Approval By Parliament For Marriage


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

nascarlucy

Serene Highness
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
1,434
City
Central Florida Area
Country
United States
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.

Another question that I have about this is do members of the parliament meet with the couple, have dinner with them or talk to them before approving their marriage. You would think they would at the very least want to meet with the couple or get to know them better. Perhaps because I'm an American, I thinking about this much differently than someone who grew up in Europe.
 
I think it's just the way the laws are worded. I think that there are several minor German aristocrats who need the Queen's approval to get married because they are desendants of Queen Victoria and are therefore under one of the Royal Marriages Acts.
 
approval from Parliament

I'm curious to know what would happen if someone ignored this law and went ahead and married someone without permission. What would be their punishment? Has anyone ever do this and what was the consequence of their action?
 
They wouldn't be in the line of succession to that throne anymore. I hardly doubt someone would get thrown in prison for it.
 
The situation of Ernst August, Prince of Hanover is a perfect example:

Courtesy of Wiki:
Since he was born in the line of succession to the British crown he was bound by the Royal Marriages Act 1772. Thus before his marriage to Princess Caroline he made a formal request for permission from Queen Elizabeth II, which request was granted by the Queen in Council. Without the Royal Assent, the marriage would have been void in Britain and may have threatened Ernst August's right to petition for resumption of the dormant Dukedom of Cumberland

And:
Until his marriage to Princess Caroline, he was 385th in the line of succession to the British throne. Upon his marriage to Caroline, a Roman Catholic, he was excluded from the line of succession under provisions of the Act of Settlement 1701. His three children remain in the line of succession since they are being raised as Protestants

Last but not least:
However, since 1931, Ernest Augustus, Duke of Brunswick, as head of the House of Hanover, re-claimed formal (although not legal) use of the style Prince of Britain, as a title of pretense within his faimily.

As you can see, there are more than a few real issues as regards marriage, not just was courtesy to Queen Elizabeth, who is Head of the House, that made him seek approval to marry.
 
The consequences for non-reigning Royals can be minimal if not even non-existant in practical life (unless they're the claimants to a dormant British Dukedom), they would exist only theorically.

But members of reigning Houses can have real issues; i.e. the Russian Grand Dukes who were stripped from their rights to the Throne and incomes and were forced to exile after marrying without the permission of the Tsar.
 
The matter of royals with unapproved messages really became an issue during the reign of George III of England. Because a number of his children entered unrecognized marriages, there was only one legitimate heir among his grandchildren. When that heir died in childbirth with her unborn child, a succession crisis evolved. At that point, the king's daughters were all beyond child-bearing age, so it was up to his sons to find wives and produce children.

The basis for Parliamentary approval is likely due to James II, a Catholic king in a country with a Protestant majority. When he married another Catholic and they had a child, the Protestants feared that the king would force his religion on them.
 
I'm curious to know what would happen if someone ignored this law and went ahead and married someone without permission. What would be their punishment? Has anyone ever do this and what was the consequence of their action?
In The Netherlands they lose their place in the line of succession if they fail to get the approval of parliament.
 
I think in the UK, the permission of the reigning Monarch and Parliament has to assent to any marriage that involves the heir to the throne. Most likely because the heir will one day be nominal head of the Church of England.

Another situation where this has occurred involves the defunct Italian throne. The Duke of Aosta assumed the title of the Duke of Savoy because the present Duke had married without the required consent of King Umberto II in the early 70s'.

Courtesy of wiki.
"On 7 July 2006 Amedeo declared himself to be the head of the House of Savoy and Duke of Savoy, claiming that his third cousin Vittorio Emanuele, Prince of Naples had lost his dynastic rights when he married without the legally required permission of King Umberto II in 1971"
 
In the UK it is the permission of the monarch given at a meeting of the Privy Council that is required for dynasts. Parliament itself does not come into the question if the applicant is successful in getting the monarchs permission to marry.
Failing to get that permission a dynast over the age of 25 may advise Parliament of their wish to marry. If Parliament does not specifically deny such permission within 1 year then the dynast is free to marry. I am not aware of this option ever being used though.
 
