Talk:Royal Marriages Act 1772

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)

Off-topic

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)

Dukedom of Albany

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree. FactStraight (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sure, but in speculation like this we take precedents where we find 'em! —Tamfang (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

rewrite lede

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)

Consent not applied for

Worth adding a section?

• James Lascelles, second and third marriages.
• Sophie Lascelles, [1]
  

and others? Bazj (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Charles and Diana

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)

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)

I have written to the Privy Council Office to ask them. Richard75 (talk) 11:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

The marriage Of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert.

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)

She was already queen by then, so the Act did not apply to her. Richard75 (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sophia of Hanover

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)

Question

"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)

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)

Farran exemption

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)

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)

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)

I see. Sorry, I misunderstood the point you were making. FactStraight (talk) 06:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Another big question

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)

No. The Act makes no exception for illegitimate descendants. Richard75 (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

Question about King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden

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)

No, that marriage wasn't valid under the Act, per here. FactStraight (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

yet another Farran question

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)

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)

Has anyone been affected by the SCA's repeal of the RMA?

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)

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)

Canada

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)

There are sources affirming it's on the books. No source stating it was repealed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Really? One of the three parts of the Perth Agreement consented to by their Succession to the Throne Act, and you think it still applies? Richard75 (talk) 16:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, really. No part of Canada's Succession to the Throne Act says the Royal Marriages Act is repealed. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's covered by section 2. DrKiernan (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Section 2 doesn't say anything about the repeal of a Canadian law. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Section 2 gives effect to the UK's law changes in Canada. Richard75 (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It says no such thing. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Enough is enough. Leave this article alone. There is no justification for whatever it is you are trying to do. Richard75 (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:RS apply as much to you as anyone else. You're deleting sourced information for no reason. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not for no reason, and your sources are out of date. Do you have a source which says that the Act survived in Canada after 26 March? Richard75 (talk) 18:25, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What's the reason, then, for deleting what's sourced and the valid, reliable sources?

Sources don't "go out of date"; Wikipedia provides for no expiry date on sources. The real question thus is: Do you have a source that says the act was repealed? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Canadian Act. It's not a question of sources having expiry dates, but a source which predates 26 March can't logically support the claim that a Canadian act which came into force on that date did not do what it appears to say it does. Richard75 (talk) 18:33, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

What part of the Canadian act says the Royal Marriages Act was repealed in Canada?

We can only accept the sources for what they say. No assertion was made in this article about the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 not doing what it appears to say it does. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The UK Act repeals the 1772 Act. The 1772 Act affects the succession to the throne. The Canadian Act, section 2, gives effect to the UK Act. Seems clear to me, but if that's not good enough for you, then ask yourself this: why would the Cabadian Parliament implement part of the Perth Agreement but not all of it? If Canada kept the 1772 Act then the effect, eventually, would be that one day they would have a different monarch to the rest of the Commonwealth realms. That would be such an outrageous conclusion to draw that it would need a source, and you don't have one. Richard75 (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Canadian act does not "give effect" to the UK act; it does not even use those words.

I'm not going to speculate on what the government was thinking or doing because what I think is irrelevant to Wikipedia content. I'm using the available sources and what they say. There are sources saying the Royal Marriages Act is a Canadian law. There's no source saying it was repealed from Canadian law. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:00, 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)

Yes, that is section 2. Nothing about repealing acts in Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:17, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If you don't like "repealed," would you be content with "disapplied" or some equivalent? Richard75 (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a straw man.

There is no source saying the Royal Marriages Act was repealed or "disapplied" in Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Richard. The Canadian law assents to the Succession to the Crown Act 2013, which repeals the Royal Marriages Act 1772 (section 3 (4): "The Royal Marriages Act 1772 (which provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a descendant of King George II may marry only with the consent of the Sovereign) is repealed."). It is therefore repealed. DrKiernan (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

We're discussing repeal of the Royal Marriages Act in Canada, not in the UK. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Canadian Parliament and the Queen of Canada, through the Governor General, has assented to the repeal. DrKiernan (talk) 20:05, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

In the UK. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Everywhere. DrKiernan (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation, please, both for "everywhere" including Canada and for the amendment to the Canadian constitution allowing British acts to apply in Canada. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:25, 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)

The Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, assents, not consents, to the British bill, not the British act. Why I think the parliament would assent to a British bill that can't apply in Canada is not relevant at all; nor are academics' opinions on the matter relevant to this article, which is why they're covered elsewhere. The task here is finding a reliable source to confirm the assertion the Royal Marriages Act has been repealed in Canada. None has yet been provided (because there is none).

I think a wording should be devised that says or hints neither that the act has been repealed in Canada nor that it hasn't; that's what I was trying to do by listing only the countries where we know, by reliable source, the act has been repealed and simply not mentioning Canada at all. The issue of the law's status in Canada should be neatly avoided, at least until the court challenge against the Succession to the Throne Act, 2013, has been concluded. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason for the Canadian act of 2013, as also for the corresponding Australian and New Zealand acts, is the Statute of Westminster 1931, where Britain and all the then dominions, including Canada, pledged in the preamble that "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the Parliament of the United Kingdom". Though what is now being done by former dominions is being channeled through the Perth Agreement of 2011 among these and the other Commonwealth realms. Wikiain (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And the Canadian act says the federal parliament assents to the Succession to the Crown bill in the UK. The Canadian act doesn't repeal any Canadian law. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:38, 31 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)

Do you have a source affirming the Royal Marriages Act was repealed in Canada or not? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 20:29, 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)

If it was still in force in Canada, then Canada would have failed to implement the Perth Agreement. A claim as extraordinary as that would need a source. Richard75 (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No one has proposed this article state Canada has failed to "implement the Perth Agreement". --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I can provide a source that it is not in force: Research Paper 12/81 says, "none of the rules set out in the statutes or the common law establishing male preference primogeniture, and disqualifying persons from succeeding to the Crown on marrying a Roman Catholic, or the requirement to obtain consent of the monarch for certain royal marriages are part of the law or Constitution of Canada. Only those statutes of the United Kingdom listed in the Schedule to the Constitution Act 1982 have been incorporated into the Constitution of Canada." DrKiernan (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You've provided an opinion expressed long before 26 March 2015 and which runs contrary to other sources, including a number of Canadian court rulings. So, your source doesn't close the matter. You've only given support to my suggestion that we simply avoid any mention of Canada (at least until the ongoing constitutional challenge of the Succession to the Throne Act 2013 is complete), St Kitts and Nevis, and St Vincent and the Grenadines, as well as any implication that legal actions have happened in those countries for which we have no reliable source. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

More about the Farran question

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.

• Per Wikipedia: 'In genealogy and wills, issue typically means a person's lineal descendants - all genetic descendants of a person, regardless of degree.' (citing Glenda K. Harnad, J.D. and Karl Oakes, J.D., Corpus Juris Secundum, Descent and Distribution § 35 (2015)). Note also that under the Sophia Naturalisation Act 1705, referred to below, the word 'issue' includes remoter descendants beyond the first generation (that is, children).

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.

• 'I can't imagine any circumstance in which the Princely House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha would be considered, in Britain, to be anything other than a foreign family.' - William A. Reitwiesner, alt.talk.royalty post dated 11/9/1996, 'Royal Marriages Act coverage'. William A. Reitwiesner was a very widely respected genealogist. A Wikipedia article ('House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha') states: 'Due to anti-German sentiment in the United Kingdom during World War I, George V changed the name of his branch from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor in 1917. The same happened in 1920 in Belgium, where it was changed to "van België" (Dutch) or "de Belgique" (French).' This confirms that the British branch of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha family was exactly that - a branch. The existence of a 'British branch' does not make the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha family British; the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is a 'foreign family'. This is not rocket science.

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'.

Too long; didn't read. Richard75 (talk) 17:01, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

If you let me know your concentration limit I will write a short version for you. 2 minutes? 3? Would you also like me to use short words only?

If you want people to pay attention to what you say, then summarize your main points within a couple paragraphs. Details can come later, if they're needed. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 00:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Okey-doke.

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)

It may well be true that the last paragraph of the Farran section, in its current state, is problematic and in need of fixing. Both the references to Sophia and the references to the Norwegian royal family seem a bit off to me, though others who watch this page are more competent to fix it than I am.

Be that as it may, the crux of why everyone ignores the Farran exemption is that the injunction to British princes was clearly meant to outweigh the exemption for princesses who marry into foreign families. So your references to the Cambridge case do not seem compelling. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

List of first six heirs

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)

That's sensible. Richard75 (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

"Declaration in Council"

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)

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)