A Potential Wife for Prince Harry

[miss whirley]

Originally Posted by cari373

And out of curiosity, why do they not merge?

Very interesting about Harry. Well, I bet he marries someone with a military background of sone sort. He loves his military life.

Because these are different countries with different governments. You wouldn't join them just because a couple figureheads wanted to marry. The days of Imperial Dynasties are over.

If William had married one of the Bush twins, the Uk wouldn't have claim on the USA and say" The Declaration of Independence has been repealed, the Windsors will now use The White House as a vacation home."

[Alison H]

It's usually reported that it was George V who decided that it was OK for the monarch's children to marry non-royals - although his sister married the Duke of Fife, and his aunt married the Marquess of Lorne. Partly because there was a bit of anti-"foreigner" feeling around after the First World War.

William met Kate at university, but I'm not sure that Harry would have as many opportunities to meet a middle or working-class person, because he does seem to hang around with this upper-class set.

There've been a few cases of countries merging by royal marriage in the past :-) - Aragon and Castile, Austria and Hungary, Poland and Lithuania - and some, including England and Scotland, and Denmark, Norway and Sweden, indirectly merging by marriage because one line died out so the same person inherited both thrones - but that's going back a long way!

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Alison H

It's usually reported that it was George V who decided that it was OK for the monarch's children to marry non-royals - although his sister married the Duke of Fife, and his aunt married the Marquess of Lorne. Partly because there was a bit of anti-"foreigner" feeling around after the First World War.

William met Kate at university, but I'm not sure that Harry would have as many opportunities to meet a middle or working-class person, because he does seem to hang around with this upper-class set.

There've been a few cases of countries merging by royal marriage in the past :-) - Aragon and Castile, Austria and Hungary, Poland and Lithuania - and some, including England and Scotland, and Denmark, Norway and Sweden, indirectly merging by marriage because one line died out so the same person inherited both thrones - but that's going back a long way!

England and Scotland did not merge when the same person (James I) inherited both thrones. THey remained two separate countries, with separate parliaments and laws, sharing however the same king. The merger only came much later with the Act of Union of 1707.

Technically speaking, the same happened to Aragon and Castile, which remained separate kingdoms in personal union until after the War of Spanish Succession when the new Bourbon king of Spain, Philip V, finally abolished the separate legal personality of the Crown of Aragon.

Likewise, Sweden, Norway and Denmark, or Austria and Hungary were also separate crowns in personal union only.

[cari373]

Perfect! Thank you. I was wondering why that was the case. So a monarch wouldn't rule all of Europe, since each country has its own government, these are figureheads from when kings and queens did truly rule as the sole power in a country. They have some power nowadays, but very little, leaving most issues to Parliment. I wish the US had just not had the revolutionary war, then we would be Canada. I like that government much better.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by cari373

That's great news that religion doesn't matter. I was reading the earlier posts in the thread, and that is why I thought that. I am still learning about the royals and appreciate any knowledge you can give me. I was under the impression that kings and princes were to marry royalty, but William was allowed to marry Kate, and she isn't. Why is that? What changed?

Many, although not all, reigning families used to require that the marriages of members of the RF be equal or dynastic; if you entered into a marriage that wasn't equal or dynastic you lost your succession rights. This was common particularly in the Germanic houses, and spread into other houses as Germanic influence took over (male-only inheritance spread in a similar fashion). However, not all realms officially required it, with many just requiring that the monarch consent to a marriage; from a technical standpoint a British royal could have always married a person of any background, it just depended on if the monarch was okay with it.

By the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century these rules were beginning to fade in popularity; a big reason being the overall tensions between various realms, as well as the decline of monarchies. British Princesses began marrying British nobles as early as the reign of Queen Victoria. The downfall of many realms in the interwar period really cemented this idea, as did the fact that the Germans were the villains in both World Wars. Isolationism became something of a thing and it was seen as more important to marry someone from your realm - to assert the Britishness of the British monarchy. In the modern day, the only royal families that really push this idea still are those who are no longer reigning.

Originally Posted by cari373

Oh ok. Thank you. So since all the countries no longer have ONLY rulers, marrying royalty doesn't matter? Since Charles' s father was the Prince of Greece, why didn't the UK and Greece become one country upon his marriage to Elizabeth? If Harry were to marry someone of royalty, are there people who would prefer him to be on the throne in the future?

In the past when a personal union was formed between two realms it was because the monarch was the monarch of two realms - i.e. James VI and I, who inherited first Scotland then later England, or George I who inherited first Hanover then Great Britain. Sometimes this would lead to a formal joining of the two realms - Scotland and England eventually became one realm - other times it didn't - Hanover and Great Britain were always separate.

Greece and the UK were never likely to become one realm however; Prince Philip was a Prince of Greece and Denmark, but he wasn't the heir apparent, or even close. He was born the only son of the youngest son of the first King of Greece, George I (who had died before Prince Philip's birth). The king at the time of the DoE's birth was his uncle, Constantine I, and by the time of his marriage the king was his cousin, Paul of Greece.

Originally Posted by cari373

So, this is just an example, but what if, in the very distant future, Prince William's son decided he wanted to marry the daughter of one of the other royal houses in Europe, would that make any more countries join the UK? I am only asking out of curiosity and the fact that I love to learn about this stuff.

If Prince George were to marry a foreign royal it would be very unlikely that the circumstances for a personal union between the two realms would be created; even in times when the marrying of royals was a common occurrence, it wasn't common for heirs to marry heirs. Now in many cases it's outright frowned upon, and it's likely that one of them - either George or the spouse - would be expected to give up their succession rights. If that didn't happen, then it's likely that of their children, the elder would inherit one realm and the younger would inherit another.

Even if the circumstances for a child of Prince George's to be monarch of another European realm occurred, that other realm wouldn't join the UK - they'd still be separate. Instead it would more likely join the Commonwealth Realms. After all, the Queen currently is monarch of more than just the UK, but Canada, Australia, etc, aren't considered to be a part of the UK and are quite independent.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Ish

Many, although not all, reigning families used to require that the marriages of members of the RF be equal or dynastic; if you entered into a marriage that wasn't equal or dynastic you lost your succession rights. This was common particularly in the Germanic houses, and spread into other houses as Germanic influence took over (male-only inheritance spread in a similar fashion). However, not all realms officially required it, with many just requiring that the monarch consent to a marriage; from a technical standpoint a British royal could have always married a person of any background, it just depended on if the monarch was okay with it.

By the end of the 19th century and the start of the 20th century these rules were beginning to fade in popularity; a big reason being the overall tensions between various realms, as well as the decline of monarchies. British Princesses began marrying British nobles as early as the reign of Queen Victoria. The downfall of many realms in the interwar period really cemented this idea, as did the fact that the Germans were the villains in both World Wars. Isolationism became something of a thing and it was seen as more important to marry someone from your realm - to assert the Britishness of the British monarchy. In the modern day, the only royal families that really push this idea still are those who are no longer reigning.



In the past when a personal union was formed between two realms it was because the monarch was the monarch of two realms - i.e. James VI and I, who inherited first Scotland then later England, or George I who inherited first Hanover then Great Britain. Sometimes this would lead to a formal joining of the two realms - Scotland and England eventually became one realm - other times it didn't - Hanover and Great Britain were always separate.

Greece and the UK were never likely to become one realm however; Prince Philip was a Prince of Greece and Denmark, but he wasn't the heir apparent, or even close. He was born the only son of the youngest son of the first King of Greece, George I (who had died before Prince Philip's birth). The king at the time of the DoE's birth was his uncle, Constantine I, and by the time of his marriage the king was his cousin, Paul of Greece.



If Prince George were to marry a foreign royal it would be very unlikely that the circumstances for a personal union between the two realms would be created; even in times when the marrying of royals was a common occurrence, it wasn't common for heirs to marry heirs. Now in many cases it's outright frowned upon, and it's likely that one of them - either George or the spouse - would be expected to give up their succession rights. If that didn't happen, then it's likely that of their children, the elder would inherit one realm and the younger would inherit another.

Even if the circumstances for a child of Prince George's to be monarch of another European realm occurred, that other realm wouldn't join the UK - they'd still be separate. Instead it would more likely join the Commonwealth Realms. After all, the Queen currently is monarch of more than just the UK, but Canada, Australia, etc, aren't considered to be a part of the UK and are quite independent.

Marriages between royal heirs are out of question these days, but other dynastic marriages cannot be entirely ruled out. Lord Mountbatten for example is rumoured to have tried to negotiate the marriage between prince Carl Gustaf of Sweden and princess Anne (now the Princess Royal), but, apparently, Carl Gustaf wasn't interested.

[Ish]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Marriages between royal heirs are out of question these days, but other dynastic marriages cannot be entirely ruled out. Lord Mountbatten for example is rumoured to have tried to negotiate the marriage between prince Carl Gustaf of Sweden and princess Anne (now the Princess Royal), but, apparently, Carl Gustaf wasn't interested.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of marriages between royals, although no ruling house requires it anymore. That said, I wouldn't necessarily say that Lord Mountbatten trying to arrange a marriage is a recent example - given as he died more than 30 years ago.

[Curryong]

I think that the days of royals marrying each other is the exception rather than the rule nowadays. I agree with other posters that Harry is likely to marry someone in his social circle in the next few years.

It was a case of facing up to the realities of the situation for the British Royal Family after World War One. For hundreds of years the royal families of Europe had taken brides (and sometimes grooms) from the small royal and noble houses of Germany.

Before Bismarck, and to a lesser extent after it, Germany was a patchwork of small, independent kingdoms, Margravedoms, etc. After 1918 these were gone for ever for all practical purposes. Prussia was regarded with repulsion by people in Britain, because of the Kaiser. Any chance of a British Prince marrying into the Kaiser's family without serious repercussions from the public was practically zero.

[mslewis]

Originally Posted by Mbruno

Marriages between royal heirs are out of question these days, but other dynastic marriages cannot be entirely ruled out. Lord Mountbatten for example is rumoured to have tried to negotiate the marriage between prince Carl Gustaf of Sweden and princess Anne (now the Princess Royal), but, apparently, Carl Gustaf wasn't interested.

I have a feeling Anne had a few things to say about marrying Carl Gustaf. I can't imagine she was too keen on it. I remember when Edward was born someone asked Anne how she felt and she said she was happy it was another boy because it put her farther away from the throne. I can't imagine she had any interest in being Queen of Sweden. Besides, Carl Gustaf was in love with Silvia for a very long time and they were just waiting for the old King to die so they could marry.

Also re: Anne . . . when she announced her engagement to her first husband (Phillips. Can't remember his first name) I remember seeing a news story about it and a snobby older lady was asked her opinion and she said "It's like marrying the stable boy, isn't it"? I laughed out loud because she sounded just like I expected a British aristo to sound. So, back then, it was still a bit unacceptable for the British Royals to marry the "common folk." So glad things have changed. Makes following the BRF much more interesting.

[Rudolph]

Its been something like 80 years since a princess married into the BRF and 65 years for a prince. In the case of Philip, courtiers would have much preferred a British duke to a penniless Greek prince.

Harry will marry when the time is right and when he finds someone to take it on. The other thing to remember is just because a girl is a semi-aristo doesn't mean anything in 2014. Having a family member with a title doesn't unlock the door to the BRF.

No matter who Harry ends up marrying there will be an inevitably learning curve

[ladongas]

My money is still on Taylor Swift.

[Skippyboo]

Harry should of asked Wills to get her number for him last year :)


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community

[miss whirley]

I would love it if Harry married Gabriella Windsor. I want to hear the squawking about inbreeding. The elitist snobs would be satisfied. She could keep her last name. And Harry would get Princess Michael as a mother-in-law. If they move into Diana's old apartment they would be next door neighbors to Prince and Princess Michael. It would be the perfect British comedy set-up.

She's his type: blond, posh, wealthy and University educated. I know they are second cousins once removed, but Cressida was his fourth cousin so I doubt that would bother him.

[Curryong]

I thought that Gabriella had a boyfriend?

[grevinnan]

Originally Posted by cari373

And out of curiosity, why do they not merge?

Very interesting about Harry. Well, I bet he marries someone with a military background of sone sort. He loves his military life.

I believe you would enjoy the discussions much more if you spent some time reading European history and learn a few things about monarchies and their role. We are not villages that easily combine and split depending on the people in power.

[HereditaryPrincess]

As others have explained better than me, royals can marry whomever they like, and most of the royal brides these days were commoners before they married their royal husbands. In Europe, most of the Crown Princesses were born as commoners apart from Queen Mathilde of Belgium and HGD Stephanie of Luxembourg, who were both born into the aristocracy (Mathilde was a Countess d'Udekem d'Acoz, whilst Stephanie was a Countess de Lannoy). The last foreign Princess to marry into the BRF was Princess Marina of Greece and Denmark, who married Prince George, Duke of Kent back in 1934.

As for absolute monarchs, I do believe that in Europe, Liechtenstein is the only absolute monarchy/principality left. Outside of Europe, I do believe Saudi Arabia is still an absolute monarchy, and perhaps Swaziland and some of the other African monarchies too, but I would need to double check that.

I don't think Harry will marry someone from the military, but anything is possible I guess.

Originally Posted by ladongas

My money is still on Taylor Swift.

I hope this is a joke. As someone said in an earlier post (I can't remember whether it was here or elsewhere), we will know if it doesn't work out when she releases a new song or album.

[LadyGabrielle]

Well heck, I say he should just marry Pippa. It's perfect. :)

[Queen Camilla]

If Harry marries it might be a sister of one of his military buddies.
An unknown woman.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by Queen Camilla

If Harry marries it might be a sister of one of his military buddies.
An unknown woman.

I seriously doubt it. Considering his social circle of friends , I'd say he will marry someone from an aristocratic/upper-class family.

[Cynderella]

I hope that Harry marries whom ever he chooses. That is happy and that she is a credit to the family. I doubt that any of the young women in the social circle that he is looking in is going to be a good fit. It will be a redo of the Diana/Sarah competition. Diana was married to the heir. Catherine is married to the heir presumptive. The media will bash her relentlessly. He needs someone like his Aunt Sophie. Someone who has a work history. Doesn't need the media attention. Understands that she won't ever be getting the top job, but still is a credit to the family and does a good job for the Crown.