Royal Marriages Act

[branchg]

Originally Posted by Kat

I found an article which claims that not only does Prince William get the interest on his inheritance upon turning twenty five, but also that once he's reached that age, he no longer has to get the Queen's permission to get married, lol. Here's the link to that story, for anyone who's interested:

Prince William Inherits, Harry still pinches pennies

*I don't know how true any of them are, but I thought them to be an interesting read. So I decided to share. Does anyone know if that "rule" about needing the Queen's permission to get married, is true?

William still needs permission and consent from The Sovereign and the Government to marry as the spare to the throne, although he is 25.

Although there is a mechanism under the RMA for him to marry without consent, the price would be high, including an Act of Parliament removing him from the succession and the loss of his royal title and rank.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by branchg

William still needs permission and consent from The Sovereign and the Government to marry as the spare to the throne, although he is 25.

Although there is a mechanism under the RMA for him to marry without consent, the price would be high, including an Act of Parliament removing him from the succession and the loss of his royal title and rank.

Some of this information is inaccurate.

At age 25 William faces two options if he wishes to marry:

a) he can get the consent of the monarch

OR

b) if he can't get the consent of the monarch he can apply to the Privy Council for its consent. The Privy Council will give its consent after a year IF neither the House of Commons or the House of Lords (the British houses of Parliament) have indicated disapproval of the marriage. In other words he could marry without the monarch's consent if he got the permission of Parliament.

If either of these routes are followed William is legally married and remains in line to the throne, so long as he isn't marrying a Roman Catholic girl.

If he 'marries' without consent in either of the two ways listed above then he isn't legally married and his position in the succession is not affected BUT... his wife won't become consort and none of the children of this marriage would be in the line of succession as they would legally be illegimate.


He can only be removed from the order of succession on marriage if he marries a Roman Catholic girl. He would also be removed if he personally converted to Roman Catholicism.

[Mary1966]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

He can only be removed from the order of succession on marriage if he marries a Roman Catholic girl. He would also be removed if he personally converted to Roman Catholicism.

I think that if Prince Willliam seriously wanted to marry a Roman Catholic, that provision of the Act of Settlement would be revisited. It hasn't been because so far all the people who have been affected (Prince Michael of Kent, the Earl of St. Andrews, etc.) are not close in the succession. As a Catholic myself, I find it preposterous that a member of the British royal family could marry a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jew, or a Muslim and not have it affect their place in the line of succession, when Catholicism is much closer theologically to Anglicanism than any of the religions I just named. And the fact that the Duke of Kent's place in the line of succession is unaffected because the Duchess converted to Catholicism after their marriage while his brother Prince Michael of Kent is removed because his wife was a Catholic when they married is just bizarre. Several prelates have called for this law to be changed, but I think it will take something like William wanting to marry a Catholic to have it happen.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Mary1966

I think that if Prince Willliam seriously wanted to marry a Roman Catholic, that provision of the Act of Settlement would be revisited. It hasn't been because so far all the people who have been affected (Prince Michael of Kent, the Earl of St. Andrews, etc.) are not close in the succession. As a Catholic myself, I find it preposterous that a member of the British royal family could marry a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jew, or a Muslim and not have it affect their place in the line of succession, when Catholicism is much closer theologically to Anglicanism than any of the religions I just named. And the fact that the Duke of Kent's place in the line of succession is unaffected because the Duchess converted to Catholicism after their marriage while his brother Prince Michael of Kent is removed because his wife was a Catholic when they married is just bizarre. Several prelates have called for this law to be changed, but I think it will take something like William wanting to marry a Catholic to have it happen.

Whether a change would happen is conjecture.

I was stating the current situation.

It is the same as saying if William has a girl first and then a boy that they will change the male preference to become gender neutral - I think it will happen but... it is still conjecture and not the current situation.

[branchg]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

Some of this information is inaccurate.

