Marriage to Commoners vs Royals/Nobles

[Prinsara]

Anne might actually have been a jolly good queen consort of Sweden, but I can't see how in the world she and CG would have ever gotten to that point. She's pretty much Silvia's polar opposite, and that marriage hasn't been perfectly easy (mostly because of him, apparently).

It was probably smart of all the adults not to push.

 

[JR76]

For JR76: Who or what was the exception you were referring to?

The possible exception would be Princess Sibylla Erba-Odescalchi, daughter of Prince Alexander Erba-Odescalchi and Archduchess Margarethe of Austria who ended up in Sweden after the Red Army conquered Hungary in 1945.
Given that Proposition 261 of 1936 to change the Order of Succession speaks about "consorts from reigning houses or from some to them equal non-reigning houses" it could be argued that Sibylla would have been seen as an equal match had Carl Gustav wanted to marry her. Especially considering that a Lady Mountbatten and a Princess of Leuchtenberg had earlier been deemed suitable matches for Swedish crown princes.

 

[leidi]

That would be a dynastically most interesting match. Also because he is a Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (which occupies the British throne right now) marrying a Hannover (mirroring Victoria & Albert).

That would be a VERY interesting alliance since they both come from 100% aristocratic stock (meaning both their parents are royals/aristocrats) but I don't know how well Ernst August Sr would behave

When Alexandra gets married I fully expect Ernst August Jr to be the one to give her away since her father is not exactly the most reliable person to be around in weddings/funerals (remember that his sons walked with their stepsiblings at Rainier's funeral because he was in the hospital due to pancreatitis for his drinking?)

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Isn't Alexandra still with her billionaire German boyfriend Ben something?

I think that one's a keeper. He and Alex have been inseparable for years.

 

[Mbruno]

Following a recent discussion on the Spanish forums about the Spanish line of succession, it occurred to me to ask here what is meant by a "dynastic marriage" today.

Many people often equate dynastic marriages to "equal marriages", i.e., marriages between members of two sovereign (or formerly sovereign) families. However, I don't think that is correct. In my humble opinion, "dynastic marriage" simply implies a marriage whose descendants retain dynastic rights, which, for sovereign families, means primarily a place in the line of succession to the throne, but may also mean in some cases a royal title and style, or other dynastic prerogatives.

I would say then that any marriage of a person in the line of succession that is consented to (in whatever form the law or the constitution of the realm prescribes) is now "dynastic" in the sense that I alluded to in countries like Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (in the latter case, only for the first six persons in line). Similarly, any marriage of a person in the line of succession that is not prohibited under the terms of Art. 57(4) of the Spanish constitution is now a "dynastic marriage" in Spain. It is irrelevant whether the person whom the royal is marrying is also a royal himself/herself, an aristocrat, or a commoner.

What do you think?

 

[Sionevar]

Following a recent discussion on the Spanish forums about the Spanish line of succession, it occurred to me to ask here what is meant by a "dynastic marriage" today.

Many people often equate dynastic marriages to "equal marriages", i.e., marriages between members of two sovereign (or formerly sovereign) families. However, I don't think that is correct. In my humble opinion, "dynastic marriage" simply implies a marriage whose descendants retain dynastic rights, which, for sovereign families, means primarily a place in the line of succession to the throne, but may also mean in some cases a royal title and style, or other dynastic prerogatives.

I would say then that any marriage of a person in the line of succession that is consented to (in whatever form the law or the constitution of the realm prescribes) is now "dynastic" in the sense that I alluded to in countries like Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (in the latter case, only for the first six persons in line). Similarly, any marriage of a person in the line of succession that is not prohibited under the terms of Art. 57(4) of the Spanish constitution is now a "dynastic marriage" in Spain. It is irrelevant whether the person whom the royal is marrying is also a royal himself/herself, an aristocrat, or a commoner.

What do you think?

This makes sense to me. Dynastic means relating to a dynasty, so if you make an unauthorized marriage that results in your exclusion from the succession, it's not contributing to the dynasty's continuation, so it shouldn't be considered dynastic.

 

[lucien]

Following a recent discussion on the Spanish forums about the Spanish line of succession, it occurred to me to ask here what is meant by a "dynastic marriage" today.

Many people often equate dynastic marriages to "equal marriages", i.e., marriages between members of two sovereign (or formerly sovereign) families. However, I don't think that is correct. In my humble opinion, "dynastic marriage" simply implies a marriage whose descendants retain dynastic rights, which, for sovereign families, means primarily a place in the line of succession to the throne, but may also mean in some cases a royal title and style, or other dynastic prerogatives.

