Talk:Royal Marriages Act 1772

message: I think we need to amend "excluding descendants of princesses who marry foreigners" to foreign royal families - as that is the normal way the wording of the act is understood. Act text reads "other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families)"Alci12
:Really?  Do the descendants of Princess Caroline Mathilde of Saxe-Coburg and Peter Schnirring apply for royal permission?  john k 16:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

message: This article is specifically about the Royal Marriages Act 1772. I've had to remove large chunks of material that have nothing to do with this piece of legislation.  Can all editors please stick to the topic.  This article is about a specific piece of British legislation and its effects. Indisciplined (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Off-topic

message: The article mentions the House of Hanover (suspended Dukes of Cumberland and Teviotdale) continuing to seek (and be granted) permission to marry under the Act. Has the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (suspended Dukes of Albany) not done so? Does this mean that the Dukedom of Albany (together with the Earldom of Clarence and Barony of Arklow) should now be considered extinct, rather than suspended, since there would presumably be no legitimate heirs (the marriages that would otherwise have produced such heirs being voided under British law (although of course not German law) by the Act)? Proteus (Talk) 13:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And, on the other hand, is there an EU provision requiring the United Kingdom to recognize marriages between German citizens legal in Germany? I have no idea.  But all this is speculation; to say anything, we need a source. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if there is such an EU provision, it would need to be retroactive to World War I, which is when the Dukes of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha both stopped being Dukes of Albany and, unlike the Hanovers, stopped requesting permission of British sovereigns to marry pursuant to the RMA. FactStraight (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the question is essentially an academic one.  The titles were suspended during WWI as part of anti-German mania, but presumably with a view to their revival after the war, which they never were.  The distinction between "suspended" and "extinct" is thus minimal.  The objective of getting consent under RMA may have been politeness to the head of the family or to retain a place in the order of succession to the British throne, but that is only my guess.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Titles Deprivation Act 1917 was passed during the war, but the selection of affected titles was not made until after the war. —Tamfang (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I don't think the difference is academic or "minimal": Failure of Charles Leopold, 2nd Duke of Albany to request and obtain royal assent from the British sovereign prior to his marriage means that his descendants, legitimate and dynastic in Germany, are not only excluded from the succession to the British crown (a small loss given their distant place in line) but also from inheriting the dukedom forever since his sons were deemed illegitimate in British law. That does, indeed, render the dukedom extinct. But the memoirs of Viktoria Luise of Prussia, Duchess of Brunswick refer to the fact that when she became engaged to the Hanoverian heir in 1913 the couple were expected to wed in what the Guelphs called "the English way", i.e. only after the marriage received the official approval of the British monarch. That tradition persists to this day, which is why when Caroline, Hereditary Princess of Monaco became the second wife of the present Duke of Brunswick in 1999, the formal permission of Elizabeth II through an Order-in-Council was solicited and obtained (as was that of the President of France, pursuant to the 1918 Franco-Monegasque Treaty). Because that permission has been sought and granted generation after generation, not only have the Hanovers retained their (admittedly remote) place in succession to the UK crown, but they retain their legal claim to bring the Dukedom of Cumberland and Teviotdale out of dormancy. Although Duke Ernst August has publicly stated that he does not intend to petition for restoration of the peerage, his descendants will have the right to do so at any future time. That "right" is not "extinct" because it is not contingent: neither the approval of the monarch nor of Parliament is necessary for the dukedom to be claimed -- all that is required is that an official finding be made that the rightful heir to the peerage "is well affected to"  (not "a loyal subject of" "His Majesty’s Person and Government" -- a very low threshhold for any future claimant. I'd be surprised if some future Duke of Brunswick doesn't eventually also become Duke of Cumberland. FactStraight (talk) 06:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And as to whether the difference between "extinct" and "suspended" is academic - it would presumably affect whether the Dukedom (and its subsidiary titles) are available for regrant. Arklow is obviously irrelevant, as it's now in the Republic of Ireland and so wouldn't be regranted, but Albany and Clarence are both royal titles with long pedigrees that it would seem a shame to halt if they're not actually unavailable. And as for my suggestion being original research, we currently state the opposite position (that the titles could be restored on petition) without a legal source, and in any event we seem perfectly happy to exclude people from the line of succession to the throne by the application of logic to known principles, so why not to lesser dignities like peerages? Proteus (Talk) 12:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. FactStraight (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

text: The Duke of Albany did obtain consent from Edward VII to marry; see here. His children didn't, though. Opera hat (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I must have checked that when rewriting Duke of Albany, because I've listed his sons as legitimate and so entitled to apply for restoration. (Presumably because we list that permission on this article.) Proteus (Talk) 11:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text:  A principle older than the EU rule (if any) has been invoked in Jacobite succession#Alicia.  The present holder of the Jacobite claim is descended through a marriage that was legal in Sardinia and therefore recognized as valid in Britain even though it would not be legal if performed in Britain.  Does the RMA override this rule?  —Tamfang (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the Jacobite claim has many more hurdles to worry about than just the RMA.LarryJeff (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sure, but in speculation like this we take precedents where we find 'em! —Tamfang (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

text: This article states: "It had been claimed that the marriage of Prince Augustus had been legal in Ireland and Hanover but the Committee of Privileges of the House of Lords ruled (in the Sussex Peerage Case), 9 July 1844, that the Act incapacitated the descendants of George II from contracting a legal marriage without the consent of the Crown, either within the British dominions or elsewhere." So it would seem the answer is "yes". (Quite logical, really. If the restrictions could be avoided simply by hopping over the Channel and getting married in France, the Act would be rendered rather a lame duck.) Proteus (Talk) 11:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Dukedom of Albany

message: : The Royal Marriages Act of 1772 ... prescribes the conditions under which members of the British Royal Family may contract a valid marriage and provides stringent safeguards against any marriage that could have the potential to affect the succession to the throne or diminish the status of the Royal House.
As written, this implies that no dynastic marriage is allowed!  The and in the sentence also implies that the Act contains two or more independent restrictions, while the next section says it has just one restriction (royal consent) and two exceptions to that restriction. —Tamfang (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewrite lede 

message: Worth adding a section?
* James Lascelles, second and third marriages.
* Sophie Lascelles, 
and others? Bazj (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consent not applied for 

message: We have sources for every marriage on the list except for Charles and Diana, the most important one given that if they did not have permission then William and Harry can not succeed to the throne... I tried to search the London Gazette website but could not find it (although I did find a royal proclamation for a coin commemorating their wedding in the 12 June 1981 gazette,  so presumably permission was granted). I have tried the National Archives, also without success. Does anyone else have any ideas? Richard75 (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I too find it very odd that the date of the consent and its text are both unknown. I'm surprised there hasn't been any conspiracy theory already. Imagine the line skipping Charles's children and the future grandchild. Princess Beatrice of York as the future monarch, anyone? Surtsicna (talk) 22:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have written to the Privy Council Office to ask them. Richard75 (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: They have kindly replied to say: "We do not have any record available as to the omission of the consent in the London Gazette, but I can confirm that consent was given by Her Majesty in Council on 27th March 1981." Richard75 (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles and Diana 

message: One Glaring ommision on the list appears to be that oF Queen Victoria and prince Albert.
I have found an extract from Queen Victoria's Diaries that show she informed the privy council on the 23rd April 1839 that she intended to marry Prince Albert http://www.queen-victorias-scrapbook.org/contents/3-4.html
Is this sufficient for inclusion on the list
Lewisdl (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: She was already queen by then, so the Act did not apply to her. Richard75 (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The marriage Of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. 

message: Please note that Sophia of Hanover is not a disambiguation page but an article about the mother of George I. Do not substitute another Sophia. Richard75 (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sophia of Hanover 

message: "However, any member of the Royal Family over the age of 25 who has been refused the sovereign's consent may marry one year after giving notice to the Privy Council of their intention to so marry, unless both houses of Parliament expressly declare their disapproval. There is, however, no instance in which the sovereign's formal consent in Council has been refused."
Does this mean that unless both houses of Parliament indicate their disapproval,
marriage of any member of Royal family will be vaild after 1 year.
Is this correct ?
Siyac 19:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It means that unless both houses of Parliament indicate their diapproval, the member of the Royal Family will (if over 25) be able to marry after one year. But if they marry before the year is over, the marriage is still void. So they have to wait a year. Richard75 (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: We currently state that 'This would also mean theoretically, for example, that the present royal family of Norway is bound by the Act, for the marriage of The Princess Maud, a daughter of King Edward VII, to the future King Haakon VII of Norway, was a marriage to a "British subject", since Haakon descended from the Electress Sophia.'
However, while Haakon himself is descended from the Electress Sophia, he is descended from a princess (Princess Mary of Great Britain) who married a foreigner (Frederick II, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel), and so excluded under the Farran Exception.  Frederick II was not a descendant of the Electress, so he actually counts as a foreigner. Or am I missing something? john k (talk) 02:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're forgetting that the Farran Exemption is treated as a legal curiousity with respect to the Royal Marriage Act, and is not applied with effect to marriages or persons, whereas the Act is still applied to marriages and persons. We know this both by simple observation of practice -- if the Farran Exemption were operative all of the (legitimate) descendants of British monarchs after Queen Victoria would be exempt from the Act, being "descendants of princcesses who marry into foreign families", yet in fact they continue to seek and obtain Royal Assent pursuant to the Act -- and we know it because when the implications of the Farran Exemption were brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Government for clarification, the interpretation, now de-classified, was that the Exemption, howsoever legally accurate, has always been ignored by the UK's government and dynasty and there was no plan to correct course, either retroactively or henceforward, to comply with its interpetation of the law. FactStraight (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, the fact that they seek and obtain royal assent doesn't actually mean that they are required to do so by law.  But that's neither here nor there to the sentence I'm talking about, which is trying to explain the interaction between the Farran Exemption and the Sophia Naturalization Act.  It's saying "even if you take the Farran Exemption as a given, many marriages don't actually fall under it because of the Sophia Naturalization Act."  But the example it gives - of the Norwegian royal family - doesn't actually work, because the Norwegian Royal Family is Farran exempt regardless of the Sophia Naturalization Act.  john k (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Sorry, I misunderstood the point you were making. FactStraight (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: At any rate, is there a better example we can use?  It would basically have to be a marriage of a British princess to someone who is a descendant of George I but not of George II, I believe. john k (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Found one: Princess Alice of the United Kingdom and Louis II, Grand Duke of Hesse. He descends from George I through a sister of George II, Sophia Dorothea of Hanover, Queen in Prussia, but not from George II himself. The challenge now may be that most of Louis II's current  descendants descend from George II due to royal intermarriage, possibly excepting those descended from Prince Louis of Battenberg who, being patrilineally a first cousin of the Grand Duke's, was probably not descended from George II, so some of their descendants (like the Marquesses of Mildford Haven and the Counts de Torby) may meet the specifications which would trigger the Farran Exemption, if it were, in fact, applied. FactStraight (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farran exemption 

message: I notice that none of William IV's FitzClarence descendants sought permission. Is it, therefore, logical to assume that those whose descent from George II passes through at least one illegitimacy are not subject to the Act?
William IV's descendants include: David Cameron, Boris Johnson and Adam Hart-Davis!
Smlark (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The Act makes no exception for illegitimate descendants. Richard75 (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In the law ("no descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the Second, male or female, (other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families) shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors"), "descendant" means "lawful descendant", i.e., someone descended through ancestors lawfully married. It's not expressly written because it's part of English common law, not statutory law. FactStraight (talk) 17:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another big question 

message: Was the marriage of Princess Sibylla of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and Prince Gustaf Adolf, Duke of Västerbotten valid under the Royal Marriages Act ? Prince Gustaf Adolf, as a descendant of a British princess who married into a foreign family, was exempted from seeking consent to marry, but Princess Sybilla, who descended from Queen Victoria in male line, was not, unless of course she also qualifies as a "royal princess" in the UK, which I'm not sure she does. The question is relevant to determine whether King Carl XVI Gustaf and his children are in the line of succession to the British throne or not.161.24.19.112 (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that marriage wasn't valid under the Act, per here. FactStraight (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 161.24.19.112, have you found any reliable source that indicates that Carl is in the line of succession?  If you have, I'd be interested to know.  He's so far down the line that the sources listed here don't get to him in any case.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden

message: Did Farran say who was the last surviving person affected by the Act?  I think that would make an interesting and relevant addition to the article. —Tamfang (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Line of succession to the British throne/Archive 15#Other royal families - in 1951 Captain Alexander Ramsay was the only living person not to be covered by the Farran exemption. He married in 1956 and his descendants would not be exempted either. Opera hat (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  yet another Farran question 

message: Has anyone been affected by the repeal of the RMA by the Succession to the Crown Act 2013?  Clearly Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex and Prince George, Duke of Cambridge do not meet the SCA's conditions, so their marriages remain invalid under the RMA.  Has anyone else ever been the subject of litigation regarding the RMA (the SCA's condition #4)?  If not, why was that provision inserted?  
And what about the children of Charles Edward, Duke of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha?  None of his children sought consent to their marriages under the RMA, as they were German citizens hostile to the British monarchy, and this makes it unclear whether they still retain the right to petition for the restoration of the Albany titles.  In order to qualify for the SCA's exemption, one would have to argue that "it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it."  It's not clear to me whether this could or would be successfully argued.  
If any reliable source has made any comment whatsoever on any of these questions, we should include such information in the article.  Does anyone know of any?  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 21:58, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: SCA hasn't come into effect yet, so the RMA remains in force. Augustus d'Este litigated the RMA, claiming his parents' marriage was valid and his royal rank and ducal status due thereunder, but lost the suit. He and his sister left no descendants. Any other assertions about the impact of SCA would be premature and speculative, but I haven't seen any musings on the matter published in a reliable source. FactStraight (talk) 21:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has anyone been affected by the SCA's repeal of the RMA? 

message: I've removed the list of current first six heirs from the lead. Since the article is about the act that has been repealed, not one that remains in force (Perth Agreement, Succession to the Crown Act 2013), we're creating a maintenance burden for ourselves by having a list that needs to be updated every time one of the first six marry or have a child.
If a list of people is deemed desirable, I would recommend putting up a list of heirs to the throne as of 2011-2015, when the act was being repealed. Deryck C. 12:00, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's sensible. Richard75 (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of first six heirs 

message: There is no citation for this and I've been unable to find one (a couple of issues of the London Gazette around that time didn't contain a mention). By its wording it sounds like an address to the House of Lords, but it's absent from Hansard for that day. The article links Order-in-Council on the words "Declaration in Council", a phrase I have never seen before. The former is a term of art, a type of primary legislation issued by the Queen by the advice of her Privy Council. This declaration is by contrast a formal declaration pursuant to an Act of Parliament for which, I believe, the Sovereign is personally responsible. Hairy Dude (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is of any use/interest, here is a link to Her Majesty's consent to Prince Ernst's first marriage. 'My Lords' is how the Queen addresses the Privy Council. Alekksandr (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Declaration in Council"