The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-04-27
l. u R O P E.


kftm ne IONNOW StufB dptHO
The ltomauce oi the Peerager has been writ
ten Tor our instruc on III more forms than one,
and we have cot ceitan eIticing, though un-
Satisfactory glimpscs OF the skeletons winch
have theI dread abooe in the closets OF our arls-
tocraCy. The "hOmauCe OF Royalty" move 'er,
is we believe, as yet deld untitled, and IN all
kindness we commend 1t TO some OF The INDUS
trious Lookmakers OF the Gay.
We need not 20 back to another dynasty nor
abroad 70 another country tor our material.
Common place az tie political history OF the
Guelph family has been, their domestic history
has not wanted IN many instances the palnlul
interest and the perpeyed intrieue of a modern
sensational story. Nothing hitherto known or
suspected approaches, however, in strange
incident and involved plot, cahpter-
we can scarcely call II new cnaQter-
in the history OF the ROYAL House, which,
though it has at different times and in various
forms attracted some public attention, has
never up to the present been put Tor ward in
simple and tangible shape. We allude to the
extraordinary claim to the position ol Royal
Princess ad, anced by private individual. Mrs.
Layinla Ryves, a clam which It is probable
will be brought TO q legal issue IN the course OF
next month, and which will then be supported
by documents that establish, If they are
genuine, it must he admitted, most astonish
ing e-es of facts.
Since the details Of the case, whether in the
Claimants statement or in the attempts made
to impUgn II, all bear certain aspect OF con-
fusion, i. may be well 10 select in brief the i'm
portant points TeIeu upon by both SIDES and TO
weave thCm rs t',r as we may into q clear and
connected tale. Th s is not easy, for so much
value both claims and answer depends
upon the commences OF an immense mass of
documentar evidence, that we can only argue
the question pendea'e Ute, in very superficial
way.
1t has always been knoBn that the imme-
date cause OF the passing OF the Royal Mar
riage Act was the openly manifested dlspleasure
OF George III at the union OF his brother,
Henry Frederick, Duke OF Cumberland, with
Lady Anne Horton-a displeasure winch re-
ma I'M Tpl .,VNFn fln nnlr AAaf
This feeling in the King has usually been attr
buted to the German pride Of birth by which
his family had always been distinguished If,
however the documents produced in the case
above mentioned be genuine, il will be proved
that George Ill was not offended with his bro
ther because he had married an inferior, but
because he had committed deliberately most
serious otlense against morality and laW-the
otense OF b gamy.
Papers are set forth which demonstrate that
when the Duke OF Cumberland married Lady
Anne Horton, his wife, Olive Wllmot, to whom
he had been privately but legally married slour
years previously, was still alive. AS a legitimate
descendant OF this lastmenuoned marriage, the
petitioner in the pending cause claims the style
and honors OF Princess OF the blood royal The
fact of this marriage is supported by two
remarkable certificates, signed by Dr. Wilmot
Che lady's IatheTl as the officiating clergyman,
ard by the King himself, by Lord Chatham,
Lord Warwick, and LORD Archer, as witnesses.
The plea put forward by the Crown on all
former OCCASIONS, and which will probably be
again resorted to at the approaching trial, that
these certificates, as well as the various other
documents bearing on the case are forgeries,
and on this point we anticipate the decision will
turn. The Dukes second marriage having been
made public, the King, partly influenced by a
wish to hush The matter up, and partly by an
other more personal reason, prevailed upon DR..
Wllmot, it is asserted, to keep his daughters
marriage secret. In the meantime, child Olive,
was born to the hapless deserted wife, and the
birth certificate, signed by Lord Chatham and
Mr.. Dunning, Solicltor.General at the time, also
forms portion OF the evidence In the case. The
infant was duly baptized in private by DR.. Will
mot, as the Dukes daughter, IN the presence of
Lord Warwick; but at the Kings request means
were taken to pass her of as the daughter OF one
of her uncles.
For this purpose she was rebaptized as Olive
Wllmot merely. Of all these transactions, GER
thcates purporting to be signed by the King
Lord Chatham, and others of high position, are
In existence. They may be proved to be for
geries; but if so, they display a skill and auda-
city utterly unparalleled in our criminal records
Though the KING desired, for peculiar reasons
to keep the child Olives legitimacy secret, he
was not disposed to act unkIndly towards her.
Besides numerous private acknowledgements of
her true position, and grants of money for her
use, he proceeded, when she was less than year
old, to confer upon her the title OF the Duchess
ot Lancaster. The patent, which is also to be
produced, was deposited with Lord Warwick
who delivered it, in the presence of the late
Duke OF Kent, to the owner, then Mrs. Serres
1t is needless to follow here the additional
the petitioner, including an alleged will of
George III, bequeathing to the infant Olive a
sum OF 1000, and a long series OF letters and
papers from the late Duke of Kent, acknowledge
ing his cousins claim. We may very briefly in
dicate the steps that were taken legally and
otherwise by Mrs. Series, and afterwards by her
daughter, Mrs. Ryves. Proceedings were first
taken in the Prerogative Court TO obtain probate
of the Kings will, but the application was re.
fused upon the technical ground that the Court
was not competent to deal with royal lesta
ment.
Fooled in her resort to law, Mrs. Series re-
solved to submit her claim to Parliament. She
found champion, unluckily for herself, in Sir
Gerard Noel, a chlvalrous, but somewhat
crackedbrained member, who, after introducing
the lady's cause with much frothy tervor sue
cumbed meekly enough to q little argument and
agreat deal of banter from Mr.. Peel. Both during
Mrs. Serres' life and alter her death, many at
tempts were made to move the royal family by
petitions, but, naturally enough, these we're for
the most part fruitless. In the year 1S45, after
some difficulty arising from lack of funds, a
chancery suit against the Duke of Wellington,
George HIPS surviving executor, was under
taken, but failed on the ground that the will
had not been proved As we have seen this ne
cessary step had been found impossible, and
Tor long time the matter remained in dead
lock- The Legitimacy Declaration act, passed
IN 1885, o1ered an opportunity of opening up
the question anew, and after a considerable
delay, sought by the Crown, the trial has been
definitely postponed for next Nav.
Besides the deeply interesting details which
we have briefly noticed, another and vet more
extraordinary questionwill, tits gravely affirmed,
be brought into discussion in connection with
the case. 1t is only vaguely indicated in the
statement published on behalf OF the petitioner
and its improbable character is, we feel bound
to say, calculated to throw grave suspicion upon
the whole claim. We shall therefore only say
that this collateral question raised by Mrs
Ryves touches the legitimacy of all George IIIi
tpmput hrlnnV thi9-tla