LGBTQ+ Royalty

[tihkon2]

I don't know about that, to be honest. The hereditary principle is just that. I think if the child is a biological child, by whatever technology, of the monarch or their heir, then yes, they should inherit, but adoption? No, I don't agree. But who knows? We'll have to see what happens in the future and who may be the first!

 

[JR76]

The prospect of a gay-monarch is interesting and unavoidably raises questions about how to solve the succession issue… Especially if the monarch himself/herself does want to have children…

Would the prospect of a child with one surrogate-parent even be constitutionally possible ? For example if the monarch is one biological parent and the other parent is a surrogate-parent… Then the child could be adopted by the spouse of the monarch… That would keep the royal family bloodline intact….. But would it be constitutionally possible ? That’s the big question i think….

Since 2022 Sweden practices a gender neutral presumption of parenthood meaning that any partner or spouse of someone giving birth is listed as a parent. This means that a child born by an eventual wife of Estelle of Sweden would legally be her child and as such in line to the throne. It would most likely cause quite a debate if it were to happen.

I would hope they would accept an heir born via surrogacy/sperm donor or adopted.

Surrogacy is illegal in many countries.

 

[Hans-Rickard]

Indeed… People’s prejudices and hands down also homophobia would be something ”the first one” will have to tackle and probably be the biggest obstacle… Even if it’s legally possible doesn’t mean it will happen without controversy that may have consequences…

But it’s a question of when it will happen… Not if

 

[Mbruno]

I would hope they would accept an heir born via surrogacy/sperm donor or adopted.

In the United KIngdom, an heir, either to the Crown or to a peerage, cannot be born via surrogacy. A child with a surrogate mother is deemed equivalent to an adopted child as far as the law of succession is concerned.

 

[Blog Real]

The prospect of a gay-monarch is interesting and unavoidably raises questions about how to solve the succession issue… Especially if the monarch himself/herself does want to have children…

Would the prospect of a child with one surrogate-parent even be constitutionally possible ? For example if the monarch is one biological parent and the other parent is a surrogate-parent… Then the child could be adopted by the spouse of the monarch… That would keep the royal family bloodline intact….. But would it be constitutionally possible ? That’s the big question i think….

If the monarch does not want to / is unable to have children, then the obvious solution would be the one we see in the non-reigning House of Bavaria today where the son of Prince Luitpold has been trained by Duke Franz to become the new Head of the Family.

Regardless, it is something that will happen somewhere sooner of later, and every country with a royal court would benefit from drawing up plans for how to handle it…

The time when the only acceptable solution is to either abdicate for the sake of love, or to marry a woman or a man, have children with her/him, and then live your life ”behind the curtains” with your male/female lover, is hopefully in the past now… It should be in Europe at least…

That's interesting. But I think a homosexual monarch/heir would probably choose not to have children, being succeeded by his brother and his descendants. The royal houses may probably have a plan in case this happens, but they will only be known when such a situation occurs.

 

[Mbruno]

That's interesting. But I think a homosexual monarch/heir would probably choose not to have children, being succeeded by his brother and his descendants. The royal houses may probably have a plan in case this happens, but they will only be known when such a situation occurs.

No plan is needed for a childless King to be succeeded by his eldest sibling (or his eldest brother in case of male preference succession) . That is already the succession law in the European monarchies, if the eldest sibling outlives the King, of course.

I don't see why a King with a same-sex spouse would have to refrain from having a child. He can have a child ether by adoption, or by surrogacy, if the latter is legal in the King's country. As mentioned before, surrogacy is illegal in any case in many countries whereas , in other countries including the UK, only so-called altruistic surrogacy is allowed.

Either way, however, both an adopted child and a child born to a surrogate mother could not inherit the Crown (at least in the UK, that is the law at tne moment), so the Crown would go to the next person in line anyway following a demise of the King.

 

[Biri]

Either way, however, both an adopted child and a child born to a surrogate mother could not inherit the Crown (at least in the UK, that is the law at tne moment), so the Crown would go to the next person in line anyway following a demise of the King.

If he gay King is this child's genetic father - why not?

 

[Mbruno]

If he gay King is this child's genetic father - why not?

Even if the King is the genetic father, that is the law in the UK. It has to do with the fact that British law says that the person who gives birth is the legal mother and, since the surrogate mother is not married to the King, the baby is born as an illegitimate child. The child can be legitimized later when parental rights are legally transferred from the surrogate mother to the King and his spouse, but, as I said, from the point of view of the succession law, it will work as if the child has been adopted, even if the King is the biological father.

By the way, that is not specific to same sex-couples, but rather applies also to heterosexual couples that have a child by surrogacy,, see the case of the current Marchess of Bath, whose second son, born via surrogacy, is not in the line of succession to the marquisate,

 

[meeralakshmi]

In the United KIngdom, an heir, either to the Crown or to a peerage, cannot be born via surrogacy. A child with a surrogate mother is deemed equivalent to an adopted child as far as the law of succession is concerned.

I guess the next person in line when the monarch dies/abdicates would take over then.

That's interesting. But I think a homosexual monarch/heir would probably choose not to have children, being succeeded by his brother and his descendants. The royal houses may probably have a plan in case this happens, but they will only be known when such a situation occurs.

They may want to have kids even if they don’t end up in line to the throne.

In the United KIngdom, an heir, either to the Crown or to a peerage, cannot be born via surrogacy. A child with a surrogate mother is deemed equivalent to an adopted child as far as the law of succession is concerned.

What about an heir born via sperm donor?

 

[HenRach Dominion]

What about an heir born via sperm donor?

I would imagine it would run into the same issue as a gay king having a biological child via surrogate: the child would be considered illegitimate because their mother and father were not married. I imagine, however, that even with the current legal hurdles, the different European constitutional monarchies will be more willing to change inheritance laws for a queer monarch or heir if all of their children are biologically theirs rather than if some of them are not.

As others have discussed, there will be a lot of things that said monarchies would have prepare for when (not if) they have a future queer monarch. Besides spousal titles and inheritance rights for their children, there is also the public response, especially since many of the staunchest supporters of monarchies lean conservative socially. Worse, many of the foreign countries said monarch would have to interact with are even more virulent with regards to queer individuals. Not to mention the lack of protection for non-engaged or non-married couples will probably be more dangerous if it's the prince's boyfriend or the princess's girlfriend. Finally, there's the psychology of the children of a queer monarch who would be raised as royalty even if there is no expectation that they will take the throne themselves (we have seen illegitimate children, stepchildren, and even spares struggle with how they fit within a royal family when they're not in the direct line of succession/not in the succession at all). My heart goes out to whomever is the canary in the coal mine on this matter.

Regardless, a queer monarch or heir shouldn't have to give up marriage or children because there's no legal precedent for it. Two divorcees sit as King and Queen of England when a previous king had to abdicate to marry a divorcee. The Netherlands became an absolute monarchy after it took them four generations to get a king, who himself produced a female heir. Japan is actually considering allowing princesses to remain in the Imperial Family even after marriage because there's not enough members to support it otherwise. Monarchies often change when times or need demands it; restructuring monarchy such that a queer monarch's family is as valued as their non-queer predecessors continues that trend.

 

[meeralakshmi]

I would imagine it would run into the same issue as a gay king having a biological child via surrogate: the child would be considered illegitimate because their mother and father were not married. I imagine, however, that even with the current legal hurdles, the different European constitutional monarchies will be more willing to change inheritance laws for a queer monarch or heir if all of their children are biologically theirs rather than if some of them are not.

As others have discussed, there will be a lot of things that said monarchies would have prepare for when (not if) they have a future queer monarch. Besides spousal titles and inheritance rights for their children, there is also the public response, especially since many of the staunchest supporters of monarchies lean conservative socially. Worse, many of the foreign countries said monarch would have to interact with are even more virulent with regards to queer individuals. Not to mention the lack of protection for non-engaged or non-married couples will probably be more dangerous if it's the prince's boyfriend or the princess's girlfriend. Finally, there's the psychology of the children of a queer monarch who would be raised as royalty even if there is no expectation that they will take the throne themselves (we have seen illegitimate children, stepchildren, and even spares struggle with how they fit within a royal family when they're not in the direct line of succession/not in the succession at all). My heart goes out to whomever is the canary in the coal mine on this matter.

Regardless, a queer monarch or heir shouldn't have to give up marriage or children because there's no legal precedent for it. Two divorcees sit as King and Queen of England when a previous king had to abdicate to marry a divorcee. The Netherlands became an absolute monarchy after it took them four generations to get a king, who himself produced a female heir. Japan is actually considering allowing princesses to remain in the Imperial Family even after marriage because there's not enough members to support it otherwise. Monarchies often change when times or need demands it; restructuring monarchy such that a queer monarch's family is as valued as their non-queer predecessors continues that trend.

Same would apply to allowing a queen’s husband to be king consort I think (and allowing any male/same-sex spouses to use their spouses’ titles).

 

[Marengo]

Although legally there will be possibilities I am not sure if any monarchy would like to try to test them too much. baudouin and Fabiola f.e. could legally have adopted children and have considered adoption. But they decided against it after thinking through the consequences.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Although legally there will be possibilities I am not sure if any monarchy would try to test them too much. baudouin and Fabiola f.e. could legally have adopted children and have considered adoption. But they decided against it after thinking through the consequences.

I guess they could decide that a biological child of a gay monarch can succeed them but not an adopted one. Adopted children of reigning royals don’t appear to get titles, King Hussein’s adopted daughter didn’t get one but I have heard of adopted children of non-reigning royals getting titles. That said I’m not sure exactly what the issue with an adopted heir would be, an adopted child is as much their parents’ as a biological child.

 

[Marengo]

In the case of Baudouin and Fabiola it would be clear that an adopted child would not succeed. However, it would muddle the waters in terms of public perception and it would have opened all sorts of discussions on succession. What if the adopted child would be much more suitable than the natural successor for example?

Jordan is a very different country than the monarchies of Western Europe and the monarch there has much more power to do what he pleases.

 

[meeralakshmi]

In the case of Baudouin and Fabiola it would be clear that an adopted child would not succeed. However, it would muddle the waters in terms of public perception and it would have opened all sorts of discussions on succession. What if the adopted child would be much more suitable than the natural successor for example?

Jordan is a very different country than the monarchies of Western Europe and the monarch there has much more power to do what he pleases.

Couldn’t that also apply to a biological sibling being better suited for the throne than the heir? Still wouldn’t change the line of succession.

Applying principles of equality to an institution that is based on anything but equality is a bit off, I'd say.

This IMO is basically a case of don't fix what ain't broken.
It does really truly matter that things are as little confusing as possible. Most countries are not monarchies and most people don't really know about monarchies. What they do know, through film, fairy tales, novels and what not is that a king rule, usually with a queen by his side. Sometimes a queen rules, usually without a man by her side.
And even among a number of monarchies, the concept of a female monarch is theoretical at best.
I'm a passionate believer in KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid.
So let's keep it simple stupid: A female monarch is a queen, with a prince by her side. - Queen rules over prince, problem solved.

Apart from that in a Danish context the word King appears often in the Constitution, where it really should be the Monarch, and that means that the wording of the Constitution needs to be changed to avoid confusion.

Anyway, in the eyes of the DK public and the politicians this is a non-issue and as such not going to be changed any decade soon.
Also because while we are at it: At some point there will be an open gay man (or woman, but let's leave that aside for this post) on the throne and he will marry the love of his life, a man. That in itself will present interesting problems, but there really is nothing to prevent that from happening now.
According to your opinion, the husband of the king should be... wait for it... king. So we have his majesty king A and his majesty king B. After all you can't deny a gay man the right to be titled king, can you? That would break the principles of equality. So talk about confusion!

It's not a question whether such a scenario will happen, in a legal and constitutional context it's a matter whether this scenario can happen.

So there is a reason why monarchies retain the system of the husband (and presumably at some point the wife) of a reigning queen gets a lesser title.

It didn’t cause confusion when the wife of the 21st Duchess of Medina Sidonia was made duchess consort (Spain generally allows people to use their spouses’ titles regardless of the genders of the couple) because people knew that one spouse held the title in her own right and the other was a duchess by marriage. In the case of a gay king they could refer to him and his husband as King A and King B (like you said) or the king and the king consort (likewise for a lesbian queen). In this day and age everyone knows who the monarch is so it should cause less confusion that their spouse is given the equivalent of their title no matter what, not more.

The Duchess of Medina Sidonia married her girlfriend 11 hours before her death so there were technically only two duchesses for that amount of time. However her widow has been rightfully referred to as the Dowager Duchess since her death (as stated earlier).

 

[Muhler]

It didn’t cause confusion when the wife of the 21st Duchess of Medina Sidonia was made duchess consort (Spain generally allows people to use their spouses’ titles regardless of the genders of the couple) because people knew that one spouse held the title in her own right and the other was a duchess by marriage. In the case of a gay king they could refer to him and his husband as King A and King B (like you said) or the king and the king consort (likewise for a lesbian queen). In this day and age everyone knows who the monarch is so it should cause less confusion that their spouse is given the equivalent of their title no matter what, not more.

Well, Spain is in so many way the leading progressive country of Europe. However Duchess Medina Sidonia wasn't the Spanish Royal Family and AFAIK didn't represent Spain in any official capacity. In fact I actually had to look her up. On top of that they were married for eleven hours, so come on.
The whole concept was hardly tested.

Alas, few people know who the monarch of most monarchies is, unless they are interested in monarchies. And I firmly believe in keeping things as simple as possible.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Well, Spain is in so many way the leading progressive country of Europe. However Duchess Medina Sidonia wasn't the Spanish Royal Family and AFAIK didn't represent Spain in any official capacity. In fact I actually had to look her up. On top of that they were married for eleven hours, so come on.
The whole concept was hardly tested.

Alas, few people know who the monarch of most monarchies is, unless they are interested in monarchies. And I firmly believe in keeping things as simple as possible.

Not really, they still have male primogeniture?
Honestly, I don't see any of the major monarchies coming up with queer partner discussions and a resulting surrogate succession. Simply because being as progressive as having a same sex monarch couple with surrogate kids won't go with the concept of hereditary monarchy, that is pretty outdated anyway even for todays standards.
I would expect that society would call it quits on a monarchy that in many countries has already started to decline in approvals. Sooner or later it will go.

Just to add - in my opinion should this case occur - a queer heir or heiress - the easier option would be to rule and let the crown pass to family next in line. That would be much less complicated and easier to swallow for the public.

 

[Mbruno]

Not really, they still have male primogeniture?Just to add - in my opinion should this case occur - a queer heir or heiress - the easier option would be to rule and let the crown pass to family next in line. That would be much less complicated and easier to swallow for the public.

Same sex marriages are legal in all European monarchies as far as I know. They are also socially accepted. So I don't think that a monarch or heir having a same-sex spouse would be a major issue.

I don't see any issue either if a same-sex royal couple decides to adopt a child. Having a child by surrogacy or artificial insemination may be more controversial, but, in any case, I think that the current rules relating to succession will stand: a child who is adopted, or conceived by surrogacy or artificial insemination won't be allowed to succeed to the Crown. As you said, that is not a problem because the Crown will just pass to the next in line. No European monarchy is currently at a critical situation where there would be no one to inherit the throne if the heir apparent or presumptive did not have any "natural" legitimate children.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Well, Spain is in so many way the leading progressive country of Europe. However Duchess Medina Sidonia wasn't the Spanish Royal Family and AFAIK didn't represent Spain in any official capacity. In fact I actually had to look her up. On top of that they were married for eleven hours, so come on.
The whole concept was hardly tested.

Alas, few people know who the monarch of most monarchies is, unless they are interested in monarchies. And I firmly believe in keeping things as simple as possible.

She still has her title and even if they were married for longer them being the same sex shouldn’t have prevented her from getting the title she was legally entitled to. Even if people don’t know who the monarch is referring to a same-sex couple as King/Queen A and King/Queen B or the king and the king consort/queen and the queen consort would make it clear who holds the title in their own right and who holds it by marriage (same with referring to a queen and her husband as queen and king). It clearly isn’t simple that the wife of a king is a queen but the husband of a queen isn’t a king when so many people who aren’t experts on royalty are wondering why that is, the same would be true for same-sex couples.

Not really, they still have male primogeniture?
Honestly, I don't see any of the major monarchies coming up with queer partner discussions and a resulting surrogate succession. Simply because being as progressive as having a same sex monarch couple with surrogate kids won't go with the concept of hereditary monarchy, that is pretty outdated anyway even for todays standards.
I would expect that society would call it quits on a monarchy that in many countries has already started to decline in approvals. Sooner or later it will go.