I would say then that any marriage of a person in the line of succession that is consented to (in whatever form the law or the constitution of the realm prescribes) is now "dynastic" in the sense that I alluded to in countries like Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (in the latter case, only for the first six persons in line). Similarly, any marriage of a person in the line of succession that is not prohibited under the terms of Art. 57(4) of the Spanish constitution is now a "dynastic marriage" in Spain. It is irrelevant whether the person whom the royal is marrying is also a royal himself/herself, an aristocrat, or a commoner.

What do you think?

Fine!!It is 2022 AD,not BC.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Many people often equate dynastic marriages to "equal marriages", i.e., marriages between members of two sovereign (or formerly sovereign) families. However, I don't think that is correct. In my humble opinion, "dynastic marriage" simply implies a marriage whose descendants retain dynastic rights, which, for sovereign families, means primarily a place in the line of succession to the throne, but may also mean in some cases a royal title and style, or other dynastic prerogatives.

This makes sense to me. Dynastic means relating to a dynasty, so if you make an unauthorized marriage that ends with your exclusion from the succession, it's not contributing to the dynasty's continuation, so it shouldn't be considered dynastic.

I would use "dynastic marriage" with the same meaning for the reasons stated by Mbruno and Sionevar. By analogy, however, I would probably use "equal marriage" to mean any marriage which is officially considered to meet the terms of the equal-marriage requirements (if any) that are relevant to that marriage.

Fine!!It is 2022 AD,not BC.

The English language did not exist in 2022 BC.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

IMO, if someone is to marry someone is to marry a commoner, noble or fellow royal then that’s their prerogative. A marriage will last according to the behaviors of the respective spouses in the marriage not based on whether they are a commoner, noble or royal. People of the same or similar background can compatible and two people of different backgrounds can be good together. Just because someone marries out of their milieu doesn’t mean they are necessarily they are in love, but neither does it they are a snob or elitist for marrying in their social circle.

Isn't Alexandra still with her billionaire German boyfriend Ben something?

I think that one's a keeper. He and Alex have been inseparable for years.

Yes she’s still dating him

 

[Alison H]

Dynastic marriages were often diplomatic marriages, made to improve relations between two countries, e.g. the marriage of the Prussian Prince Friedrich to the British Princess Victoria. That idea pretty much died out in the second half of the 19th century. I think dynastic marriage is now used mainly to describe marriages between two members of royal dynasties, which are unusual now.

 

[An Ard Ri]

The last dynastic marriage between Royal Houses in Spain was Juan Carlos and Sofia.

1967 The Infanta Pilar married Don Luis Gómez-Acebo ,Viscount of La Torre
1972 : The Infanta Margarita married Carlos Zurita
1995 : The Infanta Elena married Don Jaime de Marichalar
1997 The Infanta Cristina married Iñaki Urdangarin
2004 : Prince Felipe married Letizia Ortiz.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Princess Margaretha of Luxembourg and Nikolaus of Liechtenstein

Princess Marie of Orléans and Prince Gundakar of Liechtenstein

Prince Alois of Liechtenstein and Duchess Sophie of Bavaria

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Guillaume de Luxembourg & Stéphanie de Lannoy et du Saint-Empire
Philippe de Belgique & Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz
Amedeo von Österreich-Este & Elisabeta Rosboch von Wolkenstein
And more.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Guillaume de Luxembourg & Stéphanie de Lannoy et du Saint-Empire
Philippe de Belgique & Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz
Amedeo von Österreich-Este & Elisabeta Rosboch von Wolkenstein
And more.

Amedeo’s marriage isn’t necessarily dynastic but more of a marriage between untitled nobility and royalty.

 

[maria-olivia]

Miss Lilian Beals ,Princess Lilian de Rethy was one of the first non royal who married a that time a King. (Leopold III of the Belgians)
Between 1950 and 1960 she was Belgian's first Lady. She wore huge jewels mainly jewels of the King's late wife Queen Astrid and was dressed haute couture from Paris.
Even overdressed she never looked Royal !

 

[Tatiana Maria]

In royal watching spaces it seems to me that the term "dynastic marriage" is primarily used roughly in the sense that Mbruno and Sionevar discussed, that is, to describe a marriage which is in conformity with the regulations of the dynasty and consequently transmits dynastic rights to the issue of the marriage. Using that definition, the most recent marriages to commoners and lower nobility in Spain and Belgium are dynastic, as the issue of those marriages are in the order of succession to the throne.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Amedeo’s marriage isn’t necessarily dynastic but more of a marriage between untitled nobility and royalty.

The late Archduke Otto of Austria has lifted almost all requirements except that a partner had to Roman-Catholic.

