Morganatic Marriages In European Monarchies

[Artemisia]

Not to mention, among other numerous titles and styles, the 8th Duke is (and consequently, Marquise of Douro is Heir Apparent of) the title "Prince of Waterloo".
While it's a title of nobility (albeit one of the highest-ranking ones in the Dutch nobility) and not royalty, I doubt anyone ever argues Antonia's marriage to Charles Wellesley was anything but equal.

 

[AristoCat]

It's kind of a double edged sword and a real conundrum.

1: Commoner women do have 'fresh blood,' but isn't that view just as snobby as someone who would prefer that a princess/Consort be blue-blooded? A lot of these 'fresh blooded' women can end up being as snooty and entitled as a blue blooded stereotypically is.

2: A lot of these women are the party types that had all the time in the world to cater to their princes and spend time with them, not at all work at a career that would require the prince make an effort to spend time with them. I don't see why on earth princes aren't making an effort to spend time with women who come from business backgrounds that have women used to keeping a tight/demanding schedule that would have them slip into the life a lot more easily and know how to not abuse the perks.

3: I don't mind a commoner, but I am biased towards aristocrats (hence my user name) mainly because a lot of aristocrats don't need their reputations rehabilitated. GD Stephanie didn't require a massive PR campaign to get her accepted by the Luxembourg people and didn't require a whitewash of her past and image. She is educated and talented and isn't at this point emptying Chanel's boutiques. There were no problems in that area and it's not like she had any other complications. She only had to slip into her wedding dress and she was then off to church. No obstacles.

4: Snakey of Sweden. CP Mette-Marit. These are women that the princes foisted on the public, pushing the RF and public to accept them whether they like it or not. Sofia/Snakey might end up a princess of Sweden whether the Swedes like it or not and realistically I do not think it's right. There are plenty of decent commoners who don't have pasts that need PR and such on their side. Can't these princes find nice women? At least Arab royals, for all their insanity, don't marry tarts and make the public accept them. They have that decency. There are millions of nice girls if only these princes would go out and find them. Decent families don't want their daughters inspected on some catwalk like stud horses or girls in a brothel.

 

[NotHRH]

NotHRH, just FYI, his job IS running the estate and it is a large one. Prince Richard (said prince's father) stated one time that running the whole farm, estate and forest was actually not a "hobby-job" but a whole time job. That was what he was trained to do. So does have a job.

Again hopefully, the can of worms stays closed.

If HSH marries Carinna Axelssen, he will not have an estate to run. He needs to get a job or he may lose his girlfriend. If she is smart and realized he has to weigh his options and still has not yet married, she would be wise to make him decide or leave him - or maybe she is scared his decision will not include her? Money does make the world go 'round.

 

[COUNTESS]

If HSH marries Carinna Axelssen, he will not have an estate to run. He needs to get a job or he may lose his girlfriend. If she is smart and realized he has to weigh his options and still has not yet married, she would be wise to make him decide or leave him - or maybe she is scared his decision will not include her? Money does make the world go 'round.

That may be. He might feel he owes his family his involvement. I would think that they would try and break a will, written by a Nazi, during their tenure. I, believe, his grandfather died in 1944. I don't, believe, any of us know the dynamics, that have lead to this decision. How did Princess Benedikte, marry the son of an obvious Nazi?

 

[NotHRH]

That may be. He might feel he owes his family his involvement. I would think that they would try and break a will, written by a Nazi, during their tenure. I, believe, his grandfather died in 1944. I don't, believe, any of us know the dynamics, that have lead to this decision. How did Princess Benedikte, marry the son of an obvious Nazi?

I agree, I wonder why HRH would marry the son of an obvious Nazi. HSH Prince Richard's father did pass away in 1944, and made these stipulations for his hopeful future grandson only, not his son. Still why does HSH Prince Gustav want the estate and fortune from someone who was a Nazi during the height of WWII?

