Editing Morganatic marriage (section)

=== United Kingdom ===
{{more citations needed section|date = April 2017}}
The concept of morganatic marriage has never clearly existed in any part of the United Kingdom, and historically the English crown descended through marriages with commoners as late as the 17th century.  Only two of the [[Wives of Henry VIII|six marriages Henry VIII made]] to secure an heir were with royal brides, and [[Elizabeth Woodville]], queen of [[Edward IV of England]], was also a commoner.

Another link in the English succession involving marriage with a commoner was between [[John of Gaunt]] and [[Katherine Swynford]].  When they married after co-habiting for several years all children born previously were subsequently legitimated by Act of Parliament. [[Henry IV of England|King Henry IV]] later declared that they could not inherit the crown, but it is not clear that he had the right to do this. This marriage was important, as [[Henry VII of England|King Henry VII]] was descended from it, but Parliament still declared that he was king, so some issues remained unresolved.

The marriage of [[George IV]] as Prince of Wales to [[Maria Fitzherbert]] in 1785 is frequently referred to as morganatic: it was in fact doubly in breach of law, as a marriage to a Catholic and one not having been sanctioned by the king.

As in nearly all European monarchies extant in the 21st century, most approved marriages in the [[British royal family]] are with untitled commoners<ref name="willis2">Willis, Daniel A., ''The Descendants of King George I of Great Britain'', Clearfield Company, Baltimore, 2002, pp. 48–54 and ''passim''. {{ISBN|0-8063-5172-1}}.</ref> and have been for several generations. In 1923, the future [[George VI]] (then second in line to the throne as [[Duke of York]]), was the first future British monarch to marry a non-princess or prince since 1659 when the future [[James II of England|James VII & II]] eloped with [[Anne Hyde]]. Wives of British peers are entitled to use the feminine form of their husbands' peerages under [[English common law]], while wives of royal princes share their husbands' styles by custom unless the Sovereign formally objects.<ref name="highness">[[Donald Somervell, Baron Somervell of Harrow|Somervell, Sir Donald]]. Memorandum, Attorney General to Home Secretary, 14 April 1937, [[The National Archives (United Kingdom)|National Archives]] file [[Home Office|HO]] 144/22945.</ref>

For example, [[Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge|Catherine Middleton]], a commoner, became the [[Duchess of Cambridge]] upon her marriage on 29 April 2011 to [[Prince William, Duke of Cambridge|Prince William]], who had been created [[Duke of Cambridge]] that morning.<ref>{{cite magazine|title= Introducing the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge |url=https://newsfeed.time.com/2011/04/29/introducing-the-duke-and-duchess-of-cambridge/?xid=rss-politics-huffpo | magazine=[[Time (magazine)|Time]] | date=29 April 2011}}</ref> [[Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall|Camilla Parker Bowles]], second wife of [[King Charles III|Charles, Prince of Wales]] (as he was at the time), legally held the title "[[Princess of Wales]]" but at the time that the engagement was announced it was declared that she would be known by the title "[[Duchess of Cornwall]]" and, in Scotland, [[Duchess of Rothesay]] (derived from other titles her husband held as [[heir apparent]]) in deference, it has been reported, to public feelings about the title's previous holder, the Prince's first wife [[Diana, Princess of Wales|Lady Diana Spencer]]. It was simultaneously stated that at such time, if any, her husband acceded to the throne, she would be known as "[[Princess Consort]]" rather than "Queen", although as the king's wife she would legally be queen.<ref name = "noqueen">{{Cite web|url = http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page5559.asp|title=TRH The Prince of Wales & The Duchess of Cornwall|access-date = 2009-01-11|work = The Royal Family|quote = After the wedding, Mrs. Parker Bowles became known as HRH The Duchess of Cornwall. If and when The Prince of Wales accedes to the throne, she will be known as HRH The Princess Consort.}}</ref><ref name="intended">{{Cite web|url=http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/biography/index.html|title=Biography|access-date=2009-01-11|publisher=[[BBC News]]|archive-date=2009-01-09|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090109054340/http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/personalprofiles/theprinceofwales/biography/index.html|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="queenyes">{{Cite news|url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4369217.stm| title = Camilla 'will be Charles' queen'|access-date = 2009-01-11|work = [[BBC]] | date=2005-03-21 | location=London}}</ref> However, in her 2022 [[Accession day (United Kingdom)|Accession Day]] message, Queen Elizabeth&nbsp;II stated that it was her "sincere wish" for Camilla to be "known as Queen Consort",<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60274816|title=Queen wants Camilla to be known as Queen Consort|work=BBC|first=Sean|last=Coughlan|date=5 February 2022|accessdate=5 February 2022|archive-date=5 February 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220205221941/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-60274816|url-status=live}}</ref> and, on Charles' accession, Camilla took this title.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Bridge |first=London |date=2022-09-08 |title=The Queen Consort |url=https://www.royal.uk/queen-consort |access-date=2022-12-30 |website=The Royal Family |language=en}}</ref>

==== Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson ====

On 16 November 1936 [[Edward VIII]] informed Prime Minister [[Stanley Baldwin]] that he intended to marry the American divorcée [[Wallis Simpson]], proposing that he be allowed to do so morganatically and remain king.<ref name=duke>HRH The Duke of Windsor. ''A King's Story''. 1951. London: Cassell and Co., p. 332.</ref> Baldwin expressed his belief that Mrs. Simpson would be unacceptable to the British people as queen due to her status as a divorcee, which contradicted Church of England doctrine at the time,<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.churchofengland.org/media/37453/mcad1.doc|title=Marriage in Church After a Divorce|publisher=Church of England|access-date=9 March 2013|format=doc|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120915022305/http://www.churchofengland.org/media/37453/mcad1.doc|archive-date=15 September 2012}}</ref> but agreed to take further soundings. The prospect of the marriage was rejected by the [[Cabinet of the United Kingdom|British Cabinet]].<ref name="Windsor">Bloch, Michael (1982). ''The Duke of Windsor's War''. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson. {{ISBN|0-297-77947-8}}, p. 346</ref> The other [[Dominion]] governments were consulted<ref>Windsor, p. 354</ref> pursuant to the [[Statute of Westminster 1931]], which provided in part that "any alteration in the law touching the Succession to the Throne or the Royal Style and Titles shall hereafter require the assent as well of the Parliaments of all the Dominions as of the [[Parliament of the United Kingdom]]."<ref>{{citation|title=Statute of Westminster 1931 c.4|url=http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1081723|publisher=The UK Statute Law Database|access-date=1 May 2010}}</ref><ref>[[Taylor, A.J.P.]], ''English History, 1914-1945'', Oxford University Press, 1965, p. 401.</ref> Baldwin suggested three options to the prime ministers of the five [[Dominion]]s of which Edward was also king: [[Canada]], [[Australia]], [[New Zealand]], [[Union of South Africa|South Africa]] and the [[Irish Free State]]. The options were:

# Edward and Mrs. Simpson marry and she become queen (a royal marriage);
# Edward and Mrs. Simpson marry, but she not become queen, instead receiving some [[Courtesy titles in the United Kingdom|courtesy title]] (a morganatic marriage); or
# [[Abdication]] for Edward and any potential heirs he might father, allowing him to make any marital decisions without further constitutional implications.

