Engagement of Prince Harry of Wales and Meghan Markle: November 27, 2017


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Declaration of Consent to the marriage of HRH The Prince of Wales and Mrs. C. Parker Bowles

"NOW KNOW YE that We have consented and do by these Presents signify Our Consent to the contracting of Matrimony between Our Most Dearly Beloved Son and Most Faithful Counsellor Charles Philip Arthur George, Prince of Wales, K.G., K.T., G.C.B., O.M., and Our Trusty and Well-Beloved Camilla Rosemary Parker Bowles."

“Most Faithful Counsellor” in this case is a reference to Charles being a member of the Privy Council, I suppose.

It is interesting that Camilla still used the name Parker Bowles even though she was already divorced. Why didn’t she revert to her maiden name ?
 
“Most Faithful Counsellor” in this case is a reference to Charles being a member of the Privy Council, I suppose.

It is interesting that Camilla still used the name Parker Bowles even though she was already divorced. Why didn’t she revert to her maiden name ?
Many women don't. My parents have been divorced since 1983 and two long-term relationships later she still goes by her ex-husband's surname. My stepmother on the other hand never took his name in the first place so no need to change anything back once they divorced... (my dad's lovelife spanning two marriages, 3 countries, a stint as a sailor and loosing his virginity to an aged lady-of-the-night in Colombia, mistresses, 5 kids etc... would make for a very sordid book)
Anyway it's all a matter of personal preference to keep a surname or revert to your old one.
 
Three reporters looked into the "Trusty and Beloved" and it seemed they have finally all got their answer from multiple sources. It is what we suspected -- her nationality. She is American and not a subject of the Queen.

Tweeted from Valentine Low, a reporter for The Times:

"Richard Palmer (reporter for The Daily Express) was right - "trusty and well-beloved" is for the Queen's subjects. Had this from two sources, including the Cabinet Office."
 
Last edited:
The wording may have gotten some folks confused, but I still think some are on the lookout for any kind of sign of Meghan being shunned by The Queen and rest of the family. I feel it’s a sad thing.
 
LOL. I've been waiting for royal reporters to finalize the Twitter debate. Rudolph...my hat tip :flowers:
 
The wording may have gotten some folks confused, but I still think some are on the lookout for any kind of sign of Meghan being shunned by The Queen and rest of the family. I feel it’s a sad thing.

I don’t think anyone thought it was a slight but the BRF is so precise with stuff like wording that most people thought there must be a reason.

As things got narrowed down it was becoming increasingly clear it must be because Meghan is American.

One thing I knew for certain though is there isn’t different versions of the consent. The one issued yesterday is it.
 
I don’t think anyone thought it was a slight but the BRF is so precise with stuff like wording that most people thought there must be a reason.

There were definitely people that thought it as just that, even on here, as soon as it was mentioned. Look, I never thought it was a big deal either way because I thought the Queen and other members of the family has made it crystal clear on how Meghan is being treated, but from the very onset, there has been discussions about whether or not HMQ would grant permission or accept this relationship.
 
:previous:

The Queen has never denied permission for anyone to marry during her entire time on the throne. It wasn’t going to start with Meghan.
 
:previous:

The Queen has never denied permission for anyone to marry during her entire time on the throne. It wasn’t going to start with Meghan.

I never thought she would have any reason to. But there are some that said HMQ would. Just expanded on an point that you made about no one thought the lack of trusty and well-beloved was something against Meghan.
 
'Trusty', it's such quaint language. :flowers: And to be 'right trusty'! I'm going to start using it.

This is my 'right trusty' friend from Australia......:cool: ;)
 
Of course there are folks who hoped and thought it was a slight. That is not how the Queen works nor would she do something like that so publicly. She has made her and the BRF's acceptance of Meghan pretty clear. Anyways, I am glad they resolved it but it is sad it had to go that way because some in the press turned it into something negative to try to paint a bad picture of Meghan and the family.
 
Of course there are folks who hoped and thought it was a slight.

Just as there are those desperate to detect racism/classism/snobbery within the BRF !

They must be sorely disappointed, as they will continue to be...
 
Just as there are those desperate to detect racism/classism/snobbery within the BRF !

They must be sorely disappointed, as they will continue to be...