Archduke Otto himself:

"Wenn ein Familienmitglied heiraten will, fragt er oder sie das Familienoberhaupt um Erlaubnis. Heute tut man das aus Anstand und Höflichkeit. Früher hatte das Konsequenzen, wenn der Ehepartner nicht standesgemäß war. Nun ist das entspannter, unser Familienstatut ist etwas zeitgemäßer."

("If a family member wants to get married, he or she asks the head of the family for permission. Today it is done out of decency and courtesy. In the past, there were consequences if the spouse was not befitting. Now it's more relaxed, our family statute is more contemporary.")

Link

That means that Amedeo von Österreich-d'Este made a dynastic marriage, that he is the future head of the House Austria-d'Este and the future titular Duke of Modena and of Reggio.

 

[An Ard Ri]

Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria married Anne d'Orléans, in Madrid,1961 .Anne is the daughter of the late Count and Countess of Paris and the late Ifanta a cousin of king Juan Carlos I.

Their daughter ,Princess María of Bourbon-Two Sicilies married Archduke Simeon of Austria in July 1996.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria married Anne d'Orléans, in Madrid,1961 .Anne is the daughter of the late Count and Countess of Paris and the late Ifanta a cousin of king Juan Carlos I.

Their daughter ,Princess María of Bourbon-Two Sicilies married Archduke Simeon of Austria in July 1996.

Those were truly dynastic and equal marriages

The late Archduke Otto of Austria has lifted almost all requirements except that a partner had to Roman-Catholic.

Archduke Otto himself:

"Wenn ein Familienmitglied heiraten will, fragt er oder sie das Familienoberhaupt um Erlaubnis. Heute tut man das aus Anstand und Höflichkeit. Früher hatte das Konsequenzen, wenn der Ehepartner nicht standesgemäß war. Nun ist das entspannter, unser Familienstatut ist etwas zeitgemäßer."

("If a family member wants to get married, he or she asks the head of the family for permission. Today it is done out of decency and courtesy. In the past, there were consequences if the spouse was not befitting. Now it's more relaxed, our family statute is more contemporary.")

Link

That means that Amedeo von Österreich-d'Este made a dynastic marriage, that he is the future head of the House Austria-d'Este and the future titular Duke of Modena and of Reggio.

I understand that Otto relaxed the house laws, but when I’m referring to dynastic, I’m referring to it in the traditional sense.

 

[Stefan]

Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria married Anne d'Orléans, in Madrid,1961 .Anne is the daughter of the late Count and Countess of Paris and the late Ifanta a cousin of king Juan Carlos I.

Not in 1961 in Madrid but in 1965 at Dreux

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That means that Amedeo von Österreich-d'Este made a dynastic marriage, that he is the future head of the House Austria-d'Este and the future titular Duke of Modena and of Reggio.

I am not sure Amedeo de Belgique (as that is the name by which he has been known for most of his life) or his father Lorenz d'Autriche-Este have ever laid claim to the titles of "Duke of Modena and Reggio". They are not descendants of the last reigning dukes of Modena, and the Modenese titles were never conferred on Amedeo's ancestors. The emperor of Austria conferred Amedeo's grandfather only with the rights to the Austria-Este family name, as he was to inherit the family's estates.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/modena.htm

In any event, I have always read in these discussions that they and the senior line of the Habsburgs line dispute the headship of the Austria-Este and that Lorenz boycotted the wedding of Karl. If true, I suspect neither Lorenz nor Amedeo is remotely concerned about Otto and Karl's opinion of their marriages.

The late Archduke Otto of Austria has lifted almost all requirements except that a partner had to Roman-Catholic.

Archduke Otto himself:

"Wenn ein Familienmitglied heiraten will, fragt er oder sie das Familienoberhaupt um Erlaubnis. Heute tut man das aus Anstand und Höflichkeit. Früher hatte das Konsequenzen, wenn der Ehepartner nicht standesgemäß war. Nun ist das entspannter, unser Familienstatut ist etwas zeitgemäßer."

("If a family member wants to get married, he or she asks the head of the family for permission. Today it is done out of decency and courtesy. In the past, there were consequences if the spouse was not befitting. Now it's more relaxed, our family statute is more contemporary.")

Link

Interesting comment from Otto von Habsburg. There are surely many members of the Habsburg family who indeed ask out of courtesy and tradition. But given the absence of any objective consequences to not asking, I find it hard to believe that every single one of the hundreds of Habsburgs have bothered with contacting a man who is a complete stranger to many of them to ask his permission to marry, even if they regard him the head of their family in the abstract.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Archduke Lorenz indeed does not affiche himself as Duke of Modena, like for an example the Duke of Parma, the Duke of Calabria, the Duke of Noto, etc.

