Talk:Crown Matrimonial

Untitled

Please expand this article to include more information on this concept, including (but not limited to):

Is granting the crown matrimonial optional, required, or provisional? If it varies, in what countries do these statuses apply?
What are historical examples of the crown matrimonial (rather than the hypothetical example currently listed in the article)?
In what circumstances might the crown matrimonial be granted?
What is the proper capitalization of this term? Are both "Crown" and "Matrimonial" always capitalized? Should they be lowercase? Please correct as necessary in both the article title, article text, and in linked articles.

Thanks! Galena11 05:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fix-up needed

The current example is very lousy, since the laws of the UK do not actually allow for this possibility. Historical examples have tended more towards males who marry royal heiresses, anyway... AnonMoos 18:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you confine yourself to British history, then the marriage of Mary I of England with Philip II of Spain was the closest case: AnonMoos 18:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under the terms of the marriage treaty, Philip was to be styled "King of England", all official documents (including Acts of Parliament) were to be dated with both their names, and Parliament was to be called under the joint authority of the couple. Coins were also to show the heads of both Mary and Philip. The marriage treaty further provided that England would not be obliged to provide military support to Philip's father, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, in any war. Philip's powers, however, were extremely limited and he and Mary were not true joint sovereigns like William and Mary.

What about William III? Mary had a legitimate hereditary claim to the throne, but William only became King as her husband Nik42 05:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He already had a low-order place in the pre-existing order of succession; that's different from the king-by-marriage thing in its pure form, where the husband didn't have to be close to the throne before his marriage... AnonMoos 04:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is enough to weaken the hard "unknown" in the article. Actually he was king by decision of Parliament and different MPs had different interpretations as shown in the peculiar theoretical heirs in the Bill of Rights. --Rumping (talk) 00:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He may have been in line to the throne, but he was not the next in line - that would have been the queen's sister Anne (who did indeed succeed William). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.241.199.124 (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]