The Royal Marriages Act of 1772 and Royal Marriages

[branchg]

Indeed. Britain's traditions are quite a bit different than the Continent. The Peerage traditionally held great power and wealth, sometimes more than the Crown, and they did not necessarily view a marriage into the royal family as anything special, especially after 1714 when the "foreigners" arrived from Germany and basically married other Germans for over a century.

 

[Sister Morphine]

Because all one needs to do is look at what happened to the Spanish royal family in the 1700s to see how inbreeding is a dangerous, dangerous thing. You need fresh blood to dilute the gene pool, otherwise you have uncles marrying nieces, first cousins marrying each other....it's a genetic disaster.

 

[sheikah deena]

IMO That Everything in the beginning is difficult and complicated ,, But then after long years pass become different & easiest ,,,, For example The Traditions in the past was very Fanatic But after years later everything changed , And that changing because of New Generations , New generations mean new brains new views , which is impossible to accept and agree with old opinions !!! ,,, also same with Religions in the begining was completely different than now ,,, so you cannot compare the life in 1700 & oldest with now Or before 40 years ,, everything was different !!!
so with royalty same ,,, Must cope with new ideas and new generations ,, otherwise no royal family still till now , till twenty-first century .

 

[Cynderella]

The Royal Houses must adapt to stay relevant because they serve at the pleasure of the people. If Prince X found his true love at school and was unable to marry her, there would be a fakeness to the whole system now that wouldn't be tolerated. We know more now about their personal lives (for better or worse) and nobody has a desire to see fake arranged marriages.

 

[cepe]

Actually, Edward the Confessor King of England married a "commoner" in 1045. His wife was Edith of Wessex, daughter of Godwin Earl of Wessex.

 

[Mirabel]

Let's face it, how many Royals are left?
Not nearly as many as there used to be.

And Royals who are the right age and the right religion? It would be difficult to find a match!

 

[Iluvbertie]

There are not a lot of reigning royals left but there are still lots of royals left - in Germany for instance.

 

[nascarlucy]

The socio-economics of today are much different than 100 years ago. While it would be important for any royal to marry someone who would be a asset to the family and who would not be an embarrassment to them, that person doesn't necessarily have to come from wealth or be wealthy. What's on paper sometimes is a lot different than what is reality.

 

[Mariel]

I like royal brides who do not have family money of any consequence. Like Tessy. Now that is a REAL romance, even though some may call it clouded by the pre-marriage birth of Gabriel. It's possible that Stephanie did not have much money of her own either.
Tessy comes from the "common" people of her own country. And the royals have enough grace and sense to say "welcome", and use her princessly talents.

Of course there are others--Mary of Denmark, for instance.

 

[Mirabel]

There are not a lot of reigning royals left but there are still lots of royals left - in Germany for instance.

If they're not reigning then they're not royal, imo. They are just more aristocrats.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

It was not so much a question of tradition, but of law. The Royal Marriages Act required that Ernst August received the Queen's permission to marry for the marriage to be considered legal in the UK. E-A at time would be excluded anyway from the succession for marrying a Catholic, but his children would not if they were legitimate and baptized and raised as Protestants, which I believe is the case at least for his sons, who are members of Evagelical Lutheran Church of Hanover.


Although there is no chance of the Hanovers ever succeeding to the British throne, I believe that, for some reason, remaining in the line of succession matters to them, not least to stress their descent from former British sovereigns, which is why they have always made a point of complying with the Royal Marriages Act. Since the Royal Marriages Act was, however, repealed by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, they don't have to worry about that anymore. BTW, the Succession to the Crown Act also restored E-A's position in the line of succession.

Isn't it more likely that they simply wanted their marriages to be legal in the UK? Given that Ernst August holds a British passport, I imagine he and other members of his family possess assets in the UK, and a spouse and legitimate children would be differently placed than an unmarried partner and illegitimate children in respect of inheritance, for example.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Here is the law retroactively validating certain marriages which were previously void, i.e., not recognized as legal in the UK, per the Royal Marriages Act. The new law, the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013, went into effect on March 26, 2015.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20/enacted

3 Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages

[...]

(4) The Royal Marriages Act 1772 (which provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a descendant of King George II may marry only with the consent of the Sovereign) is repealed.

(5) A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if—

(a) neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage,

(b) no consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given under section 2 of that Act, in respect of the marriage,

(c) in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it, and

(d) no person acted, before the coming into force of this section, on the basis that the marriage was void.​

(6) Subsection (5) applies for all purposes except those relating to the succession to the Crown.​

The drafting of (5)(c) was extremely sloppy, I think. What criteria does one apply to evaluate whether "it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it"? And who has jurisdiction to make that determination?

Moreover, I am sure that Parliament meant to validate all of the void marriages of private citizens such as the Lascelles family. However, certain of those private citizens seemingly asked permission for a previous marriage but not for a subsequent marriage. How can one reasonably claim that those people were "not aware" that the Act applied to them when they "married" the second or third time?

 

[Mbruno]

(4) The Royal Marriages Act 1772 (which provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a descendant of King George II may marry only with the consent of the Sovereign) is repealed.

(5) A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if—

(a) neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage,

(b) no consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given under section 2 of that Act, in respect of the marriage,

(c) in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it, and

(d) no person acted, before the coming into force of this section, on the basis that the marriage was void.​

(6) Subsection (5) applies for all purposes except those relating to the succession to the Crown.[/indent]


The drafting of (5)(c) was extremely sloppy, I think. What criteria does one apply to evaluate whether "it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it"? And who has jurisdiction to make that determination?

"Reasonability" is actually a concept that shows up quite often in English law and, by extension, in the law of Commonwealth countries too. When there is doubt on whether an action was reasonable or not in the intended meaning of the law, I suppose it is up to a judge to make that decision if the matter is brought before him or her.

 

[wbenson]

The drafting of (5)(c) was extremely sloppy, I think.

It wouldn't be the only part to have that problem. Section 3(3) had a major error in it when it was initially introduced. It bars "descendants from the marriage" from succeeding to the throne if a person married without the required permission, but as introduced it just barred "descendants," so it would have applied to children from prior approved marriages. Thankfully it was caught by a committee before final passage.

 

[SirGyamfi1]

Why not. They would have no one to marry, if not. And their gene pool would be very compromised.

The point was that the marriage had to be approved and the British Royals never had any house laws.

Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon and Lady Diana Spencer, although commoners under British law, are from illustrious families.

I'm not a huge Diana fan but there is no denying the Spencer-Churchills can be ranked with many of the royal, ducal and princely families on the continent in terms of wealth and prestige

Maybe with some of the families not all of them on the continent. Also Diana’s family isn’t from the Churchill branch, but a junior line with an Earldom.

Wasn't the first commoner to marry into the English royal family Elizabeth Woodville?
Also to answer the question, laws had to be changed because there are less royals now then there was a century ago. You either let them marry commoners or have your house become extinct.

The British Royal dynasties didn’t always marry royals from the examples given as Elizabeth Woodville, Katherine Parr so no issue of inbreeding. Also there are plenty of people in the succession so the house won’t be extinct.

I like royal brides who do not have family money of any consequence. Like Tessy. Now that is a REAL romance, even though some may call it clouded by the pre-marriage birth of Gabriel. It's possible that Stephanie did not have much money of her own either.
Tessy comes from the "common" people of her own country. And the royals have enough grace and sense to say "welcome", and use her princessly talents.

Of course there are others--Mary of Denmark, for instance.

They welcomed her because of the circumstances of the relationship and anyways they aren’t together anymore now. Plus Louis mother is a commoner, albeit from a wealthy upper class landed family from Cuba. Countess Stephanie de Lannoy is not from a poor family at all.

Indeed. Britain's traditions are quite a bit different than the Continent. The Peerage traditionally held great power and wealth, sometimes more than the Crown, and they did not necessarily view a marriage into the royal family as anything special, especially after 1714 when the "foreigners" arrived from Germany and basically married other Germans for over a century.

Those “foreigners” you speak of were direct descendants of the House of a Stuart through the female line skipping the foreign Catholic successors which was an Act of Parliament so the foreigner bit is laughable. Overtime many of the British peerage lost their political power, wealth and prestige.

Because all one needs to do is look at what happened to the Spanish royal family in the 1700s to see how inbreeding is a dangerous, dangerous thing. You need fresh blood to dilute the gene pool, otherwise you have uncles marrying nieces, first cousins marrying each other....it's a genetic disaster.

Why do people like to bring up the Habsburgs as example and it had nothing to do with bloodlines but simply securing wealth and position from other families from taking over. But of course their way of doing it was monstrous and ghastly.

If they're not reigning then they're not royal, imo. They are just more aristocrats.

I think there is a clear definition of royal and aristocratic. But of course, the German royals are non-reigning.

 

[Meee]

On the reasonably point, it would probably depend on how far from the throne the person was. If the list extends to thousands of people, it would be quite easy to not realise you were in the line until you actually decided to trace your ancestry, and by so doing have disqualified your children from being in the line also. Seems fair enough that such cases have had the children included in the line.

