Isn’t it a shame Princess Margaret could not have morganatically married her true love?



Social status wan't the issue, if we are talking about Townsend; he was a divorcee and that was still a problem in the early 1950s.


It was more important to her to keep her royal title.

Clo G.-B.

It was sad that a morganatic marriage was not acceptable. But, Margaret chose to remain a princess, to not lose her status.


Princess Margaret wanted her title and royal status more than she did Townsend. She chose all the luxury, deference, etc. that went with her title over love.


She could have married Capt. Townsend, but she would have ended up like her uncle, without royal privileges. She chose royalty over love.


Princess Margaret could have married Townsend if she had wanted to. Papers available in the National Archives since 2004 show that the Queen drew up a plan in 1955 under which Margaret could marry Townsend while keeping her royal title and her Civil List allowance of 6,000 pounds a year, plus another 9,000 pounds on marriage. She could live in England and even continue with public duties if the public approved, which was highly likely. However, she would have to renounce her rights of succession and those of her children. At the time, Margaret was 3rd in line to the throne. She chose status over Townsend.

Helen Heels

Not particularly. Margaret practically stole him away from his family by royal command. She liked him more. Someone would've lured him from Margaret. Being a princess was everything to her. The way you get 'em is the way you lose 'em. She chose wisely. Well done, Your Highness. RIP.


No, they don’t do morganatic in The UK, they never have and they never will!!


Well... maybe. The thing is that by late 1955, the Queen and parliament had pretty much decided that Margaret could do as she pleased. She would be removed from the line of succession (there was little chance she'd ever be Queen, anyway, being third in line by that time), but keep her title and income and remain in England. BUt she decided against. My suspicion was that she'd gone off the idea by that time. I don't think it would have been the easiest marriage-- he was a lot older and had children of his own. Maybe it was the best possible outcome.


No, she choose her royal life and money over love.She was never offered a morganatic marriage.


It was a choice she had to make, Happiness or high status and money. Her choice didn't seem to make her happy.


Had she been able to marry him without losing her HRH title if she did, she would have. Clearly she felt her status was more important - so was he really the 'love of her life'?? Subsequent info. now suggests that she 'could' have retained the HRH part of her title (which is what this was about, not the Princess bit) as arranged by her sister. I think another big factor was he was divorced which at the time, would have probably ruled out a 'Christian' ( C of E) marriage. How times have changed. But I still have to question whether she was tiring of her relationship with Townsend, if truth were told.

Sir Prince Kenny

No, there is no such thing as a "morganatic" marriage in the U.K. Contrary to popular belief that she would have to have given up her title and the income from it, she could have kept both. It was the thought of exclusion from the Royal Family and the self imposed exile that did it.

Bob Catshit

Not really.

The First Dragon

Yes, but that was a long time ago.


the Royal dog the queen mother hated her children she should have Married Group Captain Townsend I saw the Queen Mother abuse a Station Master because she hated the sign "Lavatories" the stupid Bowles Lions she was the idiot in the Family

Milk Tray Man

She did, you either have a relationship with drink or people. She picked drink.