Not that it's any of my business...
June 30, 2010 11:55 AM Subscribe
BritishRoyalMarriageFilter: I've seen the tabloid rumors about Prince William and his longtime girlfriend and it made me curious. Is he 'allowed' to marry her and still be in line for King?
I've seen the tabloids but I haven't read the articles, so maybe I'm missing something. Not that I'd consider anything the tabloids have to say as any kind of fact.
I know that King Edward abdicated back in the 1930s so that he could marry Wallis Simpson, and I don't know if that was because she was a commoner, an American, or twice divorced. Was it a combination of all three?
I know other royals have married commoners, but I've never heard of one who was in line for the throne. (Other than Prince Rainier and Grace Kelly, but that was Monaco.)
So my question is: Can Prince William marry Kate and still eventually be King? If he can, has the law changed or is it just that Wallis Simpson was considered so wrong for the position?
I am just a curious American, and I hope I haven't been offensive. Please tell me if I have! It just seems like a big shift in just a few generations.
I've seen the tabloids but I haven't read the articles, so maybe I'm missing something. Not that I'd consider anything the tabloids have to say as any kind of fact.
I know that King Edward abdicated back in the 1930s so that he could marry Wallis Simpson, and I don't know if that was because she was a commoner, an American, or twice divorced. Was it a combination of all three?
I know other royals have married commoners, but I've never heard of one who was in line for the throne. (Other than Prince Rainier and Grace Kelly, but that was Monaco.)
So my question is: Can Prince William marry Kate and still eventually be King? If he can, has the law changed or is it just that Wallis Simpson was considered so wrong for the position?
I am just a curious American, and I hope I haven't been offensive. Please tell me if I have! It just seems like a big shift in just a few generations.
No issue at all with marrying a commoner. In fact, Diana was a commoner.
posted by Tomorrowful at 12:03 PM on June 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Tomorrowful at 12:03 PM on June 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: Even the Edward/Simpson thing was prohibited not due to any affirmative law, but by social stigma and Baldwin's threat to resign as Prime Minister if the marriage went forward. So far as I know, the only actual legal prohibition on who the heir can marry and stay in the line of succession is that the spouse not be a Catholic.
posted by strangely stunted trees at 12:04 PM on June 30, 2010
posted by strangely stunted trees at 12:04 PM on June 30, 2010
Best answer: Prince William can marry Kate and still be king. So too can his father Prince Charles, who married a divorcee.
The issue really wasn't the law it was the fact that King Edward feared that his proposed marriage, which was not popular with the British PM, would lead the PM to resign, spurring a new election and would cause a constitutional crisis where it would have marred the King's ability to be politically neutral.
The British PM at the time, Stanley Baldwin, argued that the British people would never accept Wallis Simpson as Queen because she was divorced. Attitudes have, of course, largely changed since then.
posted by inturnaround at 12:05 PM on June 30, 2010 [2 favorites]
The issue really wasn't the law it was the fact that King Edward feared that his proposed marriage, which was not popular with the British PM, would lead the PM to resign, spurring a new election and would cause a constitutional crisis where it would have marred the King's ability to be politically neutral.
The British PM at the time, Stanley Baldwin, argued that the British people would never accept Wallis Simpson as Queen because she was divorced. Attitudes have, of course, largely changed since then.
posted by inturnaround at 12:05 PM on June 30, 2010 [2 favorites]
Diana was a scion of a noble family, and was Lady Diana Spencer from the time she was a school teacher.
posted by parmanparman at 12:05 PM on June 30, 2010
posted by parmanparman at 12:05 PM on June 30, 2010
Yes, it was divorced. I believe also that the king cannot marry a Catholic - there's nothing on the statute books about other faiths but as the King of the United Kingdom also takes the title of Defender of the Faith [Church of England] then I think it would be iffy for him to marry a Jew or Muslim.
I think it's common practice for the Royal Family to intermarry to strengthen diplomatic ties, hence the marriages between other royal houses (and possibly also because your spouse would understand that world) but now absolute power is less common and, in the UK at least, the King/Queen is just a figurehead, I think marrying a commoner would matter less.
posted by mippy at 12:06 PM on June 30, 2010
I think it's common practice for the Royal Family to intermarry to strengthen diplomatic ties, hence the marriages between other royal houses (and possibly also because your spouse would understand that world) but now absolute power is less common and, in the UK at least, the King/Queen is just a figurehead, I think marrying a commoner would matter less.
posted by mippy at 12:06 PM on June 30, 2010
It's worth noting that there is also persistent speculation that a motivation for taking such a hard line with Edward was his pro-Nazi sympathies. It was rather awkward having a King who was mooning around Hitler like a smitten schoolgirl.
posted by rodgerd at 12:07 PM on June 30, 2010 [3 favorites]
posted by rodgerd at 12:07 PM on June 30, 2010 [3 favorites]
Oh, and you're not being offensive at all - most UK citizens are pretty indifferent to the Royal Family.
posted by mippy at 12:08 PM on June 30, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by mippy at 12:08 PM on June 30, 2010 [2 favorites]
I think almost all European continental monarchies feature crown princes and crown princesses marrying non-nobles. Maybe they've been advised by genetic counselors that the amount of inbreeding among European nobility over centuries is a real concern.
