Opposition to Royal Marriages

[SirGyamfi1]

Prince Gorm of Denmark and Prince Carl Johan of Sweden were mentioned as possible husbands for Princess Elizabeth.
http://www.trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/39029951

Lol, the newspapers in those days with all their suggestions and rumors.

 

[Kataryn]

My great-grand and grandmothers were both women, otherwise my name would include "Countess of" in today's Germany. My cousin from the male-line still has the family name, but without any title attached to it because she grew up in the now Polish Krakau (once another town under Austrian rule) and the communists did not accept noble titles. We both have noble and commoner ancestry but are considered commoners. Which is completely normal, as our whole countries have only commoner citizen, nobility is not a social class anymore, despite a lot of society believe the holder of noble names to be noble - different question here.



But "Royalty" is still a different class in the countries that have a monarchy as their form of state. To mingle with the commoners would mean to leave the Royal class behind for all beyond the heir to the throne and the monarch and even that person would not longer be untouchable by his Royal ancestry. Think Crown Princess Victoria - she is a Royal and she will be queen, but part of her will always be a commoner. It won't happen with Estelle or Carl Philip's kids but I guess Madeleine's children won't have that claim to Royal Swedish blood for their children, when they marry.



I guess that was what the Royals of former years feared. That not your blood counted but the question of whether your grandchildren would be born via the male or female line. The times were definately over where you could just create a noble out of your daughter's choice of commoner husband (apart from Princess Margaret's choice to marry Anthony Armstrong-Jones; but then the British used their aristocracy differently to the Scandinavian Royals).


Plus they saw how a prince marrying a commoner would leave the child with only one set of Royal relatives and a former princess's child without useful relations apart from the direct relatives. The next generation after that, the children would have much more commoner blood than the "Blood Royal" and even one more generation would make the total commoners, so their blood would be "lost" in a way to the circle of the Royal families.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There is a problem I foresee in the European monarchies in the coming decades, namely that requirements to obtain approval for marriages of persons in line to the throne will no longer fulfill their current primary purpose - preventing an unsuitable person from representing the country as its queen consort or prince consort - now that unmarried partners are increasingly accepted even at the highest official and diplomatic levels of representation in Europe.

I will illustrate my point with an imaginary scenario involving the British royal family because, firstly, the majority of posters on this forum are probably familiar with the Prince Andrew controversy, which made it obvious that persons who have close ties to sex traffickers are regarded as unsuitable to represent Britain and its monarchy, and secondly, a recent British prime minister (Boris Johnson) was permitted to live with his then-girlfriend in his official residence and to have her as accompany him on official engagements before they were engaged or married.

So as an entirely hypothetical example, imagine a scenario in which Prince George of Wales, who is expected to succeed one day as King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, grows up to date a woman known to be involved in sex trafficking. On the basis of the Andrew precedent, the British public would be angered at the idea of the sex-trafficker girlfriend marrying George and becoming their Queen. But if the couple did marry, that worst-case scenario could be avoided. Simply withholding official consent to the marriage would automatically exclude George from the kingship, and thus exclude his sex-trafficker girlfriend from becoming Queen.

But there is a loophole: If the couple never legally married, the sex-trafficker girlfriend would not be called Princess; however, on the basis of the Boris Johnson precedent, she could live with Prince George in the royal palace and accompany him on all his official engagements, including state dinners, official tours, and so on. Once George became King, his sex-trafficker girlfriend would represent Britain at the highest levels as she accompanied him on state visits, international summits, etc. The result would be that, despite the British public's disapproval of having people involved in sex trafficking carrying out official duties, they would have a sex trafficker acting as the first lady of their country and being treated as queen consort in all but name, and there would be nothing they could do about it.

It doesn't seem right to me that European royal couples could circumvent public opinion in this manner, but that seems to be the current legal situation.

 

[Alison H]

I can't see any way that this would happen. Carrie Symonds, as she was then, wasn't objectionable in any way. There is no way that a sex trafficker would be allowed to carry out official duties. Foreign heads of state would presumably not receive them, nor would local dignitaries.

 

[Toledo]

Lol, the newspapers in those days with all their suggestions and rumors.

From the article:

What is accepted as official recognition that Princess Elizabeth is growing up is the first public appearance of comment on her dress. Recently it was noted that her stockings were champagne coloured, and also that her most recent frocks and coats were longer, and that a well-tilted beret style of hat with a gold brooch had displaced the elastic banded halo bonnet which Princess Margaret still wears.

