Marriage Between Royalty And Commoners

[Thumbahlina]

Originally Posted by Tilia C.

Or things change very, very slowly. Nowadays Dad may still ask all his questions, but in the end he has to accept your decision.

And somehow this slow social change goes for all social classes/groups; not just for royals and aristos. Imagine that 100 or 150 years ago a farmer's son wanted to wed the dairy maid. Daddy farmer would have had a mayor fit, because a daughter-in-law had to be a farmer's daughter with a couple of cows and a chest of linen as dowry, and the skills needed by a farmer's wife. The same goes for tradesmen, craftsmen, doctors or parson: they all looked for wives with the right dowry, the right family and business connections, and knowledge of the trade. A daughter of a baker would just know better how to lead a baker's household than the daughter of the smith. Besides the right father-in-law might improve your business connections, or your position within your guild. So craftsmen would arrange marriages within their own guild and tradesmen arranged their marriages within their own trade, if possible.

Nowadays women have their own jobs, they don't "marry" their professions anymore. That freed people to marry for love, and also led to a general disapproval of arranged marriages. A good development, imo.

There is a hitch for reigning royal houses, because there the partners still "marry their job". But then we now have the perception that a profession can be learned by (nearly) anyone and does not have to be inherited. If a farmers daughter can study architecture, then a shop keeper's daughter can learn how to represent her country as a Queen.

I put the "nearly" in brackets because I still believe that it needs some personal qualities and talents to learn certain things. Eg you need the brains to study medicine, and if you are highly intelligent but faint a the sight of blood - well, maybe better study something else.

This was a great post. If we look at today, we see that Dutchess Kate for example comes from a somewhat well to do family kind of making them nobility by financial definition and through family name the deeper the history you read. Which is important given the run in's with the press and lawsuits that followed which probably came out of her pocket to pursue. We are not talking the normal family with a usual couple million dollars between them all to hoard and help no one else in the family but themselves. Her family has a substantial amount of wealth and some family relation in positions that gives them a noble status. Not just like anyone else with the American dream status working, saving, owning a business. So the royals look for the kind of status her family has. Americans are sometimes wrapped up in what they know as the American dream, a lot have, but it isn't what the royals are after. They want nobility from their nook of the woods. So at first read you might think, oh, her family had regular jobs, but the deeper it goes you find out, oh, the rest of her fam is real to do and it is easy to understand why Duke William got with her. Yet if you didn't know, it was all like oh, he got with a commoner, but no, he didn't get with a commoner line. It makes sense he's with her. She isn't just about party supplies and fashion, she has work skills that are suitable for running a business.

[Thumbahlina]

Originally Posted by wartenberg7

I find even the title of this thread rather odd... Well, because they fall in love like any one else!

Well it is odd, but there are people out there who might cry and ask why did he marry her because they have a perception of a skewed misfortune because he didn't give a chance to a wayward wretch to save or help her change for the better instead of marrying a well to do, not fathoming all that is involved in a royal wedlock behind the scenes instead traditionalizing it as if it were a fairy tale in hindsight in sheer ignorance, because of all the charity involvement associated. Sure it might cross everyone's mind with a why not and wouldn't it be beautiful if he turned a homeless person into a princess or changed a miscreant into a beautiful princess who ran a charity. Personally I think it would be a detriment, only because, when the media and benefactors got a hold of her they'd leave her a helpless emotional mess without a cent to defend or contribute. Well the question why couldn't she just work as a maid in the palace or something to support herself humbly and just be with him out of love. Because it is plain ridiculous and improper, nor would it suffice the monetary demand the legalities often impose. Or an orphan? Again, money is essential to have going into a relationship with one of them that a heavily borrowed on credit line will not suffice. Yes it is odd but these are real challenges some people deal with reaching out in efforts to just be saved, doted on, cared for by someone with power and prestige because of a need for wealth, safety, luxury and notoriety out of whatever hardships in life they have faced. The very people that might scare even you, don't always usually seem scary that might even seem normal, still don't have the money or the upraising to sit in front of a desk, not out of homelessness, education level or criminal record, but because of mental health or just plain ignorance. They can't help it, but can be helped, just not with a royal title, no matter how cruel it may seem. It just isn't fair to them no matter how beautiful it would be to the rest of the world. It's dog eat dog in a position like the royals give through wedlock. Look at what a spectacle Dutchess Kate is and it's such a great thing her family has and gave to her the endurance and education as a youth to help pull her through it. If she was homeless without a cent and had gotten with Duke William the media and benefactors would of ate her for lunch, but everyone else would of loved the love story. Can't please everyone they gotta do what's best for the country and royal family when they choose who they wed. Odd indeed. However common sense isn't odd even though not everyone has it.