But -unlike the given examples- he has a title of a reigning Royal House: HRH Prince Lorenz of Belgium. It is logical that this real title trumps over any titular distinction. I think he is even better known as Prince Lorenz of Belgium (de jure) than as Archduke Lorenz of Austria-Este (du sang)

 

[An Ard Ri]

Not in 1961 in Madrid but in 1965 at Dreux

Yes apologies they met in Madrid in 1961

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The late Archduke Otto of Austria has lifted almost all requirements except that a partner had to Roman-Catholic.

Archduke Otto himself:

"Wenn ein Familienmitglied heiraten will, fragt er oder sie das Familienoberhaupt um Erlaubnis. Heute tut man das aus Anstand und Höflichkeit. Früher hatte das Konsequenzen, wenn der Ehepartner nicht standesgemäß war. Nun ist das entspannter, unser Familienstatut ist etwas zeitgemäßer."

("If a family member wants to get married, he or she asks the head of the family for permission. Today it is done out of decency and courtesy. In the past, there were consequences if the spouse was not befitting. Now it's more relaxed, our family statute is more contemporary.")

Link

That means that Amedeo von Österreich-d'Este made a dynastic marriage, that he is the future head of the House Austria-d'Este and the future titular Duke of Modena and of Reggio.

But you know precisely what I meant by “dynastic”, in the old traditional sense. However since Otto considered his eldest son’s marriage “dynastic”, then the same applies to Amedeo. I am aware of Otto’s changes.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The late Archduke Otto of Austria has lifted almost all requirements except that a partner had to Roman-Catholic.

Archduke Otto himself:

"Wenn ein Familienmitglied heiraten will, fragt er oder sie das Familienoberhaupt um Erlaubnis. Heute tut man das aus Anstand und Höflichkeit. Früher hatte das Konsequenzen, wenn der Ehepartner nicht standesgemäß war. Nun ist das entspannter, unser Familienstatut ist etwas zeitgemäßer."

("If a family member wants to get married, he or she asks the head of the family for permission. Today it is done out of decency and courtesy. In the past, there were consequences if the spouse was not befitting. Now it's more relaxed, our family statute is more contemporary.")

Link

Thank you! Just a correction: The topic of the interview was on Otto Habsburg, but the interviewee was his distant kinsman Eduard Habsburg.

But you know precisely what I meant by “dynastic”, in the old traditional sense.

It was indeed clear to me that you and other members were referring to marriages to royalty or nobility, but isn't the "old traditional sense" of the word "dynastic" the one highlighted by Mbruno (a marriage whose descendants retain dynastic rights)?

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Thank you! Just a correction: The topic of the interview was on Otto Habsburg, but the interviewee was his distant kinsman Eduard Habsburg.




It was indeed clear to me that you and other members were referring to marriages to royalty or nobility, but isn't the "old traditional sense" of the word "dynastic" the one highlighted by Mbruno (a marriage whose descendants retain dynastic rights)?

the traditional sense of dynastic marriage would not apply to Haakon of Norway, Felipe of Spain, or Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg but as the requirements of marriage have relaxed since WWI and WWII, the fact that these marriages have been legally recognized by the respective governments counts for something.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

the traditional sense of dynastic marriage would not apply to Haakon of Norway, Felipe of Spain, or Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg but as the requirements of marriage have relaxed since WWI and WWII, the fact that these marriages have been legally recognized by the respective governments counts for something.

But I was talking about the definition of the term "dynastic", not the requirements of royal marriage (which indeed have been much relaxed in European monarchies over the last century).

 

[SirGyamfi1]

But I was talking about the definition of the term "dynastic", not the requirements of royal marriage (which indeed have been much relaxed in European monarchies over the last century).

I am sorry, but the comment above by me is typically referred to as dynastic. Dynastic is not just legal recognition of a royal marriage but also marriage of people of the same status. But the definition you alluded to by Mbruno counts by today’s standards.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I am sorry, but the comment above by me is typically referred to as dynastic. Dynastic is not just legal recognition of a royal marriage but also marriage of people of the same status. But the definition you alluded to by Mbruno counts by today’s standards.

In German, at least, the typical traditional term for "marriage of people of the same status" would have been ebenbürtig, which translates roughly to equal.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

In German, at least, the typical traditional term for "marriage of people of the same status" would have been ebenbürtig, which translates roughly to equal.

Yes, I am aware of that. I mentioned that for today’s standards, the marriages I listed would count but under the traditional understanding of “dynastic” they would not be. However the marriages being legally recognized falls under Mbruno’s definition.