George III's first wife Hannah Lightfoot

[scp]

The following may be of interest:
________

From Exploator 3:19

The BBC has an interesting piece on the discovery of what appear to be the
'secret graves' of George III's 'secret grandaughter' and daughter:

http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid%5F916000/916965.stm
_________

Does anyone have the details on the children?

Steven C. Perkins

[Urania]

scp <SPer...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote in message
news:8FABB9333SPerk...@24.3.128.74...

No, I don't know any more about the children, but I would like to make
a comment on the validity of the marriage itself, a point that was not
mentioned when I saw the BBC programme when first broadcast.

The implication of much of what was said was that the future George
III's marriage to Hannah Lightfoot was valid, it was never dissolved,
that his subsequent marriage to Charlotte was therefore bigamous and
their children illegitimate.
The commentator never came out and said as much, but this was implied.

I would contend that the "marriage" between Hannah Lightfoot and
George was invalid right from the start.

The ceremony was conducted according to the rites and ceremonies of
the Church of England. For the marriage to be legal, the contracting
parties have to comply with the law binding on the institution which
presides over the contract. The Church of England - like most
Christian churches then and subsequently - requires of both parties
that they both be not only free to marry but that they also be
Christians. This requirement is not a matter of faith and conviction
but a matter of legal definition. For the purpose of church law, a
Christian is a person who has been baptised or "christened." Now in
18th century England most children had been christened, and in a
village community, if someone reached marriageable age unbaptised it
would have been very unusual and easily corrected. It was the sort of
thing village gossips and parish priests knew all about. Almost all
denominations practised baptism. Most of them practised infant
baptism, (the exceptions being the Baptists who only baptised
consenting adults.) But the Quakers were rare even among Dissenters in
that they did not practice baptism at all.

This means that at the time of her marriage, Hannah Lightfoot was
almost certainly not baptised, she was not therefore legally a
Christian - whatever her personal faith and morality may have been -
and the marriage ceremony was void right from the start. This is why
there would have been no need to dissolve it and the children of the
union were illegitimate.

The interesting point to speculate is this: did Hannah and George know
they were not complying with the law ? Did George know the law - he
should have done ! and did he cynically go through the invalid
ceremony because it was the only way he could get the virtuous Hannah
into his bed ? Or did the lawyers tell him so later when the matter of
his marriage to Charlotte came up ? Hannah certainly would have
regarded herself as married - the vow was enough.

I am not sure whether marriages contracted between Quakers at Quaker
ceremonies were recognised as valid by the state during the 17th 7
18th centuries, but since the early Quakers wanted nothing to do with
the law it probably did not matter to them: they were married in the
eyes of their community and that was enough. It would only matter if
there was a civil lawsuit about inheritance. Certainly before the
Catholic emancipation act of 1832, when Roman Catholics married
non-Catholics, there were usually two wedding ceremonies, one in the
Catholic Chapel and one in the parish church. (see Diary of Samuel
Peyps for his account of his double marriage to the French Catholic
Elizabeth.)

This is a bit OT for mediaeval genealogy but may be of general
interest.

Urania.

[John Steele Gordon]

scp wrote:

> The BBC has an interesting piece on the discovery of what appear to be the
> 'secret graves' of George III's 'secret grandaughter' and daughter:
>
> http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid%5F916000/916965.stm
> _________
>
> Does anyone have the details on the children?

This is two hundred years off topic, but there is something to be
learned here, perhaps.

In Christopher Hibbert's biography, "George III" there is a footnote on
page 29:

There is a persistent legend that 'the boiling youth' has already had an
affair with a young Quaker woman, Hannah Lightfoot. Mary Lucy Pendered
in 'The Fair Quaker, Hannah Lightfoot' accepted the story that the
affair had resulted in three children. In a later book, 'The Lovely
Quaker,' John Lindsay asserted that a marriage had taken place and that
one of the children of this marriage--and consequently the legitimate
heir to the throne--was one George Rex, who became a wealthy and
influential resident of the Cape of Good Hope and who, undoubtedly, bore
a marked resemblance to King George III.

