New-York tribune., 1905-11-16
THE ORD CONTROVERSY.

I am perfectly aware that there are many peo-
ne In this country who are firmly convinced
that Mrs. Fitzherbert had son by her third
and last marriage with George Of England, and
that the boy brought to this country and
reared by George James Ord, naval construc-
tor, whose patronyrnic the lad is stated TO have
assumed as his son. He grew up under the
name of James Ord, and has quite a large num-
her Of descendants some thirty or forty in num-
her among the most notable being Judge Pa
cihcus Ord, prominent California jurist.
While many plausible arguments are put for
ward in support of this story, and there is
considerable quantity Of evidence of a circum-
stsItial character in its favor, yet it is neces-
sary to point out that il is of essentially
American character. and scrap of testimony
has ever been found in England that can be
construed corroborative. On the contrary,
both Lord StoUrton, who was one of the rela-
lives and executors of Mrs. Fftzherbert, and her
closest conhdant, is on record as having pledged
himself in The most solemn manner to the ef
feet that there had been no issue. male or fe-
male 10 the union of King George and Mrs.
fftzherbert, his assertions being confirmed by
the great Duke of Wellington. who The
other confidant of King George and Mrs Fftz-
herbert in the matter relating TO their marriage.
would likewise observe that Charles Greville
and other contemporaries and associates of Mrs.
Fftzherbert and of George " while discussing
freely the relations between them in their
memoirs and correspondence make no mention
whatever of the existence or of the birth Of any
such child. 1t is difficult to believe that a son
could have been born without their knowing
thereof, and it is equally positive that II they
had learned of any such thing they would have
placed it on record. George had SO many enc
Td of
him, that some inkling OF the existence of q
SCH By Mrs Fitzherbert could never have been
sept secret and they would certainly have
made capital thereof; whereas. It was not until
several years after the accession OF Queen Vic
'oria TO the throne that an Englishman-not
an Anerican-put forward the pretension to
being son of the King and of Mrs. Fftzherbert
which led to the declarations by Lord Stourton
and the Duke of Wellington above referred to,
and to the production of proof that the claimant
vas an impostor.
1t may be added that neither Mrs. F'itzher-
hsrr nor King George In their testamentary dis
positions and in their correspondence ever re-
serred TO any child of theirs; and even If there
mad been son, he could have had no claim
on The estate of his mother or of his father
seins in the eyes Of English law illegitImate
e"ins to the invalidity of his parents marriage
II hlns Edward were in any way descended
rom King George ", it is probable that no per-
ihsslon would ever have been given by the
NroNh to reveal the contents of the package of
uoconsents at Couttss, which has Just been
oieheo and which has now definitely estab-
sneo- once and for all time. the existence of
Seofges marriage TO Mrs. F1tzherbert by means
VI 'he marriage certificate and the testimony of
''e witnesses, also letter of King George
.'AhoWiedsing the marriage and a viii made
oy nm beqGeathing certain property to Mrs.
-i'@iieroerI. whom he described his wife
VI " Dy The statute enacted i'll the reign of King
'AA'sih and of Queen Mary. entitled THE Bill
" h'shts, IL is provided that Every person
'Ho snail marry Papist shall be excluded and
'feser incapable TO inherit the Crown of this
eali- 1t did not matter that the marriage in
Seh was Invalid in law, owing to its having
ven contracted IN defiance OF the terms of the
A0yai Marriage Act OF 1712. The very circum-
stance that the marriage had been celebrated
.a'siled the penalty Instituted by the Bill Of
-Ashes and there is doubt that George ",
VAC died childless. should by law never have
Se.h permitted TO reign. and should have been
'~Niuoed from the succession TO the throne.