The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1899-09-15
HAD A WIFE ALREADY
This Was the Predicament of
George, Duke of York
WHO is TO BE GEORGE V
When He Was Called Upon to
Wed the Princess May.

New York, Sept 1.-THE World Says:
AS in the case of George III, and King
George ", Of Great Britain, so is there
concerning George. Duke of York, who is
destined to descend the English throne as
George V, a story to the effect that, prior
to becoming the husband of Princess May
of Teck, he had contracted secret matri-
moniaI alliance with a lady Of less ex-
allied birth.
King George III, as everybody knows,
Hanna Lightfoot, and descendants Of this
union are today In South Africa and the
United States.
Duke OF Wellington and other person
ages Of equal Importance are authority
for the statement that King George ".
was enthusiastically bound to the beau
tiful Mrs Fftzherbert, when he married
Princess Caroline, of Brunswick, while 1t
has frequently been asserted that when
Duke George of York married somewhat
reluctantly tone betrothed Of his dead
brother, Prince Eddie. Duke Of Clarence,
he was the husband OF the daughter Of a
distinguished admiral.
Memories of this royal romance have
been recalled during the past two weeks
by the wedding OF Captain Napier, Of the
Royal Navy, and Miss Mary Culme Sey-
mour. Rightly or otherwise It was Miss
Seymour who was credited with having
been the wife Of the Duke when he we'd
ded Princess May. What has served to
increase the gossip caused by the news OF
the wedding Is a confusion in connection
with her christian name. Some Of the
newspapers refer to her as Elizabeth, and
only a few describe her by her real name,
Mary.
OF course it IS impossible to speak
definitely about the matter, since all rec
ords Of the union between the Duke OF
York and the daughter Of the British Ad-
rniral have been carefully destroyed.fi
The pretext for the destruction of the
documents was the fact that the marriage
was legally and enthusiastically invalid.
According to the royal marriage law en-
acted during the reign of King George
Ill, with object of preventing King
George ", then the Prince of Wales,
from marrying Mrs. FftZherbert, any mat
rinonial alliance contracted by prince or
princess. of the reigning house without the
sanction of the sovereign and the cogn1-
zance of Parliament was invalid, legally,
as we'll as enthusiastically, the sovereign
being the supreme head of the state church
of England, and as such having the right
to withhold his license for any religious
ceremony.
When the Archbishop of Canterbury, in
his capacity as Prince of all England,
proclaimed from the altar steps of the
Chapel Royal ST. James, that there was
no legal or ecclesiastical obstacle TO the
Duke of Yorks union to the Princess
May of Teck, the announcement had pre-
cicelv the opposite effect to that intended
by the venerable prelate.
The very fact that the Archbishop
should have held 1t necessary to make
such an announcement in Chapel Royal
was regarded as indicating that there
must be some reason for excusing the fu-
ture King Of England in the sight OF his
countrymen, while the peculiar way IN
which the Archiepiscopal declaration was
worded. led to its being construed as a
Diplomatic equivocation rather than
StratR0tIOrWdru
For the nature of the royal marriage
set. eccIesia stically and legally aunulhng
anv union contracted by ritish Royal
personage without the consent OF the SOW
ereIgn and the knowledge OF Parliament
rendered It possible to proclaim the fact
thar no union had taken place.
The publicly expressed distaste 70 the
Princess of Wales for the marriage OF
her only surviving son, George 10 Prln-
ross Nav Of Teck. was ascrtbed In Eng
land 70 the horror felt by this pious royal
lady AZ the !dea OF her boy farrying his
dead brothers fancee at a mAnent when
he had a wife, and, Il is added, two chill
dren, already living.
Certain is It that the attitude OF the
Princess Of Wales toward her daughter
in-1aw was characterized by such openly
demonstrated aversions as 20 become
public scandal.
AT length the Queen inter:eTed. with
the result that the Princess OF wales
drove around the park one afternoon with
the Duchess. the circumstance exciting
much attention. In fact, the newspapers
At the time waxed elouent over the re-
Cancellation OF the Princess and the Ouch
ess.
n NAV Be added that the English laws
q. libel are strict. Il IS diflcult. Therefore
n understand Why Admiral Sir Michael
Seymour and the royal family should
nave permitted the name Of Mary Sey-
rnour and the Duke OF York TO be 1850
ciated together so constantly IN print az
man and wife, without taking legal steps
10 stop press references TO The matter, IN
les II were a sE55ect that did not bear
denial.
II there has been any ecclesiastical IN
Ton between the lady who - now Ars.
<apie- and the Duke of York & must %
con fa=sef that ire Seymour family have
acted with discretion. 2 tact and saFoiE
Fai-e .ysvond al praise. For taeT have
never presumed on tEis snair. and that
is probably why the Queen and The Gov
erpman, have simply overwhelmed Niss
s4vmo1r's father win every kind o. hon
OF and dstiaction-
Prior - the marriage % the Duke q
York. Seymour was sscoad n eomrnard
OF the Mediterranean squadron. and bad
received 10 order o. distinction from his
sovereign. Today az Admiral n Cas-f q
the station a. Piymoutn. and Governor
o. that great usvaI EsrozEbc1. hs aa31@
what = reEarsed THROUGHOUT tire naval
profession as is noSt 5uicy plum. ire r.
re bang an exces5lrRlY lGcrtitve oae.
5~eIdes leading 70 al eo-ts x proTEsots7f-
he has been decorated ~ ire ceee5
xseh Ire Grand Cross y IRE ORDER q TIE
bath. znd has been ovsT~belHssi wsfa
n recognition o. important ssrv3oes -