The United Kingdom has no written constitution. Therefore in contrast with most other countries it is not possible to point to a text and say "this is our constitution", nor is there any doctrine of the supremacy of the constitution over other legislation, nor any constitutional court, nor any doctrine of the separation of powers So constitutionaly no opposition.The 1772 Royal Marriage Act Created in a time when the British government was more concerned with protecting the monarchy from so-called Papists, the Act of Settlement is today something of a white elephant in our more culturally diverse and tolerant day and age.
The Lord Chancellor Statement about the Royal Marriage Act
The Marriage Act 1949 re-enacted and re-stated the law on marriage in England and Wales. The Act covered both marriage by Church of England rite, and civil marriage. It did not repeat the language of section 45 of the 1836 Act. Instead, section 79(5) of the 1949 Act says that:
"Nothing in this Act shall affect any law or custom relating to the marriage of members of the Royal Family."
The change of wording is important, and the significance is not undermined by the fact that the 1949 Act is described as a consolidation Act. The interpretation of any Act of Parliament, even when it consolidates previous legislation, must be based on the words used in the Act itself, not different words used in the previous legislation. In our view, section 79(5) of the 1949 Act preserves ancient procedures applying to Royal marriages, for example the availability of customary forms of marriage and registration. It also preserves the effect of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which requires the Sovereign's consent for certain marriages. But it does not have the effect of excluding Royal marriages from the scope of Part III, which provides for civil ceremonies. As the heading to section 79 indicates ("Repeals and savings") it is a saving, not an exclusion.
We are aware that different views have been taken in the past; but we consider that these were over-cautious, and we are clear that the interpretation I have set out in this statement is correct. We also note that the Human Rights Act has since 2000 required legislation to be interpreted wherever possible in a way that is compatible with the right to marry (article 12) and with the right to enjoy that right without discrimination (article 14). This, in our view, puts the modern meaning of the 1949 Act beyond doubt.