True Love Marriages

[Curryong]

I think, technically, that everyone who isn't born into the BRF is considered a commoner. I agree that the Spencers are an old and very prominent aristocratic family but they weren't once Kings. More Northamptonshire sheep farmers! Like most quite old aristo families they have royal blood in the family from Charles II (who sired quite a lot of illegitimate children) and on the distaff side I believe James II, but that blood came from advantageous marriages as the Spencers went up in the world and made their mark in national life.

[MaiaMia_53]

Read the history of the Spencer family that I linked above. Winston Churchill is a related member of the Spencer clan as well.

Also @Denville's reference to Fergie being from 'landed gentry.' So what? So is Camilla from the 'landed gentry' class, which is below the aristocracy/nobility.

And yes, the Spencers are aristocrats who are related to royalty via illegitimate ancestors:
"Today's Spencers are direct descendants, albeit illegitimate, of the House of Stuart, with the family boasting at least five lines of direct descent from the Stuarts; and from them, the Spencers can trace their ancestry to other royal houses such as the Bourbons, the Medicis, the Wittelsbachs, the Hanovers, the Sforzas, the Habsburgs, and the Houses of Howard and Boleyn through Mary Boleyn, Mistress of Henry VIII of England."

Also the term 'commoner' in the U.K. refers to "a person who is not born into a position of high social rank." That absolutely does not describe Diana or her family! She was not born of royalty, but she was a member of the aristocracy/nobility. The ancestors who began as sheep farmers is not recent. It's very far back. Still, there's nothing wrong with sheep farmers, but Diana did not grow up the daughter of a sheep farmer! Another famous ancestor of Diana's was Lady Georgiana Spencer who married the Duke of Devonshire (another famous British aristocratic family).

Interestingly the Spencers were also related to George Washington's family.

[Curryong]

It's a little more complex than that, though of course only in the technical sense. Both Lady Elizabeth Bowes Lyon and Diana were commoners before they married as they weren't peers just held courtesy titles.

Is it possible for a royal to be a commoner? – Royal Central

I meant by my comment that the direct Spencer line did not, at the beginning, contain Kings or Queens. In early Tudor times they were simple Northamptonshire farmers, sheep farmers. Of course, as they became more prosperous and more grand they did aquire ancestors who had royal blood via brides from the gentry and aristocracy who MARRIED into the Spencer line. The Spencers didn't have it inherently, from the family's earliest beginnings. And the Royal blood was through illegitimacy though the progeny certainly had all the lineage you mentioned.

[Jacknch]

Let's get back on topic please - the thread is about true love marriages and not a debate on who is or is not a "commoner".

[Biri]

Definitely all morganatic marriages were of true love.

[CyrilVladisla]

Queen Victoria of Great Britain and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
Prince Joachim and Princess Marie of Denmark
Prince Felix and Princess Claire of Luxembourg

[CyrilVladisla]

The Way Prince William looks at Catherine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHT7EtzeJIM

[chuck34]

I don't want to say too much but I don't think it will be the same as it was under Elizabeth's reign

[Denville]

Originally Posted by chuck34

I don't want to say too much but I don't think it will be the same as it was under Elizabeth's reign

what wont be the same? Royal couples now marry for love. It may not last or work out, but they are not now likely to be pressured into a marriage wtih someone who is socially suitable.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Denville

I doubt if anyone in the royal community wants them [arranged marriages] back,

But again, arranged marriages have never disappeared for royals or non-royals (in many societies they continue to be the norm), so "back" is not quite the right term. And there is no single royal community, but diverse royal communities in different cultures.

Are you suggesting that every royal who is currently in an arranged marriage is unhappy with their marriage?

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Denville

what wont be the same? Royal couples now marry for love. It may not last or work out, but they are not now likely to be pressured into a marriage wtih someone who is socially suitable.

Also the concept of “love” is fairly recent, todays royals just have a wider access to different options of spouses than in previous centuries and aren’t restricted.