 

[Furienna]

Nazi past or not, it's his grandfather and his family estate. I know nothing about this situation, but it sounds a lot like the one we had in Sweden with Prince Bertil and Lilian Craig. Bertil's father, King Gustav VI Adolf, wouldn't let him get married to a common woman, who also was a divorcée, so they were together for thirty years before they finally could get married, which only happened after his nephew, King Carl XVI Gustaf, had gotten married himself to Silvia Sommerlath. Lilian obviously accepted the situation, as unfair as it might seem these days, and stayed with Bertil anyway. And I guess it's the same thing with Carinna Axelssen. She obviously knows the situation and has accepted it.

 

[fearghas]

I agree, I wonder why HRH would marry the son of an obvious Nazi. HSH Prince Richard's father did pass away in 1944, and made these stipulations for his hopeful future grandson only, not his son. Still why does HSH Prince Gustav want the estate and fortune from someone who was a Nazi during the height of WWII?

Because it wasn't his Grandfathers estate, it is his families estate. It has been in the family for 700 years. His grandfather was just one in a very long line of men responsibale for the land, forests, castles and people who work or live on the estate.It is a full time job, like running a business. As for Carina, perhaps she doesn't need a marriage ceromony or a certificate to be secure in his love for her.

 

[Nice Nofret]

I agree, I wonder why HRH would marry the son of an obvious Nazi. HSH Prince Richard's father did pass away in 1944, and made these stipulations for his hopeful future grandson only, not his son. ...

I'm glad to say, that we are lucky enough to live in societies who do not hold children responsible for the sins of their fathers!

I don't know if his grandfather was really a Nazi or not - stipulating to marry an 'arian' woman doesn't make him a Nazi - this concept of a white race being somewhat 'better' than others existed in lots of people heads (and still does) Thanks to the Nazis it became so discredited (thank god for that) that today none is fool enough to admit it.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia married Natalia in Vienna on October 16, 1912 in a Serbian Orthodox Church. The Grand Duke wrote to his brother, the Tsar, to inform him of the marriage. Because Natalia was divorced and not of royal blood Nicholas II refused to approve it. Despite marrying a Grand Duke, Natalia was not entitled to be known as a "Grand Duchess".

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia married Natalia in Vienna on October 16, 1912 in a Serbian Orthodox Church. The Grand Duke wrote to his brother, the Tsar, to inform him of the marriage. Because Natalia was divorced and not of royal blood Nicholas II refused to approve it. Despite marrying a Grand Duke, Natalia was not entitled to be known as a "Grand Duchess".

Under Russian law she was not even married to him. Emperor Alexander III's revision to Article 188 of the imperial house law barred grand dukes and grand duchesses from marrying persons of unequal status, even morganatically. Even if Emperor Nikolai II had given his approval (which, as you said, he did not), the marriage would not have been legally recognized in Russia without first changing the law.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

I'm glad to say, that we are lucky enough to live in societies who do not hold children responsible for the sins of their fathers!

I don't know if his grandfather was really a Nazi or not - stipulating to marry an 'arian' woman doesn't make him a Nazi - this concept of a white race being somewhat 'better' than others existed in lots of people heads (and still does) Thanks to the Nazis it became so discredited (thank god for that) that today none is fool enough to admit it.

So....that rules out an olive skinned, dark haired Italian woman as well? Because an Aryan is a blue eyed blond as far as I am aware.

 

[JR76]

So....that rules out an olive skinned, dark haired Italian woman as well? Because an Aryan is a blue eyed blond as far as I am aware.

Going by the practice in use by Nazi Germany the will's definition of aryan is probably any Christian European not considered Jewish under the Nüremberg laws. Many German aristocrats married for instance Hungarian, Italian and Russian nobles at the time and I'm pretty sure that had Carina been a noble the conditions of the will would've been deemed fulfilled no matter her place of birth.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The other situation is the one that exists with Princess Benedikte of Denmarks son. He is unable to marry the lady of his choice because he will lose the inheritance from his paternal grandfather who was obviously a Nazi and stipulated in his will that his grandson must marry a lady of Aryan birth to be able to inherit.

HSH Prince Richard's father did pass away in 1944, and made these stipulations for his hopeful future grandson only, not his son.

There was no "stipulation in his will that his grandson must marry a lady of Aryan birth to be able to inherit."

His will did not contain the word "Aryan".

The requirements he specified in his testament were not only applicable to a future grandson. They applied to all his living and future testamentary heirs: sons, grandsons, nephews, daughters, etc.

The contents of Prince Gustav Albrecht's last will of 1943 were recorded in the 2019 and 2020 judgments in the court dispute over the succession to his estate. The passage in his will specifying the conditions required of male heirs ran as follows:

Die vorstehend berufenen Personen sollen nur Nacherben werden und bleiben, wenn sie im Besitz der Bürgerl. Ehrenrechte und evangelischen Glaubens sind und aus einer Ehe stammen, und wenn sie eine Ehe eingehen bzw. in einer Ehe leben, mit einer Frau, die adlig geboren ist und hinsichtlich ihrer Abstammung die gegenwärtigen Aufnahmebedingungen für die Mitgliedschaft bei der Deutschen Adelsgenossenschaft erfüllen kann. Diese für die Nacherben festgelegten Bedingungen gelten auch für den Vorerben, bedeuten also eine Einschränkung der für den Vorerben im Absatz 1 aufgeführten Bestimmungen.

Translation:

The persons appointed [as heirs] above shall be and remain reversionary heirs only if they enjoy the rights of citizenship and are of the Protestant faith and are issue of a marriage, and if they enter into a marriage or are living in a marriage, with a woman who is noble-born and, with regard to her ancestry, satisfies the current admission requirements for membership in the German Nobility Society. These conditions stipulated for the reversionary heirs apply also to the provisional heirs.

https://openjur.de/u/2340698.html
https://viewer.content-select.com/p...5074efaf5cc104c2b4cb6&frontend=1&language=deu
​

He is unable to marry the lady of his choice because he will lose the inheritance from his paternal grandfather who was obviously a Nazi

I would think that they would try and break a will, written by a Nazi, during their tenure. I, believe, his grandfather died in 1944. I don't, believe, any of us know the dynamics, that have lead to this decision. How did Princess Benedikte, marry the son of an obvious Nazi?

I agree, I wonder why HRH would marry the son of an obvious Nazi. [...] Still why does HSH Prince Gustav want the estate and fortune from someone who was a Nazi during the height of WWII?

What is it that makes all of you describe Prince Gustav Albrecht as an "obvious Nazi"?

I suppose that nearly every ethnic German who lived in Germany at the height of World War Two was technically a "Nazi", seeing how the Nazi dictatorship eventually forced compulsory membership in the National Socialist party on the general public. If that is what you (Countess and NotHRH) mean, then it follows that every descendant of a German alive during World War Two should remain unmarried and reject any family inheritance. That seems unfair to the German public.

If it is your belief that excluding non-noble-born family members in his will was "obvious Nazism", then you are sorely mistaken. Rules excluding non-noble spouses and children from inheriting family lands proliferated throughout Germany from the 15th century onward - centuries before the Nazis existed.

Another characteristic of Germany, not unrelated (in my opinion) to the previous one, was a growing obsession from the 15th c. with the concept of equality in marriages. Of course, most European monarchies show the same trend of marrying their members only within the most elevated class, which by the 16th c. means royalty of other countries. [...] What is peculiar in Germany is that dynasties tried to establish the principle that marriages that were contracted outside of this group were less valid; and, in particular, that the offspring's claims were automatically curtailed, as a matter of law.​

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/g_morganat.htm

 

[Somebody]

What were the exact admission requirements (in terms of ancestry) for membership in the German Nobility Society at the time the will was written? I assume he used that phrase to make sure that 'noble-born' was correctly interpreted.

