Damn, and his name was Simpson, too. How could I have used such an obvious straight line?
It wasn’t a legal fiction. After Prince Arthur’s death, Henry VII wanted to marry his second son, young Henry, to Katherine of Aragon to keep the Spanish alliance and the dowry. To do that, it was well-recognised that young Henry needed to get a dispensation from the pope. The pope at the time gave the dispensation. When Katherine never produced a male heir, Henry VIII claimed his conscience had always bothered him about the dispensation and that it should be set aside.
While there were a lot of snickers about that aspect of Henry’s behaviour, there wasn’t much dispute that a marriage to the deceased brother’s widow was within the prohibited degrees. In fact, such marriages continued to be illegal in England (and in many Commonwealth countries that inherited English law) until late in the 19th century.
Yes but there is theoretically a “King” (obviously currently a Queen) of Great Britain, since the official title of the nation is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, with and obviously making it a fact that the realms of NI and GB are separate holdings obviously tied to the same crown.
And of course Great Britain contains England. And anyone who is the Queen of Grreat Britain and Northern Ireland is also of course the Queen of England, though it is a bit awkward to say so.
Sort of like saying George W. Bush is the President of Virginia… which is true in a very murky/goofy sense.
The provisions respecting marriage to Roman Catholics are not in the Royal Marriages Act, 1772. That Act prohibits any descendant of George II (other than princesses who marry into foreign houses, and their issue) from marrying without the consent of the monarch. If the individual insists on marrying without the monarch’s consent, and is over 25 years old, he/she can make a public declaration of his/her intent and wait a year. After a year, he/she can marry without the monarch’s consent, unless in the interval both houses of Parliament have expressed their disapproval of the marriage.
There is no prohibition on any member of the Royal Family marrying a Roman Catholic, but under the Act of Settlement, 1701 anyone who would otherwise be eligible to inherit the throne is barred from inheriting. There’s no need for a waiver of succession, since the law operates automatically. The Act doesn’t say what happens if someone once was, but no longer is married to a Roman Catholic at the time the succession issue arises - is it a life-time ban on inheriting, or simply a prohibition on anyone who is currently married to a Roman Catholic?
I don’t think Wallis Simpson’s being an American was any problem. The history of the English monarchy is full of non-British queens.
I don’t think anybody’s saying it was the crucial point – just that it didn’t help with all of the other negatives.
I’m surprised that no one has referenced Henry’s “canonisation” of Cardinal Wolsley in the Simpson’s “history” episode…
And she wasn’t just divorced, she’d been divorced twice.
And most of them were women!
One of my students recently declared her intention to marry into the British royal family and eventually become Queen of England. Remembering Ed VIII, I told her that I wasn’t sure if such a thing was possible – Prince William might have to renounce the throne in order to marry an ordinary Japanese girl.
Thanks to this thread, I now know much more about the situation than I did, and it seems that there actually would be no strict legal barrier to William marrying a foreign commoner and still taking the throne (although dad, grandma, or Parliament could potentially make trouble if they opposed the match). Am I correct in this?
True but most of them were of royal lineage and had never been divorced.
Well, she couldn’t be Queen of England; she’d be Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. However, she’d also be Queen of Canada, Australian, New Zealand and several other countries, so perhaps she could do without having “England” in her title.
Now that William is over 21, I don’t think Dad could legally make any fuss - it would be the Queen and Parliament that would have to agree, under the terms of the Royal Marriage Act. Provided your student isn’t Roman Catholic, there would not be a legal bar.
None of that takes into account the politics of it - although there was no legal ban on Edward marrying Wallis, the Prime Minister of the day, Baldwin, formally advised Edward not to do so, and threatened to have an election if the King declined to follow the PM’s advice. That would have triggered a constitutional crisis, as by convention, the Crown must follow advice tendered by the Prime Minister. Would a future PM agree to the marrige? Would depend largely on the circumstances at the time, the young lady’s background, etc.
After all, if an Aussie lawyer can marry the Crown Prince of Denmark, who knows what might happen in future royal marriages? The old rules that royalty only married royalty are disappearing.
I didn’t think you would be Queen if you married into the British Royal family.
Prince Philip isn’t title King just because he’s married to Elizabeth.
Because you can’t have a non-ruling “king”. You can have a non-ruling queen (a “Queen Consort”) married to a ruling king:
Had Edward VIII wound up with a Morganatic marriage, “Queen Consort” would have been a title denied to Mrs. Simpson. Lord knows what they would have called her … formally that is. I don’t believe a Morganatic marriage has ever been granted a British king.
True, but I’m assuming from the question that the young lady in question would be trying to get Prince William’s attention, and then play the waiting game for Elizabeth and Charles to shuffle off this mortal coil.
If she’s planning on marrying Prince Harry and still expects to be queen, she’s either misinformed or perhaps has more sinister plans than she’s let on to Lamia. :eek:
Female royal consorts are designated “Queen”. Male royal consorts are designated “Prince”. Cecil has written about it.
BTW, I’m aware that a stumbling block to Morganatic marriage by a British king is that the Church of England currently doesn’t recognize it. Nevertheless, it was actively suggested for Edward’s case, and is being bandied about for Prince Charles. CoE might be made to alter their stance if it became expedient to do so.
I suspect strongly that unless Charles makes an issue of it, the likely course will be that he does not marry Camilla but simply continues the present arrangement, perhaps moving her into a Buckingham Palace apartment, while all concerned turn a blind eye to the arrangement and she does not appear with him at official functions.
However, I’m curious as to whether anyone is aware of whether nomenclature has been agreed to if Prince Philip outlives his wife, whereupon he would be in what I believe is the historically unique role of father of the King. Any clue what he would be formally styled? (And for that matter, there was a several-months period in 1952-3 when England had three Queens – one regnant, Elizabeth II, and two former consorts, Elizabeth the Queen Mother and the Queen’s grandmother Queen Mary. Was there ever anything formally stated as to what she should be styled?)
I don’t think she could become Queen. I believe the Royal Family or Parliament recently changed the rules on this. After, Diana they changed the rule on who would officially be referred as His/Her Royal Highness. I believe she would have some lower title. I will try to find a cite.