Marriage to Commoners vs Royals/Nobles

[Thumbahlina]

Or things change very, very slowly. Nowadays Dad may still ask all his questions, but in the end he has to accept your decision.

And somehow this slow social change goes for all social classes/groups; not just for royals and aristos. Imagine that 100 or 150 years ago a farmer's son wanted to wed the dairy maid. Daddy farmer would have had a mayor fit, because a daughter-in-law had to be a farmer's daughter with a couple of cows and a chest of linen as dowry, and the skills needed by a farmer's wife. The same goes for tradesmen, craftsmen, doctors or parson: they all looked for wives with the right dowry, the right family and business connections, and knowledge of the trade. A daughter of a baker would just know better how to lead a baker's household than the daughter of the smith. Besides the right father-in-law might improve your business connections, or your position within your guild. So craftsmen would arrange marriages within their own guild and tradesmen arranged their marriages within their own trade, if possible.

Nowadays women have their own jobs, they don't "marry" their professions anymore. That freed people to marry for love, and also led to a general disapproval of arranged marriages. A good development, imo.

There is a hitch for reigning royal houses, because there the partners still "marry their job". But then we now have the perception that a profession can be learned by (nearly) anyone and does not have to be inherited. If a farmers daughter can study architecture, then a shop keeper's daughter can learn how to represent her country as a Queen.

I put the "nearly" in brackets because I still believe that it needs some personal qualities and talents to learn certain things. Eg you need the brains to study medicine, and if you are highly intelligent but faint a the sight of blood - well, maybe better study something else.

This was a great post. If we look at today, we see that Dutchess Kate for example comes from a somewhat well to do family kind of making them nobility by financial definition and through family name the deeper the history you read. Which is important given the run in's with the press and lawsuits that followed which probably came out of her pocket to pursue. We are not talking the normal family with a usual couple million dollars between them all to hoard and help no one else in the family but themselves. Her family has a substantial amount of wealth and some family relation in positions that gives them a noble status. Not just like anyone else with the American dream status working, saving, owning a business. So the royals look for the kind of status her family has. Americans are sometimes wrapped up in what they know as the American dream, a lot have, but it isn't what the royals are after. They want nobility from their nook of the woods. So at first read you might think, oh, her family had regular jobs, but the deeper it goes you find out, oh, the rest of her fam is real to do and it is easy to understand why Duke William got with her. Yet if you didn't know, it was all like oh, he got with a commoner, but no, he didn't get with a commoner line. It makes sense he's with her. She isn't just about party supplies and fashion, she has work skills that are suitable for running a business.

 

[Thumbahlina]

I find even the title of this thread rather odd... Well, because they fall in love like any one else!

Well it is odd, but there are people out there who might cry and ask why did he marry her because they have a perception of a skewed misfortune because he didn't give a chance to a wayward wretch to save or help her change for the better instead of marrying a well to do, not fathoming all that is involved in a royal wedlock behind the scenes instead traditionalizing it as if it were a fairy tale in hindsight in sheer ignorance, because of all the charity involvement associated. Sure it might cross everyone's mind with a why not and wouldn't it be beautiful if he turned a homeless person into a princess or changed a miscreant into a beautiful princess who ran a charity. Personally I think it would be a detriment, only because, when the media and benefactors got a hold of her they'd leave her a helpless emotional mess without a cent to defend or contribute. Well the question why couldn't she just work as a maid in the palace or something to support herself humbly and just be with him out of love. Because it is plain ridiculous and improper, nor would it suffice the monetary demand the legalities often impose. Or an orphan? Again, money is essential to have going into a relationship with one of them that a heavily borrowed on credit line will not suffice. Yes it is odd but these are real challenges some people deal with reaching out in efforts to just be saved, doted on, cared for by someone with power and prestige because of a need for wealth, safety, luxury and notoriety out of whatever hardships in life they have faced. The very people that might scare even you, don't always usually seem scary that might even seem normal, still don't have the money or the upraising to sit in front of a desk, not out of homelessness, education level or criminal record, but because of mental health or just plain ignorance. They can't help it, but can be helped, just not with a royal title, no matter how cruel it may seem. It just isn't fair to them no matter how beautiful it would be to the rest of the world. It's dog eat dog in a position like the royals give through wedlock. Look at what a spectacle Dutchess Kate is and it's such a great thing her family has and gave to her the endurance and education as a youth to help pull her through it. If she was homeless without a cent and had gotten with Duke William the media and benefactors would of ate her for lunch, but everyone else would of loved the love story. Can't please everyone they gotta do what's best for the country and royal family when they choose who they wed. Odd indeed. However common sense isn't odd even though not everyone has it.

