Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
It is astonishing that the LDS have included this 'marriage' in their listings: Hannah was legitimately married to Isaac Axford (see IGI). The 'marriage' to Prince George would have been bigamous, if it occurred at all. It arises from 2 different 'certificates' produced in the Ryves court case in the 1860s. These have never been authenticated, although it was suggested at time that the signatures might be genuine. Unfortunately they have not been examined by experts since they became available 100 years after the court impounded them, together with a large number similar documents. One historian has claimed that they are fakes but I do not think one should consider him 'expert' in such a matter, especially as his attitude was rather partisan.
More importantly, there is no evidence whatsoever that Hannah had a son called George and that this was either George Rex of Knysa, South Africa (born 1765) or George Rex of PA (born 1750?). This is only legend, although it is all quite fascinating. The first of these was born in Whitechapel and his parents were Mr. and Mrs. Rex. I imagine that the parents of the second could also be found with a little luck, if they are not already known. The evidence for Hannah's chldren (2 sons and a daughter, with no names) is contained in yet another document from the same source, written in a quite strange, shaky hand and dated 1762.
I have been in the Public Record office in Kew and looked at the two Hannah/George certificates and Hannah's 'letter' - they are readily available. It is hard to know what to think of them: on their own, to a non-expert in handwriting, they look convincing enough. However it is very disturbing to find that there are dozens of similar certificates concerning secret marriages, etc. of a lot of other distinguished people, some of whom seem to be connected with the person who made the certifications. It gives the impression of a fraud of some kind. The matter needs to be investigated properly.
We do not know for sure if Hannah Lightfoot was even involved with the young George III but there are plenty of rumours and I am inclined to believe that something of the kind is true. There must be a fire under all that smoke! The 'marriage' could have been a facade to pacify Hannah who was perhaps ill, or even dying at the time - but we do not know that either. Her husband, Isaac Axford, married again 6 months later, being said to have been told that it would be in order. This suggests that Hannah had indeed died. Who knows?
I strongly recommend that anyone interested in this case should read the contributions made by Sheila Mitchell to the Rex, Lightfoot and Axford family forums. She is the leading authority on the Hannah Lightfoot story and has written a book about it which is more complete than those of Mary Pendered and John Lindsay. Unfortunately it has yet to be published but, judging from these family forums it would be of great interest.
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/rex/messages/316.html | ||
 |
Agreement of Use Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|