In 1866, Mrs. Lavinia Jannetta Horton Ryves, and her son, William Henry
Ryves, appeared before the English courts in support of one of the
most extraordinary petitions on record. Taking advantage of the
Legitimacy Declaration Act, they alleged that Mrs. Ryves was the
legitimate daughter of John Thomas Serres and Olive his wife, and that
the mother of Mrs. Ryves was the legitimate daughter of Henry Frederick
Duke of Cumberland and Olive Wilmot, his wife, who were married by Dr.
Wilmot, at the Grosvenor Square mansion of Lord Archer, on the 4th of
March, 1767. They also asserted that Mrs. Ryves had been lawfully
married to her husband, and that her son was legitimate; and asked the
judges to pronounce that the original marriage between the Duke of
Cumberland and Olive Wilmot was legal; that their child Olive, who
afterwards became Mrs. Serres, was legitimate; that their grandchild
Mrs. Ryves had been lawfully married to her husband; and that
consequently the younger petitioner was their legitimate son and heir.
The Attorney-General (Sir Roundell Palmer) filed an answer denying the
legality of the Cumberland marriage, or that Mrs. Serres was the
legitimate daughter of the duke. There was no dispute as to the fact
that the younger petitioner, W.H. Ryves, was the legitimate son of his
father and mother. The case was heard before Lord Chief-Justice
Cockburn, Lord Chief-Baron Pollock, Sir James Wilde, and a special
jury.
The opening speech of the counsel for the claimant revealed a story
which was very marvellous, but which, without the strongest
corroborative testimony, was scarcely likely to be admitted to be
true. According to his showing Olive Wilmot was the daughter of Dr.
James Wilmot, a country clergyman, and fellow of a college at Oxford.
During his college _curriculum_ this divine had made the acquaintance
of Count Poniatowski, who afterwards became King of Poland, and had
been introduced by him to his sister. The enamoured and beautiful
Polish princess fell in love with Wilmot and married him, and the
result of their union was a daughter, who grew up to rival her
mother's beauty. The fact of the marriage and the existence of the
daughter were, however, carefully kept from the outer world, and
especially from Oxford, where Dr. Wilmot retained his fellowship. The
girl grew to the age of sweet seventeen, and, in 1767, met the Duke of
Cumberland, the younger brother of George III., at the house of Lord
Archer, in Grosvenor Square. After a short courtship, the duke was
said to have married her--the marriage having been celebrated by her
father on the 4th of March, 1767, at nine o'clock in the evening. Two
formal certificates of the marriage were drawn up and signed by Dr.
Wilmot and by Lord Brooke (afterwards Lord Warwick) and J. Addey, who
were present at it; and these certificates were verified by the
signatures of Lord Chatham and Mr. Dunning (afterwards Lord Ashburton).
These documents were put in evidence. The Duke of Cumberland and Olive
Wilmot lived together for four years; and, in October, 1771, while she
was pregnant, her royal mate deserted her, and, as was alleged,
contracted a bigamous marriage with Lady Anne Horton, sister of the
well-known Colonel Luttrel. George III., having been aware of the
previous union with Olive Wilmot, was very indignant at this second
connection, and would not allow the Duke of Cumberland and his second
wife to come to Court. Indeed, it was mainly in consequence of this
marriage, and the secret marriage of the Duke of Gloucester, that the
Royal Marriage Act was forced through Parliament.
Olive Wilmot, as the petitioner's counsel asserted, having been
deserted by her husband, gave birth to a Child Olive, who ought to
have borne the title of Princess of Cumberland. The baby was baptised
on the day of its birth by Dr. Wilmot, and three certificates to that
effect were produced, signed by Dr. Wilmot and his brother Robert. But,
although the king was irritated at the conduct of his brother, he was
at the same time anxious to shield him from the consequences of his
double marriage, and for that purpose gave directions to Lord Chatham,
Lord Warwick, and Dr. Wilmot that the real parentage of the child
should be concealed, and that it should be re-baptised as the daughter
of Robert Wilmot, whose wife had just been confined. The plastic
divine consented to rob the infant temporarily of its birthright but
at the same time required that all the proceedings should be certified
by the king and other persons as witnesses, in order that at a future
time she should be replaced in her proper position. Perhaps, in
ordinary circumstances, it would not have been possible for a country
priest thus to coerce George III.; but Dr. Wilmot was in possession of
a fatal secret. As is well known, King George was publicly married to
Princess Charlotte in 1762; but, according to the showing of the
petitioners, he had been previously married, in 1759, by this very Dr.
Wilmot, to a lady named Hannah Lightfoot. Thus he, as well as the Duke
of Cumberland, had committed bigamy, and the grave question was raised
as to whether George IV., and even her present Majesty, had any right
to the throne. Proof of this extraordinary statement was forthcoming,
for on the back of the certificates intended to prove the marriage of
the Duke of Cumberland and Olive Wilmot, the following certificates
were endorsed:--
"This is to solemnly certify that I married George, Prince
of Wales, to Princess Hannah, his first consort, April 15,
1759; and that two princes and a princess were the issue of
such marriage.
J. WILMOT."
"_London, April_ 2, 176--."
"This is to certify to all it may concern that I lawfully
married George, Prince of Wales, to Hannah Lightfoot, April
17, 1759; and that two sons and a daughter are their issue
by such marriage.
J. WILMOT.
CHATHAM.
J. DUNNING."
The concealed Princess Olive was meanwhile brought up, until 1782, in
the family of Robert Wilmot, to whom it was said that an allowance of
£500 a year was paid for her support by Lord Chatham. On the 17th of
May, 1773, his Majesty created her Duchess of Lancaster by this
instrument,--
"GEORGE R.
"We hereby are pleased to create Olive of Cumberland Duchess
of Lancaster, and to grant our royal authority for Olive,
our said niece, to bear and use the title and arms of
Lancaster, should she be in existence at the period of our
royal demise.
"Given at our Palace of St. James's, May 17, 1773.
CHATHAM.
J. DUNNING."
A little before this time (in 1772) Dr. Wilmot had been presented to
the living of Barton-on-the-Heath, in Warwickshire, and thither his
grand-daughter Olive went with him, passing as his niece, and was
educated by him. When she was seventeen or eighteen years old she was
sent back to London, and there became acquainted with Mr. de Serres, an
artist and a member of the Royal Academy, whom she married in 1791.
The union was not a happy one, and a separation took place; but,
before it occurred, Mrs. Ryves, the elder petitioner, was born at
Liverpool in 1797. After the separation Mrs. Serres and her daughter
lived together, and the former gained some celebrity both as an author
and an artist. They moved in good society, were visited by various
persons of distinction, and in 1805 were taken to Brighton and
introduced to the Prince of Wales, who afterwards became George IV.
Two years later (in 1807) Dr. Wilmot died at the mature age of
eighty-five, and the papers in his possession relating to the
marriage, as well as those which had been deposited with Lord Chatham,
who died in 1778, passed into the hands of Lord Warwick. Mrs. Serres
during all this time had no knowledge of the secret of her birth,
until, in 1815, Lord Warwick, being seriously ill, thought it right to
communicate her history to herself and to the Duke of Kent, and to
place the papers in her hands.
Having brought his case thus far, the counsel for the petitioners was
about to read some documents, purporting to be signed by the Duke of
Kent, as declarations of the legitimacy of Mrs. Ryves, but it was
pointed out by the court that he was not entitled to do so, as,
according to his own contention, the Duke of Kent was not a legitimate
member of the royal family. Therefore, resigning this part of his
case, he went on to say that Mrs. Serres, up to the time of her death
in 1834, and the petitioners subsequently, had made every effort to
have the documents on which they founded their claim examined by some
competent tribunal. They now relied upon the documents, upon oral
evidence, and upon the extraordinary likeness of Olive Wilmot to the
royal family, to prove their allegations.
As far as the portraits of Mrs. Serres were concerned, the court
intimated that they could not possibly be evidence of legitimacy, and
refused to allow them to be shown to the jury. The documents were
declared admissible, and an expert was called to pronounce upon their
authenticity. He expressed a very decided belief that they were
genuine, but, when cross-examined, stammered and ended by throwing
doubts on the signatures of "J. Dunning" and "Chatham," who frequently
appeared as attesting witnesses. The documents themselves were
exceedingly numerous, and contained forty-three so-called signatures
of Dr. Wilmot, sixteen of Lord Chatham, twelve of Mr. Dunning, twelve of
George III., thirty-two of Lord Warwick, and eighteen of the Duke of
Kent.