Royals Who MUST Marry Nobility/Royalty

[NotHRH]

I think you have a point there, NotHRH.

However, if these families eventually wish to become royals again, it's important they will not be considered too aloof. Otherwise their future subject cannot relate to them and as such will find them irrelevant. And why reestablish someone who are aloof and irrelevant?

Exactly - and also probably the biggest consideration why many countries had/have/will eventually dethrone(d) some royal families. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

 

[Ish]

Only "officially" is it considered "tradition," it's really only a superiority complex and their refusal to accept reality. They refuse to accept their now "commoner" status. If the families allowed marriages to unequals, they would eventually assimilate into non-royal, albeit wealthy, society and that thought makes them stare reality in the eye. Somehow, they feel no government has the right to strip them of their royal status, but governments can and do, and it is legally binding. C'est la vie!

I actually think it's more than that.

The reigning realms that have changed their succession laws/rules (those that had official laws and rules to begin with) have a degree of recognized authority supporting them (if not outright government based legislation). No one can really contest these changes or the legitimacy of the rights of the heirs. Like it or not, Margarethe II is the Queen of Denmark, not her cousin Ignolf, or a more distant relation (under the old rules, excluding women and those who made unequal marriages, the closest male line relative of Margrethe's father is Harald V of Norway. Excluding reigning monarchs and their heirs, the closest reaction is the Duke of Edinburgh).

Regarding the non-reigning houses, though, it's not that simple. Any time a head of house changes the rules he/she opens themselves (or their heirs) up to being contested by those who had a better claim under the old rules. Consider the fiasco that is the Russian claimants. Or the impending fiasco in the Romanian royals. Trying to change the succession opens up the claimants to divisions within the various houses, which can impede any attempts at a restoration - what good is a monarchist movement in Russia if the monarchists can't agree on who the monarch should be? And if you aren't already a monarchist, why would you be persuaded to join a movement that can't agree on who the monarch should be?

 

[Curryong]

Isn't Queen Margrethe technically a Regent? I know she is addressed as Queen and has all the powers (such as they are) of a monarch but I'm convinced I've read somewhere that she is a regent because she is female.

 

[Muhler]

QMII is a full Monarch.

It was QMI who was technically a Regent. But that was back in the 1400's.

 

[LadyRohan]

I actually think it's more than that.

The reigning realms that have changed their succession laws/rules (those that had official laws and rules to begin with) have a degree of recognized authority supporting them (if not outright government based legislation). No one can really contest these changes or the legitimacy of the rights of the heirs. Like it or not, Margarethe II is the Queen of Denmark, not her cousin Ignolf, or a more distant relation (under the old rules, excluding women and those who made unequal marriages, the closest male line relative of Margrethe's father is Harald V of Norway. Excluding reigning monarchs and their heirs, the closest reaction is the Duke of Edinburgh).

Regarding the non-reigning houses, though, it's not that simple. Any time a head of house changes the rules he/she opens themselves (or their heirs) up to being contested by those who had a better claim under the old rules. Consider the fiasco that is the Russian claimants. Or the impending fiasco in the Romanian royals. Trying to change the succession opens up the claimants to divisions within the various houses, which can impede any attempts at a restoration - what good is a monarchist movement in Russia if the monarchists can't agree on who the monarch should be? And if you aren't already a monarchist, why would you be persuaded to join a movement that can't agree on who the monarch should be?

This is absolutely correct. The main reason that former royal houses and reigning families struggle with updating their own rules and ways, is that the families are often large and fragmented and they are often contested for leadership, like in Ital, France and Russia. If the head of a royal or noble tries to implement a change not universally supported inside the family, he will be contested. i wonder if anyone can think of any reason why someone in the family might contest a decision, or seek headship of a dynasty?

Look at the example of Romania. The former King has 5 daughters and no son. If Romania was a monarchy right now, a democracy within the EU, it would have amended its constitution to allow for equal or preferred primogeniture long time ago. The King therefore wrote a document with a proposed line of succession for parliament to consider, in the event of a restoration. Take a look around these forums to see how some people view, and talk about, that process.

Italy is the same. If it was a monarchy today, the young daughters of The Prince of Venice would be third and fourth in line. Instead, those looking to the long-abolished constitution point to a cousin of the current Crown Prince and his family, because he has sons who have sons. Is it the Royal Familys fault the rules within a Royal Family are out of date? How can they truly change something they know will be contested, and lead to family feuds and strife?

These things might seem trivial to outsiders, but they're not. They are not merely about status or aloofness, but more about the preservation of dynasties and history. They're about legal rights to fortunes and titles, and they're about representing the family outwards, possibly working towards monarchical restorations. The best way to deal with decisions involving Royal Families, is for them to be sidelined, just as politicians recuse themselves in matters where they have self-serving interests. For that to happen, you need to have a constitutional monarchy, and where that functions well, there is no superior form of government, in a world where no system based on human equations, can be perfect.

Just a quick note at the end: if a royal family or a dynastic house meet vocal and unyielding opposition in places like this forum, among monarchists and royalists, what chance do they have of changing the will of old and hardened members of their own families?

 

[Ish]

Isn't Queen Margrethe technically a Regent? I know she is addressed as Queen and has all the powers (such as they are) of a monarch but I'm convinced I've read somewhere that she is a regent because she is female.

QMII is a Queen Regnant (a reigning monarch), as opposed to a Queen Consort (wife of a reigning monarch), or a Queen Regent (a queen who rules in place of the monarch, who is unable to reign in their own right).

 

[Muhler]

Lady Rohan:

The questions of "equal" marriages and who is in line according to a long since abandoned constitution may be relevant to hardcore monarchists of a given country but not so much I believe to the rest of the population.

Example: We have a country that abolished monarchy 80 years ago. Today there is a growing majority for reintroducing the monarchy - for all sorts of reasons. Most of them no doubt because a monarch would provide a politically neutral head of state, who is also a national and cultural rallying point.
The monarchist may bicker among themselves about genealogy, and proper marriages and line of successions according to the constitution 80 years back.
But to the majority who are about to decide whether to reintroduce the monarchy it boils down to: Who do I find most suitable and who do I want to represent my country?

Because the first reintroduced monarch is elected! And that is very important to keep in mind. It it absolutely crucial that the first monarch is the one people want and not someone who may have a better pedigree but who is pretty irrelevant to the public.

We have princess A, who is wellknown to the public, has been engaged in the affairs of the country and who has proved dedicated and willing to serve her country. She's generally respected and well liked.
She has an appropriate age, say mid-40's. Has a couple of children, with the correct number of arms and legs, who are well-behaved apart from the odd mischief. She's married to a former racing driver. tongue:) A loving and supporting husband, who may be a foreigner but hasn't put a foot wrong.
The public like her, they want her!

But within the family clan there are two contestant who according to the old succession are in line for the throne before her. And who according to the family rules married an "equal".
One, prince B, is in his 70's. He has been abroad most of his life and his children have pursued careers on their own (they had to). Nothing wrong with him as such, but he isn't seen as being particularly relevant to the public. And due to his age he lacks the glamour factor.

Then there is prince C, in his early 20's. Just started at the university, unmarried, no children. Nothing wrong with him either, but he is a bit inexperienced in life.

Now, your job is to pursade the voters to vote for princes B or C, rather than princess A, because...?
The question you are going to face is: I want princess A. Why should I vote for reintroducing the monarchy only to get prince B or C, who I don't see fit the role?

 

[NotHRH]

I actually think it's more than that.

The reigning realms that have changed their succession laws/rules (those that had official laws and rules to begin with) have a degree of recognized authority supporting them (if not outright government based legislation). No one can really contest these changes or the legitimacy of the rights of the heirs. Like it or not, Margarethe II is the Queen of Denmark, not her cousin Ignolf, or a more distant relation (under the old rules, excluding women and those who made unequal marriages, the closest male line relative of Margrethe's father is Harald V of Norway. Excluding reigning monarchs and their heirs, the closest reaction is the Duke of Edinburgh).

Regarding the non-reigning houses, though, it's not that simple. Any time a head of house changes the rules he/she opens themselves (or their heirs) up to being contested by those who had a better claim under the old rules. Consider the fiasco that is the Russian claimants. Or the impending fiasco in the Romanian royals. Trying to change the succession opens up the claimants to divisions within the various houses, which can impede any attempts at a restoration - what good is a monarchist movement in Russia if the monarchists can't agree on who the monarch should be? And if you aren't already a monarchist, why would you be persuaded to join a movement that can't agree on who the monarch should be?

I was only speaking of non-reigning houses - "NON-reigning" - they no longer represent their home country because their country's government, for whatever reason, implemented laws to get rid of the monarchy and to specifically impede any attempts at a restoration. There should be NO claimants, there is nothing that is theirs to claim. There are quite a few ongoing fiascos, mainly Russia, Romania, and Brazil. Just read today because the ex-king of Romania served as Prime Minister, then that means the ex-royal family accepts the validity of Romania as a republic. Yes, I also know about the other situation concerning ex-Prince Nicholas (Medforth-Mills). There are many divisions amongst the ex-royals everywhere.
Disappointment comes in all sorts of ways for everybody, not just for commoners. It's disappointing and emotionally painful for these people, I do understand that, but they need to learn to cope with that. So let them stab each other in the back for a throne that does not exist - shows their character, why their thrones were lost, and why many countries do not want restoration. I have never felt sorry for any person or persons that believe they are superior to everybody else. Learning to cope with disappointment is a very humbling experience indeed.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

There are still a number of Houses which have a requirement for an Ebenbürtige or a Standesgemäß marriage.

The marriage of Don Juan Carlos de Borbón with Princess Sophia of Greece and Denmark is Ebenbürtig. This means: the partners are of equal birth.

The marriage of Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia with Countess Donata von Castell-Rüdenhausen was Standesgemäß. This means: the partners are of the same standing.

The first one is more strict than the second one. Famous is the clausule in the Will of the father of the current Fürst von Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg which stipulates that his Heir (his grandson Prince Gustav) has to marry Standesgemäß. Prince Gustav's current longtime companion Ms Carina Axelsson is not fullfilling that requirement and the couple still has not married.

Note that this couple has all freedom to marry, as all EU-citizens enjoy the freedom to choose the own partner. That the marriage has an effect on a beneficiary clausule in a Will, that is another matter and for the consideration of the affected beneficiant(s) indeed.

It is not illegal to make these conditions: "I leave all my worldly goods to my children on the condition that the properties will be given free when they have completed their secondary education and made a Christian marriage". The children still have all freedom to stay away from secondary school and not marry at all. That there are consequences attached to that, tja..., that is for their own consideration.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I [...] There should be NO claimants, there is nothing that is theirs to claim. [...]

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...

 

[Rudolph]

Wills and inheritance though are subject to the courts, at least in Canada. I know of many families who thought they had iron-clad wills only for a judge to decide otherwise.

For non-reigning families, it will only take one human rights court somewhere to decide the house-rules for marriage violates someone's 'rights' and they whole thing gets blown-up.

 

[Marc23]

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...

Totally agree with you on this!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Wills and inheritance though are subject to the courts, at least in Canada. I know of many families who thought they had iron-clad wills only for a judge to decide otherwise.

For non-reigning families, it will only take one human rights court somewhere to decide the house-rules for marriage violates someone's 'rights' and they whole thing gets blown-up.

