Grand Duke Kyrill (1876-1938) and Grand Duchess Victoria Melita 'Ducky' (1876-1936)

[Gawin]

The late Mr Reitwiesner was an authoritative historian and genealogist. I trust what his research led him to conclude.

I know who William Addams Reitwiesner was and corresponded with him while he was still living, even pointing out other mistakes he occasionally made in his research. As you correctly point out, he was authoritative, but he wasn't infallible (none of us are).


In addition to including family members who were excluded by the Royal Marriages Act, he also listed Roman Catholics who are explicitly barred by the Act of Settlement (1701).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The late Mr Reitwiesner was an authoritative historian and genealogist. I trust what his research led him to conclude.

I have great trust and respect in the late Mr. Reitwiesner's work, but I see nothing on his website which addresses the Royal Marriages Act (beyond noting that the Sussex-Murray issue were excluded by it), far less any "research" which casts doubt on the British authorities' and judiciary's established readings of the Act (see the court cases cited by Gawin, who is also a very trustworthy researcher and genealogist).

Even if Mr. Reitwiesner was, as you suggest, a believer in the so-called "Farran exemption" reading of the RMA, in practice it is the position of the authorities which carries the force of law in the UK, and they have rejected that reading.

 

[Gawin]

As daughters of Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna, a great-great-great-granddaughter of George I, they were in fact the "issue of a daughter who has married with a foreign family". Yes, I know that the Farran theory has been disapproved of by most scholars, but it still shows how unnecessarily open to interpretation the British line of succession is.

I agree, the Farran exemption eliminated all descendants of George II except the descendants of Lady Patricia Ramsay. So under the Farran exemption, QEII and her descendants would not have needed permission to marry, but Lady Patricia's would.

 

[Benjamin]

As mentioned, Grand Duke Kirill was in line, and he was a member of a foreign imperial family, and he would not have required permission. What would have prevented his children from having rights?

 

[Gawin]

As mentioned, Grand Duke Kirill was in line, and he was a member of a foreign imperial family, and he would not have required permission. What would have prevented his children from having rights?

Because his children's mother Victoria Melita required permission. Because she didn't request it, none was given, therefore her marriage wasn't valid under the Royal Marriages Act and the children born from that marriage had no succession rights.

Think of it this way: if a minor who needs parental permission marries without that permission, the marriage is invalid even if the other spouse is an adult who requires no such permission.

 

[Benjamin]

Because his children's mother Victoria Melita required permission. Because she didn't request it, none was given, therefore her marriage wasn't valid under the Royal Marriages Act and the children born from that marriage had no succession rights.

Think of it this way: if a minor who needs parental permission marries without that permission, the marriage is invalid even if the other spouse is an adult who requires no such permission.

Then how did Gdss Maria and Gdss Kira transmit rights to their children by marrying other descendants of Queen Victoria, without permission? Fürst Karl and Prince Louis Ferdinand were in line, like Kirill, and neither of them sought approval. Unless there is proof to the contrary.

 

[Gawin]

Then how did Gdss Maria and Gdss Kira transmit rights to their children by marrying other descendants of Queen Victoria, without permission? Fürst Karl and Prince Louis Ferdinand were in line, like Kirill, and neither of them sought approval. Unless there is proof to the contrary.

The Royal Marriages Act exempted the descendants of princesses who married into a foreign family (but NOT the princesses themselves). Maria's husband Karl of Leiningen and Kira's husband Louis Ferdinand of Prussia both fell into that category. And as the daughters of a princess who married a foreign prince, Maria and Kira wouldn't have needed permission to marry even if their mother's marriage had been valid.

That's why Queen Victoria's daughters needed permission to marry but their own (German) children didn't. But Edward VII's daughter Louise and George V's daughter Mary both married British peers (not foreign princes) so THEIR (British) children did require permission.

 

[Benjamin]

Then, by that logic, would not Grand Duke Vladimir have been in line to the British throne, which right was also passed on to his only child Grand Duchess Maria? Her marriage to Prince Franz Wilhelm, another QVD, would have secured the rights of their only child, Grand Duke George, which is also transmitted to his son Prince Alexander.

(Thank you for this conversation. The legalities around it are a bit confusing!)

 

[Gawin]

Then, by that logic, would not Grand Duke Vladimir have been in line to the British throne, which right was also passed on to his only child Grand Duchess Maria? Her marriage to Prince Franz Wilhelm, another QVD, would have secured the rights of their only child, Grand Duke George, which is also transmitted to his son Prince Alexander.

