Lascelles/Velez Robledo marriage

[Michael Rhodes]

The marriage took place at Harewood House, Leeds, 18 April, 2009, of
the Hon Benjamin George Lascelles (b 23 Nov 1978), scion of the Earls
of Harewood, and a great- great grandson of HM King George V and Queen
Mary, 1st son of David Henry George Lascelles, styled Viscount
Lascelles (born 21 October 1950), by his 1st wife the former Margaret
Rosalind Messenger (b
1948); & Carolina Velez Robledo.

The marriage was a civil ceremony in the gallery at Harewood House.


--==--

[Michael Rhodes]

Benjamin Lascelles's wedding reported in the local press:-

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Royal-wedding-staged-at-Harewood.5188375.jp

> --==--

[Stephen & Tom]

The article got lots of things wrong - didn't it.

According to Theroff and other sources - Benjamin is not The
Honourable because his birth occurred before his parents' marriage.
While the subsequent marriage legitimated him and his sister for most
purposes, it did not remove the heraldic bend sinister. He is not The
Honourable and may not inherit either his grandfather's earldom (which
unlike the insinuations in the article should first go to his father
anyway) nor is he in the line of succession for The Throne. Under
those circumstances even calling it a "royal wedding" goes a bit far.




On Apr 21, 10:53 am, Michael Rhodes <mig73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> Benjamin Lascelles's wedding reported in the local press:-
>

> http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Royal-wedding-staged-at-Ha...
>
>
>
> > --==--- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Michael Rhodes]

Legitimated children are granted courtesy titles, and have been for
some considerable time. Mr Lascelles remains excluded from the
succession to the throne and to his grandfather's peerages, and yet
the Queen spent valuable time in Council granting permission, under to
the terms of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, to his marriage to Senorita
Velez Robledo.

--==--

[rick.l...@virgin.net]

Michael Rhodes wrote:

>.....and yet the Queen spent valuable time in Council granting permission, under to

>the terms of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, to his marriage to Senorita
>Velez Robledo.

Further to Michael's point: The Queen gave consent to the proposed
marriage of Benjamin George Lascelles and Carolina Velez (also known
as Carolina Velez Robledo) at the Privy Council Meeting on 11 February
2009.

Richard Lichten

[JonnyK]

This is an appalling article from the Yorkshire Evening Post.

"The recent moves to repeal succession laws, could see Yorkshire's
royalty leapfrog 20 others to become significantly closer to
inheriting the throne.

If the changes still being considered eventually become law and are
retrospective, then the Earl of Harewood, currently 41st in line,
would leapfrog over his cousins Henry, Duke of Gloucester and George,
Duke of Kent and their families."

Firstly, are the Harewoods considered as royalty? And as for the
bridegroom "leapfrogging over his cousins", yes, cousins that have
been deceased for 67 years and 35 years respectively. The article
would imply to the less-informed reader that these royal dukes were
still alive!

[Michael Rhodes]

Lord Harewood's first cousins the _Royal Dukes_ of Gloucester and Kent
are very much alive.
If the changes to the succession law is retrospective them Harewood
and his Lascelles family would
indeed leap frog over HRH The Duke of Gloucester and his issue, and
HRH The Duke of Kent and his issue, and indeed the families of Prince
Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra, the Hon Lady Ogilvy.


--==-

[Richard R]

As to whether the Harewoods are considered as royalty, The Queen
certainly regards the Earl and his wife as members of the Royal Family
and they always appear on the list of such members which is updated
and published occasionally by the Lord Chamberlain and circulated
within the Royal Household and the family. The Harewoods have
occasionally appeared on the balcony at Buckingham Palace during The
Queen's Birthday Parade ('Trooping the Colour'), with the rest of HM's
family.

On Apr 23, 7:09 pm, Michael Rhodes <mig73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> --==-- Hide quoted text -

[Michael Rhodes]

On 23 Apr, 19:33, Richard R <r_rut...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As to whether the Harewoods are considered as royalty, The Queen
> certainly regards the Earl and his wife as members of the Royal Family
> and they always appear on the list of such members which is updated
> and published occasionally by the Lord Chamberlain and circulated
> within the Royal Household and the family. The Harewoods have
> occasionally appeared on the balcony at Buckingham Palace during The
> Queen's Birthday Parade ('Trooping the Colour'), with the rest of HM's
> family.

The Harewoods have been rehabilitated in recent years and HM The Q has
visited
Harewood House again, as she so often did in her aunt's lifetime.

-==-

[Richard R]

Yes. Things cooled off when the Earl divorced his first wife and
married the second. But, as you say, a rehabilitation has taken place.
Perhaps having a sister and three of the four children visiting the
divorce courts has made HMQ more tolerant of her cousin's behaviour!

On Apr 23, 7:46 pm, Michael Rhodes <mig73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

[ccz...@gwmail.nottingham.ac.uk]

On Apr 23, 7:09 pm, Michael Rhodes <mig73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

> On 23 Apr, 17:23, JonnyK <j_kennedy1...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > This is an appalling article from the Yorkshire Evening Post.

> > "The recent moves to repeal succession laws, could see Yorkshire's
> > royalty leapfrog 20 others to become significantly closer to
> > inheriting the throne.

> > If the changes still being considered eventually become law and are
> > retrospective, then the Earl of Harewood, currently 41st in line,
> > would leapfrog over his cousins Henry, Duke of Gloucester and George,
> > Duke of Kent and their families."

> Lord Harewood's first cousins the _Royal Dukes_ of Gloucester and Kent
> are very much alive.
> If the changes to the succession law is retrospective them Harewood
> and his Lascelles family would
> indeed leap frog over HRH The Duke of Gloucester and his issue, and
> HRH The Duke of Kent and his issue, and indeed the families of Prince
> Michael of Kent and Princess Alexandra, the Hon Lady Ogilvy.

The article however referred to the late Duke of Gloucester (Henry)
and the late Duke of Kent (George) - neither of those is in line of
succession since each is dead!

The author of the article seems to have a wild obsession with having a
monarch from Yorkshire.

[Michael Rhodes]

> The article however referred to the late Duke of Gloucester (Henry)
> and the late Duke of Kent (George) - neither of those is in line of
> succession since each is dead!
>
> The author of the article seems to have a wild obsession with having a

> monarch from Yorkshire.- Hide quoted text -

Oh I see. Henry D of Gloucester and George D of Kent were of course
Lord Harewood's uncles, not cousins.

I suppose the Yorkshire Evening Post will promote a Yorkshire
connection for all it's worth.


--==--

[the_ver...@comcast.net]

The phrasing could have been a bit more precise, something like...
"would leapfrog the families of his late cousins HRH The Duke of Gloucester and HRH The Duke of Kent".

[Michael Rhodes]

On 24 Apr, 16:50, the_vermina...@comcast.net wrote:
> The phrasing could have been a bit more precise, something like...
> "would leapfrog the families of his late cousins HRH The Duke of Gloucester and HRH The Duke of Kent".

But his cousins the Dukes of Gloucester and Kent aren't "late".