WI : Christian-Muslim marriages more common and inheritance accepted

I'm not sure
the child would have been considered a member of the burgher class... But it's true that most marriage between nobles and non-nobles were often considered morganatic and thus the children of such a union would have had no rights in the succession.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of one getting the possibility to become King: we've had a few bastards that managed to achieve that (like John I of Portugal), so a child born from a morgantic union could also work. The thing is that I have no such examples that come to my mind...

Morganatic marriages. Hmm.

Edward V, Edward VI, Elizabeth I, Mary II and Anne, would, by continental standards be considered as the products of Morganantic Marriages. Even in Germany, King Leopold I of Baden was a product of such a union. So it is possible, if rare.
 
I'm not sure the child would have been considered a member of the burgher class... But it's true that most marriage between nobles and non-nobles were often considered morganatic and thus the children of such a union would have had no rights in the succession.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of one getting the possibility to become King: we've had a few bastards that managed to achieve that (like John I of Portugal), so a child born from a morgantic union could also work. The thing is that I have no such examples that come to my mind... Probably because the high nobility tried its best to avoid morganatic marriages, even in the XXth Century (Franz Joseph did his best so that Franz Ferdinand wouldn't marry morganatically).

Morganatic marriages are a late medieval/early modern german thing. In the rest of Europe, commoner/noble marriages happened with the children having their father's status, and princely and royal dynasts were not excluded by marrying "beneath their rank". It is only in the 18th and especially the 19th c. that the rules tightened in the royal families, either by copying the german "morganatic" model or by having to ask the monarch's authorization to marry. Louis XV famously claimed as one of his ancestors an humble notary of Bourges, François Babou, who lived at the end of the 15th c., as his maternal ancestry did not matter regarding his right to rule.
 
Last edited:
Have the Christian state's fail miserably in the crusades. They form alliances with Muslim states in return for allowing Christian pilggrams in the holy land that includes marriages. The Pope allows this in order to secure Jerusalem
Actually I think a more successful Kingdom of Jerusalem (or alternatively/additionally, Norman Sicily and Africa) would foster interfaith marriages, as both the Jerusalemites and Normans "went native" to an extent.
 
Actually I think a more successful Kingdom of Jerusalem (or alternatively/additionally, Norman Sicily and Africa) would foster interfaith marriages, as both the Jerusalemites and Normans "went native" to an extent.

They adopted many "Islamic" customs such as seating arrangements and such. However, Outremor never adopted Arabic or Syriac as an official or court language as say the Mughals or Timurids who created a sort of Chagatai Persian mixture.

In relation to the crusader arguments, it was somewhat of an amazing victory in the first crusade and completely unexpected. Contrary to the views of others on this board, this period was not filled with feeble Islamic states. The Saljuq were arguably just as much a force or greater than the Ayyuib. If say, the nations of Europe continually used its population advantage to their benefit and massed vast amounts of people into the coast of the Levant, their victories 'perhaps' could've continued. If such events happened, the chance that these kingdoms enforce Shar'i like codes into their law is inevitable and the allowance of female Muslim to Christian male relations become common and in some cases sought in the goal of Christianizing the region.
 
Top