Marriage to Commoners vs Royals/Nobles

[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!

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Earlier in the thread you were holding up Stephanie's aristocratic background as evidence she is more suited to her role than other Crown Princesses.

Given the current Grand Duchess is a commoner it is an odd stance to take. The success of Mary, Maxima et al makes its clear being an aristocrat isn't a prerequisite to marring a royal.

Its only been your last few comments that you've backed away from this position and stated Stephanie isn't any better.

You are either confused or being blatantly dishonest Rudolph, because I've never said any such thing. The fact that I've asked you to locate the post where I ever even implied this and you have been unable to do so pretty much speaks for itself.

I have been passionately interested in history and genealogy since I could read. My interest in Stephanie de Lannoy and Diana Spencer and Royal spouses like them is therefore natural. Their antecedents had a role in events that changed the histories of their countries ( the Spencer-Churchills) and in the case of the deLannoys the entire continent of Europe. I find their connection to those dynasties fascinating.

Does this make these women better human beings more suited to their roles? Obviously not. (see Diana Spencer)Does it make me more interested in them as Royal spouses than I am in a Kate Middleton or a Mary Donaldson?

Yes it does, because I simply don't care about the Middletons or the Donaldsons, period.

Also when Stephanie's engagement to Guillaume was announced I felt it was a breath of fresh air. I was tired of controversial "Cinderella fiancées"(thank you Al-bina!). I was bored of druggie, shady backgrounds, embarrassing relatives, and decade long premarital shack-ups. A young, well educated, unglamorous and uncomplicated Royal fiancée from a prestigious and historically significant family was like a blast from the past and right up my alley, and I was thrilled. I still am.

That's as blunt as I know how to be, and you can rest assured it's not a stance I will be backing away from anytime soon.

 

[Ish]

Does this make these women better human beings more suited to their roles? Obviously not. (See Diana Spencer)Does it make me more interested in them as Royal spouses than I am in a Kate Middleton or a Mary Donaldson?

Yes it does, because I simply don't care about the Middletons or the Donaldsons, period.

This is an interesting stance...

From a purely genealogical standpoint, I can understand how one might be more interested in Diana or Stephanie's family than Kate or Mary's. I'm not interested in the Middletons, but I am interested in the Spencers for this very reason.

But Diana, Stephanie, Kate, Mary, etc are more than just their family history. Personally, I wouldn't not be interested in an individual just because their family background wasn't the right sort; a royal spouse has the ability to be interesting and worth paying attention to all on their own even if they don't come from an aristocratic or royal background. Or they could be dull, despite coming from such a background.

 

[Skippyboo]

If you were a genealogist wouldn't it be more of a challenge to do Kate or Mary's family tree compared to someone like Diana who came from a well known family whose family tree was probably already well documented?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Ish, I have made no secret of my admiration for Maxima of the Netherlands. This brilliant, emotional, beautiful woman fascinates me. Same for Maria-Teresa of Luxembourg. I was leery of Daniel Westling before he married Victoria but his dignity and devotion has completely won me over.

Those are examples of commoners who have no genealogy that I am interested in, but that I am interested in more as human beings because I do find them compelling and beautiful.

Skippy the answer to your question is sure, maybe, but from the standpoint of European history why would I want to or even care?

 

[Ish]

If you were a genealogist wouldn't it be more of a challenge to do Kate or Mary's family tree compared to someone like Diana who came from a well known family whose family tree was probably already well documented?


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

It depends on how you approach it.

I spent the better part of 8 months working on a chart that detailed the ancestry of Prince George of Cambridge, going back something like 70 generations. Doing his mother's line took at most a week because there is so little information available to the public without doing some serious digging. Another couple of weeks was spent formatting the chart itself and organizing some of the data, as well as trying to reduce the inadvertent duplicates. The rest of that time, easily 7 months was just spent tracing George's very well known paternal ancestors.

To me, as an amateur genealogist, who's doing such a project in my own time for fun, I wouldn't want something more complicated than that, at least not in terms of studying the ancestry of someone just because they're famous. If I'm going to do serious digging then I'd rather it be for my own family tree.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I don't know, but I'd be surprised if she did. In fact, I don't think Charles speaks Welsh either. Keeping things in perspective though, only 20 % of population of Wales itself speaks Welsh as first language.

BTW, I know Charles got an A-Level in French at school with a grade C (not very stellar then), so I assume he must speak at least basic French . William's A-Levels were in geography , history of art and biology with grades A, B and C respectively, which makes him one of the best students in the Royal Family in recent times (compared e.g. to his father, brother and uncles), but far from academically gifted.

Also, on the topic of consorts, Camilla left school with O-levels only. In other words, she didn't even get a qualification that would have enabled her to apply to a university. Compared to Camilla, Kate's qualifications (a bachelor's degree in art history) are "outstanding".

Fwiw, the Prince of Wales speaks faultless French. When Diana died there was a story in Paris Match describing how he'd spent nearly an hour at the Paris hospital with the French surgeons and medical personnel who had struggled to save her life. He asked them for details about his dying ex-wife's final hours and thanked them for their efforts. The French doctors were very moved by his anguish, and by his ability to express himself so well in their language.

And when he and Camilla were received at the Elysee Palace by President and Mrs. Sarkozy during a State visit a while back, there was more delight in the French media about Charles beautiful, effortless French.

I think he also speaks German.

 

[Meraude]

Also, on the topic of consorts, Camilla left school with O-levels only. In other words, she didn't even get a qualification that would have enabled her to apply to a university. Compared to Camilla, Kate's qualifications (a bachelor's degree in art history) are "outstanding".

