Talk:Sarah Fairbrother

message: :Sarah Fairbrother was legally Duchess of Cambridge
The Royal Marriages Act 1772 states:
'That no descendant of the body of his late majesty King George the Second, male or female, (other than the issue of princesses who have married, or may hereafter marry, into foreign families) shall be capable of contracting matrimony without the previous consent of his Majesty, his heirs, or successors, signified under the great seal, and declared in council, (which consent, to preserve the memory thereof is hereby directed to be set out in the licence and register of marriage, and to be entered in the books of the privy council); and that every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever.'
Now, Prince Adolphus, 1st Duke of Cambridge (1774-1850), married Princess Augusta of Hesse-Kassel (1797-1889), who was the grand-daughter of Princess Mary of Great Britain (1723-1772), a daughter of King George II who married into a 'foreign family'; that of Hesse-Kassel. This means that Prince George, 2nd Duke of Cambridge (1819-1904), came within the exemption to the Royal Marriages Act 1772 (this is called the 'Farran exemption' - see http://www.heraldica.org/faqs/britfaq.html#p2-35) and did not need to obtain the monarch's permission to marry. This means that Prince George's wife, Sarah Fairbrother, was legally Duchess of Cambridge and took the rank, title and style of 'Her Royal Highness'. In addition, their third son, Colonel Sir Augustus FitzGeorge, KCVO, CB (1847-1933), being the only legitimate son, succeeded as 3rd Duke of Cambridge on his father's death in 1904. It is also worth considering the point that if the Duke and Sarah Fairbrother did not marry because they were falsely led to believe (by the state) that they could not legally do so, then the state committed a wrong which has, in effect, led to the illegitimacy of two of their three children. Is it just that there should be no remedy for this wrong-doing, in terms of legitimizing their two illegitimate children? In short, should the wrong-doer (the state) be able to profit (by denying the otherwise legitimate rights of persons who are 'disapproved of') from its own wrong-doing?
Note that the 'issue' referred to in the exemption necessarily includes not just the children of princesses who marry into foreign families but the lineal descendants of those children as well, including those who marry back into the British royal family and their descendants (there is no exclusion from the exemption for such people). This is because (1) the word 'issue' ordinarily includes remoter descendants* and (2) it would be nonsensical that a child of such a princess should not require permission but that the children and remoter descendants of such a child should.
*Per Wikipedia: 'In genealogy and wills, issue typically means a person's lineal descendants - all genetic descendants of a person, regardless of degree.' (citing Glenda K. Harnad, J.D. and Karl Oakes, J.D., Corpus Juris Secundum, Descent and Distribution § 35 (2015)). Note also that under the Sophia Naturalisation Act 1705, referred to below, the word 'issue' includes remoter descendants beyond the first generation (that is, children).
The argument has been put forward that, prior to 1949 when the Act was repealed, under the Sophia Naturalisation Act 1705, all descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover (1630-1714), grand-daughter of King James I via Elizabeth Stuart ('The Winter Queen') and mother of King George I, became British subjects, and since the descendants of British princesses who married into 'foreign families' were British subjects accordingly, their families could not be 'foreign families' in the eyes of the law; so such descendants did not fall within the exemption to the Royal Marriages Act 1772. This would mean, of course, that no-one could ever fall within the exemption, which raises the question as to why an exemption would be included in the Royal Marriages Act 1772 if, under an existing Act of Parliament, no-one could ever qualify under that exemption. This fact alone strongly suggests that the argument is nonsensical. It is also the case, of course, that the doctrine of implied repeal applies here; namely, that an Act of Parliament is impliedly repealed (unless it is a constitutional Act, in which case it must be expressly repealed) by a later Act which contradicts it. The Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 has never been held to be a constitutional Act, even though it could have affected the succession to the throne.
In fact, not only is the Sophia Naturalisation Act 1705 impliedly repealed by the Royal Marriages Act 1772 in this regard, if such a repeal is necessary to make sense of the 1772 Act, but it is clear that the fact that certain people are deemed to be British citizens does not exclude them from qualifying under the exemption to the Royal Marriages Act 1772 (the one relating to princesses who marry into foreign families), because while individuals might be British subjects in law, that does not necessarily make their families British (i.e. non-foreign) families in law, and the words used in the 1772 Act are 'foreign families', not 'foreign individuals'. It is also worth pointing out that, even if the descendants of a British princess are deemed to be British subjects, the family she marries into can hardly be regarded as British by the mere fact of her marrying into it - and the Act refers to princesses marrying into a foreign family, not the status of that family after she has married into it. In other words, the question is whether the family is/was foreign at the time of the marriage, not afterwards.
The idea that because certain members of a family or one branch of it are deemed to be British subjects, it necessarily follows that the entire family is deemed to be British (non-foreign), is itself demonstrable nonsense. One merely has to ask the question: 'Can a family, many or most of whose members are not British subjects and who are, in fact, subjects of a foreign state, none of whose members necessarily live in the UK or even speak English, or are subject to 'British' law, and who regard themselves as being of a different nationality, and have done so for a thousand years, and not British at all, be described as a 'British family' in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the words 'British' and 'family', which are the meanings that would have to be used in a court of law?' For instance, can one properly describe the family of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha as a 'British family',* as those words are ordinarily understood, or the family of Hesse-Kassel or the Danish royal family or the German royal family? The idea is nonsensical. If the family of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha is a British family, then why did the British branch of that family need to change its name to 'Windsor' in 1917? Because 100% of the British people regarded the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family as German and the British branch of that family wanted to disassociate itself from its German parent branch.
*'I can't imagine any circumstance in which the Princely House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha would be considered, in Britain, to be anything other than a foreign family.' - William A. Reitwiesner, alt.talk.royalty post dated 11/9/1996, 'Royal Marriages Act coverage'. William A. Reitwiesner was a very widely respected genealogist. A Wikipedia article ('House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha') states: 'Due to anti-German sentiment in the United Kingdom during World War I, George V changed the name of his branch from Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to Windsor in 1917. The same happened in 1920 in Belgium, where it was changed to "van België" (Dutch) or "de Belgique" (French).' This confirms that the British branch of the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha family was exactly that - a branch. The existence of a 'British branch' does not make the Saxe-Coburg and Gotha family British; the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is a 'foreign family'. This is not rocket science.
The Wikipedia article ('Royal Marriages Act 1772') states:
'Parry argued that the "Farran exemption" theory was complicated by the fact that all the Protestant descendants of the Electress Sophia of Hanover, ancestress of the United Kingdom's monarchs since 1714, had been entitled to British citizenship under the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 (if born prior to 1949, when the act was repealed). Thus, some marriages of British princesses to continental monarchs and princes were not, in law, marriages to foreigners.'
This is a compete misrepresentation of Parry's arguments.
In the first place, the Act refers to 'foreign families', not 'foreigners' (that is, individuals). As I have pointed out above, the fact that one or more members of a family are regarded as British in law does not necessarily make the family British in law - and it is the family that must qualify as British since that is what the Act refers to.
In the second place, Parry (Clive Parry MA LLB) did not argue 'some marriages to continental monarchs and princes were not, in law, marriages to foreigners'. What he actually wrote was 'Mr. Farran has minutely examined the question as to what is a "family". Mr. Morrah now suggests that a family whose members are British subjects under the Act of Anne is not foreign. Mr. Farren, rightly it is thought [by the author, Clive Parry], denies this.' So Parry actually agrees with Farren that it is the nationality of the family and not the individual members which matters. Later Parry re-iterates his agreement with Farran's argument: 'And he [Parry] ventures to suggest that difficulties are avoided if it be conceded - as Mr. Farran indeed concedes - that it is the "foreign " quality of the family which must be looked to, irrespective of the nationality of individuals comprising that family, and also, as neither Mr. Farran nor Mr. Morrah concedes, that the expressions " Royal Family " and " Foreign Families " are exclusive, each of the other.'
Further, even if, as the Wikipedia article claims (without citing any supporting evidence), Farren's interpretation 'has since been ignored' (it is not ignored by experts and it wasn't ignored by the 'authors' of the Wikipedia article), this has absolutely no impact whatsoever on the merits of his arguments. In fact, reliance on this sort of unsubstantiated assertion to denigrate someone's arguments strongly suggests a reluctance to address the merits of those arguments - or an eagerness to undermine those arguments in a very unscholarly fashion. Why would this be? Clearly, individuals who might be required by the 1772 Act to seek the Sovereign's permission to marry will invariably take the safe route and ask for permission even if it is appears that they do not need permission because they come within the 'foreign families' exemption. Also, of course, it feeds people's sense of self-importance to ask the Sovereign for permission to marry; it's equivalent to having a 'Look at me! I'm a member of the Royal Family!' T-shirt.
The whole issue of the Sophia Naturalisation Act 1705 can therefore be dismissed as irrelevant. What we are left with is what a common sense reading of the 1772 Act leads us to conclude; namely, that the Act means exactly what it says, which is that any descendant of any British princess who married into a foreign family (as that term is ordinarily understood in accordance with normal rules of interpretation), being a family that was 'foreign' when the princess married into it, is exempt from the requirement to obtain the monarch's approval in the manner provided in the 1772 Act.
This means, as I have said, that the marriage of the Prince George, 2nd Duke of Cambridge, to Sarah Faribrother was legal and that she was legally Duchess of Cambridge and took the rank, title and style of 'Her Royal Highness'.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.142.127 (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an interesting but, in my view, unworthy attempt to re-write history. Nobody in 1847, when the marriage took place, would have considered that the Farran exemption applied, but regardless of the Royal Marriages Act the marriage of Prince George was probably illegal on quite other grounds, his name and that of his father being quite wrongly entered in the Register. The Act, of course, was intended to be a safeguard against undesirable marriages which might affect the succession to the throne or lower the status of the Royal House. Sarah Fairbrother had three illegitimate children by three different fathers and the Prince's biographer says that Queen Victoria 'obviously disapproved of the match. Her fondness for the theatre hardly extended to welcoming actresses as members of the Family. Besides, she was unlikely to look with favour on any arrangement in which neither her opinion nor consent had been sought'. The Queen thus pretended to be ignorant of the marriage both publicly and privately. The Prince was well aware of the implications of the marriage which Sarah had organised and he seems later to have regretted it, saying that 'when a man, through some unfortunate accident, make a great mistake he must abide by it'. AnthonyCamp (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

message: "Sarah had an illegitimate son, Charles Manners Sutton Fairbrother, on 8 August 1836. According to Camp, he was "probably" son of Charles John Manners Sutton, later 2nd Viscount Canterbury (1812–1869).[3] He died unmarried at 19, Pall Mall, Middlesex, 14 March 1901." 
If he was born in 1836, how could he be 19 in 1901 when this says he died? 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 19 is not his age but the number of the building in Pall Mall.AnthonyCamp (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal life--Her son