Another question that I have about this is do members of the parliament meet with the couple, have dinner with them or talk to them before approving their marriage. You would think they would at the very least want to meet with the couple or get to know them better. Perhaps because I'm an American, I thinking about this much differently than someone who grew up in Europe.

In the case of Johan Friso of The Netherlands and his then fiancee Mabel, the Prime Minister did meet with the couple to discuss her reported relationship with a Dutch criminal. It was felt that she was not being entirely honest in her responses and the Prime Minister advised that the government would not give its consent to a marriage. In The Netherlands consent of Parliament and not just the Dutch monarch is required. Johan Friso & Mabel went on to marry without consent of Parliament, he lost his place in the line of succession and his title as a Prince of The Netherlands. The couple are now use the title of Prince and Princess of Orange Nassau.
 
Even in the U.S., there are civil laws and codes, as distinct from criminal ones. The laws governing Royal succession are not in the criminal codes of any nation. The worst that can happen is that someone might forfeit their place in the line of succession.

Obviously, people who are way far down the line do not go to parliament to get permission - and I'm guessing that unless and until the actual person was within one or two places of being the Heir Apparent that, if they had married without parliament's permission it would not be an issue (anywhere).

The Dutch case (where the Prime Minister wanted to know more about Mabel's associations with a criminal) illustrates why such laws are wanted in nations with monarchs. It also illustrates nicely what happens when they disobey - they simply lose their spot in line and the title that indicates that position.
 
I have a question about "royal marriage" and atheism.

What would happen if some royal married an atheist? Let's say Prince Harry of Wales, Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine of Sweden, the Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York.

Would they still have to marry in church? What if the atheist "new addiction" didn't want to? Would they do a "mixed" ritual in church? If they did only a civil ceremony, would the Prince(ss) have to renounce titles and/or succession to the throne?
 
I would hope that any aetheist marrying someone of faith would respect their proposed partners beleifs as well as the person of faith respecting the non-faith of their partner and that both civil and religious ceremonies would be possible.

In fact if the atheist didn't want to marry in a religious ceremony then they wouldn't be worth marrying someone of faith as clearly they don't respect the other person's beliefs - just as if a person of faith wants to marry an aethiest they should have the civil ceremony as a sign of support and respect for their partner.

There would be no reason for anyone to renoune their position as the monarch only has to have the faith where there is a state religion and in Britain where the monarch actually has an official place in the state religion - Supreme Governor.

We have seen Charles marry in a civil ceremony with a relgious blessing with no consequences to his succession rights so I don't see why someone lower in the line of succession having a civil ceremony would lose their rights.
 
I'm curious to know what would happen if someone ignored this law and went ahead and married someone without permission. What would be their punishment? Has anyone ever do this and what was the consequence of their action?

In Britain, the sons of George III who didn't get permission to marry had their children from that marriage declared illegitimate and their marriages void. It didn't necessarily impact the individual himself, but it did impact his children. See William IV, whose children were all illegitimate and thus unable to inherit his throne (which consequently went to his niece, Victoria), or his younger brother, the Duke of Sussex, whose children were all unable to inherit his titles.

I have a question about "royal marriage" and atheism.

What would happen if some royal married an atheist? Let's say Prince Harry of Wales, Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine of Sweden, the Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie of York.

Would they still have to marry in church? What if the atheist "new addiction" didn't want to? Would they do a "mixed" ritual in church? If they did only a civil ceremony, would the Prince(ss) have to renounce titles and/or succession to the throne?

