English and British Royal Marriages

[Iluvbertie]

I don't think that marrying commoners would be the death sentence for the British royals. Perhaps somewhere on the continent it is looked down upon, but there has never really been much of a demand for royal-only brides in the UK. The closest thing was the importation of a German-style monarchy under the early Hanoverians (and with all their affairs and carrying on, I doubt there was too much respect for married life beyond Queens Caroline and Charlotte, who didn't rank too highly by birth, themselves). English monarchs have most often married members of the British nobility (who, unless peeresses in their own right, are commoners). So a Kate or Chelsea wouldn't exactly signal the end of monarchy in Britain.

I have been doing some research and thought you might be interested to know that before Charles married Diana the last acknowledged either heir apparent or monarch who actually married a non-royal personage was Henry VII.

Going in reverse order, and only dealing with the heir apparent and/or monarch at the time of their marriage these are the marriages:

Edward VII married Princess Alexandra of Denmark
Queen Victoria married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
George IV married Princess Caroline of Brunswick
George III married Princess Charlotte of Mecklingburg-Strelitz
Charles II married Princess Catherine of Braganza
Charles I married Princess Henrietta of France
Mary I married Philip II of Spain
Henry VIII married Princess Katherine of Aragon
Henry VII married Elizabeth Woodville.

So since the late 1400s until the late 1900s the monarch or heir apparent who married did so to someone of royal birth.

Isn't it amazing though how many of the monarchs didn't marry when they were either the monarch or heir apparent but even then most of them conducted royal marriages.

Edward VI - didn't marry
Elizabeth I - didn't marry
James I and VI - Princess Anne of Denmark
Mary II - married William of Orange and shared the throne with her
Anne - married Prince George of Denmark
George I - married Doreathea of Celle (daughter of a Duke born an HH)
George II - married Princess Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach
William IV - married Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meinengen
George V - married Princess Mary of Teck (was 2nd in line at the time and therefore not heir apparent)


That list leaves James II and George VI as the only monarchs who married non-royal spouses since Henry VIII. James IIs first wife was Anne Hyde but his second was Princess Mary of Modena and thus a royal wife. George VI's spouse was the redoubtable Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons.

To say that they British royals haven't been as insisting on royal spouses doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Since Henry VII married Elizabeth of York there have been 22 monarchs - 2 never married, 2 married more than once and even then of those 8 wives 3 were royal, thus excluding Henry VIII's multiple wives only 2 spouses since the late 1400s have been non-royal.

 

[Vasaborg]

Anne Hyde

Anne Hyde, wife of James II? Charles II was king when they married, and Anne was an English commoner.

She was the daughter of Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon.

 

[MAfan]

George V - married Princess Mary of Teck (was 2nd in line at the time and therefore not heir apparent)

They married in 1893, and he already was second in the line of succession, since his brother Albert Victor had died the year before.

 

[Iluvbertie]

She was the daughter of Edward Hyde, Earl of Clarendon.

And still a commoner - just as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons and Diana Spencer were commoners.

By the way - you attributed your quote incorrecty to Ella Kay when it was in my post.

 

[Iluvbertie]

They married in 1893, and he already was second in the line of succession, since his brother Albert Victor had died the year before.

I said he was second in line and the section of my post that you quoted even says that I said he was second in line.

Second in line is NOT the heir apparent.

At the time of his marriage the heir apparent was his father - The Prince of Wales.

Just as now - Charles is the heir apparent and William is second in line.

 

[Vasaborg]

Quotes

And still a commoner - just as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons and Diana Spencer were commoners.

By the way - you attributed your quote incorrecty to Ella Kay when it was in my post.

Since i am only a member a few days, im sure you will forgive me.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Since i am only a member a few days, im sure you will forgive me.

I hope you don't think I was having a go at you or anything like that.

I was, I hope, only pointing out that there had been a misappropriation of the quote.

We all make mistakes - me more than most people I know.

