A sanctuary of knowledge and provoking information providing documented proof of a system dominated by a few elite bloated egos and that a ancient solution of a Silver bullet nature exists.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Queen swore an unlegislated unlawful oath in 1953..That proves fraud!
Royal Marriages – Constitutional Issues
Standard Note:
SN/PC/03417
Last updated:
2 December 2008
Author:
Lucinda Maer
Section Parliament and Constitution Centre
A series of legal restrictions on the religious beliefs which can be held by the spouse of the
monarch were introduced following the Glorious Revolution in 1688. The monarch must join
in communion with the Church of England, must declare him or herself to be a Protestant,
and must swear to maintain the established churches in England and Wales. If he or she
wishes to retain the title to the throne they cannot marry a Catholic. And by the same token,
marriage to a Catholic automatically excludes anyone from the line of succession.
As well as restrictions on the religious beliefs of the spouse of the monarch, The Royal
Marriages Act 1772 requires the descendants of George II (other than the children of
princesses married into ‘foreign families’) to seek consent of the monarch before marrying.
This note sets out the legal and historical background to the restrictions, and considers their
application in the case of the marriage of Prince Charles to Camilla Parker Bowles.
Other Standard Notes of interest may be:
•
•
•
SN/PC/00683, The Act of Settlement and the Protestant Succession
SN/PC/00293, Bill of Rights 1688
SN/PC/00435, The Coronation Oath
This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties
and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It
should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it
was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a
substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or
information is required.
This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available
online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the
content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public.
Contents
1
Religious beliefs of the spouse of the monarch
1.1
Relevant statutes
The Bill of Rights 1688
Coronation Oath Act 1688
Act of Settlement 1700
Act of Union with Scotland 1706
1.2
2
3
4
Recent examples
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
6
6
9
9
11
The Royal Marriages Act 1772
Attempts to change the law
The marriage of Prince Charles to Camilla Parker Bowles
4.1
4.2
Princess Consort
The Civil Ceremony
2
1
1.1
Religious beliefs of the spouse of the monarch
Relevant statutes
A series of relevant statutes sought to ensure the Protestant succession following the
Glorious Revolution of 1688. 1 These have a continuing influence on the religion of the
spouse of the monarch.
The Bill of Rights 1688
This states:
And whereas it hath beene found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety
and welfaire of this protestant kingdome to be governed by a popish prince or by any
King or Queene marrying a papist the said lords spirituall and temporall and commons
doe further pray that it may be enacted that all and every person and persons that is
are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or church of Rome
or shall professe the popish religion or shall marry a papist shall be excluded and be
for ever uncapeable to inherit possesse or enjoy the crowne and government of this
realme and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or
to have use or exercise any regall power authoritie or jurisdiction within the same…
The Act appears to prevent Roman Catholics from becoming the spouse to the monarch. 2
Coronation Oath Act 1688
Where it is quite clear that monarch or heir must not only not be a Catholic but also join in
communion with the Church of England, it would seem that the only restriction on the
monarch or heir’s spouse is that she cannot be a Catholic. So far as can be seen, the
nearest requirement on a Queen consort to be a Protestant is under the Coronation Oath Act
1688. The wording seems to require the same promise of both King and Queen to maintain
the established religion. 3
The Act requires the King and Queen to swear, during the coronation ceremony, that they
will to the utmost of their power:
maintaine the Laws of God the true profession of the Gospell and the Protestant
reformed religion established by law [...] and [...] preserve unto the bishops and clergy
of this realm and to the churches committed to their charge all such rights and
privileges as by law do or shall appertain unto them or any of them. 4
On the other hand, section 4 of the Act appears to detract from this requirement although the
wording is somewhat imprecise:
4. Oath to be administered to all future Kings and Queens
And ... the said oath shall be in like manner administred to every King or Queene who
shall succeede to the imperiall crowne of this realme at their respective coronations by
one of the archbishops or bishops of this realme of England for the time being to be
1
2
3
4
In England before 1752, 1 January was celebrated as the New Year festival, but 25 March was the start of the
civil or legal year. The Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 introduced the Gregorian Calendar and moved the start
of the civil year to 1 January. Therefore the years given in dates for Acts preceding 1752 are often recorded
differently – depending on whether the old or new style calendar is used. In this note, the dates used in
Halsbury’s Laws of England have been used.
For the rest of this note, all references to ‘Catholics’ are references to ‘Roman Catholics’.
Coronation Oath Act 1688 (1 Will & Mar chap 6), s 3
Coronation Oath Act 1688 (1 Will & Mar chap 6), s 3
3
thereunto appointed by such King or Queene respectively and in the presence of all
persons that shall be attending assisting or otherwise present at such their respective
coronations any law statute or usage to the contrary notwithstanding.
The 1688 Act included the Queen, since William and Mary ruled as joint monarchs. This joint
monarchy was unprecedented in English history and came about as part of unique
circumstances. Mary was the sister of James II and her husband was Dutch. As part of the
negotiations leading to the Glorious Revolution, William was approached for his opinion.
According to the Oxford History of England William made clear to those who sought to bring
him to power that he would not be regent or accept a subordinate position to his wife. The
history notes “Both William and Mary formally accepted the offer of the throne made to them
jointly, and with it the Declaration of Rights”. 5
Therefore as far as a Queen consort or wife of the heir to the throne is concerned, it is only
Catholics who are specifically affected. However, if the speculation about the Coronation
Oath is justified, there might be women of some Protestant denominations and non-Christian
religions who would not wish to promise to maintain the established religion. (There is also
the uncertainty over Holy Communion in the coronation service).
The coronation oath was not administered to Prince Philip, who is the consort of the current
monarch. Only Elizabeth II took the oath. In contrast, the Queen’s parents, George VI and
Queen Elizabeth both took the coronation oath. 6 However, it is worth noting that the oath
Elizabeth II took was modified without statutory authority. The present Queen swore to
govern the peoples of her realms and territories according to their respective laws and
customs and to maintain the established Protestant religion in the United Kingdom. 7
If there were doubts about the religious affiliation of the spouse, it would not seem necessary
for the spouse to take the formal coronation oath. The fact that the religious affiliation was
non-Christian or pagan would not seem to be relevant, since the oath need not be
administered to a spouse.
Act of Settlement 1700
The Bill of Rights established the succession to the heirs of Mary II, Anne and William III in
that order. But by 1700 Mary had died childless, Anne's only surviving child had died and
William was dying. The Stuarts still had claims to the throne. The Act of Settlement was
passed, devolving the Protestant succession after Queen Anne (assuming no heir) on
Princess Sophia the Electress of Hanover and her heirs, who were Protestants. The Act
explained that it was “absolutely necessary for the safety, peace and quiet of this realm to
obviate all doubts and contentions in the same by reason of any pretended titles to the
crown” 8 ,
This Act in section 2 reiterated the exclusion of Catholics or persons married to Catholics and
the requirement for the Coronation oath:
2. The persons inheritable by this Act, holding communion with the church of
Rome, incapacitated as by the former Act, to take the oath at their coronation,
according to Stat 1 W & M c 6
5
6
7
8
Sir George Clark The Later Stuarts 1660-1714 second edition p145
See Halsbury’s Laws of England Vol 12(1) The Crown, para 20
For further details see Library Note SN/PC/00435, The Coronation Oath
Act of Settlement 1700 (12 & 13 Will 3 chap 2), in long title
4
Provided always and it is hereby enacted that all and every person and persons who
shall or may take or inherit the said crown by vertue of the limitation of this present Act
and is are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or church of
Rome or shall profess the popish religion or shall marry a papist shall be subject to
such incapacities as in such case or cases are by the said recited Act provided
enacted and established. And that every King and Queen of this realm who shall come
to and succeed in the imperiall crown of this kingdom by vertue of this Act shall have
the coronation oath administered to him her or them at their respective coronations
according to the Act of Parliament made in the first year of the reign of his Majesty and
the said late Queen Mary intituled An Act for establishing the coronation oath and shall
make subscribe and repeat the declaration in the Act first above recited mentioned or
referred to in the manner and form thereby prescribed.
At first the effect of this was to exclude all members of other churches. However, members of
certain other Protestant churches may not now be debarred. Since 1972, by the Church of
England’s Admission to Holy Communion Measure, 9 and the [Church of England] Canon
(B15A) that followed it, “baptised persons who are communicant members of other churches
which subscribe to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and who are in good standing in their own
Church” shall without further process be admitted to Holy Communion in Church of England
churches.
This means, for instance, that a Methodist, Congregationalist, Church of Scotland, or Baptist
member can take Anglican communion, though a Unitarian (who would reject the concept of
the Trinity) could not. Hence in the strict sense of the wording of the Act of Settlement,
members of these churches would not now be excluded. Members of Protestant
denominations outside the Church of England do not generally object as a matter of faith to
its established status and could thus subscribe to the requirements of the Coronation Oath
Act 1688. Such a person could therefore “join in communion”, as the words of the statute
decree.
A Catholic would probably still be affected by this section, additionally to the specific
disabilities quoted in s 2, since he or she could not remain “in good standing” in the Roman
Catholic Church by taking communion from an Anglican minister. 10 This disability would
appear to affect the spouse of a monarch who would be required to take the coronation oath.