 

[eya]

I believe that the royals merries non royals because they want to show that they are close to their people

I think and the son of the Princess Margaret David Viscount Linley married an aristocrat girl the Serena Stanhope.

They are forgot Camilla guys . I think and her's the family is aristocratic.Not?

 

[Isabella]

From what I have noticed, England for example, they tend to stick with marrying from noble families. The selection is a quite huge one. There are so many names and families they have plenty of choices. Sure is nice being a commoner. Really, if they married a common person a lot of scrutiny might happen on a limited amount of personal funds to deal with it. No one wants to see royals wed someone who was too poor to file a lawsuit to protect themselves from libel, defamation of character or even hire an attorney to deal with contracts or publicity if needed. They have great morals and values, the royals do, but anyone they got with before marriage in the dating phase would simply have to have enough money or enough money in their family not to have to eat the cost of being affiliated with the royals. Really, borrowing a lump sum off a date to defend yourself in a civil suit just isn't going to make for happy wedlock. Then, noble families are unlikely to turn on one another in a fit of baby pictures and yearbooks to media outlets. Perhaps it's not like that or even a reason, but, that is the way it seems, it just makes the most sense.

The last bride or groom from a strictly "noble" family to marry into the British royal family was Diana, to the best of my knowledge. How much money a family may or may not have is a completely different matter.

 

[Thumbahlina]

Once again, this isn't how genetics works. If a trait is determined by only 1 gene and a person has the markers for both the dominant and recessive trait (Gg) and their spouse just has the recessive markers (gg) then their children each have a 50% chance of receiving the dominant trait, but they could or could not receive it - it is not a guarantee that 50% of their children will receive it. If both parents are Gg then the children have a 75% chance of receiving the dominant trait, but if either parent is GG then they have a 100% chance of receiving it.

Not all traits are determined by just one genetic marker though, so things become even harder to predict. Consider hair colour - that's determined by at least two markers, which is why there are so many different hair colours.

As for royals' DNA being mapped... I strongly doubt that their DNA has been well mapped. We know that some have had at least aspects of their DNA mapped in order to identify the remains of people (i.e. Prince Philip's DNA was used to determine the identity of the remains of the family of Nicholas II), but I strongly doubt there has been an extensive testing of any royal's DNA in order to determine what genetic diseases they have. Royals tend to be pretty private about things, particularly health, and I somehow doubt they'd allow for access to do that (even without cloning considerations).

Ahh, now, this post is somewhat interesting to me. Their DNA. Let's look at dna, it stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, basically it is a carrier of genetic information. Correct me if I am wrong. R.N.A. or ribonucleic acid is the expression and regulation of the "coding" and "decoding" of said genes, or implications. Basically, I am not instructing you to do this, some water add a drop of cooking oil, heat it up, then a drop of some dish soap and the oil kind of disperses from the top when the soap is added. There, you have the only kind of sort of explanation you can see in action of what dna and rna do with each other without the furthermore explanation. As far as royal dna, the tail of it, length and what not, would be the only interest because of what was once thought of as junk dna can shed light on a great unspecified many things that, that one royal unearthed, his dna should suffice, but, I am guessing it is under tight lock and key. I before e except after c.. I may have a few misspelled words, excuse them please. Dna and disease, now cancer, it's replication process, I learned a little dna in grade school and can tell you that as far as hair and eye color I don't give a so. It's all in the dna/rna tail that interests me. I do study the bigger diseases, so never mind me, if you please. p's and q's minded, so we shall see what we shall see. I do doubt it will be the royal dna we get a glimpse of. Yet at glance at the royal family tree and what I do in fact know, you gotta do your own history, I can't just tell you. What fun is that? ..as far as cloning, how simple that is and a marvelous advancement. No sense in sharing that furthermore. Prince Phillip's dna, let's see he is The Queen of England's husband in his 90's? At his age yeah that dna tail could be really quite a spectacle, really, possibly ideal for study for entertainment for learning, but, lo que sera sera, and his dna really isn't a matter for research nor should it be because the areas that'd have to be sampled just are not up for discussion. Nor would it be that lucrative to even ponder let alone sample, he's a royal. There is nothing in any of them that is going to cure any of them, or anyone else if they were ill. I don't honestly think any one of them could even donate to one another in the event a drastic dire need, nothing more than blood and that is a far stretch even given the possibility of medications they could be on, real secure even down to that. Gotta admire them. As far as the royal that was unearthed, the soil sample next to him perhaps 4 ft below has much more scientific value than he does. Respectfully. It's the dirt that was around and under that one that has had my interest more than the dna of any of them.

