Mary Seymour Munro

1796 - 1849  (52 years)

• Name	Mary Seymour Munro  [1]
  Born	14 May 1796	London, , Greater London, England
  Gender	Female
  Died	12 Jan 1849	Perry-Hill, Sydenham, Kent
  Buried	Norwood
  Person ID	I28845	Munro
  Last Modified	29 Jan 2014

  
  

  Father	Sir Hugh Munro, XXVI of Foulis, 8th Baronet,   b. 25 Oct 1763,   d. 2 May 1848, London, , Greater London, England  (Age 84 years)
  Mother	Jane Law,   b. Abt 1776,   d. 1 Aug 1803, , , , Scotland  (Age ~ 27 years)
  Married	21 Sep 1801	St. Mary-Le-Bone, London, Middlesex, England
  Family ID	F2419	Group Sheet  |  Family Chart

  
  

• Notes

  Ref: "History of the Munros" by A. Mackenzie - p. 148 Mary Seymour Munro, born in London on the 14th of May, 1796. Her education was conducted by the Countess of St. Aubin, a French lady of high rank, and by Dr Gordon, the well-known Principal of the Scotch College at Paris. A great lawsuit to test the legitimacy of her birth and her right of succession to the estates, in which she was ultimately successful, was raised and continued for several years. Naturally enough doubts were entertained in many quarters regarding the legitimacy of Mary Seymour Munro, in view of the facts and circumstances just stated, especially among those whose rights of succession to the estates of Fowlis would be seriously imperilled, should her legitimate birth be established. The Baronetcy, which in the absence of heirs male by Sir Hugh, would go to George Munro of Culrain, now that the male line of Culcairn had become extinct, was not in question, but if the effect of the marriage of her parents, after her birth in England, should be to legitimatise the daughter Mary Seymour Munro, the title and estates would be separated, the Baronetcy going to George Munro of Culrain or his heirs, while the lands of Fowlis, in terms of Sir Harry Munro's entail, would go to Sir Hugh's daughter. This was a serious matter to the Culrains, for if Mary Seymour Munro should marry and leave issue the separation of the title and estates would be complete, leaving the head of the house of Fowlis and Chief of the clan practically landless. It can therefore be readily believed that interested persons were spreading reports to the effect that Mary Seymour Munro was not of legitimate birth, and that the marriage of her father and mother several years after her birth in England could not have the same effect as a similar marriage in like circumstances in Scotland would admittedly have had in legitimatising the birth of children previously born out of wedlock. It therefore became necessary, if Sir Hugh's daughter, born out of wedlock in England, was to succeed him in the Fowlis estates, that steps should be taken to establish her legitimacy, and it was naturally felt by herself and friends that this could be done much easier during the life and with the concurrence and assistance of her father than after his death. For this purpose a summons of declarator and legitimacy in the Court of Session was issued on the 27th of May, 1831, at the instance of the lady herself, Mary Seymour Munro, described as the daughter and only lawful child of Sir Hugh Munro of Fowlis, Baronet, and of the now deceased Dame Jane Law or Munro, his spouse, against the said Sir Hugh Munro her father, George Munro, "late of Culrain, presently residing in London, or elsewhere, furth of Scotland, Charles and John, his sons, also residing in London"; and John, Colin, and the other sons of Charles; and George Frederick, grandson of the said George Munro, late of Culrain, and all those who had a right to succeed the one after the other in terms of Sir Harry's entail. She claims the right to succeed her father Sir Hugh, as next heir of entail and his only lawful child, "notwithstanding, whereof certain persons, interested by themselves or their kindred or connexions in the succession to the said estate, have maliciously and unjustifiably spread reports tending to that effect, injure, or destroy the jus crediti and vested right of succession competent to the pursuer in virtue of the destination and clauses and limitations, prohibitory, irritant, and resolutive contained in the said entail and by falsely and calumniously denying the right and title of the pursurer to said estate, in the character of lawful daughter and only child in life of said Sir Hugh Munro of Fowlis or otherwise," and prays the Court that "it ought and should be found, declared, and descerned by our said Lords, that the deceased Dame Jane Law, the mother of the pursuer, was the lawful wife of the said Sir Hugh Munro, defender; that she cohabited with him as such during several years, residing with her said husband at his hereditary mansion-house of Fowlis, in the county of Ross, in Scotland, where she was fully acknowledged by him and by the whole neighbourhood, and by all their friends and acquaintances and visitors, as holding lawfully the style and title of Lady Munro, and was in all respects, habit and repute, the wife of the defender, the said Sir Hugh Munro, the father of the pursuer, who was reared, brought up, and acknowledged and educated by him and his said wife as their lawful child, and presented as such to all their friends, relations, and connections, and held out in that character to the public at large," and further, it should be declared that she, as the daughter and only lawful child of her father Sir Hugh, failing him, and any heirs male of his body, is entitled to succeed to the estates of Fowlis and others, in virtue of the clause of destination and other clauses in the entail, and that all the defenders, being the other substitutes in the same deed should be prohibited, interdicted, put to silence and forbidden in all time coming, to dispute or deny judicially or extra-judicially her legal right of succession as the only lawful child of her father. Defences were duly lodged, and as a matter of course Sir Hugh, nominally one of the defenders, but the lady's father and the real pursuer himself, "admits the truth of the statements contained in the libel and the inferences deducted from them" and that its conclusions were well founded. He then proceeds with a long narrative, admitting that his daughter was born five years before he married her mother, and detailing many of the facts and circumstances connected with their unmarried and married life in London, but maintaining that he never gave up his Scottish domicile, and that consequently his marriage to the mother after the birth of the daughter, although in England, had the same effect in legalising her birth as if they had resided all the time in Scotland, where that would be the unquestioned result of the Scottish marriage laws. Nor was the slightest doubt cast upon his daughter's legitimacy, he goes on to say, "until 1816, when the next heir of entail, Mr Munro of Culcairn, to the amazement of the defender, ventured to propagate a most malicious report that the pursuer is not the lawful daughter of the defender. The unworthy motives of Culcairn did not permit him to discriminate as to the effect of a legitimation subsequente matrimonio. His calumny had for its object to cast into doubt the paternity of the pursuer, for which most scandalous imputation he never was able to assign the slightest reason; and, in truth, he made no defence of the infamous charge invented by him, when he was regularly challenged for it in a court of law. His conduct occasioned, in the year 1816, the institution of an action against him before the Commissaries of Edinburgh, at the instance of the present pursuer." The conclusion of the summons in that action against Duncan Munro of Culcairn was--inasmuch as the complainer, Mary Seymour Munro, was legitimated by the marriage which took place after her birth between her father and mother, and that she had always been held and reputed to be a lawful child of the said marriage, "therefore it ought and should be found and declared by your decrreet and sentence, that the complainer is the lawful child of the said Sir Hugh Munro, Baronet, and that, as such, she has right to succeed to her said father and her outher relations, in their heritable and moveable subjects,: and that the defender should be found liable in damages for 1000 pounds to the complainer and in the expenses of the action. The proceedings were continued and carried on, more or less actively, for four years, the last notice of this action on the records being an interlocutor, dated the 22nd of December, 1820, in these terms:-- "The Commissaries having considered the memorials and additional memorials for the parties, and resumed consideration of the whole process: In respect the parties are still at variance in regard to several important facts of the case, before further advising, appoint the pursuers"--that is, Sir Hugh and his daughter--"to state, in a special and articulate condescendence, the facts and grounds on which they maintain that the true and proper domicile of Sir Hugh Munro, both at the date of his alleged marriage in England, and subsequently thereto till the dissolution thereof by the death of Lady Munro, was in Scotland. Further, therein to state the precise date of the first acquaintance of Sir Hugh Munro with the deceased Lady Munro, the date of their alleged marriage in England, and also the date of the pursuer, Miss Munro's birth." Duncan Munro of Culcairn died in that year, 1820, and no more is heard of any proceedings until an action is raised against George Munro of Culrain and the other heirs male of entail, eleven years later, on the 27th of May 1831, although Duncan of Culcairn's son survived until 1821. The Lord Ordinary, on the 12th of May, 1835, ordered the Culrain case to be reported to the First Division of the Court. On the 12th of January, 1836, the Division took the necessary preliminary steps "for obtaining the opinions of the Second Division, and of the Permanent Lords Ordinary," on the questions argued and to be further argued in the case; and on the 2nd of July following the First Division pronounced the following interlocutor:-- "The Lords having considered the original cases, and additional revised cases in this cause, direct the same to be laid before the Lords of the Second Division, and Lords Ordinary, in order that they may furnish the First Division with their opinion in writing, whether the pursuer is the legitimate daughter of Sir Hugh Munro of Fowlis." On the 15th of November, 1837, opinions having been returned in terms of the former interlocutor of the First Division, that Court pronounced the following judgment against Mary Seymour Munro's claim to be the legitimate daughter of her father Sir Hugh Munro:-- "The Lords of the First Division having resumed consideration of the pleadings, and whole procedure in the case, and heard counsel, and having also considered the opinions of the consulted judges, in consequence thereof, sustain the defences, assoilzie the defenders from the conclusions of the action, and descern; and find no expenses due to either party." This judgment of the Court of Session was at once appealed to the House of Lords, by whom it was reversed in 1840, on the ground that Sir Hugh Munro, the pursuer's father, never lost his Scottish domicile, and that therefore his marriage to the mother after the birth of the daughter had the same effect, although performed in England, as if celebrated in Scotland, where the after marriage of the parents admittedly legalises the birth of all children previously born out of wedlock. Miss Munro, on her father's death in 1848, intended to have taken up her permanent residence at Fowlis Castle, but before she was able to carry her purpose into effect she was removed by death, having died unmarried on the 12th of January, 1849, in the fifty-third year of her age, at her temporary residence of Perry-Hill, Sydenham, county of Kent, and was interred at Norwood, having only survived her father by eight months. Compiled and edited by Allen Alger, Genealogist, Clan Munro Association, USA

  
  

• Sources

  [S633] Clan Munro files - Monroe, William L., Jr., William L. Monroe, Jr., The Munros - From the Carolinas - by Bill Monroe - p. 5 (Reliability: 3).