Um, **Guinastasia **, how could a king (or Czar) not marry beneath their rank??? :}
Zev Steinhardt
A morganatic marriage typically defines the marriage of one of noble (not just royal) blood to a commoner. Technically, the marriage to the Tsar to a minor princess would not be considered a morganatic marriage.
In Russia, though, princess is a title of nobility, not of ROYALTY.
She was his mistress, while his wife lay dying. Back then, a Tsar should only marry a princess from a ROYAL or REIGNING family, not a noble woman.
He raised her status, but technically, she was a commoner.
First, Jess, your notion that William was “convinced” to come to England to take the throne by Parliament is absurd. There is one note that exists from a number of wealthy land-holders who requested that William intervene on behalf of Protestants. This is true, but Parliament was in no way involved. William was among the most astute politicians and opportunists of his day and he recognized that he could gain one hell of a lot more than the limited role that he played as Stadholder of the Netherlands.
As Polycarp has pointed out, William wanted a whole lot more and he got it. This notion of a “Glorious Revolution” that English historians have promulgated over the centuries is simply a lie. William was married to an english princess, that is true. But he, with a fine fleet of Dutch vessels, the best of the age, invaded England, marched on London, took it, and demanded the Crown.
English like to think that that is not true. However, the crowned king, James II was not killed when he was deposed by William. He retreated to Ireland. And William had to whoop his ass at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 to prove his mastery of the islands.
The House of Orange had but one king, and the House of Stuart died with Anne, but the bureaucratic structure that created the British empire was imported by Willaim. English want to say that there is continuity between the various houses. When it comes to architecture, art, and other ephermeral interests, I suspect you are right.
The British bureaucracy which created the British Empire, though, was borrowed from the Dutch. And it wasn’t borrowed willingly. The Dutch invaded your country and imposed upon you a better king. Live with it.
I didn’t mean to be so bold. I’m new at this…
The basic principal is that a woman always takes the female equivalent of her husband’s title, unless she can claim a higher title in her own right. This applies (or at least used to) even if her husband is only Mr. Bloggs. The equivalent title is however accorded to her only as a matter of courtesy. Thus, a duchess of Norfolk has no legal right to that title, in the sense that the duke has a legal right to the dukedom, although it would be a gross discourtesy not to use it. (Slightly different rules apply for those rare English peerages, of which the dukedom of Marlborough is one, in which the title can pass through the female line.)
Death of a husband or divorce creates further complications and, in some cases, the courtesy title is adjusted to recognise this. This was why Diana, who had only ever been princess of Wales by courtesy, changed from being the princess of Wales to become Diana, Princess of Wales, after her divorce.
The wife of a king is, as one might expect, something of a special case. In many respects ‘queen’, as in ‘queen consort’, is just another courtesy title, but it is recognised in English (and Scots) law and she is entitled to be crowned in a coronation ceremony. A queen consort retains the title of queen after her husband’s death, although ceases to be referred to as ‘the queen’ to avoid confusion with the new king’s wife. The usual courtesy title is ‘queen dowager’, athough in 1952 Queen Elizabeth made it known that she preferred the new courtesy title of ‘queen mother’, partly because her mother-in-law, Queen Mary, was then still alive. The title is not intended to indicate that she is the mother of the queen. She is no longer an empress and there are, in any case, other empresses elsewhere (Japan).
As for the husband of a queen regnant, he has no special standing whatsoever by right in English law. However, over the centuries different honours have been given to him to distinguish him, hence the confusion. King Philip was, of course, king of Spain etc., although Mary I did want to make him king regnant of England as well. William III and Mary II were joint sovereigns, in what can be seen as a similar sort of arrangement to that which Mary I had wanted. The 1689 decision was always recognised as being a special case and as setting no constitutional precedent. Queen Anne’s husband, Prince George of Denmark, was given an English royal peerage as duke of Cumberland. Prince Albert was given the courtesy title of prince consort instead of a British peerage. Prince Philip renounced his status as a prince of Greece prior to his marriage and was then given a British royal peerage of duke of Edinburgh. He was also given the courtesy title of H.R.H. His wife’s accession did not alter any of his titles and it was not until 1957 that he received the rank of a prince of the United Kingdom. His titles will remain exactly the same if he survives his wife.
English law has no concept of a morganatic marriage. The issue was thoroughly discussed in 1936.
It really is all very simple.
Actually O’rn’ry, the Dutch never invaded ‘my’ country… I’m an American. Otherwise, you (and Polycarp) are entirely correct. In my defense I will say that I wasn’t trying to outline the ‘Glorious Revolution’ but was merely trying to address, in a quick and dirty fashion, the question of what the husband of a British Queen Regnant is called. Also, :reverting to a high pitched whine: I didn’t have my booooks! I still don’t have my books, BTW, it has been raining around here and the varnish on my new shelves is drying too bloody slow! Anyway, I am a history buff, not a history professor and I wouldn’t even have attempted a detailed outline of the Glorious Revolution without access to reference works.
BTW (and again, off the top of my head), a morganatic marriage is not simply the marriage of a monarch to a commoner (which has happened a few times) but the marriage of a monarch to someone ‘unworthy’ with the stipulation that the unworthy partner will not hold a royal title through the marriage, nor will any children of the marriage be in the line of succession. This is why Edward VII abdicated. He wasn’t allowed to marry Wallis Simpson, even morganatically (this may not be a word, but you know what I mean), and tetain the throne because, as APB pointed out, English law does not recognise morganatic marriage.
Actually it was Edward VIII that abdicated. And the whole thing about being pressured into abdicating is bullshit.
He never really wanted to become the King in the first place, so it’s not a big surprise that he abdicated.
Right you are, Guinastacia. ‘Retain’ isn’t spelled ‘tetain’ either – I should have hit ‘preview’ – damn ol’ typos! Anyway, I agree with you that Edward VIII didn’t really want to be King – he seems to have been a dilletante who liked the perks of royalty and not the work. However, I have read (and again, I can’t post a cite until I get those damn books unpacked) that the morganatic marriage solution was indeed bandied about before the abdication. Perhaps it was bandied by gov’mint types who were hoping to avoid an abdication (which was quite a big deal at the time) and Edward was relieved that it came to nothing. Now that I think of it, I have also read that Edward was peeved to the end of his life that Wallis was refused a Her Royal Highness in front of her name – so maybe he would have refused the morganatic marriage solution even if it had been approved… Anyway, the point is moot – morganatic marriage is not recognized by English law and so it was never an option for Edward. Nor is it an option for Charles and Camilla, who seem more content than the Duke and Duchess of Windsor to stick with the time-honored ‘mistress solution.’ Of course, Charles probably wants to be King and Edward, as Guin points out, almost certainly didn’t.
You’re welcome!
Royalty HIstory is one of my favorite subjects-especially on the last Tsar and his family.
Funny, Queen Alexandra and her sister, the dowager Empress of Russia wanted Nicky’s daughters, either Olga or Tatiana, to marry Edward-or David, as he was known as in the family.
Does anybody know what the practice would have been for the Scottish monarchy before the Act of Union? I seem to recall reading something in which Lord Darnley, one of husbands of Mary, Queen of Scots, was referred to as King- was this simply an error, a courtesy title or an official designation as King Consort?
I avoided mentioning the example of Darnley in case it confused the issue, for, believe me, it really does confuse it. Darnley was regarded by his wife as being king of Scots - the so-called ‘crown matrimonial’ - and seems to have been officially referred to as such during their brief marriage. This appears to be just the precedent that no one has yet managed to cite. The problem is that it relates to the Scottish crown before 1707. Scottish precedents from before the Act of Union don’t apply to the British succession. If in doubt, it’s the English precedent which applies.
My point about the spouse of a queen regnant having no special status by right therefore still stands.
It is true that in the sixteenth century a feeling existed that there was something not quite right with the idea of a queen regnant, not least because her status as queen was seen as potentially conflicting with her duties as a wife. Both Mary I and Mary, Queen of Scots, tried to sidestep the problem by claiming, in effect, that their husbands were their equals. Elizabeth I refused to marry mainly in order to avoid confronting the problem. Moreover, it was arguably the popular memory of Queen Elizabeth which convinced everyone that a successful queen regnant was possible. The issue has simply never arisen again since 1702. Anne, Victoria and now Elizabeth II were all thought capable of ruling in their own right, irrespective of their marital status.
There is, of course, no reason why the title of ‘king consort’ or whatever could not just be invented, but that would have to be an invention and could only be done by statute.
Much the same applies to the case of a morganatic marriage. To repeat, the concept does not exist in English law, but getting Parliament to change the law was an option in 1936. I seem to remember that Mrs. Simpson saw this as her preferred solution, but that Edward himself failed to understand the magnitude of the opposition to her becoming queen until it was too late. The crucial obstacle was not so much that Parliament would have had to legislate (although that would have created huge problems), so much that, under the Treaty of Westminster, the consent of the Dominions was required to any change in the royal styles. Baldwin canvassed all the Dominion PMs and got unenthusiastic replies. The idea was abandoned once it was realised that consent would be required from the Irish Free State. This would have been unthinkable, (a) because the Dublin government was not in the business of doing favours to the British monarchy, (b) the Dublin government would not wish to be seen to condone the remarriage of a divorcee, and © neither government wished to reopen the question of the precise status of the Irish Free State.
What is interesting about Mrs. Parker Bowles is that the morganatic solution, although widely discussed, is a non-starter. The change in attitudes towards marriage means that either she becomes queen or they continue to live together as unmarried partners. Any other solution now seems absurdly unnecessary.
Whilst I and many others may agree with you for a variety of reasons - unfortunately the Queen herself isn’t one of them. According to various sources over the years, she takes her role extremely seriously. The semi-official word is that she believes she was appointed by God to be Queen, so it’s not something she can retire from.
No chance of abdication then.
Charley.
No, it doesn’t confuse the issue at all- at least as long as we have your exceedingly clear explanations, APB. 
Thanks.