Of course I 'forgive' you and I hope that you will really enjoy your time here.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

I have been doing some research and thought you might be interested to know that before Charles married Diana the last acknowledged either heir apparent or monarch who actually married a non-royal personage was Henry VII.

Going in reverse order, and only dealing with the heir apparent and/or monarch at the time of their marriage these are the marriages:

Edward VII married Princess Alexandra of Denmark
Queen Victoria married Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha
George IV married Princess Caroline of Brunswick
George III married Princess Charlotte of Mecklingburg-Strelitz
Charles II married Princess Catherine of Braganza
Charles I married Princess Henrietta of France
Mary I married Philip II of Spain
Henry VIII married Princess Katherine of Aragon
Henry VII married Elizabeth Woodville.

So since the late 1400s until the late 1900s the monarch or heir apparent who married did so to someone of royal birth.

Isn't it amazing though how many of the monarchs didn't marry when they were either the monarch or heir apparent but even then most of them conducted royal marriages.

Edward VI - didn't marry
Elizabeth I - didn't marry
James I and VI - Princess Anne of Denmark
Mary II - married William of Orange and shared the throne with her
Anne - married Prince George of Denmark
George I - married Doreathea of Celle (daughter of a Duke born an HH)
George II - married Princess Caroline of Brandenburg-Ansbach
William IV - married Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meinengen
George V - married Princess Mary of Teck (was 2nd in line at the time and therefore not heir apparent)


That list leaves James II and George VI as the only monarchs who married non-royal spouses since Henry VIII. James IIs first wife was Anne Hyde but his second was Princess Mary of Modena and thus a royal wife. George VI's spouse was the redoubtable Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons.

To say that they British royals haven't been as insisting on royal spouses doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Since Henry VII married Elizabeth of York there have been 22 monarchs - 2 never married, 2 married more than once and even then of those 8 wives 3 were royal, thus excluding Henry VIII's multiple wives only 2 spouses since the late 1400s have been non-royal.

Actually, British royals have not insisted on royal spouses, and the first list bears that out.

Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, was not a descendant of a King and therefore was not royal. His father, grandfathers and great-grandfathers on both sides, were all Dukes. The fact that he held the title of a German prince does not make him royal. In Germany, all the children of Dukes were considered 'princes' of their house. This was due to the structure of German nobility.

Caroline of Brunswick was the daughter of the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel and Princess Augusta Frederika of Wales. Her paternal grandfather was also a Duke, married to Princess Philippine Charlotte of Prussia. She may not be definitively 'royal' by virtue of the fact that her relationship to the King of Great Britain and the King of Prussia is through the female line.

Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz was also the daughter of a German Duke. In fact, her lineage is quite remote from any royal house. All her ancestors were solidly princes, dukes or counts. She was of ducal and princely blood, but not royal. The only kings in her ancestry were two of her 4th great-grandfathers, Gustav I of Sweden and Frederik I of Denmark and Norway.

You are correct, however, about the royal status of Alexandra of Denmark, Catherine of Braganza, Henrietta of France, Philip II of Spain and Catherine of Aragon. They were all children of Europe's reigning houses at the time of their marriages, with the exception of Philip II, who was already a reigning monarch.

In the second list, except for Anne of Denmark, William of Orange, and George of Denmark, all of the marriages again were to ducal German houses, and not to royals.

I suppose the royal status of William of Orange could technically be debated, since his was a princely house, but the House of Orange were rulers, and once he was crowned with Mary II, he became royal in any case.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Incidentally, Mary of Modena, too, was the daughter of the Duke of Modena and his wife Laura Martinozzi, who had no title at all, although she was born into Italian nobility. Mary of Modena was not of royal blood, and therefore was not royal, although she carried the title of 'princess' as the daughter of a Duke.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

I wonder how "Scottish" the Queen Mum really was.

There are some sources that say she was really born in England (Hertfordshire?) and there was a considerable amount of intermarriage between the Scottish and English aristocracy.