Just to add - in my opinion should this case occur - a queer heir or heiress - the easier option would be to rule and let the crown pass to family next in line. That would be much less complicated and easier to swallow for the public.

The Dutch monarchy said they would be accepting of Amalia having a wife. The way their system works the wife of a queen would probably be HRH The Princess of the Netherlands.

 

[Muhler]

She still has her title and even if they were married for longer them being the same sex shouldn’t have prevented her from getting the title she was legally entitled to. Even if people don’t know who the monarch is referring to a same-sex couple as King/Queen A and King/Queen B or the king and the king consort/queen and the queen consort would make it clear who holds the title in their own right and who holds it by marriage (same with referring to a queen and her husband as queen and king). It clearly isn’t simple that the wife of a king is a queen but the husband of a queen isn’t a king when so many people who aren’t experts on royalty are wondering why that is, the same would be true for same-sex couples.

There is no problem, because there is only duchess. The live one.

The Dutch monarchy said they would be accepting of Amalia having a wife. The way their system works the wife of a queen would probably be HRH The Princess of the Netherlands.

Problem solved, no doubt as to who would be the monarch.

 

[meeralakshmi]

There is no problem, because there is only duchess. The live one.

Problem solved, no doubt as to who would be the monarch.

Her wife has the title of Dowager Duchess to be clear which is the title given to a widowed consort. Sure everyone would know who the monarch was if a queen’s wife was princess consort but people would still wonder why a king’s wife is queen consort but a queen’s wife is only princess consort. A queen’s husband being prince consort isn’t so people know who the monarch is, it’s to make it clear that her consort is ranked below her. However the idea that king is an inherently superior rank to queen is rooted in misogyny so it should be done away with.

 

[Muhler]

Yeah, but I bet she's not called Dowager Duchess on a day to day basis. Perhaps when the show is on at the court, but otherwise not. So on a day to day basis, she's the breathing duchess.
Anyway, it can hardly have mattered that much to the pair, otherwise they would have been married earlier on than on the death bed.

Come on, don't pull the misogyny card on an institution that is thousands of years old and where ruling female monarchs are far from uncommon. The whole idea of monarchy is to determine exactly who is who in the pecking order and to do that there cannot be equality. To equalize title and thereby making things a little more complicated in the holy name of political correctness is IMO silly and unnecessary because it makes no difference anyway. Whatever title you bestow on a consort that person is still a consort. That's the whole idea. No one are equal within a royal family.
Again, don't fix a system that ain't broken.

 

[Blog Real]

Yeah, but I bet she's not called Dowager Duchess on a day to day basis. Perhaps when the show is on at the court, but otherwise not. So on a day to day basis, she's the breathing duchess.
Anyway, it can hardly have mattered that much to the pair, otherwise they would have been married earlier on than on the death bed.

Come on, don't pull the misogyny card on an institution that is thousands of years old and where ruling female monarchs are far from uncommon. The whole idea of monarchy is to determine exactly who is who in the pecking order and to do that there cannot be equality. To equalize title and thereby making things a little more complicated in the holy name of political correctness is IMO silly and unnecessary because it makes no difference anyway. Whatever title you bestow on a consort that person is still a consort. That's the whole idea. No one are equal within a royal family.
Again, don't fix a system that ain't broken.

I agree. European monarchies work in a certain way, and certain customs or traditions are not always understood. I believe that in the coming decades these title issues will not change substantially, even as a matter of tradition. There's no point in complicating things.

 

[meeralakshmi]

Yeah, but I bet she's not called Dowager Duchess on a day to day basis. Perhaps when the show is on at the court, but otherwise not. So on a day to day basis, she's the breathing duchess.
Anyway, it can hardly have mattered that much to the pair, otherwise they would have been married earlier on than on the death bed.

Come on, don't pull the misogyny card on an institution that is thousands of years old and where ruling female monarchs are far from uncommon. The whole idea of monarchy is to determine exactly who is who in the pecking order and to do that there cannot be equality. To equalize title and thereby making things a little more complicated in the holy name of political correctness is IMO silly and unnecessary because it makes no difference anyway. Whatever title you bestow on a consort that person is still a consort. That's the whole idea. No one are equal within a royal family.
Again, don't fix a system that ain't broken.

