 |
| Instrument of Consent |
This consent is a legal requirement set out in the Royal Marriages Act 1772. It appears that King George III considered that his brothers had made unsuitable marriages and that consent to marriages ought therefore to be required. He made a recommendation to that effect. The Parliament of the day considered the matter and , according to the Preamble, was "thoroughly convinced" of the "wisdom and expediency" of the King's recommendation. Despite this wording there was considerable opposition to the Act particularly on the part of William Pitt (Earl of Chatham) and Charles James Fox. The Preamble to the Act states that marriages in the Royal Family are "of the highest importance to the State" and that it is therefore desirable that the reigning Monarch gives consent. The 1772 Act s.1 therefore requires descendants of King George II to have this consent - (there are some exceptions). Section 2 enables a marriage to proceed even without consent but Parliament may then
intervene and express "disapprobation."
From time to time, there have been proposals in Parliament to repeal the 1772 Act. These have generally come from either members of the House of Lords or have taken the form of Private Member's Bills. The Labour governments in the period 1997-2010 expressed sympathy with the need for change but took no action to change the law. A recent attempt to change matters was in the 2008-9 Parliamentary Session when the Liberal Democrat M.P. Dr Evan Harris introduced a bill - see the Parliamentary briefing on The Royal Marriages and Succession to the Crown (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill."
Succession: The Monarchy is hereditary. Those seeking a Republic wish to see the abolition of the Monarchy and an elected Head of State. That is a distinct argument from the rules of law governing succession to the Crown which are based on the common law principle of male primogeniture. Thus, the eldest son of the reigning Monarch will succeed in preference to younger brothers. Daughters come after sons. Basically, this is how freehold interests in land used to be inherited on an intestacy prior to reforms in the property legislation of 1925 - in particular, the Administration of Estates Act 1925.
Mr Nick Clegg MP (Deputy Prime Minister) has expressed the view that the law ought to be amended by abolishing the male primogeniture rules so that, for example, if a daughter was born before a son, the daughter would inherit. This idea appears to have been well received by the government in New Zealand.
 |
| 1926 - King George V with Dominion Prime Ministers |
See also the latest Succession to the Crown Bill presented by Mr Keith Vaz MP on 18th January 2011. Second reading to be on 13th May.
Religion: For historical reasons, the person who inherits the throne must not be Roman Catholic and must not marry a Roman Catholic. A number of Acts come into play: the Bill of Rights 1688, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Act of Settlement 1700 and Acts of Union with Scotland and with Ireland. (See the fuller discussion in the Parliamentary Briefing paper). Also see the more recent briefing paper "Act of Settlement and the Protestant Succession" - 24th January 2011.
In 1688 the Crown was offered by Parliament to William of Orange and Mary. They were Protestant . The links between the Crown and the established Church became embedded in the law after the Act of Settlement 1700. Whether such links should exist in modern multi-religious and multicultural society is a matter which will no doubt have to be addressed at some stage. The general consensus is probably that the law is very out of date and particularly discriminatory. Nevertheless, it is possible to envisage some very difficult issues arising in this area and this perhaps explains the traditional reluctance within governments to address this particular question.
Until a couple of years ago my opinions on the political status of the family referred to in this blogpost would have laid me open to charges of Sedition, so I won't say anything more (but you may like to follow with a post on "Sedition" sometime in the next week or two).
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, isn't it great that nowadays a mere keyboard click or two can give you access to Law documents and commentaries, past and present - especially if you are not a legal professional or academic and thus excluded from their libraries?
@ Westengland - yes, the offence of sedition has been abolished - see Coroners and Justice Act 2009 s.73
ReplyDeleteThe former offence is explained here
Fully agree with you about access to materials via the internet but there is still a long way to go to beat a good law library with librarians who know their stuff.
Fascinating stuff.
ReplyDeleteThis post was also published on Legal Week for which I am grateful. An interesting comment was received which looked at succession to the Crown through the lens of human rights law. Here is the comment:
ReplyDelete------------------
Marckx v Belgium 1979
An Inconvenient Truth ? - At law women already have equal rights in royal sucession to the crown
I respectfully suggest that under UK law as currently enacted, namely the Act of Settlement, by virtue of the enactment of the Human Rights Act, that women and illegitimate children already have equal rights in succession to the Crown. The law as enacted simply needs to be recognised by the United Kingdom Government.
Rights of inheritance have been determined fall under Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights. (See Marckx v Belgium par 52)
Succession to the Crown includes the right of enjoyment or ownership of lands, chattels, and income, as well as real powers.
The interpretation of the Act of Settlement, which is silent as to gender and illegitimacy, in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act, as required by law, so as to be convention compliant, would engage article 14, Prohibition of Discrimination, and article 8, Right to Family life, and so arguably give women and illegitimate children equal rights in royal succession without any need to amend The Act of Settlement, or any other UK legislation, or legislation of the Realm Partners.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Will3/12-13/2/section/I
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/1/enacted
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/section/3/enacted
On the basis of a long-standing historic refusal of the UK to address these issues, by application or amendment of the law, a case has been brought before the ECHR, (R Brown V The United Kingdom, 10646/11), claiming the UK are illegally discriminating against women and illegitimate children in royal succession.
Robert Andrew Brown
My response (as posted on Legal Week) to Robert Brown:
ReplyDelete-------
My thanks to Legal Week for including this post. Also, thanks to Robert Brown for his interesting and valuable comment.
I think it would be infinitely preferable for the UK Parliament to amend the law so that succession to the Crown was merely primogeniture and not male primogeniture. It would look exceptionally bad (in my opinion) for there to be a European Ct. HR judgment telling the UK to do it. [That would also be grist to the mill for any Eurosceptic politicians as well as the media]. We know from Mr Clegg's remarks that discussions are underway with Commonwealth partners. Let us hope that they achieve the required outcome and that Parliament then acts to amend the law.
ObiterJ -28 Apr 2011 | 18:26