[eya]

I believe that the royals merries non royals because they want to show that they are close to their people

I think and the son of the Princess Margaret David Viscount Linley married an aristocrat girl the Serena Stanhope.

They are forgot Camilla guys . I think and her's the family is aristocratic.Not?

[Isabella]

Originally Posted by Thumbahlina

From what I have noticed, England for example, they tend to stick with marrying from noble families. The selection is a quite huge one. There are so many names and families they have plenty of choices. Sure is nice being a commoner. Really, if they married a common person a lot of scrutiny might happen on a limited amount of personal funds to deal with it. No one wants to see royals wed someone who was too poor to file a lawsuit to protect themselves from libel, defamation of character or even hire an attorney to deal with contracts or publicity if needed. They have great morals and values, the royals do, but anyone they got with before marriage in the dating phase would simply have to have enough money or enough money in their family not to have to eat the cost of being affiliated with the royals. Really, borrowing a lump sum off a date to defend yourself in a civil suit just isn't going to make for happy wedlock. Then, noble families are unlikely to turn on one another in a fit of baby pictures and yearbooks to media outlets. Perhaps it's not like that or even a reason, but, that is the way it seems, it just makes the most sense.

The last bride or groom from a strictly "noble" family to marry into the British royal family was Diana, to the best of my knowledge. How much money a family may or may not have is a completely different matter.

[Thumbahlina]

Originally Posted by Ish

Once again, this isn't how genetics works. If a trait is determined by only 1 gene and a person has the markers for both the dominant and recessive trait (Gg) and their spouse just has the recessive markers (gg) then their children each have a 50% chance of receiving the dominant trait, but they could or could not receive it - it is not a guarantee that 50% of their children will receive it. If both parents are Gg then the children have a 75% chance of receiving the dominant trait, but if either parent is GG then they have a 100% chance of receiving it.

Not all traits are determined by just one genetic marker though, so things become even harder to predict. Consider hair colour - that's determined by at least two markers, which is why there are so many different hair colours.

As for royals' DNA being mapped... I strongly doubt that their DNA has been well mapped. We know that some have had at least aspects of their DNA mapped in order to identify the remains of people (i.e. Prince Philip's DNA was used to determine the identity of the remains of the family of Nicholas II), but I strongly doubt there has been an extensive testing of any royal's DNA in order to determine what genetic diseases they have. Royals tend to be pretty private about things, particularly health, and I somehow doubt they'd allow for access to do that (even without cloning considerations).

Ahh, now, this post is somewhat interesting to me. Their DNA. Let's look at dna, it stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, basically it is a carrier of genetic information. Correct me if I am wrong. R.N.A. or ribonucleic acid is the expression and regulation of the "coding" and "decoding" of said genes, or implications. Basically, I am not instructing you to do this, some water add a drop of cooking oil, heat it up, then a drop of some dish soap and the oil kind of disperses from the top when the soap is added. There, you have the only kind of sort of explanation you can see in action of what dna and rna do with each other without the furthermore explanation. As far as royal dna, the tail of it, length and what not, would be the only interest because of what was once thought of as junk dna can shed light on a great unspecified many things that, that one royal unearthed, his dna should suffice, but, I am guessing it is under tight lock and key. I before e except after c.. I may have a few misspelled words, excuse them please. Dna and disease, now cancer, it's replication process, I learned a little dna in grade school and can tell you that as far as hair and eye color I don't give a so. It's all in the dna/rna tail that interests me. I do study the bigger diseases, so never mind me, if you please. p's and q's minded, so we shall see what we shall see. I do doubt it will be the royal dna we get a glimpse of. Yet at glance at the royal family tree and what I do in fact know, you gotta do your own history, I can't just tell you. What fun is that? ..as far as cloning, how simple that is and a marvelous advancement. No sense in sharing that furthermore. Prince Phillip's dna, let's see he is The Queen of England's husband in his 90's? At his age yeah that dna tail could be really quite a spectacle, really, possibly ideal for study for entertainment for learning, but, lo que sera sera, and his dna really isn't a matter for research nor should it be because the areas that'd have to be sampled just are not up for discussion. Nor would it be that lucrative to even ponder let alone sample, he's a royal. There is nothing in any of them that is going to cure any of them, or anyone else if they were ill. I don't honestly think any one of them could even donate to one another in the event a drastic dire need, nothing more than blood and that is a far stretch even given the possibility of medications they could be on, real secure even down to that. Gotta admire them. As far as the royal that was unearthed, the soil sample next to him perhaps 4 ft below has much more scientific value than he does. Respectfully. It's the dirt that was around and under that one that has had my interest more than the dna of any of them.