Have I created a firestorm?

I would say that Elizabeth Angela Marguerite Bowes-Lyon, the Queen Mother, is about half Scots and half English.

Her mother was English, the granddaughter of William Henry Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland, and his wife Dorothy (nee Cavendish), daughter of the 4th Duke of Devonshire.

The Duke of Portland added the surname Cavendish to his when they married, and his great-grandfather was from the Netherlands.

The Queen Mother is also descended from the Earls of Oxford and Mortimer, the Earls of Gainsborough and the Duke of Newcastle.

Obviously, her paternal side is Scots, with her father being the 14th Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne.

 

[Marsel]

I have been doing some research and thought you might be interested to know that before Charles married Diana the last acknowledged either heir apparent or monarch who actually married a non-royal personage was Henry VII.
...
Henry VII married Elizabeth Woodville.

Elizabeth Woodville was Henry VII's mother in law, not wife. Henry VII was married to Elizabeth York, King Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville's daughter and York heiress to the throne.

The main difference between the British Royal Family and most other Royal Families is the absence of the idea of morganatic marriages. In theory, British Monarchs, Princes and Princesses could marry anyone they wanted (as long as the Monarch's approval was sought and received), unlike French (Louis XIV and his second, morganatic wife), Russian (where even some of the Royal Families, like Bagrations, weren't good enough for the Grand Duke and Duchesses) and many other Families.
However the British obviously preferred marrying fellow Royals, for it was a good opportunity for alliances and usually brought impressive dowries.
Duty was far more important than love, unless you were Henry VIII, of course.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Might sound like a dumb question but I always read how Lady Diana Spencer was the first English Woman to Wed and Hier to the throne in 300 years was not the Queen Mother and English Woman. Does any one know what is ment by this? Thanks in advance ....

Diana Spencer was the first English woman to marry an heir to the throne in 300 years. That is a correct statement, as Charles was The Prince of Wales at the time of their marriage.

Elizabeth, the Queen Mother, was Scots and English, but she was never married to The Prince of Wales. George VI never held this title, and was only King because his brother abdicated.

Before that, marriages had been made between Britain and the royal and ducal houses on the continent, since the time of George I.

The only exception was George IV, who married Maria Anne FitzHerbert when he was The Prince of Wales in Sep 1785, but their marriage was deemed invalid by English Civil Law, even though Pope Pius VII declared it was valid. Had it been allowed to stand, The Prince of Wales would not have been able to inherit the Crown, because Maria was Roman Catholic.

So the last valid marriage between a British royal and an English woman was the marriage of James II to Anne Hyde in 1660. But he was not The Prince of Wales, nor at that time was he heir to the throne. He was the Duke of York when they married.

 

[Warren]

Albert of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, was not a descendant of a King and therefore was not royal. His father, grandfathers and great-grandfathers on both sides, were all Dukes. The fact that he held the title of a German prince does not make him royal. In Germany, all the children of Dukes were considered 'princes' of their house. This was due to the structure of German nobility.

Welcome to the Forums HM Queen Catherine, and thanks for your contributions to the historical topics.

Regarding the 'royalness' of the German spouses, the usage of "royal" in this context is descriptive rather than technical. Prior to 1805 the only true "royals" in what is now Germany would have been the Prussians as Prussia was the only Kingdom. When speaking of the marriages, it's just easier to refer to the reigning Ducal and Princely families as 'royal' rather than use something like 'equal', which is a Germanic concept in itself. The alternative is to refer to 'royal-ducal' or 'royal-princely' marriages, which sort of takes the sheen off it.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

Welcome to the Forums HM Queen Catherine, and thanks for your contributions to the historical topics.

