Royal Wedding Vows?

[JonasResende]

I've found myself wondering about just what royalty promised at the altar. I could get a princess promising "to love and to cherish, forsaking all others, blah-blah", but hardly a king - if someone like Henry VIII, Charles II or Louis XV is anything to go by. The "for richer and poorer" part both Princess Charlotte and Queen Victoria regarded as a joke IIRC (given their husband's standing in relation to theirs), and the "sickness and in health" doesn't really sound like some kings, since some's wife's body was barely cold before they're marrying again (Emperor Leopold I is the only one I've read of that objected to remarrying to his second wife so soon after his first wife died).

So, what exactly did a royal wedding entail as far as vows were concerned? I mean, in the film La Reine Margot, the priest asks her if she accepts Henri of Navarre as her husband. She hesitates, and her brother comes up and forces her to agree by grabbing the back of her neck and choking her. But this is Hollywood, so Henri isn't forced to wait outside Notre Dame as he was OTL, hence why I'm suspicious of it's historical accuracy.

 

[LSCatilina]

but hardly a king - if someone like Henry VIII, Charles II or Louis XV is anything to go by.

That was essentially a ritual liturgic practice, so pldeging to cherish and be obeyed is as much relevant when it comes to reality, than arguing that the king is supposed to be Christians but can in reality be a general asshole.

hence why I'm suspicious of it's historical accuracy.

It seems plausible enough as a upper class practice (forced marriage was a contemporary trope) if certainly extreme and unfit at best royal unions (for the Marguerite de France, it's legendary). Such unions were generally negotiated and political exercises and actual vows or love played little role to the point it was rare at best until the XVIIIth century.
As for what matter the vows there, remember that Marguerite's mother is the one who threw mistresses at Henri de Navarre to keep him busy after the marriage (eventually, royal mistress was a quasi-official role).

 

[JonasResende]

That was essentially a ritual liturgic practice, so pldeging to cherish and be obeyed is as much relevant when it comes to reality, than arguing that the king is supposed to be Christians but can in reality be a general asshole.


It seems plausible enough as a upper class practice (forced marriage was a contemporary trope) if certainly extreme and unfit at best royal unions (for the Marguerite de France, it's legendary). Such unions were generally negotiated and political exercises and actual vows or love played little role to the point it was rare at best until the XVIIIth century.
As for what matter the vows there, remember that Marguerite's mother is the one who threw mistresses at Henri de Navarre to keep him busy after the marriage (eventually, royal mistress was a quasi-official role).

So, they would've done the whole "love, honour and obey, forsaking all others" then. Makes sense in a weirdly twisted way. So it's unlikely that the bride would object (even if she had to be carried to the altar, a la Jeanne III of Navarre; or went there in tears - a la Marie, duchesse de Montpensier), and the groom wouldn't really be able to do anything about it?

I was under the impression that "love" only played a role from around the 1840s on. Maria Theresia married for love, but her idiot dad allowed that because he thought her husband would be the one to do the ruling. Of her kids, only Mimi married for love - and earned the lasting hatred of her siblings for it - while most royal "love stories" of the 18th century (Josef II-Isabella of Parma; Fernando VI-Barbara of Portugal; Friedrich Christian of Saxony-Maria Antonia of Bavaria) seem more as a case of they fell in love after the wedding. George III supposedly married for love, but I'm not so sure. He had a list of criteria that the girl had to meet before he'd even consider her (and Charlotte of Mecklenburg was apparently the only girl who did).

 

[isabella]

So, they would've done the whole "love, honour and obey, forsaking all others" then. Makes sense in a weirdly twisted way. So it's unlikely that the bride would object (even if she had to be carried to the altar, a la Jeanne III of Navarre; or went there in tears - a la Marie, duchesse de Montpensier), and the groom wouldn't really be able to do anything about it?

I was under the impression that "love" only played a role from around the 1840s on. Maria Theresia married for love, but her idiot dad allowed that because he thought her husband would be the one to do the ruling. Of her kids, only Mimi married for love - and earned the lasting hatred of her siblings for it - while most royal "love stories" of the 18th century (Josef II-Isabella of Parma; Fernando VI-Barbara of Portugal; Friedrich Christian of Saxony-Maria Antonia of Bavaria) seem more as a case of they fell in love after the wedding. George III supposedly married for love, but I'm not so sure. He had a list of criteria that the girl had to meet before he'd even consider her (and Charlotte of Mecklenburg was apparently the only girl who did).

Maria Theresia married for love but still was a political alliance as she was offered by her father if not engaged to Francis' older brother and then at least proposed to him... and in the end given only when Karl VI needed Francis' renounce to his hereditary lands of Lorraine
If I am remember well the story the Emperor first make Francis signing the renounce to Lorraine then the engagement contract with Maria Theresia

 

[JonasResende]

Maria Theresia married for love but still was a political alliance as she was offered by her father if not engaged to Francis' older brother and then at least proposed to him... and in the end given only when Karl VI needed Francis' renounce to his hereditary lands of Lorraine
If I am remember well the story the Emperor first make Francis signing the renounce to Lorraine then the engagement contract with Maria Theresia

Yup, it pissed François' mother and brother off when the emperor told him "no renunciation, no archduchess", because his mother had been married to the duke of Lorraine as part of a deal that gave Lorraine back to Léopold Joseph and Charles Alexander was pissed because it left him as both penniless and landless, entirely dependent on his brother's largesse.

But I'm talking about the actual ceremony. Were the vows just sort of a going through the motions - since all other (political and international) aspects had already been handled by treaties and contracts before the bride even left home - of an otherwise ordinary man and woman getting married in church? So, for instance, in a dumb example, Maria Theresia and François Étienne would've said the same vows that Karl V and Isabel of Portugal and any ordinary couple today, would say?

 

[isabella]

Yup, it pissed François' mother and brother off when the emperor told him "no renunciation, no archduchess", because his mother had been married to the duke of Lorraine as part of a deal that gave Lorraine back to Léopold Joseph and Charles Alexander was pissed because it left him as both penniless and landless, entirely dependent on his brother's largesse.

But I'm talking about the actual ceremony. Were the vows just sort of a going through the motions - since all other (political and international) aspects had already been handled by treaties and contracts before the bride even left home - of an otherwise ordinary man and woman getting married in church? So, for instance, in a dumb example, Maria Theresia and François Étienne would've said the same vows that Karl V and Isabel of Portugal and any ordinary couple today, would say?

Charles was placated when the Emperor offered him his younger daughter as bride...
About the vows I am not sure but I think who yes they were always the same as everything else was already established

 

[JonasResende]

Charles was placated when the Emperor offered him his younger daughter as bride...
About the vows I am not sure but I think who yes they were always the same as everything else was already established

The emperor didn't offer Maria Anna. In fact, ISTR that Karl refused to consent to the marriage, cause he wanted a son-in-law with more oomph in Europe. It was Maria Theresia who did.
Re: the vows. Okay, I can respect that. It seems simple a reason enough. Although for instance, Albert/François Étienne promising Victoria/Maria Theresia "with all my worldly goods to endow" seems downright laughable.

 

[isabella]

The emperor didn't offer Maria Anna. In fact, ISTR that Karl refused to consent to the marriage, cause he wanted a son-in-law with more oomph in Europe. It was Maria Theresia who did.
Re: the vows. Okay, I can respect that. It seems simple a reason enough. Although for instance, Albert/François Étienne promising Victoria/Maria Theresia "with all my worldly goods to endow" seems downright laughable.

Well, I knew just who Charles Alexander was really upset by his brother’s renounce to Lorraine and then married Maria Theresa’s younger sister but I do not remember in what circumstances

 

[JonasResende]

Well, I knew just who Charles Alexander was really upset by his brother’s renounce to Lorraine and then married Maria Theresa’s younger sister but I do not remember in what circumstances

Technically, the Habsburgs screwed him over twice - once by forcing his older brother to renounce the duchy of Lorraine (although I've always wondered, why couldn't François have just abdicated in favour of his brother? The rest of the Lorraine line (as well as their mother Élisabeth Charlotte, who was created Princesse de Commercy) was allowed to keep their titles and estates in France, so why not Charles?), and the second time when he was dead. Josef II cancelled Charles' will and testament (so he could seize Charles' assets and avoid paying the beneficiaries) by using the excuse that as a member of the imperial family Charles' will was subject to the consent of the head of the house. Charles had never applied for the consent, therefore the will was invalid.

Charles had the last laugh though, most of his money and property that he was giving away he'd given to his mistress, Madame de Meuse? and his son by her, a few days before he died. So the "fortune" Josef got his hands on, was really just a fraction of what his uncle had owned.

 

[isabella]

Technically, the Habsburgs screwed him over twice - once by forcing his older brother to renounce the duchy of Lorraine (although I've always wondered, why couldn't François have just abdicated in favour of his brother? The rest of the Lorraine line (as well as their mother Élisabeth Charlotte, who was created Princesse de Commercy) was allowed to keep their titles and estates in France, so why not Charles?), and the second time when he was dead. Josef II cancelled Charles' will and testament (so he could seize Charles' assets and avoid paying the beneficiaries) by using the excuse that as a member of the imperial family Charles' will was subject to the consent of the head of the house. Charles had never applied for the consent, therefore the will was invalid.

Charles had the last laugh though, most of his money and property that he was giving away he'd given to his mistress, Madame de Meuse? and his son by her, a few days before he died. So the "fortune" Josef got his hands on, was really just a fraction of what his uncle had owned.

Because the King of France wanted Lorraine to be united to France and so he obtained Lorraine for his father-in-law as compensation for the loss and definitive renounce of the Crown of Poland (who his father-in-law had lost much before Louis’ married his only daughter)

 

[JonasResende]

Because the King of France wanted Lorraine to be united to France and so he obtained Lorraine for his father-in-law as compensation for the loss and definitive renounce of the Crown of Poland (who his father-in-law had lost much before Louis’ married his only daughter)

I guess. Makes you wonder what would've happened if François Étienne had laid down the pen a fourth time (he put it down three times before signing the renunciation). The renunciation was a HUGE gamble (which is probably why his mom and brother objected). François gave up everything (except Teschen) to marry Maria Theresia, and Karl VI had worded the marriage contract in such a way that if the Empress Elisabeth Christine died, Karl was free to remarry, and in the event he produced a son, François and Maria Theresia were to be out of a job (ruling the empire) and out of a home (Tuscany was only to be François' in so long as Karl had no male heir. Otherwise - in the event of François dying without children or with only daughters or the like - it was only a lifetime grant. So, while Charles was maddeningly average - commander, statesman etc - I do feel sorry for him the way Karl VI screwed with his family.