Opposition to Royal Marriages

[Biri]

Definitely Felipe II Habsburg should have listened to the Pope and not marry his own niece.

 

[Denville]

He was not, mentally, stable.

News to me that Alfonso was "not mentally stable". he was spoiled and selfish, and there was the religious issue... I think that's why Edward VII was cautious about it...

 

[Denville]

Well who cares about the fall of a dynasty as long as your in loooove. :rollseyes:
Regarding Victoria I find it hard to take any objection she had to any of her children's marriages seriously; some of those kids probably just married to get away.

they married because they wanted to, esp for the girls it was the only way they ahd of having some status and independence.. even if sometimes being a wife was more restricting than being a spinster daughter.
I think that Victria did object to marriages because she was bossy and liked to try and control her children.. and they loved her but found her hard going and were a bit scared of her.. So they were eager to establish some independence by marrying.. and she was determined to try and control who they married and to tryr and keep at least one daughter as a companion. She allowed Helena to marry P Christian if Christian came to live in the UK, which he was Ok with doing.. with Beatrice, she tried to insist on HER remaining single..
However while she was selfish, in her way, Victoria wasn't so selfish that she did not eventualy give in and let Bea marry, though Prince Henry grew impatient with the queen's interference in their lives and his being stuck at Court.
Alix was more selfish in managing to keep HER "spinster daughter" Toria by her side..

 

[Mimi1984]

Definitely Felipe II Habsburg should have listened to the Pope and not marry his own niece.

Why not ? There was his grandson, Felipe IV. also married his niece.

 

[Biri]

Because constant inbreeding caused the branch of Habsburgs in Spain to die out.
And Charles II - the most victim of it - was gravely disabled and very unhappy because of it.

 

[NoShades]

In recent times I have read things stating 'abolish the monarchy if he marries so & so' - 'we fund them and can get rid if he weds so & so'.

You don't pay Harry a salary. He is a Prince of the Realm and a WORKING ROYAL just as the others, Kate&Wills, Anne, Sophie&Edward et al. All representing our Queen. The State provides the security detail, that's about it. As a matter of fact the British Royal Family gives far much more in funds & revenue to the State than the other way round. The day the mean spirited & mealy mouthed bigots get their wish in abolishing the monarchy will be the day you'll discover you're financially worse off. Properties belonging to the Royals but held by the State will have to be returned to the rightful owners,The Royals. You will also find that Global Organisations as well as local ones including Charities will continue to seek the PATRONAGE of the Royal Family whether or not they reign. Win,Win either way for our Royals. They will always be Royals and nobody can take that away. Lose, lose to his detractors. He was / is never going to be king anyway. So who do they think will be losing out if the monarchy goes? Certainly not Harry.

 

[maria-olivia]

Princess Marie Christine of Belgium for her 2 Weddings. She was banned and could attend her Father Funerals.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Fascinating thread! Doing historical research with all the mentions.

 

[duchessrachel]

And now we have Sofia Helqvist...welcome my Princess of the tattoos and piercings and the nude pix. Ick.

Were Prince Carl Philips's parents against his marriage to Sofia? I don't follows this royal family like I do the British Royal Family.

 

[Pranter]

Were Prince Carl Philips's parents against his marriage to Sofia? I don't follows this royal family like I do the British Royal Family.

Nothing public was ever said if they were...and they appear to get along with her.


LaRae

 

[Moonmaiden23]

There were rumors that Queen Silvia was not at all thrilled with the idea of Sofia Helqvist at first, but gradually came around, same as the king did for Victoria's husband Daniel.

Not that it would have done either of them any good to put their foot(feet?) down.

 

[Queen Claude]

I thought Queen Victoria approved of Princess Louise's marriage to the Marquess of Lorne and that it was Bertie, the future Edward VII, who disapproved. Victoria's response (IIRC) was to rightfully predict times were changing and that a marriage to a subject would be deemed than marriage to a foreign royal.

 

[Denville]

I thought Queen Victoria approved of Princess Louise's marriage to the Marquess of Lorne and that it was Bertie, the future Edward VII, who disapproved. Victoria's response (IIRC) was to rightfully predict times were changing and that a marriage to a subject would be deemed than marriage to a foreign royal.

I think that Victoria tended to want to control her children's marriages rather than actually forbid them. Yes its true that Bertie wasn't too keen on Louise marrying Lorne, partly because he felt it was better to marry a royal and partly because he feared that it mgith lead to controversy because of "favouring" one Political allegiance over the other. And Victoraia did point out to him that German princes weren't always that popular with the public, being seen as "German beggars" who came to the UK to find a royal bride and get a large income. However in this case Bertie was probably in the right as the Marriage to Lorne was unhappy.

 

[Mbruno]

Were Prince Carl Philips's parents against his marriage to Sofia? I don't follows this royal family like I do the British Royal Family.

They may have been privately against it at first as they were at first probably not thrilled either with Victoria's and Daniel's relationship, but, in the end, the King oficcially agreed to both marriages when he asked the government to give its consent to the unions (otherwise, both Victoria and Carl Philip would have been excluded from the line of succession upon getting married).

 

[Denville]

True but it is possible that they ddn't feel they could refuse consent.. Carl Philip is not the heir, and while his bride was controversial its very unlikely that she would ever be queen. Probalby if they had refused consent, he would have married her anyway and put himself out of the succession?

 

[Somebody]

True but it is possible that they ddn't feel they could refuse consent.. Carl Philip is not the heir, and while his bride was controversial its very unlikely that she would ever be queen. Probalby if they had refused consent, he would have married her anyway and put himself out of the succession?

That is quite possible. However, that would have been an option. The Netherlands has been far more critical of potential brides (it might make a difference that the joint parliaments need to consent, which is harder to achieve than telling your prime minister that you gave your consent, so you expect him/her (or the government) to agree as well). In the last two generations three out of seven children of the (two) queen(s) have not asked nor received consent to marry and where removed from succession without any lasting effects to the monarchy.

However, it seems that the king would not wish that upon Carl Philip - as he has stated before that he (at least at that time) thought that CP was the rightful heir, so removing him completely from the line of succession would probably be too drastic.

 

[Skippy]

I don't think King Carl Gustaf and Queen Silvia were against Sofia Hellqvist - the King himself said at the engagement press conference that they got to know her a couple of years ago and found her a nice person.
I do realize that, of course, they wouldn't admit anything 'against' in public but had there been an 'against' I think it would have been phrased in a diplomatic way.

I rather think it was a cooking up of the press because of her controversial background and because of her predecessor (which mainly caused an issue with the old-school royal watchers). The press creates storms where it wants storms, but all has settled down for quite a while now and those storms have died.

 

[Somebody]

I'd say that we do not know whether the King and Queen were against a marriage between Carl Philip and Sofia; they might have been or not (and they may have changed their opinion over time; I assume they are quite happy with her willingness to do her part in the royal family these days regardless of their earlier thoughts being positive or more negative). Saying that someone is a 'nice person' doesn't suggest to me that they approved from the start, that is a quite basic thing that you can say about almost anyone even if you are truly unhappy about your son's choice of a bride - so actually, I would consider it quite 'diplomatic'; when you are happy you could use the same phrase, but there are many other ways in which that happiness could be expressed more convincingly.

Most people seem to think that the King did initially not support the relationship between Victoria and Daniel, so if that truly was the case it would be a little surprising if he had a hard time with Daniel and no objections at all to Sofia who had a far more questionable background. However, it might be that (1) those opinions were made up and he never objected to any of his children's partners, or (2) the king had overcome his objections and decided that any partner would be acceptable to him (progressive insight), or (3) he may have had serious doubts, but decided that if CP truly wanted to marry her, he was not going to withhold consent.

 

[Countessmeout]

I thought Queen Victoria approved of Princess Louise's marriage to the Marquess of Lorne and that it was Bertie, the future Edward VII, who disapproved. Victoria's response (IIRC) was to rightfully predict times were changing and that a marriage to a subject would be deemed than marriage to a foreign royal.

Indeed Victoria did. She wrote to Bertie to convince him to support it.

That which you object to [that Louise should marry a subject] I feel certain will be for Louise's happiness and for the peace and quiet of the family ... Times have changed; great foreign alliances are looked on as causes of trouble and anxiety, and are of no good. What could be more painful than the position in which our family were placed during the wars with Denmark, and between Prussia and Austria? ... You may not be aware, as I am, with what dislike the marriages of Princesses of the Royal Family with small German Princes (German beggars as they most insultingly were called) ... As to position, I see no difficulty whatever; Louise remains what she is, and her husband keeps his rank ... only being treated in the family as a relation when we are together ...

 

[MARG]

Nothing public was ever said if they were...and they appear to get along with her.


LaRae

Were Prince Carl Philips's parents against his marriage to Sofia? I don't follows this royal family like I do the British Royal Family.

I think the real sticking point of the SRF was Victoria and Daniel. The had to wait so very long to marry that I wondered if the King thought they's grow apart and solve the problem,

Victoria grew up spending a lot of time with Prince Frederik and Prince Haarkon and I kind of think he hoped there would be a match there and Carl Philip would again become heir. But, the heart wants what the heart wants and all three found terrific life partners even if they weren't royal or aristocratic.

 

[Pranter]

Nothing public was ever said if they were...and they appear to get along with her.


LaRaeI think the real sticking point of the SRF was Victoria and Daniel. The had to wait so very long to marry that I wondered if the King thought they's grow apart and solve the problem,

Victoria grew up spending a lot of time with Prince Frederik and Prince Haarkon and I kind of think he hoped there would be a match there and Carl Philip would again become heir. But, the heart wants what the heart wants and all three found terrific life partners even if they weren't royal or aristocratic.

Did Victoria have a serious boyfriend before Daniel? I can't remember, didn't follow them prior to her meeting him.

Interesting that none of them have married into another royal/noble family...seems to be a trend in most of the European (and Scandinavian?) Royals.


LaRae

 

[Lady Nimue]

I think the real sticking point of the SRF was Victoria and Daniel. The had to wait so very long to marry that I wondered if the King thought they's grow apart and solve the problem,

Victoria grew up spending a lot of time with Prince Frederik and Prince Haarkon and I kind of think he hoped there would be a match there and Carl Philip would again become heir. But, the heart wants what the heart wants and all three found terrific life partners even if they weren't royal or aristocratic.

Well, that's an interesting idea! You really think so? What a scenario....

 

[Countessmeout]

Did Victoria have a serious boyfriend before Daniel? I can't remember, didn't follow them prior to her meeting him.

Interesting that none of them have married into another royal/noble family...seems to be a trend in most of the European (and Scandinavian?) Royals.


LaRae

Victoria dated another Daniel, Daniel Collert prior. Collert and Victoria knew each other for years. He moved to New York when she was in the states for school and their relationship was confirmed in 2000. They broke up in 2001.


As for the idea that the king wanted her to marry Fred or Haakon so CP could be king.... Daniel entered the picture in 2002. Haakon had been married to MM for a year and Fred had been in a serious relationship with Mary for two years. Mary had moved to Denmark by this time to become more serious. There is little reason to think CG could have any delusion his daughter would marry one of them and his son would be heir again.


Marriages, at least among reigning houses, has been uncommon for some time. The reality is the rules softening allowing them to marry for love, has shut the door on what was practically arranged marriages. Though some royal families do socialize like the Scandis, they now tend to choose to marry for love. Considering Haakon and Victoria's fathers both married commoners themselves, something which would have lost them their throne in previous years, set a firm example for their kids. Margrethe was little different, in choosing a French diplomat though he did have some aristocratic roots.

The wedding between two royals/aristos are more common among the former houses now a days. For many reasons. Some being that they move in the same social circles. Go to the same schools and such. For them its like marrying in your own social circle which is quite common.

 

[Lady Nimue]

Thank you, Countessmeout. Good context. I learned some things.

 

[duchessrachel]

However, it seems that the king would not wish that upon Carl Philip - as he has stated before that he (at least at that time) thought that CP was the rightful heir, so removing him completely from the line of succession would probably be too drastic.

Why would the King think that Carl Philip is the rightful heir? I know this is changing subjects, but I just have to ask.

 

[Countessmeout]

Why would the King think that Carl Philip is the rightful heir? I know this is changing subjects, but I just have to ask.

He is on record as saying that the change in laws being retroactive was wrong. And that his son should not have been stripped of his position as crown prince. That if the law had to be changed, it should have been done in Norway, and applied to future children. Though he has also made the comment he would prefer his son to inherit, and that he thought that most Swedish people would agree, that they would prefer a king on the throne.

For the record, it was not actually done retroactive. It was a long process, a process started not only before CP was born but before Victoria was born. It is similar to the UK. Though the succession was changed in 2013, it applies to children born after 2011. CG knew even before Victoria was born, that the government planned to make it so the baby would inherit the throne no matter its sex.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Has anybody ever thought about the royals who married against their parents wishes and it turned out their parents were quite right. The 2 who always come to mind is Nicholas II of Russia and the Emperor who insisted on marrying Sissi.

In the case of Nicholas & Alexandra, it does not mean their parents were right, simply because of what happened with Rasputin and the Russian Revolution, and the eventual slaughter of N&A and their children.

Any deletion of prior posts and/or removal to more appropriate threads is understandable, but a brief announcement or indication by an admin is truly appreciated. ?

 

[KMD]

I’m curious. Which current Royal couples had initial opposition to their marriage from their Ruling Family? For how long and for what reason?

 

[Muhler]

Congratulations on your first post, KMD

Well, certainly King Harald and Queen Sonja. - That took a good deal of arm-wringing and quite a few years before that was possible.

There are persistent rumors that Victoria and Daniel marrying was perhaps not the most desired match either.

And ex-Queen Beatrix marriage to a German was also frowned upon, whether that was a bigger issue with the public rather than the royal family itself is a matter for debate.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

And there was opposition against the daughter of a former minister in Argentina's dictatorship becoming the spouse of the present King of the Netherlands, with protests on the wedding day itself. Smoke bombs were enlit and a bag of paint was thrown to the Golden State Coach.