To compare Camilla and Kate when it comes to level of education is more of a question of generational issue than a educational issue. She was most likely not expected to continue studying, but to become a debutante and marry well, like most young women of her background in the late 1960:ies.

 

[Marengo]

This thread has been cleaned up an re-opened.

 

[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.

 

[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]

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]

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.

 

[NotHRH]

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

Exactly - the aura only CAME from their finances enabling them to live only as peasants could admire. Finally, people began to realize their self-worth, began loathing royals/nobles/aristocrats, and took action [think the French Revolution]. I enjoy reading about royals, but realize there is no such thing as "royal" or "blue" blood, nor do I hold any high esteem for any of them. Nothing makes any royal deserving of a curtsy from me; they are after all only people. ?

 

[Pranter]

I don't mind the bow/curtsey ...now it's just a sign of respect or acknowledgement of a position. It's just a tradition. I don't think any of the modern royal houses require it but many people still do it.



LaRae

 

[NotHRH]

I don't mind the bow/curtsey ...now it's just a sign of respect or acknowledgement of a position. It's just a tradition. I don't think any of the modern royal houses require it but many people still do it.



LaRae

I would only curtsy to the Pope, any Eastern Orthodox priest/bishop/archbishop of high-ranking, or any other religious representative, such as Rabbi, that is also considered high-ranking in their religious sect.?

 

[GömdNatt]

I would only curtsy to the Pope, any Eastern Orthodox priest/bishop/archbishop of high-ranking, or any other religious representative, such as Rabbi, that is also considered high-ranking in their religious sect.��

interesting to me that you seem to detest the idea of curtsying/bowing to a royal, but have no problem with it for a high ranking religious person. but that's not a conversation for here.

For me, it would depend on who I'm meeting and what sort of environment we're in. Many of the royals I wouldn't object to it, but some of them I don't respect enough to do it.

 

[Curryong]

I would certainly curtsey to Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip if I was presented to them at a function of some sort. She's my sovereign and it's a mark of my respect for her position and that of her consort. I wouldn't expect citizens of republics to do it though, unless they really wanted to!

 

[Roslyn]

I would give them a head bow, like a man does. No way in the world am I going to curtsy to anyone. I would do the same thing to Charles, Camilla, and Anne. That's probably it for that family. I'd also do the same to any other Head of State I held in high esteem, not just because they are a Head of State. And other people I hold in high esteem, too. For me it's about esteem, and I consider people have to earn that; they don't deserve it merely because of accident of birth.

 

[lucymae88]

People make so big a deal out of royals marrying commoners. But most of the commoners are wealth and well to do families that hang in the same circles has royals. My question is has a royal every married someone not wealthy or from a well to do family. Someone with a normal income and life??

 

[Curryong]

I don't think Queen Letizia, who is married to King Felipe of Spain, came from a particularly wealthy family. Her father was a journalist and her mother a nurse. One of her grandfathers drove cabs for a living.

Although you couldn't call Sophie Rys Jones's family working class they didn't have pots of money. I think her father sold car tyres and car products at one time, though he was from a middleclass background. Sophie wasn't in aristocratic social circles before she met Prince Edward and later became the Countess of Wessex. I believe she was working as a PR assistant when they met at a sports match.

Crown Princess Mary's father was an academic but the family weren't really wealthy. She met Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark at the Slip Inn bar in Sydney during the Sydney Olympics. She wasn't a Sydney socialite. I think she worked in the real estate business.

 

[Pranter]

I would only curtsy to the Pope, any Eastern Orthodox priest/bishop/archbishop of high-ranking, or any other religious representative, such as Rabbi, that is also considered high-ranking in their religious sect.?

I would genuflect to the pope, for me he is the representative of Christ on earth. However no I would not bow/curtsey etc to the heads of other religious faiths.


LaRae

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

Why do so many in this thread act like Charles and Diana are the reason royals marry commoners. Carl Gustaf married a commoner before Diana was even heard of as did Ranier. Why do some act like the British experience defines everyone else in the world?
They marry commoners because the world has expanded and they can meet and have a connection with almost everyone. Also royals are no longer the richest best most successful people in the world, all they have is lineage which most people don't give a crap about these days.

 

[Osipi]

Why do so many in this thread act like Charles and Diana are the reason royals marry commoners. Carl Gustaf married a commoner before Diana was even heard of as did Ranier. Why do some act like the British experience defines everyone else in the world?
They marry commoners because the world has expanded and they can meet and have a connection with almost everyone. Also royals are no longer the richest best most successful people in the world, all they have is lineage which most people don't give a crap about these days.

Another aspect is that times have changed so much that it is no longer necessary to form alliances between royal houses through arranged marriages that insured a power base and ownership of land. Sometimes children were "betrothed" to each other while they were still in the cradle.

 

[Countessmeout]

Why do so many in this thread act like Charles and Diana are the reason royals marry commoners. Carl Gustaf married a commoner before Diana was even heard of as did Ranier. Why do some act like the British experience defines everyone else in the world?
They marry commoners because the world has expanded and they can meet and have a connection with almost everyone. Also royals are no longer the richest best most successful people in the world, all they have is lineage which most people don't give a crap about these days.

As did Harald when he married Sonja in 1968.

Some royals are extremely rich, perhaps not the 'richest' but if you look back in the centuries they often weren't. Kings used to take loans from their nobles for military actions. The top 9 richest royals are all worth billions. Most are Asian/middle eastern but Hans Adam and Prince Albert of Monaco both break the billionaire mark. The Sultan of Brunei spent many years as the richest man in the world though that has dropped. The king of Thailand and some Saudi princes have topped him in the charts.