The recent marriage of the Swedish crown princess comes to mind. And the Dutch crown princes marriage.
posted by joost de vries at 12:08 PM on June 30, 2010
The recent marriage of the Swedish crown princess comes to mind. And the Dutch crown princes marriage.
posted by joost de vries at 12:08 PM on June 30, 2010
Best answer: Edward abdicated not because Simpson was a divorcee but because her status as (1) a twice-divorced (2) American led the Prime Minister to proclaim that the government would resign if he married her, leading to constitutional crisis. Rather than throw his country into that constitutional crisis (and being unwilling to give up Simpson), he abdicated.
(It's true that part of the reason the Prime Minister -- and, really, everyone -- had such a problem with Edward marrying Simpson was colored by the religious issue. The Church of England didn't condone remarriage after divorce and that presented problems for Edward, being head of the Church of England and all. But her "unsuitability" was at least as much about her reputation (not good) and her personality (reportedly abrasive) as it was about her marital status.)
posted by devinemissk at 12:09 PM on June 30, 2010
(It's true that part of the reason the Prime Minister -- and, really, everyone -- had such a problem with Edward marrying Simpson was colored by the religious issue. The Church of England didn't condone remarriage after divorce and that presented problems for Edward, being head of the Church of England and all. But her "unsuitability" was at least as much about her reputation (not good) and her personality (reportedly abrasive) as it was about her marital status.)
posted by devinemissk at 12:09 PM on June 30, 2010
The Edward/Simpson issue was divorce;
Note that Camilla is divorced and that doesn't bar Charles from the throne. That's because "The monarch of the United Kingdom is Supreme Governor of the Church of England—at the time of the proposed marriage, and until 2002, the Church of England did not permit the re-marriage of divorced people with living ex-spouses. Accordingly, while there was no civil law barrier to Edward marrying Wallis, the constitutional position was that the King could not marry a divorcée and remain as King (for to do so would conflict with his role as Supreme Governor).
Many Crowns, dating back to Henry VII, married women who were essentially commoners, and its never a problem. At this time, the only marriage "issue" that would be a problem is if the heir married a Catholic, although its unclear what would happen if the Heir were to marry without permission being given by the sitting Crown.
posted by anastasiav at 12:09 PM on June 30, 2010
Note that Camilla is divorced and that doesn't bar Charles from the throne. That's because "The monarch of the United Kingdom is Supreme Governor of the Church of England—at the time of the proposed marriage, and until 2002, the Church of England did not permit the re-marriage of divorced people with living ex-spouses. Accordingly, while there was no civil law barrier to Edward marrying Wallis, the constitutional position was that the King could not marry a divorcée and remain as King (for to do so would conflict with his role as Supreme Governor).
Many Crowns, dating back to Henry VII, married women who were essentially commoners, and its never a problem. At this time, the only marriage "issue" that would be a problem is if the heir married a Catholic, although its unclear what would happen if the Heir were to marry without permission being given by the sitting Crown.
posted by anastasiav at 12:09 PM on June 30, 2010
Diana was a scion of a noble family, and was Lady Diana Spencer from the time she was a school teacher.
Still a commoner though, that is to say, not royal. Daughters of earls are a dime-a-dozen.
posted by atrazine at 12:11 PM on June 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Still a commoner though, that is to say, not royal. Daughters of earls are a dime-a-dozen.
posted by atrazine at 12:11 PM on June 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Peter Phillips, Williams cousin, would probably have had to give up his place in the line of succession if his wife had not converted to Anglicanism before they were married.
posted by soelo at 12:13 PM on June 30, 2010
posted by soelo at 12:13 PM on June 30, 2010
Best answer: There was no prima facie legal reason why Edward VIII couldn't have married and remained on the throne; the abdication crisis was a political one. (The sovereign has the legal authority over royal marriages, but that didn't apply.)
The big no-no for royal marriages w/r/t the succession remains a Catholic spouse.
posted by holgate at 12:19 PM on June 30, 2010
The big no-no for royal marriages w/r/t the succession remains a Catholic spouse.
posted by holgate at 12:19 PM on June 30, 2010
Every few years they discuss getting rid of the prohibition against marrying a Catholic, but basically no-one really cares enough to actually go through the hassle of changing it.
posted by atrazine at 12:22 PM on June 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by atrazine at 12:22 PM on June 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Diana was a scion of a noble family, and was Lady Diana Spencer from the time she was a school teacher.
Form birth, actually, as a courtesy title.
Every few years they discuss getting rid of the prohibition against marrying a Catholic, but basically no-one really cares enough to actually go through the hassle of changing it.
Given it would mean getting fifteen other countries to change their laws as well it would indeed be a bit of a headache.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:30 PM on June 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Form birth, actually, as a courtesy title.
Every few years they discuss getting rid of the prohibition against marrying a Catholic, but basically no-one really cares enough to actually go through the hassle of changing it.
Given it would mean getting fifteen other countries to change their laws as well it would indeed be a bit of a headache.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:30 PM on June 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Is this the kind of thing that British kids learn in school or would it be considred purely the realm of gossip?
posted by TooFewShoes at 12:41 PM on June 30, 2010
posted by TooFewShoes at 12:41 PM on June 30, 2010
Not the sort of thing we were taught in school - I went to a fairly monarchist private school (sang 'God Save the Queen' at least twice a year), and I don't remember being taught anything about the Royal family apart from basic recognition of QEII.
And having covered the period of Edward VIII's abdication in A-Level history - it doesn't get talked about because Nazis are more interesting. And in the history of the royals, the excecution of Charles I is more interesting.
posted by Coobeastie at 12:51 PM on June 30, 2010
And having covered the period of Edward VIII's abdication in A-Level history - it doesn't get talked about because Nazis are more interesting. And in the history of the royals, the excecution of Charles I is more interesting.
posted by Coobeastie at 12:51 PM on June 30, 2010
Given it would mean getting fifteen other countries to change their laws as well it would indeed be a bit of a headache.
Which was another issue in 1936, as the first big test of the Statute of Westminster. (De Valera's gradual legislative extrication of the monarchy from the Irish constitution is worth noting.)
posted by holgate at 1:06 PM on June 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Which was another issue in 1936, as the first big test of the Statute of Westminster. (De Valera's gradual legislative extrication of the monarchy from the Irish constitution is worth noting.)
posted by holgate at 1:06 PM on June 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: In addition to the domestic political crisis, Edward was also well-known to be sympathetic to the Nazis; he was a personal houseguest of Hitler's in 1937. There are some historians who suggest that the brewing war with Germany played at least some part in his abdication. Churchill shipped him off to the Bahamas under threat of court martial during the war to keep him from causing trouble.
posted by jenkinsEar at 1:27 PM on June 30, 2010
posted by jenkinsEar at 1:27 PM on June 30, 2010
but basically no-one really cares enough to actually go through the hassle of changing it.
Rather like the rule of succession, which means the first-born son succeeds to the throne first.
Is this the kind of thing that British kids learn in school or would it be considred purely the realm of gossip?
I did history to GCSE level and if we covered the monarchy at all it was the Victorian or Tudor period/Renaissance - the latter being the point when Henry VIII started up the Church of England so he could get divorced. I've never met anyone that interested in who the king or future king will marry, other than in papers like the Daily Mail and Telegraph which are more traditionalist. What does tend to be gossip are rumours about parentage, sex scandals and sexual orientation.
posted by mippy at 2:09 PM on June 30, 2010
Rather like the rule of succession, which means the first-born son succeeds to the throne first.
Is this the kind of thing that British kids learn in school or would it be considred purely the realm of gossip?
I did history to GCSE level and if we covered the monarchy at all it was the Victorian or Tudor period/Renaissance - the latter being the point when Henry VIII started up the Church of England so he could get divorced. I've never met anyone that interested in who the king or future king will marry, other than in papers like the Daily Mail and Telegraph which are more traditionalist. What does tend to be gossip are rumours about parentage, sex scandals and sexual orientation.
posted by mippy at 2:09 PM on June 30, 2010
Best answer: There are two relevant pieces of legislation here. The first is the Act of Settlement (1701), which states that anyone who 'professes the Popish Religion or marries a Papist' is automatically excluded from the throne. The second is the Royal Marriages Act (1772), which states that no member of the Royal Family can marry without the monarch's consent until they reach the age of 25. After that age they can get married without the monarch's consent, though they still have to give twelve months' notice to the Privy Council, and even then Parliament can still intervene to forbid the marriage.
These laws are still very much in force, though their significance has changed over the years. In 1953 Princess Margaret wanted to marry a divorced man, Group Captain Peter Townsend. She was only 22 at the time, so under the terms of the Royal Marriages Act, she couldn't get married without the Queen's permission. The Queen told her to wait. In August 1955 she turned 25, and was free to marry without the Queen's consent, but the Prime Minister warned her that the marriage would not receive parliamentary approval unless she renounced her rights of succession. After some hesitation she broke off her engagement.