After studying parish registers, wills and records of land tenure,
however, Professor Ian Christie has been able to trace back George Rex's
authentic pedigree as far as his paternal grandfather and the parents of
this grandfather's wife and to show that George Rex--his surname being a
true family name, not a latin pun--was the son of John Rex, a London
distiller. The books linking him to George III and Hannah Lightfoot are,
Professor Christie has written, 'based on evidence which is without
exception hearsay or else suspicious in origin . . . There is no
documentation for the most salient facts. This leads to wholly
speculative assumptions that various records have been destroyed'
(Christie, 'The Family Origins of george Rex of Knysna').

It might be noted that George III, unlike the other Hanoverian kings and
a U.S. president, had no trouble keeping his trousers buttoned. He seems
to have been completely faithful to Queen Charlotte and they were to all
appearances, a devoted couple.

JSG
--
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jsggenealogy/Jsgordon

[elizabeth abbott]

My g.g.gf had such admiration for "good King George III" that he gave
himself an annual holiday on George's birthday. If George had an early
marriage to someone he really loved - before dynastic considerations
demanded he marry Charlotte, it doesn't change the picture of him being a
devoted family man too much. About any possible children - as George had
porphyria would this gene be traceable in descendants and be one way to
help identify them?

Liz

[Leo van de Pas]

Personally, I don't believe in the Hannah Lightfoot story,
George III was too moral a person to sleep with two women at the same time.
He was also in love with Lady Sarah Lennox but his duty made him marry his
Queen. There are too many 'wannabe' people claiming royal ancestors.
At one stage I knew the date of the supposed marriage to Hannah Lightfoot
and those of the births of "their" three children. To make it happen he
would have to be running from one "wife" to the other to make it all happen.
My vote goes to the premise that Hannah Lightfoot was the figment of
somebody's imagination.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

[D. Spencer Hines]

One date I've seen for the alleged marriage is 17 Apr 1759.

Idiot Check:

I am NOT endorsing the proposition that George married Hannah Lightfoot.
--

D. Spencer Hines

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

"The final happiness of man consists in the contemplation of truth....
This is sought for its own sake, and is directed to no other end beyond
itself." Saint Thomas Aquinas, [1224/5-1274] "Summa Contra Gentiles"
[c.1258-1264]

"Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. Odi profanum vulgus et arceo."

Quintus Aurelius Stultus [33 B.C. - 42 A.D.]

All replies to the newsgroup please. Thank you kindly.

All original material contained herein is copyright and property of the
author. It may be quoted only in discussions on this forum and with an
attribution to the author, unless permission is otherwise expressly
given, in writing.

Vires et Honor.

"Leo van de Pas" <leov...@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:009401c01cc8$82b65c00$6400a8c0@leo...

[sandra]

>About any possible children - as George had
>porphyria would this gene be traceable in descendants and be one way
to
>help identify them?

i know there is at least one researcher who is doing just such a study.
i believe they have thus far found 44 putative descendants of george and
hannah lightfoot - including the rex claims. (my own ancestor who
purported to be their son was a fellow named buxton lawn, born in 1760,
who showed up in mississippi in the early 1800s). of course, all 44
can't be genuine offspring (if even any of them are), so the research
she is doing will be quite interesting to many genealogists. i have not
yet participated in the study, so i don't know how it is progressing.
if i find out anything more, i'll pass it along.

sandra

[dlefev...@gmail.com]

There is another George Rex, with the Hannah Lightfoot story. He appeared in America and the family has a long history of his claims to be the son of Hannah Lightfoot and George III. The family history relating to Hannah and George can be seen here: http://www.genealogy.com/ftm/w/i/l/Sharen-Williams-PA/BOOK-0001/0003-0001.html

[dahan...@gmail.com]

19 years later from the time of these postings, will say there is truth as certain things have been passed down thru my family including a 1928 newspaper with my great grandmother speaking of such (this is before internet). She tells the story exactly and who raised the young son of King George and Hannah. I have this newspaper in my possession. My sister has certain royal items passed down to her as well. There has been a cover up but not surprisingly as these elites who rule have told many lies that are now starting to come out.

[wjhonson]

On Tuesday, March 19, 2019 at 5:16:55 AM UTC-7, dahan...@gmail.com wrote:
> 19 years later from the time of these postings, will say there is truth as certain things have been passed down thru my family including a 1928 newspaper with my great grandmother speaking of such (this is before internet). She tells the story exactly and who raised the young son of King George and Hannah. I have this newspaper in my possession. My sister has certain royal items passed down to her as well. There has been a cover up but not surprisingly as these elites who rule have told many lies that are now starting to come out.

If so, you can confirm your supposed royal descent by a simple DNA test.

[taf]

Not that simple. A comparison sample would be needed, and even non-royals are sometimes hesitant to allow themselves to be tested solely to satisfy someone's genealogical curiosity.

taf

[Michael Cayley]

I am afraid I regard this as an old set of myths - though myths which still keep raising their head. The evidence has been well-researched.

It is rather unlikely that the prim and proper George III had a clandestine marriage, or even an affair, with Hannah Lightfoot

Hannah married Isaac Axford in 1753. He died in 1816, and remarried at the end of 1759, describing himself as a widower. It is not, I think, known for certain when Hannah died, but even if you believe there was a clandestine marriage to George III in 1759, it would be likely to be bigamous on Hannah’s part and hence invalid.

The documents to support the allegation of a clandestine marriage were produced by Olivia (or Olive) Serres, an artist and writer who had fallen on hard times, in the 1810s and 1820s and was seeking to get money from the Crown. She seems to have had an obsession with royalty. Olivia kept changing her story. She started by claiming to be natural daughter of the Duke of Cumberland, George III’s uncle.This story evolved and grew more fantastical over time, with allegations of two other clandestine marriages, one of the Duke of Cumberland to Olivia’s mother, and the other of her mother being the product of a secret marriage between her uncle (a clergyman) and a Polish princess who never visited England. Her claims grew even wilder, with a claim that George III had made her Duchess of Lancaster. Olivia’s husband did not believe any of this. And she also produced documents purporting to demonstrate a secret marriage between George III and Hannah Lightfoot. It seems pretty clear to most experts that these were forged, and ineptly so. They include, for instance, a so-called signature of William Pitt the Elder in which he signs himself as Earl of Chatham some years before he became Earl.

Lavinia seems to have followed in her mother’s fantasising footsteps. In 1866, in an attempt to secure a bequest from the estate of George III, Lavinia and her barrister produced the so-called evidence cobbled together by Olivia, including of the purported 1759 marriage. It is scarcely surprising that the courts dismissed her case.

As for the claim that one George Rex was a son of George III and Hannah Lightfoot, that too experts dismiss. Rex was a family surname, not an indication of close connection with royalty. According to Wikipedia, genetic testing has shown descent from George III improbable. On the DNA testing, see also https://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/rex/674/. George was born in 1765, which is almost certainly some years after Hannah’s death.

None of this will of course put off those who want to believe stories like these. They make good fireside tales.

[Michael Cayley]

I should have made it clear that the Lavinia referred to in my previous post was Lavinia Ryves, Olivia Serres’ daughter. That bit of info got lost in an edit. Sorry!

[wjhonson]

I'm not suggesting that it's simply.
Only that it's possible.

Six million people already have Autosomal DNA results.
If one of those claims to be descended from George, they can be compared against another kit that claims the same thing.

You would be able to say, you match, or you don't match, at least.
Not claiming that would *prove* the case, but all DNA tests are evidence./

[joe...@gmail.com]

King George III lived long enough ago that the chances of any match (any cms of autosomal DNA that have passed down every generation from George III) are extremely small unless the generations involved have been unusually long or you are a very lucky person.
Joe c

[wjhonson]

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 2:28:18 PM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> King George III lived long enough ago that the chances of any match (any cms of autosomal DNA that have passed down every generation from George III) are extremely small unless the generations involved have been unusually long or you are a very lucky person.
> Joe c

It's true that this has been the common belief. However it's been shown that usable and valid *sticky* segments can survive even back to Colonial times.

[P J Evans]

No qualifications or restrictions on the DNA test there.

I doubt that DNA would show ANYTHING in this case - they'd need a male-only descent from George and a female-only descent from Hannah for comparison, and both are unlikely to be available, if they exist at all.

[Peter Stewart]

I'm puzzled by "if they exist at all" - are you questioning legitimacy within the princely family of Hanover that is legally descended in male line from George III?

Peter Stewart

[P J Evans]

It's out of my period and area, so I don't know - but I doubt that most of them would donate DNA for something like this.

[taf]

George should be right on the cusp of detectability based on a simple statistical model, and with the bell-curve of segment lengths, one would have to be unlucky not to pick it up. No need to resort to what you are calling 'sticky' segments (not a good coinage, by the way - 'sticky' means something else entirely in molecular biology), which have their own caveats - the fact that they are inherited undivided from colonial times, and much longer, reduces their utility in demonstrating a specific relationship (but we have been down that rabbit hole here before).

taf

[Peter Stewart]

If George III is on the cusp of detectability in the DNA of his documented male-line descendants living today, then how secure is the Jefferson/Hemings evidence?

Peter Stewart

[joe...@gmail.com]

Jefferson/hemings DNA evidence is not based on autosomal DNA at all.

It is based on Y-chromosomal evidence. What you lose in breadth here you gain in depth. Y-dna analysis has been used legitamately to map connections back to the beginnings of humanity itself.

I don't believe the academic consensus is firmly and solidly behind Jefferson and Sally having surviving children together.

JC

[joe...@gmail.com]

I was hoping you could explain this some more about having to be unlucky not to detect it...

It is well documented that roughly 50% of 4th cousins will be identified as a match at all using a commercial genealogy autosomal DNA test. 5th cousins less and so on.

Joe cook

[taf]

On Friday, March 22, 2019 at 5:51:13 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> If George III is on the cusp of detectability in the DNA
> of his documented male-line descendants living today, then
> how secure is the Jefferson/Hemings evidence?

Apples and oranges. The Jefferson study involves Y-chromosome analysis, the George test we have been positing would be autosomal, so the strengths and limitations are completely different.

Barring an extraordinary coincidence, the Jefferson study pretty much demonstrated that Estin Hemmings was son of a Jefferson male-line descendant, but not which Jefferson, and even with a lot more markers in the most recent expanded testing is unlikely to be able to definitively resolve this. The issue was raised at the time that Jefferson's paternal uncle was rumored to have occasionally gotten drunk and slunk off to the slave cabins, while it is also a formal possibility that Estin's father was a slave, the son of an earlier Jefferson/slave coupling, but given the timelines of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings, that the father was the future president is the most likely scenario.

taf

[taf]

Don't overthink this. Just using your numbers, the reigning queen is of the generation where descendants of George would be fourth cousins, so if there is a 50% chance of detecting this cousinhood, then you flip the coin and either are lucky and get heads, or are unlucky and get tails.

I actually did my approximation based on expected megabases of shared contiguous genomic DNA compared with frequency of detectable markers, taking into account the bell-curve of recombining fragment lengths, but the above calculation gets to the same answer much more simply based on your empirical results.

taf

[joe...@gmail.com]

Your insight is appreciated and your knowledge in this area far exceeds mine. I didn't present any empirical results though, the number presented was derived mathematically in the way you describe.

Although I've recently spent more time looking at my own results and just finished making charts for the 100 or so cousin matches which are both paper and DNA matches. I don't know if I'm incredibly lucky or incredibly unlucky but it turns out that there have been no NPE in my direct line as far back as can be determined. All the cousins (4th and 5th..and occasionally slightly beyond when all the stars line up..such as having many tested relatives) all are who we thought they were. This was not my expectation..I have seen claims of a general 1.5% npe rate in English speaking countries.

It didn't hurt to have already amassed a 10k+ person's database of most of the descendants of my 3rd great grandparents, so when matches pop up it's quick to look them up.

Cheers,
Joe C

[joe...@gmail.com]

This is a typo. I meant to write that the academic consensus IS firmly behind Jefferson and Hemings having children together who have surviving descendants. Not solely the DNA evidence, but the surviving historical evidence taken together.

Joe c

[Peter Stewart]

But isn't Hanna Lightfoot alleged to have had a son to George III? Is it known that there is no male-line descent from any son that she may have had fitting this story, so that Y-chromosome analysis as in the Jefferson/Hemmings case is definitely unavailable (assuming someone thought this remotely worthwhile in the first place?

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 3:51:10 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
>
> But isn't Hanna Lightfoot alleged to have had a son to George III? Is it known
> that there is no male-line descent from any son that she may have had fitting
> this story, so that Y-chromosome analysis as in the Jefferson/Hemmings case is
> definitely unavailable (assuming someone thought this remotely worthwhile in
> the first place?

Sorry, don't know. Will was talking about autosomal, so I responded autosomal. If there are male-line descendants of the supposed Lightfoot thing then yes, one could test Y (as with the Jefferson case, it would tell you if the two tested individuals share the same patrilineage, not the specific generation of the split unless a whole lot of people were tested, i.e. the Hanovers AND FitzClarences (if they are still around - can't be bothered to look) AND any descendants of George's brothers and uncles, and even then only if you were lucky (it requires the test subject to share a detectable mutation with George III and his sons that is absent from George's brothers and father).

But this is not really going to happen, because this has all the hallmarks of an Anna Anderson 'I am really the long lost child of the king' type of claim, and it is not likely to garner much enthusiasm outside of the claiming family - this is not medieval Norway where someone can show up claiming to be such a long-lost scion and end up as king.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

On Sunday, March 24, 2019 at 10:23:13 AM UTC+11, taf wrote:
> On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 3:51:10 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:
> >
> > But isn't Hanna Lightfoot alleged to have had a son to George III? Is it known
> > that there is no male-line descent from any son that she may have had fitting
> > this story, so that Y-chromosome analysis as in the Jefferson/Hemmings case is
> > definitely unavailable (assuming someone thought this remotely worthwhile in
> > the first place?
>
> Sorry, don't know. Will was talking about autosomal, so I responded autosomal.

I didn't grasp the full context of the discussion as I haven't read all the posts.

Even if Y-DNA testing of two alleged agnatic descendants of X is carried out, this cannot possibly prove descent from the same person AS DOCUMENTED, or as alleged - for instance, if a FitzClarence had an unrecorded adulterous liaison with a Lightfoot-Rex (which, given their antecedents, is hardly unthinkable) then this might lead to false confidence over the nonsense about George III & Hannah.

Peter Stewart

[taf]

On Saturday, March 23, 2019 at 5:43:20 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> Even if Y-DNA testing of two alleged agnatic descendants of X is carried
> out, this cannot possibly prove descent from the same person AS DOCUMENTED,
> or as alleged - for instance, if a FitzClarence had an unrecorded adulterous
> liaison with a Lightfoot-Rex (which, given their antecedents, is hardly
> unthinkable) then this might lead to false confidence over the nonsense
> about George III & Hannah.

That is always a caveat to this testing, which is why you never really want to reach a conclusion based on just two samples. In a perfect world you would have a minimum of three branches at the 'nodes' you are investigating, (descendants of multiple documented sons of the prospective father, and multiple sons of the prospective child), plus 'rooting' samples, branching farther back the male line to reinforce the likelihood that the detected haplotype was the ancestral one and not the result of, for example, a multi-child-producing infidelity in the critical generation. With enough matches, the chances of coincidental matching becomes vanishingly small, although with basic testing one can never fully eliminate an alley-cat effect, where a single over-performer manages to spread his DNA through a disproportionate percentage of a community, whether that be an actual village or a social grouping, and thereby producing the kind of coincidental matches that would give a false conclusion.

With detailed enough testing (not the kind you usually get in a commercial kit) and enough samples, one can theoretically produce a perfect branching tree but the identity of the people occupying the individual branching points remains a supposition based on comparison with the paper-trail tree, but at a certain level of perfect correspondence, Occam's Razor is appropriate.

taf

[Peter Stewart]

The most interesting - and possibly consequential - case I can think of would be to test the legitimacy or otherwise of Alfonso XII of Spain, to see if the Carlists were right or wrong about his biological paternity. If it turned out that he was not really a Bourbon, Occam's razor might even take down a monarchy.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

It's not consequential because Alfonso XII inherited the throne from his mother who had been legally made heiress by her father. It was her being made heiress that led to the Carlist Wars, not the question of Alfonso XII's legitimacy. Should we take a group of reactionaries seriously?

[Peter Stewart]

Of course the Carlists weren't the only ones to question the legitimacy of Alfonso, and aren't so to the present. Their reactionary ideas have nothing to do with the somewhat marginal popularity and security of the Spanish monarchy today, that would quite likely tip over into an inexorable republican movement if it was shown that the current royal family is not agnatically descended from their legal forebears. My point has nothing more to do with Carlism, or with Borbon succession law, than that.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

I feared, that, my reply would be misunderstod so I'll clarify. While Alfonso XII may very well have been illegitimate, legally, it isn't important because he inherited the throne from his mother, not from his father. You may be right, though, that if proven true, it may further decline the Spanish monarchy's popularity.

[Peter Stewart]

What Spanish law ever allowed a throne to be inherited by illegitimate offspring, of a mother or father? Surely if the Carlist allegation against Isabella II had been true and proved, she would have been disgraced - not allowed to legitimise her son, whose legal paternity would have been summarily set aside.

Peter Stewart

[Paulo Ricardo Canedo]

You're right, sorry, I was focusing on another point and forgot this.

[taf]

On Monday, March 25, 2019 at 3:14:40 AM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote:

> What Spanish law ever allowed a throne to be inherited by illegitimate
> offspring, of a mother or father?

Ever is a long time. If you extend this to medieval León/Castile, Alfonso VI seems to have made his illegitimate (perhaps legitimated by marriage) son the legal heir, even though his succession it didn't come to pass in the end.

The Aragon nationalist interpretation of the partition following Sancho III's death would credit Ramiro I also with inheriting a throne as a bastard, but I find Ubieto Arteta's rendering of events more compelling - that Ramiro was given some lands, but even after acquiring Gonzalo realm and rendering his vassal status under García entirely nominal, he still used an obfuscatory title rather than calling himself a king, nor did his son until Sancho Ramírez got hold of Pamplona.

This does not negate your point - the legal framework, social strictures and the situation on the ground were substantially different in the 11th century than in modern times.

[Peter Stewart]

Yes, and if medieval Iberian precedent = Spanish law, then Catalonia would be governed independently from Madrid to this day.

Peter Stewart

[wjhonson]

You do not actually need any of what-we-would-consider the "royals" to do the test. There are plenty of descendants who actually have no title whatsoever, who might be Autosomally tested.

If they don't match the subject, it doesn't *prove* anything. If they do match it doesn't *prove* anything. It's evidence, that's all.

[John Tewell]

[paulorica...@gmail.com]

Dear John, no offense, but why does your reply say nothing at all?

[keri CA]

On Sunday, September 10, 2000 at 11:45:39 PM UTC+1, scp wrote:
> The following may be of interest:
> ________
> From Exploator 3:19
> The BBC has an interesting piece on the discovery of what appear to be the
> 'secret graves' of George III's 'secret grandaughter' and daughter:
> http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/wales/newsid%5F916000/916965.stm
> _________
> Does anyone have the details on the children?
> Steven C. Perkins



i'm over 20 years late on this but the BBC has 2 contradictory stories

in 2001 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/916965.stm
in 2018 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-42617739

in 2001 they say their daughter sarah married a dr in carmarthen called James Dalton and had a daughter
called Charlotte who died in 1832 and was buried in st.peters church
in 2018 it says their daughter catherine augusta married the same james dalton and had 2 daughters caroline and charlotte and Caroline was buried in st.davids carmarthen.

the main evidence is that George III gave an organ to the parish church. hmmmm..

According to wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Lightfoot
Hannah married a non quaker Isaac Axford then abandoned him, and even her own
mother didnt know if she was still alive when she left her estate to her 1760. There
doesnt seem any trace of her after 1758, even though she had a life annuity left to her.
The story says she married George in 1759, but in that year by his own account he
was in passion for sarah lennox.

Wiki says the story of the quaker mistress dates from 1770, the same year as Georges
brother Cumberland was exposed as an adulterer and married a commoner as had his
other bro Gloucester, which appalled George and was the catalyst to the royal marriages
act in 1772. Could the story be later concoction inspired these true stories or that of
of Maria Fitzherbert? I wonder if there is any proof that the story was circulating in the
1770s?

So was she spirited off to north wales and middle class respectability?

However as she was never divorced from Axford, neither his 2nd mariage or Daltons
would be valid and neither would any marriage to Prince George, although it would
still be something his ministers would want to suppress.

Surely in 20 years someone has looked at the marriage of Dr James Dalton
and discovered who his wife claimed to be?

kerica

[Michael Rochester]

I can confirm your arrogance and misplaced self absurdness by your pompous posts.