Actually Hohenzollerns, Leiningens and Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburgs have gone to Court to fight the requirements set in the Will. In all three cases the Courts have upheld these Wills. The clear aim of these conditions is to keep the centuries old House patrimonium together and at the disposal of the Head of the House, to avoid a break-up due to obligatory distribution and to avoid hefty taxes. The headship of the House is regulated by House Laws. Mostly this will be the most senior male agnate born in a legal marriage fullfilling the requirements who, on his turn, has made a legal marruage fullfilling the the same requirements and so procreates the historic dynasty.

When the position of the Head of the House (set by House Laws) is separated from the beneficiant of the Will (the eldest son, no matter he does not subject House Laws) then the risk is there that the Head of the House becomes separated from the House properties. An undesirable situation and the Courts agreed that provisions to keep the headship of the House and the House Patrimonium connected is not unlawful and not violating any human right.

To take it on Prince Gustav: there is no one who says he can not marry his Swedish girlffriend. No one. Of course, by neglecting the requirement he will risk that his cousin the Fürst zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein will claim the magnificent castles, the historic properties and -not to forget- to add the 35.000 acres of forests owned by the Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburgs to his own equally magnifique and impressive Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein estate... He can go to any Court and say he is in full compliance with the Will of the Prince Gustav's grandfather, having married Katharina, daughter of Maximilian Albert Hans Theodor Maria Graf von Podewils-Durniz and of Elisabeth Antonia Beatrix Marie Freiin von Hirschberg... and therefore will claim to be the Head of the two combined Houses and sole Heir of the enormous estate.

 

[Rudolph]

I'm all for keeping everything together. In Britain, primogeniture and 'heirs male' remainders to peerages have kept estates, wealth and titles intact.

I just figured with non-reigning families in Europe it was different but its good to know the courts have upheld this area of house laws.

As for the 'equal' marriages requirement, I still maintain it would have to change if any of these families actually came back into power, but that's another debate I suppose

 

[Countessmeout]

If the will was written by Gustav's grandfather, why can't it be changed? I mean we aren't speaking about a thousand year old law or something needing parliamentary agreement.What is stopping Richard as the current head of the house from changing the will?

I don't see why they don't just give Carina a title. Surely Aunt Marge could be persuaded to name her a Countess. It wouldn't be the first time either. Richard's Uncle Heinrich was adopted by the childless head of another branch of the family. He married his adoptive father's niece (the daughter of his adoptive Uncle Georg). Georg's marriage was morganatic and his children therefore were, until the Prince of Lippe made Georg's wife a Baroness. Georg's brother (Heinrich's adopted father) removed the morganatic status of his nieces when this happened, allowing Heinrich's marriage to be considered dynastic. Surely Marge or some other royal could do the same for Carina as done for Georg's wife or like the Swede princes made Counts of Wisborg by the Luxes.

 

[Tilia C.]

I would like to stress that modern law courts in Germany do not bother about those obsolete house laws. House laws have nothing to do with the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, and it is totally up the families whether they follow their old rules or not. Also the modern state does not care if the patrimonium of the noble families stays with the heads of the houses or not. That's up to the families, too.

The law suits of the Prussian or Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg families were about the wills of individual persons. That's a different thing. E.g. the late Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia choose set up a will that complied with the old house law. It's the will that is will that the courts would scrutinize, and the courts wouldn't care if the will complies with the house law or not. Had Louis Ferdinand chosen to set up a will that didn't comply with the house law, than it would have been just as valid.

The same goes for the Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg family. Prince Gustav's grandfather set up a will that specified requirements for the marriage of the heir.

 

[Countessmeout]

I would like to stress that modern law courts in Germany do not bother about those obsolete house laws. House laws have nothing to do with the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, and it is totally up the families whether they follow their old rules or not. Also the modern state does not care if the patrimonium of the noble families stays with the heads of the houses or not. That's up to the families, too.

