Marriage to Commoners vs Royals/Nobles

[Tatiana Maria]

Apologies, I must have missed it.

Originally Posted by rob2008

I doubt that Mountbatten wanted Princess Anne to marry Crown Prince Carl Gustaf in the late 60s/ early 70s. They are so very different. I don't think she would have appreciated his roving eye.

I think this is the post you meant to quote:

Originally Posted by JR76

The alleged Mountbatten push for Princess Anne to become Queen of Sweden was supposedly made in the late sixties before Crown Prince Carl Gustav met his future wife. At the time he's said to have been involved with the French aristocrat Milly De Grasset but the relationship was vetoed by his grandfather. King Gustav Adolf, Princess Sibylla, Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip are all said to have been in favour of the match but the three parents didn't want to push the youngsters into something against their own free will. Princess Sibylla even said in an interview with a Swedish magazine that she hoped her son would marry a Swedish girl which, with one possible exception, would indicate that she was in favour of changing the rules regarding equal marriages.

For JR76: Who or what was the exception you were referring to?

[Prinsara]

Anne might actually have been a jolly good queen consort of Sweden, but I can't see how in the world she and CG would have ever gotten to that point. She's pretty much Silvia's polar opposite, and that marriage hasn't been perfectly easy (mostly because of him, apparently).

It was probably smart of all the adults not to push.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

For JR76: Who or what was the exception you were referring to?

The possible exception would be Princess Sibylla Erba-Odescalchi, daughter of Prince Alexander Erba-Odescalchi and Archduchess Margarethe of Austria who ended up in Sweden after the Red Army conquered Hungary in 1945.
Given that Proposition 261 of 1936 to change the Order of Succession speaks about "consorts from reigning houses or from some to them equal non-reigning houses" it could be argued that Sibylla would have been seen as an equal match had Carl Gustav wanted to marry her. Especially considering that a Lady Mountbatten and a Princess of Leuchtenberg had earlier been deemed suitable matches for Swedish crown princes.

[leidi]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

That would be a dynastically most interesting match. Also because he is a Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha (which occupies the British throne right now) marrying a Hannover (mirroring Victoria & Albert).

That would be a VERY interesting alliance since they both come from 100% aristocratic stock (meaning both their parents are royals/aristocrats) but I don't know how well Ernst August Sr would behave

When Alexandra gets married I fully expect Ernst August Jr to be the one to give her away since her father is not exactly the most reliable person to be around in weddings/funerals (remember that his sons walked with their stepsiblings at Rainier's funeral because he was in the hospital due to pancreatitis for his drinking?)

[Moonmaiden23]

Isn't Alexandra still with her billionaire German boyfriend Ben something?

I think that one's a keeper. He and Alex have been inseparable for years.

[Mbruno]

Following a recent discussion on the Spanish forums about the Spanish line of succession, it occurred to me to ask here what is meant by a "dynastic marriage" today.

Many people often equate dynastic marriages to "equal marriages", i.e., marriages between members of two sovereign (or formerly sovereign) families. However, I don't think that is correct. In my humble opinion, "dynastic marriage" simply implies a marriage whose descendants retain dynastic rights, which, for sovereign families, means primarily a place in the line of succession to the throne, but may also mean in some cases a royal title and style, or other dynastic prerogatives.

I would say then that any marriage of a person in the line of succession that is consented to (in whatever form the law or the constitution of the realm prescribes) is now "dynastic" in the sense that I alluded to in countries like Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (in the latter case, only for the first six persons in line). Similarly, any marriage of a person in the line of succession that is not prohibited under the terms of Art. 57(4) of the Spanish constitution is now a "dynastic marriage" in Spain. It is irrelevant whether the person whom the royal is marrying is also a royal himself/herself, an aristocrat, or a commoner.

What do you think?

[Sionevar]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Following a recent discussion on the Spanish forums about the Spanish line of succession, it occurred to me to ask here what is meant by a "dynastic marriage" today.

Many people often equate dynastic marriages to "equal marriages", i.e., marriages between members of two sovereign (or formerly sovereign) families. However, I don't think that is correct. In my humble opinion, "dynastic marriage" simply implies a marriage whose descendants retain dynastic rights, which, for sovereign families, means primarily a place in the line of succession to the throne, but may also mean in some cases a royal title and style, or other dynastic prerogatives.

I would say then that any marriage of a person in the line of succession that is consented to (in whatever form the law or the constitution of the realm prescribes) is now "dynastic" in the sense that I alluded to in countries like Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (in the latter case, only for the first six persons in line). Similarly, any marriage of a person in the line of succession that is not prohibited under the terms of Art. 57(4) of the Spanish constitution is now a "dynastic marriage" in Spain. It is irrelevant whether the person whom the royal is marrying is also a royal himself/herself, an aristocrat, or a commoner.

What do you think?

This makes sense to me. Dynastic means relating to a dynasty, so if you make an unauthorized marriage that results in your exclusion from the succession, it's not contributing to the dynasty's continuation, so it shouldn't be considered dynastic.

[lucien]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Following a recent discussion on the Spanish forums about the Spanish line of succession, it occurred to me to ask here what is meant by a "dynastic marriage" today.

Many people often equate dynastic marriages to "equal marriages", i.e., marriages between members of two sovereign (or formerly sovereign) families. However, I don't think that is correct. In my humble opinion, "dynastic marriage" simply implies a marriage whose descendants retain dynastic rights, which, for sovereign families, means primarily a place in the line of succession to the throne, but may also mean in some cases a royal title and style, or other dynastic prerogatives.

I would say then that any marriage of a person in the line of succession that is consented to (in whatever form the law or the constitution of the realm prescribes) is now "dynastic" in the sense that I alluded to in countries like Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (in the latter case, only for the first six persons in line). Similarly, any marriage of a person in the line of succession that is not prohibited under the terms of Art. 57(4) of the Spanish constitution is now a "dynastic marriage" in Spain. It is irrelevant whether the person whom the royal is marrying is also a royal himself/herself, an aristocrat, or a commoner.

What do you think?

Fine!!It is 2022 AD,not BC.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Many people often equate dynastic marriages to "equal marriages", i.e., marriages between members of two sovereign (or formerly sovereign) families. However, I don't think that is correct. In my humble opinion, "dynastic marriage" simply implies a marriage whose descendants retain dynastic rights, which, for sovereign families, means primarily a place in the line of succession to the throne, but may also mean in some cases a royal title and style, or other dynastic prerogatives.

Originally Posted by Sionevar

This makes sense to me. Dynastic means relating to a dynasty, so if you make an unauthorized marriage that ends with your exclusion from the succession, it's not contributing to the dynasty's continuation, so it shouldn't be considered dynastic.

I would use "dynastic marriage" with the same meaning for the reasons stated by Mbruno and Sionevar. By analogy, however, I would probably use "equal marriage" to mean any marriage which is officially considered to meet the terms of the equal-marriage requirements (if any) that are relevant to that marriage.

Originally Posted by lucien

Fine!!It is 2022 AD,not BC.

The English language did not exist in 2022 BC.

[SirGyamfi1]

IMO, if someone is to marry someone is to marry a commoner, noble or fellow royal then that’s their prerogative. A marriage will last according to the behaviors of the respective spouses in the marriage not based on whether they are a commoner, noble or royal. People of the same or similar background can compatible and two people of different backgrounds can be good together. Just because someone marries out of their milieu doesn’t mean they are necessarily they are in love, but neither does it they are a snob or elitist for marrying in their social circle.

Originally Posted by Moonmaiden23

Isn't Alexandra still with her billionaire German boyfriend Ben something?

I think that one's a keeper. He and Alex have been inseparable for years.

Yes she’s still dating him

[Alison H]

Dynastic marriages were often diplomatic marriages, made to improve relations between two countries, e.g. the marriage of the Prussian Prince Friedrich to the British Princess Victoria. That idea pretty much died out in the second half of the 19th century. I think dynastic marriage is now used mainly to describe marriages between two members of royal dynasties, which are unusual now.

[An Ard Ri]

The last dynastic marriage between Royal Houses in Spain was Juan Carlos and Sofia.

1967 The Infanta Pilar married Don Luis Gómez-Acebo ,Viscount of La Torre
1972 : The Infanta Margarita married Carlos Zurita
1995 : The Infanta Elena married Don Jaime de Marichalar
1997 The Infanta Cristina married Iñaki Urdangarin
2004 : Prince Felipe married Letizia Ortiz.

