When Harry Met Meghan by Banns Or Common Licence

22 BACK PAGE LAW STORIES 8 December 2017 | www.newlawjournal.co.uk superintendent registrar rather than marrying When Harry met Meghan by banns or common licence. However, the Act preserved the possibility of non-nationals Rebecca Probert provides a handy guide to marrying in the Church of England on the the law governing royal marriages authority of a special licence granted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which would be necessary in any case to permit a marriage to go ahead in St George’s Chapel, which is a s Walter Bagehot remarked in royal peculiar rather than a parish church. 1863, when the future Edward VII married Alexandra of Denmark, ‘a Marriage to a divorced person Aprincely marriage is the brilliant The Queen has given her consent to the edition of a universal fact, and as such it marriages of a number of divorced persons, rivets mankind.’ The announcement that from Captain Ramsay in 1954—a great- Prince Harry is to marry Meghan Markle is grandson of Queen Victoria and thus proving similarly riveting. As it has already extremely remote from the succession— to sparked discussion about the special laws the heir to the throne in 2005. The question governing royal marriages, here is a brief of where such remarriages can take place guide to those laws—past, present, and has proved controversial, with the Church of possibly future. England refusing to conduct the remarriages of divorcees for much of the twentieth century The consent of the sovereign and other options not being available to The Royal Marriages Act 1772 required members of the royal family within England the prior consent of the sovereign to the and Wales. The Earl of Harewood went to marriages of all descendants of George Connecticut to remarry, while Princess Anne II except the issue of princesses who had married Timothy Lawrence in Scotland. The married into foreign families. Those over 25 first member of the royal family to marry in could alternatively give notice to the Privy a civil ceremony in England and Wales was Council and marry without the sovereign’s Prince Charles in 2005, and questions were consent unless both Houses of Parliament raised as to whether the legislation did in truth disapproved—but this option has never been permit such an option. Tim Rooke/REX/Shutterstock tested. © The rules relating to the remarriage of The Act’s scope was much debated. One Harry & Meghan: a licence to thrill the nation divorced persons in the Church of England ingenious argument was that it did not apply were relaxed in 2002, with each case now to any of Edward VII’s descendants, ie the being considered on its facts. Members of the current royal family, since his bride was Members of the clergy retain the right to refuse to conduct descended from a daughter of George II who royal family are no remarriages involving divorced persons – and had married into a foreign family. “ to refuse the use of their churches for such Cross-marriages between royal houses, longer expected to marriages. combined with the British nationality So, while this particular marriage might conferred on descendants of Princess Sophia, choose between love once have raised all sorts of legal difficulties, also raised questions about who would count & the law” this is no longer the case. Members of the as ‘foreign’ under the Act. There was concern royal family are no longer expected to choose that some marriages might be void if the between love and the law. But despite the descendants wrongly assumed that they did welcome changes made by the Succession to not need the sovereign’s consent. Marriage to a Catholic the Crown Act 2013, whether the Marriage Under the Act of Settlement 1701, anyone Act 1949 applies to members of the royal Accidental non-compliance who married a Catholic was excluded from family has never been clarified. As a result, it The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 the succession. Over the three centuries that is unclear whether the civil marriage of Prince addressed accidental non-compliance: followed, a number of members of the royal Charles was permitted as a one-off because marriages will be treated as never having family chose to give up their—admittedly of the unavailability of a church wedding, been void as long as the parties were not remote—chance of succeeding to the throne, or whether all members of the royal family within the first six in line of succession including Prince Michael of Kent in 1978 and are now able to marry in any of the ways when they married and were unaware that the Earl of St Andrews in 1988. The 2013 Act available to their subjects. And if the latter, the Act applied to them, and no-one had removed this disqualification for both existing are their marriages potentially subject to acted on the assumption that the marriage and future marriages, restoring both men to being invalidated in the event of non- was void. the line of succession. compliance with the required forms? It is For the future, the 2013 Act adopts the time that this uncertainty was addressed: sensible solution of limiting the need for Marriage to a non-national members of the royal family deserve the same permission to the first six in the line of Under the Immigration Act 2014, special certainty as anyone else about the status of succession—currently Charles, William, procedures apply to the marriages of their marriages. NLJ George, Charlotte, Harry, and Andrew. those who are not British citizens or EEA/ Failing to obtain such consent disqualifies Swiss nationals. Those who are, or who Rebecca Probert, Professor of Law, that person from the line of succession are marrying, non-nationals will usually University of Exeter (R.J.Probert@exeter. rather than invalidating the marriage. be required to give notice to their local ac.uk)..

Load more