Official rules for Royal Marriage?

[Crown-Horned Snorkack]

I want to know the rules for suitable royal marriage in the British Royal Family.

You mean, the official ones plus the others?

And no, the Royal Marriages Act does not provide even the official
rules in full. There are many other laws relevant to royal marriages,
and I do not know all of them.

First, have a look at RMA. A royal marriage must be
either:
approved by Crown-in-Council
or:
announced to Crown-in-Council by a royal over 25 years of age 12
months in advance.

Now, there can be any number of unofficial requirements.
Crown-in-Council can withhold approval for any reason whatever or for
no reason at all. Nor is any public record created of refusals, only
of approvals and announcements of intent to marry without approval.
This also means that one cannot deduce the unofficial requirements by
examining the list of refusals of approval, because there is no list.

Continuing with official requirements...

The Act of Settlement provides that any person who marries a Papist
loses inheritance rights to the throne. This only applies if the
marriage is approved of by the Crown-in-Council or else duly announced
to the same. A marriage not celebrated under RMA, even to a Papist,
has no effect on inheritance rights, which is precisely what happened
to George IV. A marriage to a follower of any other faith, even if
duly approved or announced and valid under other requirements, has no
effect on inheritance rights of the royal either.

Now, since Lord Hardwicke's Act, there is a custom that the laws
regarding marriage make exception to royal marriages. Someone should
provide full list of those laws, and what exactly they say about
royals.

One important effect is that no royal can marry in register office in
England, apparently because laws allowing this were passed after 1751
and make exceptions for royals.

If a royal is to marry in England and in the Establishment, it means
that any and all requirements, official or unofficial, of the Church
of England apply. Such as those relating to remarriage of divorcees.

It is perfectly legal for royals to marry outside England, provided
that there is assent or announcement as required and that all official
local rules are complied with. For example, the Church of Scotland
permits remarriage of divorcees, and Princess Anne married there, with
assent of Crown as required.

Someone should clarify:
can a royal marry, with assent, in a church in England other than the
Establishment?
how can a royal marry in Ireland or Wales?

A royal can definitely marry abroad, provided the local requirements
of marriage are met AND that the Crown-in-Council of United Kingdom
gives approval or receives notice in due time. It is established that
the restrictions of RMA follow all royals wherever they may go. Should
a royal marry otherwise than allowed by RMA, all courts of UK and of
all realms and other jurisdictions where RMA holds are obliged to
regard the marriage as null and void for any and all purposes that
come before them, such as intestate inheritance to bank accounts and
shares, alimony, custody of minors etc. etc.
Also, while it is perfectly legal for a royal to marry otherwise than
according to RMA and it is also legal to marry a royal otherwise than
under RMA, to celebrate or assist the celebration of such marriage is
a crime. Note that all male-line descendants of George II are subject
to RMA forever. There is a fair number of such persons, for example in
Germany, who are aliens and owe no allegiance to UK. Should any of
them ever fail to comply with the requirements of RMA, those assisting
them, e. g. clerks who are under legal duty to celebrate all marriages
consistent with laws of Germany, become criminals and incur the
penalties of praemunire (IIRC life imprisonment) should they ever fall
in hands of the Britons (e. g. be caught attempting to visit UK or be
apprehended by UK forces abroad).

Then there are the questions of age, kinship and consent.

The common-law definition of marriageable age has changed since 1753.
It used to be something like 12 or 13 years. Someone should check
whether the laws that have altered it since 1751 apply to royals. If
not, a royal who is 25 can announce his or her intention to marry a
person who is currently 11 years old, and lawfully celebrate and
consummate the marriage 12 months later, by which time that person
would be 12.

Kinship. Royal marriages are subject to the common-law restrictions of
consanguinity. There have been changes to this - exempli gratia
permitting marriage to deceased wife's sisters. Which changes apply to
royals, which do not?

Consent. Again, there might be differences.

If a royal marries a person under 21, or between 16 and 18, is the
consent of the parents of the nonroyal spouse required?

Now, the business of bigamy.

A royal marriage celebrated in violation of RMA is null and void for
absolutely all purposes - including bigamy. This means that a royal
can marry in violation of RMA and proceed to celebrate another
marriage under RMA in lifetime of the previous "spouse" and without
any divorce or annulment. Which is exactly what George IV did.

On the other hand, a royal cannot marry a person who is already
validly married - not even under RMA.

As has been mentioned above, citizenship, or being noble or royal in
background is not officially required in UK - though they may well be
unofficial considerations in granting or refusing approval.

Nor is virginity as such an official requirement - not even for the
bride of the Prince of Wales, or King.

But "chastity" is officially required. One needs to get to full text
of the Bill of Attainder against Queen Catherine Howard, plus all
later ctatutes which may touch the matter.

This Bill of Attainder is the law of the land in UK and elsewhere
where English statutes hold. (As it talks of treason, under the Act of
Union it holds in Scotland, too.) And apart from dealing with the fate
of Catherine personally, for avoidance of doubt in future the Bill
enacted generally applicable laws of treason.

It is high treason for any unchaste woman to marry a King unless she
has made full disclosure to the King prior to celebration of marriage.
It also is high treason for any person owing allegiance to the
Sovereign to fail to disclose anything incontinent that he or she
might know about the queen.

This law is vitally important to a number of posters in
alt.talk.royalty and alt.gossip.royalty. The Queen is 78. May it take
long, but we must take account of the possibility that there may be a
King soon. And the now Prince of Wales is not married. The prospect of
another King marrying an unchaste woman is by no means remote.

Mrs. Parker-Bowles is not supposed to be a virgin - indeed, she is a
mother. But neither was lady Latimer supposed to be a virgin. Mrs.
Parker-Bowles is also known to be unchaste - she is believed to have
committed both adultery and fornication with the Prince of Wales.
Well, participation of the King personally probably counts as
disclosure. After all, Henry VIII is believed (not definitely known!)
to have committed adultery or fornication with Anne Boleyn.

But should anyone owing allegiance to UK know anything hinting that
Camilla may have committed adultery with any person other than
Charles, or committed fornication with any person other than Charles
(including fornication with mr. Parker-Bowles!), it would be high
treason to fail to disclose the fact in a proper manner. Thus some
posters may risk the fate of Dereham and Culpepper! (I don't owe
allegiance to UK).

Also someone should check about the bride of the Prince of Wales. In
1542, Edward was 4. But considering the suitable royal brides, I
think, had started, nor did Henry yet know Edward would acceed at the
age of 9. Does the Bill of Attainder make any provision for the case
of a previously unchaste woman marrying the eldest son and heir of the
King?

But would the King (or Prince of Wales?) be lawfully married to the
unchaste woman? Was Henry married to Catherine Howard? Afterwards, he
seems to have regarded only Jane and Catherine Parr as his lawful
wives. Catherine of Aragon was annulled for clear reason. Anne Boleyn
was annulled for reasons that are still secret. Anne of Cleves was
annulled. But what about Catherine Howard?

So, if a previously unchaste woman marries a king and the shit hits
the fan, she is relieved of one neck. But the facts of having been
unchaste and not having made proper disclosure of this exist at the
time of celebration. Has she married (and her orphaned children
inherit the Crown as usual, whoever has begot them) or has she not
(and her children, if delivered before execution, are bastards for all
purposes even if they are unquestionably begotten by the King)?
Catherine Howard had no children, so the question of legitimacy of
children did not come up.

Can anyone clarify the official rules further or add to them?

[Rico]

<snipped>

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Then there are the questions of age, kinship and consent.
The common-law definition of marriageable age has changed since 1753.
It used to be something like 12 or 13 years. Someone should check
whether the laws that have altered it since 1751 apply to royals. If
not, a royal who is 25 can announce his or her intention to marry a
person who is currently 11 years old, and lawfully celebrate and
consummate the marriage 12 months later, by which time that person
would be 12.
Kinship. Royal marriages are subject to the common-law restrictions of
consanguinity. There have been changes to this - exempli gratia
permitting marriage to deceased wife's sisters. Which changes apply to
royals, which do not?

When exactly did this change occur, according to my mother, her brother (my
uncle) could possibly have been a peer, (apparently my great grandfather
renounced his rights), he did as a matter of fact marry his sister in law
after the death of his first wife (my great grandmother). This second
marriage occured in the late 1880s early 1890s.

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Consent. Again, there might be differences.
If a royal marries a person under 21, or between 16 and 18, is the
consent of the parents of the nonroyal spouse required?
Now, the business of bigamy.
A royal marriage celebrated in violation of RMA is null and void for
absolutely all purposes - including bigamy. This means that a royal
can marry in violation of RMA and proceed to celebrate another
marriage under RMA in lifetime of the previous "spouse" and without
any divorce or annulment. Which is exactly what George IV did.
On the other hand, a royal cannot marry a person who is already
validly married - not even under RMA.
As has been mentioned above, citizenship, or being noble or royal in
background is not officially required in UK - though they may well be
unofficial considerations in granting or refusing approval.

Would that mean that if a princess married the sultan of Brunei as a
secondary wife it's illegal, but as the first wife it's perfectly legal
provided approval given? Would a subsequent marriage invalidate the female
Sultan(a)s British rights.

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Nor is virginity as such an official requirement - not even for the
bride of the Prince of Wales, or King.
But "chastity" is officially required. One needs to get to full text
of the Bill of Attainder against Queen Catherine Howard, plus all
later ctatutes which may touch the matter.
This Bill of Attainder is the law of the land in UK and elsewhere
where English statutes hold. (As it talks of treason, under the Act of
Union it holds in Scotland, too.) And apart from dealing with the fate
of Catherine personally, for avoidance of doubt in future the Bill
enacted generally applicable laws of treason.
It is high treason for any unchaste woman to marry a King unless she
has made full disclosure to the King prior to celebration of marriage.
It also is high treason for any person owing allegiance to the
Sovereign to fail to disclose anything incontinent that he or she
might know about the queen.
This law is vitally important to a number of posters in
alt.talk.royalty and alt.gossip.royalty. The Queen is 78. May it take
long, but we must take account of the possibility that there may be a
King soon. And the now Prince of Wales is not married. The prospect of
another King marrying an unchaste woman is by no means remote.
Mrs. Parker-Bowles is not supposed to be a virgin - indeed, she is a
mother. But neither was lady Latimer supposed to be a virgin. Mrs.
Parker-Bowles is also known to be unchaste - she is believed to have
committed both adultery and fornication with the Prince of Wales.
Well, participation of the King personally probably counts as
disclosure. After all, Henry VIII is believed (not definitely known!)
to have committed adultery or fornication with Anne Boleyn.
But should anyone owing allegiance to UK know anything hinting that
Camilla may have committed adultery with any person other than
Charles, or committed fornication with any person other than Charles
(including fornication with mr. Parker-Bowles!), it would be high
treason to fail to disclose the fact in a proper manner. Thus some
posters may risk the fate of Dereham and Culpepper! (I don't owe
allegiance to UK).
Also someone should check about the bride of the Prince of Wales. In
1542, Edward was 4. But considering the suitable royal brides, I
think, had started, nor did Henry yet know Edward would acceed at the
age of 9. Does the Bill of Attainder make any provision for the case
of a previously unchaste woman marrying the eldest son and heir of the
King?
But would the King (or Prince of Wales?) be lawfully married to the
unchaste woman? Was Henry married to Catherine Howard? Afterwards, he
seems to have regarded only Jane and Catherine Parr as his lawful
wives. Catherine of Aragon was annulled for clear reason. Anne Boleyn
was annulled for reasons that are still secret. Anne of Cleves was
annulled. But what about Catherine Howard?
So, if a previously unchaste woman marries a king and the shit hits
the fan, she is relieved of one neck. But the facts of having been
unchaste and not having made proper disclosure of this exist at the
time of celebration. Has she married (and her orphaned children
inherit the Crown as usual, whoever has begot them) or has she not
(and her children, if delivered before execution, are bastards for all
purposes even if they are unquestionably begotten by the King)?
Catherine Howard had no children, so the question of legitimacy of
children did not come up.
Can anyone clarify the official rules further or add to them?

Question; If it's High treason to sleep with the mother of a future King of
England, does that mean all of the persons that Diana was supposed to have
had affairs or relationships with after the birth of William (before and
after divorce) should all surviving former partners be relieved of their
necks?

[Candide]

"Rico" <***@bigpond.net.au.au> wrote in message news:rTQdd.34443$***@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
snipped

Post by Rico
Question; If it's High treason to sleep with the mother of a future King of
England, does that mean all of the persons that Diana was supposed to have
had affairs or relationships with after the birth of William (before and
after divorce) should all surviving former partners be relieved of their
necks?

In theory and law it was treason for Diana and her lovers, but as GB
and the EU have abolished the death penalty that was that.

Besides why give Diana and her cult yet another reason to push for her
martyrdom.

Candide

[Anthony R. Gold]

Post by Candide
In theory and law it was treason for Diana and her lovers, but as GB
and the EU have abolished the death penalty that was that.

I don't follow. The abolition of the death penalty does not abolish the
Treason Felony Act of 1848, it merely limits the punishment for offences.

Tony

[Candide]

On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 12:20:48 -0400, "Candide"

Post by Candide
In theory and law it was treason for Diana and her lovers, but as GB
and the EU have abolished the death penalty that was that.

I don't follow. The abolition of the death penalty does not abolish the
Treason Felony Act of 1848, it merely limits the punishment for offences.

No,of course it does not, but the poster asked if Diana and her lovers
could have had their heads chopped off, which is not now possible as the
death penalty does not exist.

Candide

Tony

[Anthony R. Gold]

Post by Candide
the poster asked if Diana and her lovers
could have had their heads chopped off, which is not now possible as the
death penalty does not exist.

I thank you.

Tony

[shroom]

Theres no Diana cult

shroom

Post by Rico
snipped

Post by Rico
Question; If it's High treason to sleep with the mother of a future

King of

Post by Rico
England, does that mean all of the persons that Diana was supposed to

have

Post by Rico
had affairs or relationships with after the birth of William (before

and

Post by Rico
after divorce) should all surviving former partners be relieved of

their

Post by Rico
necks?

In theory and law it was treason for Diana and her lovers, but as GB
and the EU have abolished the death penalty that was that.
Besides why give Diana and her cult yet another reason to push for her
martyrdom.
Candide

[Guy Stair Sainty]

Post by Rico
<snipped>

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Then there are the questions of age, kinship and consent.
The common-law definition of marriageable age has changed since 1753.
It used to be something like 12 or 13 years. Someone should check
whether the laws that have altered it since 1751 apply to royals. If
not, a royal who is 25 can announce his or her intention to marry a
person who is currently 11 years old, and lawfully celebrate and
consummate the marriage 12 months later, by which time that person
would be 12.
Kinship. Royal marriages are subject to the common-law restrictions of
consanguinity. There have been changes to this - exempli gratia
permitting marriage to deceased wife's sisters. Which changes apply to
royals, which do not?

When exactly did this change occur, according to my mother, her brother (my
uncle) could possibly have been a peer, (apparently my great grandfather
renounced his rights), he did as a matter of fact marry his sister in law
after the death of his first wife (my great grandmother). This second
marriage occured in the late 1880s early 1890s.

Your mother is wrong. No-one could legally renounce their rights to a Peerage
before 1963, and since that date a renunciation can only be personal and does
not in any way affect the rights of the heir to the peerage who would succeed
in the normal way upon the death of the person who had renounced. This is
evidently a family fable of yours that has no basis in fact.

[Oliver T]

Post by Guy Stair Sainty

Post by Rico
<snipped>

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Then there are the questions of age, kinship and consent.
The common-law definition of marriageable age has changed since 1753.
It used to be something like 12 or 13 years. Someone should check
whether the laws that have altered it since 1751 apply to royals. If
not, a royal who is 25 can announce his or her intention to marry a
person who is currently 11 years old, and lawfully celebrate and
consummate the marriage 12 months later, by which time that person
would be 12.
Kinship. Royal marriages are subject to the common-law restrictions of
consanguinity. There have been changes to this - exempli gratia
permitting marriage to deceased wife's sisters. Which changes apply to
royals, which do not?

When exactly did this change occur, according to my mother, her brother (my
uncle) could possibly have been a peer, (apparently my great grandfather
renounced his rights), he did as a matter of fact marry his sister in law
after the death of his first wife (my great grandmother). This second
marriage occured in the late 1880s early 1890s.

Your mother is wrong. No-one could legally renounce their rights to a Peerage
before 1963, and since that date a renunciation can only be personal and does
not in any way affect the rights of the heir to the peerage who would succeed
in the normal way upon the death of the person who had renounced. This is
evidently a family fable of yours that has no basis in fact.

It's true that nobody could resign a peerage before Tony Benn got the
law changed in 1963. His (eldest?) son, Hilary Benn, is now an MP too.
If his father died, would the Stansgate dynasty be revived, and would
he have to go through the rigmarole of resigning too?

There was quite a rush of renouncers after that - both Lord Home (Sir
Alec) and Lord Hailsham (Quintin Hogg) became MPs but later took their
peerages again when they were done in the Commons. Did Sir Alec become
a 14th Earl again, or just a life peer?

I don't know if Hogg was an hereditary peer, but he did come from a
line of Lord Chancellors. Is he still alive (he must be very old) or
why else is Douglas Hogg MP not ennobled - did he renounce too?

Oliver

[David Boothroyd]

Post by Oliver T
It's true that nobody could resign a peerage before Tony Benn got the
law changed in 1963. His (eldest?) son, Hilary Benn, is now an MP too.

The eldest son is Hon. Stephen (born 1951); Hon. Hilary is the second
son.

Post by Oliver T
If his father died, would the Stansgate dynasty be revived, and would
he have to go through the rigmarole of resigning too?

On the death of Tony Benn, Stephen Benn would become 3rd Viscount
Stansgate until the day he disclaimed the peerage.

Post by Oliver T
There was quite a rush of renouncers after that - both Lord Home (Sir
Alec) and Lord Hailsham (Quintin Hogg) became MPs but later took their
peerages again when they were done in the Commons. Did Sir Alec become
a 14th Earl again, or just a life peer?

Life Peer - Baron Home of the Hirsel.

Post by Oliver T
I don't know if Hogg was an hereditary peer, but he did come from a
line of Lord Chancellors. Is he still alive (he must be very old) or
why else is Douglas Hogg MP not ennobled - did he renounce too?

Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone died in 2001 and his son is now
Viscount Hailsham, but he does not use the title. Since 1999, as
hereditary peers do not always sit in the House of Lords, he is not
disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons.

There are currently three hereditary peers in the House of Commons:
Viscounts Thurso and Hailsham and the Marquess of Lothian. None of
them normally uses the title.

[Don Aitken]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 09:43:16 +0100, David Boothroyd

Post by David Boothroyd

Post by Oliver T
It's true that nobody could resign a peerage before Tony Benn got the
law changed in 1963. His (eldest?) son, Hilary Benn, is now an MP too.

The eldest son is Hon. Stephen (born 1951); Hon. Hilary is the second
son.

Post by Oliver T
If his father died, would the Stansgate dynasty be revived, and would
he have to go through the rigmarole of resigning too?

On the death of Tony Benn, Stephen Benn would become 3rd Viscount
Stansgate until the day he disclaimed the peerage.

However, a sitting MP who inherits a peerage is no longer disqualified
by that fact, and can continue to sit in the Commons without
disclaiming it, as in the case of Viscount Hailsham, metioned by David
below.

Post by David Boothroyd

Post by Oliver T
There was quite a rush of renouncers after that - both Lord Home (Sir
Alec) and Lord Hailsham (Quintin Hogg) became MPs but later took their
peerages again when they were done in the Commons. Did Sir Alec become
a 14th Earl again, or just a life peer?

Life Peer - Baron Home of the Hirsel.

There is a provision, still in effect, in the Peerage Act 1963 which
prevents a further heriditary peerage being bestowed on a person who
has disclaimed one.

Post by David Boothroyd

Post by Oliver T
I don't know if Hogg was an hereditary peer, but he did come from a
line of Lord Chancellors.

Not a very long line - the first was his father, Douglas Hogg, the
first Viscount.

Post by David Boothroyd

Post by Oliver T
Is he still alive (he must be very old) or
why else is Douglas Hogg MP not ennobled - did he renounce too?

Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone died in 2001 and his son is now
Viscount Hailsham, but he does not use the title. Since 1999, as
hereditary peers do not always sit in the House of Lords, he is not
disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons.
Viscounts Thurso and Hailsham and the Marquess of Lothian. None of
them normally uses the title.

[Oliver T]

Post by David Boothroyd

Post by Oliver T
It's true that nobody could resign a peerage before Tony Benn got the
law changed in 1963. His (eldest?) son, Hilary Benn, is now an MP too.

The eldest son is Hon. Stephen (born 1951); Hon. Hilary is the second
son.

Post by Oliver T
If his father died, would the Stansgate dynasty be revived, and would
he have to go through the rigmarole of resigning too?

On the death of Tony Benn, Stephen Benn would become 3rd Viscount
Stansgate until the day he disclaimed the peerage.

This is interesting. If he's like the other Benns he'll renounce. But
someday there might be a Benn who wants to revive the Stansgate title,
even if it's meaningless.

Post by David Boothroyd

Post by Oliver T
There was quite a rush of renouncers after that - both Lord Home (Sir
Alec) and Lord Hailsham (Quintin Hogg) became MPs but later took their
peerages again when they were done in the Commons. Did Sir Alec become
a 14th Earl again, or just a life peer?

Life Peer - Baron Home of the Hirsel.

So - and I presume he's dead - did he have a son who became 15th Earl
of Home?

Post by David Boothroyd

Post by Oliver T
I don't know if Hogg was an hereditary peer, but he did come from a
line of Lord Chancellors. Is he still alive (he must be very old) or
why else is Douglas Hogg MP not ennobled - did he renounce too?

Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone died in 2001 and his son is now
Viscount Hailsham, but he does not use the title. Since 1999, as
hereditary peers do not always sit in the House of Lords, he is not
disqualified from sitting in the House of Commons.
Viscounts Thurso and Hailsham and the Marquess of Lothian. None of
them normally uses the title.

I saw Thurso described as "Lord" in the election results. Since then
I've seen him described as "John Thurso", which looks odd as I didn't
think there was such a surname. (CMIIR)

Oliver

[David Boothroyd]

Post by Oliver T

Post by David Boothroyd
On the death of Tony Benn, Stephen Benn would become 3rd Viscount
Stansgate until the day he disclaimed the peerage.

This is interesting. If he's like the other Benns he'll renounce.

Only one Benn has renounced a Peerage so far.

Post by Oliver T

Post by David Boothroyd

Post by Oliver T
There was quite a rush of renouncers after that - both Lord Home (Sir
Alec) and Lord Hailsham (Quintin Hogg) became MPs but later took their
peerages again when they were done in the Commons. Did Sir Alec become
a 14th Earl again, or just a life peer?

Life Peer - Baron Home of the Hirsel.

So - and I presume he's dead - did he have a son who became 15th Earl
of Home?

Lord Home died in 1995 and his son became 15th Earl; he was one of the
hereditary Conservative peers who were elected under the House of
Lords Act to remain in the House, where he is a Conservative front
bencher.

See:
<http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=4&lev2=38&menu=81&biog=y&id=1
554>

Post by Oliver T

Post by David Boothroyd
Viscounts Thurso and Hailsham and the Marquess of Lothian. None of
them normally uses the title.

I saw Thurso described as "Lord" in the election results. Since then
I've seen him described as "John Thurso", which looks odd as I didn't
think there was such a surname. (CMIIR)

The family surname is Sinclair. The present Viscount is the grandson
of Sir Archibald Sinclair who was MP for the constituency until 1945,
and on whom the Viscountcy was conferred.

[Don Aitken]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:46:47 +0100, David Boothroyd

Post by David Boothroyd
Lord Home died in 1995 and his son became 15th Earl; he was one of the
hereditary Conservative peers who were elected under the House of
Lords Act to remain in the House, where he is a Conservative front
bencher.
<http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=4&lev2=38&menu=81&biog=y&id=1554>

That seems to be "subscribers only".

[Oliver T]

Post by Don Aitken
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:46:47 +0100, David Boothroyd

Post by David Boothroyd
Lord Home died in 1995 and his son became 15th Earl; he was one of the
hereditary Conservative peers who were elected under the House of
Lords Act to remain in the House, where he is a Conservative front
bencher.
<http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=4&lev2=38&menu=81&biog=y&id=1554>

That seems to be "subscribers only".

Hmmm. And for "just £1540"! Are they having a laugh, or what?

O

[David Boothroyd]

Post by Don Aitken
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:46:47 +0100, David Boothroyd

Post by David Boothroyd
Lord Home died in 1995 and his son became 15th Earl; he was one of the
hereditary Conservative peers who were elected under the House of
Lords Act to remain in the House, where he is a Conservative front
bencher.
<http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=4&lev2=38&menu=81&biog=y&id=1554>

That seems to be "subscribers only".

You can actually get to it if you go via http://www.parliament.uk.

[Don Aitken]

On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 11:11:57 +0100, David Boothroyd

Post by David Boothroyd

Post by Don Aitken
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 18:46:47 +0100, David Boothroyd

Post by David Boothroyd
Lord Home died in 1995 and his son became 15th Earl; he was one of the
hereditary Conservative peers who were elected under the House of
Lords Act to remain in the House, where he is a Conservative front
bencher.
<http://www.dodonline.co.uk/engine.asp?lev1=4&lev2=38&menu=81&biog=y&id=1554>

That seems to be "subscribers only".

You can actually get to it if you go via http://www.parliament.uk.

Presumably you mean via
<http://www.parliament.uk/directories/house_of_lords_information_office/conservative_members.cfm>
but that doesn't work for me either. If I click on the "Biog" link, it
takes me, not to the relevant page of the Dods site, but to the home
page, with subscription information, and no way of getting beyond it.

[Dave Mayall]

Post by Rico
Question; If it's High treason to sleep with the mother of a future King of
England, does that mean all of the persons that Diana was supposed to have
had affairs or relationships with after the birth of William (before and
after divorce) should all surviving former partners be relieved of their
necks?

The death penalty for treason has been abolished

[Francis Davey]

Post by Rico
When exactly did this change occur, according to my mother, her brother (my
uncle) could possibly have been a peer, (apparently my great grandfather
renounced his rights), he did as a matter of fact marry his sister in law
after the death of his first wife (my great grandmother). This second
marriage occured in the late 1880s early 1890s.

Sounds unlikely if it is supposed to have occurred in England. The
Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act didn't receive Royal Assent
until 1921 as far as I know.

Francis Davey
(speaking as a laywer in uk.legal and knowing nothing at all about
things royal)

[Don Aitken]

Post by Francis Davey

Post by Rico
When exactly did this change occur, according to my mother, her brother (my
uncle) could possibly have been a peer, (apparently my great grandfather
renounced his rights), he did as a matter of fact marry his sister in law
after the death of his first wife (my great grandmother). This second
marriage occured in the late 1880s early 1890s.

Sounds unlikely if it is supposed to have occurred in England. The
Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act didn't receive Royal Assent
until 1921 as far as I know.

It was certainly not unknown for such marriages between British people
to take place abroad; it was, I believe, never determined whether such
marriages were valid in English law or not. The Deceased Wife's Sister
Marriage Act 1907 provided that "No marriage heretofore or hereafter
contracted between a man and his deceased wife’s sister, within the
realm or without, shall be deemed to have been or shall be void or
voidable, as a civil contract, by reason only of such affinity", and
the 1921 Act extended that to deceased brother's widows. So both Acts
were effectively retrospective.

[Don Aitken]

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack

I want to know the rules for suitable royal marriage in the British Royal Family.

You mean, the official ones plus the others?

[megasnip]

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
If a royal is to marry in England and in the Establishment, it means
that any and all requirements, official or unofficial, of the Church
of England apply. Such as those relating to remarriage of divorcees.

Not true. The Church of England, being an established church, has no
enforceable rules separate from those of the state. All it takes to
marry a member of the royal family is *one* Anglican clergyman
prepared to perform the ceremony. If, by doing so, he infringes the
requirements laid down extra-legally by his bishop or by the General
Synod or other ecclesiatical authority, there is nothing anyone can do
about it - he cannot be disciplined. This was clearly established in
the case of the Rev. Mr Jardine, who married the Duke of Windsor in
1937; the worst the Church could do was to deny him further preferment
for the rest of his life. The so-called "rules" relating to the
remarriage of divorced persons have no legal force.

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
It is perfectly legal for royals to marry outside England, provided
that there is assent or announcement as required and that all official
local rules are complied with. For example, the Church of Scotland
permits remarriage of divorcees, and Princess Anne married there, with
assent of Crown as required.
can a royal marry, with assent, in a church in England other than the
Establishment?
how can a royal marry in Ireland or Wales?

The pre-1753 rules apply, which means that an Anglican clergyman (or,
possibly, any episcopally ordained clergyman other than a Roman
Catholic) can conduct such a marriage anywhere in the world (the Duke
of Windsor's marriage was in France). It does not have to be in a
church - it can be anywhere.

[snip]

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Also, while it is perfectly legal for a royal to marry otherwise than
according to RMA and it is also legal to marry a royal otherwise than
under RMA, to celebrate or assist the celebration of such marriage is
a crime.

No. Those provisions of the Act were repealed in 1967. The only
sanction remaining is the invalidity of the marriage.

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Note that all male-line descendants of George II are subject
to RMA forever. There is a fair number of such persons, for example in
Germany, who are aliens and owe no allegiance to UK. Should any of
them ever fail to comply with the requirements of RMA, those assisting
them, e. g. clerks who are under legal duty to celebrate all marriages
consistent with laws of Germany, become criminals and incur the
penalties of praemunire (IIRC life imprisonment) should they ever fall
in hands of the Britons (e. g. be caught attempting to visit UK or be
apprehended by UK forces abroad).

So this does not apply.

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
But "chastity" is officially required. One needs to get to full text
of the Bill of Attainder against Queen Catherine Howard, plus all
later ctatutes which may touch the matter.
This Bill of Attainder is the law of the land in UK and elsewhere
where English statutes hold. (As it talks of treason, under the Act of
Union it holds in Scotland, too.) And apart from dealing with the fate
of Catherine personally, for avoidance of doubt in future the Bill
enacted generally applicable laws of treason.
It is high treason for any unchaste woman to marry a King unless she
has made full disclosure to the King prior to celebration of marriage.
It also is high treason for any person owing allegiance to the
Sovereign to fail to disclose anything incontinent that he or she
might know about the queen.

I believe that the relevant parts of the Act (which now has the
official short title "The Royal Assent by Commission Act 1542") have
been repealed. A look at Halsbury's Statutes would confirm.

[snip]

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Can anyone clarify the official rules further or add to them?

I think most of the legislation relating to marriage is online
somewhere, but Google doesn't find it. I will keep trying.

[Don Aitken]

Post by Don Aitken

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Can anyone clarify the official rules further or add to them?

I think most of the legislation relating to marriage is online
somewhere, but Google doesn't find it. I will keep trying.

Found it.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~framland/acts/actind.htm

The Marriage Act 1836 has "And be it enacted, That this Act shall
extend only to England, and shall not extend to the Marriage of any of
the Royal Family." (s.45)

The Marriage Act 1949 (which is the current principal Act) has
"Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the
marriage of members of the Royal Family." (s.79(5))

I think these are fairly typical. The effect is that the rules
applying to the RF are those which existed in 1753.

[Gillian White]

Post by Don Aitken
The Marriage Act 1836 has "And be it enacted, That this Act shall
extend only to England, and shall not extend to the Marriage of any of
the Royal Family." (s.45)
The Marriage Act 1949 (which is the current principal Act) has
"Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the
marriage of members of the Royal Family." (s.79(5))

What is the legal definition of membership of the Royal Family though? Does
this mean only those with HRH, or those within a certain degree of kinship
to the Queen, or those covered by the RMA etc?

Gillian

[Don Aitken]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 04:32:00 GMT, "Gillian White"

Post by Gillian White

Post by Don Aitken
The Marriage Act 1836 has "And be it enacted, That this Act shall
extend only to England, and shall not extend to the Marriage of any of
the Royal Family." (s.45)
The Marriage Act 1949 (which is the current principal Act) has
"Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the
marriage of members of the Royal Family." (s.79(5))

What is the legal definition of membership of the Royal Family though? Does
this mean only those with HRH, or those within a certain degree of kinship
to the Queen, or those covered by the RMA etc?

That is an excellent question. As far as I know, none of the Acts
which use the term provide a definition.

[Stan Brown]

Post by Gillian White
What is the legal definition of membership of the Royal Family though? Does
this mean only those with HRH, or those within a certain degree of kinship
to the Queen, or those covered by the RMA etc?

'The term royal family "has no strict legal definition".'
http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-2

There follow several paragraphs of interesting information about
extra-legal definitions.

[Don Aitken]

On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 20:10:37 -0400, Stan Brown

Post by Stan Brown

Post by Gillian White
What is the legal definition of membership of the Royal Family though? Does
this mean only those with HRH, or those within a certain degree of kinship
to the Queen, or those covered by the RMA etc?

'The term royal family "has no strict legal definition".'
http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-2
There follow several paragraphs of interesting information about
extra-legal definitions.

I think the FAQ is right, but the term is used in the statutes
referred to, and if the matter came before a court, the court would
have to attach *some* meaning to it.

[Crown-Horned Snorkack]

Post by Don Aitken

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack

I want to know the rules for suitable royal marriage in the British Royal Family.

You mean, the official ones plus the others?

[megasnip]

[snip]

Post by Don Aitken

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
It is perfectly legal for royals to marry outside England, provided
that there is assent or announcement as required and that all official
local rules are complied with. For example, the Church of Scotland
permits remarriage of divorcees, and Princess Anne married there, with
assent of Crown as required.
can a royal marry, with assent, in a church in England other than the
Establishment?
how can a royal marry in Ireland or Wales?

The pre-1753 rules apply, which means that an Anglican clergyman (or,
possibly, any episcopally ordained clergyman other than a Roman
Catholic) can conduct such a marriage anywhere in the world (the Duke
of Windsor's marriage was in France). It does not have to be in a
church - it can be anywhere.

I meant marriage solemnized by a religious ceremony, even if outside a
church building.

As for pre-1753 rules... Can a British royal, with due assent of the
Sovereign-in-Council, contract a valid marriage celebrated by a
clergyman who is NOT episcopally-ordained - such as a clergyman of
Dutch Calvinist Church, or some German Calvinist Church, or such a
German Lutheran Church that has no bishops?
Among the British princesses married into foreign Houses, which of
them had the marriage celebrated by Anglican clergy?

Can a British royal, with due assent of the Sovereign-in-Council,
contract a valid marriage celebrated by a clergyman of the Church of
Scotland (who would not be episcopally ordained, either)?

[Don Aitken]

Post by Don Aitken

Post by Don Aitken

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack

I want to know the rules for suitable royal marriage in the British Royal Family.

You mean, the official ones plus the others?

[megasnip]

[snip]

Post by Don Aitken

Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
It is perfectly legal for royals to marry outside England, provided
that there is assent or announcement as required and that all official
local rules are complied with. For example, the Church of Scotland
permits remarriage of divorcees, and Princess Anne married there, with
assent of Crown as required.
can a royal marry, with assent, in a church in England other than the
Establishment?
how can a royal marry in Ireland or Wales?

The pre-1753 rules apply, which means that an Anglican clergyman (or,
possibly, any episcopally ordained clergyman other than a Roman
Catholic) can conduct such a marriage anywhere in the world (the Duke
of Windsor's marriage was in France). It does not have to be in a
church - it can be anywhere.

I meant marriage solemnized by a religious ceremony, even if outside a
church building.

The Windsor marriage qualifies, as both a CofE religious marriage, and
a marriage valid in British civil law.

Post by Don Aitken
As for pre-1753 rules... Can a British royal, with due assent of the
Sovereign-in-Council, contract a valid marriage celebrated by a
clergyman who is NOT episcopally-ordained - such as a clergyman of
Dutch Calvinist Church, or some German Calvinist Church, or such a
German Lutheran Church that has no bishops?

I think the standard principle of private international law would
apply. A marriage is valid everywhere if (among other possibilities)
it is valid by the law of the place where it was celebrated. There is
no requirement that a marriage celebrated abroad should conform to
British requirements as to form, etc. I don't think a royal marriage
differs from any other in this respect. Take the Windsor case, aagin.
The marriage was also attended by the local maire, and the formalities
required by French law were observed, so that the marriage would be
valid in France. This would, in itself, have meant that it was also
valid in Britain, even if there had been no religious ceremony. In
British law, *both* ceremonies were valid to create a marriage, and
either would have done on its own. It would no doubt be frowned on for
a member of the RF to contract a completely secular marriage, but the
CofE recognises such marriage as valid, and always has. The same would
apply to a marriage (provided it was legally valid) conducted
according to the practices of some other Christian church, whether
episcaopal or not.

Post by Don Aitken
Among the British princesses married into foreign Houses, which of
them had the marriage celebrated by Anglican clergy?

Some one else will probably know the answer to that one!

Post by Don Aitken
Can a British royal, with due assent of the Sovereign-in-Council,
contract a valid marriage celebrated by a clergyman of the Church of
Scotland (who would not be episcopally ordained, either)?

Yes, as the Princess Royal did. I should have mentioned this
possibility.