[SirGyamfi1]

Princess Margaretha of Luxembourg and Nikolaus of Liechtenstein

Princess Marie of Orléans and Prince Gundakar of Liechtenstein

Prince Alois of Liechtenstein and Duchess Sophie of Bavaria

[Duc_et_Pair]

Guillaume de Luxembourg & Stéphanie de Lannoy et du Saint-Empire
Philippe de Belgique & Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz
Amedeo von Österreich-Este & Elisabeta Rosboch von Wolkenstein
And more.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

Guillaume de Luxembourg & Stéphanie de Lannoy et du Saint-Empire
Philippe de Belgique & Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz
Amedeo von Österreich-Este & Elisabeta Rosboch von Wolkenstein
And more.

Amedeo’s marriage isn’t necessarily dynastic but more of a marriage between untitled nobility and royalty.

[maria-olivia]

Miss Lilian Beals ,Princess Lilian de Rethy was one of the first non royal who married a that time a King. (Leopold III of the Belgians)
Between 1950 and 1960 she was Belgian's first Lady. She wore huge jewels mainly jewels of the King's late wife Queen Astrid and was dressed haute couture from Paris.
Even overdressed she never looked Royal !

[Tatiana Maria]

In royal watching spaces it seems to me that the term "dynastic marriage" is primarily used roughly in the sense that Mbruno and Sionevar discussed, that is, to describe a marriage which is in conformity with the regulations of the dynasty and consequently transmits dynastic rights to the issue of the marriage. Using that definition, the most recent marriages to commoners and lower nobility in Spain and Belgium are dynastic, as the issue of those marriages are in the order of succession to the throne.

[Duc_et_Pair]

Originally Posted by SirGyamfi1

Amedeo’s marriage isn’t necessarily dynastic but more of a marriage between untitled nobility and royalty.

The late Archduke Otto of Austria has lifted almost all requirements except that a partner had to Roman-Catholic.

Archduke Otto himself:

"Wenn ein Familienmitglied heiraten will, fragt er oder sie das Familienoberhaupt um Erlaubnis. Heute tut man das aus Anstand und Höflichkeit. Früher hatte das Konsequenzen, wenn der Ehepartner nicht standesgemäß war. Nun ist das entspannter, unser Familienstatut ist etwas zeitgemäßer."

("If a family member wants to get married, he or she asks the head of the family for permission. Today it is done out of decency and courtesy. In the past, there were consequences if the spouse was not befitting. Now it's more relaxed, our family statute is more contemporary.")

Link

That means that Amedeo von Österreich-d'Este made a dynastic marriage, that he is the future head of the House Austria-d'Este and the future titular Duke of Modena and of Reggio.

[An Ard Ri]

Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria married Anne d'Orléans, in Madrid,1961 .Anne is the daughter of the late Count and Countess of Paris and the late Ifanta a cousin of king Juan Carlos I.

Their daughter ,Princess María of Bourbon-Two Sicilies married Archduke Simeon of Austria in July 1996.

[SirGyamfi1]

Originally Posted by An Ard Ri

Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria married Anne d'Orléans, in Madrid,1961 .Anne is the daughter of the late Count and Countess of Paris and the late Ifanta a cousin of king Juan Carlos I.

Their daughter ,Princess María of Bourbon-Two Sicilies married Archduke Simeon of Austria in July 1996.

Those were truly dynastic and equal marriages

Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair

The late Archduke Otto of Austria has lifted almost all requirements except that a partner had to Roman-Catholic.

Archduke Otto himself:

"Wenn ein Familienmitglied heiraten will, fragt er oder sie das Familienoberhaupt um Erlaubnis. Heute tut man das aus Anstand und Höflichkeit. Früher hatte das Konsequenzen, wenn der Ehepartner nicht standesgemäß war. Nun ist das entspannter, unser Familienstatut ist etwas zeitgemäßer."

("If a family member wants to get married, he or she asks the head of the family for permission. Today it is done out of decency and courtesy. In the past, there were consequences if the spouse was not befitting. Now it's more relaxed, our family statute is more contemporary.")

Link

That means that Amedeo von Österreich-d'Este made a dynastic marriage, that he is the future head of the House Austria-d'Este and the future titular Duke of Modena and of Reggio.

I understand that Otto relaxed the house laws, but when I’m referring to dynastic, I’m referring to it in the traditional sense.