There is no requirement that a British prince marry in a church - and Charles and Camilla did marry civilly owing to the Anglican Church's views on divorce. Typically, individuals who marry into the family seem to be in communion with the church, but there is no requirement that they be so (so long as they're not Catholic and are willing to raise their children in the church). I would think that so long as the atheist is okay with the religion of the prince(ss) then it wouldn't be a problem, although I also suspect that being seen at church at least on occasion (i.e. the holidays) would be somewhat of a must.
 
In fact if the atheist didn't want to marry in a religious ceremony then they wouldn't be worth marrying someone of faith as clearly they don't respect the other person's beliefs - just as if a person of faith wants to marry an aethiest they should have the civil ceremony as a sign of support and respect for their partner.
I wouldn't consider these on the same level, but for many Christians, an atheist marrying in church without being a believer is seen as a great offense for believers (well at least in Italy, I can't speak for other countries).

I would think that so long as the atheist is okay with the religion of the prince(ss) then it wouldn't be a problem, although I also suspect that being seen at church at least on occasion (i.e. the holidays) would be somewhat of a must.
So for example if the Duke of Cambridge would have married only civilly (supposing by argument's sake that the Duchess is atheist) everything would be OK as long as the Duke and Duchess would go to church for some special event, Christian mess etc?
 
I wouldn't consider these on the same level, but for many Christians, an atheist marrying in church without being a believer is seen as a great offense for believers (well at least in Italy, I can't speak for other countries).

So for example if the Duke of Cambridge would have married only civilly (supposing by argument's sake that the Duchess is atheist) everything would be OK as long as the Duke and Duchess would go to church for some special event, Christian mess etc?

I don't know that everyone would be okay with it, but from a legal standpoint it would be allowed. The spouse of someone in the line of succession does not have to be an Anglican, they just cannot (at the time of the wedding) be a Catholic.

The monarch does have to be in communion with the church. Therefore the atheist spouse (or for that matter spouse of any other religion) has to be okay with his or her children being raised in the church. In my experience, this is where the problem is most likely to come up (as it does in cases of interfaith religions). The atheist spouse is as likely to want to raise their children atheist as the Anglican spouse is to want to raise their children atheist.

As for whether or not they could get married in a church or general religious ceremony, I don't know that it would necessarily be a problem. I have friends who are atheists/agnostics who have been married by ministers - it all depends on the minister. If, say, Catherine was an atheist, or even agnostic, and she and William wished to get married in a church that would have been between them and the minister performing the ceremony. So long as they make her beliefs clear to the minister (or bishop) before hand and he has the option of declining to perform the ceremony I don't see a problem.

Once again, we saw this in the wedding of Charles and Camilla. They had to get married outside of the church, because in the eyes of the Church of England Camilla was already married (Charles is viewed as a widower, but Andrew Parker-Bowes is still alive). The church, however, did see for to bless the marriage after the civil ceremony.
 
And what about other monarchies? Do they have to be in communion with the Church as well, or are the rules wider, since in that case the monarch is not the Head of the Church?

Thanks for all the information!
 
I had to look on Wikipedia for this, so my answers might not be 100% accurate.

- In the 16 realms of the Commonwealth the monarch is the head of the Church of England
- In Denmark members if the Royal Family must be part of the Lutheran Church
- Members of the Swedish line of succession must be Protestant Christian of pure evangel faith
- I believe in the Netherlands there is no official religious discrimination. The heir apparent does have to get permission to marry, and this was devised initially so as to prevent Catholic spouses (and the return of the Spanish) but as the current spouse of the heir (and soon to be monarch) is Catholic, I'm thinking religion isn't necessarily grounds for dismissal
- In Norway the monarch is the supreme governor and protector of the Church of Norway
- I do not believe there is an official relationship between the monarch and the church in Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, or Liechtenstein
- One of the co-princes of Andorra is the Roman Catholic Bishop of Urgell
- Roman Catholicism is the official religion of Monacco, but I can't find if there's an official relationship between the church and the monarch
- I would assume that each of the Islamic monarchies has to have a Muslim at the head. These would be Bahrain, Brunei, Jordan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates
- Vajrayana Buddhism is the state religion of Bhutan, but I can't find anything that says the monarch must be a Buddhist
- Theravada Buddhism is the state religion of Cambodia, but once again I'm not sure if the monarch must be Buddhist
- The Emperor of Japan is the highest authority of the Shinto religion
- There's no official religion of Thailand, implying that there's no connection between monarch and religion
 
Why did anyone marrying a Catholic have to give up their place in the line of succession? And, if a Catholic marries a Protestant, why must any children be raised Catholic?
 
Last edited:
Why did anyone marrying a Catholic have to give up their place in the line of succession? And, if a Catholic marries a Protestant, why must any children be raised Catholic?

Are you talking specifically about Britain or do you mean in general?

In general, if religion comes into play in succession then it's because of a connection between the monarchy and the official state religion. If there is an official state religion then it reasons that it is at least expected, if not outright law, that the monarch belong to said religion. In different nations the religion at play is different and the history of the religion and the state's relationship is also different.

In Britain, basically what happened was that during the reign of Henry VIII there was a separation between the Roman Catholic Church and the English, whom gradually established a Church of England with the monarch as it's head. Henry's first successor, his son Edward VI, was deeply Protestant and prosecuted Catholics, the next successor, Henry's daughter Mary I, was deeply Catholic and prosecuted Protestants even more so. The next, Elizabeth I, found some middle ground and during her reign we really see the foundations of the modern, "reformed Catholic" church that is the Anglican Church.

The spread of Protestantism continued under the reign of James VI and I, his successor Charles I, and the Commonwealth under the Cromwells. Unfortunately, Charles I married a Catholic and his children, notably sons Charles II and James II, grew up with heavy Catholic influences. Charles was believed to be a secret Catholic, and openly made a conversion on his death bed, and James II was openly a Catholic - something which barred him from holding office while he was the heir presumptive. James' Catholic beliefs eventually lead to a rising, as the people and the government didn't support him or his Catholic son being on the throne - they were disposed in favour of James' more acceptable Protestant daughter and son-in-law, Mary II and William III. Eventually, in order to avoid another situation like what had risen up here the succession law was passed, barring individuals who were Catholic or had married Catholics from inheriting the throne. The current line of succession, however, shows that there are still some loopholes in the wording of the law.

As to why a Catholic who married a Protestant would raise their child Catholic, it's a teaching in many religions, including Catholicism, that children of a parent of that religion be raised in it, even if the parents' marriage is a mixed faith. Some churches are stricter on this than others, with some outright being against interfaith marriages, others merely wanting the children raised in their religion, and some merely wanting the children raised with God.
 
Last edited:
- Members of the Swedish line of succession must be Protestant Christian of pure evangel faith
The members of the Swedish line of succession have to be a member of the Church of Sweden, no other protestant faith is accepted, unless that faith acknowledges and follows the decisions made by the Swedish Church in Uppsala in 1593.
I have a question about "royal marriage" and atheism.

What would happen if some royal married an atheist? Let's say ... Prince Carl Philip and Princess Madeleine of Sweden.

Would they still have to marry in church? What if the atheist "new addiction" didn't want to? Would they do a "mixed" ritual in church? If they did only a civil ceremony, would the Prince(ss) have to renounce titles and/or succession to the throne?
There is no need for the spouse of a Swedish royal in line for the throne to have any faith, or be of any specific faith.

As long as one partner is a member of the Church of Sweden a priest can't deny the couple the right to get married in a church. As there are no legal differences in Sweden between a church wedding and a civil wedding, there are no need for a royal to renounce their titles or succession rights if they would prefer a civil ceremony. An example of a Swedish royal marrying in a civil ceremony is princess Birgitta in 1961, the civil wedding ceremony in Stockholm made her marriage legal in Sweden.
 
Ish said:
As to why a Catholic who married a Protestant would raise their child Catholic, it's a teaching in many religions, including Catholicism, that children of a parent of that religion be raised in it, even if the parents' marriage is a mixed faith. Some churches are stricter on this than others, with some outright being against interfaith marriages, others merely wanting the children raised in their religion, and some merely wanting the children raised with God.

My parents believe in the latter (being raised with God). My mom was baptized in the Catholic Church but doesn't practice it now, and my dad was raised United and wasn't baptized. They got married in the Catholic Church, and have been for almost 37 years now. They say as long as we believe in a higher power, we are free to practice any religion we want.
 
My parents believe in the latter (being raised with God). My mom was baptized in the Catholic Church but doesn't practice it now, and my dad was raised United and wasn't baptized. They got married in the Catholic Church, and have been for almost 37 years now. They say as long as we believe in a higher power, we are free to practice any religion we want.

My father is Catholic and my mother is Jewish. When they married, they decided that none of them would convert.

I was christened and circumcised. We celebrate both Christian and Jewish holidays. I decided to have a Bar Mitzvah, and my sister had a Bat Mitzvah.

If the Royals know how to cope with the situation, I see no problem in interfaith marriages.
 
Why did anyone marrying a Catholic have to give up their place in the line of succession? And, if a Catholic marries a Protestant, why must any children be raised Catholic?

The answer to your first question is "Because of the terms of the act of settlement." Act of Settlement 1701 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The answer to the second is because the Catholic church requires faithful Catholics to raise their children as Catholics as well, most of the time.
 
Wow that's a lot of information you put out there, thanks to all of you!

There is no need for the spouse of a Swedish royal in line for the throne to have any faith, or be of any specific faith.

As long as one partner is a member of the Church of Sweden a priest can't deny the couple the right to get married in a church. As there are no legal differences in Sweden between a church wedding and a civil wedding, there are no need for a royal to renounce their titles or succession rights if they would prefer a civil ceremony. An example of a Swedish royal marrying in a civil ceremony is princess Birgitta in 1961, the civil wedding ceremony in Stockholm made her marriage legal in Sweden.

Thanks, that's what I wanted to know! :flowers:
 
A lot of this stuff is more formality than anything else.
 
I would hope that any aetheist marrying someone of faith would respect their proposed partners beleifs as well as the person of faith respecting the non-faith of their partner and that both civil and religious ceremonies would be possible.

In fact if the atheist didn't want to marry in a religious ceremony then they wouldn't be worth marrying someone of faith as clearly they don't respect the other person's beliefs - just as if a person of faith wants to marry an aethiest they should have the civil ceremony as a sign of support and respect for their partner.

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.
 
Last edited:
BrazilianEmpire said:
My father is Catholic and my mother is Jewish. When they married, they decided that none of them would convert.

I was christened and circumcised. We celebrate both Christian and Jewish holidays. I decided to have a Bar Mitzvah, and my sister had a Bat Mitzvah.

If the Royals know how to cope with the situation, I see no problem in interfaith marriages.

My piano teacher is Jewish of Russian origin, and her daughter married a Chinese man. They have two boys, 18 and 6. They celebrate both Christian and Jewish holidays, and their youngest son speaks English, Russian and Mandarin fluently.
 
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.

That is true but there is also the issue of not having a religious service to a person of faith who wouldn't regard themselves as married without the full religious service. I have no problem with a person who didn't believe in God saying the vows in a church before God because they are, to them, only words while to the person of faith they have meaning.

As an Anglican I have no issue with an aetheist marrying in church as I see that as an example of supporting their partner of faith - just as I would expect the person of faith to undertake a civil service.

Maybe it is my upbringing with both RC and CoE ancestry with great-grandparents who refused to regard themsevles as married until both services had undertaken and then in the next generation an aethiest marrying in a church as a sign of love for his new partner of faith.
 
Back
Top Bottom