More recently, in 1988, the Earl of St Andrews (great-grandson of King George V, and twenty-fifth in line to the throne) married a divorcée, Sylvana Tomaselli. Times had changed since 1955, and no one made a fuss about a member of the Royal Family marrying a divorcée. However, Miss Tomaselli was a Roman Catholic, so under the terms of the Act of Succession, her husband automatically lost his place in the line of succession. Two of their three children have since been received into the Catholic Church, so have also lost their place in the line of succession.
posted by verstegan at 3:03 PM on June 30, 2010 [3 favorites]
These laws are still very much in force, though their significance has changed over the years. In 1953 Princess Margaret wanted to marry a divorced man, Group Captain Peter Townsend. She was only 22 at the time, so under the terms of the Royal Marriages Act, she couldn't get married without the Queen's permission. The Queen told her to wait. In August 1955 she turned 25, and was free to marry without the Queen's consent, but the Prime Minister warned her that the marriage would not receive parliamentary approval unless she renounced her rights of succession. After some hesitation she broke off her engagement.
More recently, in 1988, the Earl of St Andrews (great-grandson of King George V, and twenty-fifth in line to the throne) married a divorcée, Sylvana Tomaselli. Times had changed since 1955, and no one made a fuss about a member of the Royal Family marrying a divorcée. However, Miss Tomaselli was a Roman Catholic, so under the terms of the Act of Succession, her husband automatically lost his place in the line of succession. Two of their three children have since been received into the Catholic Church, so have also lost their place in the line of succession.
posted by verstegan at 3:03 PM on June 30, 2010 [3 favorites]
Response by poster: Wow verstegan, that is a really excellent answer.
I had no idea that Kind Edward was so sympathetic to the Nazi's. I always just liked the story because it seemed so romantic. But sure enough, I found the picture of him and Wallace shaking hands with Hitler. Interesting.
Well, I'm glad Prince William can marry Kate if he wants. I'll keep this open in case anybody else has any information for me.
posted by TooFewShoes at 5:12 PM on June 30, 2010
I had no idea that Kind Edward was so sympathetic to the Nazi's. I always just liked the story because it seemed so romantic. But sure enough, I found the picture of him and Wallace shaking hands with Hitler. Interesting.
Well, I'm glad Prince William can marry Kate if he wants. I'll keep this open in case anybody else has any information for me.
posted by TooFewShoes at 5:12 PM on June 30, 2010
UK laws, which can be traced to Henry VIII and his issues with Catholicism, bar anyone from succeeding to the throne who has ever been Roman Catholic or married a Roman Catholic.
Bear in mind that these laws can be changed, as Parliament sees fit.
posted by justcorbly at 5:26 PM on June 30, 2010
Bear in mind that these laws can be changed, as Parliament sees fit.
posted by justcorbly at 5:26 PM on June 30, 2010
Response by poster: I just thought of another question if anybody is still watching this:
If Kate does marry William will she be given a title? Is she made a princess if they get married or would it be some other title? When he becomes king would she be Queen Consort or Princess Consort or something else entirely? Would she be a HRH?
posted by TooFewShoes at 5:36 PM on July 1, 2010
If Kate does marry William will she be given a title? Is she made a princess if they get married or would it be some other title? When he becomes king would she be Queen Consort or Princess Consort or something else entirely? Would she be a HRH?
posted by TooFewShoes at 5:36 PM on July 1, 2010
Best answer: In order:
She will be officially titled HRH Princess William of Wales, I believe. In practice, she'll be called Princess Kate, though it would properly be Kate, Princess of Wales.
When he becomes King she will simply become Queen. The reason Philip is Prince is because women derive titles from their husbands (and not the other way around), and he couldn't be called King as they outrank Queens.
So.. before marriage, HRH P. After marriage, HM Queen Kate. (Note that she doesn't get the definite article (The Queen) as that is only used for a Queen Regnant).
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:54 PM on July 1, 2010
She will be officially titled HRH Princess William of Wales, I believe. In practice, she'll be called Princess Kate, though it would properly be Kate, Princess of Wales.
When he becomes King she will simply become Queen. The reason Philip is Prince is because women derive titles from their husbands (and not the other way around), and he couldn't be called King as they outrank Queens.
So.. before marriage, HRH P. After marriage, HM Queen Kate. (Note that she doesn't get the definite article (The Queen) as that is only used for a Queen Regnant).
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 5:54 PM on July 1, 2010
(Oh, and of course whatever other subsidiary titles William has. Can't remember them offhand).
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:45 PM on July 1, 2010
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 6:45 PM on July 1, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:59 AM on June 30, 2010