New Orleans daily crescent., 1866-08-20


mot, at the residence of his mother The
king, however, commanded that this child
should be re-bnptized at the Church of st.
Nicholas, in Warwick, in order that she might
pass as the child of DR.. Wilmots brother,
Robert Wilmot, and Anna Maria, his wife,
She was there entered in the register book as
Olive Wilmot only.
The Duke of Cumberland about this time
determined to ignore his marriage with Olive
Wilmot, and, soon afterwards he contracted
second union with Lady Horton, daughter
of the first Earl of Corhampton, and widow
Of Christopher Horton. 1t is alleged that
George LII was so indignant at the conduct
of his brother that he refused to receive him
or Lady Horton at court. and G took every
precaution that while he shielded the Duke
of Cumberland from the legal consequences
of his crime, he should in no way impugn the
reputation of the lawful Duchess Olive, OF the
Legitimacy of her infant daughter"
One of the documents produced in court
runs as follows g George r. We declare
the birth of Olive, the infant of the Duke Of
Cumberland, by Olive his duchess, to be
legitimate who is condemned to ppivacy by
the act of bigamy committed by her royal
father Signed Warwick, j. Wilmot, Chat
ham, j. Dunning. Kew Palace, May LIST,
1777.
The young Olive grew up in total Ignorance
Of her royal parentage. In 1892 she was
married to John Thomas Serres an eminent
marine painter. She attained some pro
ieiency as an artist herself if we may judge
from the fact that she was ultimately appoint
ed landscape painter to George III, and ex
hibited some Of her works at the British Insti
tuition, 1906.
DR.. Wilmot at his DEATH confded the
documents proving the marriage of the Duke
of Cumberland and his daughter and the birtt
Of Olive to the Earl Of Warwick, who made
known their existence to his late royal high
ness the Duke Of Kent After they had beer
inspected by the duke, they were delivered tc
Olive herself, and the history Of her birth was
for the first time made known to her. The
Earl of Warwick, however, persuaded her tina
her mothers marriage was against the pro
visions of the royal marriage act, and it wa
not until 1919 that she was informed by The
Rev. Mr.. Rennie that the act did not become
law until five years after her mothers union
with the Duke of Cumberland
The Duke of Kent treated Olive with the ut
most kindness, and assured her that upon the
demise of the king he'would use his influence
to induce the then prince regent to restore to
her her rights'and property. The duke also
allowed her during his, life, an annuity Of
G40O, which he sometimes paid to her in per
son, sometimes sent by private hands, OF
drafts on his banker.
After the death of the Duke of Kent, his
royal highness the Duke of Sussex, visited
Olive, inspected the documents in her pos
session, and declared himself to be perfectly
satisfied with the signatures Of his late father.
The Duke of Clarence, afterwards King Viii
liam ~, also visited and showed her much
consideration.
Olive finally removed to France where she
died, in November 1885, as her daughter, Mrs
Ryves, alleges of broken heart
In opposition to the claim Of the petitioner
an Intellectual effort was made to prove that
the G Princess Olive was of unsound mind
but the only ground on which her claims could
really be denied, was to discredit the authen-
ITCHY Of her documents. Public opinion ap-
pears to have settled into the belief in spite
Of the decision of the jury, that this effort was
not by any means successful.
The lord chief baron stated to the court that
if the alleged marriage between the Duke Of
Cumberland and Olive Wilmot took place,
then the marriage Of their daughter with Mr..
serres was Illegal, not having had the consent
Of the sovereign, and the royal marriage act
being then in force
The jury decided that the petitioners
mother, Olive Series, was not the Legitimate
daughter Of the Duke of Cumberland, and that
the duke was not legally married to Olive
Wilmot
1t is impossible, at this distance, to conjec-
ture what influences. may have operated to
produce this decision; but it is certain that,
scarcely ever before has SO strong an array Of
direct and collateral evidence been presented,
as in this case, without carrying conviction to
the minds of jury 15