The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-06-13
ROYAL SCANDAL In ENGLAND.
An PngIish Lady and Her son Calming
TO be Members of the Royal Family
-ScrSp of UDwrtttt MistOFy-Rtoh
DeveIea menIs in the London Divorce
Court.


DeveIos menIs in the London Divorce
Court.
From he london Times, June 2.
RgUes and RgUes and ate attorney. GeRerdt.-This
pelt on, under he Legitimacy Declaration act
pr, sented by l. v1uia Jannetta Horton RyVes, of
Maitland park, IN the parish OF St Pancras, and her
SO. WlIam Henry Ryves, came on for hearing this
morning. The petition alleged tnat the petitioners
were natural born subjects ct her Majesty and that
OF John Thomas es and olive his wiie, the sa
Olive being, while living natural born British
subject, and that the petitioners are legally DON'T
cLed IN England; that the firstnamed petitioners g
mother, Olive, was the legitimate daughter OF
Henry Frederick, Duke OF Cumberland, ana
ohye .Wnmot his wife, respectively deceased,
of April, 1772; that the frst-named petitioner 8
gand parents, the said Duke OF Cumbe land and
tul married IN Eng and at the house OF thomas
Lord Arc er, in GTosVenOr square, London and
that the saIo marriage was so emntzed by the Rev.
James WIlmot, ID d, who was the father of the
said Owe WilmOt; that the frst-named petitioner
wss lawfully married on the 22d Of November,
1922, to Anthony Thomas Ryyes, from whom she
was the 16,h OF February, lS4l, divorced meflsG
ct MrFO, by the Arches Court of Canterbury, and
that there was issue OF the marriage William
Henry Ryyes the second petitioner, and
other Gmdrenj that the petitioner, Viii
ham Henry Ryyes, is the legitimate son
OF the fTst-named peutiOner, and was born ut Dur
ham ottage, Va9xhali, IN lhe parish of ST. Mary,
Lambeth, on the 30 of March, 1888, and was bap-
tized at the church OF st. Mary, lambeth on the
30ih o June, 1s40 lhe petition prayed the court to
pronounce that Henry Frederick Duke OF Cumber-
land and Oye his wife, were, on the 4th of March,
1867 lawfully married, and that the mother of The
frst.named petitioner, the SAID Olye and after
wards Olive Serres, was their legumate child, and
that she was born on the ID OF April, H12,
fully married to Anthony Thomas Ryves, and that
the second petitioner Is their legitimate son and
her, and natural born subject of her Ma
jesty. The Attorney General had been cited in
pursuance OF the act, and had ii ed answer deny
ing that the first named petitioners mother the
umberland and Olive Wilmot and that the said
petitioners alleged mother wa bora as set forth IN
the petition, and that ihe other allegations in the
petition were true The answer conc uded with a
prayer Tor the rejection OF the petition Issue
Mr.. }. alter smith and MIR d. NJ Thomas ap-
peaTed Tor the petiuonersj tie Auorney-Gen ra,
Hannen, and Mr.. r. BOurke, for the Attorne
General.
After the jury had been sworn,
Mr. w. j. Smith asked whether the Attorney
General appeared in person as party to the suit,
or as counsel for Ii he appeared as party 10 the
sult, he might be called as witness
The AttOrney-Genera!-Id do not understand the
question.
Fac Lord Chief Baron--I bel eve that is the Attor
ney. General, is II nOtI
lhe Lord Chief Justice-He has been cited, and
he appears as Attorney. General.
Before the case wa opened long Discussion to k
place upon the pTeno mary ques ION whether the
Ior which they now prayed. In 1869 Mrs RYves had
filed petition praying that tue MAJ rage between
her mother and MIR. serres might be dec ared valid
and that sue might be declared the legitimate
issue OF that marriage. lhe pc ition was heard IN
January, 1861 a Mrs Ryves, who then conducted
support OF tie allegations III her petition, the Court
pronounced the deer o 10r which she pray ed 1t
was now suggested by tne Court that # the petitioner
succeeded in proving the allegation in her present
pettOn-namelY, that Olive Wilm0t was lawfully
follow that the marriage of their daugh with Mr.
