I wasn't familiar with the term used when Lady Holland was suggesting a way for the prince to marry his American Divorcee without letting her become queen. Apparently she could be given some other title, but what kind of marriage would it be?
Semper Contendere Propter Amoram et Formam
The term is morganatic marriage, one where the husband's titles and privileges do not pass to the wife and any children born of the marriage.
Edward VIII proposed a morganatic marriage to the Prime Minister, Stanley Baldwin, hoping that he could marry the twice divorced Wallis Simpson and still retain the throne. She wouldn't become Queen but accept some lesser title. However, this idea was rejected by the PM after consultation with other Commonwealth countries.
Often a morganatic marriage was between persons of unequal social rank. An example would be Austrian Archduke Francis Ferdinand (whose assassination in Sarajevo triggered World War I) and his wife, Sophie Chotek. The Archduke was heir apparent to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Sophie was from a prominent Bohemian family but not descended from a ruling European dynasty so was unacceptable as Empress. The children would take their mother's rank and be barred from succession to the throne. Also, Sophie would not be allowed to accompany her husband in the royal carriage or sit by his side in the royal box. Sadly, they were both killed before he could become Emperor anyway.
Wasn't EdwVIII's intention to eventually make Wallis queen anyhow? the morganitic solution was just going to be temporary (in the eyes of Wallis and Edw); eventually they intended her to be the queen, with all that entailed.
shareA morganatic marriage. It's a marriage between people of unequal rank where the offspring of that marriage will not inherit the father's relevant titles. So Edward's children would not be in line of succession.
"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."
Thanks very much to both posters answering my question. I had never heard of such an arrangement before. It sounds extremely awkward. He would be king, but his kids could never be in the line of succession?
Semper Contendere Propter Amoram et Formam
Right.
But as they had no kids, and it's extremely unlikely that it was only because he abdicated that they didn't have kids, this wouldn't have made a difference. No doubt he realized that his brother's children would succeed in any event, so he made the offer.
It's used to resolve situations like the one Edward found himself in. The first reply already refered to Archduke Franz Ferdinand. He was heir to the Austro-Hungarian crown but he was in love with a woman Sophie Chotek who was not of sufficient rank to be a fully suitable match for the future Emperor.
"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."
The morganatic marriage was a European solution to the awkward situation when a highborn man wanted to marry a woman of lower rank. It allowed the marriage to go forward, but the wife and any children of the union would be known by some lower title. Prince Philip's mother's family, the Battenberg/Mountbattens, are descended from a morganatic marriage of a German prince in the mid-nineteenth century.
In 1936 Edward VIII was informed that a morganatic marriage to Wallis Simpson would not be acceptable to the British people or to the "Dominions" -- Australia, Canada, etc. There was no provision for morganatic marriages under English law, he was told by Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin, and there was no tradition of such unions in Britain, only on the continent. He was therefore forced to abdicate.
There's an interesting coda to this tale.
Fast-forward nearly 70 years: the Prince of Wales married Mrs. Camilla Parker Bowles. Due to anticipated public discontent with the union, it was announced that the new royal would be known by one of her husband's subsidiary titles, HRH Duchess of Cornwall, rather than as Princess of Wales (as the wife of the Prince should legally be known). The Wales marriage is, therefore, a de facto if not de jure morganatic marriage. (Of course, there was no problem of the succession in this case,, as it was unlikely that the marriage of these two would have issue, given the bride's age.)
I've always found it highly ironic that the British crown was unable to use the tool of morganatic marriage to achieve its ends in 1936, but used it quite effectively to that effect in 2005.
Sorry, there is nothing “ironic” about the two situations!
The Windsors (Edward and Wallis) were CHILDLESS and of CHILD-BEARING AGE!
The Windsor-Mountbattens (Charles and Camilla) both have grown children and are past child-bearing age.
There are TWO perfectly acceptable HEIRS to the throne (William and Harry) from Prince Charles, and Camilla’s children have their own lives (they were fully grown when their mother remarried) and have no connection to the throne.
Edward and Wallis never had any children. Edward was a Nazi-sympathizing fool and Charles is not. Wallis was a beast and Camilla is real. William and Harry are fine young men. William and Katherine are providing heirs already.
Incidentally, Camilla took the title of duchess OUT OF COURTESY to WIlliam and the character that was Diana! It was a PR move solely because Camilla WILL be queen. There is NOTHING "morganatic" about this marriage. She was being KIND and WISE to use a different title (especially since Diana had to give up her HRH). Someday, folks will appreciate Camilla as Charles does.
And, there is nothing “ironic” at all.
My comment reserved judgement of the characters of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor, the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall. My personal opinion of them (or yours) is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make:
In 1936 the British "establishment" rejected the morganatic solution to the King's desire to marry Wallis Simpson.
In 2005 the "establishment" embraced something that smells very much like a morganatic marriage by announcing that Camilla would not be known as Princess of Wales (or, in the fullness of time as Queen), but as Duchess of Cornwall and eventually Princess Consort.
It is THAT CHANGE IN ATTITUDE that I find ironic, given that the situations are in some regards similar. In both cases the King/heir to the crown wished to marry a woman that most subjects would have found unacceptable. In 1936 the morganatic solution was rejected out of hand; in 2005 it was quietly adopted as the most tactful solution to a potential public-relations nightmare.
It's quite obvious from the way Mrs. Simpson is portrayed here and in THE KING'S SPEECH that the British still loathe her!
"In my case, self-absorption is completely justified."
[deleted]
I have learned a lot reading this thread. But one thing that has not been mentioned is that it is widely believed that Wallis Simpson did the UK a favour, as Edward VIII was so unsuitable to be King, with his playboy ways and Nazi leanings, plus the belief that he should have a say in the government of the United Kingdom.
We can only imagine what would have happend to Europe had he remained.
http://www.oztvreviews.com/
Gillian Anderson played Wallis Simpson in ‘Any Human Heart’ in a quite scary manner.
She was a loathsome loud-mouthed american - and divorced too. Why are you surprised?
shareAfter having just watched a documentary about Wallis Simpson, I think people might be too hard on her, even now seventyfive years after Edward VIII abdicated for her sake. For example, her first husband was an alcoholic, who constantly abused her. Can you blame her for leaving such a man, even back in the 1920s, when divorces were frown upon? And while she might have cheated on her second husband, she had never really been in love with him, so when she met a man, who she fell in love with (Edward VIII), what do you expect? And furthermore, even though she and Edward met Hitler once, the accusations of them having Nazi sympathies don't seem to be true either.
It's really a shame, that the morganatic marriage solution wasn't accepted, because that would have been the best thing to do in that situation. But of course, as they hardly would have had children anyway, Elizabeth II (his niece) would have been queen today anyway.
Intelligence and purity.
So you're saying that she married badly the first time to an alcoholic, and again a second time with someone she didn't love and was unfaithful to, and that should give her a pass as someone who the British citizenry should embrace as a national symbol? There's a lot more on their Nazi sympathies if you only look into them - they were shipped off to the Behamas during WWII because they were offering to help Hitler in exchange for their being placed on the English throne. The Brits figured it was enough of a backwater and not that difficult a place to wait out the war and outside of the main theaters of war that they couldn't get into too much trouble there...and yet they still did (the inept handling of the investigation of the murder of Sir Harry Oakes and Edward's possible/probable involvement).
The morganatic marriage was thrown out as a last minute ploy that Edward thought might be more palatable to parliament, the press and the public than the truth - as head of the Church of England, and "protector of the faith" and all that, marrying a divorcee, and a two-time divorcee to boot, with both of her ex-husbands still alive and well would have created a furor in the church and crisis of faith.
Elizabeth may not have been queen today had her uncle had led to destructions of the foundations of the church and monarchy.
Well, you surely can't blame her for leaving an abusive alcoholic, can you? The second divorce is another matter though. But I still wonder if she really was as bad a person as some people seem to believe.
Intelligence and purity.
The current program seemed to indicate that she was having an affair with someone beneath her socially (a stableboy?) while she was dating the king. I think someone told Hallam that it was deemed a private matter and the king would not be informed.
Semper Contendere Propter Amoram et Formam
Not stable boy, auto mechanic. It’s true; it’s been documented
shareAnd rightfully so, considering her and Edward's nazi sympathies (the only thing unfair here is that it isn't remembered the man who was supposed to be king shared her views).
But don't forget, she's also depicted quite favorably whenever the subject is romantic gestures, as abdicating the throne in order to marry her is seen to be. These depictions aren't the ones you'd see in movies or TV shows for the most part (thought those do exist), but they are out there, in popular culture, in documentaries, etc.
"He shall be an adder on the path, to bite a horse's heel"share
Well said.
I think earlier tv films offer the romanticized version you refer to (e.g. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096460/), but the more recent depictions take the (previously glossed-over) nazi sympathies into account (e.g. Any Human Heart, Bertie & Elizabeth). Earlier productions told the romanticized version that appeared in the press (at least in the American press). Hollywood loves a good romantic gesture, even if it's based on lies (rather like the early tv films about Charles and Diana). Modern perspective is an amazing thing.
They also built their great romantic myth with the (ghost-written) autobiographies they published in the 50s.
share[deleted]
From all my research, I've always found Wallis Simpson a nasty, ridiculously ambitious shrew who played with the most dangerous kind of fire until it burned her in the most horrendous way: stuck in a faux fairy tale with a rather addle-brained man-child. Given their proclivity for Nazis, they both deserved the hell of marriage to each other. Edward VIII was never king material, so Mrs. Simpson did do the country she loathed a favor.
As for Prince Charles and the Rottweiler, they waited too long to make their relationship official, at a time when both had become too set in their ways. Everyone would have been better off if Charles and Diana had stayed together in the way old-fashioned royal marriages were carried out. Both the Prince and Princess could have discreetly got on with their separate lives, while Charles could have kept Camilla as his mistress (after all, Camilla's ancestor, Mrs. Keppel, managed quite well as Edward VII's mistress).
I cannot agree with your negative assessment of the Duchess of Cambridge, who seems to be looking more fit and vivacious in recent photos. Marrying into the maelstrom of modern royalty would be a tough transition for anyone. The Duchess is a strong woman, on a much more equal footing with her husband, who is nothing of the fuddy-duddy his father is. Princes William and Harry seem to embody the best of both their parents; they can carry out their duties, while still knowing how to enjoy themselves. Both seem warm and generous. William's more serious nature balances Harry's devil-may-care side.
Put puppy mills out of business: never buy dogs from pet shops!
Feh, Harry is an addle brained wimp
share
Interesting that they'd resort to that since Peter the Great's wife, who became Empress after his death, was apparently the daughter of Polish peasants.
"Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything."
[deleted]
[deleted]