has ever happened either. I have been wondering what if a Futre King married a Futre Queen of another Country? Let just suppose that the Future King and Heir to the Britsh Throne marries The Future Quern and Heir to the Sweedish Throne? Can that happen? And how would that change Titles and Succession?

Didn't that happen with Mary Tudor (Mary I) and Phillip of Spain?

(But I think his father was still alive at the time so he didn't become King until after Mary died.)

Ish 04-13-2013 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirabel (Post 1539488)

Didn't that happen with Mary Tudor (Mary I) and Phillip of Spain?

(But I think his father was still alive at the time so he didn't become King until after Mary died.)

Philip of Spain married Mary I in 1554. He became King of Spain in 1556, and Mary died in 1558, so for two years the countries were united through the matrimony of their monarchs.

However, Philip's marriage to Mary was his second marriage. He had married first Maria Manuela, Princess of Portugal, with whom he had a son, Carlos, Duke of Asturias. Despite Carlos' mental instability, he was his father's heir (at least until Philip had him imprisoned, during which time Carlos died and was succeeded as heir apparent by Philip's son from his third marriage).

Thus, going into the marriage it was assumed that Philip's son from his first marriage, would inherit Spain, and the (hypothetical) son of Mary and Philip would inherit England. The English would not be upset about getting Philip's second son, as they would get their sovereign's eldest, while the Mary/Philip son couldn't be upset about getting just England, as he would have been Philip's second son.

Meraude 04-13-2013 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frideswide (Post 1539133)
I didn't know about this Swedish law. Does it apply only to heirs apparent, or to anyone in the direct line of succession?

The Swedish Order of Succession says that a prince or princess of the Swedish Royal House can't become regent of an other country by election, inheritance or marriage without the permission of the monarch and the Swedish parliament. Without the permission the prince or princess will loose their and their children's right to succeed the Swedish throne. (Successionsordningen 8)

Avicenna 04-14-2013 06:08 AM

Another example:

William III&II and Mary II

William governed as Stadtholder Holland, Zeeland, Utrecht, Gelderland and Overijssel from 1672 on and became English King in 1689, reigning together with his wife there.

Frideswide 04-14-2013 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meraude (Post 1539494)
The Swedish Order of Succession says that a prince or princess of the Swedish Royal House can't become regent of an other country by election, inheritance or marriage without the permission of the monarch and the Swedish parliament. Without the permission the prince or princess will loose their and their children's right to succeed the Swedish throne. (Successionsordningen 8)

Regent is very different from consort.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises