Approval By Parliament For Marriage

[Roslyn]

It hadn't occurred to me that an Anglican might not consider themselves married if they hadn't undergone a church wedding.

I am sure our family experiences have a lot of bearing on our views on such matters. I am from a family of nominal Anglicans on both sides. An uncle married a Catholic woman, in an Anglican ceremony, and on condition she agreed to the children being raised Anglican. To her credit she kept her word even after he died when the children were very young. I suppose she was only a nominal Catholic, too.

 

[Ish]

I think the whole argument of whether or not an atheist can marry in a church service goes back to the individual atheist themselves and the person performing the ceremony.

A good friend of mine had a reverend perform her wedding. She's not particularly religious - agnostic at best - and her husband is an atheist. Her mother, however, was religious and it meant a lot to her that she have a religious ceremony so they searched for a Christian minister to perform the ceremony. They were upfront with him about their own religious beliefs and the reasoning for a religious ceremony, and as he had no problem with it he performed the ceremony.

For some ministers/priests this won't be acceptable, but for others it is (particularly if the service isn't happening within an actual church). I personally don't see a problem with it so long as all parties are up front about their beliefs before hand and the person performing the ceremony doesn't take issue with them.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Most, if not all, the Anglicans, indeed Christians I know wouldn't regard themselves as married unless it was a religious ceremony.

My great-grandparents actually went so far as to have two full weddings on consecutive days - with two wedding dresses - and then there were two baptisms for each of the kids. When my great-grandfather died my ggmother continued to raise their children the way they had agreed - both - and let all the kids decide when they were 15 or older so to church on Sunday they went - first to mass and then to the CoE although she wouldn't set foot in the CofE church with the kids.

 

[Mbruno]

In some countries the royal couple wanting to be married has to get approval by the parliament or government before they can officially get married. If the royal getting married is not likely to succeed the heir to the throne (the person is 7 or 8th in line for example), why do they really need the approval of the parliament. If the King and Queen approve of the match, it's highly unlikely that the parliament would disapprove unless they knew something the King and Queen didn't. It seems like this is more of a formalty. I know that this is taken very very seriously.

In the Netherlands, consent to royal marriages must be given by the States-General (the Dutch parliament) in the form of a law passed by both houses of parliament in a joint session. The monarch's consent technically is not required, although I'd expect the monarch to be consulted.

In Sweden, on the other hand, it is the government (not the parliament) that must consent to the marriage, but consent can only be sought upon request by the monarch, meaning that, in practice, the monarch must approve the marriage first before the matter is referred to the government.

One might think that, in this day and age, royals should be allowed to marry whoever they want, but it is important to keep in mind that a royal marriage is not simply a private matter, but also a state affair as children from those marriages may potentially one day become kings/queens (i.e the head of state). It is reasonable then that royal marriages should be vetted by the government or parliament. The vetting, however, should apply IMHO only to the those individuals who have a reasonable probability of ever ascending the throne, let's say, the first six persons in the line of succession as proposed in the UK's Succession to the Crown Act 2013. There is no need to bother about marriages of people who are way down in the line and who might not even undertake official royal duties.

 

[Muhler]

Thanks, Mbruno.

I would imagine it is in many ways in the Netherlands as it is here in Denmark. The Parliament formally has to give it's consent to a royal marriage here as well.
A royal engagement is formally presented at a State Council, whereupon the government publicly congratulate the happy couple.
- Because the matter would not have been presented to the State Council if the government/Parliament objected to the marriage. That's already been taken care of beforehand.

If the royal marries without concent he/she would in all likelhood be stripped of the royal status.

I only just happened upon this interesting thread.

The problem I see with an atheist marrying a member of the Royal Family, or any other practising Anglican who wants a traditional religious wedding ceremony, is that the atheist party cannot just stand there mute and not actively participate. An atheist can attend other people's weddings and other church services without compromising their own beliefs or insulting those of others, because you can just sit and stand there quietly.

But the main characters in a wedding ceremony have to actively participate and say prayers and exchange vows "before God". The words of the Anglican wedding ceremony can readily be found through an internet search engine and it's clear that it involves two people entering into a religious covenant. If you don't believe in God I think it would be very hypocritical to say the words required by the ceremony, and I can understand believers being offended by such behaviour. This issue of hypocrisy was the reason I refused to have a church wedding.

As an atheist, I'll say a religious wedding ceremony wouldn't conflict with my conviction.
It's never been a secret that I am an atheist and as long as people realise and understand that I respect and understand their religious belief and wishes in return.

I was married at a civil ceremony. However had my wife wished a religious ceremony it would have been no problems at all to me.
A church wedding would merely have been another form of wedding ceremony to me, just in a different setting and with various traditions and a religious twist. The main thing is that it would be a legally binding ceremony so we end up being married.
The same thing about christenings. I'm a godfather of two children. The parents knew I am an atheist and still wished me to be a godfather at a Lutheran and a Catholic baptism. No problem, I just looked away from the religious aspect and interpreted my role to be that of an adult rolemodel (which I am anyway), so that doesn't conflict with my convictions either.

There are atheists who flatly refuse to take part in any religious ceremony at all and I personally find that childish and silly. (To some atheists it's almost a crusade!) If I respect people's religion, people tend to respect my convictions as well.
It's only when people want to impose their religious belief on me that I dig my heels in.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Also in the Netherlands the royal marriage needs to have the King's consent as it is he who offers the Bill of Consent to the States-General by means of a so-called Royal Message, set in pluralis maiestatis (We = the King) and signed by him:

Herewith We offer into Your consideration [name of the Bill].
The explanatory memorandum attached to it contains the grounds on which this Bill is founded.
And herewith We command You into the Lord's holy protection.

The Hague,
[date]

Willem-Alexander

This is the first sign by the King, even before it is offered to Parliament. When the King really, really wants to obstruct, this is the first of his ultimate chances. The very last ultimate chance is to refuse to sign an Act of Consent. Of course a Government will only offer such a Bill when the King agrees with it, to prevent major constitutional problems.

 

[Mbruno]

Also in the Netherlands the royal marriage needs to have the King's consent as it is he who offers the Bill of Consent to the States-General by means of a so-called Royal Message, set in pluralis maiestatis (We = the King) and signed by him:

Herewith We offer into Your consideration [name of the Bill].
The explanatory memorandum attached to it contains the grounds on which this Bill is founded.
And herewith We command You into the Lord's holy protection.

The Hague,
[date]

Willem-Alexander

This is the first sign by the King, even before it is offered to Parliament. When the King really, really wants to obstruct, this is the first of his ultimate chances. The very last ultimate chance is to refuse to sign an Act of Consent. Of course a Government will only offer such a Bill when the King agrees with it, to prevent major constitutional problems.

As I understand it, all government bills before parliament are technically either introduced by the King or introduced on His behalf, but that is mostly a formality in a constitutional monarchy. The actual decison on whether to introduce a bill or not lies with the ministers, who bear political responsibility for the proposed legislation, and the King is bound to abide by their advice. I couldn't imagine a situation where a modern-day Dutch monarch would try to play an active role in controlling the legislative agenda of the government.

In any case, browsing Chapter 2 of the Dutch constitution, Arts 29 and 30 say that bills excluding someone from the line of succession if "exceptional circumstances arise" or "appointing a successor to the throne if it appears that there will be no successor" must necessarily be presented "by or on behalf of the King", but apparently that requirement does not apply to Art. 28, which says only that the two chambers shall meet in joint session to consider a bill to grant permission to royal marriages. Considering then that no inconsistency with Chapter 2 exists, my understanding (I may be wrong!) is that Art 82 (2) and (3) apply and, even if the King, in a very improbable scenario, refused to introduce the consent bill, one or more MPs could still introduce it in a joint session as a private member bill and not a government bill.

Of course you are right though when you say that, as a last resort, the King would still have the prerogative of refusing to ratify the bill once it has been passed, but, again, I don't think that is a likely scenario in a constitutional monarchy.

Just as a comparison, in Sweden, unlike in the Netherlands, the Instrument of Government removes the King completely from the legislative process in the sense that the monarch plays no role whatsoever in either introducing legislation or ratifying it (i.e, he is essentially powerless). Nevertheless, the Act of Succession by constrast explicitlly gives the King a role in vetting royal marriages as the government is legally forbidden from consenting to such marriages unless the King requests them to do so, which I find somewhat odd.

 

[XeniaCasaraghi]

I didn't understand why Prince Michael had to give up his succession rights to marry a catholic. He was not likely to inherit not his children so I felt it was quite unfair. Prince Friso was another matter.

 

[COUNTESS]

The monarchies are not in control, their Parliaments, Storting or whatever their "real" governing bodies are. Prince Friso made the right decision, rather than fight, as he had a great wife and would never have been in line for the throne, anyway, by proximity. It made no difference, except for useless words. Prince Michael, was controlled by the Act of Settlement.

 

[Skippyboo]

I didn't understand why Prince Michael had to give up his succession rights to marry a catholic. He was not likely to inherit not his children so I felt it was quite unfair. Prince Friso was another matter.

It's the Act of Settlement which covers the requirements for people in line of throne. It isn't a big deal for Prince Michael. Autumn Philips was Catholic but converted before she married Peter. It isn't a big deal unless it is the direct heir. For example if Kate was hardcore Catholic, William would have to choose between her and the throne.

 

[Denville]

I didn't understand why Prince Michael had to give up his succession rights to marry a catholic. He was not likely to inherit not his children so I felt it was quite unfair. Prince Friso was another matter.

what was unfair about
it? It was the law at the time...and he was so far down the line that it was immaterial.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Do royals wanting to be married in Liechtenstein have to get approval by the parliament?

 

[Somebody]

The monarchies are not in control, their Parliaments, Storting or whatever their "real" governing bodies are. Prince Friso made the right decision, rather than fight, as he had a great wife and would never have been in line for the throne, anyway, by proximity. It made no difference, except for useless words. Prince Michael, was controlled by the Act of Settlement.

Most of his life he was second in line to the throne. Only a few months before his wedding he went down to third (which he was the first 12 years of his life as well); so this was after his engagement was announced and his niece still wasn't born when the couple decided not to go through with parliamentary approval - which I am sure they tried at first, he may have put up quite a fight during those months between engagement (June) and the announcement that NO approval would be sought (October).

Friso even famously said to reporters that they could do anything to his older brother as long as he was kept alive; otherwise he would have to be king!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Do royals wanting to be married in Liechtenstein have to get approval by the parliament?

The Liechtenstein royals only need to get approval by the reigning prince. If a member of the princely house of Liechtenstein marries without his approval, the consort and issue of the marriage will not be members of the princely house nor will the issue be in the line of succession.

But because the house law altogether excludes princesses' husbands and issue from membership of the princely house and succession to the throne, the princesses really do not need his permission.

House Laws of Liechtenstein

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Do royals getting married in Luxembourg have to get approved by the parliament?