Will the Royals Accept a Celebrity in the Family?

angieuk · August 18, 2009, 08:50:01 AM

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/120860/Will-the-Royals-accept-a-celebrity-in-the-family-

Trudie · August 18, 2009, 02:16:45 PM

Does it really make a difference? Freddie is so far down the line of succession at 31 in the pecking order he isn't even considered. And why should Sophie be a headache for the Courtiers? again they do not do royal engagements will not succeed to the throne and are very minor so why don't they just stay out of it. He obviously received permission from HM to marry and the HM and the Immediate royal family do not attend every family wedding I think there is much to do about nothing.

daibando · August 18, 2009, 03:09:31 PM

It has to be said once again; he didn't need the Queen's permission.

Trudie · August 18, 2009, 03:33:59 PM

Why not he is the great grandson of a sovereign and if he didn't need HM's permission what is the Courtiers problems with Sophie she is not about to become a Princess or working royal, She and her husband have outside careers.

fawbert · August 18, 2009, 07:53:05 PM

Lord Frederick did require Her Majesty's permission under the terms of the Royal Marriages Act 1772. Without HMs consent the union would be null and void.

EXTRACT FROM ORDERS APPROVED AT THE PRIVY COUNCIL HELD BY THE QUEEN AT
BUCKINGHAM PALACE ON 10 JUNE 2009
Royal Marriages Act 1772
Declaration of Consent to the marriage of Lord Frederick Windsor and
Sophie Winkleman.
Order directing that the Instrument signifying Consent be entered in
the Books of the Privy Council.
http://www.privycouncil.gov.uk/files/word/Draft%20List%2010%20June%20...

Trudie · August 18, 2009, 09:48:59 PM

Thank you Fawbert, I just knew I was not suffering from dementia. :haha:

daibando · August 19, 2009, 09:38:03 AM

Quote from: fawbert on August 18, 2009, 07:53:05 PM
Lord Frederick did require Her Majesty's permission under the terms of the Royal Marriages Act 1772. Without HMs consent the union would be null and void.

Fawbert, you are not correct and ~ edited for inappropaite content ~. You should have read further into the act. I have included the relevant part below.

Extract from Royal Marriages Act:-

II. Provided always, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, That in case any such descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the Second, being above the age of twenty-five years, shall persist in his or her resolution to contract a marriage disapproved of or dissented from, by the King, his heirs, or successors; that then such descendant, upon giving notice to the King's privy council, which notice is hereby directed to be entered in the books thereof, may, at any time from the expiration of twelve calendar months after such notice given to the privy council as aforesaid, contract such marriage; and his or her marriage with the person before proposed, and rejected, may be duly solemnized, without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors; and such marriage shall be good, as if this act had never been made, unless both houses of parliament shall, before the expiration of the said twelve months, expressly declare their disapprobation of such intended marriage.

end of extract.

Obviously, he did need to apply for the Queen's consent but actually did not need it. If he had fulfilled the terms of the act as related above and had gone ahead with his marriage, the union would not have been null and void.

Even when the Queen does approve a royal marriage, the proposed marriage is notified to the Privy Council. Actually that is the case in all proposed royal marriages.

Trudie · August 19, 2009, 10:15:37 AM

Tell that to the Late Princess Margaret daibando. Members of the RF do seek HMs consent unless they are Catholic by conversion. I have yet to hear of a member of the RF contracting a marriage as outlined in paragraph II. Lord Fredericks own parents had the consent of the sovereign even though Prince Michael was over 25 and his intended was a divorced Roman Catholic.

daibando · August 19, 2009, 03:20:22 PM

Obviously, Trudie, you just don't get it.

All descendants of George II (with a few exceptions) are obliged to ask the Sovereign for permission to marry. If they are over 25, they still have to ask, but if that permission is refused, they can later marry and the union will not be null and void. It is naturally preferable to get the Monarch's permission because there is no delay and the proposed marriage is not threatened by parliamentary action.

It is not surprising that have not heard of such action taking place, because the Queen has never refused her permission. She asked Princess Margaret to delay and in the end it was Margaret that chose not to marry Townsend. Why she changed her mind is pure conjecture, but the Queen did not refuse her permission. You don't need to tell anybody anything, just read the act (as parliamentary bills go, it is really very short and easy to understand).

The difficulty you have in understanding my form of English is also not surprising. Winston Churchill, who was in fact half American, once said that Britain and America are two nations divided by the same language.

Trudie · August 19, 2009, 05:14:51 PM

With all due respect I will defer to Fawbert on this one. :D

daibando · August 20, 2009, 11:25:16 AM

With all due respect to you too, that would be a great mistake. Fawbert is not the source of all human knowledge and, in this case, he is utterly wrong. To misquote, 'there are none so blind as those who refuse to see'. Read the act, that is where you will see the truth.

fawbert · August 20, 2009, 03:06:32 PM

I am not wrong. He did require Her Majesty's permission under the 1772 Act. If The Queen had objected to his nuptials with Miss Winkleman then he could indeed have gone ahead and contracted a marriage after the passage of one year - that is with no objections from Parliament in that intervening period. But the Queen's consent is always required whether the petitioner is 23, 25, or 93.

In 2005, the Prince of Wales, aged 56, sought the Sovereign's permission under the terms of the said act to wed Mrs Parker Bowles. Without his mother's consent then the marriage would have been null and void.

In any case where the Queen might refuse her permission under the 1772 act I cannot see HER Parliament over-ruling her.

--==--

daibando · August 21, 2009, 08:33:27 AM

Fawbert, you are wrong. If they are over 25 they are only required to seek the Queen's permission; it is not necessary to actually obtain it. By your own admission, they can make a legal marriage without that permission. They do not need the Monarch's permission but it is obviously easier to have it. Remember you stated that if they went ahead without the said permission, their union would be null and void. That is also totally incorrect.

By refusing to admit your error you are misleading those who can't see the wood for the trees.

fawbert · August 21, 2009, 08:48:43 AM

Quote from: daibando on August 19, 2009, 03:20:22 PM
Obviously, Trudie, you just don't get it.

All descendants of George II (with a few exceptions) are obliged to ask the Sovereign for permission to marry. If they are over 25, they still have to ask, but if that permission is refused, they can later marry and the union will not be null and void. It is naturally preferable to get the Monarch's permission because there is no delay and the proposed marriage is not threatened by parliamentary action.

It is not surprising that have not heard of such action taking place, because the Queen has never refused her permission.

We wouldn't really know if Her Majesty had ever refused one of her family permission to marry. They would go to her first to ask permission to marry before any public announcement had been made. If they then went away and dropped the plan, then the public would never hear of it.

I recall rumours in the late 1960s that her cousin Prince William of Gloucester, heir to the dukedom, sought permission to marry a divorcee and had been told he couldn't. He later died tragically in 1972.

--==--

Trudie · August 21, 2009, 02:47:33 PM

Fawbert Remember Marina Mowatt went public in her desire for the Queen to grant her permission to marry as she was pregnant and her parents did not approve. The act does state that without the approval of Parliament before the 12 calendar months expire there can not be a marriage. I agree with Fawbert I doubt Parliament would overrulethe Queen 's refusal.

daibando · August 21, 2009, 03:12:50 PM

Trudie, that is also not correct The act does not under any circumstances say that Parliament must approve such a marriage. Both Houses of Parliament must actually object to the marriage, if they don't, if they say nothing, it goes ahead. I have advised you on more than one occasion to actually read the act; you are apparently still thinking about getting around to it.

Fawbert, your last post doesn't address the fact that you offered false information. I think you should just admit that you made a mistake so that we can all get on with other things. Actually, you don't have to admit it publicly, just accept it for yourself.

Trudie · August 21, 2009, 09:32:27 PM

If the Queen were to object you can be sure both houses of Parliament would most likely uphold her objection. The Duke of Windsor was Sovereign but in the final months of the reign of George V his objection to Wallis Simpson was noted and both houses of Parliament and the Commonwealth objected to his marriage and he abdicated. The only reason he was restored to an HRH by his brother was not only was it his birthright but without it he had the right to sit and vote in the House of Commons and that just wouldn't do.

daibando · August 22, 2009, 08:48:46 AM

Wrong again, Trudie. Both Houses of Parliament did not object to Edward VIII's proposed marriage and, under no circumstances do we know why he abdicated. Actually, Parliament couldn't interfere under the terms of the Royal Marriages Act; the King was hardly going to refuse himself the opportunity to marry, so they would be unable to perform that particular act. Furthermore, we cannot be sure that both Houses of Parliament would support the Queen if she refused permission to anyone; that would very much depend upon which party controlled the House of Commons. The House of Lords actually isn't a given either, because its composition has been radically changed since Tony Blair got at it.

Finally, the Duke of Windsor would only have had the right to sit and vote in the House of Commons, if he had been elected to that illustrious body.

Do you not think that it would be better if you just accepted that on this issue you are wrong instead of coming up with more and more outlandish arguments.

Trudie · August 22, 2009, 11:09:19 AM

Daibando you are wrong Stanley Baldwin Polled the Commonwealth as to whether the marriage was acceptable and told the Duke it was not. The Duke requested a morganatic marriage that too was rejected I suggest you start reading some more. There are many biographies such as the Decline and Fall of the House of Windsor, Buckingham Babylon etc, that addressed the abdication and the governments role in it.

Georgiana · August 22, 2009, 12:35:35 PM

:drama:

fawbert · August 22, 2009, 01:59:01 PM

Quote from: Trudie on August 21, 2009, 02:47:33 PM
Fawbert Remember Marina Mowatt went public in her desire for the Queen to grant her permission to marry as she was pregnant and her parents did not approve. The act does state that without the approval of Parliament before the 12 calendar months expire there can not be a marriage. I agree with Fawbert I doubt Parliament would overrulethe Queen 's refusal.

The Queen showed her disaproval of cousin Marina's behaviour by agreeing to the marriage but by not issuing to the couple the beautifully written signed copy of the consent document...

Kate · August 22, 2009, 02:29:57 PM

If I recall some old tidbits, Marina threatened to go public about the affair of PP and her mother, Princess Alexandra, if she did not get permission to marry...There was a lot of drama behind the scenes as both parents and Monarch were trying to pacify Marina. The Queen did NOT give the beautiful written permission slip, and although her parents were almost blackmailed into giving the wedding and attending same, there was much dissension for the next few years in the lives of Marina and her parents.

daibando · August 22, 2009, 03:16:15 PM

Quote from: Trudie on August 22, 2009, 11:09:19 AM
Daibando you are wrong Stanley Baldwin Polled the Commonwealth as to whether the marriage was acceptable and told the Duke it was not. The Duke requested a morganatic marriage that too was rejected I suggest you start reading some more. There are many biographies such as the Decline and Fall of the House of Windsor, Buckingham Babylon etc, that addressed the abdication and the governments role in it.

No, Trudie, you are wrong. Stanley Baldwin was Prime Minister, not the two Houses of Parliament. The Duke did not request anything, he was the King. What opinions were expressed by the governments of ex-colonies are almost certainly kept under lock and key.

I personally don't read any biographies about the royals; they are all total rubbish written by individuals trying to make a quick buck. I actually find the Royal Marriage Act much more informative, I can recommend it to you.

drezzle · August 22, 2009, 03:35:28 PM

Quote from: daibando on August 22, 2009, 08:48:46 AM
Both Houses of Parliament did not object to Edward VIII's proposed marriage and, under no circumstances do we know why he abdicated. Actually, Parliament couldn't interfere under the terms of the Royal Marriages Act; the King was hardly going to refuse himself the opportunity to marry..............................

That is generally true that Parliament couldn't interfere, but somehow Baldwin tricked Edward VIII into putting the question before parliament and when they objected............? Or was it the king was tricked into trying to get a morganic marriage approved? "The Windsor Story" was semi-autobiographical and dealt in detail with this subject and it was clear Edward VIII did not want to abdicate but was forced into it by many levels of deceit and trickery.

About Marina Mowatt, it was either during her marriage or at her divorce she again threatened to go public but due to claims of poverty this time. I remember some newspaper was talking about which one of Princess Alexandra's jewels could be sold to fix the problem.

daibando · August 23, 2009, 08:59:28 AM

Drezzle, whatever persuaded Edward VIII to abdicate, it was not forced by Parliament; it (Parliament) did not object to the proposed marriage. All the action came from the churches and the Prime Minister. The point in issue throughout this debate is that any Royal over the age of 25 does not NEED the Monarch's permission to marry. Please notice, the word is need, not desire, not wish, not want, not require or any other word one cares to consider; NEED.