_-_Borbone%2c_Carlo_di%2c_principe_di_Capua_(1811-1862)%2c_Penelope_Smyth_e_figlia_Vittoria_di_Borbone_(1838-1905).jpg)
Morganatic marriage, sometimes called aleft-handed marriage,[1] is amarriage between people of unequalsocial rank, which in the context ofroyalty or otherinherited title prevents the principal's position or privileges being passed to the spouse, or any children born of the marriage. The concept is most prevalent in German-speaking territories and countries most influenced by the customs of the German-speaking realms.
Generally, this is a marriage between a man of high birth (such as from areigning,deposed ormediatised dynasty) and a woman of lesser status (such as a daughter of alow-ranked noble family or a commoner).[2][3] Usually, neither the bride nor any children of the marriage has a claim on the husband'ssuccession rights, titles, precedence, orentailed property. The children are considered legitimate for all other purposes and the prohibition againstbigamy applies.[3][4] In some countries, a woman could also marry a man of lower rank morganatically.
AfterWorld War I, the heads of both ruling and formerly reigning German dynasties initially continued the practice of rejecting dynastic titles and/or rights for descendants of "morganatic" unions, but gradually allowed them, sometimes retroactively, effectively de-morganatizing the wives and children. This was accommodated byPerthes'Almanach de Gotha (which categorised German princely families by rank until it ceased publication after 1944) by inserting the offspring of such marriages in a third section of the almanac under entries denoted by a symbol (a dot within a circle) that "signifies some princely houses which, possessing no specific princelypatent, have passed from the first part, A, or from the second part into the third part in virtue of special agreements".[5] TheFürstliche Häuser ("Princely Houses") series of theGenealogisches Handbuch des Adels ("Genealogical Manual of the Nobility") has followed this lead, likewise enrolling some issue of unapproved marriages in its third section, "III B", with a similar explanation: "Families in this section, although verified, received no specificdecree, but have been included by special agreement in the 1st and 2nd sections".[6]
Variations of morganatic marriage were also practised by non-European dynasties, such as theRoyal Family of Thailand, the polygamousMongols as to their non-principal wives, and other families of Africa and Asia.
Morganatic, already in use in English by 1727 (according to theOxford English Dictionary), is derived from themedieval Latinmorganaticus from theLate Latin phrasematrimonium ad morganaticam and refers to the gift given by the groom to the bride on the morning after the wedding, themorning gift, i.e.,dower. The Latin term, applied to a Germanic custom, was adopted from theOld High German term*morgangeba (modern GermanMorgengabe), corresponding to Early Englishmorgengifu. The literal meaning is explained in a 16th-century passage quoted byDu Cange as, "a marriage by which the wife and the children that may be born are entitled to no share in the husband's possessions beyond the 'morning-gift'".[7][8]
Themorning gift has been a customary property arrangement for marriage found first in early medieval Germanic cultures (such as theLombards) and also among ancient Germanic tribes, and the church drove its adoption into other countries in order to improve the wife's security by thisadditional benefit.[citation needed] The bride received property from the bridegroom's clan. It was intended to ensure her livelihood in widowhood, and it was to be kept separate as the wife's discrete possession. However, when a marriage contract is made wherein the bride and the children of the marriage will not receive anything else (other than the dower) from the bridegroom or from his inheritance or clan, that sort of marriage was dubbed as "marriage with only the dower and no other inheritance", i.e.,matrimonium morganaticum.
Royal men who married morganatically:
Royal women who married morganatically:
Succession to the Danish throne followed the specifications of theLex Regia until theDanish Act of Succession was passed in 1953. Prominent morganatic marriages include the 1615 marriage of KingChristian IV of Denmark tonoblewomanKirsten Munk. Kirsten was titled "Countess of Schleswig-Holstein" and bore the King 12 children, all styled "Count/Countess of Schleswig-Holstein".King Frederick VII married the ballerinaLouise Rasmussen, who was raised to the rank of "Countess Danner" in 1850. There were no children of this marriage. WhenChristian IX of Denmark's brother,Prince Julius of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg married Elisabeth von Ziegesar in 1883, the king granted her the title "Countess ofRøst".[11]
Until 1971, Danish princes who married women who did not belong to a royal or noble family were refused the sovereign's authorization, renouncing their right of succession to the throne and royal title (Prince Aage of Denmark morganaticallyeloped with Matilda Calvi, daughter of Count Carlo Giorgio di Bergolo, in January 1914 but renounced his dynastic rights and titles subsequently).[3][5][12] They were granted the non-royal prefix of "Prince" and their descendants bear the titleCount af Rosenborg in theDanish nobility.
Neither of the children ofQueen Margrethe II has married a person of either royal birth or of the titled aristocracy. Members of the Royal Family may still lose their place in the line of succession for themselves and their descendants if they marry without the monarch's permission.
Morganatic marriage was not recognized as a concept in French law.[13] Since the law did not distinguish, for marital purposes, between ruler and subjects, marriages between royalty and the noble heiresses to greatfiefs became the norm through the 16th century, helping to aggrandize theHouse of Capet while gradually diminishing the number of large domains held in theoretical vassalage by nobles who were, in practice, virtually independent of the French crown: by the marriage ofCatherine de' Medici to the futureKing Henry II in 1533, the last of these provinces, thecounty of Auvergne, came to the crown of France.[14]
Antiquity of nobility in the legitimate male line, not noblequarterings, was the main criterion of rank in theancien régime.[15] Unlike the status of a British peer's wife and descendants (yet typical of the nobility of everycontinental European country), the legitimate children and male-line descendants of any French nobleman (whether titled or not, whether possessing aFrench peerage or not) were also legally noblead infinitum.[15] Rank was not based on hereditary titles, which were often assumed oracquired by purchase of a noble estate rather than granted by the Crown. Rather, the main determinant of relative rank among the French nobility was how far back the nobility of a family's male line could be verifiably traced.[15] Other factors influencing rank included the family's history of military command, high-ranking offices held at court and marriages into other high-ranking families. A specific exception was made for bearers of the title of duke who, regardless of their origin, outranked all other nobles. But the ducal title in post-medieval France (even when embellished with the still higher status of "peer") ranked its holder and his family among France's nobility and not, as in Germany and Scandinavia (and, occasionally, Italy,viz.Savoy,Medici,Este,della Rovere,Farnese andCybo-Malaspina) among Europe'sreigning dynasties which habituallyintermarried with one another.
Once theBourbons inherited the throne of France from theHouse of Valois in 1589, theirdynasts married daughters of even the oldest ducal families of France — let alone noblewomen of lower rank — quite rarely (viz.,Anne de Montafié in 1601,Charlotte Marguerite de Montmorency in 1609 and, in exile from revolutionary France,Maria Caterina Brignole in 1798). Exceptions were made for equalroyal intermarriage with theprinces étrangers and, by royal command, with the so-calledprinces légitimés (i.e., out-of-wedlock butlegitimised descendants ofHenry IV andLouis XIV), as well as with the nieces of Cardinal-prime ministers (i.e.,Richelieu,Mazarin). Just as the French king could authorize a royal marriage that would otherwise have been deemed unsuitable, by 1635 it had been established byLouis XIII that the king could also legally void the canonically valid,equal marriage of a French dynast to which he had not given consent (e.g.,Marguerite of Lorraine, Duchess of Orléans).[16][17]
Moreover, there was a French practice, legally distinct from morganatic marriage but used in similar situations of inequality in status between a member of the royal family and a spouse of lower rank: an "openly secret" marriage. French kings authorized such marriages only when the bride was past child-bearing or the marrying prince already had dynastic heirs by a previous spouse of royal descent. The marriage ceremony took place withoutbanns, in private (with only a priest, the bride and groom, and a few legal witnesses present), and the marriage was never officially acknowledged (although sometimes widely known). Thus, the wife never publicly shared in her husband's titles, rank, or coat of arms.[18] The lower-ranked spouse, male or female, could only receive from the royal spouse what property the king allowed.
In secret marriage, Louis XIV wed his second wife,Madame de Maintenon, in 1683 (she was nearly 50, so no children were likely);Louis the Grand Dauphin wedMarie Émilie de Joly de Choin in 1695; Anne Marie d'Orléans (La Grande Mademoiselle) wedAntoine, Duke de Lauzun in 1682; andLouis Philippe I, Duke of Orléans wed theMarquise de Montesson in 1773. The mechanism of the "secret marriage" rendered it unnecessary for France to legislate the morganatic marriageper se.[2] Within post-monarchical dynasties, until the end of the 20th century the heads of the Spanish and Italian Bourbon branches, the Orléans of both France and Brazil, and the Imperial Bonapartes have, in exile, exercised claimed authority to exclude from their dynasty descendants born of unapproved marriages — albeit without calling these marriages "morganatic".
The practice of morganatic marriage was most common in theGerman-speaking parts of Europe, where equality of birth (Ebenbürtigkeit) between the spouses was considered an important principle among the reigning houses and high nobility.[8] The German name wasEhe zur linken Hand ("marriage by the left hand") and the husband gave his left hand during the wedding ceremony instead of the right.[3]
Perhaps the most famous example in modern times was the 1900 marriage of the heir to the throne ofAustria-Hungary,Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and Bohemian aristocratCountess Sophie Chotek von Chotkowa. The marriage was initially resisted byEmperor Franz Joseph I, but after pressure from family members and other European rulers, he relented in 1899 (but did not attend the wedding himself). The bride was madePrincess (laterDuchess) ofHohenberg, their children took their mother's new name and rank, but were excluded from the imperial succession. TheSarajevo assassination in 1914, killing both the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie, triggered theFirst World War.
Although the issue of morganatic marriages were ineligible to succeed to their families' respective thrones, children of morganatic marriages have gone on to achieve dynastic success elsewhere in Europe.[3] Descendants of the 1851 marriage ofPrince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine to the German-Polish noblewomanCountess Julia von Hauke (created Princess ofBattenberg) includeAlexander, sovereign prince of Bulgaria, queen-consorts of Spain (Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg) and of Sweden (Louise Mountbatten), and, in the female line,Charles III (through his paternal grandmother,Alice of Battenberg).
Likewise, from the morganatic marriage ofDuke Alexander of Württemberg andCountess Claudine Rhédey de Kis-Rhéde (created Countess von Hohenstein) descendsMary of Teck, who became Britain's queen in 1911 as the consort ofKing George V.
Occasionally, children of morganatic marriages have overcome their non-dynastic origins and succeeded to their family's realms.Margrave Leopold inherited the throne of Baden, despite being born of a morganatic marriage, after all dynastic males of theHouse of Zähringen died out. The son ofCharles Frederick, Grand Duke of Baden, by his second wifeLouise Caroline Geyer von Geyersberg, who belonged to the minor nobility, Leopold became a prince in 1817, at the age of 27, as the result of a new law of succession. Baden's grand-ducal family faced extinction, so Leopold was enfranchised by international treaty and married to a princess, ascending the throne in 1830. His descendants ruled the grand duchy until the abolition of the monarchy in 1918.
Other reigning German families adopted similar approaches when facing a lack of male heirs. In 1896 the PrincelyHouse of Schwarzburg, with the Sondershausen branch numbering two elderly childless princes and Rudolstadt just one childless prince, recognisedPrince Sizzo von Leutenberg, morganatic son ofFriedrich Günther, Prince of Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt, as a Prince of Schwarzburg and heir to the two principalities.
The senior line of the dynasty ruling thePrincipality of Lippe was bordering on extinction as the 20th century approached, prompting a succession dispute between theLippe-Biesterfeld andSchaumburg-Lippe branches of the dynasty which evoked international intervention and troop movements. It centered on whether some ancestresses of the Biesterfeld branch had been legally dynastic; if so, that line stood next to inherit the princely crown according to primogeniture. If not, the Biesterfelds would be deemed morganatic and the Schaumburg-Lippes would inherit the throne. Lippe's Parliament was blocked from voting on the matter by the German Empire'sReichstag, which instead created a panel of jurists selected by the King of Saxony to evaluate the evidence concerning the historical marital rules of the House of Lippe and render a decision in the matter, all parties agreeing to abide by their judgment. In 1897 and 1905 panels ruled in favour of the dynasticity of the challenged ancestresses and their descendants, largely because, although neither had been of dynastic rank, the Lippes had historically accepted such marriages for the junior lines when approved by the Head of House.[19]
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a few families considered in Germany to be morganatic were considered for crowns elsewhere, constituting unexpected rehabilitation of their status.[3] The first of these wasPrince Alexander of Battenberg, who in 1877 was agreed upon by theGreat Powers as the best candidate for the new throne of Bulgaria. He was, however, unable to hold onto his crown, and was also unable to obtain the hand in marriage ofPrincess Viktoria of Prussia despite the efforts of herimperial mother andgrandmother.
Wilhelm, Duke of Urach (1864–1928), whose father was the morganatic son of a Württemberg prince, had the distinction of being under consideration for the crowns of five realms at different times: that of theKingdom of Württemberg in the 1890s, as the senioragnate by primogeniture when it became likely thatKing William II would die without male descendants, leaving as heirDuke Albrecht of Württemberg, a more distantly related, albeit dynastic, royal kinsman; thePrincipality of Albania in 1913; thePrincipality of Monaco at turn of the 20th century, as the next heir byproximity of blood following theHereditary Prince Louis, until theMonaco succession crisis of 1918 was resolved as theFirst World War ended; the prospectiveGrand Duchy of Alsace-Lorraine in 1917;[20] and his abortive election by theTaryba as King Mindaugas II of Lithuania in July 1918. In the event, Duke Wilhelm obtained none of these thrones.
Relying upon theAlmanach de Gotha togazette dynastic events, Germany's deposed heads of state continued to notify its editors of changes in family members' status and traditional titles.[3][5] In 1919 the morganatic wife and children ofPrince Oskar of Prussia, the counts and countesses von Ruppin, were upgraded to princes and princesses of Prussia by the exiledKaiser Wilhelm II. In 1928Georg, Count von Carlow, morganatic son of Duke George Alexander of Mecklenburg and commoner Natalia Vanljarskaya, became a duke of Mecklenburg and heir to his uncleDuke Charles Michael. In 1949, and again in 1999, various morganatic members of theBavarian Royal House were recognised as princes and princesses of Bavaria, with the current head of the house,Franz von Bayern, being among the beneficiaries of his father's ruling, having been born of a marriage initially deemed morganatic.[21]
In the former Royal Family of SaxonyMaria Emanuel, Margrave of Meissen adopted and designated as his heir his nephewAlexander Afif, thus bypassing hisagnatic cousin's morganatic son,Rüdiger von Sachsen, and his three sons.
When theGrand Duchy of Luxembourg found itself without a male heir at the beginning of the 20th century, the morganaticcounts von Merenberg proposed themselves as heirs, being the last legitimate descendants in themale line of theHouse of Nassau.Grand Duke William IV, however, chose to confirm the law of succession stipulated in 1815 by theCongress of Vienna to allow a female descendant in the Nassau male line to become successor to the throne (his own daughterMarie-Adélaïde) instead.[citation needed]
Paul I of Russia promulgated a strict newhouse law for Russia in 1797, eliminating the sovereign's right to designate the heir to the throne, but requiring that dynasts be born of authorized marriages.[citation needed] In 1820 a new law also stipulated that only children of Romanovs born of marriages with persons of equal status, i.e., members of a "royal or sovereign family", could transmit succession rights and titles to descendants.[citation needed] Alexander III forbade Romanov morganatic marriages altogether by issuance ofukase #5868 on 24 March 1889 amending article #63 of the Statute on the Imperial Family in thePauline laws. Byukase #35731, dated 11 August 1911, Nicholas II amended the amendment, reducing application of this restriction from all members of the Imperial Family to grand dukes and grand duchesses only. This decree allowed marriages of theprinces and princesses of the Blood Imperial with non-royal spouses, on theconditions that the emperor's consent be obtained, that the dynast renounce his or her personal succession rights, and that the Pauline laws restricting succession rights to those born of equal marriages continue in force.[citation needed]
An early victim of the Pauline laws wasGrand Duke Constantine Pavlovich, grandson ofCatherine the Great, and viceroy of Poland. On 20 March 1820 his marriage to PrincessJuliane of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld was annulled to allow him to morganatically wed his longtime mistress,Countess Joanna Grudna-Grudzińska, in Warsaw on 24 May 1820, who was elevated to the title "Princess Łowicza" upon marriage, which produced no children.[22]
One emperor,Alexander II, married morganatically in 1880. PrincessEkaterina Mihailovna Dolgorukova, Alexander's second bride, had previously been his long-term mistress and the mother of his threelegitimised children, theprinces and princesses Yurievsky.[23]
Beginning a novel tradition, one of that couple's daughters, Princess Olga Aleksandrovna Yurievskaya (1873–1925), in 1895 married the child of an 1868 morganatic marriage in theHouse of Nassau,George, Count von Merenberg (1871–1965).[23] His mother was a daughter of renowned authorAlexander Pushkin but, despite being of noble birth, she could not in 1868 dynastically marry theyounger brother of a then-exiledDuke of Nassau.[23] The count filed a futile suit to establish that his morganatic status in Germany should not exclude him from succession to thethrone of Luxembourg after the last male of theHouse of Orange, KingWilliam III of the Netherlands, died in 1890 and it became apparent that the House of Nassau faced the imminent extinction of its male members, as well, upon the eventual death ofGrand Duke William IV.[citation needed] Olga's brother,Prince George Aleksandrovich Yurievsky (1872–1913), in 1900 wed Countess Alexandra von Zarnekau (1883–1957), daughter of the morganatic marriage of the Russo-GermanDuke Constantine Petrovich of Oldenburg with AgrafenaDjaparidize.[23] Merenberg's sister,Sophia (1868–1927), likewise contracted a morganatic marriage in 1891, withGrand Duke Michael Mikhailovich of Russia, whose cousin,Emperor Nicholas II banished them to England, unwittingly saving the couple from the maelstrom of theRussian Revolution which proved fatal to so manyRomanovs.[24] She and her children were madecounts de Torby, her younger daughter,Countess Nada (1896–1963) marrying, in 1916Prince George of Battenberg, futureMarquess of Milford Haven and scion of theHouse of Battenberg, a morganatic branch of the grandducalHouse of Hesse which had settled in England and inter-married with descendants ofQueen Victoria.[23]
Less fortunate among the Romanovs wasGrand Duke Paul Aleksandrovich, who went into exile in Paris to marry a commoner,Olga Valerianovna Karnovich in 1902.[24] Paul returned to serve in the Russian army during the First World War, and Nicholas II rewarded his uncle's loyalty by elevating Olga and her children as Princess and Princes Paley in 1915.[24] Paul's patriotism, however, sealed his fate, and he died at the hands of Russia's revolutionaries in 1919. One of his daughters,Princess Irene Pavlovna Paley (1903–1990), was married while in exile in 1923, to her cousin,Prince Theodor Aleksandrovich of Russia, (1898-1968).[24]
Nicholas II forbade his brother,Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia, from marrying twice-divorcednoblewomanNatalya Sergeyevna Wulfert (née Sheremetevskaya), but the couple eloped abroad in 1911.[24] The Tsar refused his brother's request to grant the bride or their son,George Mikhailovich (1910–1931) a title, butlegitimated George and incorporated him into theRussian nobility under the surname "Brassov" in 1915: nonetheless he and his mother used thecomital title from 1915, only being granted a princely prefix in exile byCyril Vladimirovich, Grand Duke of Russia in 1928.[22][24] In the throes of the First World War, Nicholas II allowed his sisterGrand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia to end her loveless marriage to her social equal,Duke Peter Alexandrovich of Oldenburg, and quietly marry commoner ColonelNikolai Alexandrovich Kulikovsky.[24] Both Michael's and Olga's descendants from these marriages were excluded from the succession.
After the murder of Nicholas II and his children, the Imperial Family's morganatic marriages restricted the number of possible claimants.Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovich, Nicholas's cousin, proclaimed himself as Emperor in exile.[24] Controversy accompanied the marriage of his sonGrand Duke Vladimir Cyrillovich toPrincess Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Mukhransky, a descendant of the deposed Royal House of Georgia.[25] After the annexation of Georgia in 1801, Leonida's family were deemed ordinary nobility in Imperial Russia rather than royalty, leading to claims that her 1948 marriage to Vladimir (who, however, also belonged to a deposed dynasty by then) was unequal and should be considered morganatic.[25] As a result, some factions within Russia's monarchist movement did not support the couple's daughter,Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, as the rightful heir to the Romanov dynasty.[25]
The concept of morganatic marriages was never established under Swedish law. The1810 Act of Succession did, until late 20th century, prohibit princes of the royal house from entering unequal marriages withenskild mans dotter (daughter of a private man);i.e. excluding those not belonging to a reigning or mediatised royal house. Those princes that did so anyway lost all rights of succession to the throne themselves, and were no longer considered dynastic members of the royal house; their marriages were never considered morganatic but simplyunequal.
Standards of social classification and marital rules resembling the traditions ofdynastic Europe can also be found in a number of sovereign nations inAfrica. Here, a number of its peoples have legalizedtraditional authority as manifested in the recognized hereditary transmission ofchieftaincy in historically relevant regions of the continent (e.g., theAsantehene ofGhana).
An example of the form that morganatic unions tend to take amongst African royalty can be found in the biography ofNelson Mandela, the late leader ofSouth Africa. Mandela, anobleman by birth of theXhosa Thembus that reside in theTranskei region of the Cape coast, was nevertheless unable to ascend the throne of theKumkani (or king) of the entire Thembu tribe, even though he descended in the legitimate, male line from the holders of this title. Nearly two centuries ago,Ngubengcuka (d. 1832), who ruled as theKumkani of the Thembu people, married and subsequently left a son named Mandela, who became Nelson's grandfather and the source of his surname. However, because Mandela was only theInkosi's child by a wife of theIxhiba lineage, a so-called "Left-Hand House", the descendants of hiscadet branch of the Thembu royal family remain ineligible to succeed to the Thembu throne,[26] which is itself one of the several traditional seats that are still officially recognized by South Africa's government. Instead, the Mandelas were given thechiefdom ofMvezo and made hereditary counsellors to theKumkani (i.e.,privy counsellors) in deference to their royal ancestry. Following the loss of this chiefdom (which has since been restored to the family) in theApartheid era,the Mandelas retained their positions as nobles of the Transkei. This status entailed, however, a degree of subjugation to the head of the dynasty, in particular in the matter of marital selection, which proved so onerous an issue to Nelson Mandela that it prompted the departure toJohannesburg that eventually led to his political career. Like theHouse of Battenberg in Europe, Mandela's family has since rehabilitatedits dynastic status to some extent: Mandela was still in prison when his daughterZenani was married toPrince Thumbumuzi Dlamini in 1973, elder brother of both KingMswati III of Swaziland and QueenMantfombi,Great Wife ofGoodwill Zwelithini, King of the Zulus.[27]
In the erstwhileprincely state ofTravancore, inIndia, the male members of theTravancore Royal Family were, under the existing matrilinealMarumakkathayam system of inheritance and family, permitted to contract marriages with women of theNaircaste only.[28] These were morganatic marriages calledSambandhams wherein the children gained their mother's caste and family name, due toMarumakkathayam. Although they could not inherit the throne, they did receive a title ofnobility,Thampi (son of the Maharajah) and Kochamma (daughter of the Maharajah). These were the members of theAmmaveedus and their titles ensured a comfortable lifestyle and all other luxuries. The descendants of these Ammaveedu members were simply called Thampi and Thankachi and they didn't get any other distinguishing privileges.[29]
The Cochin Royal family also followed the system ofMarumakkatayam. Traditionally the female members of the family married Namboodiri Brahmins while male members marry ladies of the Nair caste. These wives of the male members are not royalty or didn't receive any royal titles or power, per the matrilineal system but instead get the title of Nethyar Amma. Their position ceases when the Maharaja dies. The children born to Neytharammas will be known by their mother's caste and hold no key royal titles. Currently the family marries mostly within the Kerala Kshatriya class.[30]
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(April 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The concept of morganatic marriage has never clearly existed in any part of the United Kingdom, and historically the English crown descended through marriages with commoners as late as the 17th century. Only two of thesix marriages Henry VIII made to secure an heir were with royal brides, andElizabeth Woodville, queen ofEdward IV of England, was also a commoner.
Another link in the English succession involving marriage with a commoner was betweenJohn of Gaunt andKatherine Swynford. When they married after co-habiting for several years all children born previously were subsequently legitimated by Act of Parliament.King Henry IV later declared that they could not inherit the crown, but it is not clear that he had the right to do this. This marriage was important, asKing Henry VII was descended from it, but Parliament still declared that he was king, so some issues remained unresolved.
The marriage ofGeorge IV as Prince of Wales toMaria Fitzherbert in 1785 is frequently referred to as morganatic: it was in fact doubly in breach of law, as a marriage to a Catholic and one not having been sanctioned by the king.
As in nearly all European monarchies extant in the 21st century, most approved marriages in theBritish royal family are with untitled commoners[31] and have been for several generations. In 1923, the futureGeorge VI (then second in line to the throne asDuke of York), was the first future British monarch to marry a non-princess or prince since 1659 when the futureJames VII & II eloped withAnne Hyde. Wives of British peers are entitled to use the feminine form of their husbands' peerages underEnglish common law, while wives of royal princes share their husbands' styles by custom unless the Sovereign formally objects.[32]
For example,Catherine Middleton, a commoner, became theDuchess of Cambridge upon her marriage on 29 April 2011 toPrince William, who had been createdDuke of Cambridge that morning.[33]Camilla Parker Bowles, second wife ofCharles, Prince of Wales (as he was at the time), legally held the title "Princess of Wales" but at the time that the engagement was announced it was declared that she would be known by the title "Duchess of Cornwall" and, in Scotland,Duchess of Rothesay (derived from other titles her husband held asheir apparent) in deference, it has been reported, to public feelings about the title's previous holder, the Prince's first wifeLady Diana Spencer. It was simultaneously stated that at such time, if any, her husband acceded to the throne, she would be known as "Princess Consort" rather than "Queen", although as the king's wife she would legally be queen.[34][35][36] However, in her 2022Accession Day message, Queen Elizabeth II stated that it was her "sincere wish" for Camilla to be "known as Queen Consort",[37] and, on Charles' accession, Camilla took this title.[38]
On 16 November 1936Edward VIII informed Prime MinisterStanley Baldwin that he intended to marry the American divorcéeWallis Simpson, proposing that he be allowed to do so morganatically and remain king.[39] Baldwin expressed his belief that Mrs. Simpson would be unacceptable to the British people as queen due to her status as a divorcee, which contradicted Church of England doctrine at the time,[40] but agreed to take further soundings. The prospect of the marriage was rejected by theBritish Cabinet.[41] The otherDominion governments were consulted[42] pursuant to theStatute of Westminster 1931, which provided in part that "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of theParliament of the United Kingdom."[43][44] Baldwin suggested three options to the prime ministers of the fiveDominions of which Edward was also king:Canada,Australia,New Zealand,South Africa and theIrish Free State. The options were:
The second option had European precedents, including Edward's own maternal great-grandfather,Duke Alexander of Württemberg, but no unambiguous parallel in British constitutional history.William Lyon Mackenzie King (Prime Minister of Canada),Joseph Lyons (Prime Minister of Australia) andJ. B. M. Hertzog (Prime Minister of South Africa) opposed options 1 and 2.Michael Joseph Savage (Prime Minister of New Zealand) rejected option 1 but thought that option 2 "might be possible ... if some solution along these lines were found to be practicable" but "would be guided by the decision of the Home government".[45] Thus the majority of the Commonwealth's prime ministers agreed that there was "no alternative to course (3)".[46] On 24 November, Baldwin consulted the three leading opposition politicians in Britain:Leader of the OppositionClement Attlee,Liberal leaderSir Archibald Sinclair andWinston Churchill. Sinclair and Attlee agreed that options 1 and 2 were unacceptable and Churchill pledged to support the government.[47]
The letters and diaries of working-class people and ex-servicemen generally demonstrate support for the King, while those from the middle and upper classes tend to express indignation and distaste.[48]The Times,The Morning Post, theDaily Herald, and newspapers owned byLord Kemsley, such asThe Daily Telegraph, opposed the marriage. On the other hand, theExpress andMail newspapers, owned byLord Beaverbrook andLord Rothermere, respectively, appeared to support a morganatic marriage.[49] The King estimated that the newspapers in favour had a circulation of 12.5 million, and those against had 8.5 million.[50]
Backed by Churchill and Beaverbrook, Edward proposed to broadcast a speech indicating his desire to remain on the throne or to be recalled to it if forced to abdicate, while marrying Mrs Simpson morganatically. In one section, Edward proposed to say:
Neither Mrs. Simpson nor I have ever sought to insist that she should be queen. All we desired was that our married happiness should carry with it a proper title and dignity for her, befitting my wife. Now that I have at last been able to take you into my confidence, I feel it is best to go away for a while, so that you may reflect calmly and quietly, but without undue delay, on what I have said.[51]
Baldwin and theBritish Cabinet blocked the speech, saying that it would shock many people and would be a grave breach of constitutional principles.[52]
Ultimately, Edward decided to give up the throne for "the woman I love",[53] whereupon he and his descendants were deprived of all right to the Crown by Parliament's passage ofHis Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. He was createdDuke of Windsor on 8 March 1937 by his brother, the newGeorge VI. He would marry Wallis Simpson in France on 3 June 1937, after her second divorce became final. In the meantime, however,letters patent dated 27 May 1937, which re-conferred upon the Duke of Windsor the "title, style, or attribute ofRoyal Highness", specifically stated that "his wife and descendants, if any, shall not hold said title or attribute". This decree was issued by the new king and unanimously supported by the Dominion governments.[54] The king's authority to withhold from the lawful wife of a prince the attribute hitherto accorded to the wives of other modern British princes was addressed by the Crown's legal authorities: On 14 April 1937,Attorney General SirDonald Somervell submitted toHome Secretary SirJohn Simon a memorandum summarising the views ofLord AdvocateT. M. Cooper,Parliamentary Counsel SirGranville Ram, and himself:
- We incline to the view that on his abdication the Duke of Windsor could not have claimed the right to be described as a Royal Highness. In other words, no reasonable objection could have been taken if the King had decided that his exclusion from the lineal succession excluded him from the right to this title as conferred by the existing Letters Patent.
- The question however has to be considered on the basis of the fact that, for reasons which are readily understandable, he with the express approval of His Majesty enjoys this title and has been referred to as a Royal Highness on a formal occasion and in formal documents. In the light of precedent it seems clear that the wife of a Royal Highness enjoys the same title unless some appropriate express step can be and is taken to deprive her of it.
- We came to the conclusion that the wife could not claim this right on any legal basis. The right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances.[55]
The new King's firm view, that the Duchess should not be given a royal title, was shared by Queen Mary and George's wife,Queen Elizabeth.[56] The Duchess bitterly resented the denial of the royal title and the refusal of the Duke's relatives to accept her as part of the family.[57][58] In the early days of George VI's reign the Duke telephoned daily, importuning for money and urging that the Duchess be granted the style of Royal Highness, until the harassed King ordered that the calls not be put through.[59] However, within the household of the Duke and Duchess, the style "Her Royal Highness" was used by those who were close to the couple.[60]
TheRoyal Marriages Act 1772 made it illegal for all persons born into theBritish royal family to marry without the permission of the sovereign, and any marriage contracted without the sovereign's consent was considered invalid. This led to several prominent cases of British princes who had gone through marriage ceremonies, and whocohabited with their partners as if married, but whose relationships were not legally recognised. As a result, their partners and children (which would be considered illegitimate) held no titles, and had no succession rights. This differs from morganatic marriages, which are considered legally valid.[citation needed]
It has been suggested thatWilliam, Prince of Orange, expected to have a strong claim to the throne ofEngland after theDuke of York during the reign ofCharles II.[61] In fact, the Duke's two daughters from his first marriage,Princess Mary andPrincess Anne, were considered to have the stronger claim by the English establishment. William's expectation was based on the continental practice of morganatic marriage, since the mother of both princesses,Anne Hyde, was a commoner and a lady-in-waiting to William's mother,Princess Mary. It was through his mother, a sister of Charles II and the Duke of York, that William claimed the throne, because, to his mind, the son of a princess had a stronger claim than the daughter of a commoner. It was to shore up his own claim to the throne that he agreed to marry his first cousin, Princess Mary. When James II fled at theGlorious Revolution, William refused to accept the title ofking consort (whichPhilip II of Spain had been granted underQueen Mary I in the 1550s) and insisted on being named King in his own right. The compromise solution involved naming both to the crown as had rarely happened in the past (see for exampleKing Henry II and his sonYoung King Henry, who ruled England simultaneously).
{{cite book}}:|work= ignored (help){{cite news}}:|last= has generic name (help)After the wedding, Mrs. Parker Bowles became known as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. If and when The Prince of Wales accedes to the throne, she will be known as HRH The Princess Consort.
| Legal scenarios | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religious | |||||||||
| Age | |||||||||
| Arranged | |||||||||
| Ceremonial | |||||||||
| Circumstantial basis |
| ||||||||
| De facto | |||||||||
| Endogamy | |||||||||
| Exogamy | |||||||||
| Non-monogamous | |||||||||
| Sexless | |||||||||
| Other | |||||||||