Should we take a time machine and post this on Royal Forums 1939?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

There is a problem I foresee in the European monarchies in the coming decades, namely that requirements to obtain approval for marriages of persons in line to the throne will no longer fulfill their current primary purpose - preventing an unsuitable person from representing the country as its queen consort or prince consort - now that unmarried partners are increasingly accepted even at the highest official and diplomatic levels of representation in Europe.

I will illustrate my point with an imaginary scenario involving the British royal family because, firstly, the majority of posters on this forum are probably familiar with the Prince Andrew controversy, which made it obvious that persons who have close ties to sex traffickers are regarded as unsuitable to represent Britain and its monarchy, and secondly, a recent British prime minister (Boris Johnson) was permitted to live with his then-girlfriend in his official residence and to have her as accompany him on official engagements before they were engaged or married.

So as an entirely hypothetical example, imagine a scenario in which Prince George of Wales, who is expected to succeed one day as King of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, grows up to date a woman known to be involved in sex trafficking. On the basis of the Andrew precedent, the British public would be angered at the idea of the sex-trafficker girlfriend marrying George and becoming their Queen. But if the couple did marry, that worst-case scenario could be avoided. Simply withholding official consent to the marriage would automatically exclude George from the kingship, and thus exclude his sex-trafficker girlfriend from becoming Queen.

But there is a loophole: If the couple never legally married, the sex-trafficker girlfriend would not be called Princess; however, on the basis of the Boris Johnson precedent, she could live with Prince George in the royal palace and accompany him on all his official engagements, including state dinners, official tours, and so on. Once George became King, his sex-trafficker girlfriend would represent Britain at the highest levels as she accompanied him on state visits, international summits, etc. The result would be that, despite the British public's disapproval of having people involved in sex trafficking carrying out official duties, they would have a sex trafficker acting as the first lady of their country and being treated as queen consort in all but name, and there would be nothing they could do about it.

It doesn't seem right to me that European royal couples could circumvent public opinion in this manner, but that seems to be the current legal situation.

Maybe the Netherlands is unique in this as any marriage of a member of the Royal House (to remain in said House) requires a parliamentary debate, concluded with a vote on a proposed Bill of Consent for the intended union.

In that light the hypothesis of an unmarried co-habitating partner (or their fruit) becoming a member of the Royal House is for so far impossible as there is no Bill of Consent approved by Parliament and assented by the King. As the Cabinet is responsible for the King, I doubt they would allow a half in-half out situation that a partner is deep into the Royal House without a formal status while they are answerable for the situation at the Court.

The other monarchies seem not to have this parliamentary mechanism, it seems in the discretion of the monarch (read: the Government) to approve or not. Maybe your theoretic situation could arise there but it remains highly unlikely, I must say.

 

[Denville]

I cant imagine that a sex trafficker would be allowed iether to marry or live with a senior royal in any monarchy in Europe or elsewhere....

 

[Furienna]

I can't see any way that this would happen. Carrie Symonds, as she was then, wasn't objectionable in any way. There is no way that a sex trafficker would be allowed to carry out official duties. Foreign heads of state would presumably not receive them, nor would local dignitaries.

And I would think that the public would be outraged as well.
So there's no way that George could fullfil his duties with a scandalous partner on his side.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

And I would think that the public would be outraged as well.
So there's no way that George could fullfil his duties with a scandalous partner on his side.

Well, the King once had a "scandalous" partner who is now the Queen-Consort...

 

[Blog Real]

Well, the King once had a "scandalous" partner who is now the Queen-Consort...

But Camilla is not a murderer, a drug dealer, she has never been convicted of justice. Charles and Camilla have a private and somewhat controversial history, but she has never done anything reprehensible that would make the marriage unfeasible.

 

[Denville]

Well, the King once had a "scandalous" partner who is now the Queen-Consort...

I cant believe you could say that. How is a woman who had an affair and then remarried, remotely like a sex trafficker?

 

[Friedrich Karl II]

I can't imaginate that court would allow anyone criminal living with future/current monarch.

Well, the King once had a "scandalous" partner who is now the Queen-Consort...

You surely realise that Camilla is completely different case compared to some hypothetical human trafficker as partner of future king.

 

[Prinsara]

You surely realise that Camilla is completely different case compared to some hypothetical human trafficker as partner of future king.

From a country where the Queen is the daughter of someone who was found to be entangled in human rights abuses to the extent that it caused great controversy and government investigation, and a marriage was only not forbidden because she herself was not personally involved, perhaps not.

(I don't find Camilla comparable to either the Maxima controversy or a hypothetical one.)

 

[Lilyflo]

Well, the King once had a "scandalous" partner who is now the Queen-Consort...

Really? Most of our kings have led a 'scandalous' life and it didn't prevent them from reigning as monarchs. Camilla's 'scandal' is small fry compared to their serial adultery, plus she's only Queen Consort, not the monarch.

 

[Denville]

Really? Most of our kings have led a 'scandalous' life and it didn't prevent them from reigning as monarchs. Camilla's 'scandal' is small fry compared to their serial adultery, plus she's only Queen Consort, not the monarch.

Most kings have been adulterers yes but that's hardly the same as a criminal like a sex trafficker.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I cant believe you could say that. How is a woman who had an affair and then remarried, remotely like a sex trafficker?

Of course I do not consider Queen Camilla scandalous, but lots of others did consider her a scandalous breaker of a royal marriage whom ruthlessly shoved all and everything aside to become Queen herself. Even the Duke of Sussex made this suggestion.

 

[Denville]

the poster who brought up this issue referred to criminals like sex traffickers not people who were ordinarily selfish or who had affairs.

 

[muriel]

Even the Duke of Sussex made this suggestion.

Now that is a credible source, if ever there was one!

Previously Harry had said he loved Camilla to bits.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4246518.stm

 

[Denville]

Now that is a credible source, if ever there was one!

Previously Harry had said he loved Camilla to bits.

BBC NEWS | UK | Harry 'loves wonderful Camilla'

Very true. This issue was raised as the idea that someone guilty of crime or very serious ill doing, could become the live in partner of a royal..and IMO, it simply would not happen in any European monarchy.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

You surely realise that Camilla is completely different case compared to some hypothetical human trafficker as partner of future king.

I cant believe you could say that. How is a woman who had an affair and then remarried, remotely like a sex trafficker?

the poster who brought up this issue referred to criminals like sex traffickers not people who were ordinarily selfish or who had affairs.

Please note that Duc_et_Pair was not replying to my original post which used a hypothetical sex trafficker girlfriend as an example. He was responding to a comment which merely referred to "a scandalous partner".

From a country where the Queen is the daughter of someone who was found to be entangled in human rights abuses to the extent that it caused great controversy and government investigation, and a marriage was only not forbidden because she herself was not personally involved, perhaps not.

I believe the investigations never found Queen Máxima's father to have been entangled in human rights abuses. The great controversy stemmed from the fact that he served as a minister in a government which indisputably was entangled in human rights abuses.

 

[Denville]

The original question was, as far as I can recall, if a royal was involved with someone who was involved in criminal activity, could he keep up a relationship with the person, as a live in partner, even if not given permission to marry the said person.. i.e. the royal had wriggle room to live with his partner even if he or she had a very dubious past. Scandalous referred to serious wrongdoing.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The original question was, as far as I can recall, if a royal was involved with someone who was involved in criminal activity, could he keep up a relationship with the person, as a live in partner, even if not given permission to marry the said person.. i.e. the royal could live with his partner even if he or she had a very dubious past. Scandalous referred to serious wrongdoing.

Not exactly. My original post can be read on the previous page of this thread: https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f235/opposition-to-royal-marriages-45477-10.html#post2533913

My suggestion was mainly that a European royal whose partner would - for any reason - not be approved to marry into the position of queen consort/princess consort/prince consort could circumvent this by simply cohabitating with the unacceptable partner in the palace, bringing them as their partner to state events, etc. since this would not require anyone's position.

I did not use words such as criminal, scandalous, or wrongdoing because my post was not about the reasons (fair or unfair) why a partner might be regarded as unacceptable, but the fact that royal marriage laws designed to prevent an unacceptable partner from occupying the position of first lady/first gentleman may now be toothless because of the workaround I described.

 

[Denville]

sorry I cant find the original post but I dont think it was by you. it was from someoen else who DID refer to sex trafficking as the example.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

sorry I cant find the original post but I dont think it was by you. it was from someoen else who DID refer to sex trafficking as the example.

I am not sure why the link in my last post did not work for you, as it is working for me, but you will find the original post (written by me) on the previous page of this thread.

Again, the sex trafficker was merely an example. The post would apply to any partner who, for any reason, would be denied legal approval to marry a royal.

 

[Denville]

sorry I did not realise the OP was you. But the reference to sex trafficking surely made it something that NO royal family could accept as a parnter or wife to one of their senior members.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

sorry I did not realise the OP was you. But the reference to sex trafficking surely made it something that NO royal family could accept as a parnter or wife to one of their senior members.

My point was, though, that when it is an unmarried partnership and not a marriage, there seems to be no legal route to block a King or Prince from treating his sex-trafficker girlfriend as his formal consort, if he insists on it.

 

[Denville]

There may not be a legal route but social disapproval of such behaviour is such that he simply could not do it. Just as P ANdrew found that although he was not a sex trafficker... he had been involved with someone of that ilk as a friend, and no charity would work with him after that.