The Liabilities of Being a Lord

To the casual observer, the Earl of Harewood would seem a very proper lord. A first cousin of Queen Elizabeth, he stands 18th in succession to the British throne, has an excellent wartime record (Grenadier Guards), an elegant estate at Leeds, a lively interest in music, and is chairman of some very prestigious committees. The late Queen Mary, King George VI and Queen Mother Elizabeth all attended his 1949 wedding to talented Pianist Maria Stein, who subsequently bore him three sons.

In 1959, flying from Turin to Paris, Lord Harewood noticed a pretty girl with a violin on her lap. She was Australian-born Patricia Tuckwell, a onetime model, divorcee, and a violinist with the Sydney Symphony Orchestra. They began to see each other, were in turn seen together (often at concerts). In 1964 she bore him a son.

Some Problems. The liaison was well known in Mayfair circles, but last week, when the earl's wife started divorce proceedings on grounds of adultery, it became public knowledge. It was the first time that a member of the royal family had been named as the guilty partner in such a suit. The earl will not contest the case; he intends to marry his new lady "if and when they are legally free to do so."

In England, that presents some problems. Though the earl can be divorced like any ordinary Briton, remarriage is another matter. Harewood comes under the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, which was rammed through Parliament by George III in an effort to stop his kin from keeping house with commoners. The act requires the sovereign's permission for any royal marriage; the punishment for ignoring it is to deny the title to the offender's wife and children.

A Way Out. All of which leaves Queen Elizabeth and her cousin in an embarrassing position. As temporal head of the Church of England, the Queen can hardly be expected to give her happy consent to the marriage of a divorced earl and a woman who is her self a divorcee. Happily, however, the question may not be put to her. There is another way out: the earl and his lady may marry without royal consent if he first informs the Privy Council of his intentions, then waits one year. Or the earl may follow the example of George III's own sons, marry--and damn the consequences. Either way, said London's Evening Standard, would be a satisfactory one of dealing with "one of the most ridiculous anachronisms of the British monarchy."

In today's mini-Britain, the consensus seems to be that royalty deserves to be treated like commoners.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.