What does “Special Harry” even mean?
1) Last time a Brit sovereign ixnayed a child's marriage? 2) Words for Royal actions (eg, "decrees")
You don’t think he’s special?
Not particularly, no.
Not really. For one thing it is not obvious that left to his own devices Clarence would have married Dorothea Jordan; he could have been happy just to keep her as his mistress. But more importantly, there are lots of other people who are descended from them. The senior FitzClarence heir is actually the eldest daughter of the late 7th Earl of Munster. Cameron’s ancestor was only the third daughter and there were also five sons, most of whom had children.
The CofE accepted divorce quite some years ago.
“Accepted” is a bit overgenerous.
First, they church only allowed church remarriages of divorced people whose ex-spouse was still alive in 2002. Not all that long ago.
Second, they only allowed such church remarriages to occur in “exceptional” circumstances. Which magically includes Meghan Markle.
Third, CoE priests can still opt out of performing such marriages.
If the CoE was really accepting of divorce then this wouldn’t be an issue at all.
The C of E is the very definition of a Broad Church, with conflicting views on the matter, and freedom for individual priests to follow their conscience.
In practice, the vast majority are happy to marry divorcees. Their churches would be bloody empty on Saturdays if they didn’t.
The monarch is ex officio the supreme governor of the Church. Eligibility to inherit the throne is based on being the senior descendant of Sophia, not on one’s personal marital status. If all the people in line ahead of her were to die, Anne would become monarch as the senior descendant of Sophia, and also supreme governor of the Church.
Decrees are made by Letters Patent.
In the UK, many letters patent are pro-forma certificates of titles or job or peerage or whatever.
But others are one off, like the ones giving people names /styles , eg assigning princess to Diana, or assigning surname Windsor to the children, and its just a letter addressed to no one.
“to whom it may concern, be it known that my children have the surname Windsor. I certify this order is patent. Signed E R .”
Since this idea is in common law, even in USA a state’s governor might give a final sentence saying that the letter, the certificate, is patent and proper seal affixed, signed <Gov>… if the state kept that part of common law… perhaps only as an assumption that part of common law would be held onto. (What, you used the american spelling ? thats not acceptable ,this certificate is not patent !)
While presidential orders don’t say patent, and in fact don’t bother to conclude ( its redundant, as all it says is that the “the bits before this form an order”, which just repeats the introduction “The following is an order” … ), you could say that it is a letter patent… that its a decree, its legally binding, its patent…
That’s all rather confused. Diana’s title as Princess of Wales was automatic, even after her divorce. What did require clarification by letters patent was the removal of her HRH, but that took the form of a statement of the general principle. In contrast, both of the decisions on the royal surname in 1952 and 1960 were enacted simply as declarations made at meetings of the Privy Council.
What that shows is that the Queen has several different ways of expressing her will. Those include giving her assent to Acts of Parliament, making Orders-in-Council and issuing warrants under one of the various seals (including the Privy Seal or the Signet) or the sign manual, as well as letters patent under the Great Seal. Which method gets used depends on a number of factors, such as what the order seeks to do, who it is addressed to, whether it is to be enforceable in the law courts and whether it is to be made public.
Often which method she uses will have been specified by statute. The consents to royal marriages are a case in point, as both the 1772 Royal Marriages Act and the 2013 Succession to the Crown Act laid down in detail how those were to be issued.
OP here.
As expected, nice thread, and I’m particularly happy that OP Part II is now beginning to percolate.
Another one is by Royal Proclamation. For example, King Edward VII declared New Zealand and Newfoundland both to be Dominions following the Colonial conference of 1907. That would have been on the advice of Cabinet.
Going further back, there’s the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which had the force of law. It established the governments of Quebec, East and West Florida, and Grenada. It also established the principle that only the Crown could negotiate with indigenous peoples for land surrender, which became one of the grievances of the 13 colonies (but has been entrenched in Canada’s constitution as a significant protection for indigenous peoples).
Yes. It occurred to me after I had posted that I perhaps ought to have mentioned those.
This would absolutely be too much of a hijack here, and be a great OP topic, but: … wow!
History moves in strange ways.
Psalm 118:22. 
Well that was weird but why not?
As the old saying goes, the Church of England interferes neither with a man’s politics nor his religion.
Unless he happens to be a vain and selfish King with unsuitable friends and careless of his duties and obligations.
Both excellent, and thanks. The comparison with “presidential order”–which I think should be "Executive Order’–was exactly my idea in OP query.
Now just to nail this sucker, is the word “Decree” with a capital “D” a term of art in Brit governance and jurisprudence, as “Executive Order” is in the US? Or is it used only loosely, and if push comes to shove the Word from On Top is referenced as a Patent Letter (deal with it as you wish)?
ETA: Letter Patent? (That French holdover thingie, usually in law…)