 

[Isabella]

I think and the son of the Princess Margaret David Viscount Linley married an aristocrat girl the Serena Stanhope.

Yes, that's true. I was just thinking more in terms of the Queen's children and grandchildren, particularly those who have official roles (I had to draw a line for myself somewhere, otherwise I'd be sitting here for ages, getting lost in all kinds of family trees ).

 

[FanofMonaco]

The smart royals marry successful people who have the smarts and leadership abilities to continue the family line. Inbreeding creates weak people. Grace Kelly was a gift from God for Monaco. She had all the qualities one could ask for. Several of the Kelly family were very successful in life. 8 Olympic medals by 3 different people, a Pulitzer Prize winner, a 3 time US national billards winner and she was an Academy Award winner. Her dad built a very successful brick business. Her cousin was Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan. Her family understood politics and US presidents knew them personally. This became very useful when France was threatening to take over Monaco in the 60s. Today the Casiraghis are doing the same thing. Andrea is married to a multibillionaire whose Uncle is a very powerful businessman in New York. Pierre is soon to be the brother in law of John Elkmann, CEO of Fiat Chrysler. Even Gad Elmaleh is a self-made millionaire. The principalities are actually in better shape than the kingdoms. Monaco, Leichtenstein, Luxembourg, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar have the highest standards of living in the world. ( You could include Singapore. It's a democracy but the same family has run it for decades.) Titles don't mean much anymore. It's capitalism that rules the world. Money is power. The ruling families of the countries above don't have to beg the government for a paycheck. They can pretty much write their own check. The European Kingdoms pretend to have power but the monarchs are pretty much impotent.

 

[Isabella]

They are forgot Camilla guys . I think and her's the family is aristocratic.Not?

I believe Camilla's family would technically be considered gentry, not aristocracy, though her mother came from an aristocratic family.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I think and the son of the Princess Margaret David Viscount Linley married an aristocrat girl the Serena Stanhope.

Four noble ladies and one with a noble/gentry descent:

Aristocracy:
Katharine Lucy Mary Worsley, daughter of Sir William Arthington Worsley, 4th Baronet and of Joyce Morgan Brunner, daughter of Sir John Brunner, 2nd Baronet

Aristocracy:
Marie Christine Anna Agnes Hedwig Ida Baroness von Reibnitz. daughter of Gunther Hubertus Baron von Reibnitz and Maria Anna Carolina Franziska Walpurga Bernadette Countess Szapáry von Muraszombath, Széchysziget and Szapár.

Aristocracy:
Lady Serena Alleyne Stanhope, daughter of Lord Charles Henry Leicester Stanhope, 12th Earl of Harrington and of Virginia Mary Alleyne Freeman-Jackson.

Gentry:
Camilla Rosemary Shand, daughter of Major Bruce Middleton Hope Shand MC and Bar and of the Honourable Rosalind Maud Cubitt (of the Barons Ashcombe)

Aristocracy:
Donna Paola Luisa Marica Frankopan Subic Zrinski, Countess Doimi de Lupis, daughter of Francis Louis de Frankopan Subic Zrinski, Count Doimi de Lupis and of Professor Dr. Thyra Ingrid Hildegard Detter.

 

[Mirabel]

Because they can.

Now the royals are marrying the men and women who would have been favorites (read lovers) in the past!

Their preferences haven't changed, they just have more leeway now.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Of course there is a difference between royal and aristocrat born ones and commoners. Look at this whole forum, look at the title above. If the whole meaning of being royal and the difference between royalty/nobility is not existent anymore, we better end this forum and campaign for making all monarchies republics. They we can drool about nice gowns worn by the spouse of the President of Norway, but I seriously doubt there will be interest in that, as already no one discusses the outfits of Mrs Kirchner of Argentina, Mrs Bachelet from Chile or Mrs Merkel from Germany.

Of course there is a difference between someone who comes from centuries old families widely and deep rooted in European history and interconnected with the whole who-is-who, above a "Tattooed Semi-Nude Model and Reality Soap Star" as the British Press informed her readers. Everyone initially understands the difference. But the virus of polictical correctness is also enraging here.

There is no difference between a Miss Zorreguieta from Buenos Aires or a Countess Krag-Juel-Vind-Frijs from Denmark. Noooooo, of course not. There is no difference between a Mr Ari Behn or a Donna Beatrice Borromeo, whose family belongs to the oldest and most prominent Italian nobility, owning a whole collection of stunning castles and complete dream-islands in the Lagio Maggiore. Noooooo, of course not.

