Discussion:
Official rules for Royal Marriage?
(too old to reply)
Elaine Gallant
2004-10-19 04:04:22 UTC
Permalink
I want to know the rules for suitable royal marriage in the British Royal Family.
Andy.III
2004-10-19 04:34:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elaine Gallant
I want to know the rules for suitable royal marriage in the British Royal Family.
Define 'suitable'.

1). Of Legal Age
2). NOT a Catholic
3). Monarch grants permission for the Marriage*

* If no approval given then one must comply with other provision.


Andy.III
--
VOTE 2004
Defeat Reichthuglican Christofascism !!
Klaus Meyer-Cabri van Amelrode
2004-10-19 14:03:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy.III
Post by Elaine Gallant
I want to know the rules for suitable royal marriage in the British Royal Family.
Define 'suitable'.
1). Of Legal Age
2). NOT a Catholic
3). Monarch grants permission for the Marriage*
* If no approval given then one must comply with other provision.
Andy.III
Members of the royal family married catholics but they lost their
position in the succession like Prince Micheal of Kent which is the
consequence set by the law. But these marriages still require the
monarch's consent. So that is the major legal point. For further
provisions see http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/rma1772.html
Dani
2004-10-19 14:49:11 UTC
Permalink
Do they have to be a British subject or can they be from anywhere in the
world?

:)

Dani
Post by Andy.III
Post by Elaine Gallant
I want to know the rules for suitable royal marriage in the British Royal Family.
Define 'suitable'.
1). Of Legal Age
2). NOT a Catholic
3). Monarch grants permission for the Marriage*
* If no approval given then one must comply with other provision.
Andy.III
--
VOTE 2004
Defeat Reichthuglican Christofascism !!
Kelly
2004-10-19 19:51:22 UTC
Permalink
"Dani" wrote ...
Post by Dani
Do they have to be a British subject or can they be from anywhere in the
world?
Dani
Please stop top-posting (meaning start posting under the message you are
replying to). The FAQ is here. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html

Kelly
--
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
Dani
2004-10-19 20:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kelly
"Dani" wrote ...
Post by Dani
Do they have to be a British subject or can they be from anywhere in the
world?
Dani
Please stop top-posting (meaning start posting under the message you are
replying to). The FAQ is here. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
Kelly
--
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
OKAY THEN....


Do they have to be of royal blood, or from Britain or can they be from
anywhere in the world, from any background - other than roman catholic?


Geez!
Dani
Frank Johansen
2004-10-19 21:23:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dani
Do they have to be of royal blood, or from Britain or can they be from
anywhere in the world, from any background - other than roman catholic?
Have you read any of the documents people have given links to here?

I'll summarize:

1. The marriage has to be pre-apporved by HM The Queen, signified under
the Great Seal, and declared in council, to have legal effect in the UK.
If this does not happen, the marriage will not be legal, no matter what
ceremonies the couple go through.

2. If the marriage is disapproved, and if the person in question is over
25 years old, he or she can publicy declare his or hers intent to marry
anyway. If neither of both houses of parliament expressly declare their
disapproval of such intented marriage within twelve calendar months, the
couple may proceede with the wedding.

The issue of other religions is an entirely different one. A British
Royal can marry a Catholic with the approval of The Queen without any
consequence under the Royal Marriages Act. However, under the Act of
Settlement, the person in question will not be able to succeed to the
British Throne.

Regards
Frank H. Johansen
Dani
2004-10-19 21:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank Johansen
Post by Dani
Do they have to be of royal blood, or from Britain or can they be from
anywhere in the world, from any background - other than roman catholic?
Have you read any of the documents people have given links to here?
1. The marriage has to be pre-apporved by HM The Queen, signified under
the Great Seal, and declared in council, to have legal effect in the UK.
If this does not happen, the marriage will not be legal, no matter what
ceremonies the couple go through.
2. If the marriage is disapproved, and if the person in question is over
25 years old, he or she can publicy declare his or hers intent to marry
anyway. If neither of both houses of parliament expressly declare their
disapproval of such intented marriage within twelve calendar months, the
couple may proceede with the wedding.
The issue of other religions is an entirely different one. A British
Royal can marry a Catholic with the approval of The Queen without any
consequence under the Royal Marriages Act. However, under the Act of
Settlement, the person in question will not be able to succeed to the
British Throne.
Regards
Frank H. Johansen
Yes I have read through the faq and other documents posted here. They still
did not answer my question. And neither did you. hopefully the original
poster had their question answered.

Back to lurking....

Dani
Kelly
2004-10-20 01:49:15 UTC
Permalink
"Dani" wrote ...
Post by Dani
Yes I have read through the faq and other documents posted here. They still
did not answer my question. And neither did you. hopefully the original
poster had their question answered.
Back to lurking....
Dani
Your question was answered. You just had to read between the lines. There
was no mention of nationality in the rules. From that, you can assume that
there are no requirements as to nationality.

You can also look at the extended Windsor family and know that nationality
is not important. One of the descendants of The Princess Royal, Countess of
Harewood, married a Nigerian a few years back. The Queen's nephew is married
to a woman born in Ireland (not sure if she's a British or Irish national.)
The Duke of Gloucester's wife is Danish by birth. The Duke of Kent's mother
was a Greek princess. The Queen is married to a former Greek prince. Prince
Michael is married to a woman who was born in Bohemia. Obviously,
nationality doesn't matter.

Kelly
--
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
A Tsar Is Born
2004-10-20 03:01:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dani
Post by Frank Johansen
Post by Dani
Do they have to be of royal blood, or from Britain or can they be from
anywhere in the world, from any background - other than roman catholic?
Have you read any of the documents people have given links to here?
1. The marriage has to be pre-apporved by HM The Queen, signified under
the Great Seal, and declared in council, to have legal effect in the UK.
If this does not happen, the marriage will not be legal, no matter what
ceremonies the couple go through.
2. If the marriage is disapproved, and if the person in question is over
25 years old, he or she can publicy declare his or hers intent to marry
anyway. If neither of both houses of parliament expressly declare their
disapproval of such intented marriage within twelve calendar months, the
couple may proceede with the wedding.
The issue of other religions is an entirely different one. A British
Royal can marry a Catholic with the approval of The Queen without any
consequence under the Royal Marriages Act. However, under the Act of
Settlement, the person in question will not be able to succeed to the
British Throne.
Regards
Frank H. Johansen
Yes I have read through the faq and other documents posted here. They still
did not answer my question. And neither did you. hopefully the original
poster had their question answered.
Back to lurking....
Dani
Yes Frank DID answer your question.
He did so admirably.
Did the provisions he mentioned not mention being from places other than Britain?
Did the provisions he mentioned not mention being of royal blood?
Could the reason be that these things are not germane?
Then your question is answered.
What sort of answer would you have been willing to accept?

Jean Coeur de Lapin
Lisa Davidson
2004-10-20 03:43:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dani
Post by Kelly
"Dani" wrote ...
Post by Dani
Do they have to be a British subject or can they be from anywhere in the
world?
Dani
Please stop top-posting (meaning start posting under the message you are
replying to). The FAQ is here. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
Kelly
--
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
OKAY THEN....
Do they have to be of royal blood, or from Britain or can they be from
anywhere in the world, from any background - other than roman catholic?
Geez!
Dani
Okay, I am willing to answer your questions.

1. Royal Blood: Not a requirement. However, many if not all who have married
into the RF have some descent from royalty, However, having that descent does
not make you royal (Diana is an example) or a dynast.

2. British: Not a requirement. There have been many marriages between members of
the RF and non British people. Prince Philip comes to mind.

3. Background: This is a bit tougher. Most of those marrying into the RF have
been other royals or from the aristocracy. However, Edward married Sophie, a
young lady from the middle class. I think the RF would prefer that the person be
of a respectable background, I don't think any background would do.

4. Roman Catholic: This is truly an oddity of British law. Royals who marry
Roman Catholics (and mind you, they CAN marry Roman Catholics!) are barred from
the succession. However, if a royal marries a Buddhist, a Druid, or a Hare
Krishna, they would not be. In practice, they usually marry Anglicans,
Protestants, or even occasionally, Orthodox Christians, but not the religions I
mentioned above.

If you have any other questions about this, I will gladly give you direct
answers.

Lisa Davidson
Michael Rhodes
2004-10-20 13:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lisa Davidson
3. Background: This is a bit tougher. Most of those marrying into the RF have
been other royals or from the aristocracy. However, Edward married Sophie, a
young lady from the middle class.
Lisa Davidson
Sophie is however of noble ancestry and a mere fifth or sixth cousin
of Diana Princess of Wales.....let's call her upper middle class!

--

Michael
Candide
2004-10-20 16:46:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Rhodes
Post by Lisa Davidson
3. Background: This is a bit tougher. Most of those marrying into the RF have
been other royals or from the aristocracy. However, Edward married Sophie, a
young lady from the middle class.
Lisa Davidson
Sophie is however of noble ancestry and a mere fifth or sixth cousin
of Diana Princess of Wales.....let's call her upper middle class!
--
Michael
Think it is pretty safe to say the RF operates like many other wealthy
and upper class families from Europe and GB, in that they tend to move
within a certain circle. From that circle their children make friends
and choose spouses. French mothers are famous for organizing parties for
their children called "rallyes" which include those they wish their
children to associate with/marry and excluding those they do not.

Candide
Michael Rhodes
2004-10-19 23:50:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dani
Do they have to be a British subject or can they be from anywhere in the
world?
The Queen has granted permission under the Royal Marriages Act for her
relations to marry persons from Nigeria, New Zealand, &c. &c.

--


Michael
Elaine Gallant
2004-10-19 20:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andy.III
Post by Elaine Gallant
I want to know the rules for suitable royal marriage in the British Royal Family.
Define 'suitable'.
1). Of Legal Age
2). NOT a Catholic
3). Monarch grants permission for the Marriage*
* If no approval given then one must comply with other provision.
Andy.III
The intended spouse has to be of royal blood? That means only titled
nobility? Or is that only for the crown prince/princess?

What about a non titled person of royal decent?
Don Aitken
2004-10-19 21:53:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elaine Gallant
Post by Andy.III
Post by Elaine Gallant
I want to know the rules for suitable royal marriage in the British Royal Family.
Define 'suitable'.
1). Of Legal Age
2). NOT a Catholic
3). Monarch grants permission for the Marriage*
* If no approval given then one must comply with other provision.
The intended spouse has to be of royal blood?
No such rule. No member of the British RF has married another royal
since the present Queen, in 1947.
Post by Elaine Gallant
That means only titled nobility?
No such rule. The Duchess of York comes of an untitled family, as does
the Countess of Wessex, and both of the Princess Royal's husbands.

The only rules are the ones Andy set out. Family background is not of
very great importance today, although, of course, the people who are
in a position actually get to know members of the RF are more likely
then the general population to be aristocratic and/or rich. A
significant number of the families which have provided recent spouses
to the royals heve been connected with the court in some way for
several generations. An involvement with horses helps, too, since this
has been a major interest for various members of the family in recent
times.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Gidzmo
2004-10-19 22:08:46 UTC
Permalink
(from Elaine, I think) The intended spouse has to be of royal blood?
No such rule. No member of the British RF has married another Royal since the
present Queen, in 1947.
(Elaine) That means only titled nobility?
No such rule. The Duchess of York comes of an untitled family, as does
the Countess of Wessex, and both of the Princess Royal's husbands.
The only rules are the ones Andy set out. Family background is not of very
great importance today, although, of course, the people who are in a position
actually get to know members of the RF are more likely
then the general population to be aristocratic and/or rich. A significant
number of the families which have provided recent spouses to the Royals heve
been connected with the court in some way for
several generations. An involvement with horses helps, too, since this has been
a major interest for various members of the family in recent times.

*My question: isn't there an "unwritten rule" that a prospective Princess of
Wales MUST come from amongst the nobility?
Sacha
2004-10-19 22:51:51 UTC
Permalink
On 19/10/04 23:08, in article ***@mb-m03.aol.com,
"Gidzmo" <***@aol.comnojunk> wrote:
<snip>
Post by Gidzmo
*My question: isn't there an "unwritten rule" that a prospective Princess of
Wales MUST come from amongst the nobility?
No indeed. In fact, when Prince Charles became engaged to Lady Diana there
was plenty of press comment that she was a commoner and the first Princess
of Wales to be such.
In the past, it was a general but unwritten rule that royal married royal.
Princess Marina who was Duchess of Kent was very sniffy about 'those common
little Scotch girls', one of whom became Queen Elizabeth, the late Queen
Mother!
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
A Tsar Is Born
2004-10-20 03:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
<snip>
Post by Gidzmo
*My question: isn't there an "unwritten rule" that a prospective Princess of
Wales MUST come from amongst the nobility?
No indeed. In fact, when Prince Charles became engaged to Lady Diana there
was plenty of press comment that she was a commoner and the first Princess
of Wales to be such.
More of a commoner than Anne Neville or the widow Holland?

I don't think so.

Jean Coeur de Lapin
Sacha
2004-10-20 17:31:43 UTC
Permalink
On 20/10/04 4:04 am, in article
Post by A Tsar Is Born
Post by Sacha
<snip>
Post by Gidzmo
*My question: isn't there an "unwritten rule" that a prospective Princess of
Wales MUST come from amongst the nobility?
No indeed. In fact, when Prince Charles became engaged to Lady Diana there
was plenty of press comment that she was a commoner and the first Princess
of Wales to be such.
More of a commoner than Anne Neville or the widow Holland?
I don't think so.
Jean Coeur de Lapin
All I can do is tell you what was written about here in Britain and that was
the 'interest' of the time.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Joseph McMillan
2004-10-20 12:50:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
<snip>
Post by Gidzmo
*My question: isn't there an "unwritten rule" that a prospective Princess of
Wales MUST come from amongst the nobility?
No indeed. In fact, when Prince Charles became engaged to Lady Diana there
was plenty of press comment that she was a commoner and the first Princess
of Wales to be such.
This comment was always more than a little disingenuous. Yes,
technically Lady Diana Spencer was a commoner because in the UK
everyone except royals and peers are commoners. But she was titled
(*Lady* Diana Spencer) and the daughter of a hereditary peer (the 8th
Earl Spencer). Notwithstanding the formally non-noble legal status of
the children of peers, she did "come from amongst the nobility."

Joseph McMillan
Peter Tilman
2004-10-20 12:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joseph McMillan
Post by Sacha
On 19/10/04 23:08, in article
<snip>
Post by Gidzmo
*My question: isn't there an "unwritten rule" that a prospective Princess of
Wales MUST come from amongst the nobility?
No indeed. In fact, when Prince Charles became engaged to Lady Diana there
was plenty of press comment that she was a commoner and the first Princess
of Wales to be such.
This comment was always more than a little disingenuous. Yes,
technically Lady Diana Spencer was a commoner because in the UK
everyone except royals and peers are commoners.
Anyone who is not the Sovereign or a peer is a commoner, including members
of the Royal Family. (I thought the BritFAQ covered this...)
Sacha
2004-10-20 17:34:22 UTC
Permalink
On 20/10/04 1:50 pm, in article
Post by Joseph McMillan
Post by Sacha
<snip>
Post by Gidzmo
*My question: isn't there an "unwritten rule" that a prospective Princess of
Wales MUST come from amongst the nobility?
No indeed. In fact, when Prince Charles became engaged to Lady Diana there
was plenty of press comment that she was a commoner and the first Princess
of Wales to be such.
This comment was always more than a little disingenuous. Yes,
technically Lady Diana Spencer was a commoner because in the UK
everyone except royals and peers are commoners. But she was titled
(*Lady* Diana Spencer) and the daughter of a hereditary peer (the 8th
Earl Spencer). Notwithstanding the formally non-noble legal status of
the children of peers, she did "come from amongst the nobility."
Joseph McMillan
Perfectly true but the point being made was that she was non-royal. The
Queen Mother was, too but of course nobody expected her to become Queen at
the time of her marriage. Diana Spencer married the incumbent Prince of
Wales and at the time of the marriage everyone seemed to think this rather
'daring'. He had said himself, some years before, that it would be easier
to marry another royal because they would know what the job entailed.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Elaine Gallant
2004-10-20 18:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sacha
No indeed. In fact, when Prince Charles became engaged to Lady Diana there
was plenty of press comment that she was a commoner and the first Princess
of Wales to be such.
Ok... I'm still confused. She was LADY Diana at the time of her
engagement to Charles? Doesn't that mean she was titled nobility, if
minor nobility even before marriage to Charles?
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
2004-10-20 18:19:04 UTC
Permalink
news:<BD9B5917.63E7%
Post by Sacha
No indeed. In fact, when Prince Charles became engaged to Lady Diana there
was plenty of press comment that she was a commoner and the first Princess
of Wales to be such.
Ok... I'm still confused. She was LADY Diana at the time of her
engagement to Charles? Doesn't that mean she was titled nobility, if
minor nobility even before marriage to Charles?
Lady Diana Spencer was the daughter of the 8th Earl Spencer. Since she was
not a peeress in her own right, she was in British law a commoner. At the
time of her birth, she was daughter of the heir presumptive, known by
courtesy as Viscount Althorp, and she was called the Hon. Diana Spencer.
However, this is not to say that she was not an aristocrat; her family was
descended from Charles I. But that is a social distinction, not a legal
one.

Please note that even as Princess of Wales she was still a commoner in the
British legal sense.
--
Frank in Seattle

___________

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney

"I leave you now in radiant contentment"
-- "Whistling in the Dark"
Candide
2004-10-20 21:00:13 UTC
Permalink
news:<BD9B5917.63E7%
Post by Elaine Gallant
Post by Sacha
No indeed. In fact, when Prince Charles became engaged to Lady Diana there
was plenty of press comment that she was a commoner and the first Princess
of Wales to be such.
Ok... I'm still confused. She was LADY Diana at the time of her
engagement to Charles? Doesn't that mean she was titled nobility, if
minor nobility even before marriage to Charles?
For the final time, the use of "Lady" by Diana was a courtesy title she
was entitled to use as her father held a peerage. Her father was a peer,
Diana was the daughter of a peer which is not the same thing as she was
not a peer in her own right. All styles and titles Diana had before her
marriage came through her father, as Earl Spencer he was the peer/noble
person.

If one examines the Order of Precedence, there are whole separate
categories for wives, sons and daughters of peers.

Candide
Sacha
2004-10-20 21:56:22 UTC
Permalink
On 20/10/04 7:07 pm, in article
Post by Elaine Gallant
Post by Sacha
No indeed. In fact, when Prince Charles became engaged to Lady Diana there
was plenty of press comment that she was a commoner and the first Princess
of Wales to be such.
Ok... I'm still confused. She was LADY Diana at the time of her
engagement to Charles? Doesn't that mean she was titled nobility, if
minor nobility even before marriage to Charles?
It just means that as the daughter of an Earl she was called 'Lady'. The
daughter of a Duke or Marchioness would be called 'Lady' too but all are
always Lady Forename, not Lady Surname. e/g Lady Diana Spencer, not Lady
Spencer.
--
Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)
Stan Brown
2004-10-21 02:32:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elaine Gallant
Ok... I'm still confused. She was LADY Diana at the time of her
engagement to Charles? Doesn't that mean she was titled nobility, if
minor nobility even before marriage to Charles?
Look at "Is everyone in a peer's family noble?" in the BritFAQ.
http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p3-3


Seriously, I think if you read the FAQ you would have more of a
sense of satisfaction than asking your questions piecemeal, because
you'd have some context to fit everything into.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Elaine Gallant
2004-10-21 07:42:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Elaine Gallant
Ok... I'm still confused. She was LADY Diana at the time of her
engagement to Charles? Doesn't that mean she was titled nobility, if
minor nobility even before marriage to Charles?
Look at "Is everyone in a peer's family noble?" in the BritFAQ.
http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p3-3
Seriously, I think if you read the FAQ you would have more of a
sense of satisfaction than asking your questions piecemeal, because
you'd have some context to fit everything into.
Yes, I have had the chance to examine
http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p3-3. VERY interesting
stuff, and exatly what I wanted to know. Thank you for posting it.
John Horton
2004-10-21 11:57:39 UTC
Permalink
Elaine Gallant<***@yahoo.com> 20/10/04 19:07:33 >>>

:Sacha <***@weedsgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message news:<BD9B5917.63E7%
:> No indeed. In fact, when Prince Charles became engaged to Lady Diana there
:> was plenty of press comment that she was a commoner and the first Princess
:> of Wales to be such.

:Ok... I'm still confused. She was LADY Diana at the time of her
engagement to Charles? Doesn't that mean she was titled nobility, if
minor nobility even before marriage to Charles?

"Lady" in this context is a courtesy title and not a substantive one.
Don Aitken
2004-10-19 23:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
(from Elaine, I think) The intended spouse has to be of royal blood?
No such rule. No member of the British RF has married another Royal since the
present Queen, in 1947.
(Elaine) That means only titled nobility?
No such rule. The Duchess of York comes of an untitled family, as does
the Countess of Wessex, and both of the Princess Royal's husbands.
The only rules are the ones Andy set out. Family background is not of very
great importance today, although, of course, the people who are in a position
actually get to know members of the RF are more likely
then the general population to be aristocratic and/or rich. A significant
number of the families which have provided recent spouses to the Royals heve
been connected with the court in some way for
several generations. An involvement with horses helps, too, since this has been
a major interest for various members of the family in recent times.
*My question: isn't there an "unwritten rule" that a prospective Princess of
Wales MUST come from amongst the nobility?
This is really unanswerable. There has been precisely *one* marriage
of a Prince, or prospective Prince, of Wales in the last hundred
years. Attitudes undoubtedly have changed since the future George V
married in 1893, and one example doesn't make a rule, written or
unwritten. The outcome in that case doesn't inspire enormous
confidence in nobility as a criterion, either.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Candide
2004-10-19 23:33:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Don Aitken
(from Elaine, I think) The intended spouse has to be of royal blood?
No such rule. No member of the British RF has married another Royal since the
present Queen, in 1947.
(Elaine) That means only titled nobility?
No such rule. The Duchess of York comes of an untitled family, as does
the Countess of Wessex, and both of the Princess Royal's husbands.
The only rules are the ones Andy set out. Family background is not of very
great importance today, although, of course, the people who are in a position
actually get to know members of the RF are more likely
then the general population to be aristocratic and/or rich. A
significant
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Don Aitken
number of the families which have provided recent spouses to the Royals heve
been connected with the court in some way for
several generations. An involvement with horses helps, too, since this has been
a major interest for various members of the family in recent times.
*My question: isn't there an "unwritten rule" that a prospective Princess of
Wales MUST come from amongst the nobility?
This is really unanswerable. There has been precisely *one* marriage
of a Prince, or prospective Prince, of Wales in the last hundred
years. Attitudes undoubtedly have changed since the future George V
married in 1893, and one example doesn't make a rule, written or
unwritten. The outcome in that case doesn't inspire enormous
confidence in nobility as a criterion, either.
Don't think there ever was a written rule that a prospective princess of
Wales come from either a royal or noble family, just unwritten codes
that developed during particular era's to keep bloodlines "pure".

The last PofW, later Edward VIII certainly could have chosen from a long
list of women royal, noble or commoner. What his father, George V would
have said about the choice and weather or not HM would given his consent
is another matter.

Candide
Don Aitken
2004-10-19 23:54:18 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:33:15 -0400, "Candide"
Post by Gidzmo
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
*My question: isn't there an "unwritten rule" that a prospective
Princess of
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
Wales MUST come from amongst the nobility?
This is really unanswerable. There has been precisely *one* marriage
of a Prince, or prospective Prince, of Wales in the last hundred
years. Attitudes undoubtedly have changed since the future George V
married in 1893, and one example doesn't make a rule, written or
unwritten. The outcome in that case doesn't inspire enormous
confidence in nobility as a criterion, either.
Don't think there ever was a written rule that a prospective princess of
Wales come from either a royal or noble family, just unwritten codes
that developed during particular era's to keep bloodlines "pure".
The last PofW, later Edward VIII certainly could have chosen from a long
list of women royal, noble or commoner. What his father, George V would
have said about the choice and weather or not HM would given his consent
is another matter.
I suspect that, towards the end of his life, George V would have given
his consent like a shot if David had shown the slightest interest in
any woman who wasn't actually marrried to someone else - but he never
did.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Candide
2004-10-20 01:27:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 19:33:15 -0400, "Candide"
Post by Gidzmo
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
*My question: isn't there an "unwritten rule" that a prospective
Princess of
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
Wales MUST come from amongst the nobility?
This is really unanswerable. There has been precisely *one*
marriage
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Gidzmo
Post by Don Aitken
of a Prince, or prospective Prince, of Wales in the last hundred
years. Attitudes undoubtedly have changed since the future George V
married in 1893, and one example doesn't make a rule, written or
unwritten. The outcome in that case doesn't inspire enormous
confidence in nobility as a criterion, either.
Don't think there ever was a written rule that a prospective princess of
Wales come from either a royal or noble family, just unwritten codes
that developed during particular era's to keep bloodlines "pure".
The last PofW, later Edward VIII certainly could have chosen from a long
list of women royal, noble or commoner. What his father, George V would
have said about the choice and weather or not HM would given his consent
is another matter.
I suspect that, towards the end of his life, George V would have given
his consent like a shot if David had shown the slightest interest in
any woman who wasn't actually marrried to someone else - but he never
did.
*LOL*, though the same exact thing! Of course Queen Mary may have
had something to say on the matter.

Candide
Andy.III
2004-10-20 01:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
*My question: isn't there an "unwritten rule" that a prospective Princess of
Wales MUST come from amongst the nobility?
In Britain the only nobility are the actual holders of Peerages (families of
holdres are not noble); so unless they actually marry a Peeress in her own
right ( and I can't remember the last time THAT happened-mayge Anne Bolyn?)
there will be bo marriage with nobility.

The aristocracy are a far wider class abd it would usually be this class that
provides consosrts simply because they are more likely to meet the royals,


Andy.III
--
VOTE 2004
Defeat Reichthuglican Christofascism !!
Stan Brown
2004-10-19 12:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elaine Gallant
I want to know the rules for suitable royal marriage in the British Royal Family.
See the Royal Marriages Act in the BritFAQ.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Candide
2004-10-20 01:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Elaine Gallant
I want to know the rules for suitable royal marriage in the British Royal Family.
See the Royal Marriages Act in the BritFAQ.
Here's one:

Is there any truth to the rumour that a future pss of Wales must be
"proven" virgin? Would her parents word that the lady in question is
intact as God made her enough, or must some sort of medical exam
required.

Seem to recall stories that Diana was either examined or a detailed
inquiry launched to assure that she was indeed a virgin.


Candide
RCLOVELY
2004-10-20 07:06:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Candide
Seem to recall stories that Diana was either examined or a detailed
inquiry launched to assure that she was indeed a virgin.
I think the future Princess of Wales had a routine Gynecological examination
and Pap smear before her wedding, as any woman should who is about to become
sexually active. This might be closer to the truth.

RC
Will
2004-10-20 13:03:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elaine Gallant
I want to know the rules for suitable royal marriage in the British Royal Family.
Oh, you do, do you? Here are some other rules: "Please," "Could
anyone help me find. . ?" "Thank you," etc.

Harrumph.

WH
Crown-Horned Snorkack
2004-10-21 13:03:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elaine Gallant
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
2004-10-21 15:48:39 UTC
Permalink
<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
2004-10-21 16:20:48 UTC
Permalink
"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
2004-10-21 16:34:53 UTC
Permalink
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
2004-10-21 19:08:19 UTC
Permalink
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
2004-10-21 19:32:40 UTC
Permalink
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
2004-11-28 00:45:25 UTC
Permalink
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
2004-10-21 16:15:23 UTC
Permalink
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.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Oliver T
2004-10-22 06:10:24 UTC
Permalink
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
2004-10-22 08:43:16 UTC
Permalink
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.
--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.
Don Aitken
2004-10-22 17:16:39 UTC
Permalink
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.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Oliver T
2004-10-22 17:29:50 UTC
Permalink
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
2004-10-22 17:46:47 UTC
Permalink
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.
--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.
Don Aitken
2004-10-22 19:02:37 UTC
Permalink
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".
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Oliver T
2004-10-23 06:13:14 UTC
Permalink
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
2004-10-23 10:11:57 UTC
Permalink
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.
--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.
Don Aitken
2004-10-23 15:27:12 UTC
Permalink
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.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Dave Mayall
2004-10-22 14:20:58 UTC
Permalink
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
2004-10-23 17:52:47 UTC
Permalink
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
2004-10-23 18:42:57 UTC
Permalink
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

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Don Aitken
2004-10-21 18:50:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by Elaine Gallant
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

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Don Aitken
2004-10-21 20:13:13 UTC
Permalink
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.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Gillian White
2004-10-22 04:32:00 UTC
Permalink
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
2004-10-22 17:17:52 UTC
Permalink
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.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Stan Brown
2004-10-23 00:10:37 UTC
Permalink
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.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Don Aitken
2004-10-23 00:36:16 UTC
Permalink
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.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Crown-Horned Snorkack
2004-10-23 13:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by Elaine Gallant
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
2004-10-23 16:37:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Don Aitken
Post by Crown-Horned Snorkack
Post by Elaine Gallant
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.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Stan Brown
2004-10-23 23:09:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
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.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe this is a matter of
international law. My understanding -- and I stand ready for a Real
Lawyer to contradict me -- is that a marriage is recognized in
country X only by the domestic law of country X. I don't believe
there's any principle of international law corresponding to the full
faith and credit" provision of the US Constitution that applies
between states of the US. Again, I could be wrong and would welcome
correction from someone with greater knowledge.

Many (probably most) countries do specify that a marriage is valid
in country X if it was valid in the country where celebrated and at
least one participant was subject to that country's jurisdiction at
the time. But countries do make exceptions. or instance, I'll bet
you dollars to donuts that two men or two women, Netherlands
citizens even, who are married legally in the Netherlands aren't
considered spouses while visiting the US. (This could be significant
if one falls sick and the other seeks access to him or her in the
hospital.)
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Don Aitken
2004-10-24 01:33:45 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:09:46 -0400, Stan Brown
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Don Aitken
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.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe this is a matter of
international law. My understanding -- and I stand ready for a Real
Lawyer to contradict me -- is that a marriage is recognized in
country X only by the domestic law of country X. I don't believe
there's any principle of international law corresponding to the full
faith and credit" provision of the US Constitution that applies
between states of the US. Again, I could be wrong and would welcome
correction from someone with greater knowledge.
"Private international law" is a piece of lawyer's shorthand for the
field also known as "conflict of laws". It is not the same thing as
"public international law" which is the law applied to relations
between states, but describes the rule applied by the courts of a
particular jurisdiction to decide what law should be applied to decide
the issue before them.
Post by Stan Brown
Many (probably most) countries do specify that a marriage is valid
in country X if it was valid in the country where celebrated and at
least one participant was subject to that country's jurisdiction at
the time.
There is an international convention on the subject, the provisions of
which are applied by the great majority of countries. This specifies
that a marriage to be regarded as valid if it is so by the law of the
country where it is celebrated, *or* by the country in which *either*
party is domiciled or habitually resident, *or* any country of which
either party is a national. The "lex loci celebrationis" principle is
by far the oldest, and has been generally applied since the 17th
century, as least.
Post by Stan Brown
But countries do make exceptions. or instance, I'll bet
you dollars to donuts that two men or two women, Netherlands
citizens even, who are married legally in the Netherlands aren't
considered spouses while visiting the US. (This could be significant
if one falls sick and the other seeks access to him or her in the
hospital.)
Certainly. Countries are allowed to make exceptions on "public policy"
grounds. The UK, for example, does not recognise marriages in which
the parties are not one male and one female. Nor does it recognise
marriages to which both parties have not explicitly given their
consent, nor polygamous marriages.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Stan Brown
2004-10-24 02:39:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
The UK, for example, does not recognise marriages in which
the parties are not one male and one female.
Isn't it obligated to recognize any marriage that is validly
contracted in an EU country?
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Don Aitken
2004-10-24 02:59:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:39:25 -0400, Stan Brown
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Don Aitken
The UK, for example, does not recognise marriages in which
the parties are not one male and one female.
Isn't it obligated to recognize any marriage that is validly
contracted in an EU country?
No. This is not one of the areas that are being "harmonised", at least
so far. The EU still retains enough of its origins as an *economic*
union that it concerns itslf primarily with economic matters, which
includes anything relevant to employment rights, but not matters of
pure personal status, such as marriage.
--
Don Aitken

Mail to the addresses given in the headers is no longer being
read. To mail me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com".
Graham Murray
2004-10-24 07:32:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
No. This is not one of the areas that are being "harmonised", at least
so far. The EU still retains enough of its origins as an *economic*
union that it concerns itslf primarily with economic matters, which
includes anything relevant to employment rights, but not matters of
pure personal status, such as marriage.
But surely recognition of marriage can have an economic effect. For
example, if a couple are married in one country and living in another
and one dies then do (at least in English/Welsh law) the rights of the
survivor not depend on whether or not the state recognizes the
marriage?
Guy Stair Sainty
2004-10-24 12:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Don Aitken
On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 19:09:46 -0400, Stan Brown
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Don Aitken
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.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe this is a matter of
international law. My understanding -- and I stand ready for a Real
Lawyer to contradict me -- is that a marriage is recognized in
country X only by the domestic law of country X. I don't believe
there's any principle of international law corresponding to the full
faith and credit" provision of the US Constitution that applies
between states of the US. Again, I could be wrong and would welcome
correction from someone with greater knowledge.
"Private international law" is a piece of lawyer's shorthand for the
field also known as "conflict of laws". It is not the same thing as
"public international law" which is the law applied to relations
between states, but describes the rule applied by the courts of a
particular jurisdiction to decide what law should be applied to decide
the issue before them.
Post by Stan Brown
Many (probably most) countries do specify that a marriage is valid
in country X if it was valid in the country where celebrated and at
least one participant was subject to that country's jurisdiction at
the time.
There is an international convention on the subject, the provisions of
which are applied by the great majority of countries. This specifies
that a marriage to be regarded as valid if it is so by the law of the
country where it is celebrated, *or* by the country in which *either*
party is domiciled or habitually resident, *or* any country of which
either party is a national. The "lex loci celebrationis" principle is
by far the oldest, and has been generally applied since the 17th
century, as least.
Post by Stan Brown
But countries do make exceptions. or instance, I'll bet
you dollars to donuts that two men or two women, Netherlands
citizens even, who are married legally in the Netherlands aren't
considered spouses while visiting the US. (This could be significant
if one falls sick and the other seeks access to him or her in the
hospital.)
Certainly. Countries are allowed to make exceptions on "public policy"
grounds. The UK, for example, does not recognise marriages in which
the parties are not one male and one female. Nor does it recognise
marriages to which both parties have not explicitly given their
consent, nor polygamous marriages.
The duke of Sussex case hinged on the validity of the marriage that took
place in Rome, celebrated by an Anglican priest. This did not accord with
the law of the Roman State, which did not recognize the validity of
a marriage celebrated by a non-Catholic priest in Rome.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Stan Brown
2004-10-24 02:38:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stan Brown
Post by Don Aitken
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.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't believe this is a matter of
international law.
I've posted a query to misc.legal.moderated under the subject
"Marriage and private international law".
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Royalty FAQs:
1. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html
2. http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/atrfaq.htm
Yvonne's HRH page: http://users.uniserve.com/~canyon/prince.html
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/faqget.htm
Gidzmo
2004-10-21 22:56:46 UTC
Permalink
A marriage not celebrated under RMA, even to a Papist, has no effect on
inheritance rights, which is precisely what happened to George IV.

No inheritance rights on the Royal in question--but the children resulting from
such a marriage would be ineligible to succeed to the Crown.

Look at William IV (George IV's younger brother)--ten children by another woman
before he married Adelaide of Saxe-Meningen. I don't know if Dorothy Jordan
(the mother) was a Roman Catholic.

But the children from the relationship had no succession rights to the Crown.
Thus, the succession (at that point, minus a few brothers) was:
a) George IV
b) William IV (then Duke of Clarence)
c) the Duke of Kent
d) Princess (later Queen) Victoria

William's children were given the surname of Fizclarence. IIRC, the eldest was
given the title of Earl of Munster (which might be still in existence).

The same prohibition applies to children born outside of marriage (the Earl of
Harewood's family comes to mind here--several of that family cannot succeed to
the title).
Louis Epstein
2004-10-22 03:44:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
A marriage not celebrated under RMA, even to a Papist, has no effect on
inheritance rights, which is precisely what happened to George IV.
No inheritance rights on the Royal in question--but the children resulting
from such a marriage would be ineligible to succeed to the Crown.
Look at William IV (George IV's younger brother)--ten children by another
woman before he married Adelaide of Saxe-Meningen. I don't know if
Dorothy Jordan (the mother) was a Roman Catholic.
But the children from the relationship had no succession rights to the Crown.
a) George IV
b) William IV (then Duke of Clarence)
c) the Duke of Kent
d) Princess (later Queen) Victoria
This of course was never the line at any time.
The Duke of York(1763-1827) came between George IV and
William IV until his death,while the Duke of Kent died
just before George IV acceded in January 1820.

Note that Princess Elizabeth,daughter of Willian IV by
his lawful wife,was born and died after Victoria,so during
her three-month life she was next after her father (still
then behind the Duke of York).
Post by Gidzmo
William's children were given the surname of Fizclarence. IIRC, the
eldest was given the title of Earl of Munster (which might be still in
existence).
Extinct in recent years.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.
Gidzmo
2004-10-22 23:05:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
No inheritance rights on the Royal in question--but the children resulting
from such a marriage would be ineligible to succeed to the Crown.

A small clarification: the inheritance RIGHTS of the Royal in question are not
affected by a marriage outside of the RMA (except, perhaps, if the spouse is a
Roman Catholic).

However, the CHILDREN of that Royal have no succession rights to the Crown.

It is a similar situation for a peer who has children outside of marriage: the
children in question have no succession rights to their father's title.

Hence, William IV's children by Dorothy Jordan were given the name of
FitzClarence (William being the Duke of Clarence at that time).
Crown-Horned Snorkack
2004-10-23 12:49:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gidzmo
Post by Gidzmo
No inheritance rights on the Royal in question--but the children resulting
from such a marriage would be ineligible to succeed to the Crown.
A small clarification: the inheritance RIGHTS of the Royal in question are not
affected by a marriage outside of the RMA (except, perhaps, if the spouse is a
Roman Catholic).
No. Emphatically not even then. A marriage to a Papist outside RMA is
null and void, so the royal spouse can still accede to the Throne
and/or marry under RMA another woman without being divorced, annulled
or widowed. George IV did both.
Post by Gidzmo
However, the CHILDREN of that Royal have no succession rights to the Crown.
It is a similar situation for a peer who has children outside of marriage: the
children in question have no succession rights to their father's title.
Hence, William IV's children by Dorothy Jordan were given the name of
FitzClarence (William being the Duke of Clarence at that time).
popovic a
2004-10-24 06:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Yes - and because the children of ex‘Crown Prince' Alexander of
Serbia/ Karadjordjevic are not in communion with church of England
they are as well not in line to British Throne and as children of
non-Orthodox mother they cannot be in line to Throne of Serbia. Next
in line is Prince Nicholas Karadjordjevic both for thrones of UK and
Serbia
Anne
2004-10-24 11:25:32 UTC
Permalink
Yes - and because the children of ex'Crown Prince' Alexander of
Serbia/ Karadjordjevic are not in communion with church of England
they are as well not in line to British Throne and as children of
non-Orthodox mother they cannot be in line to Throne of Serbia. Next
in line is Prince Nicholas Karadjordjevic both for thrones of UK and
Serbia
Why are they excluded from the succession in the UK and Commonwealth? Have
they been raised in the Roman Catholic Church? If not, they remain in the
succession
popovic a
2004-10-24 23:03:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anne
Yes - and because the children of ex'Crown Prince' Alexander of
Serbia/ Karadjordjevic are not in communion with church of England
they are as well not in line to British Throne and as children of
non-Orthodox mother they cannot be in line to Throne of Serbia. Next
in line is Prince Nicholas Karadjordjevic both for thrones of UK and
Serbia
Why are they excluded from the succession in the UK and Commonwealth? Have
they been raised in the Roman Catholic Church? If not, they remain in the
succession
The grandson of Duke of Kent is only in the succession if he is in
communion with church of england. This is the same. But this does not
matter, none of the son of ex-crown prince want the throne and none is
in army of fatherland like the officer cadet Prince Djordje (George)
Gidzmo
2004-10-27 23:07:51 UTC
Permalink
The grandson of the Duke of Kent is only in the succession if he is in
communion with the Church of England.

The succession order in the Kent family:
22) HRH the Duke of Kent (b. 1935)

*the Earl of St. Andrews (excluded/m. a Roman Catholic)
*Baron Downpatrick (excluded/converted
to Roman Church)
23) Lady Marina Windsor (b. 1992)
24) Lady Amelia Windsor (b. 1995)

*Lord Nicholas Windsor (excluded/converted to Roman Church)

25) Lady Helen Taylor (b. 1964)
26) Columbus Taylor (b. 1994)
27) Cassius Taylor (b. 1996)
28) Eloise Taylor (b. 2003)

*HRH Prince Michael (excluded/m. a Roman Catholic)
29) Lord Frederick Windsor (b.1979)
30) Lady Gabriella Windsor (b. 1981)

31) HRH Princess Alexandra (b. 1936)
32) James Ogilvy (b. 1964)
33) Alexander Ogilvy (b. 1996)
34) Flora Ogilvy (b. 1994)
35) Marina Ogilvy (b. 1966)
36) Christian Mowatt (b. 1993)
37) Zenouska Mowatt (b. 1990)
Guy Stair Sainty
2004-10-24 13:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by popovic a
Yes - and because the children of ex‘Crown Prince' Alexander of
Serbia/ Karadjordjevic are not in communion with church of England
they are as well not in line to British Throne and as children of
non-Orthodox mother they cannot be in line to Throne of Serbia. Next
in line is Prince Nicholas Karadjordjevic both for thrones of UK and
Serbia
Nonsense. The children of Crown Prince Alexander not being Roman Catholics
nor married to Roman Catholics retain their position in the British "line of
succession". It is irrelevant that they subscribe to the Orthodox faith. It
is completely false that they are excluded from the succession by being the
issue of a non-Orthodox mother; there is nothing in either the constitution
nor the laws of the Royal House to suggest this. In fact Princess Margarita
of Baden, first wife of Prince Tomislav, was not Orthodox (and neither was
his 2nd wife at the time of their marriage); neither was Princess Christina of
Hesse, first wife of Prince Andrew and mother of Prince Christopher, and
neither is Princess Maria Pia of Savoy, first wife of Prince Alexander
and mother of Princes Dimitri, Michael and Serge, nor his second wife, Princess
Barbara of Liechtenstein, mother of Prince Dushan.

It is evident from your postings on the subject of HRH Crown Prince Alexander
that you are trying to make a political point in a rather heavy handed
fashion, by exaggerating every negative media story and ignoring the many
positive things the Crown prince has done. Meanwhile you seem to believe that
the royal succession is a popularity contest, with different princes wheeling
out teams of advocates on their behalf to try and undermine the position of the
Crown Prince. If it is your hope - or the hope of any of these diverse
groups - that the Serbian Monarchy should be restored, then history demonstrates
that you are going about it the worst possible way. The fact
that the Crown prince is the only son and heir of the last King is an undis-
putable fact. That the late King's brothers and nephews, as well as the son
and even the daughter (involved for many years in a "self-styled" Order
of Saint John) of Prince Regent Paul, are extremely ambitious and are not
only keen to get their hands on whatever funds of the family they are able,
but obtain any prestige or advantage they can because of their birth, does
little to recommend them. Prince Karl Vladimir, son of the late Prince Andrew,
a former London underground employee, has established himself as head of one
of the most notorious "self-styled" Orders of Saint John. None of these
people have done anything to recommend their candidature for the throne, even
if it was a popularity contest.

All this merely places in question whether a royal restoration is going to be
a unifying force, and therefore undermines one of the central justifications
for such a course of action.

Obviously those who oppose any monarchical restoration must be delighted at
the services you are doing to their cause.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
popovic a
2004-10-24 22:40:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
that you are going about it the worst possible way. The fact
that the Crown prince is the only son and heir of the last King is an undis-
putable fact. That the late King's brothers and nephews, as well as the son
and even the daughter (involved for many years in a "self-styled" Order
of Saint John) of Prince Regent Paul, are extremely ambitious and are not
only keen to get their hands on whatever funds of the family they are able,
but obtain any prestige or advantage they can because of their birth, does
little to recommend them. Prince Karl Vladimir, son of the late Prince Andrew,
a former London underground employee, has established himself as head of one
of the most notorious "self-styled" Orders of Saint John. None of these
people have done anything to recommend their candidature for the throne, even
if it was a popularity contest.
All this merely places in question whether a royal restoration is going to be
a unifying force, and therefore undermines one of the central justifications
for such a course of action.
This is the right way, the campaign for the crown by ex-King
Aleksandar is dead in water. He will never be chose so he must be
remove in the interest of dynasty. When Serbian people need him he
hide in London and only come when he can have luxury and safety. When
he come he make scandal like abuse the Serbian Olympic team, the coach
and press. He make public spetakl by shitting in his pants in carpark
of Aleksandar resteraunt in Aranjelovac. His wife and assistant have
to wash him with hose in public! This is not exagerate press report
but the fact.

Ex-Crown Prince is finish. The son and daughter of Regent Pavle say
so, they are highly popular and respected peoples. Serbian peoples see
that no dynast will have contact with ex-crown Prince who have lost
all the authority and is like the clown from the circus.

Every dynast will tell that to have ex-crown prince will not be
unifying but disaster for Serbia and will campaign to save the country
from his.

The Royal Highness Prince Vladimir is correct in all he say and make
excellent interview in NIN where he tel full truth about the
Crown-Prince and is the Serbian hero with the look of the
Karadjordjevic.
popovic a
2004-10-24 23:14:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
In fact Princess Margarita
of Baden, first wife of Prince Tomislav, was not Orthodox (and neither was
his 2nd wife at the time of their marriage); neither was Princess Christina of
Hesse, first wife of Prince Andrew and mother of Prince Christopher, and
neither is Princess Maria Pia of Savoy, first wife of Prince Alexander
and mother of Princes Dimitri, Michael and Serge, nor his second wife, Princess Barbara of Liechtenstein, mother of Prince Dushan.
Nonesense. None of these peoples is Catholic except Maria Pia whose
sons do not wish to be king. All speak regularly with Prince Vladimir.
2nd wife from Pince Tomislav become Orthodox BEFORE her wedding and
only her sons for this reason are from mother and father of Orthodox.
She live full time in Belgrade in Royal residence and her son Prince
George is the Officer cadet in army of fatherland which shows ex-crown
prince's sons who do not live here and is not interested in throne and
make him unpopular without press truth about his behaviour.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
All this merely places in question whether a royal restoration is going to be
a unifying force, and therefore undermines one of the central justifications
for such a course of action.
Nonesense. It cannot be the unifying because ex-crown prince is in war
with whole family, no one support him. He have no authority and he is
stopping any chance for restoration. Royal Family of Serbia reject him
in the interest of crown and dynasty and make it public because no one
in Serbia support him all will be finished if they support man who
make manaic air rage attack on the Serbian heros and other non-stop
skandal and whose wife Mrs Karadjordjevic is not like by anyone.
Guy Stair Sainty
2004-10-25 13:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by popovic a
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
In fact Princess Margarita
of Baden, first wife of Prince Tomislav, was not Orthodox (and neither was
his 2nd wife at the time of their marriage); neither was Princess Christina of
Hesse, first wife of Prince Andrew and mother of Prince Christopher, and
neither is Princess Maria Pia of Savoy, first wife of Prince Alexander
and mother of Princes Dimitri, Michael and Serge, nor his second wife, Princess
Barbara of Liechtenstein, mother of Prince Dushan.
Nonesense. None of these peoples is Catholic except Maria Pia whose
sons do not wish to be king. All speak regularly with Prince Vladimir.
Being the issue of a Catholic mother who has married according to the
laws of the Orthodox Church is no more disqualifying than being a
protestant. Princess Margarethe of Baden was nor Orthodox, now was the
frist wife of Prince Andrew. Was Princess Kira of Leiningen Orthodox?
Post by popovic a
2nd wife from Pince Tomislav become Orthodox BEFORE her wedding and
only her sons for this reason are from mother and father of Orthodox.
She live full time in Belgrade in Royal residence and her son Prince
George is the Officer cadet in army of fatherland which shows ex-crown
prince's sons who do not live here and is not interested in throne and
make him unpopular without press truth about his behaviour.
Post by Guy Stair Sainty
All this merely places in question whether a royal restoration is going to be
a unifying force, and therefore undermines one of the central justifications
for such a course of action.
Nonesense. It cannot be the unifying because ex-crown prince is in war
with whole family, no one support him. He have no authority and he is
stopping any chance for restoration. Royal Family of Serbia reject him
in the interest of crown and dynasty and make it public because no one
in Serbia support him all will be finished if they support man who
make manaic air rage attack on the Serbian heros and other non-stop
skandal and whose wife Mrs Karadjordjevic is not like by anyone.
--
Guy Stair Sainty
www.chivalricorders.org/index3.htm
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...