tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6385848468383267674.post2511435566593852663..comments2024-03-04T07:40:27.538+00:00Comments on N e e d l e p r i n t: Sarah Harris is Coming - In Spite of a Tin of TomatoesN E E D L E P R I N Thttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05016259421156728225noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6385848468383267674.post-38478745731585650042010-05-08T17:26:01.483+01:002010-05-08T17:26:01.483+01:00The question is - who was - and were they telling?...The question is - who was - and were they telling? How bizarre that this is in the historical record as a fact! You are absolutely right.N E E D L E P R I N Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05016259421156728225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6385848468383267674.post-2022606208718529722010-05-08T06:25:14.509+01:002010-05-08T06:25:14.509+01:00"I have to say I wasn't there..." Te..."I have to say I wasn't there..." Tee hee hee!<br /><br />You're so funny! :)Sheila Iskinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13855612593521382122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6385848468383267674.post-81648832929272009702010-05-07T22:30:52.888+01:002010-05-07T22:30:52.888+01:00I have to say I wasn't there, so I am only rep...I have to say I wasn't there, so I am only repeating the story - which is made even more convoluted because sometimes childen in the Foundling Hospital were told their parents were Hannah and George....<br />Here is a little more background:<br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/916965.stmN E E D L E P R I N Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05016259421156728225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6385848468383267674.post-50800702169772632312010-05-07T19:26:57.378+01:002010-05-07T19:26:57.378+01:00Mystery, scandal! Hidden messages in embroidery. T...Mystery, scandal! Hidden messages in embroidery. That's what makes history really interesting. (Better than a novel don't you think? Ooooo. What fun to think about the connections.) <br /><br />I love the relationship to the stitching. BTW, how on earth did you find out that the marriage was unconsummated? Wikipedia isn't that personal.<br /><br />;)Sheila Iskinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13855612593521382122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6385848468383267674.post-73501565372617003382010-05-06T21:10:15.563+01:002010-05-06T21:10:15.563+01:00I should have typed 'another daughter, Sarah, ...I should have typed 'another daughter, Sarah, who married James Dalton.' This finger of mine is a problem!N E E D L E P R I N Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05016259421156728225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6385848468383267674.post-4381922057151933582010-05-06T21:08:43.226+01:002010-05-06T21:08:43.226+01:00How interesting - the dates we have for Hannah are...How interesting - the dates we have for Hannah are 1740 - 1778. Yes, she did go through a form of marriage to Isaac previous to her 'marriage' with George, but this marriage was never consummated.....there is also mention of another Sarah who married James Dalton. I wonder what else will turn up...N E E D L E P R I N Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05016259421156728225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6385848468383267674.post-90695554961294308672010-05-06T20:01:15.767+01:002010-05-06T20:01:15.767+01:00Oh dear, I hate to be the spoilsport! I loved the ...Oh dear, I hate to be the spoilsport! I loved the links and connections... (How thrilling! How exciting! History meets up with secret marriages, hidden babies, and royal scandal. Just my cup of tea - so I promptly dove over to Wikipedia to check out the full story on George III...I will say I learned a bit more about porphyria too...)<br /><br />Under the resource section "^ George was falsely said to have married a Quakeress named Hannah Lightfoot on 17 April 1759, prior to his marriage to Charlotte, and to have had at least one child by her. However, Lightfoot had married Isaac Axford in 1753, and had died in or before 1759, so there could have been no legal marriage or children. The jury at the 1866 trial of Lavinia Ryves, the daughter of imposter Olivia Serres who pretended to be "Princess Olive of Cumberland", unanimously found that a supposed marriage certificate produced by Ryves was a forgery (Documents relating to the case. The National Archives. Accessed 14 October 2008)."<br /><br />DARN!Sheila Iskinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13855612593521382122noreply@blogger.com