The second option had European precedents, including Edward's own maternal great-grandfather, [[Duke Alexander of Württemberg (1804–1885)|Duke Alexander of Württemberg]], but no unambiguous parallel in British constitutional history. [[William Lyon Mackenzie King]] ([[Prime Minister of Canada]]), [[Joseph Lyons]] ([[Prime Minister of Australia]]) and [[J. B. M. Hertzog]] ([[Prime Minister of South Africa]]) opposed options 1 and 2. [[Michael Joseph Savage]] ([[Prime Minister of New Zealand]]) rejected option 1 but thought that option 2 "might be possible&nbsp;... if some solution along these lines were found to be practicable" but "would be guided by the decision of the Home government".<ref>Williams, p. 130</ref> Thus the majority of the Commonwealth's prime ministers agreed that there was "no alternative to course (3)".<ref>[[Éamon de Valera]] quoted in Bradford, p. 188</ref> On 24 November, Baldwin consulted the three leading opposition politicians in Britain: [[Leader of the Opposition (United Kingdom)|Leader of the Opposition]] [[Clement Attlee]], [[Liberal Party (UK)|Liberal]] leader [[Archibald Sinclair, 1st Viscount Thurso|Sir Archibald Sinclair]] and [[Winston Churchill]]. Sinclair and Attlee agreed that options 1 and 2 were unacceptable and Churchill pledged to support the government.<ref>Williams, p. 113</ref>

The letters and diaries of working-class people and ex-servicemen generally demonstrate support for the King, while those from the middle and upper classes tend to express indignation and distaste.<ref>See, for example, Williams, pp. 138–144</ref> ''[[The Times]]'', ''[[The Morning Post]]'', the ''[[Daily Herald (United Kingdom)|Daily Herald]]'', and newspapers owned by [[Gomer Berry, 1st Viscount Kemsley|Lord Kemsley]], such as ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', opposed the marriage. On the other hand, the ''[[Daily Express|Express]]'' and ''[[Daily Mail|Mail]]'' newspapers, owned by [[Max Aitken, 1st Baron Beaverbrook|Lord Beaverbrook]] and [[Harold Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Rothermere|Lord Rothermere]], respectively, appeared to support a morganatic marriage.<ref>Beaverbrook, p. 68; Broad, p. 188 and Ziegler, p. 308</ref> The King estimated that the newspapers in favour had a circulation of 12.5&nbsp;million, and those against had 8.5&nbsp;million.<ref>Ziegler, p. 308 and the Duke of Windsor, p. 373</ref>

Backed by Churchill and Beaverbrook, Edward proposed to broadcast a speech indicating his desire to remain on the throne or to be recalled to it if forced to abdicate, while marrying Mrs Simpson morganatically. In one section, Edward proposed to say:
{{Blockquote|Neither Mrs. Simpson nor I have ever sought to insist that she should be queen. All we desired was that our married happiness should carry with it a proper title and dignity for her, befitting my wife. Now that I have at last been able to take you into my confidence, I feel it is best to go away for a while, so that you may reflect calmly and quietly, but without undue delay, on what I have said.<ref>The Duke of Windsor, p. 361</ref>}}

Baldwin and the [[Cabinet of the United Kingdom|British Cabinet]] blocked the speech, saying that it would shock many people and would be a grave breach of constitutional principles.<ref>{{citation|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2707489.stm|first=Dominic|last=Casciani|publisher=BBC News|title=King's abdication appeal blocked|date=30 January 2003|access-date=2 May 2010}}</ref>