Regarding the 'royalness' of the German spouses, the usage of "royal" in this context is descriptive rather than technical. Prior to 1805 the only true "royals" in what is now Germany would have been the Prussians as Prussia was the only Kingdom. When speaking of the marriages, it's just easier to refer to the reigning Ducal and Princely families as 'royal' rather than use something like 'equal', which is a Germanic concept in itself. The alternative is to refer to 'royal-ducal' or 'royal-princely' marriages, which sort of takes the sheen off it.

Thank you very much Warren, for your kind welcome. I hope all of my contributions will be helpful to others on this forum, and as a student of British and European history, I am very excited to have found it!

I do understand what you mean in terms of the usage of "royal" being descriptive, but I felt it should be explained in the technical sense, so there is no misunderstanding about the status of those British marriages. Saying they were "royal" marriages is not technically accurate, although the titles do make them seem more glamorous, I must admit.

Germany, of course, is different from most other European countries in their concept and structure of nobility. It is often confusing and often misunderstood, especially when dealing with the various Ducal Houses.

True royals prior to the establishment of the Kingdom of Prussia in 1805, would have been invested in the family of the Holy Roman Emperor, who was also King of the Germans and King of Italy. The German Empire started with Charlemagne, who was crowned Emperor of the Romans in 800 AD.

Of course, the Kingdom of Germany was never entirely hereditary, and the "Kings of the Romans", as they were styled, were elected by the leading nobility. To confuse matters even more, the "Kings of the Romans" were not always crowned as Emperors.

But I would argue that the Imperial ruling house of the Holy Roman Empire were the true royals of Germany prior to 1805. The most recent ruling houses being the House of Hapsburg-Lorraine, the House of Lorraine, the House of Wittelsbach and the House of Hapsburg.

The only other royal house of Germany prior to 1805 was the Kingdom of Bohemia, which was established in 1212, and was the most powerful state of the Holy Roman Empire. In the case of Bohemia, it was a kingdom in its own right and an independent member of the Holy Roman Empire. It later became part of the Austrian Empire, and was finally dissolved in 1918.

Since 1805 and the establishment of the Kingdom of Prussia, the other royal houses were from the Kingdom of Württemberg, the Kingdom of Bavaria, the Kingdom of Hanover, and the Kingdom of Saxony. In that respect, it could also be argued that the Grand Duchies of Hesse and Baden were also royal houses.

I know its complicated.. I don't know how German students ever keep it all straight in history class! But since I'm married to a German myself, I have a great resource when I have questions!

 

[iowabelle]

If you expand the definition of heir to include princes of the blood closely related to the monarch, you'll find that George III's brothers and sons also married Englishwomen or Scotswomen (brother the Duke of Gloucester married Maria Walpole, the Dowager Countess of Waldegrave; brother the Duke of Cumberland allegedly married Olive Wilmot and later Anne Horton -- this marriage inspired the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 to keep undesirables out of the family; and sons The Prince of Wales, Mrs. Fitzherbert; Duke of Clarence, later William IV, married Mrs. Jordan; Duke of Sussex, who married Lady Augusta Murray-- possibly Scottish in origin?-- and Lady Cecilia Buggin).

Admittedly, most of these marriages were made in violation of the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, and many of these involved a Catholic partner, so they were not generally recognized.

 

[HM Queen Catherine]

You're right Iowabelle, there were plenty of British women that married into the Royal Family by way of younger sons.

The original question/statement I was responding to, was specifically about the marriages of heirs apparent and/or reigning monarchs. George IV does fall within this category, since he married Maria FitzHerbert while he was still Prince of Wales.

Had their marriage been allowed, it would have changed history, and it was obvious that their love endured in spite of the dissolution of their marriage.

 

[Ella Kay]

And still a commoner - just as Elizabeth Bowes-Lyons and Diana Spencer were commoners.

By the way - you attributed your quote incorrecty to Ella Kay when it was in my post.

Actually, I believe it was mine -- back at the bottom of the first page.

 

[Grace Angel]

Did William IV and Mrs. Jordan ever legally marry? I know she was his mistress for many years, ansd basically his common law wife, but I don't recall that they ever legally married.

 

[Ella Kay]

I don't think they ever married, though they produced many, many children (ten or more). I think I remember reading that George III was relatively blase about the relationship, but I don't think that William IV ever took steps to try to make her his wife instead of his mistress.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Did William IV and Mrs. Jordan ever legally marry? I know she was his mistress for many years, ansd basically his common law wife, but I don't recall that they ever legally married.

They never legally married.

To contract a legal marriage they would have needed the consent of George III or Parliament.

When William finally made a legal marriage (he had the consent of his brother, The Prince Regent) it was when it became a necessity to beget a successor for the throne and by then Mrs Jordan was past child bearing age and the children already born couldn't become heirs to the throne as they weren't the product of a legal marriage.

 

[Grace Angel]

Yes, I had thought they never went through any sort of ceremony. You can I suppose use the term common law wife to describe the role of Mrs. Jourdan in William IV's life, but she was basically a mistress more than anything.

 

[lac2003]

Diana was actually more English than Charles. Camilla is more English than Charles. Nationality in the royal houses is pretty fluid. Victoria and Edward VII supposedly spoke with German accents, and the Hanovers before them certainly were German. The Duke of Edinburgh is a Greek Prince not a British one, but he's not Greek!
Oh, my husband, born and bred in Scotland, is a Scotsman. He's not Scotch, Scottish, or (heaven forbid!) British!!

 

[Skydragon]

He is both Scottish and British.

 

[lac2003]

Not according to him, he's not! Of course, this is a man who wanted to have a circle of Scottish soil surrounding the bed when I gave birth to our son in Germany!
The worst is when we're in the states and people ask him about being English or Irish!!
If Prince Harry had married Chelsey Davies, would he have been the first senior member of the royal family to marry a Zimbabwean?

 

[Vasillisos Markos]

Nationalism is alive and well! What if Scotland, which I believe has its own Parliament, breaks away from the United Kingdom and needs its own ruler-- maybe it can be Prince Andrew once the Queen dies and then the throne will pass down through his line.

 

[Ella Kay]

If Prince Harry had married Chelsey Davies, would he have been the first senior member of the royal family to marry a Zimbabwean?

I would imagine so. In fact, I can't recall any senior British royal ever marrying an African, though I could be wrong.

 

[wbenson]

There have only been Zimbabweans since 1980, so there haven't been very many royals that could have married a Zimbabwean.

 

[Wisteria]

Oh, my husband, born and bred in Scotland, is a Scotsman. He's not Scotch, Scottish, or (heaven forbid!) British!!

I don´t want to go off subject but I can´t help remark on this Scot and Scotch adjective. Nowadays Scotch is only used for whisky but I have heard from my grandmother that when she was a young girl her grandfather, who came from Edinburgh, always referred to himself as Scotch and everything referring to his homeland as Scotch. When he did a tour of duty in Australia his son attended a school called Scotch College. Does that mean the Scottish adjective is just a fashion?

 

[Mermaid1962]

A professor of mine from Scotland (circa 1980) once said that Scottish was more of an English term for the Scots, but that Scotch was acceptable. Perhaps these terms do go in and out of fashion.

I don´t want to go off subject but I can´t help remark on this Scot and Scotch adjective. Nowadays Scotch is only used for whisky but I have heard from my grandmother that when she was a young girl her grandfather, who came from Edinburgh, always referred to himself as Scotch and everything referring to his homeland as Scotch. When he did a tour of duty in Australia his son attended a school called Scotch College. Does that mean the Scottish adjective is just a fashion?

 

[Jacknch]

Yes, I think the word "Scotch" is an old fashioned term used a long time ago. I'm remember watching a film many years ago where one of the characters announced that her neighbour was a "Scotchwoman". I think that these days you're either Scottish or a Scotsman. As Scotch is associated with whisky, I wonder if the term should now refer to objects (as opposed to people) that have been made or come from Scotland.