header-logo header-logo

When Harry met Meghan

08 December 2017 / Rebecca Probert
Issue: 7773 / Categories: Features , Constitutional law
printer mail-detail
nlj_7773_probert

Rebecca Probert provides a handy guide to the law governing royal marriages

As Walter Bagehot remarked in 1863, when the future Edward VII married Alexandra of Denmark, ‘a princely marriage is the brilliant edition of a universal fact, and as such it rivets mankind.’ The announcement that Prince Harry is to marry Meghan Markle is proving similarly riveting. As it has already sparked discussion about the special laws governing royal marriages, here is a brief guide to those laws—past, present, and possibly future.

The consent of the sovereign

The Royal Marriages Act 1772 required the prior consent of the sovereign to the marriages of all descendants of George II except the issue of princesses who had married into foreign families. Those over 25 could alternatively give notice to the Privy Council and marry without the sovereign’s consent unless both Houses of Parliament disapproved—but this option has never been tested.

The Act’s scope was much debated. One ingenious argument was that it did not apply to any of Edward VII’s descendants, ie the current royal

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll