Royals Who MUST Marry Nobility/Royalty

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by Tilia C.

I have once read an article where it was explained. The court has ruled that it is not according to the law to set up inheritance rules that go on for endless generations. Such a house law could easily be challenged in a modern law court. But every owner has the legal right to set up a will themselves, and that is what Prince Louis Ferdinand did. Louis Ferdinand wanted to comply with the house law and therefore named Georg Friedrich as his principal heir. They called it 'Testierfreiheit', the freedom to set up a will.

Yes but the Will was the one of Emperor Wilhelm II. and he required his Heir and the Heir of his Heir to marry equally. And he nmed Louis Ferdinand his Heir and not Crown Prince Wilhelm.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

Okay, this is what I'm wondering. Today in 2016, German law allows for the head of a family to stipulate that people must marry 'equally' in order to inherit?

[...]

It was not that strict. The requirement in the House of Prussia was to marry Standesgemäß, which means befitting one's social standing. The strictest is to marry Ebenbürtig, which litterally means marry someone of equal birth.

The marriage of HRH Don Juan Carlos de Borbón, Infante of Spain with HRH Princess Sophia of Greece and Denmark is considered Ebenbürtig. Both partners are of equal birth.

The marriage of HRH Prince Georg Friedrich of Prussia with HSH Princess Sophie von Isenburg is considered Standesgemäß. Both partners are befitting each other's social standing but are not of equal birth.

The marriage of HRH The Princess Elizabeth with HRH Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark (renamed "Lieutenant Philip Mountbatten") can be considered Ebenbürtig indeed when we neglect the cosmetic name change. Both partners are of equal birth.

The marriage of HRH Prince Guillaume, the Hereditary Grand-Duke of Luxembourg with Countess Stéphanie de Lannoy is considered Standesgemäß. Both partners are befitting each other's social standing but are not of equal birth.

The marriage of HRH Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia with Countess Donata zu Castell-Rüdenhausen was considered Standesgemäß. Both partners are befitting each other's social standing but are not of equal birth.

[Queen Claude]

If I am understanding what I read the princely house of Battenberg and the re-created Teck dukedom were tied to morganatic unions. Basically a royal loses succession rights because of a morganatic union, then the royal muckety-muck gives a title to the unequal partner and declares the kids Royal or Serene Highnesses and presto-chango the progeny are back in the pool of royals.

[Countessmeout]

Originally Posted by Rudolph

If we apply these laws to current reigning monarchs, is it only Queen Elizabeth and The Duke of Edinburgh who married 'equally'? Morganatic marriage doesn't apply in Britain but I'm just curious

If we were to apply it to current reigning? Aristocratic spouses are usually considered acceptable. For reigning monarchs that would lower us to Philippe/Mathilde, Elizabeth/Philip and one could argue possibly Henrik/Marge but his title in France is disputable. Prince Alois,regent of Lichtenstein is married to Princess Sophie, Duchess in Bavaria, and his father Hans Adam is married to a countess. If we look at the recently abdicated we do have of course JC/Sofia, Albert/Paola and Beatrix and Claus. Among the heirs, only Gui/Stephanie.

Thankfully it is only the former monarchies that cling to such old rules, and countries like the UK never had them to start.

The non-reigning houses seem to move in the same circles so it doesn't seem odd to me that they will often inter-marry even in houses that dynastic marriages aren't required.

We see even if there is no thrones, the whole morganatic/dynastic marriages still cause controversy. Look at the whole dispute to the throne of Italy. Emmmanuel Filiberto as the only son of Umberto II claims the throne, but he didn't ask permission and his marriage was not dynastic which is required for the defunct Italian throne. Because of this Amadeo, Duke of Aosta claims he is the rightful heir. He is married to Princess Claude of Orleans and his eldest son is married to Princess Olga of Greece. No throne to even fight over, but they got in a fist fight at the wedding of Felipe and Letizia.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Most Houses claim nothing at all in terms of Government or so. Except being the continuation of the historic dynasty and often the considerable wealth which is attached to that.

The present Duke of Bavaria does not claim the kingship of Bavaria or something. He however is the head of the Royal House of Bavaria and as such he enjoys considerable privileges. For an example owning enormous historic collections, artworks, estates, having residence in various castles, like the mighty Schloss Nymphenburg (picture).

The present Fürst von Hohenzollern does not lay a claim on any state or something, not even on the throne of Romania. He however is the head of the Fürstliche House of Hohenzollern and as such he enjoys considerable privileges. For an example owning enormous historic collections, estates, having residence in various castles, including the famous Burg Hohenzollern (picture), co-owned with the Head of the other Hohenzollern House (Prussia).

So there is a LOT to claim.... when you disagree with someone else claiming to be the rightful heir and head of the House...

There is no problem with being the head of a former royal house, because I do realize ex-royals are immensely wealthy. If Prince X is considered the Head of the House of Orleans-Braganza, then that is between him and his family members. But I do think the ex-imperial family of Brazil still considering themselves THE Imperial Family of Brazil, is silly at best. The ex-royal family of Romania wants the restoration of their family as the Royal Family of Romania, again just silly. I was speaking about ex-royals who want restoration of their family as the royal/imperial family of a particular country; I am not debating their claims to the headship of any particular ex-royal/imperial family.

[Cris M]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

There is no problem with being the head of a former royal house, because I do realize ex-royals are immensely wealthy. If Prince X is considered the Head of the House of Orleans-Braganza, then that is between him and his family members. But I do think the ex-imperial family of Brazil still considering themselves THE Imperial Family of Brazil, is silly at best. The ex-royal family of Romania wants the restoration of their family as the Royal Family of Romania, again just silly. I was speaking about ex-royals who want restoration of their family as the royal/imperial family of a particular country; I am not debating their claims to the headship of any particular ex-royal/imperial family.

That's the same to say that Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are silly for trying to become the President of the US.

If the Head of a Royal House, his relatives and their monarchists compatriots are trying to restore their respective Monarchies, they are doing so within the democratic system of their countries.

You may not agree with a democratic concept, but it's disrespectful to call someone's beliefs silly.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Cris M

That's the same to say that Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump are silly for trying to become the President of the US.

If the Head of a Royal House, his relatives and their monarchists compatriots are trying to restore their respective Monarchies, they are doing so within the democratic system of their countries.

You may not agree with a democratic concept, but it's disrespectful to call someone's beliefs silly.

Well it is just my opinion - and that really doesn't account for much. If you feel offended, I am sorry. I am only expressing myself on this forum because I can. I respect your feelings and views, I just do not agree with them and never will. I am not insulting you, just disagreeing with you - there is a big difference. I am beginning to think you are related to this family or else have some other personal connection to them.

As for THE Donald and Hillary, you can insult either or both, and I wouldn't feel disrespected at all.

You are taking my opinión on this matter way too personally. I respect your views, it would be nice if you could respect mine. :thumbup:

[Cris M]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

Well it is just my opinion - and that really doesn't account for much. If you feel offended, I am sorry. I am only expressing myself on this forum because I can. I respect your feelings and views, I just do not agree with them and never will. I am not insulting you, just disagreeing with you - there is a big difference. I am beginning to think you are related to this family or else have some other personal connection to them.

As for THE Donald and Hillary, you can insult either or both, and I wouldn't feel disrespected at all.

You are taking my opinión on this matter way too personally. I respect your views, it would be nice if you could respect mine. :thumbup:

How are you not insulting me when you say my opinions and beliefs are silly? Disagree is one thing, be disrespectful is another thing totally different.

And I'm not related to any royal house. I'm nothing but a professor.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Cris M

How are you not insulting me when you say my opinions and beliefs are silly? Disagree is one thing, be disrespectful is another thing totally different.

And I'm not related to any royal house. I'm nothing but a professor.

I have tried to be diplomatic, but now you are being antagonistic and argumentive and I don't know why.

[Cris M]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

I have tried to be diplomatic, but now you are being antagonistic and argumentive and I don't know why.

You call me silly (as in someone who wants to restore a Monarchy is silly) and I'm being antagonistic? And you're being diplomatic?

I guess it's a cultural difference.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by Countessmeout

If we were to apply it to current reigning? Aristocratic spouses are usually considered acceptable. For reigning monarchs that would lower us to Philippe/Mathilde, Elizabeth/Philip and one could argue possibly Henrik/Marge but his title in France is disputable. Prince Alois,regent of Lichtenstein is married to Princess Sophie, Duchess in Bavaria, and his father Hans Adam is married to a countess. If we look at the recently abdicated we do have of course JC/Sofia, Albert/Paola and Beatrix and Claus. Among the heirs, only Gui/Stephanie.

Thankfully it is only the former monarchies that cling to such old rules, and countries like the UK never had them to start.

[...]

Almost no any of the current reigning Royal Houses but also no any of the aristocrat Houses in these monarchies ever have had the requirement to marry someone of equal rank. But of course a marriage was not in the first place about l'amour. It helped (and helps) when the two partners like each other, but the dominant factor was that the dynasty must be procreated, that the social standing at least must be maintained.

There was nothing criminal or wrong to the second marriage of King Léopold III of the Belgians. But the first spouse was a daughter of HRH Prince Carl of Sweden and of HRH Princess Ingeborg of Denmark. The faher of the second spouse was a local politician and the mother of the seond spouse was a local politician's daughter. However there was no any rule forbidding King Léopold III to do so, the wedding was widely seen as a mésalliance and Lilian Baels, the lady in question, remains a controversial figure to the day of today.

Despite not having any requirement to do so, we see that Leopold III's daughter married Prince Jean of Nassau, later Grand-Duke of Luxembourg. Leopold III's oldest son married Doña Fabiola de Mora y Aragón, daughter of the Marquess of Casa Riera and Count of Mora. Leopold III's youngest son married Donna Paola Ruffo di Calabria, daughter of the Duke of Guardia Lombardi, his granddaughter Princess Astrid married Archduke Lorenz of Austria-Este, his grandson Philippe married Countess Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz. So despite any rule which forbids them to marry "commoners" they still seem to cling to certain standards of "suitability".

We see the same in Mathilde's own family, "just" local countryside aristocrats. Her father married a Polish Countess. Her sister Elizabeth married the Marquess Pallavicini. Her brother seems having a relationship with a De Riollet de Morteuil lady. So despite the lack of any rule to marry according a status, it clearly still is apparent.

[Marc23]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

We see the same in Mathilde's own family, "just" local countryside aristocrats. Her father married a Polish Countess. Her sister Elizabeth married the Marquess Pallavicini. Her brother seems having a relationship with a De Riollet de Morteuil lady. So despite the lack of any rule to marry according a status, it clearly still is apparent.

To complete the story,the remaining sister,Countess Helene, married Baron Janssen.

[fandesacs2003]

Prince Ernst August' of Hannover father took years to consent to wedding of his son with Chantal Hochuli, a rich heiress but commoner, and it was no question of a real throne anymore. I think each family has it's own rules, depending on personal opinions. Of course more modern royal families accept easier, but I do not think than even inside the young generation of royals, who all married commoners except for Belgium, the acceptance was easy and automatically given. I think the only easy concent was for the Danish. Norwegian, Swedish, British and Spanish weddings had to fight to obtain consent. Especially for Great Britain, if Diana's story did not happened, Prince William would never manage to marry a commoner. I do not know about Maxima.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Almost no any of the current reigning Royal Houses but also no any of the aristocrat Houses in these monarchies ever have had the requirement to marry someone of equal rank. But of course a marriage was not in the first place about l'amour. It helped (and helps) when the two partners like each other, but the dominant factor was that the dynasty must be procreated, that the social standing at least must be maintained.

There was nothing criminal or wrong to the second marriage of King Léopold III of the Belgians. But the first spouse was a daughter of HRH Prince Carl of Sweden and of HRH Princess Ingeborg of Denmark. The faher of the second spouse was a local politician and the mother of the seond spouse was a local politician's daughter. However there was no any rule forbidding King Léopold III to do so, the wedding was widely seen as a mésalliance and Lilian Baels, the lady in question, remains a controversial figure to the day of today.

Despite not having any requirement to do so, we see that Leopold III's daughter married Prince Jean of Nassau, later Grand-Duke of Luxembourg. Leopold III's oldest son married Doña Fabiola de Mora y Aragón, daughter of the Marquess of Casa Riera and Count of Mora. Leopold III's youngest son married Donna Paola Ruffo di Calabria, daughter of the Duke of Guardia Lombardi, his granddaughter Princess Astrid married Archduke Lorenz of Austria-Este, his grandson Philippe married Countess Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz. So despite any rule which forbids them to marry "commoners" they still seem to cling to certain standards of "suitability".

We see the same in Mathilde's own family, "just" local countryside aristocrats. Her father married a Polish Countess. Her sister Elizabeth married the Marquess Pallavicini. Her brother seems having a relationship with a De Riollet de Morteuil lady. So despite the lack of any rule to marry according a status, it clearly still is apparent.

