MARRIAGE OF SOVEREIGN

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXI, Issue 4952, 6 February 1937, Page 6

MARRIAGE OF SOVEREIGN

CONSTITUTIONAL POSITION. It is a characteristic feature of English common law that in the matter of marriage it knows no distinction of ranks, states a writer in the Manchester Guardian. In its eyes all persons from the sovereign downwards stand on the same footing, and the reigning prince may marry whom he pleases in exactly the same way as any of his subjects, subject to cisely the same conditions regarding prohibited degrees of relationship. Statute, however, has intervened to impose a vital restriction. The misdeeds of James 11. drove Parliament to determine that, while the King may marry a Papist—that is, one who holds communion with the Church of Rome or professes the Popish religion,—by this Act he is excluded from enjoying the Crown, the people are absolved of their al_ legiance, and the Crown descends to the next Protestant in the line of succession. It will be noted that the sanctity of marriage is respected. The marriage is not invalid nor is it even wrongful. A sovereign may deliberately prefer domestic happiness to the cares of State, and the statute provides a constitutional means of doing so. The unfettered choice of the sovereign stands in marked contrast with the position of the other members of

the Royal Family. To them, indeed, was originally applicable the freedom of the common law, but it is characteristic of the un-English point of view of the first sovereign of the Hanoverian dynasty that, acting in accordance with the practice of German princely families, he was eager to assert authority over the marriages of members of the Royal Family. Precedents of earlier action in this sense were asserted, and the judges in 1717 ruled, as desired by the King, that he had the right to approve the marriages of the heirpresumptive and his grandchildren. But a marriage entered into without royal approbation was not invalid in law, and the indignation felt by George 111. at the marriages of the Dukes of Cumberland and Gloucester induced him, by the exertion of vehement pressure on the Houses of Parliament, to secure the passing of the Royal Marriages Act, 1772. Under this remarkable enactment the permission of the King is necessary for the validity in English law of the marriage of any descendant of George 11. (other than the issue of princesses who marry into foreign families) under the age of twentyfive. Over that age, if the royal permission is withheld, the pei’son concerned may give notice of his intention to marry to the Privy Council, and may after twelve months have expired marry, unless in the interval both Houses of Parliament have expressed disapproval of the projected alliance. Whether the Act in its wide extension is now defensible may be doubted, but normally, of course, it operates to secure that on ascending the throne the sovereign is already married with the approval of his predecessor. The complete freedom of the soveeign to marry at pleasure is not restricted by any constitutional practice. No doubt under the earlier sovereigns of the present dynasty the feeling was strong that royalty should mate with royalty, but it cannot be said that there ever existed any marked popular sentiment on the subject. When Queen Victoria cordially approved the marriage of her daughter to the Marquis of Lome the warm approval shown by Parliament made it clear that the country was willing to accept any alliance on its merits. Under earlier dynasties, of course, no restrictions on the royal freedom of choice were

enforced. Henry VIII.’s assertion of his sole decision was readily accepted by his subjects, and those of his marriages which were based on international interests were no more successful than those of Charles 11. and that of his brother, while that of his daughter was disastrous. The days fortunately have gone when it was necessary for a Queen like Elizabeth to consider whether duty to her country did not demand a political marriage to the Duke of Anjou. No Ministry now need consider itself bound to advise the sovereign to strengthen the country by a prudent alliance. But the freedom of action of the sovereign is limited by moral factors of a compelling character. The position of a Queen or Prince Consort is one hard to fill under the exacting conditions of a monax’chy which rests on the popular will, and a specially high standard has been set by the precedents of Prince Albert, of Queen Alexandra, and of Queen Mary. Qualities which may be admirable for the normal life of the subject may be insufficient for the exacting round of public duties imposed by custom on a Queen. The mere fact that the sovereign may legally wed whom he will imposes on him the task of fixing his affections on one whose selection will be widely welcomed by his people.

In such a matter the position of the Prime Minister as representing the Cabinet is one of the utmost delicacy. He cannot claim a constitutional right to advise marriage, still less to suggest any particular marriage. The Kings sole right to determine for himself the desirability of marriage is as uncontestable as his initiative in choice. But before any final decision is f aken the sovereign should doubtless take his Prime Minister, as the essential link between him and his people, into his confidence. Nor would it involve any overstepping of the limits of his authority were the Prime Minister in his confidential intercourse with his sovereign on his own initiative to touch on the attitude of the people to any suggested marriage. He must, of course, in any case make certain that any proposed consort is not a Papist and is under English law of the status of an unmarried woman, for English law differs on that head from foreign, law, and authoritative advice is due to the King. On the

desirability of any particular choice the Prime Minister would doubtless, if at all possible, concur in the royal wish. But constitutionally he would be entitled, if his view were overruled, to resign office, for it is impossible to accept the suggestion that a royal marriage is to be accepted as a private affair, in which Ministers have no place. The office of Queen Consort is of high official rank, and in the selection of its holder the people and their representatives have a vital interest.

Nor is the duty of the Crown to keep in touch with the views of the Cabinet lessened by the fact that Parliament in its, grant of the Civil List, making ample provision for the contingency of the royal marriage, has deprived itself of any formal means of control. It was constitutionally open to the House of Commons to reserve to itself the right to determine the grant for the Queen Consort when the choice of the King was communicated by him. The fact that it has refrained from such action is a signal proof of the complete confidence which it reposes in the discretion of the King and the respect which he will accord to its point of view. No moi’e signal example could be given of the completeness of the bond of confidence between King and people.