Series was invalid under the Royal Marriage act,
18th George III, car; 1-not having neen sane
prescribed by that act and hat thus there might be
TWO degrees OF me 0Suft ot s serres WAN og sS
innate daughter OF the Duke OF Iumberland, and
therefore within the Royal Marriage act, being
descendant the BODY OF hs late Majesty, KING
George H." and the other affirming that her mar
Tiage with Nj. Series was valid, although she was
not competent to contract 1t under that act
Mr. j. W. Smith argued that Mrs. Serres might
have brought herself within one oil the exceptions
OF the Roy Marriage act That act excepted 'the
issue OF princesses who have married or may here
proved that Mr de Serres the husband of the Prn-
cess Olive, was the son of a foreigner and she was
therefore within that excel ton,
The Lod Chief Justice sald that il the validity oi
the CT mbe land marriage was established the leg-
macy OF the offspring OF the Serres marriage was de-
stTCyed. The Court could not allow Itself to be stu
titled bJ the peht oneIs mode OF proceedng lt must
see that its process not abused and its process
would be abused if person who had two PROPOSE
tons TO establish came forward in the first place
and then came forward to esab ish the other which
quite inconsistent wlth the first II that was
not fraud IL was an abuse OF the PROCEEDINGS OF the
MI j. W. Smith had said that the petitioner had
been obliged, by want OF means to conduct her own
! ton OF concealIng ANYTHING from the Court, and
! was not eware that the decree which sue tnen OBJ
taned would have the effect attributed to 1t by the
Court.
The result of the discussion was that the eonside-
| ration OF the question 10 the effect OF the decree
in the former suit postponed until The evidence
should be rendered Of the first allegation in the
! pedtion-namely, that Mrs; RyYes was the legitI-
| mate daughter OF MIR. and Mrs. SeTres, and the
Court intimaed that this was the first step IN the
Mr j W. Smith then proceeded to open the case
to the jury. hayng explained to them the PROV;
! that he mann question Tor them to try was whether
the Duke OF Cumberland, the yoUn. est brother Of
| George III, was lawfully married to olive WimOt
and WheIhe Mrs. Serres, the mother of Mrs. Ryves
a so asked to find that William Henry Ryyes was the
lawful son of Mr.. ana Mrs Rvves; but there wOulC
be no difficulty as to that part OF the case, and il
would be proved that ON the Zl OF November
1929, the elder petitioner then MISS de Serres
married Anthony Thomas Ryyes; that thu
Younger petitioner, her son, was born on the 30 o
March 1899 and that She was seDarated from Mir
RyVes account Of his misconduct in lS4l. MIR
Smith then gave a history OF the family OF DIV
mot, who was descendant OF the iami of Wllmot
Earl of Rochester, of Charles Ips time he was borI
IN d'loi ne WehS 20 az 7 HS ag1 ga Gi b SsNteep n
degree IN 1896. At oxford he made the acquaInt
ance of Count PoniatOwsSi, VINO Rtterwa rdi
became King OF Poland and through hin
mace the acquaintance OF TIE Princess Ponla
tOWski his sister whom he subsequently married
I Olive, the daughter of DR. Wllmot aud the Prln.
| 1850 Ir, WIlmOt was the auditor to Lord Archer
and In l767 o i've Wilmot met the Duke OF Cum
at the house OF Lord Archer, in GrosvenO
| square. After short cOuTtship the Duke marrie
her, the marriage being celebrated on the 4th
| Archer Is house, by DR.. WilmOt who had been hun
riedy summoned for the purpose. A formal certh
DR.. Wllmot and Lord Brooke (afterwaI DIS Lord Wa
wick and j. Addez who were present at 1t, and th
| faffa do I,Ord Aah a n