At age 25 William faces two options if he wishes to marry:

a) he can get the consent of the monarch

OR

b) if he can't get the consent of the monarch he can apply to the Privy Council for its consent. The Privy Council will give its consent after a year IF neither the House of Commons or the House of Lords (the British houses of Parliament) have indicated disapproval of the marriage. In other words he could marry without the monarch's consent if he got the permission of Parliament.

If either of these routes are followed William is legally married and remains in line to the throne, so long as he isn't marrying a Roman Catholic girl.

If he 'marries' without consent in either of the two ways listed above then he isn't legally married and his position in the succession is not affected BUT... his wife won't become consort and none of the children of this marriage would be in the line of succession as they would legally be illegimate.


He can only be removed from the order of succession on marriage if he marries a Roman Catholic girl. He would also be removed if he personally converted to Roman Catholicism.

It's highly unlikely Parliament would overrule The Sovereign in granting him consent to marry without permission of the Crown. From a practical standpoint, The Queen would not grant her decision without taking advice from the Government in the first place, which means securing the approval of The Prime Minister.

Unless they were against it, she would grant approval, barring any major issues like marrying a Catholic.

[Elspeth]

Indeed - however, the original question was addressing the general issue of what changed legally for William where marriage prospects were concerned when he became 25. This is the situation that Princess Margaret faced in the 1950s, and there was a real prospect for a while that this very thing might happen. Now that the Church has lightened up in its opposition to the remarriage of divorcees and now that divorce isn't the great social stigma that it was back then, one of the major reasons for a clash over consent has been effectively removed.

[Mary1966]

Originally Posted by chrissy57

Whether a change would happen is conjecture.

I was stating the current situation.

It is the same as saying if William has a girl first and then a boy that they will change the male preference to become gender neutral - I think it will happen but... it is still conjecture and not the current situation.

I understand that's what you were doing. I just wanted to put in my two cents about something I feel strongly about. I personally can't see William deciding to marry anyone that the Queen would not approve of so I don't see that part of the Royal Marriages Act coming into play at all, ever.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by Mary1966

I understand that's what you were doing. I just wanted to put in my two cents about something I feel strongly about. I personally can't see William deciding to marry anyone that the Queen would not approve of so I don't see that part of the Royal Marriages Act coming into play at all, ever.

The issue of the spouse being Catholic isn't covered by the RMA at all.

It is the Act of Settlement that covers that issue. This is the Act that passed the throne to the descendents of the Electress Sophia of Hannover and in the process passed over a number of people with a better blood claim but who were excluded because of being Roman Catholics or married to a Roman Catholic.

The Royal Marriage Act is a later act that deals with the necessity of members of the royal family to seek permission from the monarch of the day to get married but included a mechanism to allow the person to marry without that consent at age 25. This was done because of the unsatisfactory marriage contracted by one of the king's brothers at the time. Unsatisfactory in the eyes of the king I might add.

William will have to deal with the RMA in one form an the other as without meeting the terms of the RMA he can't actually legally marry at all.

[chrissy57]

Originally Posted by branchg

It's highly unlikely Parliament would overrule The Sovereign in granting him consent to marry without permission of the Crown. From a practical standpoint, The Queen would not grant her decision without taking advice from the Government in the first place, which means securing the approval of The Prime Minister.

Unless they were against it, she would grant approval, barring any major issues like marrying a Catholic.

This may be the case in practice but I was clearly spelling out the current law.

Sometimes there are two distinct and different things - the practical implementation of the law and the actual law itself.

I doubt if any member of the RF would marry without the consent of the monarch and seek to go to parliament these days but they do have that right.

[tripitaka]

Originally Posted by Mary1966

I think that if Prince Willliam seriously wanted to marry a Roman Catholic, that provision of the Act of Settlement would be revisited. It hasn't been because so far all the people who have been affected (Prince Michael of Kent, the Earl of St. Andrews, etc.) are not close in the succession. As a Catholic myself, I find it preposterous that a member of the British royal family could marry a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Jew, or a Muslim and not have it affect their place in the line of succession, when Catholicism is much closer theologically to Anglicanism than any of the religions I just named...

The difference is that those other religions do not have a political arm of the sort the Vatican does. It's not about religion at all, and never has been.

I do not mean in any way to denigrate your faith. But just look at what the Church has been up to in recent years. I know of 4 bishops off-hand who declared that Kerry should be denied communion. I know of at least one bishop who declared that not only Kerry, but anyone who votes for him, may not receive communion. Taken to its logical conclusion, given the size of the Catholic vote in the US in the context of two-party control of government, this means the Pope appoints the American president.

More recently, the current Pope revived the Latin Mass and its explicit call for a conversion of all Jews. He also revived a document that declares all other Christian denomination illegitimate -- not true churches, but rather mere congregations of the well-intentioned but misguided.

You cannot have a Catholic Queen Consort under these circumstances. What does she do if a bishop tells her she must stand up against abortion or be excommunicated? How weird is it for her to be married to the governor of a heretical sect? Etc. Don't forget, Blair waited til he was out of office to convert; he knew what might happen if he didn't wait.

For this to be revisited, the Church has to renounce political intervention and denunciations of other faiths first, imho.

[BeatrixFan]

But in saying that, we have other Catholic Heads of State around the world and they don't do too badly.

[Elspeth]

I don't think the Catholic church is the only religious institution that's heavily political. As things stand at present, Prince William wouldn't be required by law to renounce his position in the line of succession if he married a Muslim, yet Islam is a faith that requires the law to comply with the faith.

I wouldn't have a problem with the Act of Settlement if it required that consorts also be communicants of the Church of England. But to prohibit one Christian sect while allowing every other faith in the world is simple discrimination. John F Kennedy managed to spend several years as President without having the Pope run the USA, and I very much doubt that a Catholic president in the 21st century would just hand the country over to the Pope to run.

[tripitaka]

In response to Elspeth and Beatrix~

All of that is true. I've no doubt that my views on this have been hardened by what happened in the 2004 US pres campaign. But I view the Catholic Church differently is that it is the only one on the planet with a unitary authority.

There isn't anyone on the planet to compel a Jewish Queen Consort to do something or refrain from doing something on the basis of her Jewish faith because there is no one to say what Judaism is. Same with a Muslim or a Hindu or a Buddhist or virtually all Protestants.

English monarchy interests me and I want it to stay around. For it to survive, it simply cannot run the risk of getting embroiled in religious issues involving the Catholic church, where there is no room for a "different opinion".

I just think what might have happened if say Diana had been Catholic and the Church had refused to grant an annulment. Or if Prince Phillip or the Queen herself were Catholic, and Pope had signaled to them that Charles cannot be king because he's an adulterer and a divorcee. There were those in the Anglican church saying just that, but the Anglican church does not have the means of forcing the issue, all it can do is speak out. The pope, though, can interdict the Commonwealth in its entirety.

PS - Re JFK, let's not forget he had to promise he'd disobey the Church in order to get elected. If Catholic Consorts were allowed with a similar declaration, I'd have no problems.

[branchg]

From a practical standpoint, William could not marry a non-Anglican woman without her agreement to convert to the Anglician faith. Although technically, there would no legal impediment in the Act of Settlement, it is unlikely the Government or the Archbishop of Canterbury would tolerate a Queen Consort not in union with the Church.

[wbenson]

Originally Posted by branchg

From a practical standpoint, William could not marry a non-Anglican woman without her agreement to convert to the Anglician faith. Although technically, there would no legal impediment in the Act of Settlement, it is unlikely the Government or the Archbishop of Canterbury would tolerate a Queen Consort not in union with the Church.

I could see the Archbishop objecting, but on what grounds would the government object? I can't really see too many ministers objecting to a marriage on the grounds of religion nowadays.

[wymanda]

I agree that it is the "percieved" meddling of the Pontiff that is the problem. The Catholic Church holds a considerable amount of political clout. IMO