Morganatic Marriage

Question: Is monogamy the general belief regarding relationships in South Korea? I know it's difficult to generalize, but all of the men in Korean dramas seem monogamous & romantic. With this kind of media influence, I was hoping Korean men believed in everlasting love with one partner.

Answer: Generally speaking yeah. Korean men and most Asians except for Moslem countries like Malaysia believe marriage to be monogamous, the forever after kind. Divorce although legal is never socially accepted and still frowned upon. Koreans do have the idea that marriage is until death and fidelity is necessary, as the way it should be when you decide to get married. You do not think of marriage as something you can get out with after getting bored. Most Koreans look at marriage as sacred, to marry the person they love and spend every moment of their life with them - its a dream ...dramawise and in real life

Question: What ever happened to traditional people that believe in monogamy? I think that swingers are a disgrace to society. People married should not be a swinger. I think that people have lost self respect for themselves and have lost respect for what "a" man and "a" woman should be. If you are bored with your partner then you picked the wrong mate to be with. When you get married and make vows to each other that doesn't include another couple being involved in your relationship. Deal with the truth please, and have respect for the vows you say in a church etc... I said "disgrace" not "hate" try to remember that. People also seem to have an issue with monogamous people what's the deal? I speak up and certain cultures want us to be like a swinger and do what they do . For the monogamous people understand exactly what I am talking about.

Answer: Their sex lives are jaded Mindy, so are their hearts. They don't even know it. Yes what they do is a disgrace but it has been going on for thousands and thousands of years darlin. As for the monogamists? We're still here Mindy. We always will be. Both my wife and I think that our lot are the ones who will die happy. We're already living happily, so we will go to our graves that way. The swinger's? Hell they're going to be swinging back and forth from one S.T.D. to another, blaming their own partners, and living a jaded existence to their own graves.

Question: Is monogamy for people with dependent personality disorder from the shallow end of the gene pool? If we connect with our partners on intellectual and emotional levels, are confident, value our autonomy/ respect our partner's, do not suppress our sexuality/ do not expect our partner to, and have more than one potential sexual partner, what reason is there to be monogamous? Is it healthy to suppress our desires? Why is it assumed that we can only love one person at a time?

Answer: you've talked me into it. We'll marry, you can cheat and I'll stay faithful and have your brandy and slippers ready for you at the door when you get home.

Question: Is monogamy adverse to the nature of man, directly conflicting with a genetic impulse to distribute his seed? Help me in my pontificating, spurred by the readings of Marlon Brando.

Answer: The fact that humans are capable of being monogamous shows that it does not conflict with their desires. Humans can "fall in love," so to speak and stay with a specific partner for nearly half or more of their lifetime. During a human's more prolific period (say early 20s to 30s) the desire to settle is tempered. Men are designed to impregnate as many women as possible: they produce millions of tiny sperms in each ejaculation whereas women can only house 1-2 babies at a time (normally); they do not think in "love" terms like women do in order to keep a family/couple structure together, but rather in a reasoning manner; they are toned and muscular - women's bodies are designed to have up to 25% of their weight to be fat. Women seem to be made for caretaking while men can stick it in and off they go. But today, beyond the caveman era, we don't do that anymore. Sure, college looks a lot like it, what with the philandering, but monogamy can be good for both partners. Women care for the pack leaders, those dominant alpha males, and the males provide for the sensual, the supple females. When people think of monogamy, the word "marriage" comes to mind. That particular tradition is what seems adverse to human nature. To be forever bound to one person by law - that is against tradition. We should make the choice to be with one person, and if it is not working, when the gears in our minds click into the "off" position, we back away and out of the relationship into something that suits us better, but not into a courtroom. That defies nature: to be forced into a tie that will not break. Monogamy is found in several species, including our own. To say it defies nature, when nature is already doing it, is a tad... awkward.

Question: I know the question has been raised before, but I want some fresh answers. Is monogamy a thing of the past? I know that mental monogamy is a myth, even among the happiest of couples. But surely this does not mean that we have to become a race of beings who are incapable of fidelity. What do you think?

Answer: Monogamy is not a thing of the past. As 'Just Me' said, it is more important now than ever. That is because of all that we see in today's society. The children of today need some examples of how it should be. I practice it and believe in it.

Question: Is monogamy just a result of the selfish nature of humanity? Just out of interest... D'you agree that we're all just selfish buggers, and that that's where the concept of monogamy, and our belief of it come from...

Answer: I think it started out to protect men's heritage-related issues. With one wife that produces "legitimate" children the family's wealth and property is passed down to a defined lineage. Most people don't see things in this way today but that's how monogamy began to look like a good idea. Is it selfishness? I don't think so, it's just social organization for an increasingly complex human society.

Question: If so many people hate marriage & monogamy, why are they getting married anyway? I read countless stories about people who hate marriage & monogamy ... Why do you think these people are bothering to get married?

Answer: Most people get married because it is the 'next' step in their relationship. Forget love, it is more about companionship, money and convenience.

Question: Which is the right way, Monogamy or Polygamy? Over the ages societies have flipped back and forth over the two types of marriages. But now we are in a world of super-giant nations, each with millions of inhabitants. So, we have to make our choice; Would you rather the world supported Polygamy or Monogamy? I think Polygamy is more natural than monogamy, but what's your take on it?

Answer: .I'd rather the world support people (adults) choosing the right type of relationship for themselves...whether it's monogamy, polyamory, same sex, opposite sex, multiples of either, or whatever the case may be. I don't think it needs to or should go one way or the other...it should be up to the consenting adults involved.

Question: what are the advantages of both monogamy and polygamy in animals? I know monogamous species have one mate per breeding season and polygamous ones have several, but why are some species monogamous and others polygamous? Thanks. So say in birds such as various warblers, parental care is not required by both parents because the female is able to find enough food to return on a regular basis (i.e beakfuls of insects) without leaving the young exposed and vulnerable for long periods, so it is ok for them to be polygamous as a result. Is this right? As opposed to let's say, seabirds or raptors, which have to travel further and spend longer finding enough food, in this case, monogamy would work best since otherwise it would leave the eggs and chicks vulnerable for long periods of tme. Please let me know if I'm going the right way with this.

Answer: Actually there are three different categories of mating systems: monogamy, polygamy and promiscuity. In promiscous mating systems, any male or female may have multiple partners. This happens in species in which each individual simply releases vast quantities of sperms or eggs into the water. If an animal is anchored to a rock all of its life, then promiscuity makes sense and monogamy is all but impossible. Monogamy and polygamy are different than promiscuity, because in monogamy there is one male to one female. They choose to form a pair bond in most cases because there is need for parental care by both the male and female. In polygamous systems, there is usually one male and several females. Some parrots, for example, may have different "girlfriends" holed up in different trees. He will bring food to each of his girlfriends. As long as he is able to keep it up, he can help raise multiple clutches of young at the same time. For most species, however, the male must devote virtually all of his energy bringing food to one single female and her young. In such cases, monogamy is the rule. There are also familiar cases of polygamy such as the elephant seal and gorilla in which a male occupies and defends a territory so that his females are able to raise her young in relative safety. The male provides virtually no parental care so he is able to maintain a harem of several females. In rare cases (e.g. red phalarope), a female may mate with several different males and she will stay with one male for a period of time before laying an egg for him to care and move on to another male. Ultimately, the type of mating system a species may adopt depends on the type of animal it is, how it makes a living, and whether there is parental care plus other factors.

Question: What's the difference between monogamy Mormons and polygamy Mormons? I used to have a Mormon neighbor who wasn't a polygamist. When I asked about it, he said that polygamy was practiced in their religion hundreds years ago but they don't do it anymore. He also said that if you were a polygamist then you would be excommunicated from the church. But when I watched "sister wives" they seemed to do the same things as most Mormons do. Are they just wanna-be Mormons? What makes them say they are "Mormons?"

Answer: Mormons have not been polygamists since the year 1890. And even then, it was only a selected group who practiced it, not the general membership. Groups now practicing it and claiming to be Mormon are actually offshoot, apostate groups who have been ex-communicated from the mainstream LDS faith. (or never were LDS).

Question: Since Kate Middleton is not royal will her marriage to William be considered a morganatic marriage? If a royal marries someone who is not royal it is consired a morganatic marriage. The children will not inherit the right to the throne.

Answer: No it will not be considered a morganatic marriage.Times have changed and royals no longer are required to marry royals.Perhaps you aren't aware that Queen Elizabeth,The Queen Mother was not born a royal?She was born a commoner of noble aristocratic lines,the daughter of the Earl of Strathmore.Lady Diana Spencer was another commoner of aristocratic lines who married into the family.Their children were/are heirs.The Queen Mother's is now QUEEN REGNANT of the UK;Diana's are heirs to the throne. Catherine Middleton becomes a ROYAL when she marries and her children take place in Line of Succession after their father.

Question: What is the provision as per Indian marriage act with respect to morganatic marriage?

Answer: There is no provision in Indian Marriage Act regarding morganatic marriage. It is immoral, unfair and inhuman with women of lower rank and her children. Hence now it is out of date.

Question: What if Stanley Baldwin's cabinet had accepted the morganatic marriage of Edward VIII and Mrs. Simpson? Would have Edward VIII dissuaded the United Kingdom from entering World War II? Would he have continued to have been seen as a modernizing influence? Would Princess Elizabeth of York still have succeeded him on his death in 1972? Yes, I understand that the British monarchy has never allowed for a morganatic marriage. This is a what if alternative history type of question.

Answer: Interesting question - it's actually not so much that the British monarchy has never allowed for a morganatic marriage, more that English common law doesn't allow for it. (I use the word "English" advisedly - Scottish law is different - the two legal systems were never merged at the Union of 1707.) I have no doubt that he would not have done anything to dissuade the UK from entering WWII as he was totally out of step with political opinion. The British "political establishment" is very much inclined to do its own thing and rules via the elected Parliament while totally ignoring the monarch. I don't know about a "modernising influence" as the only thing he was really interested in was himself. The real concern of the government would have been to keep a VERY close eye on him in case he was passing secrets to Hitler. This is why he was made Governor of the Bahamas in 1940 and kept there until the war ended - it kept him conveniently out of the way and unable to do any damage. Meanwhile, as he and Wallis never had children, then if nothing else had been different, we would have Queen Elizabeth II now and we'd be looking forward to her Golden Jubilee in 2022 assuming she was still on the throne at the age of 96!

Question: Is the marriage between a prince and a marquise considered morganatic? I'm doing a short story for a history project. It's only a few pages but I want it to be correct. In the Russian Empire (both today and in dynastic times), would the marriage between a female marquise and a Romanov prince be considered morganatic or equal/legal? IE would their children be in line for the throne? Please post any helpful information. Thanks. The Dark Side, okay. What would need to be done in order for it to be considered not morganatic? Okay. If the woman was Orthodox.

Answer: Under the tsars, men near the throne were required to marry according to certain criteria. One of these was that the bride had to be a member of a ruling house. She also had to be Russian Orthodox, and the Tsar had to grant permission for the marriage. When these criteria were not met, the marriage could indeed be regarded as morganatic. In fact, the brother of the last tsar, Grand Duke Michael, married a non-royal (not even an aristocrat) without his brother's permission. The marriage was accepted (grudgingly), but the bride did not receive the title of Grand Duchess. This was a morganatic marriage. The children would not have been in line to the throne, as was standard in cases of morganatic marriages. A French Catholic aristocrat would not have been considered an acceptable bride. There might have been ways to get around the problems -- if she had converted to Orthodoxy, if a relationship to the former French royal family could have been turned up. At one point, before Nicholas II's marriage to Alexandra, it was proposed that he should marry Princess Helene, daughter of the pretender to the French throne. If she had converted, she would have been regarded as suitable, since even though her family was no longer on the throne, they HAD been at one time, and their claims to the French throne were generally acknowledged by other royals. However, Nicholas wasn't interested in Helene, and she had no desire to convert.

Question: Was Prince Nikita Alexandrovich's marriage to Maria Vorontsova-Dashkova morganatic? I would think it wouldn't be as the family of Vorontsova-Dashkova were styled Serene Prince/Princess. However, someone said it was morganatic. Is it? Here's the prince Nikita I'm talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Niki…

Answer: Yes, Prince Nikita Alexandrovich's marriage to Maria Vorontsova-Dashkova was a morganatic marriage. I dug around forever until I found the website of the Russian Imperial family, which goes into some detail about which of the marriages are morganatic or not. The website will tell you more than you will ever want to know about the current status of the Romanov family members. The information about the morganatic marriages is in the section about Succession. www.imperialhouse.ru/eng Apparently, ladies who morganatically marry into the Romanovs are allowed to take their titles from their husbands...including Grand Duchess, Serene Highness....but the children from the marriage are not in the line of succession, although they are titled the same as those who are. Both sons of Maria and the Grand Duke were Princes.

Question: The Royal Family of Eternia? Eternia, the home planet of He-Man has a Royal Family. However, why was King Randor not forced into a morganatic marriage when he married the ailen, Marlena. It is not right that she was allowed to become Queen, she could have at least followed Camilla's lead and become the Princess Consort. Secondly, why is Teela allowed to be disrepectful to Prince Adam. She addresses him as "Adam" rather than "Your Royal Highness". Teela and Man of Arms should remember they are servants of the Royal Household of Eternia, and not friends with the Royals.

Answer: Don't know. But Skeletor was a top baddie!