Opposition to Royal Marriages

[SLV]

This comment is not meant to reference any person or discussion in particular, as it concerns a general pattern in many discussions I have seen both on this forum and on other websites. I was inclined to post it in the thread Royalty/Nobility and Gender, but will rather post it here in case my interpretation is disputed.

It appears it is much more socially acceptable to criticize a female royal's choice of spouse than to criticize a male royal's choice of spouse. In discussions on the appropriateness of a princess's choice of husband, or about third parties who may disapprove of her choice, it seems posters are free to suggest the princess should not marry him or should accept the negative consequences for marrying him, without facing backlash for their views. But in discussions on the appropriateness of a prince's choice of wife, or about third parties who may disapprove of his choice, posters who argue that the prince should not marry her or should accept the negative consequences for marrying her are typically in the minority and are often subjected to severe rejoinders (including accusations of being medieval, misogynistic, racist, etc.), even in some cases when the bride is unpopular or has a checkered past.

That is certainly not the case. You should look and read all the threads about Swedish prince Carl-Philip when he was dating his current wife.

 

[Lee-Z]

That is certainly not the case. You should look and read all the threads about Swedish prince Carl-Philip when he was dating his current wife.

oh gosh yes, and on other royal forums it was even worse than here, i swear there are some who still hold her past against her

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That is certainly not the case. You should look and read all the threads about Swedish prince Carl-Philip when he was dating his current wife.

Perhaps our recollections differ. I have read those threads, and found that they contained many instances of what I described about discussions of princes' choices of spouse, namely:

But in discussions on the appropriateness of a prince's choice of wife, or about third parties who may disapprove of his choice, posters who argue that the prince should not marry her or should accept the negative consequences for marrying her are typically in the minority and are often subjected to severe rejoinders (including accusations of being medieval, misogynistic, racist, etc.), even in some cases when the bride is unpopular or has a checkered past.

oh gosh yes, and on other royal forums it was even worse than here, i swear there are some who still hold her past against her

Without opining on the proposition that past behavior should not be held against a chosen spouse, it seems to me to be another difference between the more generous treatment of princes' marital choices compared to the treatment of princesses' marital choices, as I rarely see it applied to the latter.

 

[maria-olivia]

The Comte de Paris refused 3 of his Sons Weddings. Only Jacques became Duke d'Orleans
Prince Henri had to marry Duchess Marie Therese of Wurtenberg. He left her had a relation with Miceala and became Comte de Mortain.
Michel married against his Father's Will and became Comte d' Evreux
Thibaut married against his Father's Will and became Comte de la Marche.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I have decided to move my previous post and the replies to it to Royalty/Nobility and Gender, as I do believe it is a gender issue.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

[...] it does not mean that where there is love there is always suitability for the role.

That is exactly why it is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst when members of the public, royal watchers, commentators, and so on equate princes' "freedom to marry" with "entitlement to become the Head of State and First Lady".

(Or First Gentleman, but I've noticed that this argument only seems to be deployed on behalf of royal men marrying women, not the other way around or with same-sex spouses.)

In Europe, at least, no hereditary monarchy retains the power to block any royal from contracting an otherwise legal marriage.

"Permission to marry", in the constitutions of European monarchies today, simply means "permission to remain in line to be Head of State after marriage".

This is not the same as "How can you deny him the right to marry the woman he loves?". A prince can have a perfectly valid and fulfilling marriage with the woman he loves without being King and her being Queen.

In my view, permission to become a country's head of state and first lady is not something that ought to be rubber-stamped simply because two people are in love.

(This is a general complaint, and not directed towards any person or persons in particular.)

 

[Somebody]

Because of that, I highly recommend the Dutch model. Requiring parliamentary approval to a marriage of those in line to the throne removes the very personal dimension between family members and raises the bar for a marriage for those that want to remain in line to the throne. It doesn't mean that the others cannot get married but that the consequence of such marriage is that they are no longer in line to the throne.

 

[Marengo]

But do you think parlament would have vetoed a Dutch Mette-Marit? I don’t think it would have. Durek yes, the medicines thing alone would have been enough. But a Mette-Marit, young, made a few wrong choices but now trying to improve her life as was the story then… I can’t see parlament voting against that.

 

[Somebody]

I'm not saying it is foolproof but Mabel's past (a high-achieving woman who made one mistake in the past) was much less worrisome than Mette-Marit's (she didn't just make a few bad choices, she was at one point about to get married to a convicted criminal (drug-related offenses) and had a child with another guy in the same drug scene (who was later convicted? not completely sure about the timeline); followed by various other relationships in that same party/drug scene) and no parliamentary approval was requested because of it. Of course, it would be harder to not ask for approval or deny it in the case of the heir to the throne (although if Willem-Alexander's future wife truly was a problem, they had just approved Constantijn's marriage, so there was a back-up) but it is a safety net that most other monarchies don't have.

 

[Mbruno]

To be honest I don't think that there is any inherent "advantage" or benefit nowadays of royals marrying someone from the nobility over marrying a respectable and educated middle-class person with a proper (vetted) backgroumd.

Although the nobility still legally exists in many countries, it is now largely reduced only to a legal right to use an inherited honorific title. The nobility is probably not better educated or more morally "virtuous" than the upper middle-class in most countries nowadays and, although some noble men and women may still hold positions in royal households, the nobility on average is not more familiarized with public service or state duties than again the upper middle-class (from which the majority of elected officials and civil/ diplomatic servants or military officers are drawn by the way).

There may be some benefit, however, to royals marrying other royals (as opposed to nobility), especially children of other monarchs. That is because being a royal is a very particular job and lifestyle that is now unique to a very small number of reigning families. Children of other monarchs have the advantage of having grown up in this job and lifestyle and, even though each country is different, their learning curve is much quicker and there isn't that much of a cultural change for them. In particular, they are already used to being public fugures and to public attention from a very young age and probably already have a great deal of experience with public and state events.

 

[Stefan]

I'm not saying it is foolproof but Mabel's past (a high-achieving woman who made one mistake in the past) was much less worrisome than Mette-Marit's (she didn't just make a few bad choices, she was at one point about to get married to a convicted criminal (drug-related offenses) and had a child with another guy in the same drug scene (who was later convicted? not completely sure about the timeline); followed by various other relationships in that same party/drug scene) and no parliamentary approval was requested because of it. Of course, it would be harder to not ask for approval or deny it in the case of the heir to the throne (although if Willem-Alexander's future wife truly was a problem, they had just approved Constantijn's marriage, so there was a back-up) but it is a safety net that most other monarchies don't have.

But then in most of the european monarchies (except for Norway and Spain) also the Government if the day is involved into granting permission for a royal to marry and keep his succession rights

 

[Mbruno]

But then in most of the european monarchies (except for Norway and Spain) also the Government if the day is involved into granting permission for a royal to marry and keep his succession rights

In Spain, succession rights may be technically lost under the 1978 constitution if a person in the line of succession marries against the explicit prohibition of the King and the Parliament.

This "and" above has been traditionally interpreted as a literal logical "and", meaning that both the King and the Parliament would have to prohibit the marriage for the marriage to cause a loss of succession rights. Either the King or the Parliament's prohibition alone would not be sufficient. That interpretation has never been tested though, so it is not entirely clear if that is indeed the case.

In Norway, the opinion that consent to royal marriages is a personal prerogative of the King alone seems to be King Harald's own interpretation, but again, I am not sure if it is the correct interpretation since "the King" elsewhere in the Norwegian constitution is normally construed to be actually the King in Council , or the King acting of the advice of the government. The pratical reality, I think, is that the Norwegian government has voluntarily abdicated from the duty of advsing the King on royal marriages. I have no doubt that they could have an influence if they wanted to.

The amended Swedish Act of Succcesion in turn is actually an interesting example because it changes the traditional way in which consent to marriages of people in the line of succession is given, i.e,, the duty to consent formally lies with the government (not with the King), but the government can only give consent if the King asks for it, meaning in practice that a double consent is needed.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But then in most of the european monarchies (except for Norway and Spain) also the Government if the day is involved into granting permission for a royal to marry and keep his succession rights

Yes, but in those monarchies, the prime minister of the day seems to treat it as a rubber-stamp, a mere formality. Certainly, that was the case with prime ministers who signed off on marriages in Belgium, Britain and the Scandinavian monarchies.

Only the Netherlands do prime ministers seem to take their role in assessing potential royal spouses seriously, and as @Somebody suggested, that may be because in the Netherlands, marriage approval must be granted via Parliament passing a law, rather than the prime minister co-signing the equivalent of an executive order issued by the king.

 

[eejm]

I haven’t seen this marriage mentioned yet, but it definitely faced opposition: Princess Beatrice and Prince Henry of Battenberg. There was certainly Prussian descent to the marriage, but the biggest objector was Queen Victoria, who had long intended for her youngest daughter to remain unmarried and at her service. If Beatrice’s eldest son’s account is believed, QV and Beatrice did not speak to one another for months after the latter made her wishes known. The two communicated only by note despite living together.

QV eventually came around, mostly due to the pleasing of her older children to give Beatrice some happiness and a purpose outside serving her mother. However, Beatrice and Henry were required to live with her, travel infrequently, and ideally not have children. They disobeyed the last order and had four children, but did live under Victoria’s thumb for years.

 

[Stefan]

One marriage who did not happen because of heavy opposition against it was the planned marriage of Prince Victoria of Prussia and Prince Alexander of Battenberg, Prince of Bulgaria. There was political opposition against it from Chancellor Bismarck and Emperor Wilhelm I. and Empress Augusta was against because of the morganatic status of the Battenbergs.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I have decided to move my previous post and the replies to it to Royalty/Nobility and Gender, as I do believe it is a gender issue.

Continued the discussion on double standards here:

I will add that those not convinced of the difference in treatment by royal watchers should compare and contrast the discussions of the controversial marriage of Princess Märtha Louise of Norway with the discussions of controversial marriages of royal princes.

Yes, but in those monarchies, the prime minister of the day seems to treat it as a rubber-stamp, a mere formality. Certainly, that was the case with prime ministers who signed off on marriages in Belgium, Britain and the Scandinavian monarchies.

It seems I was wrong in regards to Denmark; see Muhler's post in Marriage to Commoners in Denmark

It has been mentioned and written about on a number of occasions when discussing the DRF in the media. And usually mentioned en passant. That alone should indicate that it's considered a normal thing.
Checking even ordinary people is a routine in DK. And that includes relatives to people who work with sensitive things. That's made clear during the final interview.
In the case of Mary Donaldson I remember very clearly that it was mentioned specifically that Danish authorities had contacted their counterpart in Australia (Australian police) who had checked her. (In DK the national security branch is under the police, PET, who also provides protection for the DRF.)
PET was almost certainly also involved when Marie's ex contacted a number of Danish media outlets offering intimate things for sale. Video material IIRC. Someone from somewhere within the US services contacted the ex and leaned quite heavily on him. With them was a Dane. - We haven't heard from the ex since...
That story was also told in Danish media at the time. I even think I translated an article about it on another board.

What involves the heir as well as children of the DRF are openly considered a state affair in DK. Brutally speaking DRF-children belongs to the state. Which is one of the reasons Alexandra got an apanage after divorcing Joachim. A senior politician openly said that it was to ensure that Nikolai and Felix would grow up in circumstances befitting their station. (After all at the time Nikolai was right after Joachim in the Line of Succession.)
And that also includes whom they wish to marry.

Any request or announcement by the DRF at a State Council has been okayed in advance. Otherwise it wouldn't get that far. And that's why a DRF-request is never in danger of not passing in the Parliament. The MPs expects the government to have done its homework.
That procedure is also often discussed, because it's one of the questions people often ask when the royal show is on.

So if the government (read: On behalf of the Parliament and likely based on a report from PET and other sources) find a person unsuited, there will be a very good reason for it!! And the DRF better listen, or end up in the very embarrassing situation of the government rejecting say announcing and okaying an engagement.

In the case of Joachim and Alexandra it ended up in a divorce, but there is no guarantee, even with the best match. But it was not because Alexandra was unsuited or didn't take her job seriously, she sure did.

You also ask whether the government would turn down a possible fiancee. The answer, and it is not hypothetical, is in my estimation yes. If it even went that far. I think QMII and PH themselves said no. - I won't go into further details.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

That is exactly why it is ignorant at best and dishonest at worst when members of the public, royal watchers, commentators, and so on equate princes' "freedom to marry" with "entitlement to become the Head of State and First Lady".

(Or First Gentleman, but I've noticed that this argument only seems to be deployed on behalf of royal men marrying women, not the other way around or with same-sex spouses.)

In Europe, at least, no hereditary monarchy retains the power to block any royal from contracting an otherwise legal marriage.

"Permission to marry", in the constitutions of European monarchies today, simply means "permission to remain in line to be Head of State after marriage".

This is not the same as "How can you deny him the right to marry the woman he loves?". A prince can have a perfectly valid and fulfilling marriage with the woman he loves without being King and her being Queen.

In my view, permission to become a country's head of state and first lady is not something that ought to be rubber-stamped simply because two people are in love.

(This is a general complaint, and not directed towards any person or persons in particular.)

Elaborating on my earlier comment…

A certain combination of opinions is truly difficult for me to understand. To illustrate using a recent example:

Many Norwegians feel it would have been unthinkably controlling, interfering, outdated, etc. if King Harald V (or the Government) had denied constitutional consent to Princess Märtha Louise and Durek Verrett's marriage. (Denying consent would have banned Princess Märtha Louise from becoming Queen, but their marriage would still have been fully legal.)

However: Many of the same people also feel Princess Märtha Louise should not have married Durek Verrett at all, because he does not deserve to be connected to the Norwegian monarchy, a Princess has a duty to Norway not to bring someone like him into the royal family, etc.

In short: "Don't marry Durek Verrett!" is considered an acceptable sentiment, but "Marry Durek Verrett and be happy, but we don't want you as our Queen and Prince Consort" is considered unacceptable. (In the eyes of a sizeable number of people.)


That is only one example. I do not mean to single out Norwegians or the princess couple.

My question: How is telling a couple "Don't get married" less controlling, interfering, etc. compared to wishing them well in their marriage but not letting them become the Head of State and First Spouse?

 

[maria-olivia]

In Sweden Princes did non martital Weddings losty theit tittle and divorced one or two times. (prince Carl our Queen Astrid younger brother ) They are Bernadotte.
In denmark only Prince Axel did a Royal Wedding , his brothers married commors and some divorced also. They are Roenborg

 

[An Ard Ri]

Was there any opposition to the 1922 marriage of Princess Mary to Viscount Lascelles ?