Benjamin Lascelles, who is the second child and eldest son, of Viscount Lascelles, heir to the Harewood earldom, is to marry Carolina Velez Robledo, who is Colombian, in April. Ben's marriage received the "Declaration of Consent" during the February 11, 2009 meeting of the Privy Council.
Ben did not need the Sovereign's permission to marry, according to the Royal Marriages Act. He was born before his parents' marriage, which means he cannot inherit the Harewood earldom or the British throne. His younger brother, Alexander, is the heir after Lord Lascelles.
Ben is the second of Lord Lascelles' children to marry. His older sister, Emily, was married last year to Matthew Shard. They are the parents of a set of twins, a boy and a girl. Middle brother, Alexander, who is known as Orly, is the father of a son, Leo, who was born in March of 2008. As Alexander is not married, Leo does not have rights to the earldom or to the throne. It seems history is repeating itself.
Here is the link the the Privy Council Order
http://www.privy-council.org.uk/files/word/Council%20List%20February%202009.doc
11 comments:
Was consent needed? Some seems to read the RMA as if Benjamin did need the consent as the act does distinguish between born before or after the marriage of the parents. When the act was drafted I cld hardly imagine that children born out of wedlock would be covered. Did anything change due to a subsequent marriage of the parents? It did not put Benjamin or his sister in line for the earldom or the crown for sure, but maybe under the cover of the RMA?
Only children born after a marriage has taken place are eligible for the throne. Legitimated children are not. Ditto most peerages (apart from some Scottish peerages, I think.)
Emily and Ben do not have rights to the throne, nor is Ben in line for the earldom. I think they did it because of their grandfather.
so does it mean the RFA is understood that only those in line to the throne need the consent, even if the text itself does not say that expressly? It wld make perfect sense to me.
The text is rather specific. If you are a dynast, you need permission - but it also applies to dynasts who are heirs to peerages. Not all peerages of course. The peerages would be Harewood, Fife, Saltoun, Snowdon, Gloucester and Kent. It will also apply to the recreated Edinburgh dukedom - only because these folks descend from George II. York will revert to the Crown if Andrew never remarries and has a son. Lord Nicholas is out as a dynast to the throne, but is in line to the Kent dukedom.
No descendant of the body of his late Majesty King George the Second, male or female, shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his Majesty....
shortend version of RMA is not that specific. There is indeed no mention of "dynast" or "legitimate" but mere of "no descendent". Even more there is no difference between the succession to the crown or the sucession to peerage.
I would agree with your interpretation, but I believe it is an interpretation based on application in the past.
Or do you have a different wording?
Legitimated children have no need to get permission because the act has no affect on their lives - they cannot succeed to the throne or inherit the earldom
Marlene
So the legally speaking the act is simply not applicable. But this requires interpreation. This meaning would be
No descendant of the body of his late Majesty King George the Second, male or female,(having succession rights) shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his Majesty...
The concept of legitimated children did not figure into the framers' of this legislation. The Dukes of Sussex and Cambridge married without consent (in the case of the 2nd duke of Cambridge, 2 of his 3 kids were born before the marriage).The kids were legitmated by the marriage, but had no rights to the throne, or even to the Cambridge dukedom. Ben Lascelles cannot succeed to the throne or two the earldom so so there is absolutely no reason for asking the queen for her consent to marry.
PS Cabri,
POSTCARDS from Belgium, remember :)
What? You see me speechless. Did you get them? I posted them straight from BXL, plus the address of a royalty postcard shop address which I always forget and on top a late Xmas gift from it. I am shocked.
No. Nothing. I would have immediately sent a thank you!
Post a Comment