The Dynastic Marriage by Heinz Duchhardt The often-quoted "family of princes" was at no time a truly pan-European network, but represented rather a collection of various marriage circles defined first by – among others – geography, and following the Reformation, confession. Dy- nastic marital alliances were agents of at least restricted cultural transfer which made itself felt first and foremost at the courts but also influenced the rest of the country. Dynastic marriages often were an important part of foreign policy, bringing new options, changes in position or international stability. The house of Saxe-Coburg will be presented as an example of inter-dynastic networks (inner-dynastic networks can be found in the marriages between the various dynas- tic lines of the House of Habsburg) which planted its offspring on a surprising number of European thrones after 1800. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Factors of Marriage Strategy 3. Dynastic Marriage and Cultural Transfer 4. Marriage and the Jus Publicum Europaeum 5. The Dynastic Wedding as a Media Event 6. The High-Point of the Dynastic Marital System 7. Summary and Outlook 8. Appendix 1. Sources 2. Bibliography 3. Notes Citation Introduction Today, nearly a century after the democratizing revolutions of 1918/1919 put an end to a large number of European monarchies (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Portugal) and deterred others from adopting a monarchical system (e.g. Finland), noble marriages still retain a large degree of popular fascination. The pictures and film footage docu- menting family gatherings amongst the European nobility, whether on the occasion of a christening, wedding or funeral, still enjoy considerable popular interest. Strong family bonds remain between the Scandinavian monarchies and royal houses of the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain, Spain, Monaco, Luxembourg and Lichtenstein as well as the de-throned families from Germany, Austria, Bulgaria and Italy to mention only the most important examples. Although marriages between these families have become the exception rather than the rule, the impression of a "great family of European dynasties" still prevails. The formalities of address serve to express this familial element: every member of this social cohort is somehow at least the cousin of another member of this exceptionally exclusive network. Ÿ1 The political nature of pre-modern royal marriages (such unions were rarely motivated by considerations of affection or unhappiness) and their immediate and often vital significance for the fortunes of the states involved provides a certain degree of justification for labelling the resulting networks as the "family of the dynasties". The importance of these unions is reflected by the active research conducted into this field of European dynasticism, often considered under fa- milial metaphors or in the terms of one French historian, as the "société des princes".1 Various factors account for this increased scholarly focus on the European higher nobility, mirrored by a similar interest in the minor nobility.2 The first is a general (and relatively new) interest in and practice of thinking in terms of European categories. This is followed by an awareness of the great political significance of dynastic marital unions, a trend towards investigating the nature of rank and ceremonial in the European state system and after the cultural turn, the move towards assessing the potential for cultural transfer presented by every cross-border union. As a result, scholars of the late middle ages have shown a re- cent and growing interest in the social structures of princely houses3 or in the symbolic foreign policy of the European monarchies as manifested at meetings between the various European crowned heads.4 Both objects of consideration reveal the extent to which the various European dynasties were interwoven. Scholars active in this field are especially interested in the 19th century, a period in which the various European dynasties sought new strategies of maintaining their dominance within the increasingly bourgeois societies.5 This attempt often suggested or indeed necessitated the re-consideration of their marital behaviour. The great scholarly attention paid to the marriage policy of powerful ruling houses in the pre-modern period and the 19th century has resulted in a flood of research, of which only a few names can be mentioned such as Pierre Lamaison,6 Alfred Kohler7 and a recent volume edited by Karina Urbach, investigating German-British connubial alliances in the 19th century.8 Authors writing for a wider audience also regularly reach large readerships for volumes centring on cross-border and cross-cultural dynastic marriages.9 Ÿ2 Understanding the context of dynastic marriages and their political function requires a grasp of the nature and structure of these dynasties. If dynasties are defined as cross-generational alliances of individuals constituted by land ownership and sovereign rights, and whose members married partners of equal rank and social standing to maintain and expand their existing social and power-political position, then the connection between dynastic marriages and state policy be- comes obvious. A marriage was the indispensable pre-requisite for ensuring the existence of both a house and – in the time where dynasty and state were almost identical – that of a "state". Marriages, often tied to peace treaties, were sealed by contract and often brought with them the possibility of claims to other dynastic possessions. As such, they had the potential to bring significant changes to the map of Europe. As a result, every dynastic marriage was associ- ated with the will not only to maintain the social rank of the family, but to bring the maximum political and geographical advantage. The subject of interest for modern historians – the potential for cultural transfers associated with the union – was of only secondary importance. Ÿ3 Factors of Marriage Strategy The political calculations of the (potential) father-in-laws established considerable restrictions on the circle of possible partners. Not only questions of hierarchy, rank (both its maintenance and extension) and political strategy were of sig- nificance; the course of time brought other factors requiring consideration. Ÿ4 Following the Reformation, the most important factor in deciding a marriage was confession. Inter-confessional mar- riages within the higher nobility were as good as impossible in the early-modern period and remained the exception even into the 19th century as exemplified by the marriage policy of the Hohenzollerns.10 In the very few cases in which such a cross-confessional marriage was effected, public opinion expected if not demanded the conversion of the bride: where this was not possible, the "old" religion was to be maintained as a personal matter, restricted to the confines of a private chapel. Such compromises were however, highly unpopular, involving as they did the danger that these centres of private worship could grow into cells of the "foreign religion" and with it, sedition. The "normal procedure" for dynastic marriages, involving two parties from the same confession, restricted the size of the potential bridal candidates consid- erably. Roughly speaking, there was a (Protestant) marriage circle encompassing Great Britain, Northern Germany and the rest of Northern Europe; its Roman Catholic counterpart was made up of France, Southern Germany and Southern- Europe. The borders between these two spheres were rarely crossed in the early-modern period unless necessitated by exceptional circumstances such as the marriage between Emperor Charles VI (1685–1740) (ᇄ Media Link #ab) and a (Protestant) Guelph princess (ᇄ Media Link #ac), whose dynasty he needed as a political ally. Ÿ5 A further confessional exception to this rule was presented by Orthodox Russia.11 Following Peter the Great's (1672–1725) programme of "Westernization" and the associated opening to the West in the 18th century, the Tsars or Great Princes began the practice of marrying a Western princess (often from a German ruling family) who would then convert to Orthodoxy and take a Russian name. Thus, Princess Sophie of Anhalt became "Katharina" (1729–1796) (ᇄ Media Link #ad) and Sophie Dorothea von Württemberg (1759–1828) (ᇄ Media Link #ae), the wife of the Tsar Paul I. (1754–1801) (ᇄ Media Link #af), (who came to be a great champion of German-Romanov marriages) became "Marija Fjodorowna". Ÿ6 The Ottoman Empire, an extra-European constant within this period remained outside the pale of the European royal marriage market; conversion to Islam remained inconceivable for Christians of every confession. Ÿ7 Geographical considerations also served to restrict the range of possible royal marriage partners; ignoring the number of inner-dynastic unions within the house of Habsburg (the various marriages of which entailed a move across an area ranging from Madrid to Vienna), long-distance dynastic unions remained the exception right up to the end of the 19th century. Thus, it was not confessional grounds alone that prevented a marriage between members of the Swedish and Neapolitan royal houses, and princesses married to the Russian royal house in the 18th and 19th centuries had no easy lot since contact with the old home and family was not easy to maintain, and in terms of culture, Russia represented an entirely different world to which they first had to become accustomed. Therefore, marriages as that of the Spanish princess Beatrix of Aragón (1457–1508) (ᇄ Media Link #ag) with the Hungarian King Matthias Corvinus (1443–1490) (ᇄ Media Link #ah) in 1475 or that of Sigismund I of Poland (1467–1548) (ᇄ Media Link #ai) with the Mi- lanese Bona Sforza (1494–1557) (ᇄ Media Link #aj) remained exceptions. Instead, we can observe a number of re- gional marriage circles including an East Central European, a North-German/Scandinavian, a Habsburg-Italian12 and a Western European circle. To give an example: The offspring of the union between the Polish King Kasimir III (1310–1370) (ᇄ Media Link #ak) and a Lithuanian princess married a Pomeranian Duke (ᇄ Media Link #al) (Elisabeth) and a Brandenburg Margrave (ᇄ Media Link #am) (Kunigunde (ᇄ Media Link #an)).