The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #441  
Old 05-21-2017, 03:15 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Freehold, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Back when equal marriages were a thing, the Almanach was established to clearly define which of the German principalities/grand duchies/etc were "equal" enough to marry into other families.

Basically, if the son of the King of England marries the daughter of the King of France it's clear that it's an equal marriage. If the King of England's son is marrying the daughter of the ruling Prince of Saxe-Coburg, however, it's less clear. So the Almanach was established. It's a fairly big thing in the historic marriages of European royalty (and therefore in the genealogy), and is one of the reasons why so many royal families now have a lot of German heritage (when you don't want to just marry your kid to your brother's kid, but you can't marry into half the other major houses because they're the wrong religion, the kids in the lesser Germanic houses who are "equal" because of the rules become more appealing as prospective spouses).

Now, there isn't a rule book, because equal marriages aren't a thing - there aren't the same "rules" about who can marry into a royal family.
Okay.
I definitely already understood the difference between morganatic and equal marriages though.
So how did it grow, from just being Germanic to comprising ALL royal houses? I actually have a copy of the 2013 Almanach.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #442  
Old 05-21-2017, 03:17 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Freehold, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
Archduchess Elisabeth, Granddaughter of Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph and daughter of unfortunate Crown Prince Rudolf married Prince Otto zu Windisch-Graetz, from this same family.

And this Prince Otto was 2nd cousin 3x removed of Princess Michael of Kent.
Didn't Otto live to be 90-something? Or am I thinking of someone else?
And Franz Joseph aka Franz Ferdinand?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #443  
Old 05-21-2017, 03:24 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Freehold, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
All European monarchies followed the rules of this "Almanach de Gotha".

Here is what Prince Nicholas Romanov of Russia said about marriage prospects for some male Grand Duke of the Imperial family:

"Russia, with its very Germanic notion of dynastic propriety, found itself accepting all the Almanach de Gotha rulings.

And so if some unfortunate Russian Grand Duke wanted to marry a Princess Obolensky, descendant of the Grand Dukes of Kiev, who reigned in Russia, at the time his Romanov ancestors were probably still lurking in the woods, draped in pelts or wading through the marshes of East Prussia or Pomerania, he would have had to change his plans.

That marriage would have been impossible, but an Austrian lady, say a daughter of an Illustrious Highness, Count von Harrach zu Rohrau und Thannhausen, lord of the county of Rohrau, Freiherr zu Prugg und Pürrhenstein, lord of Starkenbach, Jilenice, Sadowa & Storckow, would have been acceptable!"

They all simply followed those rules which were written in the book and based on these kind of rules Princess Michael indeed has "most royal blood" of all members that married into the family since Prince Philipp.

Hope this makes it a bit more clear how and why, just like posts from our fellow members :)
I definitely understood the whole anti-German sentiment regarding World War 1 and royalty. I feel, though, that there was a lot of xenophobia; (this is what I'd be thinking, if I was a royal living in the time period) if I can't marry someone because I'm German, what does that make the person/people who established these unwritten rules?
And it does all make sense now! Thank you to everyone who posted little nuggets of history for me to learn about. Royalty has always fascinated me! I know a lot more about the British Royal Family, as well as some British noble families--I know exact dates of the births of Princess Di, the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry, Prince Charles, The Queen, Prince Philip, and The Queen Mother, like the back of my hand.
Reply With Quote
  #444  
Old 05-21-2017, 03:44 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
I definitely understood the whole anti-German sentiment regarding World War 1 and royalty. I feel, though, that there was a lot of xenophobia; (this is what I'd be thinking, if I was a royal living in the time period) if I can't marry someone because I'm German, what does that make the person/people who established these unwritten rules?
And it does all make sense now! Thank you to everyone who posted little nuggets of history for me to learn about. Royalty has always fascinated me! I know a lot more about the British Royal Family, as well as some British noble families--I know exact dates of the births of Princess Di, the Duke & Duchess of Cambridge, Prince Harry, Prince Charles, The Queen, Prince Philip, and The Queen Mother, like the back of my hand.
It was actually because of WWI that King George & Queen Mary decided to allow marriages between their children & British aristocrats.
Reply With Quote
  #445  
Old 05-21-2017, 03:51 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
Didn't Otto live to be 90-something? Or am I thinking of someone else?
And Franz Joseph aka Franz Ferdinand?
Franz Joseph was Emperor of Austria & King of Hungary. After the suicide of his son Rudolf in 1889 his heir was his nephew Franz Ferdinand. Franz Ferdinands murder in Sarajevo 1914 triggered WWI. When Franz Joseph died in 1916 he was succeeded not by a son of Franz Ferdinand (who had married a Czech Countess for love & because of this morganatic marrige his children werent in the Line of succession) but by his great-nephew Charles I who was the father of Archduke Otto (1912-2011) mentioned by our fellow poster earlier.
Reply With Quote
  #446  
Old 05-21-2017, 04:30 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Freehold, New Jersey, United States
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
It was actually because of WWI that King George & Queen Mary decided to allow marriages between their children & British aristocrats.
Interesting! Why would they have to allow it? It should have been a given, considering Queen Victoria's father was an aristocrat/military veteran with a title, no?
Reply With Quote
  #447  
Old 05-21-2017, 04:46 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
Interesting! Why would they have to allow it? It should have been a given, considering Queen Victoria's father was an aristocrat/military veteran with a title, no?
Queen Victorias father was the son of a king & brother of three more so he was by far no ordinary aristocrat.
Reply With Quote
  #448  
Old 05-21-2017, 05:02 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
Interesting! Why would they have to allow it? It should have been a given, considering Queen Victoria's father was an aristocrat/military veteran with a title, no?
Queen Victoria's father was the fourth son of George III - HRH The Prince Edward, Duke of Kent.

