LONDON-L Archives

Archiver > LONDON > 2002-09 > 1032886466

From: Phil & Heather <>
Subject: [Lon] George III and Hannah Lightfoot (did they marry?)
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 17:54:26 +0100
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <VZCzAFAsbDk9Ew$>

Hi List

I wonder whether Eve is going on to say that George did or did not marry
Hannah Lightfoot (this time!)?

I know that the IGI is less than perfect but there are 4 (yes FOUR) entries
which clearly say that on 17 April 1759, Hannah Lightfoot married George
III William Frederick Hanover King of England.

Is this fanciful or true?

If so and 'King' Rex was a son of theirs, what would his surname have been?
I only ask as I would like to search the family search web site to
ascertain all about them.

About the Royal Archives (sic!), has Eve been allowed in there at Windsor?

I am not privy to the inner workings of the Royal Archive at Windsor, the
Royal Archivist being based there and not Kew.

Has Eve read the book by Alison Weir about the Royal Family?

I have a copy and I see from Amazon's web site that there is another book
from her out this year - whether it is an update or not I know yet.

May I quote from my copy?

George III is alleged to have married secretly, on 17th April, 1759, a
Quakeress called Hannah Lightfoot, daughter of a Wapping shoemaker, who is
said to have borne him three children. Documents relating to the alleged
marriage, bearing the Prince’s signature, were impounded and examined in
1866 by the Attorney General. Learned opinion at the time leaned to the
view that these documents were genuine. They were then placed in the Royal
Archives at Windsor; in 1910, permission was refused a would-be author who
asked to see them. If George III did make such a marriage when he was
Prince of Wales, before the passing of the Royal Marriages Act in 1772,
then his subsequent marriage to Queen Charlotte was bigamous, and every
monarch of Britain since has been a usurper, the rightful heirs of George
III being his children by Hannah Lightfoot, if they ever existed.’ From
Britain’s Royal Families Britain’s Royal Families is a unique reference
book. It provides, for the first time in one volume, complete genealogical
details of all members of the royal houses of England, Scotland and Great
Britain – from 800AD to the present. Here is the vital biographical
information relating not only to each monarch, but also to every member of
their immediate family, from parents to grandchildren. Drawing on countless
authorities, both ancient and modern, Alison Weir explores the royal family
tree in unprecedented depth and provides a comprehensive guide to the
heritage of today’s royal family.

Is Eve still persisting in saying that the Royal Archives are at Kew?

Any way, I have ordered this copy of Alison Weir's book as I have a long
time interest in the Royal undercover activities.

I will telephone Windsor Castle tomorrow and ask to speak to the Royal
archivist, there!

If any one has an abiding interest in the Fitzherbets, the FitzPhilip's,
the Fitzharry's, the Fitzwilliams, etc please feel free to email me off list.

Yours fitzfully,

At 10:57 24/09/2002, Eve McLaughlin wrote:
>In message <>, "Phil
>Warn aka Phil Thee, garbage collecter" <> writes
> >Hi Eve,
> >
> >My mistake, I should have typed Lightfoot!
> >
> >The rest is as I understood it true. We would have to be able to get access
> >to the Royal Archive at Windsor Castle, I believe. The court case in 1866
> >was accepted by the authorities then, but for some reason, the proof that
> >Hannah actually married George III was handed over to the Royal archive.
>The allegation is that she was married by John Wilmot (Olive's Uncle)
>who was a country clergyman in Warwickshire. This is a forgery and was
>not made public till after Wilmot's death - Olive could fake his hand,
>and he appears in all her 'certificates'.
> The Archives at Windsor concern employees there, events at the Castle
>and work done on the buildings etc. State Aechives are at Kew, so
>whoever suggested Windsor doesn'y know much.
>The attempts to bring a case claiming their own 'rights' but Olive and
>her nuttier daughter, Lavinia, were laughed out of copurt, never
>accepted. Neither were the other forgeries, brilliant as they were,
>offering a 'George Rex' from South Africa (who was George Ritzo,
>grandson of a royal footman).
> Facts - Hannah Lightfoot married Isaac Axford at St George's Mayfair
>chapel in December 1753 - I have seen the record. The marriage alleged
>by Olive to Prince George (8 years Hannah's junior) was in 1759. This
>was runaway because she was a Quaker and he had lapsed - the case came
>up befor the Quaker Meeting later, when she was not only condemned for
>marriage in Church but deserting her husband later, in 1756. However,
>divorce was not then practical for anyone without access to an MP. And
>Isaac Axford was still very much alive and he 'remarried' illegally in
>1759 (which got him hauled before the law court and the marriage
> In fact, Hannah figures in the will of Robert Pearne as Mrs Hannah
>Axford wife of Isaac Axford and niece of Mr John Jeffries, watchmaker
>(which is the lady concerned. As his fortune came from Antigua, it is
>possible that one of their children was sent there. The child was
>reputed to be of weak intellect, and drowned, or alternatively, to have
>become an American Army officer/Colonel/General and to have had
>offspring. The intellectually challeneged General is said to be the
>ancestor of the Americans called Mackelcan who are claiming to be the
>genuwine monarchs. Hoever, there is every sign that the story was cooked
>up by a reporter in the C19, posing as 'Mrs Shandevine', then claiming
>to be the heiress.
> It was only after Olive Willmot (then Serres) obtained money from the
>gullible Edward, Duke of Kent, that she changed the story which had
>Hannah alive till about 1810 to killing her off in 1764, allowing a
>secret second marriage of George and Charlotte before the birth ofg
>edward (buit not hus disbelieving brothers). This would make him and his
>daughter, Victoria, legitimate heirs. So if you accept the ingenious
>Olive's lies in one direction, you haver tyo accept them in another, and
>Queen Vic was OK.
> Mary Louisa Pendered investigated the stories very thoroughly in 1910
>and showed the fallacies involved. And i have seen the Quaker records
>and the marriage of Hannah Lightfoot with my own eyes.
> Only the really gullible would give any credence to this tale now -
>it is fun, but so are her other forgeries, which you can read all about
>at the British Library (which i did many years ago).
> >
> >I am prepared to stand by what I wrote,
>not wise, if you actually look at the facts.
> >ndsor family to suppress the facts? What would convince
> >you that the story was in fact true
>Nothing - it is a moderately well crafted fiction with some very
>clever forgeries, but they don't stand up to the light of history.
>Eve McLaughlin
>Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians
>Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society

Kent FHS Member 9420 NW Kent FHS member 4308 GLS FHS Member O5562 CON
FHS Member 13140
DEV FHS Member SoG Member 009987 GOONS Member 1703
All my emails are checked for virus infection so can be regarded as clean
as a whistle
I use and recommend CD's from ACDB for my One Name Study research

This thread: