Forms of Ceremony

[Liamdarcybrown]

Hello. First time poster, but I've been finding your forums very helpful indeed for pinning down details of the marriages of younger members of the wider Royal Family.

I'm engaged in some background research on the form of ceremony used by people who come within the scope of the Royal Marriages Act and other laws and customs of Royal marriage, but I haven't so far found any reliable source for the marriages of...

Lady Rose Windsor (Queen’s Chapel, St James’s, 2008)
Lord Frederick Windsor (Chapel Royal, Hampton Court, 2009)
Amelia May Beaumont (Temple Church, 2007)

They all gained the Queen's consent, and I'm assuming they were conducted by an Anglican clergyman, as is traditional, but would like confirmation of this point before I make a sweeping statement to that effect.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Liam

 

[Liamdarcybrown]

Ps...

Also, does anybody know what form of ceremony Emily Lascelles married in (in 2008?)? Her brother Benjamin married in a civil ceremony, not being within the application of the Royal Marriages Act, but I don't know if Emily did the same.

Thanks

Liam

 

[Liamdarcybrown]

Pps

Also, and sorry to keep adding to these questions...

Charles Liddell-Grainger and Martha Margaretha de Clermont had a blessing in St James's Palace, so presumably their legal wedding was in a civil ceremony, Charles being a divorcee? Can anyone confirm the details?

L

 

[dbarn67]

Check the Royal Weddings sub-forum...look under non-royal weddings for Lady Rose Windsor. Not sure about the others, sorry.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...-mr-george-gilman-19th-july-2008-a-17738.html

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ie-winkleman-12th-september-2009-a-24428.html

 

[KittyAtlanta]

Also, does anybody know what form of ceremony Emily Lascelles married in (in 2008?)? Her brother Benjamin married in a civil ceremony, not being within the application of the Royal Marriages Act, but I don't know if Emily did the same.

Thanks

Liam

Liam, I believe both Benjamin and Emily were granted consent to marry by the Queen and Privy Council. This would have no bearing on whether they chose to have a civil or religious ceremony. I was unable to find detailed information, as neither of them are eligible for the throne and Benjamin cannot inherit from his father.

There is very little info re: Amelia Beaumont Murray. She is a member of the Blidworth Riding Club.

As for Ms. de Clermont, wasn't she a grandaugher of May of Teck? Don't know how many "grands" might be in there.

 

[Liamdarcybrown]

Thanks, both - I managed to trace the correct details for Lady Rose and Lord Frederick Windsor through those links, and they were both Anglican ceremonies as I'd expected.

Ah, yes, it seems that Benjamin and Emily were both granted consent, though technically they didn't need it and, as you rightly, say, it wouldn't have had a bearing on the form of ceremony.

If anybody out there has any news on whether or not Amelia May Beaumont's marriage was Anglican or not, or could confirm whether Emily Lascelles had a civil marriage, these details would be greatly appreciated.

Liam

 

[Margaretha]

We were married on the 20th of October 2008 during a civil ceremony in London, Marylbone, even though we live in France. De Clermont is my nom de plume - my surname is De Klerk.
Amelia's marriage was Anglican.

 

[Liamdarcybrown]

Margaretha, thank you ever so much for replying - confirmation of such details is extremely useful, and though I had deduced that the Temple Church only held Anglican weddings (and then only by special licence), it is never safe to rely on assumptions. I presume then that the marriage took place at Westminster Register Office on Marylebone Road?

The research I'm carrying out, to give you the background to my questions, is on behalf of my wife, Professor Rebecca Probert of Warwick University Law School, who is a leading expert on the history of marriage law, and who in 2005 wrote extensively on the controversy over Prince Charles' civil marriage. She is going to be publishing a book in mid-March (the timing being self-evident) titled The Rights & Wrongs of Royal Marriage, on the history of the rules regulating royal marriage, setting out proposals for possible reforms to rationalize, clarify, and simplify them.

In the run-up to Prince Charles' remarriage she was interviewed many times and made it clear that the law seemed to her to be very clear, i.e. that members of the royal family had been explicitly excluded from the statutory legislation which created civil marriage. Her view after the issuing of Lord Falconer's statement, like that of other experts, was that Lord Falconer’s assertion that the Human Rights Act automatically allowed such marriages was overly simplistic and unsatisfactory.

While she will still maintain in The Rights & Wrongs of Royal Marriage that Lord Falconer was mistaken as to the law and so as to the basis for the validity of royal civil marriage, she will nevertheless be making it clear that any civil marriage (royal included) entered into after the prescribed formalities have been observed, and under the authority of a registrar, must be presumed to be valid.

She will, though, be questioning the scope and aims of other legislation such as the Royal Marriages Act, which still has the power to void the marriages of individuals far removed from the throne, and will set out possible ways for legislators to reframe royal marriage in the future.

 

[Liamdarcybrown]

Margaretha - could I clarify that last posting of mine, as I think I might have left it ambiguous:

Professor Probert's book will not cast doubt on the validity of civil marriages entered into by members of the royal family in England and Wales, since, like any other civil marriage, they are presumed valid in law once duly entered into. What it will do is question Lord Falconer's assertions as to what the factual legal basis for a royal civil marriage would be, and argue that he and the government at the time were wrong in their particular assertions, overbearing as to any disagreement voiced, and missed a prime opportunity to address wider reform of the law relating to royal marriage.