Charles Gauci is correct in his statement that, according to the  Royal Marriage Act of 1772,  a marriage without royal assent was null and void (July 11).

But, in that case, why was  Queen Victoria so concerned to issue a denial of rumours of a secret marriage in 1893 by her grandson (the future George V)  in Malta  when it had never received her consent? Why was she so  anxious  that in 50 years’ time, “when a young prince ascends the throne, there may be a cry that he is illegitimate and his father committed bigamy”?

Was her concern that, whatever the legal niceties, if it had been  established that Prince George  had  already married in Malta prior to his betrothal to Princess May  there would have been public outrage in England where it would have been regarded as his bigamy? It  is   unlikely he  would ever have succeeded to the throne and if the evidence had come to light  after he became king  he would almost certainly be obliged to abdicate.

This accounts for King George, soon after his accession, along with his home secretary, Winston Churchill, vigorously pursuing a criminal libel case against the journalist Edward Mylius when he claimed  in an obscure Republican journal that the king had committed “sanctified bigamy” in Malta. Indeed, as part of their heavy-handed response  to this claim, the chief advocate of Malta was invited to London to present the Register of Marriages and Births  on the Island.

But why had none of the king’s legal advisers or private secretaries argued that  any previous marriage without royal consent was invalid?

It seems clear the need was felt to silence Mylius (he got 12 months), provide the king with the opportunity to assert  he had never been married to anyone other than Queen Mary (which he did) and ensure posterity would accept the  verdict (which it has).