The law suits of the Prussian or Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg families were about the wills of individual persons. That's a different thing. E.g. the late Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia choose set up a will that complied with the old house law. It's the will that is will that the courts would scrutinize, and the courts wouldn't care if the will complies with the house law or not. Had Louis Ferdinand chosen to set up a will that didn't comply with the house law, than it would have been just as valid.

The same goes for the Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg family. Prince Gustav's grandfather set up a will that specified requirements for the marriage of the heir.

So my question stands, why doesn't Richard just change the will? It was his father's will. Is Richard not entitled to his own under German law? Or is he less accepting of Carina than the family seems to be? She seems well accepted by the family. You would think you'd want the family estate to remain in their line.

I mean if he and Carina didn't have children even if married, couldn't he simply name one of his nephews heir?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

If the will was written by Gustav's grandfather, why can't it be changed? I mean we aren't speaking about a thousand year old law or something needing parliamentary agreement.What is stopping Richard as the current head of the house from changing the will? [...]

Prince Gustav's grandfather (who was missed-in-action during battle in WWII) has made his grandson his Heir. Meaning that his son was bypassed. This was just to avoid hefty succession taxes. The properties are already owned by his grandson -as long as he subjects to the conditions- but his son, the present Fürst, executes the ownership rights.

When the grandson of the missing Fürst was born in 1969, his spouse the Fürstin, Princess Margaretha zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg born Countess Fouché d'Otrante went to the Court of Justice and requested a formal declaration of death. After this formal declaration, the Will was executed: the youngborn grandson became the owner and the Dowager Fürstin handed all affairs of the House to her son, Prince Richard. This situation is still actual: Prince Gustav is the owner and his father, the Fürst, executes the ownership rights.

Prince Gustav, once he has become the Head of the House, he can draft a new Will but then Carina will be in her Fifties and it is unlikely they will ever marry with a procreation of the dynasty in their line.

 

[Tilia C.]

So my question stands, why doesn't Richard just change the will? It was his father's will. Is Richard not entitled to his own under German law? Or is he less accepting of Carina than the family seems to be? She seems well accepted by the family. You would think you'd want the family estate to remain in their line.

I mean if he and Carina didn't have children even if married, couldn't he simply name one of his nephews heir?

Prince Richard can't change the will because his father left everything to the 'eldest son of this eldest son, if...' So Prince Gustav would be the direct heir of his late grandfather, if he complied with the requirements. That means that Prince Richard doesn't own the partimonium, he just holds it as a kind of custidian. Sorry, but I don't know all the details, it must be a complicated case for the lawyers.

The reason for this strange will was to minimize inheritance tax. Each heir has to pay tax, but if you skip a generation, that means also that the skipped generation doesn't have to pay tax.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

[...]

I mean if he and Carina didn't have children even if married, couldn't he simply name one of his nephews heir?

His nephews, you mean Count Richard von Pfeil und Klein Ellguth (son of his sister Princess Alexandra) for an example?

That is possible but this will also mean that the centuries old patrimonium of the House Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg, for an example the magnificent Schloss (see picture) will come in the hands of the family Von Pfeil und Klein Ellguth then, while there are direct male Berleburg relatives around. It will depend very much on the wordings of the various family foundations and trusts if it is possible that it all disappears out of the family...

 

[Tilia C.]

I'm not sure if Prince Gustav actually is fully legal owner of the estate. His grandfather's will said that he should inherit if he fulfills the requirements. Doesn't that mean that he can't inherit until he fulfills them? So that would mean that there isn't an owner at the moment, just a custodian? If that is the case, the inheritance will go to the son of Prince Robin's son Prince Sebastian.

 

[Countessmeout]

I don't think the requirement for him to inherit includes him being married. Didn't he inherit the estate when he was a baby??


I don't get why Robin and his son are eligible to inherit. Shouldn't they be held to the same requirements as Gustav? Neither Robin or his son have made dynastic marriages.

 

[Tilia C.]

I don't know how it actually works. But if he already had fully inherited the estate, how could he lose it again in the case of marriages? If he were the full legal owner, how somebody take it away in the case of marriage?

It is puzzling, but I not sure that the inheritance is already accomplished.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I don't think the requirement for him to inherit includes him being married. Didn't he inherit the estate when he was a baby??


I don't get why Robin and his son are eligible to inherit. Shouldn't they be held to the same requirements as Gustav? Neither Robin or his son have made dynastic marriages.

They are not heirs according the Will. Prince Gustav's cousin Prince Bernhart is the next eligible male when we apply the conditions.

1 Prince Gustav (1969)
Son of Prince Richard, 6th Fürst zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg
and of Princess Benedikte of Denmark

2 Prince Bernhart (1962)
Son of Prince Christian Heinrich, 5th Fürst zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein
and of Christina Gräfin von Leiningen-Westerburg (Alt-Leiningen)

3 Prince Wenzel (1997)
Son of Prince Bernhart, 6th Fürst zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein
and of Katharina Gräfin von Podewils-Dürniz

 

[Stefan]

I don't think the requirement for him to inherit includes him being married. Didn't he inherit the estate when he was a baby??


I don't get why Robin and his son are eligible to inherit. Shouldn't they be held to the same requirements as Gustav? Neither Robin or his son have made dynastic marriages.

It depends on who is included in the Will. And that is not known.
In the prussian Case Emperor Wilhelm II. required his heir (Louis Ferdinand) and his heirs Heir to marry equal. As Frioedrich Wilhelm and Michael did not marry equally and had to renouce their rights their brother Louis Ferdinand became the heir but as he died before his father his son Georg Friedrich became the Heir of Prince Louis Ferdinand.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I don't know how it actually works. But if he already had fully inherited the estate, how could he lose it again in the case of marriages? If he were the full legal owner, how somebody take it away in the case of marriage?

It is puzzling, but I not sure that the inheritance is already accomplished.

When Prince Gustav was born in 1969, his grandmother Princess Margaretha requested her spouse, at that moment "missing in action" since 1944, to be declared dead. After this official declaration, the Will was executed. The youngborn grandson inherited all but his father had the execution of the ownership rights.

The current Crown Domains in the Netherlands have been donated to the State by Queen Wilhelmina but the ownership rights are executed by the Bearer of the Crown. This means that the State is the owner but that the King holds the rights to enjoy an income from the domains, has the hunting rights, etc.

The construction of Prince Gustav being the owner but his father enjoying the ownership rights seem similar to that arrangement. Very complicated indeed.

 

[Rudolph]

It depends on who is included in the Will. And that is not known.
In the prussian Case Emperor Wilhelm II. required his heir (Louis Ferdinand) and his heirs Heir to marry equal. As Frioedrich Wilhelm and Michael did not marry equally and had to renouce their rights their brother Louis Ferdinand became the heir but as he died before his father his son Georg Friedrich became the Heir of Prince Louis Ferdinand.

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?

I don't really know anything about the law but it seems like an area where judges would be keen to jump in and rule it violates human rights or something. Its interesting to me

 

[Tilia C.]

It depends on who is included in the Will. And that is not known.
In the prussian Case Emperor Wilhelm II. required his heir (Louis Ferdinand) and his heirs Heir to marry equal. As Frioedrich Wilhelm and Michael did not marry equally and had to renouce their rights their brother Louis Ferdinand became the heir but as he died before his father his son Georg Friedrich became the Heir of Prince Louis Ferdinand.

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.

 

[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

 

[Tilia C.]

No, morganatic marriage has never applied to British royals. For a long time the British also arranged marriages with foreign royal houses, but that was no legal requirement. It was mainly done for political reasons. Queen Mary was not considered as a equal match by those houses who followed the salic law. But Queen Victoria didn't have to bother with that, so she arrange a marriage with Princess May of Teck.