If anyone refuses to see a difference in that, we better end the vaudeville. Prime Minister Mr Stefan Löfven will be a very good President of Sweden. After all "all people are equal and there is no difference between royals and commoners". Well... at least the people could vote for Mr Löfven.... It is as easy as that, if we go on that path.

 

[carlota]

you have a very valid point. may i add that "no, there is no difference between the impeccable past and credentials of mathilde of belgium or stephanie of luxembourg or the somewhat disfunctional past of mette marit and sofia". i'm sure mette marit and sofia are lovely ladies, and that they love their husbands very much, which we have seen proof of, but it's clear who is royalty material. if "we are all the same" applies, then i see no point for this forum.

 

[casualfan]

Of course there is a difference between royal and aristocrat born ones and commoners. Look at this whole forum, look at the title above. If the whole meaning of being royal and the difference between royalty/nobility is not existent anymore, we better end this forum and campaign for making all monarchies republics.

Of course there's a difference between Royal and non-Royal families (in heritage and history), but what some posters are arguing here is that the day that monarchies seek to promote and preserve those superficial differences by excluding any of those outside the royal circles, that is the day ALL monarchies will fall, because genetically and in every way that matters, royal families are not different.

It seems as though monarchies (at least, successful ones) are trying to redefine their role - yes, there's the ceremonial, but there's also the branding and equipping of these families as ambassadors and champions for their countries and respective businesses, and as leaders for social and philanthropic efforts.

You don't need a pedigree to do that, and not necessarily a perfect background.

 

[Anne2]

Of course there is a difference between royal and aristocrat born ones and commoners. Look at this whole forum, look at the title above. If the whole meaning of being royal and the difference between royalty/nobility is not existent anymore, ...

To contribute to this delicate question of "différences", I would like to stress that the role of monarchies has CHANGED! It is no longer, or less and less about nobility, aristocratic roots etc, whatever respectable these topics may be. It is far more about how these people, with by now limited powers, fulfil a very important role of representation of their country rather than ruling it.
I believe their role is more difficult than earlier since citizens place higher expectations on them in terms of respect of human values and moral principles, stimulating values etc
There are people with a nobility background who fulfil this remarkably and others NOT !! (Examples could be mentioned).
Similarly there are people without nobility roots, who contribute very possitively towards these goals, and others not! So personal values come above pure nobility or aristocratic rules in my view. However a good education and respectable initial career are the best assets.

 

[Anne2]

Of course there's a difference between Royal and non-Royal families (in heritage and history), but what some posters are arguing here is that the day that monarchies seek to promote and preserve those superficial differences by excluding any of those outside the royal circles, that is the day ALL monarchies will fall, because genetically and in every way that matters, royal families are not different.

It seems as though monarchies (at least, successful ones) are trying to redefine their role - yes, there's the ceremonial, but there's also the branding and equipping of these families as ambassadors and champions for their countries and respective businesses, and as leaders for social and philanthropic efforts.

You don't need a pedigree to do that, and not necessarily a perfect background.

I fully agree!!

 

[Mbruno]

To contribute to this delicate question of "différences", I would like to stress that the role of monarchies has CHANGED! It is no longer, or less and less about nobility, aristocratic roots etc, whatever respectable these topics may be. It is far more about how these people, with by now limited powers, fulfil a very important role of representation of their country rather than ruling it.
I believe their role is more difficult than earlier since citizens place higher expectations on them in terms of respect of human values and moral principles, stimulating values etc
There are people with a nobility background who fulfil this remarkably and others NOT !! (Examples could be mentioned).
Similarly there are people without nobility roots, who contribute very possitively towards these goals, and others not! So personal values come above pure nobility or aristocratic rules in my view. However a good education and respectable initial career are the best assets.

In the past, there was a high degree of inter-marriage between European royal families because royal weddings were part of international diplomacy and a way of keeping the balance of power in Europe or providing for the long-term security of countries. That is why Queen Margrethe II of Denmark for example is a first cousin to King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden; second cousin to King Albert II of Belgium , King Harald V of Norway and Grand Duchess Joséphine Charlotte of Luxembourg; and third cousin to Queen Elizabeth II, King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia of Spain. Nowadays, however, royal marriages no longer serve that purpose and there is no point anymore in cross-dynastic marriages as a state policy.

Once inter-royal match-ups are out of the picture (for the reasons stated above), we are left with the options of royals marrying "commoners" or members of the nobility, the latter understood as someone born in a family that, in the past, received a special honorific status that was granted by a sovereign and can be passed to their descendants (sorry, but that is all that "nobility" technically means). Objectively speaking, accomplished professional women like Maxima or Letizia are as qualified to become queen consorts as any woman of noble birth, if not more qualified as noble birth per se doesn't add much to the skills required of a contemporary queen.