Hear ! Hear !
Works both ways indeed !
Glad this topic about used or unused words is resolved, but you can't prevent "folks" (as used by some members) to ask questions.
I remember quite well when Charles and Camilla got engaged the never ending hunt for any sign of snub/ shade from the Queen... c'est la vie !
 
Last edited:
Just as there are those desperate to detect racism/classism/snobbery within the BRF !

They must be sorely disappointed, as they will continue to be...

I don't disagree. Sometimes people look for something that isn't there.

Same as I don't think every negative comment or critique is laced in racism, classism, etc though some clearly are and are called out.

Most understood it was no slight which is why despite many having difference of opinions came together figure it out.
 
Sorry to say bit using the word "trusty " to describe a person seems strange to me. A car is trusty, a hammer is trusty; I think for a human being another word should be used like reliable, trust worthy, trusted.
 
:previous:



The Queen has never denied permission for anyone to marry during her entire time on the throne. It wasn’t going to start with Meghan.

This, precisely this. If the Queen was going to deny her permission a public engagement wouldn’t happen - consider what happened with Princess Margaret and Peter Townsend; it was determined before any engagement that the Queen would not be able to grant permission.

I never thought she would have any reason to. But there are some that said HMQ would. Just expanded on an point that you made about no one thought the lack of trusty and well-beloved was something against Meghan.


There are some who have said that because they don’t like Meghan (for whatever reason they have) and have no understanding of how things actually work. They see the granting of permission as a formal thing that happens after the engagement and is necessary for the Queen to express her feelings, but that’s not the real world. The granting of permission is a rubber stamp thing that happens after the fact - again, if the Queen wasn’t going to grant permission, that would be determined before any engagement announcement is made.
 
seems strange to me.

That is because it is archaic, a usage 'shrouded in the mists of Time', like so much of the ritual we have inherited [and value] from the past and is preserved by our Royal House.

Naturally it seems strange to cultures 'that much more recent'..
 
Fascinating.
Hoe does the permission-thing work exactly?
Does Harry specifically has to ask the Queens permission? And how does that work, are there speciaal ceremonies/ protocols for that?

I don't know if the person who gets married has to ask the Queen directly for her permission, but the way it works is described in some detail in the Explanatory Notes for the Succession to the Crown Act 2013.

As explained in Note 20, the consent must be declared in Council and recorded in the books of the Privy Council. The Instrument of Consent technically does not require countersignature by government ministers, but , as explained in Note 19, the constitutional practice is " for Ministers to be informed of a proposed marriage of a person close in the succession to the Throne, and to have the opportunity of giving formal advice to Her Majesty as to whether consent should be given." Therefore, it is safe to assume that Meghan was also vetted by the British government.

In other countries, the role of the government is more explicit than in the UK. For example:


  1. In the Netherlands, consent is actually given by an Act of Parliament passed in a joint session of the two chambers. The consent bill is normally introduced in the joint session by the government on behalf of the King.
  2. In Sweden, under the amended Act of Succession, consent is given by the government, rather than the King. However, the government can only give its consent to a royal marriage if asked by the King to do so, meaning in practice that a double consent from the King and the government is required.
  3. In Belgium, consent is given by royal decree. Unlike the Instrument of Consent in the UK, the royal decree in Belgium must be countersigned, however, by one or more government ministers, see an example on page 2 here. In that example, the royal decree consenting to the marriage of Prince Amedeo of Belgium was countersigned by the prime minister and the justice minister. Note that, according to the preamble, Prince Amedeo formally asked for the consent and the royal decree was issued in response to his request, which is quite interesting.


Spain, on the other hand, is somewhat unique in the sense that, under the constitution of 1978, neither the King nor the Cortes (i.e the Spanish Parliament) are required to give formal consent to royal marriages. Instead, there is only a negative requirement that there must not be an explict prohibition of the marriage contract either by the King or the Cortes. The consent clause in Spain is much weaker in this sense than in other countries.


In a way, the consent rules in the UK are also weaker now, because, again as explained in the link above, the legal requirement of consent now applies only to individuals who, when they get married, are among the first six persons in line to the throne. In other countries, the consent requirement normally applies to all persons in the line of succession, but, in all cases, the only legal consequence of a marriage without consent is that the person who marries and his/her future descendants forfeit their succession rights. Otherwise, the marriage itself is legally valid, unlike what happened in the UK under the old Royal Marriages Act 1772.
 
Last edited:
Since sovereign's consent is required by law, I imagine the Royal brides and grooms have been vetted, especially for family, finances, brushes with the law, etc,. especially Camilla and Kate because they are going to be consort of future sovereigns. In Meghan's case I bet her first marriage was checked out to make sure it was properly and legally dissolved. The consents in my opinion announces they found nothing of consequence, and anyone doing tell alls now have credibility problems.
 
Thank you for the explanation.
 
At the Cambridge wedding the part of the service where the priest says “If any man can so just cause why they may not be lawfully joined together in holy matrimony, speak now or else hereafter forever hold your peace”.

According to press there were lawyers right on hand from both the Palace and Church in case there was an objection.

I suspect the same for Harry and Meghan
 
Last edited:
Since sovereign's consent is required by law, I imagine the Royal brides and grooms have been vetted, especially for family, finances, brushes with the law, etc,. especially Camilla and Kate because they are going to be consort of future sovereigns. In Meghan's case I bet her first marriage was checked out to make sure it was properly and legally dissolved. The consents in my opinion announces they found nothing of consequence, and anyone doing tell alls now have credibility problems.

Agreed. Assuming those matters are still taken seriously (as they should be), consent is only withheld if something of consequence is found about the bride/groom. Sophie, Camilla, Kate, Meghan and, in other countries, other (controversial ?) brides like Máxima, Sofia, or Mette-Marit all passed the test and, therefore, should be considered suitable royal consorts.

The most important lesson for me is that, although we often hear that royals can now "marry anyone" (in the sense of marrying commoners, or "marrying for love"), that is still techically not 100 % true as long as the legal barrier of the consent still remains.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to congratulate everyone who has participated in this recent discussion about the Queen's permission, the Instrument of Consent and contributed to the in depth thinking and researching that was done in the past couple of days. You have now completed The British Royal Marriage Act 101 with flying colors. :D

An interesting trivial fact to consider is that up until the Royal Marriage Act of 1772 was amended in 2015, the Queen's permission was needed quite a bit more than just among marriages in her own family. On 11 January 1999, Queen Elizabeth II issued a Declaration in Council with permission for Prince Ernest August of Hanover to marry Princess Caroline of Monaco.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Ernst_August_of_Hanover_(born_1954)
 
At the Cambridge wedding the part of the service where the priest says “If any man can so just cause why they may not be lawfully joined together in holy matrimony, speak now or else hereafter forever hold your peace”.

According to press there were lawyers right on hand from both the Palace and Church in case there was an objection.

I suspect the same for Harry and Meghan
LoL that's kind of funny. What were they going to do if someone objected based on non legal and non religious reasons?
 
After the new baby, harry will be sixth in line so the last who needs consent, right?
 
Yes Harry will drop down to 6th and will be the last to need permission which clearly has been given. So the next big wedding like this will be one of the Cambridge kids in 20 some years.
 
After the new baby, harry will be sixth in line so the last who needs consent, right?

Yes, after the baby is born he’ll be number 6. And when Charles becomes king he’ll go back to being number 5. And if Charles dies before George has kids, Harry will be number 4. And then when Cambridge kids have children he’ll go back down in numbers.
 
I think, in the case of Marina Mowatt, the Queen's permission for the marriage omitted the usual wording of "our trusty and well-beloved cousin" and just said "our cousin,".

I read it in her thread on these forums, but I have not seen the actual document.
 
s. :D

An interesting trivial fact to consider is that up until the Royal Marriage Act of 1772 was amended in 2015, the Queen's permission was needed quite a bit more than just among marriages in her own family. On 11 January 1999, Queen Elizabeth II issued a Declaration in Council with permission for Prince Ernest August of Hanover to marry Princess Caroline of Monaco.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Ernst_August_of_Hanover_(born_1954)

Consent was required for all descendants of King George II, male or female, except the issue of princesses who had married or might thereafter marry "into foreign families". According to one popular (but disputed) theory, that loophole would actually exempt all current living members of the BRF, as all of them are descendants of foreign princesses whose ancestors were themselves British princesses who married into foreign royal families.

Anyway, the current provisions under the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which repealed the Royal Marriages Act 1772, are far more rational, although I personally think that restricting the consent requirement only to the first six persons in line to the throne might be too narrow.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom