The Grimaldis of Monaco, page 37
Macdonald, Alasdair. Stowe School. London: Dalton Watson Ltd., 1977.
Magnus, Sir Philip. King Edward the Seventh. London: J. Murray, 1964.
Mallet, Marie. Life with Queen Victoria: Maria Mallet's Letters from Court, 1887–1901, ed. Victor Mallet. London: John Murray, 1968.
Massey, Raymond. 100 Different Lives. Boston: Little, Brown, 1979.
Maxim, Hiram. Monte Carlo: Facts and Fallacies. London: Grant Richards, 1904.
Maxwell, C. The English Traveller in France, 1698–1815. London: 1932.
Maxwell, Elsa. The Celebrity Circus. London: W. H. Allen, 1964.
Metiver, Henri. Monaco et Ses Princes, 2nd ed. La Flèche, Jordain, 1865.
Mitford, Nancy. The Sun King. London: The Bodley Head, 1968.
Monaco. Monaco: Archives du Palais. Paris: Auguste Picard.
Monte-Carlo and Public Opinion: A Visitor to the Riviera. London: Rivertons, 1884.
Napoleon, Prince. Memoirs, ed. d’Hauterive. Paris: 1925.
Ogg, David. Europe in the Seventeenth Century. London: 1959.
Pastorelli, Jean. Histoire de Monaco, Vol. II. Monaco: Ministère d’État, 1986.
Peat, Anthony B. North. Gossip from Paris During the Second Empire—Correspondence (1864–1869), ed. A. R. Waller. London: 1903.
Pemberton, H. History of Monaco. London: 1867.
Petrie, Sir Charles. Louis XIV. London: Thornton, Butterworth, 1938.
Plessis, Alain. The Rise and Fall of the Second Empire, 1852–1871. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Polovtsoff, General Pierre. Monte Carlo Casino. London: Stanley Paul, 1937.
Proust, Marcel. Remembrance of Things Past, Vol. II, Within a Budding Grove. New York: Random House, 1981.
Quine, Judith Balaban. The Bridesmaids: Grace Kelly, Princess of Monaco, and Six Intimate Friends. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1989.
Ray, Pierre. The Greek. New York: G. P. Putnam, 1974.
Robert, J. B. Histoire de Monaco. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1973.
———, with J. Freu and R. Novella. Histoire de Monaco, Vol. I. Monaco: Ministère d’État, 1986.
Robinson, Jeffrey. Rainier and Grace. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1989.
Robyns, Gwen. Princess Grace London: W. H. Allen, 1976.
Saige, Gustave. Monaco: Ses Origines et Son Histoire. Monaco: Éditions des Archives du Palais Princier, 1988.
St. Aubyn, Giles. Edward VII, Prince and King. New York: Athenaeum, 1979.
Schama, S. Citizens. New York: Knopf, 1989.
———. Patriots and Liberators. New York: Knopf, 1977.
Saint-Simon, Louis de Rouvroy, duc de. Mémoires, ed. A. de Boislisle. Paris: 1879.
Sévigné, Marie, Marquise de. Letters, ed. M. Mommerque. Paris: 1862–1866.
———. Mémoire de Saint-Simon. Paris: 1926.
Sherlock, Rev. Martin. Letters from an English Traveller. London: John Nichols, 1802.
Slater, Leonard. Aly: A Biography of the Late Aga Khan. London: W. H. Allen, 1966.
Smith, Adolphe. Monaco and Monte Carlo. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1912.
Smollett, Tobias. Travels Through France and Italy. London: 1766.
Sokolova, Lydia. Dancing for Diaghilev, ed. Richard Buckle. London: John Murray, 1960.
Spoto, Donald. The Dark Side of Genius: The Life of Alfred Hitchcock. Boston: Little, Brown, 1983.
———. Stanley Kramer, Film Maker. New York: Putnam, 1978.
Stevenson, G. S. The Letters of Madame. London: 1924.
Sutherland, D.M.G. France, 1789–1815. London: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Tessi, Marshal de. Letters from Marshal de Tessi to Prince Antoine I of Monaco. London: 1911.
Thomas, Bob. Golden Boy: The Untold Story of William Holden. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1983.
Thompson, J. M. Louis Napoleon and the Second Empire. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1954.
Thomson, David. Europe Since Napoleon. London: Penguin Books, 1990.
Victoria, Queen. Letters, Second Series, ed. Lytton Strachey.
Walsh, I. J. Monte Carlo Opera, 1910–1951. Kilkenny, Ireland: Boethius Books, 1986.
Wheatcroft, Andrew. Dolin: Friends and Memories. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1982.
Williams, E. N. The Ancien Régime in Europe. London: Penguin Books, 1988.
Williamson, Audrey. Thomas Paine: His Life, Work and Times. London: George Allen, 1973.
Young, Arthur. Travels in France During the Years 1787, 1788 and 1789. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press, 1950.
OTHER SOURCES
Periodicals: Annales Monégasques Numbers 1–12 (Archives du Palais Princier, Monaco). Le Monde Illustré, Paris.
Newspapers: The Times, Sunday Times, Financial Times, The Daily Express, The Daily Telegraph, and The Evening Standard (London, Archives, British Library); Nice Matin, Paris Match.
British Film Institute Library Archives, London.
Hulton Picture Library, London.
APPENDICES
Law Report, Mar. 22
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CHANCERY DIVISION
PRINCE OF MONACO’S CLAIM TO CUSTODY OF GRANDSON: JUDGMENT MONACO V. MONACO
Before Mr. JUSTICE LUXMOORE
His Lordship gave judgment for the plaintiff in the action by the reigning Prince of Monaco against Prince Pierre of Monaco (otherwise known as Prince Pierre de Polignac) relating to the custody of the plaintiff’s grandson, Prince Rainier of Monaco, who is at school in this country.
The plaintiff claimed an injunction restraining the defendant from removing the young Prince out of the United Kingdom except with his (the reigning Prince’s) consent. He also asked for an order for the delivery up of the Prince to him or to such person as he should authorize.
The defendant denied that the plaintiff was entitled to the relief for which he asked.
Mr. Vaughan Williams, K.C., Mr. H. O. Danckwerts, and Mr. Ac-land-Hood appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Wynn Parry, K.C., Mr. Raymond Jennings, and Mr. V. Idelson for the defendant.
JUDGMENT
His Lordship, in a written judgment, said that the plaintiff claimed in the action a declaration that he was the lawful guardian of Prince Rainier of Monaco, the only son of the marriage of Princess Charlotte (the plaintiff’s daughter) with the defendant. The plaintiff also asked for an injunction to restrain the defendant from removing Prince Rainier out of the jurisdiction of that Court, except with his (the plaintiff’s) consent, and an order for the immediate delivery of the Prince Rainier to him, or to such other person as he might authorize.
Prince Rainier was at the present time at school in this country. Both he and his father, the defendant, were of Monégasque nationality. Prince Rainier was not a ward of that Court. The defendant had raised a number of defences.
The first question to be determined was one of fact, whether the plaintiff was the guardian, and as such entitled to the custody of the infant Prince. It was necessary to consider and ascertain the position of the parties, having regard to Monégasque law.
The material facts appeared to be as follows:—In matters of personal status, such as guardianship and custody of infants, the law administered in Monaco was the national law of the persons concerned. That applied to the members of the Sovereign Family as well as to other persons. The Monégasque law relating to the Sovereign Family was laid down in an ordinance dated May 15, 1882, promulgated by Prince Charles III of Monaco. That ordinance had the force of law in Monaco. So far as material, it provided by article I that the sovereignty of the Principality of Monaco continued to be hereditary in the direct and legitimate succession of the Princes of Monaco.
Article III provided that no member of the Sovereign Family might marry without the authorization of the reigning Prince. Any petition for annulment of a marriage, or any difficulty arising out of a marriage properly contracted by a member of the Sovereign Family, was to be brought before a Council of State, and the decision would become final and enforceable by a Sovereign ordinance passed by the reigning Prince after hearing the Council of State. The reigning Prince had full authority over all the members of the Sovereign Family. He regulated their duties and their obligations by statutes or ordinances having the force of law.
NAME AND ARMS OF GRIMALDI
On March 18, 1920, Prince Albert I of Monaco, by an ordinance of that date, ordered that the defendant, who had been granted Monégasque naturalization by an order of February 29, 1920, should take for himself and his descendants the name and arms of Grimaldi, being the name and arms of the Sovereign Family. On March 19, 1920, the defendant was, with the consent of the same prince, married to the Hereditary Princess Charlotte of Monaco, the daughter of the plaintiff. There had been two children of that marriage—namely, Princess Antoinette and Prince Rainier. The latter was born on May 31, 1923.
On February 8, 1930, the plaintiff promulgated a Sovereign ordinance authorizing a temporary separation between the Hereditary Princess and the defendant. Article II of the same ordinance was in these terms:—
We entrust to ourselves, Head of the Sovereign Family and of the Dynasty, and to our personal custody until this matter is finally decided, the princely children, Princess Antoinette and the Prince Rainier.
On February 10, 1930, a Council of State was convened to consider the question whether the reigning Prince was competent to decide on the application of the Hereditary Princess for a separation of herself and her property from the defendant.
The Council of State expressed the opinion that the reigning Prince had full authority and full jurisdiction over members of the Sovereign Family, and accordingly that he had full power to settle all questions relating to their civil status and their property. The Council of State also expressed the opinion that the reigning Prince had full power to delegate all or any of his rights to whatever jurisdiction he thought fit, requesting him to make use in the then present circumstances of his right of delegation.
As the result of that advice the plaintiff, on February 15, 1920, promulgated a Sovereign ordinance. Article I of that ordinance provided:—
In cases where the statutes of the Sovereign Family defer family jurisdiction in the reigning Prince, the latter may relinquish the same, either in favor of the Supreme Court of Monaco or in favor of the Cour de Revision according to the nature of the litigation, or delegate his powers to them.
A FAMILY PACT
Following that ordinance a family pact was proposed to regulate the terms of separation between the Hereditary Princess and the defendant. The parties, being unwilling to agree to all of the terms proposed, agreed to submit the outstanding questions to the sole arbitration of M. Poincaré. Among the matters included in the submission were the conditions concerning the custody and education of Princess Antoinette and Prince Rainier. That submission to arbitration was signed by the Hereditary Princess and the defendant.
M. Poincaré duly made his award on March 18, 1930. It dealt, among other matters, with the custody and education of the Princess Antoinette and Prince Rainier. A family pact was entered into to give effect to the award on March 18, 1930. On March 20 the Cour de Revision of Monaco decreed the personal separation and separation of property between the Hereditary Princess and the defendant. The decree contained a recital of the fact that certain points had been settled by the award of M. Poincaré, and that there was no reason to give any judgment concerning the same.
On January 7, 1933, the Hereditary Princess Charlotte petitioned the plaintiff for the dissolution of her marriage with the defendant. The plaintiff submitted to the Council of State whether, being Judge as of right, he should delegate his authority in the matter of the petition to the Cour de Revision. The Council of State on January 13, 1933, advised that owing to the final character of the decision sought and its gravity as affecting the Dynasty, it was necessary that the plaintiff should decide, in full exercise of his family jurisdiction, on the request for the dissolution of the marriage, subject to his delegating to the Cour de Revision, in accordance with the ordinance of February 15, 1930, the settlement of the pecuniary interests of the parties.
On January 14, 1933, the plaintiff, by a Sovereign ordinance, decreed by article III that he would retain the hearing of, and the decision on, all matters arising out of the petition of the Hereditary Princess which concerned matters of personal status. Article III of the ordinance was in these terms:—
As from this day and as Head of the Royal Family and its Dynasty we take over the personal custody of the princely children, Prince Rainier and Princess Antoinette. We reserve the settlement of the right of access of the parents until after the hearing of the action.
On February 18, 1933, the plaintiff, by a Sovereign ordinance of that date, dissolved the marriage of the Hereditary Princess with the defendant. On July 8, 1933, the plaintiff, by a further Sovereign ordinance, approved certain modifications in the family pact of March 18, 1930, contained in an agreement of May 5, 1933, and delegated to the Cour de Revision all necessary powers to ratify the agreements. On July 11, 1933, the Cour de Revision ratified these agreements. There was some discussion before him (his Lordship) as to the precise ambit of that order. The word used with regard to it in the order of the Court was “enterine.” It seemed to him that the most suitable English equivalent of the word was the phrase “made the agreements a rule of Court,” but in substance he saw no objection to construing the word “enterine” by the English word “ratified.”
Questions subsequently arose between the Hereditary Princess and the defendant and there was an attempted submission to arbitration which was abortive owing to the failure of the two arbitrators to agree, and their subsequent failure to appoint an umpire. Ultimately on March 8, 1936, the plaintiff promulgated a Sovereign ordinance. Article I of that ordinance stated:—
“We assume again as from this day as Head of the Sovereign Family and of the Dynasty the personal custody of the princely children Prince Rainier and Princess Antoinette.”
It was upon this ordinance that the plaintiff based his claim in the action.
“THE FORCE OF LAW”
Maitre Jioffredy stated that under the ordinance of 1882 the plaintiff had, according to Monégasque law, the right to the guardianship and custody of any infant member of the Royal House, and that that right was enforceable by ordinances which had the force of law, and that the ordinance of March 8, 1936, was such an ordinance. He further stated that under the ordinance of February 15, 1930, the plaintiff was entitled to delegate his Sovereign rights in any case to the Monégasque Courts of Law in such manner as he might determine. But as he (his Lordship) understood that witness’s evidence, the plaintiff was unable to delegate his rights so as to amount to a renunciation of them in respect of the custody and guardianship of any particular member of the Sovereign Family in such a manner as to preclude himself from resuming his rights when change of circumstances made it expedient or desirable for him so to do. So that, admitting that the plaintiff had delegated his rights with regard to the custody and guardianship of the Princess Antoinette and Prince Rainier in the circumstances existing at the date of submission to the arbitration of M. Poincaré, yet, in the altered circumstances of the dissolution of the marriage of their parents and the consequences flowing therefrom, the plaintiff was still legally entitled by Sovereign ordinance to resume the guardianship and custody at his will and pleasure, and that nothing which was recorded in the ordinances made before or subsequent to the divorce, or the orders of the Cour de Revision with regard thereto, precluded the plaintiff from exercising that right.
Consequently, in Maitre Jioffredy’s opinion, the Sovereign ordinance of March 8, 1936, was, according to Monégasque law, enforceable in the Monégasque Courts. As he (his Lordship) understood Mr. Wynn Parry’s argument he admitted that, according to Monégasque law, the plaintiff had the absolute right to the guardianship and custody of the infants if he exercised it by Sovereign ordinance, but he argued that the plaintiff had once and for all delegated his rights in respect of the guardianship and custody of those infants by the submission to the arbitration of M. Poincaré, or, alternatively, by the subsequent submission of the family pact of May 5, 1933, for the variation of the pact of March 18, 1930, to the Cour de Revision for its approval, and the order of that Court of July 11, 1933, ratifying it.
Mr. Wynn Parry had argued that the plaintiff had renounced for all time his right of making any further ordinance with regard to the guardianship and custody of the particular infants. Maitre Jioffredy said that the decisions in family matters, and particularly with regard to the guardianship and custody of infants, were never final and could always be amended or superseded by the reigning Prince if he determined to resume his Sovereign rights, and that the plaintiff had done so by the ordinance of March 8, 1936.
His Lordship said that in his judgment the plaintiff had established that he was entitled under and by virtue of the ordinance of March 8, 1936, to the guardianship and custody of Prince Rainier, and he held as a fact that he was so entitled. In the result, unless the defendant was in a position to satisfy him that the plaintiff was not entitled to ask that Court to assist him in respect of his legal rights, the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief which he sought. It seemed to him (his Lordship) that, the legal rights having been established, it was not open to the defendant to resist the relief sought by attempting to prove that the plaintiff was actuated by some personal motive in promulgating the ordinance of March 8, 1936.
If however, Mr. Wynn Parry desired to address further argument on that aspect of the case he (his Lordship) would give him an opportunity of so doing. Any such argument ought, he thought, to be heard in camera, for it must obviously be founded on matters which, having regard to the fact that the guardianship and custody of an infant was involved, would in the case of a British infant not be discussed in an open Court. The same practice ought to be applied to the hearing of an application to prevent the person legally entitled to the guardianship and custody of an infant who was the subject of the Sovereign of a foreign State from exercising his rights.