Ultimately, Edward decided to give up the throne for "the woman I love",<ref>{{citation|author=Edward VIII|title=Broadcast after his abdication, 11&nbsp;December 1936|publisher=Official website of the British monarchy|url=http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/edwardviii.pdf |access-date=1 May 2010}}</ref> whereupon he and his descendants were deprived of all right to the Crown by Parliament's passage of [[His Majesty's Declaration of Abdication Act 1936]]. He was created [[Duke of Windsor]] on 8 March 1937 by his brother, the new [[George VI]]. He would marry Wallis Simpson in France on 3 June 1937, after her second divorce became final. In the meantime, however, [[letters patent]] dated 27 May 1937, which re-conferred upon the Duke of Windsor the "title, style, or attribute of [[Royal Highness]]", specifically stated that "his wife and descendants, if any, shall not hold said title or attribute". This decree was issued by the new king and unanimously supported by the Dominion governments.<ref>Diary of [[Neville Chamberlain]] quoted in Bradford, p. 243</ref> The king's authority to withhold from the lawful wife of a prince the attribute hitherto accorded to the wives of other modern British princes was addressed by the Crown's legal authorities: On 14 April 1937, [[Attorney General for England and Wales|Attorney General]] Sir [[Donald Somervell, Baron Somervell of Harrow|Donald Somervell]] submitted to [[Home Secretary]] Sir [[John Simon, 1st Viscount Simon|John Simon]] a memorandum summarising the views of [[Lord Advocate]] [[Thomas Cooper, 1st Baron Cooper of Culross|T. M. Cooper]], [[Parliamentary Counsel]] Sir [[Granville Ram]], and himself:
<blockquote>
#We incline to the view that on his abdication the Duke of Windsor could not have claimed the right to be described as a Royal Highness. In other words, no reasonable objection could have been taken if the King had decided that his exclusion from the lineal succession excluded him from the right to this title as conferred by the existing Letters Patent.
#The question however has to be considered on the basis of the fact that, for reasons which are readily understandable, he with the express approval of His Majesty enjoys this title and has been referred to as a Royal Highness on a formal occasion and in formal documents. In the light of precedent it seems clear that the wife of a Royal Highness enjoys the same title unless some appropriate express step can be and is taken to deprive her of it.
#We came to the conclusion that the wife could not claim this right on any legal basis. The right to use this style or title, in our view, is within the prerogative of His Majesty and he has the power to regulate it by Letters Patent generally or in particular circumstances.<ref>Attorney General to Home Secretary (14 April 1937) National Archives file HO 144/22945</ref>
</blockquote>

The new King's firm view, that the Duchess should not be given a royal title, was shared by Queen Mary and George's wife, [[Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother|Queen Elizabeth]].<ref>{{citation|url=http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2003/january30/edward_duke.htm|title=Home Office memo on the Duke and Duchess's title|publisher=National Archives|access-date=2 May 2010|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101231024432/http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2003/january30/edward_duke.htm|archive-date=31 December 2010}}</ref> The Duchess bitterly resented the denial of the royal title and the refusal of the Duke's relatives to accept her as part of the family.<ref name="dnb">[[Philip Ziegler|Ziegler, Philip]] (2004) [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/38277 "Windsor, (Bessie) Wallis, duchess of Windsor (1896–1986)"], ''[[Oxford Dictionary of National Biography]]'', [[Oxford University Press]], {{doi|10.1093/ref:odnb/38277}}, retrieved 2 May 2010 (subscription required)</ref><ref>See also, {{citation|editor-last=Bloch|editor-first=Michael |title=Wallis and Edward: Letters 1931–1937|publisher=Summit Books|year=1986|isbn=0-671-61209-3|pages=[https://archive.org/details/wallisedwardlett00wind/page/231 231, 233]|url=https://archive.org/details/wallisedwardlett00wind/page/231}} cited in Bradford, p. 232</ref> In the early days of George VI's reign the Duke telephoned daily, importuning for money and urging that the Duchess be granted the style of Royal Highness, until the harassed King ordered that the calls not be put through.<ref>Ziegler, p. 349</ref> However, within the household of the Duke and Duchess, the style "Her Royal Highness" was used by those who were close to the couple.<ref>Higham, p. 232</ref>

==== Morganatic vs. invalid ====

The [[Royal Marriages Act 1772]] made it illegal for all persons born into the [[British royal family]] to marry without the permission of the sovereign, and any marriage contracted without the sovereign's consent was considered invalid. This led to several prominent cases of British princes who had gone through marriage ceremonies, and who [[cohabit]]ed with their partners as if married, but whose relationships were not legally recognised. As a result, their partners and children (which would be considered illegitimate) held no titles, and had no succession rights. This differs from morganatic marriages, which are considered legally valid.{{citation needed|date=February 2018}}