By this logic, if the 1772 RMA applied today, the queen's dynastic consent for marriages would be required of ALL legitimate descendants of King George V and his sister Louise, the Duchess of Fife. This would include even those who are not considered members of the present royal family -- e.g. descendants of Mary, the Princess Royal and Countess of Harewood.
However, the British sovereign's consent for marriages would not apply to the descendants of Princess Maud, who in 1896 married the then-Prince Carl of Denmark. Of course, Maud herself would have been subjected to the RMA: one presumes that she received the consent of Queen Victoria on the occasion -- just like her Edinburgh cousins. As such, the man we know in history as King Olaf V of Norway was born in line to the British throne.
And so were his own three children, despite the fact that his own marriage in 1929 to Princess Martha of Sweden did not require or receive the consent of the British sovereign (by then King George V). As long as they were born in lawful wedlock according to the Norwegian jurisdiction, fine: the then-crown prince had certainly received the consent for his marriage of his own father, King Haakon VII.
It goes without saying that if Olaf's marriage did not require the British sovereign's consent, neither did any of the marriages of his children. Accordingly, all his grandchildren were likewise born in line to the British throne, as all were born in lawful wedlock. So far, so good.
But in the next generation, things got interesting: I believe that some of Olaf's grandchildren have had children born out-of-wedlock. Even though the British sovereign's consent is irrelevant for foreign marriages, British law still applies in other ways. That is: a person is considered a bastard for the purpose of succession if born to unmarried parents, even if legitimized later on through marriage.
Also, the 1701 Act of Settlement still applied (until modified in 2013). As it was, some of Olaf's grandchildren married Catholics, and therefore automatically forfeited their places in line to the British throne. That's why I suggested that the Farran exemption (as I understand it) and the 1701 Act "cancelled each other out".
Perhaps this was not exactly the best expression, but I was simply describing a situation where a person does not receive consent for his marriage, but he forfeits his succession rights, anyway -- and the reason is not because of the lack of consent. Rather, some other law (in this case, the ban on marriages to Catholics) applies.
The marriage could still be dynastic: as long as the children born to the union are not raised as Catholics, they can still be in line to the British throne. Indeed, I believe that the great-grandchildren of Olaf's grandchildren who married Catholics were actually raised Protestant.
Of course, things have changed now: the 2013 Succession to the Crown Act supersedes the 1701 Act of Settlement. And the 1772 RMA has been modified; so consent is required only of members of the British royal family.