[Isabella]

Originally Posted by eya

I think and the son of the Princess Margaret David Viscount Linley married an aristocrat girl the Serena Stanhope.

Yes, that's true. I was just thinking more in terms of the Queen's children and grandchildren, particularly those who have official roles (I had to draw a line for myself somewhere, otherwise I'd be sitting here for ages, getting lost in all kinds of family trees ).

[FanofMonaco]

The smart royals marry successful people who have the smarts and leadership abilities to continue the family line. Inbreeding creates weak people. Grace Kelly was a gift from God for Monaco. She had all the qualities one could ask for. Several of the Kelly family were very successful in life. 8 Olympic medals by 3 different people, a Pulitzer Prize winner, a 3 time US national billards winner and she was an Academy Award winner. Her dad built a very successful brick business. Her cousin was Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. Her family understood politics and US presidents knew them personally. This became very useful when France was threatening to take over Monaco in the 60s. Today the Casiraghis are doing the same thing. Andrea is married to a multibillionaire whose Uncle is a very powerful businessman in New York. Pierre is soon to be the brother in law of John Elkmann, CEO of Fiat Chrysler. Even Gad Elmaleh is a self-made millionaire. The principalities are actually in better shape than the kingdoms. Monaco, Leichtenstein, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar have the highest standards of living in the world. ( You could include Singapore. It's a democracy but the same family has run it for decades.) Titles don't mean much anymore. It's capitalism that rules the world. Money is power. The ruling families of the countries above don't have to beg the government for a paycheck. They can pretty much write their own check. The European Kingdoms pretend to have power but the monarchs are pretty much impotent.

[Isabella]

Originally Posted by eya

They are forgot Camilla guys . I think and her's the family is aristocratic.Not?

I believe Camilla's family would technically be considered gentry, not aristocracy, though her mother came from an aristocratic family.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by eya

I think and the son of the Princess Margaret David Viscount Linley married an aristocrat girl the Serena Stanhope.

Four noble ladies and one with a noble/gentry descent:

Aristocracy:
Katharine Lucy Mary Worsley, daughter of Sir William Arthington Worsley, 4th Baronet and of Joyce Morgan Brunner, daughter of Sir John Brunner, 2nd Baronet

Aristocracy:
Marie Christine Anna Agnes Hedwig Ida Baroness von Reibnitz. daughter of Gunther Hubertus Baron von Reibnitz and Maria Anna Carolina Franziska Walpurga Bernadette Countess Szapáry von Muraszombath, Széchysziget and Szapár.

Aristocracy:
Lady Serena Alleyne Stanhope, daughter of Lord Charles Henry Leicester Stanhope, 12th Earl of Harrington and of Virginia Mary Alleyne Freeman-Jackson.

Gentry:
Camilla Rosemary Shand, daughter of Major Bruce Middleton Hope Shand MC and Bar and of the Honourable Rosalind Maud Cubitt (of the Barons Ashcombe)

Aristocracy:
Donna Paola Luisa Marica Frankopan Subic Zrinski, Countess Doimi de Lupis, daughter of Francis Louis de Frankopan Subic Zrinski, Count Doimi de Lupis and of Professor Dr. Thyra Ingrid Hildegard Detter.

[Mirabel]

Because they can.

Now the royals are marrying the men and women who would have been favorites (read lovers) in the past!

Their preferences haven't changed, they just have more leeway now.

[lord]

It's crazy love what people let do crazy thinks. I'd like to remember for the Duchess of Windsor. Maybe you know about that story. It was one of the biggest scandals ever!

