Talk:Morganatic marriage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anthropology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Feminism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


Untitled[edit]

Discussion Page for Morganatic marriage - all comments should be added to the very bottom of this page and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes. Thank you!

"Morganaut"[edit]

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)

Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip[edit]

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)

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)

Charles & Camilla[edit]

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)
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)
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)
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)

This is pretty interesting but doesn't really belong in this article. Just one sentence pointing out that Charles and Camilla is not morgantic, although it looks a little like it.

United Kingdom[edit]

"Marriages have never been considered morganatic in any part of the United Kingdom." So how, then, does one refer to the marriage between Catherine of Valois (Queen of England, consort of Henry V), and Owen Tudor? They married sometime between 1428 and 1432 in apparent defiance of the statute of 1428 which "forbade marriage to a queen without royal consent on pain of forfeiture of lands for life". They had three children Edmund, Jasper and Margaret. The marriage itself was recognised on Catherine's tombstone by her grandson, Henry VII. The children did not gain at all from their mother's estate or status which would appear to satisfy the definition in the opening paragraph of this article. In any event the marriage is described as morganatic in several reputable texts eg Dictionary National Biography (current), The making of the Tudor dynasty by R. A. Griffiths and R. S. Thomas (1985).--Silver149 09:36, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This entire paragraph is irrelevant to the article, and I'm removing it:
Notwithstanding the above, there may have been at least one morganatic marriage or its resemblance in the British royalty. Catherine of Valois, dowager queen of Henry V, is said to have entered into such a union with Owen Tudor about or before the year 1429, or they never married. (Their eldest child, Edmund Tudor, was the father of Henry VII.)
If they were married, this was not a morganatic marriage. Britain (and England before it) does not have morganatic marriages in any form. Catherine of Valois was not born a member of the English Royal Family. She was the French widow of an English King. The children of her second marriage to Tudor, therfore, had no claim on the English throne, because they did not have English Royal descent through either parent. Their son, Edmund Tudor, married a noblewoman with some Royal descent, and Henry VII's claim on the English throne is based on that. This is not the only example of a British Royal widow re-marrying to a man of 'lower' rank - they are allowed to do so.
The children of the Valois/Tudor marriage were not titled, as in England (and I believe in France) common-born men do not automatically take on Royal Status when they marry a Royal woman (unlike when common-born women marry Royal men) - see the modern day Princess Anne and her husbands. The children don't automatically get Royal titles either, but are still in line of succession - See Peter & Zara Phillips, 9th & 10th in line to the throne today. Children of continental morganatic marriages cannot succeed to their respective thrones, because having 1 non-royal parent prevents it. That's the difference. Indisciplined (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


Prince Alexander[edit]

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)

factual error?[edit]

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)

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)

Royal Marriages Act[edit]

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)

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)

Question[edit]

What about (pre-Union) Scotland? Was there ever any such notion there? —Ashley Y 09:59, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • I don't think so. Mary, Queen of Scots married Henry, Lord Darnley. If this notion was inplace in Scotland it would be considered morganatic.

Elizabeth Bowes Lyon a commoner?[edit]

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)

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)

I agree that this section is confusing. It may be technically true that the children of peers are "commoners", but I think that it is actually very misleading in this context for people unfamiliar with the topic) to say that Diana and the late Queen Mother were born commoners without mentioning that they were the daughters of noble families. What matters in the context of a royal marriage is not whether a young woman herself has a title but rather her family background. There's a long standing tradition for marriage between British royals and the children of the British aristocracy and no one considered these marriages controversial at the time. I think the article should say something along the lines of "they were technically commoners although they were from artistocratic families" Ctamigi (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Camilla's entitlement[edit]

It's contradictory to say in one part of the article (accurately) that the style HRH is in the gift of the sovereign but to say, with regard to Camilla, that she is legally entitled to the "title" HRH The Princess of Wales. Besides which, HRH is a style, not a title. Whether she's legally entitled to or whether she "would ordinarily use" the title Princess of Wales I'm not sure--British legislation or authorities on the royal family would have to be consulted--but if the sentence about legal entitlement is retained, at least a distinction should be made between the style HRH and the title Princess of Wales. Wbkelley (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Although both the title "Prince of Wales" and the style "Royal Highness" are in the Sovereign's gift, the former is more restricted than the latter. Just as no one disputed that when King Edward VIII abdicated, was made Duke of Windsor, and married Mrs. Simpson that she was entitled by law to share her husband's peerage rank, the King could and did withhold from her the traditional style of HRH because, as he wrote the Prime Minister, "We don't consider her suitable to be royal", and the ostensible distinction between a noble and and a royal duke is the HRH. Although Britons are wont to protest that their culture was never so "classist" as Germany as to tolerate such an institution as morganaticism, the Windsors' was a de facto morganatic marriage precisely because (as the term is ordinarily used in English) the wife was not accorded the same public status that wives deemed fully acceptable share with their husbands automatically. Of course, George VI's intent was not then made public. Readers can draw their own conclusions about whether the public declaration that Camilla is not styled "Princess of Wales" (though legally so entitled) because that title had become so identified in the public's mind with the late Diana that it was a gesture of sentiment to defer its use when the Prince re-married, was true -- or a figleaf for a de facto morganatic marriage (Camilla is also accorded less precedence at private events of the Royal Family than was Diana and previous Psses of W, and the Sovereign defied precedent by declining to attend her heir's second wedding). No other wife of a Prince of Wales has ever been so treated -- but the wife of one ex-king was treated somewhat similarly, so the precedent was there. FactStraight (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
A Royal Duke (technically a 'Duke of the Blood Royal') is a Royal Duke by virtue of being a Prince, regardless of whether or not the have the style (STYLE not TITLE, the two are completely different things) 'HRH'. A Royal Duke is a Royal who has either been given, or inherited, a Dukedom. A non-royal duke is a Duke who isn't a Prince. A royal duke is still a Royal Duke regardless of whether he is an 'HRH'. The Dukedom isn't 'Royal', it's just that it's holder also happens to be Royal. Whilst the STYLE 'HRH' is in the gift of the sovereign, and can be given and removed at will, the titles 'Prince' and 'Princess' are regulated by British law. Most Princes or Princesses automatically receive these titles by processes defined by law (birth or marraige). The Queen can, in addition, choose to make someone who wouldn't automatically qualify a Princess or Princess of the UK. But she cannot remove the title 'Prince' or 'Princess' from anyone. Only Parliament can do this by a specific act of Parliament (something last done in 1917). So the title 'Prince' or 'Princess' is NOT strictly speaking, in the 'gift' of the monarch. The monarch can, however, remove the style 'HRH' at will. What to do with a living ex-king who voluntarily renounced the position was a constitutionally unique case. What should happen in the case of Edward and Wallis wasn't defined by law, so there was some improvising at the time. It wan't clear what title the wife of an ex-King should have (although she was automatically Duchess of Windsor). However, by being the wife of the Prince of Wales, Camilla is automatically Princess of Wales. The style 'HRH' was a gift from the Queen upon her marriage, and is quite separate. I think FactStraight may be bringing in the Order of Precedence in the last sentance there. It's up to the Queen whethter Camilla or Princess Anne is technically considered more senior in that regard, and her reasons for that decision are not known, so with repsect, FactStraight is just speculating on her motives. None of that affects Camilla's Royal Status, and she still takes precedence over most of the (rather large) British Royal Family. As for not attending her sons second wedding, she has apparantly chosen never to attend a Civil Wedding, and routinely turns invitations to them down, for reasons best known to herself (although a bit extreme in the case of her own son). Indisciplined (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
You are right that "Prince of Wales" is a unique title that functions like a peerage, thus cannot be removed nor its terms of inheritance altered by the monarch once conferred. Yet unlike a peerage, the restriction is only on who may receive the title, but nothing compels the Sovereign to grant the title at all: thus it remains within the Sovereign's gift. And the wife (widow, and divorcee) of a Prince of Wales is presumed to have the same right in common law to share that title as if it were the peerage of a husband. But that is not true of any other title of "prince" in the UK; that title and the various styles of Highness are and have always been entirely within the gift of the Sovereign, are governed by the Sovereign's decrees (whether proclaimed or in pectore) as the Fount of Honour. They have never been governed by statute or Parliament and are not so now. George V's change of surname and of dynasty, and the changes in the styles and titles of members of the royal family were issued by proclamation and letters patent, not parliamentary statute, and can be (and have been) changed by subsequent monarchs at their pleasure. George V initially decided that great-grandchildren of sovereigns in the male-line would be princes, but changed his mind before issuing his 1917 decree, which is why Prince Alistair of Connaught lost it and became known as "Earl of Macduff" instead. A "royal duke" is a popular term (attaching to the style "Royal Highness" not "prince" since HRH the Duke of Edinburgh was widely referred to as such prior to being elevated to British princedom, while the Duchess of Windsor was never officially accorded royal treatment), and is no longer treated as having meaning in law or protocol ("Dukes of the Blood Royal" pre-dated use of the style "Royal Highness" in Britain, but their historic right to precedence in Parliament has not been honored at least since the 19th century, thus the term has fallen into desuetude): there are no privileges or rights associated with a "royal duke" that do not derive from some other official source (e.g. in line of succession to the throne as Protestant descendants of the Electress Sophia; right to title of prince and HRH under the 1917 patent; precedence based upon kinship to the reigning sovereign; subject to the Royal Marriage Act of 1777 as male-line descendants of George II, etc). The style of HRH has not been accorded as a "gift" of any British sovereign to the wife of a royal prince, and was not so accorded by Elizabeth II to Camilla: It is, rather, accorded automatically by custom to the wives of men entitled to be addressed as Royal Highness. But George VI, to differentiate the treatment of his elder brother's wife from wives of other royal princes, certainly and explicitly did exercise his authority to withhold from Duchess Wallis the HRH borne by previous wives of royal dukes, which was a de facto morganatizing act and was why his elder brother remained resentful of the Royal Court and wrote letters to the king in protest of this exercise of the Royal Prerogative. Indeed, that is exactly what Home Secretary Sir John Simon, consulted upon this matter by the Crown, wrote in March 1937, "While the rule that the wife of a Royal Highness is herself a Royal Highness is generally applicable, it seems not to be incapable of express exception. (The position of a morganatic wife in certain foreign countries is an example of variance from the regular rule). If the Sovereign as fountain of honour expressly confers the style and title upon X, why may he not limit the concession to X personally?" He went on in the memorandum to recommend the drafting of Letters Patent acknowledging the Duke of Windsor's right to HRH, but forbidding its extension to any wife of his -- which is precisely what was subsequently done. Britons' egalitarian self-concept doesn't like to call it "morganatic marriage" but the British Crown has and can act and treat a royal's spouse in such a way as to produce the same effect.
As for the status of Camilla, the Queen is gracious (approving the marriage and not withdrawing the HRH), discreetly making known her attitude in such a way that one is free to attribute her actions to other considerations if one prefers. Others, however, note the pattern -- Elizabeth II is the only British monarch to: not publicly address or refer to the wife of the Prince of Wales as "Princess of Wales"; to decline (although able-bodied at the time) to attend the wedding in England of the heir apparent to the Crown; to deprive the wife of the Prince of Wales of her immemorial precedence as first -- after living queens -- among women of the kingdom, whenever the royal family is privately gathered (and what could be the intent of such a change in precedence outside of public view, exclusively within the family circle -- plus any courtiers & servants in attendance?) -- placing her even below a cousin! This treatment is not unprecedented: it is more similar to that accorded the wife of the Duke of Windsor than to any other wife of a modern British prince (except the wives of the brothers of George III and "those" of the royal Dukes of Cambridge and Sussex). The Duchess of Windsor's treatment was not based upon being the wife of a former king (who, after all, resumed being HRH), but explicitly upon George VI's conviction as king that she was not suitable to be treated as a full member of the royal family. Your speculations as to the implications of this atypical pattern for "royal duchesses" are certainly as valid -- but no more so -- than mine or others'. FactStraight (talk) 18:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

John of Gaunt[edit]

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)

Why is Denmark included?[edit]

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

Sloppy references[edit]

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)

Based on Profession[edit]

There is a note in the lede about the marriage being morganatic based on the woman's profession. I can't find any good source on that. It seems odd because a woman of status likely would not have had a profession, and if she was not of a higher class, then the profession would be irrelevant as it would her class that prevented the marriage from being condoned. Does anyone have a further explanation of this? Just seems illogical.

Kate Middleton[edit]

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)

Unsourced allegations[edit]

A substantial number of edits were reverted yesterday because of allegations which were inaccurate, misleading or disputed, and therefore needed to be substantiated by reliable sources, none of which were added. The deleted material has been restored on the grounds that "the whole article is very thinly sourced", although it has no fewer than 57 footnotes! Moreover the fact that other stuff exists is not grounds for restoring challenged material without accompanying citations. Among the unsubstantiated claims added: 1. that those who did not marry suitably lost their dynastic rights, whereas it is usually the wife and children but not the dynast who forfeits status in a morganatic marriage. 2. that Salic law (women can never inherit the throne) was prevalent in countries where morganaticism was practiced, whereas in fact semi-Salic primogeniture (meaning women do inherit the throne when a family's males die out: that's how Maria Theresa of Austria became ruler of the Habsburg realms) was much more common than Salic law. 3. that morganatic marriage was largely confined to a few areas of Europe (Denmark, Germany, Russia) while being entirely absent in England, Scotland and France: In fact, until the 20th century Monaco was the only Western monarchy founded before the 19th century in which no distinction in official status and rights was ever imposed on unsuitable wives of sovereigns or dynasts. As for England and Scotland, they were in personal union from 1601, and it is only after the 1500s that morganaticism became a common dynastic solution for unsuitable marriages in Europe, so this is both irrelevant and misleading. As for lack of morganaticism in England and France, agreed that the word was not applied to arrangements wherein a royal's unsuitable wife and children were not allowed to share his status or inheritance, but in the face of the marriages of Louis XIV and Madame de Maintenon and of HRH The Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor and Her Grace the Duchess of Windsor, it is debatable whether the "concept" of morganatic marriage was unknown to France and Britain. These POVs were added to the article, but have been challenged for lack of proper sourcing. Wikipedia's Verifiability policy stipulates that the burden of proof for material lies with those who add it, "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed". FactStraight (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't say (as you are supposed to) what version you reverted to. Among the edits you reverted were these by User:Moonraker, which were helpful rewording of what is often very poor prose, this by User:Dlauri adding the correct links to the text, as well as my own, which added a little, and that hardly controversial, to the text but tried to get material already in later sections into the lead, currently pathetically inadequate and misleading. I see from your talk page you have a long history of indiscriminate reverting and blocks for edit-warring; this is not the way to proceed, and might well be considered disruptive, especially given your history. You have blanket-reverted the additions of at least four editors (going back at least 18 days), at least two of them a good deal more experienced than you, and removed a number of undoubted improvements.
I can't see where you reverted any statement that "that those who did not marry suitably lost their dynastic rights". The material about John of Gaunt was there before and still; if this is so stuff about relevant later English marriages cannot be objected to. What has the personal union after 1601 to do with anything? Nothing was added about France; merely what was said below was added to the lead. If you feel the article is contradictory and does not explain the subject properly (as well you might) you should improve it yourself. Where for example does the article say "it is only after the 1500s that morganaticism became a common dynastic solution for unsuitable marriages in Europe" - an important point if true. You may be right about Salic law, but a blanket-revert is not the way to resolve this.
Most of the key assertions in the article are unsourced, such references as there are concentrating on biographical details of instances. Many of the references are not RS, or inadequate - look at the first two - about.com and a link to the search page of Websters! Both useless.
I will revert you again, and I suggest this time you do what you are supposed to do, and work through the edits and change what you have actual objections to, adjusting the text to what you feel is correct, and trying to expand and clarify the material, which it certainly needs, also improving the referencing. Johnbod (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
If there are portions of this article which need better sourcing, please feel free to add citations. Whether you do or don't, however, doesn't justify you re-inserting unsourced material once it has been challenged -- especially after I enumerated specific errors. I'll ignore the ad hominem attacks seeking to intimidate me from editing the article. You maintain that I inappropriately wholly reverted several edits which you consider to have improved the text (ignoring the fact that I am free to hold a different opinion and to edit accordingly), yet you then proceed to wholly revert my edits, inappropriately re-inserting challenged text without sources in violation of BURDEN. You are free to restore that text if and when you find reliable sources that substantiate the allegations (not merely to make a point), yet you have indicated no ability or intention of doing so. Your implication that I have an obligation to "fix" rather than revert the unsourced material is incorrect, all the more so since as I had explained above, the problem is that you've re-inserted edits with allegations which are wrong and the "fix" is simply to remove erroneous information. In the spirit of collaboration I have restored some of the other edits made, even though I do not particularly agree that they are improvements. FactStraight (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I find it especially vexing to see my correction of a link (Imperial Diet (Holy Roman Empire) to Reichstag (German Empire)) undone, so that the page was left with the incorrect link. The German Empire of 1870 to 1918 was not the Holy Roman Empire. Well done, Johnbod. Moonraker (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
You are correct, and I apologize for my error. FactStraight (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Alert!: references removed October 25, 2011[edit]

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)

"German-speaking Europe"[edit]

What if we substitute "German-speaking Europe" with "HRE and successors"? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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)