Whether required by law or not, unequal marriages cause wedge issues between monarchies and their subjects.
I don't agree with this statement. It may have been true in the past and certainly of the hardline traditionalists who hold on to the old beliefs about royalty, but I believe there have been many examples (King George VI & Queen Elizabeth, the Queen Mum; King Carl XVI & Queen Silvia, The Prince of Orange & Princess Maxima to name a few) that have shown that rather than a wedge, the marriage increased the popularity and loyalty of the monarchy, particularly in the case of Sweden.
I would be most impressed if a royal said that he/she will marry a commoner, forfeit succession rights, financial support and work as sa mall farmers and/or grocers to survive or whatever skill they have without trading on their name. Some royals have taken up such humble occupations, occasioned by the abolition of the monarchy in their respective kingdoms. These types of royals are very impressive. They will do what it takes to survive and pick themselves up from a fall and carry on. This is an ideal if not a virtue. These people should be given more study. Have a couple of books on the subject. Will provide later.
Likewise, I do believe that exploring the lives of these "former" royals and the way they adapted is impressive and inspirational at times. But isn't the study of their lives interesting because of their royal status rather than their "doing what it takes" and "picking themselves up"? Certainly many people in the world do those things. I might be wrong, but IIRC most of the abolition of a monarch has had nothing to do with whom they married, equal or not, but rather how their subjects/citizens perceived them and the manner in which they ruled/governed their respective nations. In fact, the fall of the German monarchies had nothing to with these things. The sovereign authority of those families and nations was taken away as a punishment by the Allied or victorious powers in the wars.
I am not particularly interested in what a royal is wearing, their sexual orientation or other tawdry details. Royal students should resist the loss of this scholarship to fantasy and celebrity. The history of those royals born after 1945 will not be more than a gossip headline. If things go as they have, royal history as we know it will become ancient royal history.
quote]
I have considered myself to be a bit of intellect snob < ed > in the discussions of royalty. However, I choose to participate in this forum where many of the members discuss the fashion, love lives, and "tawdry details" of the royals. In so doing, I choose to be a part of those discussions as well. Certainly, there are a number of threads in this forum that accomplish - even through the discussion of these seemingly trivial things - a greater understanding of royals past and present and sometimes can inspire any of us to be curious and do the research in the more serious (boring) aspects.
All of that being said, I really appreciate your viewpoint and hope to hear more about those royals who became a part of "regular" society. I look forward to the information.
Thanks, Mapper