Talk:Morganatic marriage

message: What on earth is a morganaut?  Is it something like an astronaut or cosmonaut?  Seriously, this is not a word.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.52.191 (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Morganaut"

message: Is this the same principle as Victoria and Albert? I'm fairly sure he's pretty much Prince Consort material. --81.174.244.104 02:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Victoria & Albert and Elizabeth II & Phillip are equal marriages. Firstly there's no such thing as a morganatic marriage in British law, secondly these are men marrying a female monarch. They were granted lesser styles so that it is clear (in the male dominated world of royalty) who is the sovereign and who is the consort. It also makes it clear that Jure uxoris doesn't apply. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip 

message: Does the upcoming marriage of Charles, Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles count as a morganatic marriage?
:I remember this being talked of before the announcement, but I haven't heard much since. I think that because Camilla is presumably post-menopausal no one will waste time making the necessary arrangements (an act of parliament) to remove any children of the marriage from the succession. As for preventing passage of titles to her as Charles's wife, AFIAK she will be Princess of Wales—there's no avoiding it—but the title will never be used or referred to, making her de facto not the Princess of Wales. I'm no expert though. Perhaps one of "Team Peerage" could add something about this marriage and its status to the article. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it won't happen, any hypothetical children of Charles and Camilla would be styled HRH Prince/Princess from birth, and would be in line to the Royal succession after Prince Harry (but before Prince Andrew). It would take an extraordinary Act of Parliament to specifically deprive them of that.  Britain does not have morganatic marriages - the children of any legal marraige can inherit the throne. Indisciplined (talk) 15:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that I am replying to a comment from 15 years ago, but Andrew is in line before Harry.  Andrew is the older one.  I don't see how anyone can be in line "after Prince Harry (but before Prince Andrew)".  A note back in time to the 2007 editors --  King Charles and Queen Consort Camilla have not had any children (yet). David10244 (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course not. Harry is a son of an elder brother (Charles). The heir apparent (Prince of Wales) is William, not Andrew, and Andrew was never bypassed, he is in his place by the law. Maybe You mixed up Andrew and William? --95.24.70.237 (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I probably did. David10244 (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

text: According to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7257427/  "...Constitutional Affairs Minister Christopher Leslie said in a written statement that the marriage of Charles and Parker Bowles would not be “morganatic” — in which the spouse of inferior status has no claim to the standing of the other. “This is absolutely unequivocal that she automatically becomes queen when he becomes king,” said Andrew Mackinlay, the lawmaker who raised the question. The Department for Constitutional Affairs confirmed that interpretation, saying that legislation would be required to deny Parker Bowles the title of queen. Similar legislation apparently would be required in more than a dozen countries — such as Australia, Jamaica and Canada — in which the British sovereign is the head of state...."206.156.242.39 20:05, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's right. Any change to the succession is extremely complicated because it needs all the Commonwealth Realms to do the same thing. The UK is unable to just unilaterally mess with its royal family in ways that affect all those other countries. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:21, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles & Camilla 

message: Ludwig II, as the husband of Prince Alexander's mother, was the legal father of Prince Alexander, and nobody else was ever acknowledged to be his biological father (although obviously there were rumors).  The issue of Prince Alexander's parentage is a secondary one having nothing to do with this article, and it is, in fact, not incorrect to call Alexander Ludwig's son.  Note that at Prince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine, the intro simply calls him the son of Ludwig II, although the questionableness of this, biologically speaking, is discussed later.  At any rate, point is, he's the legal son of Ludwig II, and that's all that matters for purposes of genealogy.  Everything else is speculation, and not worth discussing in an article which has nothing to do with the subject of Prince Alexander's parentage, and only with his marriage. john k 19:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Alexander 

message: Someone made an assertion about Diana Wales nee Spencer, which I believe is factually incorrect.
In the systems of Nobility of some nations every child of a noble is a noble.  This is not the case in the British system.  At the time of the French revolution fully 4% of the French population is noble.  Only one individual holds a title at a time.  Their are five levels in the British system.  Duke at the top rung, Barons on the bottom rung.  The eldest son of a Duke, and the next level or two down, is generally addressed by the secondary title of the parent.  But they are still a commoner, until the parent dies.  They can, for instance, run for a seat in the "House of Commons.  
IIUC, the honourary titles the children get don't make them nobles.  Geo Swan (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are absolutely right, GeoSwan. I think someone had said that because Diana was born with the courtesy title 'Lady' (as the Daughter of an Earl), that she wasn't a commoner before her marriage. In fact, she was, for the resons you have outlined above. This was almost certainly a good-faith error by someone unfamiliar with the British system. Indisciplined (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  factual error? 

message: I really want to remove this entire section on grounds of irrelevance. Marrying in contravention of the Act means the marriage isn't legal - which is completely different to a Morganatic marriage (which is legally recognised).  Currently, a large section of this article is handed over the the UK, a country which has never had Morganatic marraige anyway.  I think we could then slim the UK section down to 4 paragraphs:
*Opening paragraph explaining the UK has never practiced this system (using the modern Royal Family as examples)
*The section about William & Mary, and William's apparant expectation that he would be King, as Mary's mother was a commoner, only to find out that that system did not apply in Britain (I never knew about that controversy, well done to whoever found it!).
*That Edward VIII was refused a Morganantic marriage to Wallis, because there was no legal mechanism to do so.
*The Royal Marriages Act could then get one sentence, to explain why it isn't a system of Morganatic Marriage, and should not be confused with it. The Royal Marriages Act has it own article, and all relevant meterial shoudl go there
Indisciplined (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Implemented these changes.  I have moved the information on the Royal Marriages Act to the right place - the Article on the Royal Marriages Act. Indisciplined (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Royal Marriages Act

message: Surely she was born into Scottish nobility. Her wikipedia article says so. I've removed that section. --Mongreilf (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is common error (no pun intended) Mongreilf, but it IS an error. In Britain, anyone who is not a sovereign or peer is a commoner. Thus, as the daughter of a peer, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was a commoner, as the Wikipedia article you refer to does clearly state (look under the section 'Marriage to Prince Albert'). 'Lady' ia courtesy title. 'Aristocrat' is a broad, vague term with no legal standing. You can quite easily be both an 'aristocrat' and a commoner. See the article Commoner for more information. I've reverted your changes accordingly. Indisciplined (talk) 18:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, sorry, factually incorrect.  In Britain, a Commoner is defined as anyone who is neither a Royal or a Peer.  'Lady' is a courtesy title borne by some daughters of aristocracy and the wives of Knights.  Such women are defined as commoners. Period. These marraiges were 'not controversial' quite simply because Britian has never practiced Morganantic marriage. Princess Anne has been married to 2 man with no titles of any kind - again that causes no legal problems Indisciplined (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth Bowes Lyon a commoner? 

message: Is it worth mentioning John of Gaunt's second marriage as having some bearing on the issue of whether there has ever been morganatic marriage in England? PatGallacher (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: John of Gaunt

message: The section on Denmark does not discuss morganatic marriage, it discusses male primogeniture. 121.73.7.84 (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Denmark included? 

message: Several references to "Bradford" in the footnotes, but no full citation to a work by an author of that name.  Also, in the section regarding Edward's abdication, there is a sentence fragment which seems to be intended to describe de Valera's reaction to the options presented to the Commonwealth states, but it only states de Valera's name and one of the incomplete references.  Appears that the paragraph was lifted whole from another article without checked to see if the references were conveyed correctly.Tloc (talk) 05:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Sloppy references

message: Shouldn't she be mentioned as her family are obvious parvenus, and not of noble lineage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.27.161 (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Kate Middleton

message: I also noticed the lack of a reading list for books etc that are referred to. Searching through the history for possible accidental/intentional vandalism I found (so far) the following:
It seems that banned User:Will_Beback removed several references (on October 25, 2011, all to do with Velde) that are in English & still valid-the first few have been replaced but by refs to books in French and non-linked. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of the subject than me could see to restoring the deleted refs if deemed necessary?--DadaNeem (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Alert!''': references removed October 25, 2011 

message: What if we substitute "German-speaking Europe" with "HRE and successors"? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That would not be an improvement because 1. many readers would not know enough about the Holy Roman Empire's unique hierarchy nor which realms were its "succesors". 2. the section would need to include dynasties and realms which operated within or were vassals of the HRE but which did not practice morganaticism in the same way that German-speaking dynasties tended to do, in or out of the HRE. Although the common thread for the HRE and morganaticism is that Gemeines Recht (German common law) operated in both, too many territories technically included in the HRE were never subject to German common law, so that their tradition of handling inappropriate marriages evolved differently and are better handled in separate sections. And yet morganaticism tended to spread; rules requiring Ebenbürtigkeit came to be enforced by dynasties which ruled Italian, French, Dutch and Slavic fiefs. FactStraight (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "German-speaking Europe" 

message: "Morganatic marriage is not, and has not been, possible in jurisdictions that do not permit restrictive encumbrances with regard to the marriage contract, as it is an agreement containing a pre-emptive limitation to the inheritance and property rights of the spouse and the children."
It's hard to tell which countries, eras, or levels of practice are covered by this broad statement. Are we still talking about noble titles, or switched to civil law? Are we in Southe America? Framing is missing. 67.170.236.50 (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Morganatic marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101231024432/http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2003/january30/edward_duke.htm to http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2003/january30/edward_duke.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Morganatic marriage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120223164907/http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/ to http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130530014027/http://eurohistory.com/ to http://www.eurohistory.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)