I agree, on the other hand, that individuals like Daniel or Mette-Marit did not however fit a priori the expected profile for the job of royal consort and should be put in a separate category from Maxima, Letizia, or even Mary or Sonja. That doesn't mean though that they cannot "grow into the job" and become very effective consorts, as Daniel has done (I don't know a lot about Mette-Marit to have an opinion).

 

[Pranter]

It seems to me that nowdays almost all royal families are relegated to the role of ambassador for the country. Just one more reason that they don't need to marry royalty to carry out that function....in fact I wonder if we will every see royalty marry royalty (in modern countries) again.


LaRae

 

[Dani257]

that individuals like Daniel or Mette-Marit did not however fit a priori the expected profile for the job of royal consort and should be put in a separate category from Maxima, Letizia, or even Mary or Sonja. That doesn't mean though that they cannot "grow into the job" and become very effective consorts, as Daniel has done (I don't know a lot about Mette-Marit to have an opinion).

First, post and I agree. And, I guess that's what bothers me about other opinions, or my understanding of them (which may be faulty). That apparently, you can never overcome your past. That it seems like some people believe you can't "grow into the job". That who you were before or what you did might always be some looming shadow over who you are now or what you can contribute. And, no I don't know what any particular person discussed here can contribute. I don't know how to put it. People's pasts are a part of them, but I'd hate to be confined by my past. I'd hate to think someone might look at me and say nothing I might do in the future will ever mean I'm worthy.


Another thing that's bugged me a great deal is this feeling I get that there's an inherent inferiority between royalty and commoners. And that we all know it exists, but we don't want to admit it. Maybe that's not what people mean, but that's my impression. When I read "different" from some posters, I don't get different in the sense of "we're all unique individuals with different strengths and weaknesses and personalities." I get "royalty is better than you." And, maybe this is my America sensibility coming out. I believe we're all equal (although our circumstances rarely are). And, I believe that an institution should be able to have value and meaning without needing to believe that the people are inherently better than anyone simply by accident of birth.

And, if anyone is wondering why I'm here if I don't believe in the superiority of royals* it's simple. I find their lives interesting. I find a lot of things and people interesting. But, I can find them interesting without feeling they're inherently different or better.

*and again, let me acknowledge that I may be wrong about some posters feeling that members of royalty are superior people to the rest of us.

 

[Sancia]

It seems as though monarchies (at least, successful ones) are trying to redefine their role - yes, there's the ceremonial, but there's also the branding and equipping of these families as ambassadors and champions for their countries and respective businesses, and as leaders for social and philanthropic efforts.

You don't need a pedigree to do that, and not necessarily a perfect background.

The point is : if no pedigree is required to do that, why should it be done by people who main achievement is either being born in a special family and being daddy or mummy' son or girl, either having married someone born in a special family? Monarchy is all about pedigree and belonging to an old family.

I can't define myself as a monarchist for I don't believe some people are by birth better than the others. I am here for I am fascinated by monarchies.

The main problem for monarchies is IMHO they are challenging the modern concept of equality (even if there are much more things that are against equality today and are widely accepted by self-proclamed republicans, especially in France). Whatever they do, it will be questioned. Do crown princes and princesses marry aristocrats? They are old-fashioned, it is the definite proof monarchy is all about some humans being superior to their fellow countrymen and therefore monarchies should be abolished. Do crown princes and princesses marry commoners? If everyone can become a royal, what is the main point of keeping royalty as birth is not anymore a relevant criteria? Therefore monarchies should be abolished. It is a no-win situation.

That being said, I rather like princes and princesses marrying someone with good manners if they are to be my country representatives (coming from a citizen of a country whose presidents' ways of behaving have always been discussed buy his countrymen, the last favourite of the conservative side - a side we can assume like some decorum - being no exception and not really having manners we can be proud of). But if they have good manners and a very poor political conscience, can we be still proud of them?

That is all the dilemma. The only thing I know if I couldn't have become a royal spouse. I have too much unconventional political ideas to willingly close my mouth and while smiling shake hands with people whose ideas and actions I strongly disapprove.

 

[eya]

This is a subject of much discussion and everyone of us have the opinion. About me i do not think it is the same to have as Queen Princess Anne-Marie of Denmark or Princess Sofia of Greece and the nowdays Mathilde or Stephanie with i have Mette-Marit or Daniel. And i must curtseying oh my god princess Sofia. This is my poor opinion.

