do they really have to marry distant relatives to preserve their title?
2007-02-09 00:41:27 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
yep, pretty gross
2007-02-16 08:21:39 · answer #1 · answered by sydb1967 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Royal marriages
Marriages of members of the royal family are regulated by the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, which made it illegal for any member of the British royal family (defined as all descendants of King George II, excluding descendants of princesses who marry foreigners) under the age of 25 to marry without the consent of the ruling monarch. Any member of the Royal Family over the age of 25 who has been refused the sovereign's consent may marry one year after giving notice to the Privy Council of their intention to so marry, unless Parliament passes an act against the marriage in the interim. In 2005, the Queen consented formally to the wedding of Charles, Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker Bowles.
The royal family was specifically excluded from the Marriage Act 1836 which instituted civil marriages in England. However, Prince Charles's civil marriage raised questions. Lord Falconer of Thoroton told the House of Lords that the 1836 Act had been repealed by the Marriage Act 1949 which had different wording, and that the British Government were satisfied that it was lawful for the couple to marry by a civil ceremony in accordance with Part III of the 1949 Act, and the Registrar General Len Cook determined that a civil marriage would in fact be valid, the Human Rights Act 1998 apparently superseding any previously enacted legislation barring members of the royal family from civil marriages.
2007-02-13 05:08:51 · answer #2 · answered by nehulstyagi29 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The only criteria now is suitable character, though there have been recent controversies in some European countries over a royal bride whose father was a minister in Argentina's military dictatorship, and another new princess who had some sort of wild past (single mother or something). Both marriages still went ahead, though. In Britain there is a bar on Roman Catholics but this is likely to be repealed one day. There is certainly no longer an expectation that they marry someone of royal blood.
2007-02-14 17:21:10 · answer #3 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the old days that was the case yes, but not anymore.
Today the requirements for a royal bride or bridegroom are considerably less strict than before. The only requirements they need to meet really is that they love whom they are marrying and accept giving up their whole lives for the monarchy and country, and of course that they have an acceptable background.
Most monarchies still have some sort of law concerning royal marriages, it often evolves that the Parliament and sometimes Government as well as the monarch have to give their consent to the marriage.
2007-02-11 18:08:32 · answer #4 · answered by ChocolaterieGirl 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
These days there doesn't seem to be much rules about this.
I believe part of why they dropped a lot of the rules to stop the genetic faults that can appear when one has kids with relatives.
2007-02-09 08:47:03 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's looking like Prince William may marry Kate MIddleton. They haven't announced anything, but they've been together for some time.
2007-02-10 12:02:50 · answer #6 · answered by STEPHEN J 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
many years ago if you were a royal and you married a commoner then you were shunned and the marriage was called a morganic marriage, and none of your children could hold a title.
2007-02-09 19:48:39 · answer #7 · answered by guy f 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not so much.
If you can earn the prince/princesses affection, you can be in line for a title these days - at least until these stupid garnishments are stripped.
2007-02-13 00:07:32 · answer #8 · answered by Dethruhate 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In these days there is no restrictions.
2007-02-09 08:45:28 · answer #9 · answered by Charles H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