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

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Grand Duke Cyril and Victoria Melita wed without the formal approval of King Edward VII of England, as the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 would have required.

This is interesting, especially considering that their descendants are in the line of succession - however distantly - to the British throne.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla

Grand Duke Cyril and Victoria Melita wed without the formal approval of King Edward VII of England, as the Royal Marriages Act of 1772 would have required.

Originally Posted by Benjamin

This is interesting, especially considering that their descendants are in the line of succession - however distantly - to the British throne.

No, by marrying without the formal approval of the king of Great Britain and Ireland (as the Foreign Office confirmed), Victoria Melita ensured that her marriage and children were illegitimate by the laws of England. Illegitimate children are excluded from inheriting the British throne under the Act of Settlement.

See here for a more comprehensive explanation. https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2492305

[MAfan]

But she was a British Princess who wed into a foreign family, so - if I don't mistake - she was exempted from getting the consent of Edward VII.

[Tatiana Maria]

Originally Posted by MAfan

But she was a British Princess who wed into a foreign family, so - if I don't mistake - she was exempted from getting the consent of Edward VII.

The exemption was for the descendants of British princesses who married into foreign families. The British princess herself was still subject to the Royal Marriages Act.

"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 [...]"

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

This is interesting, especially considering that their descendants are in the line of succession - however distantly - to the British throne.

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

No, by marrying without the formal approval of the king of Great Britain and Ireland (as the Foreign Office confirmed), Victoria Melita ensured that her marriage and children were illegitimate by the laws of England. Illegitimate children are excluded from inheriting the British throne under the Act of Settlement.

See here for a more comprehensive explanation. https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2492305

Victoria Melita's children were descendants of King George I on their father's side. Since that descent was through a princess who had married into a foreign house Kirill Vladimirovitj would not have had to ask for formal approval to marry from the British monarch and their children would still be in the British line of succession?
Even if that's not the case this discussion show how ridiculous the current British line of succession and the laws surrounding it is. They should cut it off after the descendants of George V or even better after the descendants of Elizabeth II.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by JR76

Victoria Melita's children were descendants of King George I on their father's side. Since that descent was through a princess who had married into a foreign house Kirill Vladimirovitj would not have had to ask for formal approval to marry from the British monarch and their children would still be in the British line of succession?
Even if that's not the case this discussion show how ridiculous the current British line of succession and the laws surrounding it is. They should cut it off after the descendants of George V or even better after the descendants of Elizabeth II.

But Victoria Melita still needed approval so Kirill's status was irrelevant. For example, Edward VII needed permission even though his bride Alexandra of Denmark was descended from a British princess who had married into a foreign house. And their son George V needed permission because his status as a British prince cancelled his own descent from a British princess who had married into a foreign house.

Both of Victoria Melita's daughters married descendants of the Electress Sophia, so their own children were in the line of succession. Her son Vladimir did not, so his daughter Maria doesn't have succession rights. But because she married a prince who does, her son George and grandson Alexander do.

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Tatiana Maria

No, by marrying without the formal approval of the king of Great Britain and Ireland (as the Foreign Office confirmed), Victoria Melita ensured that her marriage and children were illegitimate by the laws of England. Illegitimate children are excluded from inheriting the British throne under the Act of Settlement.

See here for a more comprehensive explanation. https://www.theroyalforums.com/forum...ml#post2492305

In 1961, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia was 51st in the line of succession to the British throne. Her father, Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich, was 50th, naturally.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110809...sion/1961.html

By 2001, the grand duchess was 135th in line, and Grand Duke George Mikhailovich was 136th.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110725...sion/2001.html

Further, as the source you linked to states, "There is no record of a Royal Consent being asked for or given to the second marriage of Princess Victoria in 1905, but she was marrying for the second time into a foreign family. (No. 3 on the list)."

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

In 1961, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia was 51st in the line of succession to the British throne. Her father, Grand Duke Vladimir Kirillovich, was 50th, naturally.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110809...sion/1961.html

By 2001, the grand duchess was 135th in line, and Grand Duke George Mikhailovich was 136th.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110725...sion/2001.html

Further, as the source you linked to states, "There is no record of a Royal Consent being asked for or given to the second marriage of Princess Victoria in 1905, but she was marrying for the second time into a foreign family. (No. 3 on the list)."

William Addams Reitwiesner was mistaken. Victoria Melita did not request the necessary permission for her marriage to Grand Duke Kirill and therefore her children did not have succession rights. The fact that she married into a foreign family made no difference. The daughters of George III, George IV, Queen Victoria, and Edward VII who married foreign princes all required permission.


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."

[Benjamin]

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

In 1921, Princess/Grand Duchess Victoria Melita was 20th in line herself. Grand Duke Kirill was 747th. So, why wouldn't their children have been in line? Kirill would not have needed to ask for permission (which neither of them did) and there would be no reason why Maria, Kira, and Vladimir were not in the line of succession themselves.

[JR76]

Originally Posted by Gawin

William Addams Reitwiesner was mistaken. Victoria Melita did not request the necessary permission for her marriage to Grand Duke Kirill and therefore her children did not have succession rights. The fact that she married into a foreign family made no difference. The daughters of George III, George IV, Queen Victoria, and Edward VII who married foreign princes all required permission.


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."

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.

[Gawin]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

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]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

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]

Originally Posted by JR76

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Gawin

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]

Originally Posted by Benjamin

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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!