However, as seen above, the current monarch took a form of the coronation oath which
differed in wording from the 1688 Act.
Act of Union with Scotland 1706
The position of the established Protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland was safeguarded
in the Act of Union with Scotland. Article II of the Articles of Union reiterated and confirmed
the provisions of the Act of Settlement. It would need amendment should the Act of
Settlement be abolished or amended.
1.2
Recent examples
There are two recent examples where the marriage of someone in line to the throne to a
Roman Catholic has resulted in their removal from the line of succession. 11 The Earl of St
Andrews and HRH Prince Michael of Kent both lost the right of succession to the throne
9
10
11
GSM no.2, 1972. The canon is reprinted in Canons of the Church of England, 5th ed 1993 (loose leaf
publication)
With certain minor exceptions, [RC] Canon 844; Code of Canon Law, 1997 ed.
A list of the first 40 in line to the throne is available at http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page5655.asp (last
viewed 22 August 2008)
5
through marriage to Roman Catholics. Any children of these marriages remain in the
succession provided that they are in communion with the Church of England.
In 2008 it was announced that Peter Phillips would marry his partner, Autumn Kelly. It
emerged that she had been baptised as a Catholic. Ms Kelly was accepted into the Church
of England before the marriage took place and Peter Phillips retains his place in the line of
succession. 12
2
The Royal Marriages Act 1772
This Act requires the descendants of George II (other than the children of princesses married
into ‘foreign families’) to seek consent of the monarch before marrying. 13 The Act applies also
to marriages celebrated abroad and makes such marriages without consent void. 14 Under the
His Majesty’s Declaration of Abdication Act 1936 the 1772 Act was disapplied for any heirs of
the Duke of Windsor. A descendant aged over 25 who persists in his/her wish to marry
without consent, may do so unless both Houses of Parliament expressly disapprove of the
marriage. There is no reference to the religion of the intended spouse.
There have been suggestions that the Royal Marriages Act 1772 contravenes human rights
legislation in requiring virtually all descendants of George II permission from the crown for
their marriages, although controversy remains about its full extent.
Robert Blackburn has explained the idea of constitutional control over who becomes the
spouse of the reigning of future monarch as follows:
The logic behind this idea is that the personality and personal life of the individual who
is or may become head of state is a matter of profound public interest to the well-being
of the government and the country. The head of state’s consort is inter-woven into this
public interest in good governance, for he or she not only has considerable de facto
official, ceremonial and diplomatic functions to perform, but normally will be the father
or mother of the subsequent heir apparent. A comparative glance at monarchies
elsewhere in the world indicates that similar notions often operate there too. Both
Spain and Sweden, for example, have constitutional provisions debarring from the
throne those who proceed with a royal marriage which is not approved by the
government. 15
3
Attempts to change the law
The arguments in favour of changing The Royal Marriages Act 1772 have been set out in an
article by Dr Stephen Cretney, an emeritus fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, who quotes a
1955 civil service brief prepared for the Prime Minister in relation to a Parliamentary
Question:
1. “It is inherently unsatisfactory that personal and constitutional questions of such
high importance should still depend on the operation of an 18th Century Statute which
was admittedly passed hurriedly, and in the face of considerable opposition, to deal
with an ad hoc situation created largely by the unsatisfactory conduct of King George
III’s brothers.”
12
13
14
15
“Fiancée secures royal succession by abandoning her Catholic Faith’, The Times, 1 May 2008
“The Royal Marriages Act 1772” Modern Law Review Vol 14 Jan 1951 suggests that descendants of Queen
Elizabeth II do not come within the Act, as she was a princess marrying into a foreign family
Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 11Cl and Fin 85
Blackburn, King and Country: Monarchy and the Future King Charles III, 2006, p171
6
2. The legal interpretation of the Act is uncertain; but it seems that “its ambit is now far
too wide. It extends, or may extend to classes of persons whose connection with the
Throne is very remote. Some think it should at least be confided to The Sovereign’s
children and grand-children and the Heir Presumptive.”
3. “Although many approve in principle of control of marriages which are likely to affect
the succession to the Throne, it can reasonably be argued that the sanctions against
marriage without consent imposed by the Act of 1772 are too strong. A marriage
without consent if void and the offspring of the union bastardised…”
4. “The provision of the Act which requires an applicant over the age of 25 who has
been refused consent to give notice to the Privy Council and then wait a year, during
which either House of Parliament may prevent the marriage by passing a resolution is
contrary to modern ideas of propriety and fair-dealing”. 16
The Legitimacy Act 1959 introduced the doctrine of the putative marriage into English law.
As a result of that Act the child of a marriage void under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 will
usually be treated as the legitimate child of the parents.
Dr Cretney writes:
Materials now in the public domain demonstrate that there were two main options for
reform of the Royal Marriages Act. [Footnote: In 1955 (when it had been thought that
Princess Margaret might renounce her rights of succession on marrying Group Captain
Peter Townsend) draft documents were prepared…] The first was to amend the Act by
confining its application to a comparatively narrow class (for example, the current
Monarch’s descendants). The second was to repeal the 1772 Act, and substitute an
Act retaining the need for the Sovereign’s consent to the marriage and those close to
the throne, but restriction the sanction for failure to obtain that consent to
disqualification from the line of succession and from any financial provision from the
Civil List. Bills were drafted by counsel to give effect to these alternatives. But by
1964 all enthusiasm for reform seems to have evaporated. Approval of those
Commonwealth countries which were monarchies seems to have been an especially
weighty factor, and on July 13 1964 Home Secretary Henry Brooke decided “not to
proceed with legislation… at the moment”. Forty years later, there has still been no
Government action to introduce the legislation…” 17
Lord Dubs introduced the Succession to the Crown [HL] Bill in the 2004-5 Session. Clause 2
of Lord Dubs’s Bill attempted to allow spouses of the King/Queen to be a Catholic, but did
not attempt to repeal the Act of Settlement itself. Nevertheless, the Bill faced opposition on
its second reading from the Bishop of Winchester:
…if the Bill became law and made in time for a Roman Catholic consort, in a
generation we could therefore have a Roman Catholic heir to the throne who could not
join in communion with the Church of England. Although I pray earnestly for that
reconciliation of the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches which for me is the only
proper solution to the admitted embarrassments and misunderstandings which the Bill
seeks to resolve, I doubt very much whether it is wise for your Lordships' House or the
16
17
Dr S Cretney QC, ‘Royal Marriages: Some Legal and Constitutional Issues’, Law Quarterly Review, April
2008, pp235-237
Dr S Cretney QC, ‘Royal Marriages: Some Legal and Constitutional Issues’, Law Quarterly Review, April
2008, pp238-239
7
other place either to bank on the timing of that reconciliation or to seek to bring
pressure to bear on its achievement. 18
Also in the 2004-05 Session Ann Taylor introduced the Succession to the Crown (no 2) Bill in
the Commons, but the bill did not make progress. 19 Edward Leigh presented his ten minute
rule bill Royal Marriages (Freedom of Religion) Bill on Tuesday 8 March 2005. He argued
that amending the law in relation to the spouse of a monarch was a much less complex
process than removing the anti-Catholic nature of the Act of Settlement.
The then Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer responded to Lord Dubs’s Bill. He stated that
although the Act of Settlement and other associated Acts that exclude Roman Catholics from
the succession could be seen as ‘discriminatory’, he remained opposed to what would be a
complex and controversial procedure to change them:
To bring about changes to the law would be a complex and controversial undertaking,
raising major constitutional issues which would involve the amendment or repeal of a
number of pieces of related legislation. Legislation that would need to be reviewed
includes the Bill of Rights 1688, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Union with Scotland
Act 1707, the Princess Sophia's Precedence Act 1711—I hope no one will intervene on
that one—the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the Union with Ireland Act 1800, the
Accession Declaration Act 1910, and the Regency Act 1937. I recognise that my noble
friend's Bill deals with obvious aspects of the Union with Scotland Act and, indeed, the
parallel Union with England Act of the pre-Union Scottish Parliament, but it has not
addressed any of the issues raised by the other Acts to which I have referred.
I should make it clear that this Government stand firmly against discrimination in all its
forms, including discrimination against Catholics, and will continue to do so. The
Government would never support discrimination against Catholics, or indeed any
others, on the grounds of religion. The terms of the Act are discriminatory, but we
should be clear that for all practical purposes, its effects are limited…
There is a difference between applying new legislation such as the Human Rights Act
to existing legislation, and altering legislation which is part of the backbone of our
constitutional arrangements. Indeed, this legislation is interwoven within the very fabric
of the constitution and has evolved over centuries. It is not a simple matter that can be
tinkered with lightly. While we would wish to remove all forms of discrimination, for a
variety of reasons that have been well understood in the course of this debate, this is
not the appropriate form. 20
He said:
There is an argument for amending the Act to remove the need for all descendants of
George II having to obtain the Queen's consent before marrying. The longer the
current provisions remain on the statute book, the more couples there will be who are
covered by the requirements of the Act. Noble Lords should draw their own
conclusions from the procedural description that I have just given. However, given the
Government's current legislative programme, the issue cannot be seen as urgent and
would, again, have to be part of any larger examination of constitutional issues, such
as the Act of Settlement.
18
19
20
HL Deb 14 January 2005 c501
Bill 36 of 2004-5
HL Deb 14 January 2005, cc510-511
8
The Government have not said that the laws we have considered today should never
be changed. They do not rule out change in the future, but we have no immediate
plans to legislate in this area.
As has been pointed out in the past, it is a complex undertaking and we must be
careful not to embark on it before proper consultation with all parties involved. 21
Lord Falconer pointed out that there are 22 people in the line of succession to the throne
after the Prince of Wales who have not been affected by the Act of Settlement’s anti-Catholic
provisions, so the chances of a successor being the victim of the Act are slight. 22 It is
necessary to have ‘victim status’ under the Human Rights Act 1998 to bring a case. In
general, a hypothetical case would not be entertained by the courts, so would be very
unlikely to progress to a hearing.
Courts are not entitled to strike down primary legislation as a result of the Human Rights Act
1998. Instead courts will make a declaration of incompatibility in accordance with s4 of the
Human Rights Act. This does not force Parliament to amend the law, but Parliament runs the
risk of having an offending piece of legislation brought before the European Court of Human
Rights if it does not replace the piece of legislation.
4
The marriage of Prince Charles to Camilla Parker Bowles
The marriage of Prince Charles to Mrs Parker Bowles in 2005 raised many questions about
the constitutional issues involved in royal marriages.
4.1
Princess Consort
The official announcement from Clarence House noted that if Charles were to succeed to the
throne, Mrs Parker Bowles would become Princess Consort:
Mrs Parker Bowles will use the title HRH The Duchess of Cornwall after marriage.
It is intended that Mrs Parker Bowles should use the title HRH The Princess Consort
when The Prince of Wales accedes to The Throne. 23
Although Prince Philip and Prince Albert were described as consorts to the British queens
they married, this appears to be the first time that the title Princess Consort has been used.
In response to a PQ from Andrew Mackinlay, the DCA has indicated that the marriage is not
morganatic. 24 Another parliamentary answer indicated that permission for the marriage,
under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 had been granted at a Privy Council meeting on 2
March 2005. 25
In 1820 Princess Caroline of Brunswick attempted to ensure that she would be crowned
alongside George IV, her estranged husband. George IV persuaded the then Prime Minister,
Lord Liverpool, to introduce a bill into the House of Lords to deprive her of her rank and
dissolve the marriage. The Bill was withdrawn after it only received a narrow majority at
21
22
23
24
25
HL Deb 14 January 2005 c511
HL Deb 14 January 2005 c511
See Prince of Wales, Press Release, 10 February 2005
http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/mediacentre/pressreleases/announcement_of_the_marriage_of_hrh_the_pri
nce_of_wales_and__167.html (last viewed 22 August 2008)
HC Deb 17 March 2005 c462w
HC Deb 17 March 2005 c462w
9
second reading. Princess Caroline tried to enter Westminster Abbey for the coronation in
July 1821, but was not successful. She died the following month. 26
David Pannick QC has noted possible legal implications if Camilla Parker-Bowles did not use
the title of queen. His comments are as follows:
Assuming that a valid marriage takes place, Mrs Parker Bowles may, in many years'
time, have an important constitutional function to perform. The Regency Act 1937
regulates what would happen if the Sovereign were to become incapacitated. If King
Charles III were to spend all of his time talking to plants, so that he is "by reason of
infirmity of mind or body incapable for the time being of performing the royal functions",
Prince William would become Regent. Charles could be declared to be so
incapacitated by three or more of the following: his "wife", the Lord Chancellor, the
Speaker of the House of Commons, the Lord Chief Justice and the Master of the
Rolls…There is no Act of Parliament regulating whether Camilla must be called Queen
if and when Charles becomes King. But there are possible legal implications if she
does not have that title. The Treason Act 1351 states that the offence of treason is
committed if a person "doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of
our lady his Queen". Halsbury's Statutes helpfully adds that there is an "alternative
version of the original text", substituting "wife" for "Queen"….There is a potential
financial advantage for Camilla in becoming Mrs Wales. Section 6 of the Civil List Act
1952 states that in the event of the death during the present reign of the Duke of
Cornwall (one of the Prince's titles) his widow shall be paid during her life an annual
sum (at present set at Pounds 60,000). 27
Dr Stephen Cretney has argued that Mrs Parker Bowles’s status will be that of queen,
despite the use of the title princess consort. 28 The Department for Constitutional Affairs (as it
was at the time) confirmed that no amendment is planned to the Civil List Act 1952. 29 A
spokesman for Clarence House said that Mrs Parker Bowles may use the title Princess
Consort rather than Queen without a change in the law. He said: ‘Legislation would only be
required if it was deemed necessary to confirm formally that that she should not have the title
and status of queen.’ 30 It is likely that alterations to the royal succession would require
consent from Commonwealth countries under the Statute of Westminster 1931. 31 However,
no consent would seem necessary for a marriage which does not affect the succession.
Prince Philip was not styled Prince Consort, but was granted the style and patent of a Prince
of the United Kingdom by letters patent of the Queen on 22 February 1957. 32 Halsbury’s
Laws notes that the common law relating to the husband of a queen is not as developed as
the wife of a King, due to the rarity of a Queen regnant in British history. A Queen consort
has distinct prerogatives, which are now largely of historical significance, but remains a
private citizen and has no right to be crowned. 33 Following her divorce from Prince Charles,
Princess Diana was no longer styled Her Royal Highness, but Diana, Princess of Wales. This
indicates the extent to which the royal prerogative can be used to reach an acceptable official
status, without parliamentary involvement.
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Ed John Cannon and Ralph Phillips The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy, 1988, pp537-8
“Imagine it: Camilla calls a couple of judges and says, Let's oust him”, The Times, 22 February 2005,
“Dr Stephen Cretney” The Times, 22 February 2005
HC Deb 17 March 2005 c461-2
“Prince and Camilla ‘do not want her to be called queen” 23 March 2005 Daily Telegraph
See Library Standard Note SN/PC/683 The Act of Settlement and the Protestant Succession for further details
Halsbury’s Laws Vol 12(1) para 28
Queen Caroline’s Claim to be Crowned (1821) 1 State Trials NS 949
10
The Regency Act 1953 specifically nominated the spouse of Queen Elizabeth, Prince Philip,
to be Regent in the event that it was necessary and that either she has no child or
grandchild, or all such persons are disqualified. 34 Similar arrangements might be expected for
Prince Charles, should he succeed, but these are not necessarily automatic.
4.2
The Civil Ceremony
In his book, King and Country, Robert Blackburn stated that:
From a purely legal perspective, the most astonishing aspect of the royal events of
spring 2005 was the decision for the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles to get
married in a civil register office in England. This flew in the face of any conventional
reading of the statute book on marriage law, which expressly excludes members of the
royal family from marriage by way of civil registration. It flew in the face of the standard
legal textbooks and works for reference, which also clearly state that members of the
royal family are excluded from marriage by way of civil registration. It flew in the face
of two famous royal occasions in living memory, 1936 and 1955, when everyone
accepted that members of the royal family could not marry by way of civil registration.
this was, after all, an accepted legal position which had fuelled the abdication crisis
and driven Edward III from the throne, and been a major factor in the painful
termination of Princess Margaret’s high-profile romance with a divorcee. The proposal
put forward in spring 2005 directly contradicted the official legal advice that members
of the royal family could not contract a legal marriage through a civil registry service,
which had been given by previous Lord Chancellors to previous Prime Ministers and
monarchs. 35
Following some weeks of speculation about the applicability of the law on civil marriages to
marriages contracted by the royal family, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer of Thoroton,
made the following written ministerial statement on 23 February 2005:
The Government is satisfied that it is lawful for the Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker
Bowles, like anyone else, to marry by a civil ceremony in accordance with Part III of the
Marriage Act 1949.
Civil marriages were introduced in England by the Marriage Act 1836. Section 45 said
that the Act:
“… shall not extend to the marriage of any of the Royal Family”.
But the provisions on civil marriage in the 1836 Act were repealed by the Marriage Act
1949. All remaining parts of the 1836 Act, including section 45, were repealed by the
Registration Service Act 1953. No part of the 1836 Act therefore remains on the statute
book.
The Marriage Act 1949 re-enacted and re-stated the law on marriage in England and
Wales. The Act covered both marriage by Church of England rite, and civil marriage. It
did not repeat the language of section 45 of the 1836 Act. Instead, section 79(5) of the
1949 Act says that:
“Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members
of the Royal Family.”
The change of wording is important, and the significance is not undermined by the fact
that the 1949 Act is described as a consolidation Act. The interpretation of any Act of
34
35
See Halsbury’s Laws Vol 12(1) para 13
Robert Blackburn, King and Country: Monarchy and the Future King Charles III, 2006, p54
11
Parliament, even when it consolidates previous legislation, must be based on the
words used in the Act itself, not different words used in the previous legislation.
In our view, section 79(5) of the 1949 Act preserves ancient procedures applying to
Royal marriages, for example the availability of customary forms of marriage and
registration. It also preserves the effect of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which
requires the Sovereign’s consent for certain marriages. But it does not have the effect
of excluding Royal marriages from the scope of Part III, which provides for civil
ceremonies. As the heading to section 79 indicates (“Repeals and savings”) it is a
saving, not an exclusion.
We are aware that different views have been taken in the past; but we consider that
these were over-cautious, and we are clear that the interpretation I have set out in this
statement is correct. We also note that the Human Rights Act has since 2000 required
legislation to be interpreted wherever possible in a way that is compatible with the right
to marry (article 12) and with the right to enjoy that right without discrimination (article
14). This, in our view, puts the modern meaning of the 1949 Act beyond doubt. 36
A Clarence House spokesperson was quoted in newspapers at the time as stating that:
“Legal advice was taken from four different sources and all agreed that it is legal for a
member of the Royal Family to marry in a civil ceremony in England”. 37
A number of commentators had drawn attention to opinions suggesting that the Marriage Act
1949 did not apply to any royal marriage.
Dr Stephen Cretney suggested that the Marriage Act 1836 could render the Royal union
‘illegal’. In his view, the legislation which created civil marriages in English law did not permit
members of the Royal Family to contract a civil wedding under the procedures originally
created in 1836. While the act was amended by parliament in 1949, that statute makes no
mention of the Royals. 38 However, in Dr Cretney’s view it would be impossible to argue that
the wedding was invalid: the decision whether to allow the ceremony to go ahead was
entrusted by law to the Registrar-General and he decided to grant a licence.
A 1956 Aide Memoire addressed to the Lord Chancellor noted that:
Marriages of members of the Royal Family are not in the same position as marriages
of other persons. The statutory facilities for civil marriages are not available in England,
but are available in Scotland. In England such marriages are governed by the
Common Law. 39
Similarly a Home Office memo in July 1964 stated:
… marriages of members of the Royal Family are still not in the same position as
marriages of other persons. Such marriages have always been expressly excluded
from statutes about marriage in England and Wales and marriages abroad, and are
therefore governed by the common law. This means that in England and Wales such a
marriage can be validly celebrated only by a clergyman of the Church of England. A
civil marriage before the registrar, and marriage according to the rites of any church
other than the Church of England, are not possible. 40
36
37
38
39
40
HL Deb 23 February 2005 also available at http://www.dca.gov.uk/pubs/statements/royalmarriage.htm
Joshua Rozenburg, “Prince’s civil marriage will be legal, say aides”, Daily Telegraph, 15 February 2005
Ibid
Royal Marriages – Aide Memoire, 10 February 1956
The Royal Marriages Act 1772, 8 July 1964, para 3
12
The earlier statement followed discussions about Princess Margaret. At the time, there was
speculation that she might marry Group Captain Peter Townsend, who had divorced his first
wife. In the event Princess Margaret decided not to marry him:
The following personal message was issued by Princess Margaret from Clarence
House last night:-
“I would like it to be known that I have decided not to marry Group Captain Peter
Townsend. I have been aware that, subject to my renouncing my rights of succession,
it might have been possible for me to contract a civil marriage. But, mindful of the
Church’s teaching that Christian marriage is indissoluble, and conscious of my duty to
the Commonwealth, I have resolved to put these considerations before any others.
“I have reached this decision entirely alone, and in doing so have been strengthened
by the unfailing support and devotion of Group Captain Townsend. I am deeply
grateful for the concern of all those who have constantly prayed for my happiness.”
The message, signed “Margaret,” was dated Monday, October 31. 41
Lord Falconer’s statement suggests that this interpretation was unduly restrictive. The
Human Rights Act 1998 applies to all existing legislation, not just legislation passed after
1998. S3 states:
So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be
read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.
But section 3(2) (b) states:
[this act] does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of any
incompatible primary legislation
However, not all commentators accepted the position outlined by Lord Falconer. David
Pannick QC stated:
Section 79(5) of the 1949 Act added that nothing in that legislation "shall affect any law
or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family". The whole of the
1836 Act was then repealed by the Registration Service Act 1953. The problem is that
there was in 1949 a custom (based on previous law) of members of the Royal Family
only marrying in church. It is very doubtful that this custom has ceased to exist, and so
Section 79(5) of the 1949 Act still prevents a civil ceremony. To avoid a royal flush of
embarrassment, the Prince and Mrs Parker Bowles need to find an archbishop, or a
42
vicar, who is available at short notice.
For Lord Falconer, the legal row over did not come as much of a surprise. His inner circle
insisted last night that he had been prepared "early last week" to make a statement outlining
his view that a civil ceremony was legitimate. After consulting Tony Blair and other senior
Cabinet colleagues, the written statement was put out on Wednesday. The statement was a
precis of Lord Falconer's advice deemed fit for public consumption rather than the advice
itself. In essence, it breezily argues that the Prince can marry Mrs Parker Bowles under the
1949 Marriage Act, which updated the law on civil marriages. If there were any doubt, he
added, the Human Rights Act of 2000 gave any couple, Royal or commoner, the right to a
civil ceremony "without discrimination".
41
42
“Statement by Princess Margaret”, The Times, 1 November 1955
“Camilla calls a couple of justices and says, Let’s oust him”, The Times, 22 February 2005
13
Both Lord Falconer's senior officials and Downing Street told The Sunday Telegraph that
they could see "no need" for a simple two-clause Bill to "clear up" the confusion, although
they admitted that, constitutionally, they were in "unknown territory" and that no one could
pronounce with any certainty on the likely outcome of any legal challenge to the forthcoming
wedding, were one to be launched. 43
Eleven objections to the wedding were made, under s29 of the Wedding Act 1949.
Objections are made to the local registrar’s office, 44 or the office at which the ceremony will
be officiated. The relevant superintendent general is duty bound to carry out an investigation.
Reverend Paul Williamson of St George’s Church, Hounslow announced that he had
completed an official ‘caveat’. 45 He is an outspoken representative of the evangelical wing of
the Church of England.
The superintendent registrar cannot issue the wedding certificate or proceed with the
wedding until "he has satisfied himself that there is not sufficient evidence of the alleged
impediment" or the caveat is withdrawn altogether. Caveats when received are examined by
the Registrar General. An objector can seek judicial review if he disagrees with the decision
of the Registrar General, but review would only be granted on fairly narrow grounds. 46
Len Cook, Registrar General found that the objections should not be sustained:
The Superintendent Registrars for Chippenham and Cirencester have received and
referred to me 11 caveats objecting to the marriage of The Prince of Wales and Mrs
Parker Bowles. The principal grounds of objection are that the law does not allow The
Prince of Wales to marry in a civil ceremony because:
members of the Royal Family are a special category;
special rules apply to this category; and,
section 79(5) of the Marriage Act 1949 states that 'Nothing in this Act shall affect any
law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family' and the
provisions of the 1949 Act governing civil marriages do not therefore apply to
marriages of members of the Royal Family.
I have examined into this matter and I am satisfied that it ought not to obstruct the
issue of a certificate because:
the natural reading of section 79(5) is that it preserves, for example, the Royal
Marriages Act 1772, and the custom of the Royal Family to maintain a Royal Marriage
Register; but
does not exclude members of the Royal Family from Part III of the 1949 Act (as
amended, in particular by the Marriage Act 1994);
a reading of the 1949 Act which prevented The Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker
Bowles from contracting a civil marriage would interfere with their rights under the
European Convention on Human Rights ('the Convention'); and,
section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires legislation to be interpreted
and given effect to in a way which is compliant with Convention rights, is a strong
43
44
45
46
“So whose head will roll?” Daily Telegraph, 27 February 2005
For Camilla Parker-Bowles, this is Chippenham
“Charles: the British have no pity”, Observer, 27 February 2005
“Royal challenge”, The Times, 5 March 2005
14
obligation which supports the conclusion that The Prince of Wales and Mrs Parker
Bowles can rely on the provisions of Part III of the 1949 Act.
A number of other points have also been mentioned in the caveats and I have
investigated whether any of these amount to a legal impediment to marriage under the
Marriage Act 1949. I am satisfied that none of these objections should obstruct the
issue of a certificate. 47
The Shadow Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, said that the Opposition would support any
legislation which might be necessary to clarify the status of the civil wedding. 48 The former
Attorney General, Sir Nicholas Lyell called for such legislation and David Pannick stated that
a legal challenge would be necessary to test the argument on the implications of human
rights act legislation. 49
The date of the wedding was changed from 8 April 2005 to 9 April 2005 following the death
of Pope John Paul II, to enable Prince Charles to attend the Pope’s funeral in Rome on 8
April. 50
47
48
49
50
“Statement from Len Cook, Registrar General for England and Wales” 8 March 2005
“Tories back Bill to dispel legal doubts over royal wedding” 25 February 2005 Times
“Charles relies on rights law he despised to validate marriage” 24 February 2005 Times
“HRH Prince Charles to attend funeral of Pope John Paul II” 4 April 2005 Prince of Wales website at
http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/news/2005/04.apr/pope_funeral.php
15
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Translation It takes the average person about 90 days to ingest the full 60 gram treatment. I suggest that people start with three doses pe...
No comments:
Post a Comment