George V wasn't the first to allow marriage to British subjects as Victoria had allowed her daughter Louise to marry a British lord (Lord Lorne) but it wasn't a successful marriage.

Edward VII's eldest daughter had also married into the British aristocracy.

It was the decision to allow the sons to marry into the aristocracy that George V did that broke with previous monarchs but he would have baulked at people like Sarah Ferguson and Kate Middleton but not Diana. He still expected that 'Lady' title to be there.

After WWI there weren't that many non-German princesses around for his sons to marry. The Russians were gone. The Germans and Austrians were the enemy. The ages in Scandinavia weren't right so there weren't that many eligible princesses for his sons anyway so George had to allow marriages into the British aristocracy or have his sons marry very late - when the eligible non-German princesses were old enough. Remember that any Catholic Princess was out on religious grounds so no Belgian, Spanish or Italian princess was on the cards.

George was also determined to have his family clearly identified with the British people and so it was to the British aristocracy that he allowed his sons to turn to woo their spouses.

There was a lot of opposition to Philip on the grounds of his foreign birth and his German relations even though he had many British born relatives as well. The King and Queen constantly paraded eligible British aristocrats in front on Elizabeth for her to consider but she had made up her mind and Philip was the one.

Interestingly, since Diana, the British royals have been moving towards the middle class rather than the aristocrats for their spouses or even overseas to the former colonies so far.

Other royal houses are also looking outside their own and other nations royal houses and aristocracies (certainly the reigning royal families - the non-reigning ones seem to stick to the old rules which always strikes me as being pretentious).
Reply With Quote
  #449  
Old 05-21-2017, 05:59 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
Elisabeth was one of the reasons I mentioned how many of the great houses was reluctant in approving marriages between their more prominent members & members of mediatized houses. Elisabeth had to beg her grandfather for permission to marry her princeling & IIRC the future Emperor Charles was denied permission to marry a Hohenlohe.
Maybe it was denied due to the fact that he would one day be the Emperor.

He didn't deny his cousin Archduchess Henriette to marry Prince Gottfried zu Hohenlohe, or other members of the Imperial family to marry equally to the mediatized houses like Stolberg-Stolberg, Waldburg-Zeil, Salm-Salm or Waldbott-Bassenheim...

And later as Emperor, Charles allowed his brother to marry a Hohenlohe Princess...
Reply With Quote
  #450  
Old 05-21-2017, 06:31 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
Maybe it was denied due to the fact that he would one day be the Emperor.

He didn't deny his cousin Archduchess Henriette to marry Prince Gottfried zu Hohenlohe, or other members of the Imperial family to marry equally to the mediatized houses like Stolberg-Stolberg, Waldburg-Zeil, Salm-Salm or Waldbott-Bassenheim...

And later as Emperor, Charles allowed his brother to marry a Hohenlohe Princess...
Thats exactly the reason Ive read - a Hohenlohe wasnt deemed ebenbürtig enough for a future emperor but was good enough for less prominent members of the family.
I have a feeling well get told off soon for not staying on topic lol
Reply With Quote
  #451  
Old 05-21-2017, 06:44 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR76 View Post
Thats exactly the reason Ive read - a Hohenlohe wasnt deemed ebenbürtig enough for a future emperor but was good enough for less prominent members of the family.
For the Prussians Hohenlohe family was "good enough". Also for the British(Princess Alexandra of Edinburgh became a Hohenlohe-Langenburg)

Was reading about it when it was Prussia/Schleswig-Holstein marriage discussed and Hohenlohes(mother of the Empress) were described as "good enough", while Schleswig-Holsteins were a problem because of their Danneskiold-Samsøe ancestry.

Btw, Danneskiold-Samsøe were Counts, illegitimate line of the House of Oldenburg that ruled in Denmark.
Reply With Quote
  #452  
Old 05-21-2017, 08:01 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc23 View Post
All European monarchies followed the rules of this "Almanach de Gotha".
That's not entirely accurate. For starters not all European monarchies had strict, formalized rules about equal marriages - some had very formal rules about equal marriages that essentially prevented its members from being able to enter into morganatic marriages while maintaining succession right. Others only had rules about requiring permission for a marriage to take place - that permission typically was only granted if the marriage was equal, but in these countries there were no formal rules requiring the marriage itself to be an equal one.

Furthermore, the Almanach didn't actually create any rules. It recorded information about every reigning and formerly reigning house in Europe. It recorded who was of a reigning house and who was of a mediatized house. The marriage rules happened well before the Almanach came around, as did the mediatization.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
Okay.
I definitely already understood the difference between morganatic and equal marriages though.
So how did it grow, from just being Germanic to comprising ALL royal houses? I actually have a copy of the 2013 Almanach.
All houses have long had marriage rules, with preference being given towards other royal houses over "commoners". The Germans didn't make the rules, they just wrote down who was acceptable and who wasn't - and it make sense that it was the Germans who did so, because the German princely states were considerably more complicated post-Holy Roman Empire than other monarchies.

Again - it's really obvious who's "equal" and who isn't in say 18th century France or Great Britain; either you're the King or you're not. It's more complicated in Germany because there wasn't one unified state. So the Germans went and wrote a book that listed who was who.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenElizabeth2Fan View Post
I definitely understood the whole anti-German sentiment regarding World War 1 and royalty. I feel, though, that there was a lot of xenophobia; (this is what I'd be thinking, if I was a royal living in the time period) if I can't marry someone because I'm German, what does that make the person/people who established these unwritten rules?
WWI, the anti-German sentiments that came with it, and the mass abolishment of many continental European monarchies following WWI and WWII is actually a major part of the large abandoment of equal marriages in Europe; there were fewer reigning families existing, the Germans were the "enemy", and there was more of a rise of the middle class and a push for monarchies to reflect the people that they reigned over.

In Britain, there was never actually any formal rule requiring equal marriages, and you do see some willy-nilly marriages among the English and Scottish monarchs prior to the Hanovers (more so the Scots, but Henry VIII wouldn't have married most of his wives if he'd only married equally). The Hanovers did have to enter into equal marriages to maintain succession rights to Hanover, but not Britain itself, and George III did get the Marriage Act passed so that he could dictate the marriages of his children.

Most of Queen Victoria's children married German royals, but her eldest son (Edward VII) married a Danish princess, and one of her daughters (Louise) married a British aristocrat. Of the children of Edward VII, only one of them entered into an "equal" marriage by the old rules - Maud married a Danish prince who became the King of Norway (Haakon VII). His eldest daughter (also Louise) married a British aristocrat, his middle daughter (Victoria) never married, and his son... well, George V married Mary of Teck; Mary's father was of the German nobility and was born as the result of a morganatic marriage. That would not have been in line with the rules that other houses were looking at.
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 05-22-2017, 02:33 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post

Most of Queen Victoria's children married German royals, but her eldest son (Edward VII) married a Danish princess...
Danish Princess who was born Her Highness Princess von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg.

She became Princess of Denmark only when she was 9 years old.
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 05-23-2017, 04:06 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112
Schleswig-Holstein was a Danish-German duchy held for most of its history by the Danish monarch. The family became more German when it passed into the junior branch, but Christian IX was born in the Danish part of the Duchy and Alexandra was born in Copenhagen. The family was also vehemently anti-German long before it was trendy to be anti-German, largely because of the issue of Schleswig-Holstein (which Denmark thought should be entirely in Denmark post-German Confederation, and Germany thought should be in Germany).

Saying that they were German royals is a gross over simplification of the issue, and goes in contrast to how they would have identified themselves or been identified as by their contemporaries.
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 05-23-2017, 08:00 PM
JR76's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Malmö, Sweden
Posts: 3,657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Schleswig-Holstein was a Danish-German duchy held for most of its history by the Danish monarch. The family became more German when it passed into the junior branch, but Christian IX was born in the Danish part of the Duchy and Alexandra was born in Copenhagen. The family was also vehemently anti-German long before it was trendy to be anti-German, largely because of the issue of Schleswig-Holstein (which Denmark thought should be entirely in Denmark post-German Confederation, and Germany thought should be in Germany).

Saying that they were German royals is a gross over simplification of the issue, and goes in contrast to how they would have identified themselves or been identified as by their contemporaries.
The whole issue of nationality was much more complex back then than it is today (and even today its no walk in the park) so its very tricky to impose our modern view of it on people living only 60-70 years ago. For example the language of the Danish court was German up until the late 18th century when it was replaced by French, Polish speaking noblemen praised their homecountry Lithuania while claming descent from the Sarmatians, in the Balkans few of the Greeks were actually Greek speaking since according to the customs of the time all members of the orthodox faith was seen as Greek etc...
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 05-23-2017, 11:33 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 4,112
Well put. I'd add too that you have to remember that the borders have changed over the centuries. And not just in the more obvious places like Africa, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, which have had political turmoil in the last century. A great example of this is the border between France and Germany, which changed fairly regularly up until the end of WWII.
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 05-24-2017, 03:24 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Schleswig-Holstein was a Danish-German duchy held for most of its history by the Danish monarch. The family became more German when it passed into the junior branch, but Christian IX was born in the Danish part of the Duchy and Alexandra was born in Copenhagen. The family was also vehemently anti-German long before it was trendy to be anti-German, largely because of the issue of Schleswig-Holstein (which Denmark thought should be entirely in Denmark post-German Confederation, and Germany thought should be in Germany).
I was discussing here only genealogy , as the thread is about that. And that is something you were born with and can't change it.

I was not discussing their intimate and private views of themselves, because it leads to another thing which is not called genealogy.

The fact is that they were members of the German dynasty(Oldenburg) which later ruled in Denmark, no matter where they were residing, born or "played cards"...

They had almost exclusively German ancestry, also married Germans for centuries, so based on their genealogy one can not deny that.

So, saying that they are not German is not so true, no matter what they thought of themselves and how much they hated "them", just because of the politics.

The other thing is how they felt personally about it and did they have issues with this based on the politics of the day, wars etc. which resulted their personal opinions, feelings and how THEY considered themselves.

For example, the irony is that German Empress Augusta Viktoria, who was from the other branch of the same dynasty, had more Danish blood than Queen Alexandra and still considered herself German from top to toe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
Saying that they were German royals is a gross over simplification of the issue, and goes in contrast to how they would have identified themselves or been identified as by their contemporaries.
I never said that they were "German royals". And as they ruled in Denmark, they must be Danish royals. But, they were Danish royals who were Germans. Danish ruling family of German ancestry and ethnicity, just like the British one.

The fact that they changed their family name to Windsor in 1917 can't hide facts that for centuries they were Germans, who ruled in jointly Great Britain and Hanover.

Nothing more or less. I am not going into how they privately felt about it or not, just genealogy facts.
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 05-26-2017, 10:11 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: philadelphia, United States
Posts: 1,726
And as we speak about genealogy, for example, out of Queen Alexandra's 128 nearest ancestors, only 2 were not from German dynasties, that being Eléonore Desmier d'Olbreuse and Eleonore Elizabeth de La Cave.
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 05-26-2017, 11:29 PM
Leopoldine's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 864
What is wrong with saying "German Royals"?

This isn't 1917.

HM has a fraction of German blood, OK, a hefty serving of that orderly pie, but maybe it is the German blood that has made her so perfect as an imperturbable monarch.

It's not from her mother. Prince Charles jokes about his "Scottish cheapness", implying that the Bowes Lyon heritage instilled some sort of admirable penny-pinching gene of thrift. Tell that to the former soldiers who now are charged with hauling his organic Highgrove produce and dairy to Birkhall, over hill and over dale, worrying if they will be late.

Being thought of German ... that's nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 05-27-2017, 12:12 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,382
I think Prince Charles's joke referred more to stereotypes of the Scots held by English people for centuries, moths flying out of sporrans, that sort of thing. Whether or not the Bowes Lyons were particularly 'cheap' I don't know. However, I don't think the Queen Mother's lifestyle, especially in her widowhood, screamed thrift and penny pinching!

I agree that until the Duke of York married Lady Elizabeth Bowes Lyon British sovereigns and their consorts were of mainly German blood, however they regarded themselves. Before the Hanovarians there was more of a mixture, Spanish, French etc, but the Georges kept to their homeland for their wives. If posters on a Royal forum of this sort discuss the BRF in fifty years time, however, they certainly won't be able to say that.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
ancestry, british royal family, china, corbyn, countess of errol, crusades, descent, duke of edinburgh, edward iii, elizabeth ii, genealogy, haldane, marie bonaparte, napoleon, prince philip, prince william, queen elizabeth (the queen mother), queen elizabeth the queen mother, royal monarch line of succession heirs, stewart, tang dynasty


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baptism biography british british royal family british royals camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china chinese clarence house commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice duchess of sussex duke of sussex elizabeth ii family life family tree fashion and style genetics george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hello! history hochberg house of windsor jack brooksbank japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers luxembourg monarchist movements monarchists politics portugal prince harry queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family speech st edward swedish queen taiwan thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:41 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×