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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll