Marriage to Commoners vs Royals/Nobles

[Fürstin Taxis]

I don´t think that the marriages of the crown princes will fail. Everytime when I see Letizia and Felipe together on television or pictures, you can see that they love each other. Mette Marit and Haakon are this typical couple next door. Very down to earth.

 

[Winnie]

Look at Marie-Chantal and Pavlos of Greece She's aristocratic, a true Lady, scandal-free, educated, from a great family
An American Sweetheart

Aristocratic and American Sweetheart; I think not. Most Americans don't even know who she is and the ones that do, only because of her father and husband. Her business only swells because of those two men in her life.

 

[Winnie]

MC is an American Sweetheart for us the American Upper Class

Believe me when I tell you, that statement is false. Upper Class I know extremely well.

 

[4Pam]

Marie-Chantal an American Sweetheart? I think not. I doubt more than a quarter of the US knows who she is. Aristocratic? Not even close.

 

[Lumutqueen]

Exactly We agree on something Lumutqueen
Nice post Al_Bina

Agree on what may I ask?
All you've said is that MC is the American Sweetheart, which you have then gone on to change your mind about?

 

[grevinnan]

Aristocratic and American Sweetheart; I think not. Most Americans don't even know who she is and the ones that do, only because of her father and husband. Her business only swells because of those two men in her life.

No-one buys childrens clothes because of the owners husband and/or father. Her line of childrens clothes is lovely and I am waiting for grandchildren so I can buy some.

But you are correct in that she is not a household name in the US. At least one women with a very rich father that did not appear in the press or on a reality show.

 

[Anne83]

Oh yes, I changed my mind If you say so Lumutqueen
I like MC's clothes, too, Grevinnan

 

[nascarlucy]

I have no problem with marriages between royalty and commoners. I would think if you were a commoner and you married into royalty that you would conduct yourself in a manner which would benefit everyone. You certainly would want to shine or have people think well of you.

 

[Stefanie]

Don´t know whether it´s our fast-living-times or the fact that one parent is commoner but look f.i. to Norway: Harald married a commoner, both children married commoners - Haakon even a single mother.
Sweden: CG married a commoner - all three children have/had relations with commoners who´s backgrounds are problematic and are widely discussed right now.
Luxemburg: Henri married a commoner his mother didn´t get along with - and one son is already married to a commoner with having two children at the age of 24...
Monaco: Rainier married a commoner - all three children turned out to have problematic lives with divorces and children out of wedlock.
I prefer those little noble houses like Wuerttemberg where the children are at least urged to possibly marry another noble person. I think it´s a matter of education. If you tell your child from all the beginning that it´s noble and none other than another noble person be a possibility to marry and if you make sure that your child only moves inside noble circles than the child doesn´t IMO come to the idea to first of all look around under commoners. Well, this attitude might be discussable but it still works in some noble houses and I like that and I don´t think those children feel under pressure or so because lots of them still marry indeed other nobles. (Marie-Christine Habsburg f.i. married into Limburg-Stirum and I´m sure all her brothers and sisters will, like their parents did, the same with all the children of Phillippe and Mathilde of Belgium I´m quite sure)
Look at CP right now with that Sofia Hellquist: I sometimes wonder how all this could have happened though we all know that Silvia is such a 150% Queen - the same with Madeleine - isn´t Silvia the person we see in her - and wasn´t Gracia the person either?

 

[Rascal]

Sweden: CG married a commoner - all three children have/had relations with commoners who´s backgrounds are problematic and are widely discussed right now.

Great Britain: QEII married a Prince of Greece - their eldest son and heir married a commoner whose background is problematic and widely discussed on this forum.

Sweden: Princess Birgitta & Prince Johan Georg of Hohenzollern - two royals, oldest son has child out of wedlock, daughter divorced and remarried.

