The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   The Royal Marriages Act of 1772 and Royal Marriages (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-royal-marriages-act-of-1772-and-royal-marriages-13232.html)

branchg 07-07-2007 09:41 PM

The Royal Marriages Act of 1772 and Royal Marriages
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Kat (Post 629941)
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.

Iluvbertie 07-08-2007 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg (Post 637852)
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 07-08-2007 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrissy57 (Post 637907)
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.

Iluvbertie 07-08-2007 02:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mary1966 (Post 637916)
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 07-08-2007 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrissy57 (Post 637907)
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 07-08-2007 11:57 AM

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 07-08-2007 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrissy57 (Post 637926)
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.

Iluvbertie 07-08-2007 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mary1966 (Post 638227)
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.

Iluvbertie 07-08-2007 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg (Post 638055)
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 07-15-2007 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mary1966 (Post 638632)
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 07-15-2007 04:47 PM

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

Elspeth 07-15-2007 04:57 PM

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 07-15-2007 06:18 PM

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 07-15-2007 06:57 PM

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 07-16-2007 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg (Post 641570)
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 01-31-2008 06:45 AM

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

Kotroman 04-05-2009 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg (Post 638630)
William still needs permission and consent from The Sovereign and the Government to marry as the spare to the throne, although he is 25.

Since the Act excludes the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry into foreign families, Prince William does not need a permission from anybody because he is the issue of two princesses who married into foreign royal families: Louise of Great Britain, Queen of Denmark and Norway, and Mary of Great Britain, Landgravine of Hesse. In fact, there is no single person on the Earth who needs permission from the Sovereign to marry because everyone in the line of succession is descended from princesses who married into other royal families.

Iluvbertie 04-05-2009 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman (Post 918377)
Since the Act excludes the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry into foreign families, Prince William does not need a permission from anybody because he is the issue of two princesses who married into foreign royal families: Louise of Great Britain, Queen of Denmark and Norway, and Mary of Great Britain, Landgravine of Hesse. In fact, there is no single person on the Earth who needs permission from the Sovereign to marry because everyone in the line of succession is descended from princesses who married into other royal families.


This is the so-called 'Farran Exemption' and is an interpretation of the RMA. It has never been tested in a court of law.

The intention of the law was that the royals would get the permission if they are descended from George II. All those that do get permission do so because they are descended from George II in direct line to the British throne.

Mermaid1962 04-05-2009 08:00 PM

Yes, I agree that that perception is certainly out there. I think that it would depend on how devout the Catholic person is. Many Roman Catholics practice birth control and do other things against their Church doctrine, though. The loyalty of a member of the Royal Family is to the nation, though, and not to any outside authority. Although it's my understanding that the monarch's ultimate loyalty is under Christ as King of Kings--at least in the United Kingdom at present. At least, I think that that's the point of the anointing of the monarch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wymanda (Post 723757)
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


Grace Angel 04-05-2009 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kotroman (Post 918377)
Since the Act excludes the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry into foreign families, Prince William does not need a permission from anybody because he is the issue of two princesses who married into foreign royal families: Louise of Great Britain, Queen of Denmark and Norway, and Mary of Great Britain, Landgravine of Hesse. In fact, there is no single person on the Earth who needs permission from the Sovereign to marry because everyone in the line of succession is descended from princesses who married into other royal families.


Who were Louise and Mary? The names don't ring a bell.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:50 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises