Jeremy Wilkes
LostCousins Star
I was puzzled on reading the article about the royal wedding to learn that it is not indexed by the G.R.O. On checking, though, I see that there appears to be no obligation on deans who are not incumbents (and those who are used to be called provosts, save, perhaps, for the Dean of Battle) to submit quarterly returns. I wonder whether there are similar omissions of ceremonies at cathedrals, school and college chapels and, for that matter, Dover Castle.
Incidentally, I have seen it argued that descendants of Queen Victoria are not bound by the Royal Marriages Act, because she was a princess who married into a foreign house, but what member of the Royal Family would want to risk finding that his or her marriage was void?
My understanding is that Quaker and Jewish weddings were not regulated by Lord Hardwicke's act because representatives of those denominations asked for exemption, and the authorities were doubtless agreeable because errant heiresses and heiresses presumptive of the upper class were unlikely to engage in their ceremonies. Professor Probert, and doubtless others, take the view that such weddings were invalid anyway (but those of Quakers were retrospectively validated).
Incidentally, I have seen it argued that descendants of Queen Victoria are not bound by the Royal Marriages Act, because she was a princess who married into a foreign house, but what member of the Royal Family would want to risk finding that his or her marriage was void?
My understanding is that Quaker and Jewish weddings were not regulated by Lord Hardwicke's act because representatives of those denominations asked for exemption, and the authorities were doubtless agreeable because errant heiresses and heiresses presumptive of the upper class were unlikely to engage in their ceremonies. Professor Probert, and doubtless others, take the view that such weddings were invalid anyway (but those of Quakers were retrospectively validated).
