My girlfriend and I were talking about old children’s books the other night, and the question came up: how “final” is the coronation of royals?
Here’s the situation we envisioned: suppose that the old Duke of Fredonia has died. He had two sons, Alfred and Bartholomew, both of whom have died. Bartholomew, the younger son, had a son of his own, Charles. Alfred is not known at this time to have had any issue before he passed on. So in a splendid ceremony, Charles is confirmed as the new Duke of Fredonia. The next day, a young man named Daniel surfaces. He says that Alfred (the older brother) was his father, via a secret marriage that nobody else knew about. As the heir of the older brother he should be the inheritor of the Duchy.
What happens at this point? Is Charles forced to abdicate? Is it tough luck for Daniel? Does it make a difference how long Daniel waits before surfacing? Are there any historical situations in which this actually happened? Could the Queen of England be forced to abdicate by the discovery of some hitherto-unknown royal line?
Bonus points if you can identify the children’s book this question was inspired by.
Royal marriages in the UK are regulated by the Royal Marriages Act, precisely to make sure that this sort of scenario can’t occur. Members of the Royal Family can’t marry without the monarch’s permission, in which case the marriage will be publicly known. A “secret” marriage would be invalid for the purposes of the succession.
Well the monarch could give permission, but not make it public. Also not all peers are male-line desendants of George II and would therefore be exempt from the royal marriage act. The House of Lords has the power to arbitrate peerage disputes.
Leaving aside the question of why any monarch would do this when it had the potential to cause succession problems, there’s also the point that all marriages in England and Wales since 1837 (Scotland since 1855) have to be registered, and the index of registered marriages is made publicly available. Secret marriages are a bit more tricky than they once were.
If a royal married outside the UK, somewhere where the marriage could be genuinely secret, the problem arises of how the children of this marriage could prove that the marriage had taken place at all. Without documentary proof they have no claim on the throne anyway.
alphaboi867 - the OP mentioned “royals” specifically
which is why I left other peers out of my answer. Admittedly, the thread title just says “nobility”.
There were thousands of hereditary nobilities in Europe alone over the centuries, and that many more in other areas of the earth. And just that many sets of rules, most of which varied over the centuries and circumstances. You could probably give any answer you like and find that it held somewhere at some time. It’s sort of like string theory.
True, but nothing in the Royal Marriage Act requires the wedding to take place in the UK. Prince Michael of Kent was given permission to marry a Catholic, but he had to do it abroad. Since the Queen consented the marriage was still valid under British law (hence he lost his place in the succession). I agree that it’s unlikely in the extreme that any sovereign would agree to the secrecy, especially if said royal was at all likely to succeed to the throne.
Easy: it’s Little Lord Fauntleroy by Francis Hodgson Burnett. Where the succession involved an earldom. not a dukedom. There a process for a claimant to a peerage dislodge the sitting peer but I don’t have time to describe it now.
Huh? Why would this give anyone the chills? I don’t get it. Explain please.
If it it gives you the chills because I didn’t explain the process, that’s because I wanted time to check some reference works in case anybody cried “Cite!” Challenging and unseating a peer is very complicated. In a nutshell, it requires extensive genealogical documentation, consultations with pursuivants and heraldic officers at arms at the College of Arms and a hearing before a specially-convened committee in the House of Lords. Finally, a decree of approbation has to be issued by the monarch. The entire process can take decades and almost never succeeds. All this is based on recollection; I still haven’t had time to check the sources.
It’s a reference to a mathematical proof supposedly worked out by the 17th Century French mathematician Pierre de Fermat. He wrote a note in the margin of a mathematics textbook, saying he had discovered a marvellous proof of a statement in the book, but the margin was too small for him to give it there. He never explained his proof, and it wasn’t until 1995 that anyone managed to prove it.
Thanks for the explanation! I was really scratching my head over that. From now on, I won’t promise an explanation unless I have enough time to do it and the reference volumes are at hand.
