The Unofficial British Royal Family Pages

Monday 19 July 2004

Royal Acts of Admonition

As if finding “the one” wasn’t difficult enough already for us common folk, Britain’s royal legacy has made it even more challenging for those lucky enough to be close to the throne. In the days when most royal marriages were arranged, the royal acts controlling marriage – The Act of Settlement and The Royal Marriages Act – were more of a technicality than the major stumbling block to matrimonial bliss that they are today. Or were they? 

Ever since an ambivalent government created it in 1772, The Royal Marriages Act has, at a minimum, proved a bit of a joke, and, at most, left behind a legacy of unwanted and unhappy or broken and bitter royal marriages. 

The Act, initiated by the high-minded George III, which prohibited any descendant of George II to marry under the age of 25 without the monarch's permission, was designed to prevent “unsuitable” royal marriages. Unsuitable meaning, naturally, anyone who was not of royal or sufficiently high aristocratic blood, but extending by inference to commoners, bastards, actresses, and all the other vulgar creatures that were increasingly making their way into royal circles. 

And while this broad interpretation of “unsuitable” seemed to be in line with a wide variety of possible situations, at the time the King had one particular marriage very much in mind – that of his scandal-prone brother Henry, Duke of Cumberland, to commoner and widow Anne Horton, who he had secretly wed in 1771. Unfortunately for the King, this unfortunate occurrence was the impetus behind the Act and, therefore, the Act itself was too late to prevent it, but it would certainly keep it from happening again… or so he thought.

In fact, the Act proved ineffectual almost immediately after it was passed. The first blow came when the king’s favorite brother, William, duke of Gloucester, admitted that he, too, had secretly married a widowed commoner, Lady Waldegrave, in 1766.  To make matters worse, this new royal duchess was also the illegitimate daughter of Sir Edward Walpole. Once again, since the marriage had taken place before the Act was established, nothing could be done to alter the situation. The king, however, made sure neither duchess was ever received at court, although given the fact that George III’s court was considered the dullest in Europe, it would seem they didn’t miss very much. 

Not only had the Act immediately proved unsuccessful, it had been widely unpopular even before it was passed, not just within the circle of the affected members of the royal family, but with at least two prominent politicians in particular arguing loudly against it. Whig politician Charles James Fox believed that “even” members of the royal family should be able to marry whom they wished, and he resigned his office in retaliation. William Pitt the Elder called the proposed Act “wanton and tyrannical.” But, despite these protests, the bill passed into law, thanks largely to the strength of Lord North’s Tory government. 

As it turned out, it was Charles James Fox, a close friend of George, Prince of Wales, who later strongly urged the Prince not to marry his Catholic mistress, Maria Fitzherbert. In typical fashion, the Prince ignored this good advice and in December 1785, he secretly married Maria. Although the Act had again failed to prevent this unsuitable union, the marriage was nonetheless illegal, not only under the Royal Marriages Act, but also under the 1701 Act of Settlement, which prohibits a Catholic or anyone married to a Catholic from ascending the throne (more on this in a minute). In due time, the technical illegality was reinforced by the Prince himself who agreed to a “legal” marriage to his first cousin, Caroline of Brunswick, in 1795. 

Over the next 150 years, the Royal Marriages Act lay inactive, stirring only to rumor and speculation that this royal or that married someone unsuitable. Among these was Prince Eddy, the Duke of Clarence, who was rumored to have married Annie Crook in the 1880s. Finally, in 1936, the next significant and/or substantiated marriage-related constitutional crisis occurred when Edward VIII decided that Wallis Simpson meant more to him than the crown. So, after a century and a half of nothing but acceptable royal marriages, it’s no wonder that Edward’s crisis made the impact it did.  

Then, a mere 19 years later, came Princess Margaret and Group Captain Peter Townsend. In Margaret’s case, however, the government made a complete shift in attitude from Edward VIII's proposed marriage to Wallis Simpson. Harkening back to the position of politicians in George III's day, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Kilmuir, was among those who believed that the Royal Marriages Act was outdated and an embarrassment that should be repealed. Reportedly, this sentiment was widespread enough that the Queen was asked if she would agree to its repeal.  

This overall sentiment no doubt helped Margaret’s case and, combined with various unknown factors, led to the government developing a secret plan that would have allowed her to marry with almost no alteration to her existence (unlike her unfortunate great uncle, the Duke of Windsor). But, as we know, Margaret put duty before love, thus postponing the debate and even the possible repeal of the Royal Marriages Act – a move that has and will affected the marital choices of her nephew, Prince Charles. 

More has been said in recent years – even in recent days – about repealing the Act of Settlement. Unlike the Royal Marriages Act, which has been actively ignored, widely interpreted, and evaded when necessary, the Act of Settlement has had a more direct affect on those who chose to ignore it. A quick look at the line of succession reveals that at least four people who should be among the first 50 in line to the throne are not, either because they married a Catholic or became one themselves. Interestingly, each of the individuals on the list who have been excluded were unlikely to ever reach the throne anyway. 

Created in a time when the British government was more concerned with protecting the monarchy from so-called Papists, the Act of Settlement is today something of a white elephant in our more culturally diverse and tolerant day and age. Or at least that’s what we’d like to hope. Personally, as a Protestant married to a Catholic, I am grateful I didn’t have to choose between losing my choice of partner or losing my heritage, and it seems a shame to limit the choices of any one – royalty or not – based on differences in religion.  

That said, one argument against the repeal of the Act of Settlement is that if a Catholic monarch came to the British throne, Church and State would split, as a Catholic monarch cannot be head of the Church of England. Obviously, this is an important issue that must be weighed carefully by and on behalf of the people to whom it matters most – British citizens.  

Clearly, both Acts are important enough to both the future of the monarchy and to our modern sensibilities that they have to be seriously addressed at some point in the near future. Undoubtedly, the outcome will affect the modern and future British royals just as much as they have affected their predecessors. Until then, the cycle continues. 

Until next week, 

- Tori Van Orden Mart�nez

To Geraldine and everyone who left congratulatory messages on the occasion of my marriage, I can’t thank you enough for your thoughtfulness – David and I were deeply touched by your sentiments. 

By far, July 10, 2004 was the happiest day of my life, but the fun is not over yet! Unlike most brides, I get to wear my wedding dress twice, as we are also celebrating our marriage in David’s hometown in Spain on August 14^th. I plan to write something special in honor of that occasion, so stay tuned for that sometime in August. 

Once again, I can’t thank you all enough – it really is a pleasure to write for you and to communicate with you.