Question: On looking into the family of the previous Princess Royal, I discovered that some of them are disqualified from succession because the parents were unmarried at the time of their birth, leaving younger siblings in the line because the parents had married in the interim (the eldest son of and the daughter of the current Earl of Harewood.) Those two children then obtained consent before they married (pre the Succession to The Crown Act.) Why would the Privy Council have concerned itself with the marriages of persons who were disqualified? An ‘in case’ as a future change might place them (and by having gained consent themselves, their children) in line?

As I understand it they are not restored to the line by the subsequent marriage of their parents; the line must have been drawn (as it stands) at parents unmarried at birth, rather than conceived outside marriage otherwise Princess Alexandra’s eldest grandchild would also be excluded.

 

[Gawin]

Question: On looking into the family of the previous Princess Royal, I discovered that some of them are disqualified from succession because the parents were unmarried at the time of their birth, leaving younger siblings in the line because the parents had married in the interim (the eldest son of and the daughter of the current Earl of Harewood.) Those two children then obtained consent before they married (pre the Succession to The Crown Act.) Why would the Privy Council have concerned itself with the marriages of persons who were disqualified? An ‘in case’ as a future change might place them (and by having gained consent themselves, their children) in line?

As I understand it they are not restored to the line by the subsequent marriage of their parents; the line must have been drawn (as it stands) at parents unmarried at birth, rather than conceived outside marriage otherwise Princess Alexandra’s eldest grandchild would also be excluded.

Presumably the Privy Council concerned themselves because the two children requested the Queen's permission to marry. Prince Adolphus of Teck and Lady Iris Mountbatten also requested permission (which was granted) although none was needed (the Duke was the son of Princess Mary Adelaide who married Duke Francis of Teck and Lady Iris was the granddaughter of Princess Beatrice who married Prince Henry of Battenberg, both foreign princes).

It's especially puzzling in Lady Iris's case because neither her father the Marquess of Carisbrooke nor her aunt Victoria Eugenie Queen of Spain did so. She why did she think she needed to?

 

[Prinsara]

Presumably the Privy Council concerned themselves because the two children requested the Queen's permission to marry. Prince Adolphus of Teck and Lady Iris Mountbatten also requested permission (which was granted) although none was needed (the Duke was the son of Princess Mary Adelaide who married Duke Francis of Teck and Lady Iris was the granddaughter of Princess Beatrice who married Prince Henry of Battenberg, both foreign princes).

It's especially puzzling in Lady Iris's case because neither her father the Marquess of Carisbrooke nor her aunt Victoria Eugenie Queen of Spain did so. She why did she think she needed to?

Didn't Lady Iris live a little irregularly? Maybe she felt better with official sanction?

 

[Gawin]

Didn't Lady Iris live a little irregularly? Maybe she felt better with official sanction?

What's even more puzzling is the fact that she married a Roman Catholic. So why request permission for a marriage that would eliminate her from the succession anyway? But as you say, maybe she thought the official sanction would minimize the sense that her marriage was somehow "unacceptable."

 

[Prinsara]

What's even more puzzling is the fact that she married a Roman Catholic. So why request permission for a marriage that would eliminate her from the succession anyway? But as you say, maybe she thought the official sanction would minimize the sense that her marriage was somehow "unacceptable."

I mean, Ernst August wanted the same thing... The Queen's blessing ain't nothing.

 

[Heavs]

I mean, Ernst August wanted the same thing... The Queen's blessing ain't nothing.

I think this is an essential. Just because you don't "have" to, not doing so changes absolutely nothing about your life whatsoever or even if that fact that you married a RC means you're officially no longer 500th etc in line, it is still a prestigious thing to have approval officially granted by HM and the Privy Council in and of itself, let alone if you wanted it to quell other family reaction.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

"Reasonability" is actually a concept that shows up quite often in English law and, by extension, in the law of Commonwealth countries too. When there is doubt on whether an action was reasonable or not in the intended meaning of the law, I suppose it is up to a judge to make that decision if the matter is brought before him or her.

True, but it would have been more pragmatic, as well as much more logical, to apply the same rule to all descendants in line of succession to the Crown. If Parliament had taken that route, the only legal uncertainty for a descendant of George II would be whether they remain in line of succession to the Crown, and that question would only matter to the Queen or King's closest relatives. But as things stand, distant relatives with no public role in the UK are still subject to uncertainty over whether they are validly married or not.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

There seems to be some confusion between the 1772 Royal Marriages Act and the 2013 Succession to the Crown Act which replaced it.

Approval for marriages under the 1772 Royal Marriages Act had nothing to do with succession rights to the British throne.

Descendants who married without the King or Queen's permission were not disqualified from the British throne. The penalty for contracting a marriage without permission was that the marriage was null and void in British law:

[...]"and that every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever."

https://www.heraldica.org/faqs/rma1772.html​

In other words, even if the couple may have exchanged vows in a wedding ceremony, there was no legal marriage in the eyes of the state.

Naturally, the royal descendant who "married" illegally was not disqualified from anything, since in the eyes of the law they had simply remained unmarried.

But since there was no legal marriage, the "spouse" was officially an unmarried partner, and the children of the relationship were illegitimate, for UK purposes. Their illegitimacy barred them from succeeding to the British throne, British peerages, and (in the old days) British hereditary property.

Therefore, if Ernst August wanted the UK government to recognize his wife as his wife for a visa, for tax benefits, for transferring property, or any other legal business he and his wife might conduct in the UK, he was obliged to request the monarch's permission, according to the 1772 Act.


Descendants who were not in line to the throne were still required to ask permission for marriage under the Royal Marriages Act of 1772. Only one class of descendants was exempted, and that was "the issue of princesses who [married] into foreign families":

"That no descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the Second, male or female, (other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families) shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors [...]"​

The Act was silent on who qualified as a princess married into a foreign family. When legal guidance was sought on the marriage of Princess Louise of Schleswig-Holstein (the younger daughter of Princess Helena) in 1891 and the marriage of Prince Adolphus of Teck (the elder son of Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge) in 1894, the Law Officers ruled that they were required to ask permission, as their fathers had been naturalized as British subjects.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_45_9841_B10982.htm
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_44_964_B17152.htm

The Royal Marriages Act did not carve out any exemption for illegitimate children. The reason it did not apply to illegitimate children at the time it was enacted is that illegitimate children were not recognized as descendants in British law, until the family law reforms of the last century.

 

[Prinsara]

However, people who married Catholics were disqualified from succession even with the royal approval, as in fact we were discussing.

It's good to know that your life would have been very legally difficult in the modern world without royal approval, but surely at some point down the line of succession they stop checking?

 

[Gawin]

There seems to be some confusion between the 1772 Royal Marriages Act and the 2013 Succession to the Crown Act which replaced it.

Approval for marriages under the 1772 Royal Marriages Act had nothing to do with succession rights to the British throne.

Descendants who married without the King or Queen's permission were not disqualified from the British throne. The penalty for contracting a marriage without permission was that the marriage was null and void in British law:

[...]"and that every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever."

https://www.heraldica.org/faqs/rma1772.html​

In other words, even if the couple may have exchanged vows in a wedding ceremony, there was no legal marriage in the eyes of the state.

Naturally, the royal descendant who "married" illegally was not disqualified from anything, since in the eyes of the law they had simply remained unmarried.

But since there was no legal marriage, the "spouse" was officially an unmarried partner, and the children of the relationship were illegitimate, for UK purposes. Their illegitimacy barred them from succeeding to the British throne, British peerages, and (in the old days) British hereditary property.

Therefore, if Ernst August wanted the UK government to recognize his wife as his wife for a visa, for tax benefits, for transferring property, or any other legal business he and his wife might conduct in the UK, he was obliged to request the monarch's permission, according to the 1772 Act.


Descendants who were not in line to the throne were still required to ask permission for marriage under the Royal Marriages Act of 1772. Only one class of descendants was exempted, and that was "the issue of princesses who [married] into foreign families":

"That no descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the Second, male or female, (other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families) shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors [...]"​

The Act was silent on who qualified as a princess married into a foreign family. When legal guidance was sought on the marriage of Princess Louise of Schleswig-Holstein (the younger daughter of Princess Helena) in 1891 and the marriage of Prince Adolphus of Teck (the elder son of Princess Mary Adelaide of Cambridge) in 1894, the Law Officers ruled that they were required to ask permission, as their fathers had been naturalized as British subjects.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_45_9841_B10982.htm
https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_44_964_B17152.htm

The Royal Marriages Act did not carve out any exemption for illegitimate children. The reason it did not apply to illegitimate children at the time it was enacted is that illegitimate children were not recognized as descendants in British law, until the family law reforms of the last century.

But when Adolphus of Teck's daughter Lady Helena Cambridge married in 1919 it was pointed out that her grandfather the Duke of Teck had not been naturalized until 1882 (sixteen years after he married Princess Mary Adelaide). Therefore, the Tecks were exempt from the Royal Marriages Act and consent for Adolphus's marriage had not been necessary.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_44_964_B17152.htm
[scroll down the page]

Consequently, none of Adolphus's descendants requested permission when they married.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

But when Adolphus of Teck's daughter Lady Helena Cambridge married in 1919 it was pointed out that her grandfather the Duke of Teck had not been naturalized until 1882 (sixteen years after he married Princess Mary Adelaide). Therefore, the Tecks were exempt from the Royal Marriages Act and consent for Adolphus's marriage had not been necessary.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_44_964_B17152.htm
[scroll down the page]

Consequently, none of Adolphus's descendants requested permission when they married.

True. The shift in legal doctrine appears to be associated with the marriage of Princess Beatrice's daughter, Princess Victoria Eugénie of Battenberg, to the King of Spain in 1906. According to the previous rulings in the cases of Louise of Schleswig-Holstein and Adolphus of Teck, Victoria Eugénie should have required the King's permission to marry. However, the Home Office overruled the earlier precedents and held that permission was not required when the father had been naturalized after his marriage.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_45_25238.htm

I wonder if the controversy over Princess Victoria Eugénie marrying a Catholic and converting to his faith spurred on the legal minds to seek out a loophole that would spare the British King from having to put himself on record as approving the marriage.

However, people who married Catholics were disqualified from succession even with the royal approval, as in fact we were discussing.

Yes, I was explaining why such people would still want to seek the Sovereign's permission, as you were discussing.

It's good to know that your life would have been very legally difficult in the modern world without royal approval, but surely at some point down the line of succession they stop checking?

I suspect you're right and that, by 2015 at least, the immigration or tax offices were probably not routinely conducting checks to see whether applicants were descended from King George II. But to me it seems unnecessarily risky to contract a marriage knowing it to be legally invalid. There would always be a risk that a party with a grudge (including the spouse, if the marriage terminates in an acrimonious divorce) could raise the issue with the authorities and complicate one's life. And that risk could be eliminated with a short letter to Buckingham Palace.

 

[Prinsara]

If there was an acrimonious divorce one could simply prove the marriage was never legal and save a lot on legal fees, it would seem.

Does the UK not have common-law relationships? Otherwise at some point you are considered married anyway.

It's also remarkable nobody in the modern world facing such serious legal consequences ever took this to court for human rights violations.

 

[Mbruno]

True. The shift in legal doctrine appears to be associated with the marriage of Princess Beatrice's daughter, Princess Victoria Eugénie of Battenberg, to the King of Spain in 1906. According to the previous rulings in the cases of Louise of Schleswig-Holstein and Adolphus of Teck, Victoria Eugénie should have required the King's permission to marry. However, the Home Office overruled the earlier precedents and held that permission was not required when the father had been naturalized after his marriage.

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_45_25238.htm

I wonder if the controversy over Princess Victoria Eugénie marrying a Catholic and converting to his faith spurred on the legal minds to seek out a loophole that would spare the British King from having to put himself on record as approving the marriage.




Yes, I was explaining why such people would still want to seek the Sovereign's permission, as you were discussing.



I suspect you're right and that, by 2015 at least, the immigration or tax offices were probably not routinely conducting checks to see whether applicants were descended from King George II. But to me it seems unnecessarily risky to contract a marriage knowing it to be legally invalid. There would always be a risk that a party with a grudge (including the spouse, if the marriage terminates in an acrimonious divorce) could raise the issue with the authorities and complicate one's life. And that risk could be eliminated with a short letter to Buckingham Palace.

If the couple married abroad, the British act actually had no effect on the legal validity of the marriage in the jurisdiction where the marriage was contracted. Why did so many non-British descendants of George II, especially the Germans, bothered to ask for consent when it had little practical effect on their lives as they did not live in the UK? Was it because they wanted to keep succeeding to British titles which were valued in the continent?

 

[Tatiana Maria]

If the couple married abroad, the British act actually had no effect on the legal validity of the marriage in the jurisdiction where the marriage was contracted. Why did so many non-British descendants of George II, especially the Germans, bothered to ask for consent when it had little practical effect on their lives as they did not live in the UK? Was it because they wanted to keep succeeding to British titles which were valued in the continent?

As far as I can tell, the only foreign branches of the family who were obliged by the Royal Marriages Act to ask for the British monarch's consent to marry were the houses of Hanover and Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. The Coburg descendants of Carl Eduard never asked for consent (thus, the popular claim that their descendants are entitled to petition for the restoration for the dukedom of Albany is questionable, given that the living descendants were/are illegitimate in British law, at least before 2015).

So it is only the Hanoverians who mostly continued to comply until the Royal Marriages Act was repealed in 2015, and that family had practical incentives to ensure their marriages were legal in the UK, since at least the main line has maintained British passports, homes and business interests.