 

[Prinsara]

What were the exact admission requirements (in terms of ancestry) for membership in the German Nobility Society at the time the will was written? I assume he used that phrase to make sure that 'noble-born' was correctly interpreted.

I think I fail to see how the German Nobility Society of the Third Reich would not have had an "Aryan requirement". Is the idea that his grandfather would have been fine with his heirs marrying whomever so long as she met the requirements of the Society at the time of marriage (it still exists now, right)?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think I fail to see how the German Nobility Society of the Third Reich would not have had an "Aryan requirement".

Yes, my amateur understanding is that any society which was allowed by the Nazi regime to openly operate in Germany in 1943 would have been required to enforce the regime's "Aryan requirements". But that is not the fault of the late Gustav Albrecht.

Is the idea that his grandfather would have been fine with his heirs marrying whomever so long as she met the requirements of the Society at the time of marriage (it still exists now, right)?

There is ambiguity in the phrase "current admission requirements" ("gegenwärtigen Aufnahmebedingungen") written by Gustav's grandfather Gustav Albrecht in his will. It could be interpreted to mean "current admission requirements at the time of the writing of the will (i.e., 1943)", but it could also be interpreted to mean "current admission requirements at the time of the marriage".

TRF poster Kataryn, who is a native German speaker and well informed about German law, believes from the context that Gustav Albrecht probably meant "current at the time of the marriage".

https://www.theroyalforums.com/foru...-3-june-2022-present-49425-3.html#post2500827

I think that is a likely interpretation because, as Kataryn also pointed out in that thread, the late Gustav Albrecht was farsighted enough to include a clause in his will stating that a three-person committee could repeal or suspend any of the stipulations in the will, if they had become outdated:

Sollte jedoch einer dieser Gesichtspunkte später den derzeitigen Verhältnissen tatsächlich widersprechen (z.B. die Forderung evangelischen Glaubens ist dadurch überholt, daß inzwischen eine christliche deutsche Reichskirche gebildet ist, nicht jedoch, wenn der Betreffende dem Katholizismus oder der 'Gottgläubigkeit' zuneigt, wenn die evang. Kirche nach wie vor besteht), so hat ein Gremium, bestehend aus dem Chef der ... Herrschaft, dem präsumtiven nächsten Nacherben in den hiesigen Besitz und dem Vorsitzenden der Vereinigung Deutscher Stammesherren zusammenzutreten und einstimmig die Aufhebung bzw. vorübergehende Suspendierung dieser Einzelbestimmung zu beschließen.​

So while he was a self-proclaimed traditionalist, it was obviously important to Gustav Albrecht that his requirements could be adapted to future changes in German society.

Yes, the Deutsche Adelsgenossenschaft (which was founded in 1874) still exists, although it was reestablished under a new name in 1949.

https://www.adel-in-deutschland.de/

 

[Prinsara]

1943 laws are not Prince Gustav Albrecht's fault. Perhaps he had to write the will a certain way in order for it to be valid and registered at the time?

Given the ambiguity, though (which a will should not have, even written under pressing circumstances, even though it was ultimately determined the clause didn't matter), I think Gustav was within his rights to potentially disseminate and support the idea that his life was being hindered by a Nazi-era relic.

Why did he not try to get the will reformed by committee?

(There is no way to know that the will was written with more benign, traditionally-classist intent, either, even if his grandfather seemed to hint he was not overly-attached to the laws of the day.)

 

[Tatiana Maria]

1943 laws are not Prince Gustav Albrecht's fault. Perhaps he had to write the will a certain way in order for it to be valid and registered at the time?

Given the ambiguity, though (which a will should not have, even written under pressing circumstances, even though it was ultimately determined the clause didn't matter), I think Gustav was within his rights to potentially disseminate and support the idea that his life was being hindered by a Nazi-era relic.

(There is no way to know that the will was written with more benign, traditionally-classist intent, either, even if his grandfather seemed to hint he was not overly-attached to the laws of the day.)

Prince Gustav (and/or whichever other member(s) of his family circle privately briefed the press and royal watchers on the will for years before the courts unsealed it) went further than that, claiming that there was an "Aryan clause" in the will itself and that his grandfather was a believer in Nazi ideology. Which claims were, at best, stretching the truth. (There may be no proof that Gustav Albrecht was not uncritically supportive of Nazism, but absence of evidence is not evidence of the contrary. And personally, I would think his spending his own money to shield local Jewish cemeteries from Nazi vandalism is reason to question the fanatical-Nazi narrative, even though it obviously does not prove anything definitive.)

It is worth noting that Gustav's and his lawyers' public statements to the media and the courts did not repeat those particular claims from the anonymous briefings.

I think Gustav was well within his rights to publicize that his life was being hindered by the choice between estate and marriage, and that he was locked into that choice due to a will written by someone who went missing in 1944. But I find his emphasis on the will being "Nazi-era" to be misleading. First, the custom in the Berleburg family (and German nobility in general) of requiring noble-noble marriages did not originate in the Nazi era but in much older family convention. Secondly, from what we know, Carina could not qualify as "noble-born" even by the most relaxed current-day standards, so their marriage was hindered no matter if one adopted the "1943" interpretation (as Gustav did) or the "at the time of the marriage, whenever that might be" interpretation of the nobility requirement.

Why did he not try to get the will reformed by committee?

Interesting question. Perhaps Gustav tried and failed? The will stipulates that the committee's decision to repeal or suspend a testamentary provision needs to be unanimous, and they can only do so if it has become incompatible with current German society (paraphrasing). Some might not consider the rule reserving the family estate for heirs who are noble on both sides to have reached the threshold (even if they personally dislike it), especially if there are other German noble families who continue to apply that approach today. Or it could be something entirely unrelated to my speculations.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

One of my books on Royal gossip claims the most dangerously inbreed royal family is the Portuguese in the 18th and 19th century. If I recall they had an uncle marrying his niece. Just the thought of it revolts my stomach. Too weird. And I believe the current pretender, Prince Duarte is married to a cousin 20 years younger and he made a comment he would like one of his small kids to marry our little Princess Leonor.
Thanks but no, thanks! I'm crossing my fingers so Leonor marries either a football (soccer) player or a Toreador. The Toreadors have the best DNA in Spain since they all marry the most beautiful women found of the model catwalks.

Prince Duarte’s family are a perfectly fine and good looking family. There’s nothing with them at all. Plus his wife isn’t from a highly ranked noble family (still noble).

 

[SirGyamfi1]

The thing is that the future king of Britain WAS in fact married to a girl who, according to your definition, was arguably even more aristocratic than the prince of Wales himself. If you would compare Diana Spencer's family tree to that of Charles, you'd find that she's related to more English kings than even Charles is!
Yet that very fact didn't prevent their marriage from eventually braking down. Or for example, princess Irene of the Netherlands who married the very royal Carlos Hugo de Bourbon Parma. Ended in divorce.

Contrast that with the by all appearances extremely successful union of King Carl Gustaf of Sweden. Queen Silvia of Sweden was a commoner until at least age 30, yet I'd have a hard time pointing out a royal consort who's better suited to her place in the fold than Silvia is.
I don't think this has anything to do whatsoever with the Swedish concept of monarchy--Silvia would in my opinion have done equally well in, say, Britain.

That said I don't necessarily disagree with you on the whole, because in a way it would diminish the overall perceived 'specialness' of the group of people we call royals. All the same, judging from what I see in the media, the job of royal consort isn't exactly rocket science. Neither is it on the scale of, say, running a global business like, for example, General Motors. The skill set it requires seems to come down to a combination of that of a Diplomat/PR-Spokesperson or politician/Social Worker. Having clean-cut looks and an interest in fellow human beings is also a requirement. Depending on the country, it would also help to have some sort of strategic vision of where you think your country should be headed, but necessary it ain't.

Now, in my view, there are millions of people who could, with some training, fit those job requirements with relative ease.
Don't forget that most of these royals have tons of help: assistants who organize your calendar, ghost writers to pen that witty-and-wise speech, stylists to put together outfits that convey thoughtfulness for the assignment while cutting a good picture, etc.

Sometimes one can wonder how much these royals actually figured out for themselves! This is why 'morganatic' marriages according to the 'German' definition, can work just fine. Question is: Do royal 'delegates', as in, 'the people', buy into whichever commoner grabs the scepter, and will they indefinitely?

Diana wasn’t more aristocratic than Charles, more British yes but not more royal as the now King Charles does descend from English Kings as well via Elizabeth Stuart (daughter of James VI and I) and Diana is an illegitimate descendant of the Stuarts so she didn’t trump Charles genealogically.


Irene of the Netherlands marriage failed because of her husband’s ridiculous and ambitious claims to Spain’s throne during the Franco reign (her husband was a Carlist claimant and the Dutch government wanted no parts of that complicated saga)

Silvia and the King of Sweden did not have an easy ride because of his cheating allegations some which have come to light and orgy parties so I wouldn’t say their marriage has been perfect.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Diana wasn’t more aristocratic than Charles, more British yes but not more royal as the now King Charles does descend from English Kings as well via Elizabeth Stuart (daughter of James VI and I) and Diana is an illegitimate descendant of the Stuarts so she didn’t trump Charles genealogically.


Irene of the Netherlands marriage failed because of her husband’s ridiculous and ambitious claims to Spain’s throne during the Franco reign (her husband was a Carlist claimant and the Dutch government wanted no parts of that complicated saga)

Silvia and the King of Sweden did not have an easy ride because of his cheating allegations some which have come to light and orgy parties so I wouldn’t say their marriage has been perfect.

Princess Irene of the Netherlands has always kept a good understanding with Prince Carlos de Bourbon de Parme. None of them is reported with a new relationship after the divorce and none of them remarried. They continued on a friendly basis.

After the end of the sede vacante of the Spanish throne and the unsuccesful electoral campaign in 1979 a deep, collossal desillusion overcame the couple. All the energy they invested in Carlism was gone. Undoubtedly it has had effects on their wellbeing and the personal relationship between Prince Carlos Hugo and Princess Irene. Maybe they thought it was wiser, in all friendship and cooperation, to end the marriage.

Until the very last moment the Duke of Parma enjoyed the closest relationship with the Royal House. After his death his coffin was transported by the Netherlands' Government's airplane from Spain to the Netherlands and he was laid-in-state in a monumental garden pavillion on the premises of Noordeinde Palace, the Queen's offical residence (picture).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Salic laws also prohibit many European nobility from passing on title and/or property usually on the female side but if commoners can provide similar attributes as described above it really depends on what the higher ranked individual values.

You are correct in relation to titles, but I don't believe there are many (if any) European countries where state law prohibits real property from being passed on to or by females. However, in many (perhaps all) European countries, it is legal for private citizens and trusts, corporations, etc., to enforce male-only succession for their private property.

What happened in Sweden is a good example of pig-headed "House Rules" bringing a dynasty to the verge of extinction in the male line.

The exclusion of princes who married "a private man's daughter" from the Swedish royal succession was not merely a private house rule. It was written into the 1810 Act of Succession, a constitutional document which only Parliament could amend.

Mette-Marit sure was a working class girl, but I'm not sure about Mary's and Maxima's backgrounds. And both queen Silvia and queen Sonja came from well-to-do families, I believe.

I believe Mette-Marit of Norway's family background is typically described as middle-class more than working-class. Máxima of the Netherlands was born into an elite Argentinean family.

So let's see... Paola was the Italian one and Fabiola was the Spanish one... It seems like Paola was born a princess, while Fabiola was born "only" as nobility.

There was a liberal number of princes and princesses within the Italian nobility. As to how distinguished their families were by the standards of the day:

My tentative understanding is that if the Italian monarchy and nobility had not been abolished in the 1940s, Paola's family background would have been regarded as good enough to become an Italian royal princess or queen by marriage and to have her sons in line to the Italian throne.

