Marriage Between Royalty And Commoners

[FanofMonaco]

It's not the royal bloodline that's important. It's the strength in leadership that keeps the family in power. The best prospects are not from royal houses.

[AristoCat]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

In the UK selecting a bride from some long dethroned family in Germany still would not be terribly popular and you can bet the tabloids would dig up some Nazi grandfather or other relative of this blue blooded princess from Germany..

Well, there are more than German princesses out there; there are Russian royals and aristocrats, there are French royals and aristocrats, there are Polish royals and aristocrats, there are plenty of endless Italian aristocrats and princesses. There is an endless phalanx of royalties out there with insanely impressive lineage and no connections to Nazis and I don't think I mind commoners, just that they don't use their title to run around gaining immediate entree into jet set parties and other such events. It's too bad that the reigning royals restrict themselves to German/Danish brides when there are plenty of suitable choices from other European families.

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by AristoCat

Well, there are more than German princesses out there; there are Russian royals and aristocrats, there are French royals and aristocrats, there are Polish royals and aristocrats, there are plenty of endless Italian aristocrats and princesses. There is an endless phalanx of royalties out there with insanely impressive lineage and no connections to Nazis and I don't think I mind commoners, just that they don't use their title to run around gaining immediate entree into jet set parties and other such events. It's too bad that the reigning royals restrict themselves to German/Danish brides when there are plenty of suitable choices from other European families.

Putting aside religious differences, the Russian, French and Italian royal families all have internal disputes of their own about who is head of their house and who is or is not a member of their family. Generally we would much rather UK royals marry someone from home and leave the continentals on the continent.

[Nordic]

Originally Posted by AristoCat

Tell the truth, the argument for royalty is that they are a living symbol of history and that they keep traditional history (past) alive and yet, I do not think that the young royals even give a fig about their past. I'll never understand why they don't marry people from dethroned houses, since I believe the genetic link might not be that strong in the first place. Now to me, frankly, the commoner wives don't seem interested in the history of their country and royal family that they've married into and it's a shame it's turned out this way. This royals have lineage connected directly to the historical figures we read about in textbooks and it doesn't seem to matter to them.

And how do you know this?? Pretty sweeping statement, I think...

[Skippyboo]

In the UK, William marrying some Princess from Russia or Italy or Poland doesn't really help. Being 4 generations from when your family was in power, doesn't help you in knowing how to become a British queen. Plus, the people will resent you as a outsider.

They still attack Philip as a outsider after 60 plus years of service to the UK. Marrying into a royal family especially the British is a learn on the job scenario and it helps if the royal you married you married for love not that he/she is a royal and there are way more non royals than royals out there. So the odds are in the non royals favor if the royal is given the freedom to choose his/her spouse.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by NGalitzine

In the UK selecting a bride from some long dethroned family in Germany still would not be terribly popular and you can bet the tabloids would dig up some Nazi grandfather or other relative of this blue blooded princess from Germany. Frankly I think we quite like the idea of our royal family becoming more and more British, in effect more representative of the nation, as each generation comes along but then the British have always been less impressed by "bloodlines" than the continentals.

Among the high British aristocracy, that has historically been quite far from the truth. As recently as the 1980's and the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Lady Diana Spencer all one could read in the paper for weeks and months was rather awestruck stories about the young woman's glorious Spencer lineage linking her back to Charles II and beyond, and her strong ties to British history.

Even Kate reportedly suffered snide mockery from William's posh aristocratic friends because her parents were middle class.("doors to manual"!)

Traditionally, Britain has been one of the most class conscious countries in Europe. The Windsors and the aristocracy have become more open to commoners now because frankly they don't seem to have much of a choice.

[AristoCat]

I think it's two reasons that non-royals are so appealing:

Reverse Snobbery
Public pressure for a 'fairytale'
Idealization of the 'down to earth commoner'
The prince is going through a rebellious phase
Commoners supposedly had a 'happy' family

[dbarn67]

I think that royals world has expanded in the last 50 tp 60 years. They don't move in royals only sectors of society. Their worlds are bigger so their marital choices are bigger.

Also, the tradition of marrying one's cousins and even siblings has been shown to detrimental to the "bloodlines" and quite gross IMO.

I also think that most royals are less snobbish than the aristocracy that surround them.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by AristoCat

I think it's two reasons that non-royals are so appealing:

Reverse Snobbery
Public pressure for a 'fairytale'
Idealization of the 'down to earth commoner'
The prince is going through a rebellious phase
Commoners supposedly had a 'happy' family

BINGO. I cannot find one statement here that I disagree with.

