Ish
Moderator Emeritus
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2013
- Messages
- 4,112
- City
- Vancouver
- Country
- Canada
If we're counting Diana as a "commoner" then George VI has them all beat for marrying Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in 1923.
If we're counting Diana as a "commoner" then George VI has them all beat for marrying Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon in 1923.
True enough. For the modern royals, the first actual commoner marriage would be Princess Margaret to Anthony, who was made an earl after marriage. Followed by Anne and Mark Philipps. Prince Andrew would be the first son of a modern monarch. And certainly they weren't paving the way for foreign royals who had done it previously before.
Diana was the 'cinderella' image I think because she wasn't the traditional aristocratic socialite. Everyone tends to picture the pre-school teacher who cleaned flats, forgetting she grew up at Sandringham playing with Andrew and Edward, and her father was a viscount/earl.
Anne Boleyn was not royal either...that's going way back.
LaRae
There was also the commoner Anne Hyde, mother of two queens (Mary and Anne). Her father got a title, but it was after her marriage to the future James II.Anne Boleyn was not royal either...that's going way back.
Hi all,
In the regards of your responses, can we fairly question the relevance of the Monarchy today?
You know what, I'm 2 years late but I have something thong to say: I think Duc has a point regarding the long term role of RFs. In the short term its all happy and marrying for love and a marriage that will actually last; but over the long long term people who look back 1
75-100yrs in the past and see that King WhatsaMaCallit VI had 3 generations of teachers, garbage men, and waitresses in his ancestry then people may question what is so royal about him.
On the other hand perhaps a lot of royal families would rather the slow erosion of the royalness of it all as opposed to the fast implosion of say marrying a Lady Diana Spencer who did more damage than Mette, Sophia, Maxima, Kate and her Uncle Gary combined.
Lastly, a few of these royals have eroded the mystique around themselves by having affairs and getting divorced.
I definitely understand the point Duc is making about erosion because of commoner marriages; I do think Sofia and Carl Phillip have especially lowered the bar.
In previous centuries Princesses were often treated as pawns on a giant chess board in order to secure binding treaties with other countries, and sometimes the heirs to thrones were too. A great many unhappy marriages were the result, and we don't know how many divorces there would have been had divorce been permissible then. Go back to that sort of world, even if it was possible? I don't think so!
Royal is just a made up designation, by the guy who had the biggest sword. Over the years for both good and bad the concept held in some places. That is their prerogative. But "royal" is just a farce. They are no better then the waitresses or garbage people mentioned above. Just a fancy designation they held for themselves, obtained as aforementioned.
Royals need to find other ways of distinguishing themselves, to show WHY they are at the top and why they should remain there and have respect as their due.
Unhappy marriages only applied when there were political alliances. When there was just money even if the alliance broke down, there tended to be a lot of widowers.In previous centuries Princesses were often treated as pawns on a giant chess board in order to secure binding treaties with other countries, and sometimes the heirs to thrones were too. A great many unhappy marriages were the result, and we don't know how many divorces there would have been had divorce been permissible then. Go back to that sort of world, even if it was possible? I don't think so!
I just think that 'suitable' should mainly be about mental and emotional stability and someone who gets it that they are supposed to support, not star in some kind of soap opera. Someone who gets it that they're supposed to put themselves at their spouse's service and that it's never going to be all about them. No future royal consort should go into this marriage thinking that they're the ones who should be nurtured and take center stage.
It's not nice, but it's how it is.
Well, we know who we are talking about in recent history. A more 'unsuitable' bride (albeit with all the bloodlines and 'breeding') there never was as it turns out in that instance. I think now there is sharp eye to such unsuitability. Hard lesson, dearly paid for.
I agree.
So actually she is no more royal than her husband is. So how could he be a poor choice?
There are probably many cases like that.
Its true that problems can arise in any marriage, between couples that adored each other or hardly knew each other. Or where one of them was (As Blackadder puts it) a footman and the other was the Duchess of Whereever...A commoner such as Sarah, Sophie, Kate or anyone else for that matter may be just what the doctor ordered for a "royal" but not because of their status or any other external factor but because the couple fit together like peanut butter and jelly. Its not until after the marriage that the couple actually find out if they endure or if that sandwich turns to oil and vinegar as time passes.
When it comes to marriage between *anybody*, its the experience of the marriage itself that is the prime test of its endurance. The two people in the marriage determine its success as interacting human beings. The externals such as what we deem to be "suitable" for marriage to a royal amount to one hill of magic jumping beans when the cards are all laid out on the table.
JC Bernadotte was indeed a soldier, of no particular "good family".. but his family marred into the royal families of Europe and so technically yes she is "more royal" than her husband.
And now Daniel has married into the royal families of Europe.
So, he and Victoria are now equally royal!
Peter York, the author of The Official Sloane Ranger Handbook (the one with Lady Diana on the cover), was asked in an interview a few years ago if Kate was a 'Sloane' and he didn't hesitate.
"The impulse behind the question over whether she’s a Sloane is a snobbish one,” he said, “Of course she is. She's from a well-off Home Counties family, she went to Downe House, Marlborough and St Andrews, for God’s sake."
So the fact she doesn't have 'Lady' in front of her name is meaningless in 2017.
The Middletons are in the top 0.5 percent of earners in Britain. Kate has a private school education that only 7 percent of Brits enjoy.
We need to keep 'commoner' in perspective.