Stephanie is a bad example IMO because she might be a nice person but she doesn't have what it needs to become a great representative of her country. No personality, no elegance, no ability to really connect with people. I don't see her adding much to the popularity of the LRF (but on the other hand she probably will never be a disgrace either). Her m-i-l, the commoner Maria Teresa, was a much better choice.

IMO Mathilde of Belgium isn't so popular because of her noble family but because of her personality. In this case everything fitted together perfectly. She has what it needs, and the family is just a bonus.

I think that this thought is outdated.
In Spain we saw the people demanding that a born princess (the offspring of a union between 2 royal families actually) should be treated the same like everybody else. And in order to survive the institution had to go along with it.

Stephanie is a bad example? She don't have personality ,elegance,ability? Are you serious? How do you know that? Is married only 2.5 years . Mathilde 15 years and don't have to say about Maria Teresa. How can compare this?

 

[Muhler]

Despite living in a monarchy whose royal family has a direct link back to the first acknowledged king of my country, lineage is not important to me.

It of course helps that by far the majority of Danish queens have been foreigners, something that will continue with the next queen. So I don't risk bump into Mary's family on a daily basis, reminding me she has a background as a commoner.
Mary, like the queens before her, is a permanent ambassador and link to her country. That historically speaking has been the second primary role of any queen.
In that respect Mary reflects Australia as it is at present.
(The same thing for our Marie in fact, she reflects France/Switzerland as they are now).

Can you honestly tell me that only noble families of France and, dare I say, Australia should marry into royal families, because they are the most suited representatives of France and Australia? IMO no, times change.

Some claim that the purpose of a monarchy lose it's significance if the bloodline is diluted by commoners. I say on the contrary. I say that monarchies would indeed become anachronistic if they still adhered to the belief that genetics matters more than personality, education and good character in this day and age.

Royals, especially modern royals have a number of important functions. One of them being that they are permanent living role models. They are permanent representatives for their countries. And they are permanent reflections of the current moral and cultural standards of their countries.
That requires a number of skills that frankly only a few people possess.
Those who are born into that role, do their best, sometimes unsuccessfully, to perform that role. Yet, rather than showing respect for their pedigree it would IMO be more appropriate to praise them for their choice in partners.
Partners, who despite sometimes very humble backgrounds, have those skills.

I think some people mistakenly consider royal pedigree as the main factor in monarchies. It isn't, it's the monarchy itself that is the cement that helps holding together a nation. Look at Denmark, there has never been a period in Danish history where we haven't been a monarchy. It is so much a part of our history and our national and cultural identity that it is difficult, even for opponents, to genuinely imagine how it would be not to be a monarchy.
Look at Britain. Several dynasties of royals. Even imported monarchs! A period without a monarchy, not to mention the odd usurper. Yet it remains a monarchy. Why? Because of a shared language? Welsh and English? Nah. Shared culture? Scotch and southern English? Nah. Shared religion? Catholic and Protestant? Nah? Well, what do they have in common then? A shared history and the monarchy, would probably be the common answer.

Also, keep in mind that practically all royal and noble bloodlines that have ever existed on this planet are gone, but the concept of monarchy is still alive and doing surprisingly well. And that leads me to conclude that it is not pedigree that matters, but the institution itself and especially the people who are a part of the institution.

 

[Princess Pris]

Well first of all, the danger to the monarchy is not commoners and losing their prestige or aura of mystery and exclusivity. The danger to the monarchy is relevance. The monarchy needs to give the people a reason to continue to pay for a monarchy or a least do enough not to make people actively against them.

So I don't think it matters if they are commoner or royal/nobles, the main thing is a person who will work hard and avoid scandal.

There are two types of people in the world: Those who would vote to end a monarchy and those who would vote to continue with a monarchy.

So, for this discussion we eliminate all the people who would vote to end a monarchy because to them it doesn't matter if the person is royal by birth or not, they want to be rid of them all.

We are left with the people who vote to keep a monarchy and that gives us two groups: those who follow the royals closely and those who don't.

In the grand scheme of things those of us who follow the royals closely are the minority. Right now the majority of people don't spend there time reading and following the daily lives of the royals. So the people who matter to the monarchy are not the few royalist but the general public's opinion and support. That is the group the matters.

The whole world does not read the daily mail and those types of sites. If you only read the DM you would think that everyone hates the royals but in the real world that is not true.

What the general public does know are the big stories that get reported everywhere. Most people probably don't know who Kate's uncle Gary is or that Carole is allegedly taking over Amner Hall and filling it with her middle class ways. But people do know about Prince Andrew"s sex allegations.

Or some things matter to the general public and some things don't. Everyone knows that Letizia is a divorcee. Does that matter to the general public, no. Does something like Infanta Cristina's NOOS case matter to the general public, yes.

Scandal is the issue here. Instead of marring Kate let's say William had married Princess Madeline would that have changed anything in the eyes of the general public??? Let's say the scenario stayed the same. The people who complain that Will and Kate don't do enough would they stop complaining about that if Williams wife was a royal??? How would the British media handle Princess Madaline's failed engagement???? Would they ignore her party girl reputation and the fact that she is the least popular member of Swedish royal family and the least hard working of them????

At the end of the day it's the person that matters and what they do. Royal watchers are the ones follow every little thing and the one's who know each individuals family tree with detail. The general public would not care if the person is commoner or royal/noble. As long as they generally make positive headlines in the media (not the daily mail but actual news sources) and keep a positive perception they'll be fine.

 

[Mbruno]

Scandal is the issue here. Instead of marring Kate let's say William had married Princess Madeline would that have changed anything in the eyes of the general public??? Let's say the scenario stayed the same. The people who complain that Will and Kate don't do enough would they stop complaining about that if Williams wife was a royal??? How would the British media handle Princess Madaline's failed engagement???? Would they ignore her party girl reputation and the fact that she is the least popular member of Swedish royal family and the least hard working of them????

If we were still living in 1915, or even 1945, Prince William of Wales would probably have married Princess Madeleine of Sweden. Madeleine would have never been engaged to Jonas, and William would have never publicly dated, much less lived together with Kate. Even in 2015, if William and Madeleine hypothetically became engaged after breaking up respectively with Kate and Jonas, their respective royal houses would still be delighted and I'm pretty sure the press would consider it a perfect match. The ex-partners of both William and Madeleine wouldn't be an issue.


The point that many people are missing in this discussion and which I tried to raise before is that the norm for royals up to the early to mid-20th century was not to marry either members of the nobility or commoners, but rather to marry other royals, i.e. people who descended from some other ruling (or formerly ruling) dynasty. Royalty , contrary to common sense, is not the same as nobility. Now that royals don't marry royals anymore, the most important test is that the chosen spouse have the skills necessary to perform his/her job of royal consort efficiently in the context of a mostly ceremonial and apolitical monarchy. Such skills can be equally found in people of noble (though not royal) birth like Mathilde or accomplished professional women from a patrician family like Maxima. Objectively, I don't see a great difference.

 

[Princess Pris]

If we were still living in 1915, or even 1945, Prince William of Wales would probably have married Princess Madeleine of Sweden. Madeleine would have never been engaged to Jonas, and William would have never publicly dated, much less lived together with Kate. Even in 2015, if William and Madeleine hypothetically became engaged after breaking up respectively with Kate and Jonas, their respective royal houses would still be delighted and I'm pretty sure the press would consider it a perfect match. The ex-partners of both William and Madeleine wouldn't be an issue.

Obviously, the opinions of the royal houses matter very little, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist and people would accept the fact that the reigning royal houses see no problem with marrying commoners.

 

[Molly2101]

I think the British Royals learned from the mistakes that had been made earlier and allowed the younger royals to marry men and women they actually loved, as opposed to those forced to marry certain individuals due to their status/those who were not divorced (Lady Diana and Anthony Armstrong-Jones for example). Edward and Sophie are an example of how that has worked out. Even Fergie had had interactions with the Royals as children and her father was Philip's polo manager, hence why Andrew and Sarah became close. Sophie was a complete "commoner" and unknown to the Windsors, yet she was welcomed into the hold and Edward was allowed to marry her because he loved her, not because of whose child she was or whether she was a virgin or Lady Sophie.

If Royal families today still married one another, Andrew would likely have been hitched to Infanta Elena's wagon and Edward to Princess Martha-Louise. Imagine how different everything would be now if that happened.

I think other Royal families also learned from mistakes made by all and realised that people cannot remain happy with someone they don't care for. Some arranged marriages just seemed to work and those people were simply lucky. Monarchies do have to be seen to move with the times and modernize themselves, and marrying people whom Princes and Princesses choose is an example of this.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The problem is that a lot of people here do not separate the institution from the persons. The institution can only survive as long as they are not the same as you or me. As soon as the "mystery" and the "specialness" about being royal or noble disappears, the whole idea behind the institution crumbles away. At the same time the persons in these institutions, like a Mr Daniel Westling, the former personal trainer of the Crown Princess, can be most charming and most likeable indeed. But that is not the point. If Swedes want a most charming and most likeable personal trainer to be their President, they can elect him if they want (and I very much doubt a fitness instructor will win the presidential elections, or win a nomination for a political party at all...).

Many posters look to the persons. I try to take more distance and look to the institution. When Estelle gets a son or daughter who will marry another commoner, her child will have 1 royal great-grandfather and 7 commoner great-grandparents whom are as "royal" as you or me. These "royals" have been raised "around the corner", maybe you have had Daniel as your fitness instructor as well. Maybe you have seen Sofia posing in a bikini while you were reading a magazine. Maybe Mette-Marit has served you a drink in that bar in Kristiansand. Now they are suddenly "special people". They are Knights of this, Ladies of that, wear historic jewels, ladies go down on their knees, gentlemen in impressive uniforms salute for them. It is all becoming a vaudeville. Once the moment will come that people will ask themselves what they are waving to, that they are funding millions and millions for a group of people who hardly relate more to royalty or aristocraty than they do. Who -with the best will of the world- can no longer be seen as "royal" but just as actors and actresses playing or pretending to be royal.

When Prince Guillaume of Luxembourg, Prince of Nassau, engaged with the daughter of the Count de Lannoy et du Saint-Empire, he married a lady whose ancestor, Françoise de Lannoy became mother-in-law to William I of Nassau, Prince of Orange. We are talking about 1551 then. The family De Lannoy has 16 (!) Knights of the Golden Fleece in its centuries long history. The present Hereditary Grand-Duchess was raised on the Château d'Anvaing, deep in green and pastoral Hainaut (Belgium). Forget all the politcal correctness, deep inside everyone understands the point I want to make and that ladies as Stéphanie de Lannnoy at least connects with the social, politcial, economical and noble history of all three Benelux-countries. And that is all what they have got. That is the only "justification" for still having a royal family: their direct and visible link with the nation's past and Europe's illustrious families. Even when this is no longer the case, than there is no any ground for a monarchy anymore. It is as simple as that.

 

[Pranter]

Outside of the historical and traditional connections there really isn't any need for a monarchy anymore. Most of them are pretty much down to being goodwill ambassadors for their countries.


LaRae

 

[Rudolph]

In Britain marriage only requires the approval of the Sovereign. Whether royal, noble or commoner, if the Sovereign agrees to the marriage it goes ahead. There has never been a rule that British royals must marry other royals.

 

[Curryong]

I do completely understand your point, Duc et Pair, and I agree with it. The trouble is, I don't know how the exclusivity of royals marrying into ancient and noble houses is to be maintained.

If you look at the children of King George V all but one (the Duke of Windsor) married into the British nobility. This was of course because King George recognised that in the post WW 1 world his children would not be choosing brides and grooms from Continental royal houses, principally Germanic.

However, with the next generation only Prince Charles decided to marry into an old and noble English family. As we know, his brothers and sister married commoners, for love.

The younger generation of royals now have no intention of marrying without love. Their world is much wider than court circles were long ago. William has already married a commoner, his brother may follow. It's not likely that Harry will be looking through the Almanach de Gotha or Burke's Peerage for his bride.

And so yes, as the generations go on it will be as you say.

 

[Mbruno]

Outside of the historical and traditional connections there really isn't any need for a monarchy anymore. Most of them are pretty much down to being goodwill ambassadors for their countries.


LaRae

Many people who support constitutional monarchy do so because they see a value in separating the ceremonial representation of the state (vested in the monarch) from the actual administration of the state (vested in the government). The former is permanent and above party politics while the latter is transient, partisan, and accountable to the people.

I think there is broad agreement at least in Europe and in many Commonwealth realams that, when the two roles are combined, as it is the case with the United States president, the system becomes flawed as the ceremonial and symbolic role of the head of state is contaminated by partisan politics and decisions that the president has to take as head of government. Accountability is also compromised during a presidential term as the president enjoys a great degree of immunity, but, unlike a modern European king, actually runs the country.


The point where opinions diverge seems to be, however, whether a hereditary monarchy is needed to achieve that desirable separation between the head of state and the government. Some people argue that a parliamentary republic in the German or Italian model can achieve that goal as well as monarchy and without having to rely on the automatic right of the first born of a given family to become head of state for life. Others argue, however, that an element of partisanship is introduced whenever an election has to be conducted to choose a head of state, even if it is just a ceremonial one like the German or Italian presidents. According to this point of view, picking a head of state by random accident of birth as monarchies do, is the only viable way to guarantee his/her partisan neutrality.

Then, of course, there is a different argument that monarchies represent continuity and are associated with families whose personal history is deeply linked to national history as it is the case for example in Japan, Denmark or the Netherlands, but not so much in my opinion in the UK for example.