[Meraude]

If looking at the marriages of the king of Sweden and his sisters:

Princess Margaretha and Mr. John Ambler - separated in 1994 but never divorced
Princess Birgitta and HSH Prince Johann Georg of Hohenzollern - separated in 1990 but not divorced
Princess Désirée and Baron Niclas Silfverschiöld - still together
Princess Christina and Mr. Tord Magnusson - still together
King Carl XVI Gustaf and Ms. Silvia Sommerlath - still together

Three marriages royal - commoner - two successes, one failure
One marriage royal - aristocrat - success
One marriage royal - royal - failure

[NotHRH]

All of Queen (now Princess) Beatrix's and her sister's (Princess Margriet's) sons married commoners (albeit all wealthy) who all had a college education and are confident, strong women. All of these marriages appear to be solid. I think maturity, intellect, and common sense are traits needed for a commoner to comprehend what they are realistically getting into before marrying into royalty, especially those who are now Queen Consorts and Queen Consorts in waiting. :p

[CyrilVladisla]

In The Last Princess, Matthew Dennison wrote: By marrying her previous daughter Louise to a subject the Queen (Victoria) had shown that she was less inflexible in the matter of purity of royal blood than the emperors of Germany and Russia were like to be.

[nascarlucy]

While some of the commoners who marry into royalty are middle class or who became wealthy on their own, many of them are from wealthy or affluent families. They live in two different worlds, although I imagine both worlds have many similarity and overlap. The ones that don't overlap are those in the middle class.

I imagine it would be an eye opener if a royal lived in the world of their middle class partner for a week or a month. They no doubt would have experiences that they never would have if their partner was royal or came from wealth.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by nascarlucy

While some of the commoners who marry into royalty are middle class or who became wealthy on their own, many of them are from wealthy or affluent families. They live in two different worlds, although I imagine both worlds have many similarity and overlap. The ones that don't overlap are those in the middle class.

I imagine it would be an eye opener if a royal lived in the world of their middle class partner for a week or a month. They no doubt would have experiences that they never would have if their partner was royal or came from wealth.

I know that Princess Marie-Astrid of Luxembourg's d-i-l, Archduchess Kathleen Elizabeth (née Walker), is from Ohio and basically grew up in a trailer park. But Katie did well for herself, she graduated from college and worked for Archdiocese of Washington DC. She met Archduke Imre at a requiem mass for Archduchess Zita in WDC. Katie is devout Catholic, to say the least. She and Imre live in Belgium with their daughter Maria-Stella and she is expecting baby No. 2 next month.

Imre's 1st cousin, Prince Louis of Luxembourg,q also married a middle-class commoner, Tessy Antony, now Princess Tessy of Nassau.

[TLLK]

Based upon photos that I've seen and the information I've read, the Walkers lived in a two story home, not a trailer park. In one of her essays about a family Christmas she writes about the younger siblings being upstairs while waiting for the signal from their mother to go downstairs and see what Santa Claus had delivered. (Dad was apparently dressed as Santa.)

However the other information that you shared about Kathleen is correct.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

I grant everyone their fair share of happiness and love. But the more "common" Royal Houses become, the more the ultimate question will arise why they are still treated "Royal" anyway and then they have no answer.

Many of Europe's future Sovereigns already have three commoner grandparents, covering 3/4 of their "Ahnentafel" (Ancestor Table) and this will only multiply when royals keep marrying commoners. Again, their right on happiness and love but ultimately it will lead to a certain profound question: what differs members of the Royal House from us, commoners?

In my personal opinion a certain distance, "aura" is needed because monarchies are not build on ratio but on emotion. Any rational thinking person will opt for a republic. It is the emotion, the attachment, the historical bond, the "specialness" which surrounds royals which still differs them from us. As soon as that certain disctance, "aura" has gone, there is no any difference anymore between royals and celebrities.

An "aura" only exists in the minds of those who buy into that concept about royalty, which is another concept in itself. There is nothing in any one person's genetic makeup that makes him/her royal. Sofia Helqvist is no less common than is her husband - they are both human beings, nothing more, nothing less; the same with Letizia Ortiz y Rocasolano and Felipe Bourbon y de Grecia. FYI - royals are celebrities, which is what peaks interest in them - whether we realize it or not. The "aura" left the building a long time ago when journalists basically lost respect in protecting the aura of those that they should to exploiting those same people so they could stuff their pockets with some serious money. For example, when FDR was US President, no photograph was ever published with him in his wheelchair. Nowdays he would not have even been a serious contender for US President because of his condition. Pictures of him wheelchair-bound would be used to exploit his situation (=to sell magazines/newspapers and to destroy any dignity he had left).

[Pranter]

There's never been any difference between royal houses and the peasants other than power in it's various forms. There's no special bloodline or 'aura' to someone who is designated 'royal'.



LaRae

[Rudolph]

When you look at the BRF, the last princess to marry in was Marina of Greece and Denmark. Something like 80 years ago. The last prince was Philip but the British monarchy is as popular as ever.

Its the norm throughout Europe now. Its not an issue at all.