THE ELEMENTS OF MARRIAGE

The legal insititution of marriage might be defined as the voluntary union for life, of one man
and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, concluded with the respect of the domestic regulations,
with the purpose of starting a family, but in another order of ideas, marriage could be considered, from
a legal and philosophical point of view as the “nexus” or the communion between a man and a woman
which produces effects in a legal, devine and anthropological sense.
The first approach of this institution interfers with the civil law, meaning that, the main future of
the marriage stands in the principle of consensualism and in the connection with the principles which
govern the contractual relations between the parties who assume to respect the obligations stipulated
into the internal legal system. On the other hand, the term marriage indicates the legal status which has
been obtained after going through the legal formailities by both parties, formalities imposed by the
domestic law or local customs. In this way, I would like to point out two concludent exemples: the
obligations of bearing the name which has been commonly declared by the husbands and the second in
regards of the juridical status of the goods (mainly the real proprety right) meaning that the words
“mine” and “yours” no longer applys in a relationship when two people get married as everything is
shared (nevertheless, the common regim of the goods giveway to the creditors to execute the goods
shared by the husbands if the debt has been related to their common patrimony; also, in that the goods
are not sufficient to fulfill creditor’s debt, he would be entitled to go over the personal goods of the
husband who contracted the obligation).
In regards of the juridical characters of the marriage, the majority of the civilized states have
adopted the laical/secular character, meaning that the authority to record the fulfillment of the the
essential requirements stands in the administrative power of the State and also, that only the oath given
before a person invested by the State with legal authority should produce right and obligations between
the parties. The solemn character refers to the fact that the agreement between the parties is not
enough to produce legal effects if the formalities have not been fulfielled by the parties. The cause and
the perpetual character of the marriage might be taken into account since the purpose of getting
married should be the will of building a family, distinct from the originar one and therefore, the
marriage would be consider valid as long as the husbands are alive. Last but not least, one of the most
contested character in the past years has been represented by the sex difference between the parties
and the list should end with the bilateral character, since a marriage is invalid if the acceptance has been
given by a party under threat or by other means of constraint.
Turning our attention to the interview of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, I would like to point
out the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 (repealed in 2015) which made illegal for any member of the British
Royal family who were under 25 to marry without the consent of the rulling monarch, for exemple, in
2005 the Queen consented formally to the wedding of Charles , Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker
Bowles. The reason behind this Act find it’s root at the ending of the 18th century when the Act was
proposed by George III as a direct result of the marriage of his brother, Prince Henry, Duke of
Cumberland and Strathearn with the commoner Anne Horton. Moreover, after the Royal Assent was
given to the Act on 1st of April 1772, the King found out that another brother, Prince William Henry, had
in 1766 secretly married Maria, the illegitimate daughter of Sir Edwad Walpole. The legal effect
produced by the RMA (Royal marriage Act) refered to the fact that, if a member of the Royal family
contracted a marriage that violated the Act would not thereby lose his/her place in the line of
succession, but the union was made illegitimate by the voiding of the marriage. Furthermore, turning
back to the modern age, the UN Convention on consent to marriage and minimum age for marriage
states in the first paragraph of the Article 1 that “No marriage shall be legally entered into without the
full and free consent of both parties, such consent to be expressed by them in person after due publicity
and in the presence of the authority competent to solemnize the marriage and of witnesses, as
prescribed by law. “, while the second Article of the Convestion provides that : “States parties to the
present Convention shall take legislative action to specify a minimum age for marriage. No marriage
shall be legally entered into by any person under this age, except where a competent authority has
granted a dispensation as to age, for serious reasons, in the interest of the intending spouses.”.
As far as the interview concerns us, the consent was freely manifested by both parties and
regarding the age of Prince Harry, he is 33 while Meghan is 36 so they both fulfill the requirement
regarding the legal age from which a person could get married in the UK. Meghan mentioned (at the
beginning of the interview) the time and the place where he gave her consent for marrying Prince Harry.
There is a passage in the interview where the reported states that “(…) you are getting a
husband, obviously” and I would link this part with the monogamous character of every marriage,
meaning that every person is prohibited from closing another marriage if he/she is still married to
another person.
The part related to meeting the Royal family, where Prince Harry states that Meghan would be
“another member of the Royal team” and also making some important references to the responsibility
of being a member of the Royal family which he sees as “a big deal” but still appreciates that Meghan
has the capacity to handle the duties and obligations. Also, the key element, in my opinion, is pointed
out fermly by the Prince when he tells the reporter that “the main element that connects them in term
of relationship is the passion for change for good (<<that’s what got date two>>)”. That’s the sine qua
non element of this fundamental civil institution, besides the care, protection and support that
husbands must give to eachother, there should be a element that binds them, a common point in every
relation that constitutes the reason for saying “YES” not only in front of the person with whome you are
going to share the rest of your life, or in front of the registrator, but in front of God, Who is going to
guide the husbands destiny through thick and thin.
There could be another aspect which in the modern legislative system doesn’t produce any legal
effect: meeting the Queen and the rest of the Royal family and obtaining their consent to the marriage.
From that point of view, Prince Harry guarantees that Meghan has “the full support from the hole
family”. And lastly, the ring, symbolizing the love and the will to stay forever unturnished (the ring is
created in a perfect circle, it has no ending, signifying that the love for eachother will remain forever). In
the ancient times it was believed that the vein in the 4th finger of the left hand leads directly to the hart,
so, by encircling this finger, the heart is forever touched by the one who loves you. The giving and
accepting of wedding ring is an important and significant symbol of the wedding ritual and therefore,
should remind us that love is neither cheap nor common, that love has no equivalent in the mercantile
society of the present times.
 Summarizing in a brief and positive statement I would like to congratulate the newly married
couple but in a blue manner I feel obliged to remind that the essence of marriage, besides starting a
family, is having children, which is not a priority for the Royal couple at the time.