I prefer those little noble houses like Wuerttemberg where the children are at least urged to possibly marry another noble person. I think it´s a matter of education. If you tell your child from all the beginning that it´s noble and none other than another noble person be a possibility to marry and if you make sure that your child only moves inside noble circles than the child doesn´t IMO come to the idea to first of all look around under commoners. Well, this attitude might be discussable but it still works in some noble houses and I like that and I don´t think those children feel under pressure or so because lots of them still marry indeed other nobles. (Marie-Christine Habsburg f.i. married into Limburg-Stirum and I´m sure all her brothers and sisters will, like their parents did, the same with all the children of Phillippe and Mathilde of Belgium I´m quite sure)
Look at CP right now with that Sofia Hellquist: I sometimes wonder how all this could have happened though we all know that Silvia is such a 150% Queen - the same with Madeleine - isn´t Silvia the person we see in her - and wasn´t Gracia the person either?

One thing to consider about Grace is that the image of the virginal princess we saw on her wedding day was FAR from the truth about how she lived her life - having many affairs, some with married men throughout her life before becoming Princess of Monaco. Although I think she remains one of the most beautiful princesses ever, the example she set for her children was less than dignified if they knew anything at all about her life. In addition, none of us was there when she was alive. Perhaps she was a completely different person in private, the exact opposite of the regal, dignified persona she portrayed in the media. She was, after all, an actress.

And just a few royal-royal relationships to consider that perhaps did not turn out as well:
Romania - Carol II & Princess Helen of Greece
Greece - George II & Princess Elisabeth of Romania
Belgium - Leopold II & Archduchess Marie Henrietta of Habsburg
France - Henri, current Count of Paris & Duchess Marie Therese of Wurttemberg
Hesse - Moritz, current Landgrave of Hesse & Princess Tatiana of Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg
Iran - Mohammed Reza Pahlavi & Princess Fawzia of Egypt

On the flip side, some of the greatest royal love stories that have existed involved a royal marrying a commoner:

Great Britain - George VI and Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon
Japan - Emperor Akihito & Michiko Shoda
Sweden - Prince Bertil & Lilian Davies

Again, it all comes back to individual responsibility, dignity, and respect. Even with parents who provide a great example, the children can sometimes do as they wish, appropriate or not. Royal families have always had "crazy" people in them, have always had children born out of wedlock (yes even to princesses), and have always had infidelity. Years ago, we weren't privy to such knowledge because it was well hidden and technology such as the internet didn't exist.

But when you look at the PERSONS rather than the title, I believe most people would pick a Silvia Sommerlath, Sonja Haraldsen, or Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon over a Princess Caroline, Princess Stephanie, or Princess Ragnhild.

 

[4Pam]

How about the marriages of King Hussein to Queen Noor and King Abdullah to Queen Rania? I'm a big fan of both couples and feel that they have a done great works in Jordan.

 

[Lakshmi]

Generally I am not against commoners marrying royals, although I would expect some extraordinary achievements or at least good education from commoners entering royal ,especially ruling, families.

4Pam gave excellent example of 'common' women like Noor or Rania who turned out excellent queens. Another example can be Sylvia of Sweden; Masako of Japan had all the qualities that I mentioned I would expect from commoners marrying royals but her story turned very sad.

General trend is -especially in Europe-that royals marry more and more 'common' commoners: high school dropouts, divorcees, women having kids out of wedlock, past relationships with drug dealers or drug histories themselves.
So, I began missing royals marrying royals only. "New" people arriving to royal families don't know tradition and some are just tacky. I am afraid if this trend continues people in those still existing monarchies will began to ask why they need royals if they don't differ from the rest of society and are less ans less about tradition.

 

[Rascal]

Hi, Lakshmi! Your post sums up perfectly my view on the matter. I don't necessarily have anything against royal-royal marriages nor royal-commoner marriages. If the prospective bride/groom comes from a poor family or they worked in a menial job means nothing to me. Even people from the "lowest" classes of society can have dignity, intelligence, and a regal bearing. The biggest example of that is the Mette-Marit we are seeing more often now (other than how she waves or claps her hands "like a seal"). It took her a while but she seems to have finally embraced her role and is doing quite well. On the flip side, if CP and Sofia were to marry, I'm afraid it could end up just like CP Mary who can sometimes come off as more royal than those born to it, pretentious and expectant of all the trappings of royalty.

In the end, the royal - and particularly - the heir must use very good judgment. S/he must choose a person with qualities that can support them in their work and best serve the country.

As far as all the "little" former royal houses that are more strictly marrying another royal, I think it is an attempt to make themselves better than the existing monarchies that are still ruling. Besides, it doesn't matter anyway since their monarchy no longer exists.

 

[Stefanie]

The example with Elizabeth II would fit into a thread: "How the fact that their mother had to become Queen (because there was no male heir) had an influence to their lives...") - the same with Margrethe in Denmark.
CG´s sister is an example for my speculation that there is something in the Swedish royal family that brings out people like Birgitta and her niece Madeleine - both too much sun and the wrong partner. So it might be CG´s "fault" (he always came along like a little playboy) that his children develop in some wrong direction.
Other examples are just marriages who were forced out of political reasons (King Leopold, Shah Reza) which happened very often in earlier centuries.
I would even consider the marriage between Sofia and Juan Carlos a marriage out of political reasons.
Fact is to me that if one royal house starts with marrying a commoner (f.i. Margaret to Lord Snowdon) then little by little the other houses do the same because they can name the "beginner" as an example and it might be hard then to find arguments against it.

 

[Rascal]

Other examples are just marriages who were forced out of political reasons (King Leopold, Shah Reza) which happened very often in earlier centuries.
I would even consider the marriage between Sofia and Juan Carlos a marriage out of political reasons.

I agree about Sofia & JC, Stefanie. Although I believe she convinced herself to love him for a time and still has some affection for him, I'm not sure that JC has ever actually been "in love" with Sofia. He may care about her and appreciate the job she does as queen, but not truly in love with her. I think some men can be "in love" with one woman but unwilling to be monogamous. JC wouldn't fall in that category because, while he may not be monogamous, he still doesn't seem to be in love with Sofia.

CG´s sister is an example for my speculation that there is something in the Swedish royal family that brings out people like Birgitta and her niece Madeleine - both too much sun and the wrong partner. So it might be CG´s "fault" (he always came along like a little playboy) that his children develop in some wrong direction.

Agree here, too. Maybe not CG's fault but Birgitta definitely has lived her life as a party girl...and it shows. I dread to think what Madeleine will look like in 40 years. Such a shame because Birgitta was quite stunning in her youth.

 

[David V]

I think it comes down to 2 things:
1) the gene pool.
2) the need to strengthen the ties between the royal houses and the common people.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Marie-Chantal an American Sweetheart? I think not. I doubt more than a quarter of the US knows who she is. Aristocratic? Not even close.

MC was born in London, and spent much of her education and upbringing abroad. I loathe the silly and meaningless term "American Sweetheart"..what on Earth does that mean??!

Anyway I am pretty certain it does not describe the pretentious Marie-Chantal Miller.

If you want to get REALLY technical, out of the current crop of Crown Princesses who married Crown Princes, the only true blue-blood is Mathilde D'Udekem d'Acoz..wife of Philippe of Belgium.

Princess Mathilde is an aristocrat by birth and bearing, and I don't think any of the others are in her league, certainly not Clothilde Courau or MC Miller.

 

[PrincessElena]

high school dropouts

Pardon my ignorance, but which royal has married a high school dropout? That's quite shocking...

 

[Lumutqueen]

I think, but i'm not sure, lakshmi is talking about Charlene Wittstock.

Princess Mathilde is the only true aristocratic CP at the moment.

 

[PrincessElena]

I think, but i'm not sure, lakshmi is talking about Charlene Wittstock.

Princess Mathilde is the only true aristocratic CP at the moment.

Charlene? I thought she completed high school, she just never enrolled to the University of Pretoria, where she was...Practicing swimming, I think?

Princess Mathilde is indeed a wonderful woman and a true aristocratic lady, but let's not forget about Sophie of Liechtenstein.

 

[nascarlucy]

The problem is not the commoner causing difficulties in royal households. Children born out of wedlock occurred long before royalty marrying commoners even came into being. So did marital or problems getting along with inlaws. Other problems also existed but where hidden from public view. It's easy to blame commoners rather than saying perhaps some of these problems have to do with the individual not being very responsible or perhaps using poor judgement.

 

[Nadine]

it seems to be a trend, nowadays, that Princes and Princesses marry ordinary people. Charles and Camilla, Haakon and MM, Frederic and Mary, Felipe and Laetizia, VIctoria and her gym teacher.........

what do you think about that? Have they or are they getting resistance from the royal families?

I confess I have not read the entire thread, just random posts here & there, but the topic intrigues me.

Here is my take (btw I believe in ruling with an iron fist wrapped in a velvet glove):

Imho royal/princely laws should become more strict, not lax, as the latter is becoming the norm due to public outcry. However, this shouldn't matter, popularity shouldn't matter, only tradition.

And of course when I say more strict, I also take into consideration marrying a commoner. If a member of the immediate HRH/HSH royal/princely family chooses to do so, especially the heir, then his/her title should be stripped and off they go to live a life of f-r-e-e-d-o-m, wherein anything goes. At that point they have no obligations, no responsibilites, no worries, and can do whatever they like to their hearts' content, be it posing nude, becoming a porn star, joining a satanic cult, marrying a dog/cat/snake/horse, or defecating in public. It will no longer matter, s/he is no longer a member of said HSH/HRH royal/princely family, and is no longer a role model. So be it. That is their choice. Time to live like a commoner and make their own way in life.

That is my wish, and that is the way I feel deep down inside, though I may smile and genuinely like said commoner, I don't condone the practice, though I know it is not their fault. The fault, and yes it is a fault in mine eyes, lies with said princely/royal family. Give me a monarch any day that will rule with an iron fist (oops, and wrapped in a velvet glove to take the sting off)!

 

[nascarlucy]

The end result of strict rules (high rates of marital unhappiness due to limiting choices of mates, rampant adultery). This is what happened when they were in effect. Go back into the history books. There has to be a balance. Either extreme strict and lax is not good. Commoner is not the problem which a lot of people on this blog seem to think that it is. If commoners were the problem, then all these things would have occurred in recent times.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

The bottom line is that there is going to need to be some type of balance between Royals marrying commoners and other Royals...this trend of commoner marriages might look romantic on the surface, but if it continues UNINTERRUPTED for the next generation or two what you are going to have is a bunch of average joes marrying one another, wearing Crown Jewels and living in palaces...playacting at being Royalty because they will have very little Royal blood.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the republican, anti-monarchist grumbling has coincided with the increase in Royals marrying their subjects...who in a couple of cases are not only commoners, but COMMON commoners at that.

There can and should be Royal/Royal or Royal/Noble marriages too, to balance things out.

 

[Nadine]

I fear this trend will only get worse, in fact I know so, and I'm talking society as a whole. One only need look at history, the days of the Bible, to see the future. Man never learns.

I have a friend whom is a theology expert, studied at several college/universities, a literal genius when it comes to theology. In fact he graduated from Harvard's Advanced Theologian Program, or was it Princeton (he went to both), whatever, some ivy league college. Anyhow, he's like a monk, never seen a-n-y-o-n-e with his faith, a true man of God. So anyways, he told me something once that I have never forgotten, about the signs of the decay of society, and how there are pictorials (never seen by the public, only theology scholars) that actually depict fallen societies, and believe me what he described was not pretty/wicked in fact.

Sorry for straying off topic everybody, but it does relate to this issue, however I will speak no more of it. I am done with this thread, carry on.

 

[COUNTESS]

The bottom line is that there is going to need to be some type of balance between Royals marrying commoners and other Royals...this trend of commoner marriages might look romantic on the surface, but if it continues UNINTERRUPTED for the next generation or two what you are going to have is a bunch of average joes marrying one another, wearing Crown Jewels and living in palaces...playacting at being Royalty because they will have very little Royal blood.

I don't think it is a coincidence that the republican, anti-monarchist grumbling has coincided with the increase in Royals marrying their subjects...who in a couple of cases are not only commoners, but COMMON commoners at that.

There can and should be Royal/Royal or Royal/Noble marriages too, to balance things out.

That's all you ever had. There is nothing special about royalty. Just their ancestors had big swords and took power and then claimed they were anointed by God, which was all nonsense. The more educated people become the more they see the fallacy of these times. There are quite COMMON royals, too. There is no "Royal Blood", just familes that have held power over people for generations. All blood is the same. All people are the same.

 

[nascarlucy]

A lot of royalty are related by the link of cousinry. Some of the bloodlines are too closely related for marriage. This is probably one reason why it's difficult for royals to marry other royals. Cousin 11 times removed, Cousin 15 times removed. The link is still there even if its distant or remote. A commoner usually doesn't have this link. A commoner is a new blood line with new links.

Kings and other male royals fathered children with women who were average Jane's. Many of these children were given titles even though they only were 1/2 royal. Many of the European nobility and royalty if they went back into their ancestry would find an average Jane as their link to royalty. Commoner blood in royalty is a lot more common than one would think.

 

[CrownPrincessJava]

That's all you ever had. There is nothing special about royalty. Just their ancestors had big swords and took power and then claimed they were anointed by God, which was all nonsense. The more educated people become the more they see the fallacy of these times. There are quite COMMON royals, too. There is no "Royal Blood", just familes that have held power over people for generations. All blood is the same. All people are the same.

Exactly.

The role of royalty has changed considerably over the past 100 years, especially since the two world wars of the past century. Royal families to not hold legislative or military power, nor do they need to make "alliances" to ensure territories will not be invaded. "Power" has been given to people we have elected: governments. Especially in the case in the scandinavian countries, governments have the power to render an heir out of succession. Yes, some hold the power to dissolve parliament, but they also know the backlash that would occur by the people if they tried to exercise that. They are now a symbol of the history of a country, and at the end of the day, Royal families bring in tourism dollars.

Then you have the issue of genetics. Most of the European royal houses are related, and it is not seen as socially acceptable to inbreed - and rightfully so. They had to look outside the royal gene pool.

The third point - marketing. We all know that one referendum and a constitutional monarchy turns into a democratic republic overnight. They need to relate to the everyday peerson. It's the whole mystic that a Crown Prince or Crown Princess falls in love and marries "one of us" and the fairytale begins. We become more interested in royalty because we can now relate to them. Job done - the republicans are now silenced and the Royal Families can still try to exercise the little power they still have. People here need to remember that most of the Crown Princesses, Princess and Prince Consorts around the world are intelligent who held their own before marrying into royalty.

But I have to agree with some of the comments. As further generations of royalty are born, a distinction between "true" royal and "common" royal will become apparent. As in the case in Belgium, their Crown Princess is of aristocratic blood, thus "a true royal". It will be interesting to see whether they will label Princess Elisabeth the last "true royal Crown Princess" when her father succeeds the throne and if she marries a commoner.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

As further generations of royalty are born, a distinction between "true" royal and "common" royal will become apparent. As in the case in Belgium, their Crown Princess is of aristocratic blood, thus "a true royal". It will be interesting to see whether they will label Princess Elisabeth the last "true royal Crown Princess" when her father succeeds the throne and if she marries a commoner...QUOTE]

This is the point I am trying to make and I think this is indeed going to happen...there will be "true" Royals with noble lineages dating back centuries linking the perspective countries and peoples to their ancient histories and traditions...then you will have Queen or King Commoner...whose mummy was an air hostess, whose daddy was a cabdriver, who's great grandma was a seamstress...

And the reasons to question the existence of these types of dynasties will grow ever more widespread...especially if certain ones continue to behave badly.

"Why do we need these people...why do we pay for them...THEY ARE JUST LIKE US AFTER ALL."

It is a very fine line to walk.

 

[snowflower]

I think that the " they are just like us" thought is indeed a large problem. But to me , it does not only apply to blood but to behaviour. For example when I see QEII I think "she is royal" but not just because she is King George VI's daughter - because of her public image and her ways and behaviour when in public. To me , the behaviour factor can be just as important as the bloodline, because IMO there are people who can live up to the expactations , without having royal or aristocratic blood perfectly well, even if they don't seem ideal at first sight. Princess Lilian of Sweden who was a divorced commoner and yer stayed all these years next to Bertil out of the limelight when they were not married and has behaved in an excellent way since. Or the wife of CP Alexander of Yugoslavia, who seems to offer to her husband the support he needs in his plans. His first wife was a Princess and that marriage didn't last, while he just celebrated his silver wedding anniversary with his second, commoner wife. It's all a matter of circumstances I believe.