Skip to main content
Politics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • 2
    There are several issues here for the UK including the Royal Marriages Act 1772 (repealed 2013). But the abdication occurred in 1936 because the Prime Minister said he would resign if the King married against advice and the Leader of the Opposition agreed with this position, so government would have collapsed. Commented Dec 2, 2025 at 14:05
  • @Henry Alright, that makes sense. From what I can see it was pretty controversial among politicians back then, so I guess it was more political pressure than specific legal issues? Commented Dec 2, 2025 at 14:14
  • In 1936 British divorce law was a mess since it was designed to be possible while being discouraged: in particular an "innocent" party could get a divorce on several grounds including adultery but if both were "guilty" or both were innocent or they conspired together to obtain a divorce then they were condemned to stay married. Commented Dec 2, 2025 at 14:47
  • 2
    Note that the approval in some monarchies must be given by the monarch, not the parliament – including the Commonwealth monarchies, Belgium and Denmark. In Belgium the parliament can override a monarch if he does not give consent. In Sweden, the consent must be given by the government. Outside Europe, such consents seem to be unusual. Instead, the monarch (or a constitutional body like the Allegiance Council in Saudi Arabia) has the right to name a heir apparent. Commented Dec 4, 2025 at 2:17