![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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)
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)
I think this question has a close relation to the Farran exemption. Farran is clearly correct in his strictly literal reading of the RMA, but everyone ignores him because they know that is not how the RMA was intended to operate. I think the root cause is actually the same in both cases; namely, that the framers of the RMA meant for it to apply to British royals and not to foreign royals, but they phrased it badly. Foreign royals who are descendants of George II cease to be foreign royals if they marry back into the British royal family, and thus the RMA should apply to them. Similarly, the Coburgs are foreign royals, not by female descent but by inheriting a subsidiary throne, and should arguably be treated as such for RMA purposes.
In any case, people may want to note further recent discussion of this question, with application to editing the Duke of Albany page. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 04:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
Worth adding a section?
and others? Bazj ( talk) 12:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
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, [2] 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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Surely this is repealed in Canada as well by virtue of their Succession to the Throne Act? Do you have a source to say they kept it? Richard75 ( talk) 15:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, this is what the Canadian act says: "2. The alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne set out in the bill laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom and entitled A Bill to Make succession to the Crown not depend on gender; to make provision about Royal Marriages; and for connected purposes is assented to." Richard75 ( talk) 19:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
M, why do you think the Canadian parliament would pass an act consenting to a UK law that didn't apply in Canada? Richard75 ( talk) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that the Canadian Act did not change the law in Canada? That's just insane. Richard75 ( talk) 19:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
As nobody has been able to produce a reliable source affirming the Royal Marriages Act has been repealed in Canada (or St Kitts and Nevis and St Vincent and the Grenadines), I suggest the lede not imply it has been repealed everywhere. The lede should refer specifically to those realms we know by reliable sources have repealed the act and those that defer to the UK for such matters and be vague beyond that. So, something like: "It was repealed in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom on 26 March 2015, repeal in the latter affecting royal marriages and succession for those realms that defer such matters to the UK." This avoids St Kitts and Nevis and St Vincent and the Grenadines altogether, which is good, since we don't even know if the Royal Marriages Act was ever a law in those countries and, thus, could even be repealed in either, as well as Canada, for which there's affirmation the act at least was a law in Canada but there's no proof it was repealed there. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The Royal Marriages Act 1772 states:
'That 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, signified under the great seal, and declared in council, (which consent, to preserve the memory thereof is hereby directed to be set out in the licence and register of marriage, and to be entered in the books of the privy council); and that every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever.'
Now, Prince Adolphus, 1st Duke of Cambridge (1774-1850), married Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel (1797-1889), who was the grand-daughter of Princess Mary of Great Britain (1723-1772), a daughter of King George II who married into a 'foreign family'; that of Hesse-Kassel. This means that Prince George, 2nd Duke of Cambridge (1819-1904), came within the exemption to the Royal Marriages Act 1772 (this is called the 'Farran exemption' - see http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-35) and did not need to obtain the monarch's permission to marry. This means that Prince George's wife, Sarah Fairbrother, was legally Duchess of Cambridge and took the rank, title and style of 'Her Royal Highness'. In addition, their third son, Colonel Sir Augustus FitzGeorge, KCVO, CB (1847-1933), being the only legitimate son, succeeded as 3rd Duke of Cambridge on his father's death in 1904. It is also worth considering the point that if the Duke and Sarah Fairbrother did not marry because they were falsely led to believe (by the state) that they could not legally do so, then the state committed a wrong which has, in effect, led to the illegitimacy of two of their three children. Is it just that there should be no remedy for this wrong-doing, in terms of legitimizing their two illegitimate children? In short, should the wrong-doer (the state) be able to profit (by denying the otherwise legitimate rights of persons who are 'disapproved of') from its own wrong-doing?
Note that the 'issue' referred to in the exemption necessarily includes not just the children of princesses who marry into foreign families but the lineal descendants of those children as well, including those who marry back into the British royal family and their descendants (there is no exclusion from the exemption for such people). This is because (1) the word 'issue' ordinarily includes remoter descendants* and (2) it would be nonsensical that a child of such a princess should not require permission but that the children and remoter descendants of such a child should.
The argument has been put forward that, prior to 1949 when the Act was repealed, under the Sophia Naturalisation Act 1705, all descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover (1630-1714), grand-daughter of King James I via Elizabeth Stuart ('The Winter Queen') and mother of King George I, became British subjects, and since the descendants of British princesses who married into 'foreign families' were British subjects accordingly, their families could not be 'foreign families' in the eyes of the law; so such descendants did not fall within the exemption to the Royal Marriages Act 1772. This would mean, of course, that no-one could ever fall within the exemption, which raises the question as to why an exemption would be included in the Royal Marriages Act 1772 if, under an existing Act of Parliament, no-one could ever qualify under that exemption. This fact alone strongly suggests that the argument is nonsensical. It is also the case, of course, that the doctrine of implied repeal applies here; namely, that an Act of Parliament is impliedly repealed (unless it is a constitutional Act, in which case it must be expressly repealed) by a later Act which contradicts it. The Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 has never been held to be a constitutional Act, even though it could have affected the succession to the throne. In fact, not only is the Sophia Naturalisation Act 1705 impliedly repealed by the Royal Marriages Act 1772 in this regard, if such a repeal is necessary to make sense of the 1772 Act, but it is clear that the fact that certain people are deemed to be British citizens does not exclude them from qualifying under the exemption to the Royal Marriages Act 1772 (the one relating to princesses who marry into foreign families), because while individuals might be British subjects in law, that does not necessarily make their families British (i.e. non-foreign) families in law, and the words used in the 1772 Act are 'foreign families', not 'foreign individuals'. It is also worth pointing out that, even if the descendants of a British princess are deemed to be British subjects, the family she marries into can hardly be regarded as British by the mere fact of her marrying into it - and the Act refers to princesses marrying into a foreign family, not the status of that family after she has married into it. In other words, the question is whether the family is/was foreign at the time of the marriage, not afterwards.
The idea that because certain members of a family or one branch of it are deemed to be British subjects, it necessarily follows that the entire family is deemed to be British (non-foreign), is itself demonstrable nonsense. One merely has to ask the question: 'Can a family, many or most of whose members are not British subjects and who are, in fact, subjects of a foreign state, none of whose members necessarily live in the UK or even speak English, or are subject to 'British' law, and who regard themselves as being of a different nationality, and have done so for a thousand years, and not British at all, be described as a 'British family' in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the words 'British' and 'family', which are the meanings that would have to be used in a court of law?' For instance, can one properly describe the family of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as a 'British family',* as those words are ordinarily understood, or the family of Hesse-Kassel or the Danish royal family or the German royal family? The idea is nonsensical. If the family of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is a British family, then why did the British branch of that family need to change its name to 'Windsor' in 1917? Because 100% of the British people regarded the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family as German and the British branch of that family wanted to disassociate itself from its German parent branch.
The Wikipedia article ('Royal Marriages Act 1772') states:
'Parry argued that the "Farran exemption" theory was complicated by the fact that all the Protestant descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, ancestress of the United Kingdom's monarchs since 1714, had been entitled to British citizenship under the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 (if born prior to 1949, when the act was repealed). Thus, some marriages of British princesses to continental monarchs and princes were not, in law, marriages to foreigners.'
This is a compete misrepresentation of Parry's arguments.
In the first place, the Act refers to 'foreign families', not 'foreigners' (that is, individuals). As I have pointed out above, the fact that one or more members of a family are regarded as British in law does not necessarily make the family British in law - and it is the family that must qualify as British since that is what the Act refers to.
In the second place, Parry (Clive Parry MA LLB) did not argue 'some marriages to continental monarchs and princes were not, in law, marriages to foreigners'. What he actually wrote was 'Mr. Farran has minutely examined the question as to what is a "family". Mr. Morrah now suggests that a family whose members are British subjects under the Act of Anne is not foreign. Mr. Farren, rightly it is thought [by the author, Clive Parry], denies this.' So Parry actually agrees with Farren that it is the nationality of the family and not the individual members which matters. Later Parry re-iterates his agreement with Farran's argument: 'And he [Parry] ventures to suggest that difficulties are avoided if it be conceded - as Mr. Farran indeed concedes - that it is the "foreign " quality of the family which must be looked to, irrespective of the nationality of individuals comprising that family, and also, as neither Mr. Farran nor Mr. Morrah concedes, that the expressions " Royal Family " and " Foreign Families " are exclusive, each of the other.'
Further, even if, as the Wikipedia article claims (without citing any supporting evidence), Farren's interpretation 'has since been ignored' (it is not ignored by experts and it wasn't ignored by the 'authors' of the Wikipedia article), this has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the merits of his arguments. In fact, reliance on this sort of unsubstantiated assertion to denigrate someone's arguments strongly suggests a reluctance to address the merits of those arguments - or an eagerness to undermine those arguments in a very unscholarly fashion. Why would this be? Clearly, individuals who might be required by the 1772 Act to seek the Sovereign's permission to marry will invariably take the safe route and ask for permission even if it is appears that they do not need permission because they come within the 'foreign families' exemption. Also, of course, it feeds people's sense of self-importance to ask the Sovereign for permission to marry; it's equivalent to having a 'Look at me! I'm a member of the Royal Family!' T-shirt.
The whole issue of the Sophia Naturalisation Act 1705 can therefore be dismissed as irrelevant. What we are left with is what a common sense reading of the 1772 Act leads us to conclude; namely, that the Act means exactly what it says, which is that any descendant of any British princess who married into a foreign family (as that term is ordinarily understood in accordance with normal rules of interpretation), being a family that was 'foreign' when the princess married into it, is exempt from the requirement to obtain the monarch's approval in the manner provided in the 1772 Act.
This means, as I have said, that the marriage of the Prince George, 2nd Duke of Cambridge, to Sarah Faribrother was legal and that she was legally Duchess of Cambridge and took the rank, title and style of 'Her Royal Highness'.
1. Prince Adolphus, 1st Duke of Cambridge (1774-1850), married Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel (1797-1889), who was the grand-daughter of Princess Mary of Great Britain (1723-1772), a daughter of King George II who married into a 'foreign family'; that of Hesse-Kassel. This means that Prince George, 2nd Duke of Cambridge (1819-1904), came within the exemption to the Royal Marriages Act 1772 which applies to princesses marrying into foreign families.
2. The Act refers to 'foreign families', not 'foreigners' as referred to in the Wikipedia article (so the Wikipedia article is barking up the wrong tree). The fact that some individuals within a family might be deemed to be British subjects under the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 doesn't mean that the family becomes a 'British family'. This is a nonsensical suggestion.
3. Further, the 1772 Act refers to princesses marrying into foreign families, so it is the status of the family at the time of the marriage that matters, not its status subsequently. So the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 is irrelevant anyway.
4. Contrary to what the Wikipedia article says, Parry agreed with Farran that it is the status of the family that matters, not the status of individuals within the family (which is irrelevant anyway - see 3 above).
5. For these reasons, the 2nd Duke of Cambridge did not need permission to marry Sarah Fairbrother, so their marriage was legal and she became Her Royal Highness the Princess Sarah, Duchess of Cambridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.142.127 ( talk) 12:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
My Lords, I do hereby declare My Consent to a Contract of Matrimony between His Royal Highness Prince Ernst August Albert of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg and Her Serene Highness Princess Caroline Louise Marguerite of Monaco...
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)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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
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)
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)
I think this question has a close relation to the Farran exemption. Farran is clearly correct in his strictly literal reading of the RMA, but everyone ignores him because they know that is not how the RMA was intended to operate. I think the root cause is actually the same in both cases; namely, that the framers of the RMA meant for it to apply to British royals and not to foreign royals, but they phrased it badly. Foreign royals who are descendants of George II cease to be foreign royals if they marry back into the British royal family, and thus the RMA should apply to them. Similarly, the Coburgs are foreign royals, not by female descent but by inheriting a subsidiary throne, and should arguably be treated as such for RMA purposes.
In any case, people may want to note further recent discussion of this question, with application to editing the Duke of Albany page. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 04:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
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)
Worth adding a section?
and others? Bazj ( talk) 12:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
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, [2] 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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Surely this is repealed in Canada as well by virtue of their Succession to the Throne Act? Do you have a source to say they kept it? Richard75 ( talk) 15:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, this is what the Canadian act says: "2. The alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne set out in the bill laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom and entitled A Bill to Make succession to the Crown not depend on gender; to make provision about Royal Marriages; and for connected purposes is assented to." Richard75 ( talk) 19:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
M, why do you think the Canadian parliament would pass an act consenting to a UK law that didn't apply in Canada? Richard75 ( talk) 22:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that the Canadian Act did not change the law in Canada? That's just insane. Richard75 ( talk) 19:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
As nobody has been able to produce a reliable source affirming the Royal Marriages Act has been repealed in Canada (or St Kitts and Nevis and St Vincent and the Grenadines), I suggest the lede not imply it has been repealed everywhere. The lede should refer specifically to those realms we know by reliable sources have repealed the act and those that defer to the UK for such matters and be vague beyond that. So, something like: "It was repealed in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom on 26 March 2015, repeal in the latter affecting royal marriages and succession for those realms that defer such matters to the UK." This avoids St Kitts and Nevis and St Vincent and the Grenadines altogether, which is good, since we don't even know if the Royal Marriages Act was ever a law in those countries and, thus, could even be repealed in either, as well as Canada, for which there's affirmation the act at least was a law in Canada but there's no proof it was repealed there. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The Royal Marriages Act 1772 states:
'That 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, signified under the great seal, and declared in council, (which consent, to preserve the memory thereof is hereby directed to be set out in the licence and register of marriage, and to be entered in the books of the privy council); and that every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever.'
Now, Prince Adolphus, 1st Duke of Cambridge (1774-1850), married Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel (1797-1889), who was the grand-daughter of Princess Mary of Great Britain (1723-1772), a daughter of King George II who married into a 'foreign family'; that of Hesse-Kassel. This means that Prince George, 2nd Duke of Cambridge (1819-1904), came within the exemption to the Royal Marriages Act 1772 (this is called the 'Farran exemption' - see http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-35) and did not need to obtain the monarch's permission to marry. This means that Prince George's wife, Sarah Fairbrother, was legally Duchess of Cambridge and took the rank, title and style of 'Her Royal Highness'. In addition, their third son, Colonel Sir Augustus FitzGeorge, KCVO, CB (1847-1933), being the only legitimate son, succeeded as 3rd Duke of Cambridge on his father's death in 1904. It is also worth considering the point that if the Duke and Sarah Fairbrother did not marry because they were falsely led to believe (by the state) that they could not legally do so, then the state committed a wrong which has, in effect, led to the illegitimacy of two of their three children. Is it just that there should be no remedy for this wrong-doing, in terms of legitimizing their two illegitimate children? In short, should the wrong-doer (the state) be able to profit (by denying the otherwise legitimate rights of persons who are 'disapproved of') from its own wrong-doing?
Note that the 'issue' referred to in the exemption necessarily includes not just the children of princesses who marry into foreign families but the lineal descendants of those children as well, including those who marry back into the British royal family and their descendants (there is no exclusion from the exemption for such people). This is because (1) the word 'issue' ordinarily includes remoter descendants* and (2) it would be nonsensical that a child of such a princess should not require permission but that the children and remoter descendants of such a child should.
The argument has been put forward that, prior to 1949 when the Act was repealed, under the Sophia Naturalisation Act 1705, all descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover (1630-1714), grand-daughter of King James I via Elizabeth Stuart ('The Winter Queen') and mother of King George I, became British subjects, and since the descendants of British princesses who married into 'foreign families' were British subjects accordingly, their families could not be 'foreign families' in the eyes of the law; so such descendants did not fall within the exemption to the Royal Marriages Act 1772. This would mean, of course, that no-one could ever fall within the exemption, which raises the question as to why an exemption would be included in the Royal Marriages Act 1772 if, under an existing Act of Parliament, no-one could ever qualify under that exemption. This fact alone strongly suggests that the argument is nonsensical. It is also the case, of course, that the doctrine of implied repeal applies here; namely, that an Act of Parliament is impliedly repealed (unless it is a constitutional Act, in which case it must be expressly repealed) by a later Act which contradicts it. The Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 has never been held to be a constitutional Act, even though it could have affected the succession to the throne. In fact, not only is the Sophia Naturalisation Act 1705 impliedly repealed by the Royal Marriages Act 1772 in this regard, if such a repeal is necessary to make sense of the 1772 Act, but it is clear that the fact that certain people are deemed to be British citizens does not exclude them from qualifying under the exemption to the Royal Marriages Act 1772 (the one relating to princesses who marry into foreign families), because while individuals might be British subjects in law, that does not necessarily make their families British (i.e. non-foreign) families in law, and the words used in the 1772 Act are 'foreign families', not 'foreign individuals'. It is also worth pointing out that, even if the descendants of a British princess are deemed to be British subjects, the family she marries into can hardly be regarded as British by the mere fact of her marrying into it - and the Act refers to princesses marrying into a foreign family, not the status of that family after she has married into it. In other words, the question is whether the family is/was foreign at the time of the marriage, not afterwards.
The idea that because certain members of a family or one branch of it are deemed to be British subjects, it necessarily follows that the entire family is deemed to be British (non-foreign), is itself demonstrable nonsense. One merely has to ask the question: 'Can a family, many or most of whose members are not British subjects and who are, in fact, subjects of a foreign state, none of whose members necessarily live in the UK or even speak English, or are subject to 'British' law, and who regard themselves as being of a different nationality, and have done so for a thousand years, and not British at all, be described as a 'British family' in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the words 'British' and 'family', which are the meanings that would have to be used in a court of law?' For instance, can one properly describe the family of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as a 'British family',* as those words are ordinarily understood, or the family of Hesse-Kassel or the Danish royal family or the German royal family? The idea is nonsensical. If the family of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is a British family, then why did the British branch of that family need to change its name to 'Windsor' in 1917? Because 100% of the British people regarded the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family as German and the British branch of that family wanted to disassociate itself from its German parent branch.
The Wikipedia article ('Royal Marriages Act 1772') states:
'Parry argued that the "Farran exemption" theory was complicated by the fact that all the Protestant descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, ancestress of the United Kingdom's monarchs since 1714, had been entitled to British citizenship under the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 (if born prior to 1949, when the act was repealed). Thus, some marriages of British princesses to continental monarchs and princes were not, in law, marriages to foreigners.'
This is a compete misrepresentation of Parry's arguments.
In the first place, the Act refers to 'foreign families', not 'foreigners' (that is, individuals). As I have pointed out above, the fact that one or more members of a family are regarded as British in law does not necessarily make the family British in law - and it is the family that must qualify as British since that is what the Act refers to.
In the second place, Parry (Clive Parry MA LLB) did not argue 'some marriages to continental monarchs and princes were not, in law, marriages to foreigners'. What he actually wrote was 'Mr. Farran has minutely examined the question as to what is a "family". Mr. Morrah now suggests that a family whose members are British subjects under the Act of Anne is not foreign. Mr. Farren, rightly it is thought [by the author, Clive Parry], denies this.' So Parry actually agrees with Farren that it is the nationality of the family and not the individual members which matters. Later Parry re-iterates his agreement with Farran's argument: 'And he [Parry] ventures to suggest that difficulties are avoided if it be conceded - as Mr. Farran indeed concedes - that it is the "foreign " quality of the family which must be looked to, irrespective of the nationality of individuals comprising that family, and also, as neither Mr. Farran nor Mr. Morrah concedes, that the expressions " Royal Family " and " Foreign Families " are exclusive, each of the other.'
Further, even if, as the Wikipedia article claims (without citing any supporting evidence), Farren's interpretation 'has since been ignored' (it is not ignored by experts and it wasn't ignored by the 'authors' of the Wikipedia article), this has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the merits of his arguments. In fact, reliance on this sort of unsubstantiated assertion to denigrate someone's arguments strongly suggests a reluctance to address the merits of those arguments - or an eagerness to undermine those arguments in a very unscholarly fashion. Why would this be? Clearly, individuals who might be required by the 1772 Act to seek the Sovereign's permission to marry will invariably take the safe route and ask for permission even if it is appears that they do not need permission because they come within the 'foreign families' exemption. Also, of course, it feeds people's sense of self-importance to ask the Sovereign for permission to marry; it's equivalent to having a 'Look at me! I'm a member of the Royal Family!' T-shirt.
The whole issue of the Sophia Naturalisation Act 1705 can therefore be dismissed as irrelevant. What we are left with is what a common sense reading of the 1772 Act leads us to conclude; namely, that the Act means exactly what it says, which is that any descendant of any British princess who married into a foreign family (as that term is ordinarily understood in accordance with normal rules of interpretation), being a family that was 'foreign' when the princess married into it, is exempt from the requirement to obtain the monarch's approval in the manner provided in the 1772 Act.
This means, as I have said, that the marriage of the Prince George, 2nd Duke of Cambridge, to Sarah Faribrother was legal and that she was legally Duchess of Cambridge and took the rank, title and style of 'Her Royal Highness'.
1. Prince Adolphus, 1st Duke of Cambridge (1774-1850), married Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel (1797-1889), who was the grand-daughter of Princess Mary of Great Britain (1723-1772), a daughter of King George II who married into a 'foreign family'; that of Hesse-Kassel. This means that Prince George, 2nd Duke of Cambridge (1819-1904), came within the exemption to the Royal Marriages Act 1772 which applies to princesses marrying into foreign families.
2. The Act refers to 'foreign families', not 'foreigners' as referred to in the Wikipedia article (so the Wikipedia article is barking up the wrong tree). The fact that some individuals within a family might be deemed to be British subjects under the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 doesn't mean that the family becomes a 'British family'. This is a nonsensical suggestion.
3. Further, the 1772 Act refers to princesses marrying into foreign families, so it is the status of the family at the time of the marriage that matters, not its status subsequently. So the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 is irrelevant anyway.
4. Contrary to what the Wikipedia article says, Parry agreed with Farran that it is the status of the family that matters, not the status of individuals within the family (which is irrelevant anyway - see 3 above).
5. For these reasons, the 2nd Duke of Cambridge did not need permission to marry Sarah Fairbrother, so their marriage was legal and she became Her Royal Highness the Princess Sarah, Duchess of Cambridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.142.127 ( talk) 12:21, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
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)
My Lords, I do hereby declare My Consent to a Contract of Matrimony between His Royal Highness Prince Ernst August Albert of Hanover, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg and Her Serene Highness Princess Caroline Louise Marguerite of Monaco...
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)