For the Spanish royal family at the time, Fabiola de Mora would not have qualified as an "equal" spouse. As the daughter of a marquess, she would have been an acceptable wife for a Spanish infante or prince, but the marriage would have been morganatic and she and her children would not have been recognized as infanta or princess, or considered eligible for the throne.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Doña Fabiola really came from a prestigious family but I agree she was not "equal enough" to marry an Infante according the old strict rules before the return of the King on the throne. Hard to imagine these days, but the "rules" of the day have all gone, so to speak. Anyone is okay, even a previously married lady like Letizia.

Doña Fabiola was a daughter of Don Gonzalo de Mora y Fernández Riera y del Olmo, 4th Marquess of Casa Riera, 2nd Count of Mora (1887-1957) and of Doña de Blanca de Aragón y Carrillo de Albornoz, Barroeta-Aldamar y Elío, 8th Marchioness of Casa Torres, 18th Viscountess of Baiguer, Countess of la Rosa de Abarca, Etc. Etc. (1892-1981).

 

[SirGyamfi1]

You are correct in relation to titles, but I don't believe there are many (if any) European countries where state law prohibits real property from being passed on to or by females. However, in many (perhaps all) European countries, it is legal for private citizens and trusts, corporations, etc., to enforce male-only succession for their private property.




The exclusion of princes who married "a private man's daughter" from the Swedish royal succession was not merely a private house rule. It was written into the 1810 Act of Succession, a constitutional document which only Parliament could amend.




I believe Mette-Marit of Norway's family background is typically described as middle-class more than working-class. Máxima of the Netherlands was born into an elite Argentinean family.




There was a liberal number of princes and princesses within the Italian nobility. As to how distinguished their families were by the standards of the day:

My tentative understanding is that if the Italian monarchy and nobility had not been abolished in the 1940s, Paola's family background would have been regarded as good enough to become an Italian royal princess or queen by marriage and to have her sons in line to the Italian throne.

For the Spanish royal family at the time, Fabiola de Mora would not have qualified as an "equal" spouse. As the daughter of a marquess, she would have been an acceptable wife for a Spanish infante or prince, but the marriage would have been morganatic and she and her children would not have been recognized as infanta or princess, or considered eligible for the throne.

Considering the fact that the some of the Savoys (the Aosta branch and in one case the main branch) married a Princess from the Princely d’Arenberg family (a mediatized and formerly reigning family from the Duchy of Arenberg, belonging to the Belgian, German and French nobility), a Princess from the formerly reigning house of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, and one of the Aosta Princes married a Princess from the Merode family (a prominent but non-reigning noble family). I think that Paola would not be a problem considering her family were from one of the most prestigious families of the South of Italy (one of the seven most important houses of the Kingdom of Naples) and considering the matches some latter Savoy Princes have made, Paola would have been more than perfect.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Princess Irene of the Netherlands has always kept a good understanding with Prince Carlos de Bourbon de Parme. None of them is reported with a new relationship after the divorce and none of them remarried. They continued on a friendly basis.

After the end of the sede vacante of the Spanish throne and the unsuccesful electoral campaign in 1979 a deep, collossal desillusion overcame the couple. All the energy they invested in Carlism was gone. Undoubtedly it has had effects on their wellbeing and the personal relationship between Prince Carlos Hugo and Princess Irene. Maybe they thought it was wiser, in all friendship and cooperation, to end the marriage.

Until the very last moment the Duke of Parma enjoyed the closest relationship with the Royal House. After his death his coffin was transported by the Netherlands' Government's airplane from Spain to the Netherlands and he was laid-in-state in a monumental garden pavillion on the premises of Noordeinde Palace, the Queen's offical residence (picture).

Thank you adding this, I thought there was more to the failure marriage than just the Carlist claims and all.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Doña Fabiola really came from a prestigious family but I agree she was not "equal enough" to marry an Infante according the old strict rules before the return of the King on the throne. Hard to imagine these days, but the "rules" of the day have all gone, so to speak. Anyone is okay, even a previously married lady like Letizia.

Doña Fabiola was a daughter of Don Gonzalo de Mora y Fernández Riera y del Olmo, 4th Marquess of Casa Riera, 2nd Count of Mora (1887-1957) and of Doña de Blanca de Aragón y Carrillo de Albornoz, Barroeta-Aldamar y Elío, 8th Marchioness of Casa Torres, 18th Viscountess of Baiguer, Countess of la Rosa de Abarca, Etc. Etc. (1892-1981).

Considering some of the matches some of sons of King Alfonso made not even to nobles, I’d say Fabiola would have been a great match. Not to mention, Queen Victoria Eugenie who was a Battenberg.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Considering some of the matches some of sons of King Alfonso made not even to nobles, I’d say Fabiola would have been a great match. Not to mention, Queen Victoria Eugenie who was a Battenberg.

A "great match" was not the same as an equal match under the old laws. Even though Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg was already a British royal (HH) by birth, King Edward VII elevated her to HRH ahead of the marriage to remove any doubt that she met the Spanish monarchy's then strict equal-marriage requirement. Fabiola would not have met the standards. She would probably have been welcomed into the family, but formally, she would have been treated as a morganatic wife.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Besides, the House of Hannover dealt with a surname switch when it became Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, why should Bernadotte fret?

Neither Hannover nor Saxe-Coburg-Gotha were ever used as surnames by the British royal family. Even the names "House of Hanover" and "House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha" were not applied to the British royal family in those days.

I do think the idea of morganatic marriages is ridiculous in this day and age, most especially since those former royal and princely families are legally commoners who just happpen to have an interesting set of ancestors. I suppose for them it is an attept at hanging on to whatever glimmer of royalty they can. I doubt a reigning royal family could ever get away with such a thing. Their people would probably be quite upset at such an idea in the 21st century.

But daughters can inherit private property, money, paintings etc.......it is just in most (but not all) cases they cannot inherit the peerage. I dont think they will earn a lot of sympathy from the public by claiming they are hard done by

So, according to you, "the people" would find it "ridiculous" to deny men the "glimmer of royalty" on the basis of their voluntary choices, yet they would have little sympathy for women being denied official, substantive positions because of nothing more than their sex.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

A "great match" was not the same as an equal match under the old laws. Even though Princess Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg was already a British royal (HH) by birth, King Edward VII elevated her to HRH ahead of the marriage to remove any doubt that she met the Spanish monarchy's then strict equal-marriage requirement. Fabiola would not have met the standards. She would probably have been welcomed into the family, but formally, she would have been treated as a morganatic wife.

Genealogically and socially speaking, Victoria Eugenie wouldn’t be a better match than Fabiola. Also Queen Maria Christina wasn’t initially happy with her sons choice but relented because of his insistence on marrying her. Also having a style of HH doesn’t necessarily make an equal marriage somehow that seemed to change things.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Genealogically and socially speaking, Victoria Eugenie wouldn’t be a better match than Fabiola. Also Queen Maria Christina wasn’t initially happy with her sons choice but relented because of his insistence on marrying her. Also having a style of HH doesn’t necessarily make an equal marriage somehow that seemed to change things.

If you read my original post, it was about the equal-marriage laws and standards of the Spanish monarchy (before the 1978 constitution). It is a historical fact that Victoria Eugenie, like other royals from reigning families, was counted as equal, and that children of non-royal Spanish nobles (comparable to Fabiola) were not. You may not agree with those rules, but they were what they were.

Because you quoted a post replying to my comment, I assumed you were continuing the discussion of Spanish historical facts, thus my correction. I see now that you are discussing your own personal opinions about what makes a "good match" or what you personally think "makes an equal marriage". You are entitled to your personal beliefs and I have no wish to debate you about them.

Victoria Eugenie was elevated to HRH. She was already an HH from birth.