Morganatic marriage

In the context of European royalty, a morganatic marriage is a marriage between people of unequal social rank, which prevents the passage of the husband's titles and privileges to the wife and any children born of the marriage. It is also known as a left-handed marriage because in the wedding ceremony the groom holds his bride's right hand with his left hand instead of his right.^[1]

Generally, this is a marriage between a male of high birth (such as from a royal or reigning house), and a woman of lesser status (such as from a non-royal or non-reigning house, or with a profession that is traditionally considered lower-status).^{[citation needed]} Neither the bride nor any children of the marriage has any claim on the groom's titles, rights, or entailed property. The children are considered legitimate on other counts and the prohibition of bigamy applies. Morganatic marriage was also practised by the polygamous Mongols as to their non-principal wives.

It is also possible for a woman to marry a man of lower rank morganatically.

Etymology

Morganatic, already in use in English by 1727 (according to the Oxford English Dictionary), is derived from the medieval Latin morganaticus from the Late Latin phrase matrimonium ad morganaticam and refers to the gift given by the groom to the bride on the morning after the wedding, morning gift, i.e. dower. The Latin term, applied to a Germanic custom, was adopted from a Germanic term, *morgangeba (compare Early English morgengifu, German Morgengabe, Danish and Norwegian Bokmål Morgengave, Norwegian Nynorsk Morgongåve and Swedish Morgongåva). The literal meaning is explained in a 16th century passage quoted by Du Cange: a marriage by which the wife and the children that may be born are gift.^[2]

Meyers Konversations-Lexikon of 1888 gives an etymology of the German term Morganitische Ehe^[3] as a combination of the ancient Gothic morgjan, to limit, to restrict, occasioned by the restricted gifts from the groom in such a marriage and the morning gift. Morgen is the German word for morning, while the Latin word is matutinus.

The morning gift has been a customary property arrangement for marriage present first in early medieval German cultures (such as the Lombards) and also of ancient Germanic tribes, and the church drove its adoption into other countries in order to improve the wife's security by this additional benefit. The bride received a settled 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 (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.

German-speaking Europe

The practice of morganatic marriage was most common in the German-speaking parts of Europe, where equality of birth between the spouses was considered an important principle among the reigning houses and high nobility. The German name was Ehe zur linken Hand (marriage by the left hand) and the husband gave his left hand during the wedding ceremony instead of the right.

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.

Perhaps the most famous example in modern times was the 1900 marriage of the heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, Franz Ferdinand, and Bohemian aristocrat Countess Sophie Chotek von Chotkowa. The marriage was initially resisted by Emperor Franz Joseph I, but after pressure from family members and other European rulers, he eventually relented in 1899 (but did not attend the wedding himself). The bride was made Princess (later Duchess) of Hohenberg, their children took their mother's name and rank, and were excluded from the imperial succession. The Sarajevo assassination in 1914, during which the couple was killed, triggered the First World War.

Although the children, or issue, of morganatic marriages were ineligible ever to succeed to their families' respective thrones, some children of morganatic marriages did go on to achieve dynastic success elsewhere in Europe. The 1851 marriage of Prince Alexander of Hesse and by Rhine and German-Polish noblewoman Countess Julia von Hauke (created Princess of Battenberg), provided a sovereign prince of Bulgaria, and queen-consorts for Spain and Sweden, as well as (through female descent) the consort of the current Queen of the United Kingdom. The present Spanish Royal Family and members of the British Royal Family, including the current Prince of Wales trace descent from her. Likewise, the marriage of Duke Alexander of Württemberg and Claudine Rhédey von Kis-Rhéde (created "Countess of Hohenstein") resulted in the House of Teck. That family's most famous member, Mary of Teck, married George V of the United Kingdom, and the present British Royal Family descends from her.

Occasionally though, children of morganatic marriages would attempt to overcome their social origins, and succeed to their family's estates. Leopold, Grand Duke of Baden succeeded to the throne of Baden despite being born of a morganatic marriage. The son of Karl Friedrich, Grand Duke of Baden by his second, common-born wife Luise Karoline, Baroness Geyer von Geyersberg, he only became a Prince in 1817 (aged 27), as part of a new law of succession. With Baden's royal family without a male heir, Leopold was enfranchised and married to a Princess of Badenese descent, ascending the throne in 1830. His descendants ruled the Grand Duchy until the abolition of the monarchy in 1918.

This, however, was an exception. When the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg also found itself without a male heir at the beginning of the 20th century, the morganatic Counts of Merenberg proposed themselves as heirs. Grand Duke William IV, however, chose to alter the laws of succession to allow a female successor (his own daughter Marie-Adélaïde) instead. Duke Georg of Mecklenburg, Count of Carlow, morganatic son of Duke George Alexander of Mecklenburg and commoner Natalia Vanljarskaya, claimed the throne of the Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Strelitz as heir to his childless uncle, Duke Charles Michael. The abolition of the monarchies of Germany in 1918, however, meant the validity of this claim was never put to the test. Nevertheless, the Count of Carlow's descendants still style themselves as the head of the Grand Ducal house of Mecklenburg.

Russia

Paul I of Russia promulgated a strict new house law for Russia in 1797. Based on the German Salic Law, the new rules established a clear requirement to marry persons with equal status of nobility at their births (Ger. Ebenbürtigkeit). The issue of an unequal marriage would be excluded from the succession.

An early victim was Grand Duke Constantine Pavlovich, grandson of Catherine the Great, and viceroy of Poland. In 1820, his marriage to German Princess Juliane of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld was annulled to allow him to marry Polish noblewoman Joanna Grudzińska. She was known as "Duchess of Łowicz" during her marriage, which produced no children.

One Tsar, Emperor Alexander II of Russia married morganatically in 1880. Princess Ekaterina Mihailovna Dolgorukova, Alexander's second bride, had previously been his long-term mistress and mother of his illegitimate children (who received the titles Prince Yurievsky and Princess Yurievskaya). One of their daughters married a German descendant of a morganatic marriage, the Count of Merenberg.

Another victim of the new laws was Grand Duke Michael Mihailovich of Russia (October 4, 1861 - April 26, 1929), the third child of Grand Duke Michael Nicolaievich of Russia and his wife Olga Fedorovna (born Princess Cecilie of Baden). He attracted the displeasure of the Tsar by marrying another member of the morganatic Merenberg Dynasty. As a result, he was exiled from Russia, which ensured that his family avoided the Russian Revolution. His daughters married into the British Aristocracy. Less fortunate was Grand Duke Paul Alexandrovich of Russia who went into exile in Paris to marry a commoner, Olga Valerianovna Karnovich. Paul returned to serve in the Russian army during the First World War, and Nicholas II rewarded the family by making Olga and her children Princes and Princesses Paley. Paul's patriotism, however, had sealed his fate, and he died at the hands of Russia's revolutionaries in 1917.

However, Nicholas II permitted his brother, Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich of Russia, to marry twice-divorced noblewoman Natalya Sergeyevna Wulfert (née Sheremetevskaya), making the bride Countess Brassova. The son of Michael and Natalya, George, took his mother's name and rank. In the throes of the First World War, Nicholas II allowed his sister Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia to end her loveless marriage to her social equal, Duke Peter Alexandrovich of Oldenburg, to marry commoner Colonel Nikolai Alexandrovich Kulikovsky. 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 Royal Family's morganatic marriages restricted the number of possible heirs. Grand Duke Cyril Vladimirovich, Nicholas's cousin, proclaimed himself as Emperor in exile. Controversy accompanied the marriage of his son Grand Duke Vladimir Cyrillovich to Leonida Georgievna Bagration-Mukhransky, a descendant of the Royal House of Georgia. Leonida's family had sometimes been considered to be nobility in Imperial Russia (which no longer existed), rather than Royalty, leading to claims that the marriage was unequal. As a result, some factions within Russia's monarchist movement do not support the couple's daughter Grand Duchess Maria, as the rightful heir to the Romanov dynasty (see Line of succession to the Russian throne for further details of the controversy).

Denmark

Succession to the Danish throne followed the Salic Law until the Danish Act of Succession of 1953. Prominent morganatic marriages include the 1615 marriage of King Christian IV of Denmark and minor noblewoman Kirsten Munk. Kirsten was styled 'Countess of Schleswig-Holstein' and bore the King 12 children (all styled 'Count/Countess of Schleswig-Holstein'). King Frederick VII of Denmark married the ballet dancer Louise Rasmussen, who was styled 'Countess Danner', in 1850. There were no children of this marriage.

The abolition of the Salic Law allowed members of the Danish Royal Family much greater freedom in their choice of spouses, and none of the children of Denmark's present Queen have married a person of either Royal birth, or from 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.

France

Morganatic marriage was not recognized in French law.^[4] Since the law did not distinguish, for marital purposes, between ruler and subjects, historically marriages between royalty and the noble heiresses to great fiefs became the norm, helping to aggrandize the House 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. Lands mattered more than title.

Antiquity of nobility in the legitimate male line, not noble quarterings, was the main criterion of rank in the ancien régime.^[5] Unlike the commoner status of a British peer's wife and descendants (yet typical of the nobility of every continental European country), the legitimate children and male-line descendants of any French nobleman (whether titled or not, whether possessing a French peerage or not) were also legally noble ad infinitum.^[5]Rank was not based on hereditary titles, which were often assumed or acquired 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.^[5] 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 and Cybo-Malaspina) among Europe's reigning dynasties which habitually intermarried with one another.

Once the Bourbons inherited the throne of France from the House of Valois in 1589, their dynasts 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 equal royal intermarriage with the princes étrangers and, by royal command, with the so-called princes légitimés (i.e. out-of-wedlock but legitimised descendants of Henry IV and Louis 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 by Louis 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).^[6][7]

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 royal spouse. The marriage ceremony took place without banns, 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.^[8] 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; Louis the Grand Dauphin wed Marie Émilie de Joly de Choin in 1695; Anne Marie d'Orléans (La Grande Mademoiselle) wed Antoine, Duke of Lauzun in 1682; and Louis Philippe I, Duke of Orléans wed the Marquise de Montesson in 1773. The mechanism of the "secret marriage" rendered it unnecessary for France to legislate the morganatic marriage per se.^[9] Within post-monarchical dynasties, until the end of the 20th century the heads of the Spanish and Italian Bourbon branches, the Orleans 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".

United Kingdom

The concept of morganatic marriage has never clearly existed in any part of the United Kingdom. As in nearly all European monarchies extant in the 21st century, most approved marriages in the British Royal Family are with untitled commoners.^[10] Wives of British princes are entitled to use the feminine form of their husbands' peerage and hereditary titles, unless the Sovereign formally objects.^[11]

For example, Prince William and his wife Catherine Middleton, a commoner, became the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge upon their marriage on 29 April 2011.^[12] Camilla, second wife of The Prince of Wales, legally holds 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" (derived from one of the other titles her husband held as heir apparent) in deference, it has been reported, to public feelings about the title's previous holder, the Prince's first wife Diana. It was simultaneously stated that at such time, if any, that her husband accedes to the throne, she will be known as "Princess Consort" rather than 'Queen', although as the King's wife she would legally be Queen.^[13][14][15]

On 16 November 1936 Edward VIII informed Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin that he intended to marry the divorcée Mrs. Wallis Simpson, proposing that he be allowed to do so morganatically and remain king."^[16] Baldwin expressed his belief that Mrs. Simpson would be unacceptable to the British people as queen, but agreed to take further soundings. The prospect of the marriage was rejected by the British Cabinet.^[17] The other Dominion governments were consulted^[18] pursuant to the Statute 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 the Parliament of the United Kingdom."^[19][20] Baldwin suggested three options to the prime ministers of the five Dominions of which Edward was also king: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the Irish Free State. The options were:

1. Edward and Mrs. Simpson marry and she become queen (a royal marriage);
2. Edward and Mrs. Simpson marry, but she not become queen, instead receiving some courtesy title (a morganatic marriage); or
3. Abdication for Edward and any potential heirs he might father, allowing him to make any marital decisions without further constitutional implications.

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) and J. 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".^[21] Éamon de Valera Thus the majority of the Commonwealth's prime ministers agreed that there was "no alternative to course (3)".^[22] On 24 November, Baldwin consulted the three leading opposition politicians in Britain: Leader of the Opposition Clement Attlee, Liberal leader Sir Archibald Sinclair and Winston Churchill. Sinclair and Attlee agreed that options 1 and 2 were unacceptable and Churchill pledged to support the government.^[23]

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.^[24] The Times, The Morning Post, the Daily Herald, and newspapers owned by Lord Kemsley, such as The Daily Telegraph, opposed the marriage. On the other hand, the Express and Mail newspapers, owned by Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere, respectively, appeared to support a morganatic marriage.^[25] The King estimated that the newspapers in favour had a circulation of 12.5 million, and those against had 8.5 million.^[26]

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.^[27]

Baldwin and the British Cabinet blocked the speech, saying that it would shock many people and would be a grave breach of constitutional principles.^[28]

Ultimately, Edward decided to give up the throne for "the woman I love,"^[29] whereupon he and his descendants were deprived of all right to the Crown by Parliament's passage of His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936. He was created Duke of Windsor on 8 March 1937 by his brother, the new George 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 of Royal 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,^[30] The king's authority to withhold from the lawful wife of a prince the attribute thitherto accorded to the wives of other modern British princes was addressed by the Crown's legal authorities: On 14 April 1937, Attorney General Sir Donald Somervell submitted to Home Secretary Sir John Simon a memorandum summarising the views of Lord Advocate T. M. Cooper, Parliamentary Counsel Sir Granville Ram, and himself:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.^[31]

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.^[32] 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.^[33][34] 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.^[35] However, within the household of the Duke and Duchess, the style "Her Royal Highness" was used by those who were close to the couple.^[36]

It has been suggested that William, Prince of Orange, expected to have a strong claim to the throne of England after the Duke of York during the reign of Charles II.^[37] In fact, the Duke's two daughters from his first marriage, Princess Mary and Princess 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 by 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 the Glorious Revolution, William refused to accept the title of king consort (which Philip II of Spain had been granted under Queen 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 the only joint rulers in the history of England.

Another marriage which might arguably be regarded as morganatic was between John of Gaunt and Katherine 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, as King Henry VII was descended from it, but Parliament declared that he was king by "right of conquest", so some issues remained unresolved.

The Royal Marriages Act of 1772 made it illegal for all persons born into the British royal family to marry without the permission of the Sovereign, and any marriage contracted without the Sovereign’s consent was considered illegal and invalid. This led to several prominent cases of British princes who had gone through marriage ceremonies, and who cohabited with their partners as if married, but whose relationships were not legally recognised. As a result, their partners and children (the latter considered illegitimate) held no titles, and had no succession rights. This differs from morganatic marriages, which are considered legally valid.

Travancore

In the erstwhile princely state of Travancore, in India, the male members of the Travancore Royal Family belonging to the Samanthan Nair caste were, under the existing matrilineal Marumakkathayam system of inheritance and family, permitted to contract marriages with women of the relatively inferior Illathu Nair caste only.^[38] These were morganatic marriages called Sambandhams wherein the children gained their mother's caste and family name, due to Marumakkathayam. While due to reasons of caste and the nature of the marriage they could not inherit the throne, they did indeed receive the royal title of Thampi and were members of the Ammaveedus which ensured a comfortable living and all royal luxuries for them.^[39]

Examples

Royal men who married morganatically:

• King Erik XIV of Sweden married the servant Karin Månsdotter morganatically in 1567, and later secondly, but this time not morganatically, in 1568.
• Ludwig Wilhelm, Duke in Bavaria and (actress) Henriette Mendel. She was created Freifrau von Wallersee, and their daughter, Marie Louise, Countess Larisch von Moennich, was a confidante of Empress Elisabeth ("Sissi") of Austria.
• Archduke Ferdinand II of Austria, ruler of the Tirol married firstly Philippine Welser, a bourgeois girl though very wealthy, their children were given a separate title and the issue of Ferdinand's second (and equal) marriage were preferred.
• Victor Emmanuel II of Italy in 1869 married morganatically his principal mistress Rosa Teresa Vercellana Guerrieri (3 June 1833–26 December 1885). Popularly known in Piedmontese as “Bela Rosin” (Little Rosa the Beautiful), she was born a commoner but made Countess of Mirafiori and Fontanafredda in 1858.
• Late in his life, the widowed ex-king Fernando II of Portugal married the opera singer Elise Hensler, who was created countess of Edla.
• A list of Morganatic branches of the Russian Imperial Family
• Genghis Khan followed the contemporary tradition by taking several morganatic wives in addition to his principal wife, whose property passed to their youngest son, also following tradition.

Royal women who married morganatically:

• Marie Louise, Duchess of Parma (by birth an Archduchess of the Imperial House of Habsburg, and by her first marriage an Empress of France) contracted a morganatic second marriage with a count after the death of her first husband Napoleon I.
• Queen Maria Christina of Bourbon-Two Sicilies, regent of Spain after her husband's (Ferdinand VII) death while their daughter, the future Isabella II was a minor. She married one of her guards in a secret marriage.
• Princess Stéphanie of Belgium, the widow of Crown Prince Rudolf of Austria, married Count Elemér Lónyay de Nagy-Lónya et Vásáros-Namény after the death of her first husband, to the disgust of her family. In 1917, Emperor Charles I of Austria, conferred upon Lónyay the non-dynastic title of prince.

See also

• Agnatic seniority
• Lex Canuleia

References

1. ^ Stritof, Sheri & Bob. "Left-Handed Marriage". about.com. http://marriage.about.com/od/royalty/g/lefthanded.htm. Retrieved 2007-03-13. 
2. ^ Oxford English Dictionary, 3rd Edition
3. ^ Meyers Konversations-Lexikon 4th Edition
4. ^ de Montjouvent, Philippe. Le comte de Paris et sa descendance. Intrduction sur la Maison royale de France. Du Chaney Eds, Paris, 1998, p. 11. French. ISBN 2913211003.
5. ^ ^{a b c} de la Roque, Gilles-Andre. Traite de la Noblesse. Du Gentilhomme de nom et d'armes. Etienne Michalet, Paris, 1678, pp. 5, 8-10.
6. ^ Blet, Pierre. Le Clergé de France et la Monarchie, Etude sur les Assemblées Générales du Clergé de 1615 à 1666. Université Grégorienne, Rome, 1959, pp. 399-439.
7. ^ Degert, (Abbé). "Le mariage de Gaston d'Orléans et de Marguerite de Lorraine," Revue Historique 143:161-80, 144:1-57. French.
8. ^ Pothier, Robert. Traité des successions, Chapitre I, section I, article 3, § 4. French.
9. ^ "Morganatic Marriage - Webster's Online Dictionary". http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/Mo/Morganatic_Marriage.html. Retrieved 2008-07-10. 
10. ^ Willis, Daniel A., The Descendants of King George I of Great Britain, Clearfield Company, Baltimore, 2002, pp. 48-54 and passim. ISBN 0-8063-5172-1.
11. ^ Somervell, Sir Donald. Memorandum, Attorney General to Home Secretary, 14 April 1937, National Archives file HO 144/22945.
12. ^ Time. 29 April 2011. http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/04/29/introducing-the-duke-and-duchess-of-cambridge/?xid=rss-politics-huffpo. 
13. ^ "TRH The Prince of Wales & The Duchess of Cornwall". The Royal Family. http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page5559.asp. Retrieved 2009-01-11. "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." 
14. ^ "Biography". BBC News. http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/biography/index.html. Retrieved 2009-01-11. 
15. ^ "Camilla 'will be Charles' queen'". The Prince of Wales (London). 2005-03-21. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4369217.stm. Retrieved 2009-01-11. 
16. ^ HRH The Duke of Windsor. A King's Story. 1951. London: Cassell and Co., p. 332
17. ^ Bloch, Michael (1982). The Duke of Windsor's War. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. ISBN 0-297-77947-8, p. 346
18. ^ Windsor, p. 354
19. ^ Statute of Westminster 1931 c.4, The UK Statute Law Database, http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1081723, retrieved 1 May 2010 
20. ^ Taylor, A.J.P., English History, 1914-1945, Oxford University Press, 1965, p. 401.
21. ^ Williams, p. 130
22. ^ Éamon de Valera quoted in Bradford, p. 188
23. ^ Williams, p. 113
24. ^ See, for example, Williams, pp. 138–144
25. ^ Beaverbrook, p. 68; Broad, p. 188 and Ziegler, p. 308
26. ^ Ziegler, p. 308 and the Duke of Windsor, p. 373
27. ^ The Duke of Windsor, p. 361
28. ^ Casciani, Dominic (30 January 2003), King's abdication appeal blocked, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2707489.stm, retrieved 2 May 2010 
29. ^ Edward VIII (PDF), Broadcast after his abdication, 11 December 1936, Official website of the British monarchy, http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/edwardviii.pdf, retrieved 1 May 2010 
30. ^ Diary of Neville Chamberlain quoted in Bradford, p. 243
31. ^ Attorney General to Home Secretary (14 April 1937) National Archives file HO 144/22945
32. ^ Home Office memo on the Duke and Duchess's title, National Archives, http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2003/january30/edward_duke.htm, retrieved 2 May 2010 
33. ^ Ziegler, Philip (2004) "Windsor, (Bessie) Wallis, duchess of Windsor (1896–1986)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/38277, retrieved 2 May 2010 (subscription required)
34. ^ See also, Bloch, Michael (ed.) (1986), Wallis and Edward: Letters 1931–1937, Summit Books, pp. 231, 233, ISBN 0671612093  cited in Bradford, p. 232
35. ^ Ziegler, p. 349
36. ^ Higham, p. 232
37. ^ Van der zee and Van der zee, 1688: A Revolution in the family. Viking, Great Britain: 1988. p 52
38. ^ Travancore State Manual Vol ii 1940 by TK Velu Pillai
39. ^ Travancore State Manual Vol ii 1940 by TK Velu Pillai and TSM Vol II 1906 by V Nagam Aiya

Further reading

• Crawford, Donald. Michael and Natasha, Scribner (1997). ISBN 0-684-83430-8