She isn’t THE Duchess any longer now that her wife is dead, that would be her stepson’s wife. Dowager Duchess distinguishes her from the present duchess consort. The 21st Duchess was legally married to her ex-husband until 2005 despite them living separate lives since 1958. That’s why her girlfriend was just her girlfriend for so long, her last wish was probably for them to be legally married (and gay marriage wasn’t even legal in Spain until 2005, the same year the Duchess divorced her ex-husband). I wouldn’t say that female monarchs are far from uncommon when in many monarchies women couldn’t even inherit the throne until recently and only recently did most monarchies adopt absolute primogeniture. Women still can’t inherit peerages in the UK. Certain monarchies already have equalized titles in the name of gender equality; in Sweden princesses are now duchesses in their own right from birth when in the past ducal titles were reserved for princes. The husband of a princess is now made a prince and a duke of his wife’s duchy regardless of his prior status (Madeleine’s husband declined this) instead of the princess’ title being downgraded if she marries morganatically. In Belgium Princess Astrid’s husband and kids were made princes and princesses of Belgium and Delphine’s kids were made a prince and princess as well (I’ve heard that her and her husband aren’t legally married which is why he has no title). As I’ve explained equalizing titles would make things less confusing, not more. If we “shouldn’t fix a system that isn’t broken” then are you also against Juan Carlos deciding that the husband of a queen will no longer be a king? By your logic all of the changes made in the name of gender equality so far shouldn’t have been made. Do you also think Japan shouldn’t allow women to inherit the throne? The public has wanted that for a while now.

I agree. European monarchies work in a certain way, and certain customs or traditions are not always understood. I believe that in the coming decades these title issues will not change substantially, even as a matter of tradition. There's no point in complicating things.

You’re ignoring all the changes that already have been made in terms of titles and otherwise. Do you also think Japan shouldn’t allow women to inherit the throne?

 

[Blog Real]

You’re ignoring all the changes that already have been made in terms of titles and otherwise. Do you also think Japan shouldn’t allow women to inherit the throne?

Of course I think that in Japan women should inherit the throne. Here we are talking about titles, which is a different situation. The issue of titles is related to tradition, and that's it. Things may change, we'll see.

 

[An Ard Ri]

It was rumoured that Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia was gay or bisexual.
Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia - Wikipedia

As was Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich of Russia
Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich of Russia - Wikipedia

 

[Muhler]

The UK doesn’t even have a tradition for the title of a male consort because female monarchs have been so uncommon. 4/5 queens regnant were married and their husbands all had different titles.

That's in UK (and Denmark too for that matter, where there has been only one female monarch in the entire history of the DRF.) There are other monarchies, where female monarchs are not that uncommon. In UK for example they have had a female monarch on average once every century, for the past 500 years, which is not a bad track record.
Anyway, they came up with a title that suited that particular situation in that particular century and in accordance with the political circumstances of the time.

Keep in mind that until very recently, actually only a little more than 50 years in fact, the very idea of the consort having the same title as the monarch would have been met with a blank stare, because titles within a monarchy served to help establish exactly where you were in the pecking order, for the very simple reason that no one, as in no one at all, were equal.

Also, what is the benefit of bestowing equal titles to royals if it makes absolutely no difference? Especially if it only makes it more complicated to determine who is who to people.
Example: You are at an international conference. Among the many people you meet and are casually introduced to, is His Majesty Emir F of X and His Majesty Emir M of X. - You don't know them. You'd probably never even heard of their country but right now you are a nano-second away from committing a faux pas, if you mistake the wrong one for the monarch.
That wouldn't happen if they were presented as His Majesty Emir F of X and His Royal Highness Grand Prince M of X.

If you are a staunch believer in absolute equality, don't marry into a royal family. Any royal family.

 

[JR76]

Until Carl Gustaf married Silvia princes who married unequally lost their titles. Three of Carl Gustaf’s sisters married unequally and were stripped of their HRH and made Princess (name), Mrs./Baroness (husband’s surname). Chris would have needed to become a Swedish citizen to receive a title, he declined a title for that reason.

What you describe are not morganatic marriages.

 

[meeralakshmi]

What you describe are not morganatic marriages.

What exactly is the difference between an unequal and a morganatic marriage?

 

[Ista]

A number of posts have been deleted as they had veered off topic. Please stick to the topic of the thread going forward.