Marriage to Commoners vs Royals/Nobles

[Moonmaiden23]

There are as many royals left as in the old days. Families considered 100% ´equal´ are:

Anhalt
Austria-Hungary (Habsburg)
Baden
Bavaria (Wittelsbach)
Belgium
Bonaparte
Brazil (Orléans-Bragança)
Bulgaria (Saxen-Coburg and Gotha)
Denmark
France (Bourbon)
Great Britain (Windsor)
Greece and Denmark
Hannover
Hessen
Hohenzollern
Italy (Savoia and Savoia-Aosta)
(Schleswig-)Holstein
Liechtenstein
Lippe
Luxembourg (Nassau)
Mecklenburg
Monaco (Grimaldi)
Montenegro (Petrovich)
The Netherlands (Orange-Nassau)
Norway
Oldenburg
Parma (Bourbon)
Portugal (Bragança)
Prussia (Hohenzollern)
Reuss
Romania (Hohenzollern)
Russia (Romanov)
Saxony
Schaumburg-Lippe
Spain (Bourbon)
Sweden (Bernadotte)
Tuscany (Habsburg)
Two Sicilies (Bourbon)
Waldeck (Waldeck-Pyrmont)
Württemberg
Yugoslavia (Karageorgevich)

Then there are a LOT of families which are not fully equal but a marriage with these was not seen as a mésalliance, Houses like Croÿ, Hohenlohe, Isenburg, Löwenstein-Wertheim, Thurn und Taxis, Windisch-Graetz, Sayn-Wittgenstein, Lobkowicz, and name them all...

Case in point, the de Ligne/de Lannoy's of Belgium of which HGD Guillaume of Luxembourg's wife Stephanie is a member of both.

I doubt if anyone in the Grand Ducal family feels he "married down".

 

[Cris M]

Case in point, the de Ligne/de Lannoy's of Belgium of which HGD Guillaume of Luxembourg's wife Stephanie is a member of both.

I doubt if anyone in the Grand Ducal family feels he "married down".

And the marriages of Prince Antonio of Brazil and Princess Christine of Ligne and of Prince Michel of Ligne and Princess Eleonora of Brazil, in 1981, were regarded as dynastic and the children of both marriages enjoy the right to succeed to the defunct Brazilian Throne.

 

[Marty91charmed]

There are as many royals left as in the old days. Families considered 100% ´equal´ are:

Anhalt
Austria-Hungary (Habsburg)
Baden
Bavaria (Wittelsbach)
Belgium
Bonaparte
Brazil (Orléans-Bragança)
Bulgaria (Saxen-Coburg and Gotha)
Denmark
France (Bourbon)
Great Britain (Windsor)
Greece and Denmark
Hannover
Hessen
Hohenzollern
Italy (Savoia and Savoia-Aosta)
(Schleswig-)Holstein
Liechtenstein
Lippe
Luxembourg (Nassau)
Mecklenburg
Monaco (Grimaldi)
Montenegro (Petrovich)
The Netherlands (Orange-Nassau)
Norway
Oldenburg
Parma (Bourbon)
Portugal (Bragança)
Prussia (Hohenzollern)
Reuss
Romania (Hohenzollern)
Russia (Romanov)
Saxony
Schaumburg-Lippe
Spain (Bourbon)
Sweden (Bernadotte)
Tuscany (Habsburg)
Two Sicilies (Bourbon)
Waldeck (Waldeck-Pyrmont)
Württemberg
Yugoslavia (Karageorgevich)

Then there are a LOT of families which are not fully equal but a marriage with these was not seen as a mésalliance, Houses like Croÿ, Hohenlohe, Isenburg, Löwenstein-Wertheim, Thurn und Taxis, Windisch-Graetz, Sayn-Wittgenstein, Lobkowicz, and name them all...

Thank you Maybe they are still limited in comparison to the vast commoner people around the world

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Royals married royals for alliances and also, the belief that they were imbued by God for their positions. No one believes such nonsense any more. So, they realized it didn't matter.

It is not nonsense and it still happens. Still today parents hope that their son or daughter make "a good marriage" and with this is not only meant "love" but also wealth and social standing.

In most families parents will jump up high when their daughter comes home with a Harvard or Yale graduate from a "good family" and they will jump up less high when their daughter comes home with an unemployed guy without qualifications and no prospects. So even in our time, in perfectly normal marriages, not only "love" is considered but also other important elements.

Royals are so high in society and hierarchy, higher is often not possible. Prince William is destined to become the future King of Great Britain. He will become one of Britain's most wealthy men. Marrying to get higher up in hierarchy or for more money is not really necessary at all. That is also the reason why the last royal partners: Miss Catherine Middleton, Ms Camilla Shand, Lady Diana Spencer, Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Princess Mary of Teck, etc. were not THE most illustrious and THE most profitable marriages imagineable. There was no need for that. Higher in hierarchy, higher in social standing, higher in prestige, all this is not possible, they are really at the top of the mighty pyramid.

For me an alliance with, for an example Lady Rachel Fitzalan-Howard, daughter of the 17th Duke of Norfolk and one of Britain's most prestigious (if not THE most prestigious) Peers would strenghthen the links with history and the roots within Britain. I would love such a marriage but apparently all this is of no interest anymore. It is very well possible that, with three Queens coming (Amalia, Elisabeth, Leonor), that the swing will go the other way and they will choose more traditional partners. Who knows.

 

[Imanmajed]

It is not nonsense and it still happens. Still today parents hope that their son or daughter make "a good marriage" and with this is not only meant "love" but also wealth and social standing.

In most families parents will jump up high when their daughter comes home with a Harvard or Yale graduate from a "good family" and they will jump up less high when their daughter comes home with an unemployed guy without qualifications and no prospects. So even in our time, in perfectly normal marriages, not only "love" is considered but also other important elements.

Royals are so high in society and hierarchy, higher is often not possible. Prince William is destined to become the future King of Great Britain. He will become one of Britain's most wealthy men. Marrying to get higher up in hierarchy or for more money is not really necessary at all. .......Higher in hierarchy, higher in social standing, higher in prestige, all this is not possible, they are really at the top of the mighty pyramid.

.......It is very well possible that, with three Queens coming (Amalia, Elisabeth, Leonor), that the swing will go the other way and they will choose more traditional partners. Who knows.

So true!

 

[Cris M]

It is very well possible that, with three Queens coming (Amalia, Elisabeth, Leonor), that the swing will go the other way and they will choose more traditional partners. Who knows.

The Duchess of Brabant has a lot of belgian aristocrats to choose. And I once heard that The Duke of Braganza would like to see his youngest son, The Duke of Porto, marrying the now Princess of Asturias.

 

[grevinnan]

Why would someone marry a royal, especially a heir? You will live the rest of your life in the public, no privacy as there will always be someone with a camera, you will be expected to produce at least a couple of perfect children and always be polite and gracious no matter how stupid questions journalists ask. I believe there may actually be an issue of ...why do "suitable" partners not want to marry a royal. If you are from the families that would be "acceptable", you could enjoy the upper-crust life, money, travel, royal galas and events anyway without the negative sides of a life in the royal fishbowl.

 

[MARG]

I am of the strong belief that "true love" in the finest tradition of the 'Princess Bride' can be the only explanation for any suitable, well balanced, mature woman being, willing to "give up" so very, very, much in return for an incredibly restricted life.

You only have to look at Harry to know that many mature, confident, pedigreed woman have avoided anything but friendship or have avoided him altogether so that situation cannot arise.

You can't tell me that there were not many perfectly pedigreed, millinery sporting, beautifully coiffed, elegantly attired, decorously behaved, Ascot Race attendees that fall into the infinitely presentable category.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Duchess of Brabant has a lot of belgian aristocrats to choose. And I once heard that The Duke of Braganza would like to see his youngest son, The Duke of Porto, marrying the now Princess of Asturias.

All the three named future Queens have a lot of aristiocrats to choose, in their own country or from foreign countries. Of course this applies on the future Queen Estelle as well. There is another future Queen: Ingrid Alexandra or Norway. There is no own nobility in Norway, so if a blueblooded partner is requested, she has to look outside Norway.

It is very well possible that all these young ladies will marry commoners but I hope they will try to keep their Royal House a bit blueblooded indeed.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Case in point, the de Ligne/de Lannoy's of Belgium of which HGD Guillaume of Luxembourg's wife Stephanie is a member of both.

I doubt if anyone in the Grand Ducal family feels he "married down".

Stéphanie de Lannoy comes from a family with the highest esteem, one of the oldest noble families in the Low Countries. In 1551 Willem I of Nassau, Prince of Orange (the founder of present-day Netherlands) married Anne d'Egmont. Her mother (and so Willem's mother-in-law) was Françoise de Lannoy, this is illustrative for the standing the family already had, so many centuries ago.

The family De Ligne is the eldest and most prestigious noble families in the Low Countries. One of the junior De Lignes married the last De la Trémoïlle (one of the eldest and most prestigious noble families of France) and forms a collateral branch named De Ligne de la Trémoïlle.

But.... for the "royal hardliners" even families as De Lannoy and De Ligne were not considered "equal" because they were never a Sovereign or a former Sovereign (= mediatized) family. However without any doubt the Grand Duke of Luxembourg will consider the alliance of his eldest son Guillaume with Countess Stéphanie de Lannoy as a most befitting one and he is right with that.



There are a couple of Houses in the Low Countries which are considered "equal" for royal marriages, these are in fat, the others are outside the Dutch or Belgian nobility:

Arenberg
Aspremont-Lynden
Auersperg
Bentheim-Steinfurt
Bentheim-Tecklenburg
Bentinck
Bömmelberg
Bretzenheim
Castell-Castell
Castell-Rüdenhausen
Colloredo-Mannsfeld
Croÿ
Dietrichstein
Erbach-Erbach
Erbach-Fürstenau
Erbach-Schönberg
Esterházy
Fürstenberg
Fugger-Babenhausen
Fugger-Glött
Fugger-Kirchberg
Fugger-Kirchheim
Fugger-Nordendorf
Harrach
Hohenlohe-Ingelfingen
Hohenlohe-Kirchberg
Hohenlohe-Langenburg
Hohenlohe-Öhringen
Hohenlohe-Schillingsfürst
Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Bartenstein
Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Jagstberg
Hohenlohe-Waldenburg-Schillingsfürst
Isenburg-Birstein
Isenburg-Büdingen
Isenburg-Philippseich
Kaunitz-Rietberg
Khevenhüller-Metsch
Königsegg-Aulendorf
Kuefstein
Leiningen
Leiningen-Alt-Leiningen-Westerburg
Leiningen-Billigheim
Leiningen-Neudenau
Leyen
Limburg-Stirum
Lobkowitz
Löwenstein-Wertheim-Freudenberg
Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg
Looz-Corswarem
Metternich-Winneburg
Neipperg
Neu-Leiningen-Westerburg
Oettingen-Spielberg
Oettingen-Wallerstein
Ortenburg
Ostein
Pappenheim
Platen-Hallermund
Plettenberg-Wittem
Pückler und Limpurg
Quadt-Wykradt-Isny
Ratibor und Corvey
Rechberg und Rothenlöwen
Rechteren-Limpurg
Rosenberg-Orsini
Salm-Horstmar
Salm-Kyrburg
Salm-Reifferscheidt-Krautheim und Dyck
Salm-Reifferscheidt-Raitz
Salm-Salm
Sayn-Wittgenstein-Berleburg
Sayn-Wittgenstein-Hohenstein
Schaesberg
Schlitz genannt von Görtz
Schönborn
Schönborn-Buchheim
Schönborn-Wiesentheid
Schönburg-Glauchau
Schönburg-Hartenstein
Schönburg-Waldenburg
Schwarzenberg
Sinzendorf
Solms-Braunfels
Solms-Hohensolms-Lich
Solms-Laubach
Stadion-Tannhausen
Stadion-Warthausen
Starhemberg
Sternberg-Manderscheid
Stolberg-Roßla
Stolberg-Stolberg
Stolberg-Wernigerode
Thurn und Taxis
Toerring
Trauttmansdorff-Weinsberg
Waldbott-Bassenheim
Waldburg-Wolfegg und Waldsee
Waldburg-Zeil
Waldburg-Zeil-Wurzach
Waldeck-Limpurg
Wallmoden-Gimborn
Wartenberg-Roth
Wied-Neuwied
Wied-Runkel
Windisch-Graetz
Wurmbrand-Stuppach

 

[Marengo]

Neither the Aspremont-Lynden family or the Limburg-Stirum family has been included in part 2 or 3 of the Gotha, AFAIK they are not 'equal'. The most of the Bentinck family that remains today is not 'equal' either. The Aldenburg-Bentinck family was, but the only member of that family that is alive today is Css Sophie (sister of the late Css Isabelle zu Ortenberg), who married an Italian count. After her death the Dutch branch of the 'equal' part of the house will be extinct. The senior British branch is still there though (Earls of Portland). All the other Dutch Bentincks are barons.

Even though the Lannoy family is included in the 3rd part of the Gotha, the family would hardly be considered 'equal' in the old days indeed. Despite their impressive family history. Neither would the de Ligne family for that matter, or much of the 2nd part of the Gotha.

-
About marrying 'down' (awful term) in Luxembourg; since the Grand Duke married a commoner and his brothers married commoners too (though with noble/royal connections) ánd two daughters-in-law of the GD are neither royal nor noble, I don't think marrying 'equal' is on their top of mind. Thankfully.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I grant everyone their fair share of happiness and love. But the more "common" Royal Houses become, the more the ultimate question will arise why they are still treated "Royal" anyway and then they have no answer.

Many of Europe's future Sovereigns already have three commoner grandparents, covering 3/4 of their "Ahnentafel" (Ancestor Table) and this will only multiply when royals keep marrying commoners. Again, their right on happiness and love but ultimately it will lead to a certain profound question: what differs members of the Royal House from us, commoners?

In my personal opinion a certain distance, "aura" is needed because monarchies are not build on ratio but on emotion. Any rational thinking person will opt for a republic. It is the emotion, the attachment, the historical bond, the "specialness" which surrounds royals which still differs them from us. As soon as that certain disctance, "aura" has gone, there is no any difference anymore between royals and celebrities.

 

[Marengo]

The ultimate question -as you call it- of why they are still treated as royal, will rise up regardless of how many royal anscestors somebody has. And it is a legitemate question for this day and age where people are valued more for their merits and less for their pedigree (like dogs). But you can't say that the monarchies with more noble/royal connections like Belgium and Spain are more stable than the ones with less of them like Norway.

The danger of royals degraded to the levels of celebrities is a real one, but that won't be solved by marrying fellow royals/nobles. The noble Diana Spencer was as much -or even more- treated as a celebrity by the mass media as Catherine Middleton is, to name an example. The only recipe against this are the royal families themselves showing worth while initiatives and behaving with dignity. Sonja of Norway and Silvia of Sweden are not any less repsected/ less succesful than the noble Paola of Belgium and the royal Sofia of Spain.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

It is not nonsense and it still happens. Still today parents hope that their son or daughter make "a good marriage" and with this is not only meant "love" but also wealth and social standing.

In most families parents will jump up high when their daughter comes home with a Harvard or Yale graduate from a "good family" and they will jump up less high when their daughter comes home with an unemployed guy without qualifications and no prospects. So even in our time, in perfectly normal marriages, not only "love" is considered but also other important elements.

Royals are so high in society and hierarchy, higher is often not possible. Prince William is destined to become the future King of Great Britain. He will become one of Britain's most wealthy men. Marrying to get higher up in hierarchy or for more money is not really necessary at all. That is also the reason why the last royal partners: Miss Catherine Middleton, Ms Camilla Shand, Lady Diana Spencer, Prince Philip of Greece and Denmark, Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, Princess Mary of Teck, etc. were not THE most illustrious and THE most profitable marriages imagineable. There was no need for that. Higher in hierarchy, higher in social standing, higher in prestige, all this is not possible, they are really at the top of the mighty pyramid.

For me an alliance with, for an example Lady Rachel Fitzalan-Howard, daughter of the 17th Duke of Norfolk and one of Britain's most prestigious (if not THE most prestigious) Peers would strenghthen the links with history and the roots within Britain. I would love such a marriage but apparently all this is of no interest anymore. It is very well possible that, with three Queens coming (Amalia, Elisabeth, Leonor), that the swing will go the other way and they will choose more traditional partners. Who knows.

This is a great post and I agree, but when you refer to Rachel Fitzalan-Howard do you mean as a match for Harry? Aren't the Howards Roman Catholic?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

I agree completely. The ultimate fundament however why we once started to treat them as 'royal' is the exceptional position those families had, their remarkable bonds in the national and European history. I agree with you that having a grand pedigree is no guarantee for a stable monarchy. It is the core fundament of being a royal (or noble) family and of course all the rest is equally important or maybe even more important: dignity, transparency, respect. A scandal-ridden monarchy of the dark-bluest possible blood can manoeuvre itself in a danger-zone, see Spain. Ultimately however the fundament will erode. When Estelle, the daughter of Daniel Westling from Orebrö, marries an Erik Johansson from Degerfors, then it is definitely completely different from marrying a more traditional partner. Let us say that Estelle marries a lensgreve Wedell-Wedellsborg from Denmark, then this has a total different 'feel'. Like Princess Alexandra of Hannover is 'different' from her cousin Camille Gottlieb.

I for myself hope that the swing will somewhat go back to more traditional candidates. Purely to protect the core base of what differentiates "us" from royals.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

This is a great post and I agree, but when you refer to Rachel Fitzalan-Howard do you mean as a match for Harry? Aren't the Howards Roman Catholic?

As far as I know the ban on marrying Catholics has been lifted / will be lifted.

 

[COUNTESS]

I agree completely. The ultimate fundament however why we once started to treat them as 'royal' is the exceptional position those families had, their remarkable bonds in the national and European history. I agree with you that having a grand pedigree is no guarantee for a stable monarchy. It is the core fundament of being a royal (or noble) family and of course all the rest is equally important or maybe even more important: dignity, transparency, respect. A scandal-ridden monarchy of the dark-bluest possible blood can manoeuvre itself in a danger-zone, see Spain. Ultimately however the fundament will erode. When Estelle, the daughter of Daniel Westling from Orebrö, marries an Erik Johansson from Degerfors, then it is definitely completely different from marrying a more traditional partner. Let us say that Estelle marries a lensgreve Wedell-Wedellsborg from Denmark, then this has a total different 'feel'. Like Princess Alexandra of Hannover is 'different' from her cousin Camille Gottlieb.

I for myself hope that the swing will somewhat go back to more traditional candidates. Purely to protect the core base of what differentiates "us" from royals.

Nothing does, except mystique, which is almost dead. Some are admired for their efforts. and rightly so. Princess Alexandra is no different than her cousin Camille Gottlieb. They are the same. It is just a concept that some feel for no other reason than it was taught to them. All people are the same in the eyes of God, for an example. Princess Estelle is hardly "royal". He great forebear, Jean Baptiste Bernadotte was born a commoner in France and was asked to come to Sweden and be their king, as the House of Vasa was no longer viable, shall we say. His wife Desiree Clary was the daughter of a silk merchant. If you go down the ranks, her grandmother and a lovely woman, is not "royal", nor is her father. So, it is only made up perception that makes the difference.

 

[Lee-Z]

So, it is only made up perception that makes the difference.

Same goes for a lot of other things in the world...

 

[AristoCat]

I think a lot of princes make the mistake of marrying commoners with too much baggage. There are women out there who are successful and commoners, without the baggage of a lot of the princesses, like Mette-Marit (who is rumored to be cheating on Haakon) and a handful of others.

This is a great post and I agree, but when you refer to Rachel Fitzalan-Howard do you mean as a match for Harry? Aren't the Howards Roman Catholic?

Yes, but Catholics are now allowed to marry royal princes of Britain, since the ban against Catholics has recently been abolished. I think Lady Rose would have been a fabulous match and would have ended up being a magnificent bride for William. She would have been tied to the Northern families (ridiculously wealthy and powerful in Britain) and I believe that it would impress hard core republicans and Lady Rose would probably be well trained to handle royal life (living like a semi-royal already) and be treated with respect by the RF if only because of her background.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The ban on royals in the UK marrying Roman Catholics hasn't yet been lifted because the relevant law hasn't passed in all the other realms - yet.

Until it has done so it is still the law in the UK so if Harry married a RC he would lose his place - until the law was passed and they he would be back in.

It is the same with the need to have the monarch's permission to marry - is going to change to only the first 6 but hasn't done so - yet - and the gender neutral inheritance as well.

All three are in the one piece of legislation and it is not yet effective.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Princess Alexandra is no different than her cousin Camille Gottlieb. They are the same. It is just a concept that some feel for no other reason than it was taught to them. All people are the same in the eyes of God, for an example.

All people are the same in the eye of God but very few will disagree that we treat Elizabeth II quite differently than Annie Smith, despite their equalness in the eyes of God...

I also disagree that Alexandra and Camille are the same. The last one is a Princess of Hannover, a grand royal dynasty. In essence Mr Peter Phillips is no different for a Prince Harry, both are grandsons of the Queen but their perception and their standing could not differ more.

However, ultimately it are the royals themselves. In some threads some remarked that the new King of Spain is probably Europe's most royal King. That might be so, but he himself ended that "perfect" royal ancestry, like many of his temporaries, so probably he does not care. It is interesting that it seems Grand Duchess María Teresa, herself a commoner and had to find her place at the Court, strongly "steered" her eldest son towards "suitable" candidates. The marriages with Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz, Stéphanie de Lannoy, Rodolphe van Limburg-Stirum and Elisabetta Rosboch von Wolkenstein seem to indicate that brides "with a certain background" are still preferred.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Maria Teresa seems pleased with all of her daughters-in-law ,from the decidedly working class Tessy Anthony to Countess Stephanie De Lannoy to Claire Lademacher, daughter of nouveau rich mega wealth. She and her husband went on record years ago emphasizing that their children would be encouraged to make their own choices for life partners, with no interference from them. It's one of the things I think is so wonderful about the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess of Luxembourg.

As fortune would have it, her three eldest sons have each made matches with extraordinary young women, but who couldn't be more different from one another.

 

[Osipi]

I think that perhaps the biggest reason there is no need for royals to marry royals or even a partner from a "suitable" bloodline or a well established family line is because in this day and age with constitutional monarchies and the EU and countries becoming more and more diverse in their population, those days are long gone by when House X and House Y would betroth their young children to cement a treaty or to present a unified front against King Z or the country of Q. Arranged marriages for political reason was very much the norm during earlier periods of history and the "bride" brought land, wealth, political alliances to the "groom" through marriage. Sometimes, believe it or not, a marriage could prevent a war.

Of course in this day and age, parents still do want their children to marry happily and yet be financially stable and be important in the world. I used to shake my head at my mother when she would describe someone as coming "from good money". To be honest, I've never come across any bad money (except for working as a cashier once. I did get handed a counterfeit bill on one occasion).

 

[Marengo]

All people are the same in the eye of God but very few will disagree that we treat Elizabeth II quite differently than Annie Smith, despite their equalness in the eyes of God...

I also disagree that Alexandra and Camille are the same. The last one is a Princess of Hannover, a grand royal dynasty. In essence Mr Peter Phillips is no different for a Prince Harry, both are grandsons of the Queen but their perception and their standing could not differ more.

However, ultimately it are the royals themselves. In some threads some remarked that the new King of Spain is probably Europe's most royal King. That might be so, but he himself ended that "perfect" royal ancestry, like many of his temporaries, so probably he does not care. It is interesting that it seems Grand Duchess María Teresa, herself a commoner and had to find her place at the Court, strongly "steered" her eldest son towards "suitable" candidates. The marriages with Mathilde d'Udekem d'Acoz, Stéphanie de Lannoy, Rodolphe van Limburg-Stirum and Elisabetta Rosboch von Wolkenstein seem to indicate that brides "with a certain background" are still preferred.

I think that much/ most of the Brussels aristocratic circle marries fellow aristocrats. In some families it is rare to find commoners. The Belgian noble association organises a lot of events etc. where everybody meets each other so the chance that a noble will find a noble partner is higher. And of course much of the higher classes put their children on the same schools, catholic youth movements, scouting groups etc. Still, parents preferring their children to marry somebody from a simular social background is not restricted to the nobility.

In the Netherlands the marriages between nobles are less common (though statistically they still marry each other or the patriciate quite often). But the nobles mix more with 'new' elites. For example: the wife of the baron van Wassenaer is a neonatologist and related to the governor of South-Holland, his maternal grandfather is Gerard Wiarda, the late president of the High Counsil. In that light, the marriage partners for the Dutch princes fits with the trend in the group: all academically educated women from upper-middle class backgrounds (save Pss. Annette who has a university degree in psychology but who is from a working class family IIRC). Much of the kings friends come from the nobility/patriciate, are university educated, several of them at Harvard, and have managment jobs in the business world.

 

[Moonmaiden23]

Too funny and true Osipi!

My birth family doesn't have a drop of Royal or noble blood but every time I brought a date home my father wanted to know first and foremost what kind of student he was, had he ever been in trouble with the law and what kind of family he came from. That last part was ALWAYS important to him. No riff-raff need apply.

It's the same in many of the remaining dynasties. Some-not all-come from a certain strata of society that they are not interested in seeing diminished by marriages that they feel are not worthy of them. Some things will never change.

 

[Ish]

Replying to your January 2014 post, Ish, I consider your information better than that of the Mormon genealogy records. I happen to have a close-by source of the Mormon records because there is a Mormon church, with a records tie to Salt Lake City, less than a mile from my house.
In doing research into my own genealogy of the Middle Ages, I consulted many sources, not one, because I didn't have an absolutely perfect and reliable source to consult. I found "Normans in Scotland", a book by Graeme Ritchie, which helped immensely, even through its footnotes, in directing me to truer genealogical material for my own family in Scotland. Sometimes one looks and looks and only after a long time one finds the "truth." Edison said he invented 999 lightbulbs before he invented one which works.
In the case of obviously enthroned royal families, their records are kept for many many generations by reliable people, so their task is negligible when pinpointing royal descent.

Once again, without actually looking at the Mormon sources I can't really comment on the validity of their claims. All I can say for certain is that the website familysearch.org isn't supported; it's an open site that lets people make trees with no sources.

The Earls Grey are individuals with well recorded families. If sites like the Peerage don't list a child for one of them named Charlotte then chances are they didn't have an acknowledged daughter with that name - and the Peerage lists no such child.

In the case of Robert Woods himself... The whole theory that Edward and his long term mistress had a child that all record of was later erased by Victoria when she was Queen is ridiculous. There are a few different legends that seem to happen here. First of all, it's ascribing far too much power to Elizabeth. Any illegitimate child of Edward's would have been born well before Victoria came to power, meaning that she would have to destroy 20+ years of record linking her half-brother to her father. Given as this would include any private references made in people's diaries, it's not particularly feasible to believe that Victoria had such power.

The second is the fact that the whole idea about Robert Woods is that his parents had him but didn't acknowledge him and instead gave him up for adoption by a Canadian couple. Which... Sure it's within the realm of possibility, but not really likely. This was a long-term relationship. Edward's brothers had acknowledged the children born to their long-term mistresses, and Edward himself had acknowledged children by previous mistresses. The story that Edward had a child with Madame de Saint-Laurent is really just a legend.

 

[Ish]

In the modern era, DNA can rule out SOME specific familial diseases. I imagine that this has been done in the cases of non-reigning royals who marry. Quietly, of course.
In the case of a "dominant" gene, which descends to 50% of children (or 75% when both parents have it) there is NO chance of the children having the same mutation if a parent does not have it. So the outlook for royals marrying cousins today could be simpler, in terms of checking out mutation problems scientifically. If a British royal wanted to marry a German cousin, their DNA would be well-mapped and at least the obvious defects could be ruled out, and love could bloom!
I think other traits than we know of descend through families, however, not just traits for physical impairment. Traits of personality descend. Most of you probably have observed this.

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).

 

[Tilia C.]

Too funny and true Osipi!

My birth family doesn't have a drop of Royal or noble blood but every time I brought a date home my father wanted to know first and foremost what kind of student he was, had he ever been in trouble with the law and what kind of family he came from. That last part was ALWAYS important to him. No riff-raff need apply.

It's the same in many of the remaining dynasties. Some-not all-come from a certain strata of society that they are not interested in seeing diminished by marriages that they feel are not worthy of them. Some things will never change.

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.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

In the book "At the Court" by the journalists Remco Meijer and Jan Hoedeman -about the workings of the Dutch Court- is written that Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands wanted her eldest son to marry someone "with a certain background" and "foreign". The reasons for the Queen were her fear that the -according her- "necessary distance" would disappear when a future Queen would just be a girl from the common people.

Whether Máxima Zorreguieta Cerruti fulfills the requirement "with a certain backgroud" is open to discussion. The requirement "foreign" is met. Why was this so important for the Dutch Queen? According the authors she feared that someone with family, friends, classmates, sportmates, roommates, ex-colleagues, ex-lovers, etc. just around the corner will bring "the street" into the palace and also would result in a feeling: "Yesterday she was my colleague, today she is Her Royal Highness" and turn the monarchy into a vaudeville.

Anyway. To come to my point. When Prince William engaged with Miss Middleton, I had to think about what the objections of Queen Beatrix were. I think she had a wise and foreseeable view. Look at this article about the family of the future Queen:
'Carole has shunned her own family... she is even grander than the Queen': Middletons under attack as grandmother of the future king is accused in an extraordinary outburst by her own goddaughter | Mail Online

Of course in Belgium there is a "homegrown" Queen as well but the average Belgian will not be able to relate to the daughter of Count d'Udekem d'Acoz and Countess Komorowksa who grew up at the Château de Losange in Villes-la-Bonne-Eau deep in the green forests of the Ardennes. In Luxembourg we see Stéphanie, a non-Luxembourgian anyway but like Mathilde also someone the average Luxembourgian will not be able to relate to. A daughter of the Count de Lannoy et du Saint-Empire and of Lady della Faille de Leverghem who grew up at the Château d'Anvaing in Hainaut. A far-from-their-beds-show and with a total different "natural habitat" they mingle into.

This is no guarantee for happy and enduring marriages (Diana!) but this sort of marriages still keep the monarchy somewhat "special". The two ladies who face the fiercest criticisms are actually the homegrown royals of common origin: Mette-Marit and Letizia. The Duchess of Cambridge still is in her "goodwill period" after a great wedding and being the mom of wonderful Prince George, but never trust the British media. The knives are wielded to slash her if they want. "The street" is close (the family, the schoolmates, the roommates, the sportsmates, the ex-colleagues) and within reach (not at the other side of the world like Buenos Aires or Tasmania). Queen Beatrix was right with her fear that the "necessary distance" which is needed to keep the monarchy is gone here.

 

[Princess of Durham]

So how do you explain the press and Queen Maxima's father and his rather notorious reputation? Sure he is far away, but Max has certainly distanced herself from her family. Why is there no criticism of that, and yet Carole Middleton is trashed by the press. The point is the press will choose when, where and if they pursue any issues regarding a family, also the Dutch press is a bit different from the British press ... to say the least.