The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Ceremony and Protocol (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f162/)
-   -   What do some royals have to get approval from Parliament before marrying (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f162/what-do-some-royals-have-to-get-approval-from-parliament-before-marrying-27996.html)

nascarlucy 06-25-2010 06:15 PM

What do some royals have to get approval from Parliament before marrying
 
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.

RoyalistRiley 06-25-2010 09:02 PM

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.

nascarlucy 06-26-2010 10:17 PM

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?

Sister Morphine 06-26-2010 10:21 PM

They wouldn't be in the line of succession to that throne anymore. I hardly doubt someone would get thrown in prison for it.

MARG 06-26-2010 11:16 PM

The situation of Ernst August, Prince of Hanover is a perfect example:

Courtesy of Wiki:
Quote:

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:
Quote:

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:
Quote:

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.

MAfan 06-27-2010 05:54 PM

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.

Thena 06-27-2010 06:19 PM

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.

NGalitzine 10-12-2011 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nascarlucy (Post 1103228)
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.

Garthios 11-10-2011 12:15 PM

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"

NGalitzine 11-10-2011 12:44 PM

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.

NGalitzine 11-10-2011 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nascarlucy (Post 1102711)
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.

PrincessKaimi 11-10-2011 01:23 PM

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.

Daphoenyx 03-31-2013 07:13 PM

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?

Iluvbertie 03-31-2013 08:15 PM

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.

Ish 03-31-2013 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nascarlucy (Post 1103228)
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daphoenyx (Post 1534429)
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.

Daphoenyx 04-01-2013 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1534444)
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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1534451)
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?

Ish 04-01-2013 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daphoenyx (Post 1534495)
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.

Daphoenyx 04-03-2013 10:11 AM

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!

Ish 04-03-2013 02:27 PM

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

sarahedwards2 04-03-2013 05:46 PM

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?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises