Shard/Lascelles engagement

[Michael Rhodes]

At a meeting of the Privy Council, 12 February, 2008, HM The Queen
gave Royal Consent under the terms of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, to
the forthcoming marriage between Matthew Shard and the Hon Emily
Tsering Lascelles (b 23 Nov, 1975), eldest child & only dau of David
Henry George Lascelles, styled Viscount Lascelles (b Oct 1950), by his
first wife the former Margaret Rosalind Messenger (b 1948), and
granddaughter of the 7th Earl of Harewood, KBE (b 1923), a first
cousin of HM The Queen.

Emily Lascelles, born before the marriage of her parents, and
legitimated upon their marriage, is, however, not in the line of
succession to the Throne.

I have always assumed that illegitimate children fell outside the
catchment of the Royal Marriages Act. The scores of FitzClarence
descendants, as far as I am aware, do not require HM's consent to
marry. Perhaps the fact that Miss Lascelles was legitimated upon her
parents' marriage has something to do with her inclusion.

====

[www.maltagenealogy.com]

Congratulations to Emily, she is such a down to earth lady and I wish
her best.


Charles SV


On Apr 10, 9:49 am, Michael Rhodes <migx73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

[Michael Rhodes]

I'm somewhat confused by this latest ruling. Up to now the act has
only applied to the legitimate descendants of the Royal House. Miss
Lasceles was born in Nov 1975 three years before her father, David
Lascelles, married her mother Margaret Messenger. Emily was
legitimated on her parents' marriage, but because she was born out of
wedlock she - like her brother Benjamin born in 1978 - is not in the
line of succession to the throne. Neither can Benjamin inherit the
earldom.

In 200 years not one of George II's descendants with an illegitimate
connection has asked the soveregn's permission to wed. I've combed the
London Gazette for orders in council relating to the Royal Marriaes
Act.

The 1772 Act has no mention of legitimate or illegitimate descendants
- just the descendants of George II. This could be said to mean that
ALL his offspring require HM's permssion.

It could be red faces all round in the household of Tory leader David
Cameron - who is descended from George II, but through an illegitimate
connection. He descends from William IV and the actress Dorothea
Jordan. The king had ten illegitimate children all surnamed
FitzClarence, and no members of that family have ever sought consent.
The legality of hundreds of marriages could be called into question by
this Lascelles ruling.

====

[Peter FitzGerald]

On Apr 14, 11:11 am, Michael Rhodes <migx73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

It's not really a ruling - it's just the grant of permission. The fact
that someone has asked for permission and Her Majesty has granted it
does not mean anyone has ruled on whether that permission is
necessary. (And, in any event, the only authority that could make such
a ruling would be the courts - neither the Privy Council nor Her
Majesty is responsible for the interpretation of Acts of Parliament.)

And the term used in the Act itself is "descendant of the body". This
presumably refers to the same sort of person as does "heir of the
body" ("descendant" rather than "heir" because an heir is only the
most senior descendant). In any event, the fact that the word
"legitimate" is not used cannot really be significant, as it is not
used in any other similar contexts either (the letters patent of
peerages and baronetcies, for instance).

It's all a bit academic, though. If there were ever any dispute about
the granting of permission or the validity of a marriage, the courts
would presumably declare the Act incompatible with the ECHR without a
moment's hesitation.

[Michael Rhodes]

> It's not really a ruling - it's just the grant of permission. The fact
> that someone has asked for permission and Her Majesty has granted it
> does not mean anyone has ruled on whether that permission is
> necessary. (And, in any event, the only authority that could make such
> a ruling would be the courts - neither the Privy Council nor Her
> Majesty is responsible for the interpretation of Acts of Parliament.)

A good, logical explanation, thank you.

[Stephen]

IIRC - Viscount Lascelles was distressed when he found out that his
eldest son, who like Emily was born before the marriage, was not the
heir to the earldom - even the subsequent legitmatisation did not put
him in line for the earldom. If he doesn't understand such things; it
is likely that he told Emily to send in the request assuming it was
necessary, because he had had to do it.

-- Stephen Stillwell

[Michael Rhodes]

I aso believe that Lord Lascelles is distancing himself from titles
whatsoever.
In interviews these days he alsways insists on "David Lascelles". It
wouldn't
surprise me if in the future he disclaimed the earldom.

====

[Jan Böhme]

On 16 Apr, 21:38, Michael Rhodes <migx73allenford2...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

How many cases of disclaiming a peerage for reasons other than wanting
to sit, or remain, in the House of Commons have there been?

[Michael Rhodes]

Barons Altrincham, Reith, Archibald (?), Merthyr, Monkswell , Reith -
none were MPs wanting to retain a seat in the Commons. And Lord
Hartwell, a life peer since 1968, succeeded as 3rd Viscount Camrose in
Feb 1995 and disclaimed the hereditary viscountcy and barony several
weeks afterwards. He died in 2001.




==