ETA: I am not knocking commoner marriages. A couple of the Royal houses(the Netherlands, Luxembourg come immediately to mind) have welcomed commoners that have brought as much or more happiness and prestige to their dynasties than any aristocrat could.

But there are commoners, then there are commoners. Sometimes it seems that some of the Royals are trying to top one another with a game of "how low can you go", that-in an insidious way-lowers the respect for and the prestige and mystique of the monarchy in the public mind. Then begins the loud questions "why are we paying for these people?!" Added to the bad behavior of some of the born Royals(Juan Carlos, Carl Gustaf) it's a recipe for disaster.

And it has already begun.

[AristoCat]

It kind of irks me that everyone goes on and on and on about how they need the woman they love to handle the burden of being future king, but there is no burden. There are no restrictions on their lives as evidenced by how these newly minted princesses spend all their time jet setting at celeb events.

[Mirabel]

Well, people now tend to marry those they socialize with and see frequently, which was not the case in the past.
It would seem odd for someone now to wed a total stranger. Yet this was once common practice.

Personally I think it's a change for the better!

[Moonmaiden23]

Actually AristoCat, I don't see many of the current CP's and Queens leading jetset lives and in fact-in the cases of Belgium and Spain their jobs seem quite thankless at times. Even the perks there are not worth the opprobrium and turmoil, imo.

The CP's and queen consorts are-for the most part-very hard working, imo.

[Molly2101]

Surely royals marry non-royals nowadays for love...?

[blauerengel]

Originally Posted by Molly2101

Surely royals marry non-royals nowadays for love...?

Actually, I think it takes more than just "love" for a succesful marriage, most of the modern royals seem to understand that love can disappear over time while genuine affection and understanding between two people can last for a lifetime.
I am sure that the royals keep that in mind, they have to find someone who has the right personality and attitude to be able to represent the royal family & their country in a positive way. They need to find someone who knows how to behave appropriately,who cares about family, acts discreet and decently in public etc.

[Moonmaiden23]

blauerengerel, you beat me to it. The idea that romantic love can or should be the only consideration when selecting a spouse is dangerous fantasy, suitable only for teenagers imo.

Even(smart) non Royals don't pick a life partner simply based on romantic love. Factors such as suitability and background, compatibility and common goals are just as important. So why should it be any less for Royal men and women?

Romantic love is the beginning of a relationship, but it can be very fleeting imo.

[NGalitzine]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

Among the high British aristocracy, that has historically been quite far from the truth. As recently as the 1980's and the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Lady Diana Spencer all one could read in the paper for weeks and months was rather awestruck stories about the young woman's glorious Spencer lineage linking her back to Charles II and beyond, and her strong ties to British history.

Even Kate reportedly suffered snide mockery from William's posh aristocratic friends because her parents were middle class.("doors to manual"!)

Traditionally, Britain has been one of the most class conscious countries in Europe. The Windsors and the aristocracy have become more open to commoners now because frankly they don't seem to have much of a choice.

When I said "bloodlines" I mean royal bloodlines which really were the only ones that counted. Even on the continent mere aristocratic ancestry would not have suited some of the more tradition bound royal families. Queen Victoria had no problem with her children marrying people whom her continental cousins did not consider acceptable at all, and at the time her own people were not at all pleased with all of those German marriages either.
In The UK it is the British press who are more concerned about "class" and are much more snobbish than the people they actually purport to write about. It was certainly the press who were impressed with illegitimate descent from Charles II which had they known anything they would have known was not a terribly exclusive club. The aristocracy have always been much more practical when it comes to the marriage market.
Britain might be known for its class consciousness, but personally I think we might be just more open about its existence for I have visited several countries where the same distinctions exist and are even more rigidly enforced even though they claim to deny it.

[HRH Bella]

It depends on what Royal family some family are required to marry another royal! But most marry a approved commoner to spread the gene polle .

[CrownPrincessJava]

In the past, royal-to-royal marriages were arranged for one reason: cementing political power. Since most Royal families have no political power, the need for a Crown Prince to marry some Princess to strengthen their defence etc is not required.

I'm glad to see that regent Crown Princes/Princesses are marrying for love and more importantly, when they want.

[scooter]

Not to mention, centuries of inbreeding produce un-lovely physical and mental issues in the offspring. We now know that its a BAD thing to marry and uncle to his neice, especially when both sets of parents were double first cousins. Hapsburg lip anyone?

[Fürstin Taxis]

^This is also a way to have trademark lol
Well, there is not much to choose between and like you all said, the genetic pool would have been very small.

But I´m secretly mourning William and Madeleine