No, there is no such requirement for the Belgian royals to marry someone of a particular status. Still, Leopold's 3 children from his marriage to Astrid, a royal/royal marriage, all married another royal/aristocrat; while his next 3 children from a royal/commoner marriage, all married commoners. Its no secret that JC did not like Maria Teresa from the beginning due to her commoner status and the race she perceived MT to be. Baudoin asked a priest to help find him a pious aristocratic Spanish woman to marry. Baudoin thought royals should only marry someone with a royal/aristocratic title. He gladly gave his blessings to Astrid (his niece) and Lorenz to marry because of this belief. In other words, it's all in attitude of those who came from the entirely titled background. JC and Baudouin, so I have read, both had a superior attitude when it came to commoners, they felt commoners had no right to stand next to a prince/princess at the altar. And although Laurent married a commoner, Albert wanted each and everyone of his descendants to be a HRH Prince/Princess of Belgium - which tops my list as the most conceited, arrogant thing I have heard in awhile. Mathilde's family married well also because her family was elevated in status by Albert upon her marriage, and her sisters married titled men because of this and because their sister was the future Queen of the Belgians.

[paola]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

No, there is no such requirement for the Belgian royals to marry someone of a particular status. Still, Leopold's 3 children from his marriage to Astrid, a royal/royal marriage, all married another royal/aristocrat; while his next 3 children from a royal/commoner marriage, all married commoners. Its no secret that JC did not like Maria Teresa from the beginning due to her commoner status and the race she perceived MT to be. Baudoin asked a priest to help find him a pious aristocratic Spanish woman to marry. Baudoin thought royals should only marry someone with a royal/aristocratic title. He gladly gave his blessings to Astrid (his niece) and Lorenz to marry because of this belief. In other words, it's all in attitude of those who came from the entirely titled background. JC and Baudouin, so I have read, both had a superior attitude when it came to commoners, they felt commoners had no right to stand next to a prince/princess at the altar. And although Laurent married a commoner, Albert wanted each and everyone of his descendants to be a HRH Prince/Princess of Belgium - which tops my list as the most conceited, arrogant thing I have heard in awhile. Mathilde's family married well also because her family was elevated in status by Albert upon her marriage, and her sisters married titled men because of this and because their sister was the future Queen of the Belgians.

What is, from the perspective of the royal mores here conceited and arrogant about this?

When Maxima married Willem-Alexander she became Prinsess. That is how things are done in the royal world.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

[...] Albert wanted each and everyone of his descendants to be a HRH Prince/Princess of Belgium - which tops my list as the most conceited, arrogant thing I have heard in awhile. [...]

I fail to see what is the problem here. Actually Albert II was the most egalitarian of all because he allowed that all descendants, regardless the gender, would have the title HRH Prince(ss) of Belgium. So -unlike other monarchies- he made no difference in male and female descendants.

King Philippe however has cut into his father's arrangement because the numer of people with the title HRH Prince(ss) of Belgium would be spiralling when the offspring of the 4 children of King Philippe, the 5 children of Princess Astrid and the 3 children of Prince Laurent all will have that title too.

3 Princes (Princesses) of Belgium (children of Léopold III)
3 Princes (Princesses) of Belgium (children of Albert II)
12 Princes (Princesses) of Belgium (grandchildren of Albert II)
24 Princes (Princesses) of Belgium (assuming each grandchild gets 2 children)
-----
42 Princes (Princesses) of Belgium (!!!)

No wonder King Philippe has stepped on the brake and regulated that only (grand)children of a King and of a Heir will have the title Prince (Princess) of Belgium.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

I fail to see what is the problem here. Actually Albert II was the most egalitarian of all because he allowed that all descendants, regardless the gender, would have the title HRH Prince(ss) of Belgium. So -unlike other monarchies- he made no difference in male and female descendants.

King Philippe however has cut into his father's arrangement because the numer of people with the title HRH Prince(ss) of Belgium would be spiralling when the offspring of the 4 children of King Philippe, the 5 children of Princess Astrid and the 3 children of Prince Laurent all will have that title too.

3 Princes (Princesses) of Belgium (children of Léopold III)
3 Princes (Princesses) of Belgium (children of Albert II)
12 Princes (Princesses) of Belgium (grandchildren of Albert II)
24 Princes (Princesses) of Belgium (assuming each grandchild gets 2 children)
-----
42 Princes (Princesses) of Belgium (!!!)

No wonder King Philippe has stepped on the brake and regulated that only (grand)children of a King and of a Heir will have the title Prince (Princess) of Belgium.

That was my point - it wasn't just his grandchildren and greats grandchildren, it was his descendants, ALL of his descendants. Really? Think 50 years down the road, 100 years, 200, 500..... And you don't see the arrogance in that? Wow, totally unbelievable! A few researchers say (statistically), everyone born in the western world is a descendant of Charlemagne. That was a little over 1000 years ago, so in a 1000 years from now, everyone in the western world could be a descendant of King Albert II of the Belgians.

[Moonmaiden23]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

No, there is no such requirement for the Belgian royals to marry someone of a particular status. Still, Leopold's 3 children from his marriage to Astrid, a royal/royal marriage, all married another royal/aristocrat; while his next 3 children from a royal/commoner marriage, all married commoners. Its no secret that JC did not like Maria Teresa from the beginning due to her commoner status and the race she perceived MT to be. Baudoin asked a priest to help find him a pious aristocratic Spanish woman to marry. Baudoin thought royals should only marry someone with a royal/aristocratic title. He gladly gave his blessings to Astrid (his niece) and Lorenz to marry because of this belief. In other words, it's all in attitude of those who came from the entirely titled background. JC and Baudouin, so I have read, both had a superior attitude when it came to commoners, they felt commoners had no right to stand next to a prince/princess at the altar. And although Laurent married a commoner, Albert wanted each and everyone of his descendants to be a HRH Prince/Princess of Belgium - which tops my list as the most conceited, arrogant thing I have heard in awhile. Mathilde's family married well also because her family was elevated in status by Albert upon her marriage, and her sisters married titled men because of this and because their sister was the future Queen of the Belgians.

That is only MT's assertion, and why it has seemed to be accepted without question by certain people is a complete mystery to me. IF J-C did indeed dislike her daughter-in-law how can we be 100% certain that it was not for some other reason? Like maybe she just wasn't a very likeable person in private?

Because J-C did the classy, correct(imo) thing and didn't even dignify MT's bizarre outburst with a response, MT's version has been taken as complete gospel and I think that's wrong.

The children of MT and Henri all seemed to adore J-C, and MT was genuinely distressed at her passing.

King Baudouin began to seriously search for a wife in the mid to late 50's. Unlike now, "equal" marriages were the rule at that time. The fact that he wanted a devout spouse from the aristocracy or a Royal is not necessarily a sign of snobbery. Belgium at that time was an uber conservative, Catholic country. Baudouin was a realist who was conscious of his duty. The fact that his marriage to Fabiola turned out to be one of the happiest ones in modern Royal history was icing on the cake....and the same for his niece Astrid with Archduke Lorenz.

Astrid fell in love with him at first sight. It was not arranged by Baudouin or anyone else.

[NotHRH]

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

That is only MT's assertion, and why it has seemed to be accepted without question by certain people is a complete mystery to me. IF J-C did indeed dislike her daughter-in-law how can we be 100% certain that it was not for some other reason? Like maybe she just wasn't a very likeable person in private?

Because J-C did the classy, correct(imo) thing and didn't even dignify MT's bizarre outburst with a response, MT's version has been taken as complete gospel and I think that's wrong.

The children of MT and Henri all seemed to adore J-C, and MT was genuinely distressed at her passing.

King Baudouin began to seriously search for a wife in the mid to late 50's. Unlike now, "equal" marriages were the rule at that time. The fact that he wanted a devout spouse from the aristocracy or a Royal is not necessarily a sign of snobbery. Belgium at that time was an uber conservative, Catholic country. Baudouin was a realist who was conscious of his duty. The fact that his marriage to Fabiola turned out to be one of the happiest ones in modern Royal history was icing on the cake....and the same for his niece Astrid with Archduke Lorenz.

Astrid fell in love with him at first sight. It was not arranged by Baudouin or anyone else.

JC, Jean, nor did Henri ever say MT'S assertion was a bizarre outburst - how do you defend blatant racism and snobbishness went brought out into the open? Assuredly, MT had to have some sort of proof, which is why JC could not defend herself against MT's allegations. All worked itself out only after MT'S press conference.

Baudoin was a pious and devout Catholic, but also believed titled people should only marry titled people. He was an elitist, from what I have read (and therefore what I base my opinion on), and would have never consider marrying a pious, devout commoner Roman Catholic woman.

I never stated that King B arranged for Astrid and Lorenz to meet. I would not say it was love at 1st site, as they casually had known each other for a few years prior to her 18th birthday party. Lorenz is about 7 years older than Astrid, so she was 18 and he was around 25 yo when she "noticed" him and vice versa.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by NotHRH

That was my point - it wasn't just his grandchildren and greats grandchildren, it was his descendants, ALL of his descendants. Really? Think 50 years down the road, 100 years, 200, 500..... And you don't see the arrogance in that? Wow, totally unbelievable! A few researchers say (statistically), everyone born in the western world is a descendant of Charlemagne. That was a little over 1000 years ago, so in a 1000 years from now, everyone in the western world could be a descendant of King Albert II of the Belgians.

Actually this decision was made under King Baudouin's reign in 1991 when the succession law was changed. And probably it was not only the decision of the King but also the then government.