No, the logic is this: Victoria Melita failed to get the necessary permission, therefore her marriage was not valid for the purposes of the Royal Marriages Act, and therefore her children did not have succession rights. It didn't matter that they, their father, or their spouses didn't need permission for their own marriages. Victoria Melita DID.

Vladimir didn't have any succession rights to pass on to his daughter. His sisters' children inherited theirs from Karl and Louis Ferdinand. And Maria's son George inherited his from his father.

(Thank you for this conversation. The legalities around it are a bit confusing!)

I agree, this is very confusing. I've learned a lot about these legalities since joining Royal Forums, thanks to other contributors such as Tatiana Marie and the sources they link to.

 

[Benjamin]

I see. Understand your position and interpretation now. It is such a complicated business!

 

[Tatiana Maria]

And it was the position taken by the British authorities while the Royal Marriages Act remained in force: The future King Edward VII and Princess Alexandra of Denmark had to ask permission to marry even though she was a descendant of a British princess who married into a foreign family, as did their descendants, as Gawin mentioned.

The source Tatiana Marie linked to also states (in reply to J. C. Grant's points): " Items 3 & 4. Although the Duke of Edinburgh was Sovereign Duke of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, the Act none the less applies to His issue as they are not 'issue of a daughter who has married with a foreign family'. If you can confirm that in fact in both these cases no consent was given by King Edward VII, the issue of these two marriages are perforce by the law of England, illegitimate. See Heseltine v. Lady Augusta Murray; 2 Addams 399, & Sussex Peerage Case; (1844), 11 Cl. & F 85."

Yes, and in his response to items 3&4 of the letter, which you quoted, J.C. Grant of the British Foreign Office wrote that he had nothing to add as far as those points were concerned, thus implicitly conceding the letter writer's points that the descendants of the unapproved marriages (Victoria Melita to Kirill and her sister Beatrice to Infante Alfonso of Spain) are "perforce by the law of England, illegitimate".

https://www.heraldica.org/topics/britain/TNA/HO_45_25238.htm

 

[Benjamin]

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 rendered that above status-quo void.

From the Act:

Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages

(1)A person who (when the person marries) is one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown must obtain the consent of Her Majesty before marrying.

(2)Where any such consent has been obtained, it must be—

(a)signified under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom,

(b)declared in Council, and

(c)recorded in the books of the Privy Council.

(3)The effect of a person’s failure to comply with subsection (1) is that the person and the person’s descendants from the marriage are disqualified from succeeding to the Crown.

(4)The Royal Marriages Act 1772 (which provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a descendant of King George II may marry only with the consent of the Sovereign) is repealed.

(5)A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if—

(a)neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage,

(b)no consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given under section 2 of that Act, in respect of the marriage,

(c)in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it, and

(d)no person acted, before the coming into force of this section, on the basis that the marriage was void.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20/section/3/enacted

By virtue of this legislation, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna is herself in the line of succession, even if she was not before 2013, due to the circumstances discussed earlier.

 

[Blog Real]

Kyrill (centre) with his brothers Andrei (left) and Boris (right)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...nd_Boris_Vladimirovich_in_their_childhood.jpg

Kyrill with his wife Victoria and their two daughters Marie and Kira
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...Cyril_Vladimirovitch_et_sa_famille_(1922).jpg

 

[Prinsara]

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 rendered that above status-quo void.

(c)in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it, and

But Edward VII was aware of the marriage of his cousin and the somewhat awkward and definitively scandalous circumstances it arose under, as well as the fact the Tsar did not approve. I do not see how Victoria Melita "could not have been aware" the Act still applied to her, or that everything was nullified by the 2013 Act.

 

[Benjamin]

But Edward VII was aware of the marriage of his cousin and the somewhat awkward and definitively scandalous circumstances it arose under, as well as the fact the Tsar did not approve. I do not see how Victoria Melita "could not have been aware" the Act still applied to her, or that everything was nullified by the 2013 Act.

In 1905, Victoria Melita was the ex-wife of the Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine. VM had married into a foreign grand ducal house and then was marrying into another foreign imperial house. She could have reasonably not been aware that the Royal Marriages Act would have applied to her second marriage. Furthermore, the 2013 Act is broad enough in its scope and wording to insure that her grand-daughter, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, is in line to the British throne.

 

[Gawin]

In 1905, Victoria Melita was the ex-wife of the Grand Duke of Hesse and by Rhine. VM had married into a foreign grand ducal house and then was marrying into another foreign imperial house. She could have reasonably not been aware that the Royal Marriages Act would have applied to her second marriage. Furthermore, the 2013 Act is broad enough in its scope and wording to insure that her grand-daughter, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, is in line to the British throne.

Given the circumstances of her second marriage, I suspect Victoria Melita was fully aware it also required Edward VII's permission. After all, her first cousin Charles still required it although he was a foreign sovereign (Saxe-Coburg-Gotha) and so did the Hanovers, also a foreign royal family.

But Nicholas II opposed her marriage to Kirill and the couple had to marry in Germany, with her mother's Russian Orthodox chaplain pressured into performing the ceremony. Victoria Melita may have believed Edward VII would have withheld his own permission, out of respect for his nephew Nicholas II's wishes, so she didn't bother asking for it.

It's possible that's also the reason her sister Beatrice didn't ask permission for her own marriage to the Infante Alfonso. King Alfonso XIII had given his permission to the couple in private, but because Beatrice was a Protestant his Prime Minister opposed it, and therefore the King could not give his public support. Beatrice may have decided not to drag Edward VII into the mess by requesting his own consent.

But this is all guesswork on my part.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The Succession to the Crown Act 2013 did not grant any succession rights to the British Crown to descendants who were rendered illegitimate in English law by the Royal Marriages Act 1772. They remain excluded from the throne.

By virtue of Subsection (5) of the 2013 act, which is quoted in Benjamin's post above, certain (not all) marriages which were void under the Royal Marriages Act have been retroactively made valid, imparting legitimacy to their formerly illegitimate descendants.

However, Subsection (6) carves out an exception: The formerly-void marriages continue to be treated as void for purposes relating to the succession to the Crown. In other words, where the British throne is concerned, the descendants of these marriages continue to be treated as if they were illegitimate (and illegitimate descendants are barred from inheriting the British throne).


From the Succession to the Crown Act:

3 Consent of Sovereign required to certain Royal Marriages

[...]

(4) The Royal Marriages Act 1772 (which provides that, subject to certain exceptions, a descendant of King George II may marry only with the consent of the Sovereign) is repealed.

(5) A void marriage under that Act is to be treated as never having been void if—

(a) neither party to the marriage was one of the 6 persons next in the line of succession to the Crown at the time of the marriage,

(b) no consent was sought under section 1 of that Act, or notice given under section 2 of that Act, in respect of the marriage,

(c) in all the circumstances it was reasonable for the person concerned not to have been aware at the time of the marriage that the Act applied to it, and

(d) no person acted, before the coming into force of this section, on the basis that the marriage was void.​

(6) Subsection (5) applies for all purposes except those relating to the succession to the Crown.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/20/section/3/enacted​

Therefore, even if British authorities would deem it "reasonable for [Victoria Melita] not to have been aware at the time of the marriage [to Kirill] that the [Royal Marriages] Act applied to it", her descendants by Kirill are continually excluded from the British throne (except, of course, for those who happened to inherit succession rights from a separate ancestor outside of Victoria Melita's lineage, as Gawin mentioned upthread).

As for whether Victoria Melita was "aware" that the Royal Marriages Act applied to her second marriage to Kirill, adding to Gawin and Prinsara's points, Victoria Melita was aware enough of the Act to request (and receive) the British sovereign's consent to her first marriage, even though she was already a member of a foreign royal family (the ducal house of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) at the time of her first marriage and was marrying into another foreign royal family (the grand-ducal house of Hesse).

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Another point which I neglected: The UK's Bill of Rights 1688 and Act of Settlement 1700 constrain the succession to the British throne to Protestants, so that even if Victoria Melita had received the consent of the British sovereign for her marriage, her descendants would have needed to change their religious denomination in order to enter the line to the British throne.

 

[Benjamin]

Members of the Orthodox Church are considered Protestants, which is why members of the Romanian and Serbian royal families are in line.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Moving this discussion to the British succession forum:

Which British authorities consider Orthodox Christians to be Protestants? The generally accepted historical view is that Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism are the three primary divisions of Christianity, and that the schism between Orthodoxy and Catholicism took place several centuries before the Protestant Reformation divided Catholicism from Protestantism.

ETA: I have added citations of the UK legislation and their official interpretation to my post there.

 

[CyrilVladisla]

Grand Duchess Viktoria and her daughters Maria and Kira in 1910
http://www.maryevans.com/history/13538308