The JOHN STUART TALBOT mystery
TALBOT is a name that comes up amongst the Watsons as a middle name. But why?
Also see TALBOT, JOHN STUART
Are we related / connected / descended from the Talbot that was reputed to be an illegitimate son of George III, through his mistressMargaret Frances Sheldon. (born Talbot).
Here are two versions of the story- quite different.
The following comes from John Talbot on the Forum.Family.History.com as per the link below:
Was he the rightful king of England?
It is a good story, perhaps true, but if we have links at all they are circuituous. Of interest though is that he arrived in South Africa on the same ship, The Brilliant, as part of the 1820 Settler scheme as our Miller ancestors.
Am I the rightful king of England?
Was King George III the father of Margaret Sheldon's son?
By John Talbot
He was an angry man, believing that he had been cheated out of his inheritance, who landed at Algoa Bay on the morning of 15th May, 1820. He arrived on the Brilliant and was on shore to meet his wife and six children when they arrived in the evening aboard the Aurora. John Stuart Talbot, aged 47, claimed to be the rightful Earl of Shrewsbury. But why was King George IV, who acceded to the throne of England on 25th January 1820, seeking his life?
He had been warned by a friend, William Dundas, to get out of England as quickly as possible, as the king was seeking his life. Being impoverished, the only way he could do it was to register as an 1820 settler. He paid the deposit and succeeded in becoming a member of Sephton's party. His eldest son, John, 17 years old at the time, also paid the deposit and was entitled to an additional allotment. The party was given a settlement at Salem, 19 miles from Grahamstown. John Stuart and his son John, were each awarded an allotment astride the Assegai Bush River.
What is the truth about his claim to being the rightful Earl of Shrewsbury? And why was King George IV seeking his life? The mystery surrounding this man has been the subject of 70 years of research by his descendants. There are now more than 120 researchers contributing to the extensive information on The John Stuart Talbot Research Website.
Here is a brief account of what they have found.
The 14th Earl of Shrewsbury, George Talbot, had three brothers. In order of age these were Thomas, James and Francis. A beautiful young lady, Margaret Sheldon, fell in love with Thomas and became his mistress. She bore him a son whom they named Charles. Subsequently, Margaret Sheldon was introduced to the king, George III, and she became a singer and entertainer in his court. Then she became his mistress and fell pregnant by him. He sent her to Cornwall to have the child, whom they named George. The king gave Thomas Talbot a commission and sent him away to war. Margaret was told that Thomas was killed in battle. The king told Francis that "the boy George" was the son of his older brother Thomas, and he forced Francis to marry Margaret and to care for the boy. He gave Francis lands and money in payment for this service. He also gave lands and money in trust for "the boy George."
Francis, believing that George was the son of his older brother, Thomas, realized that he would have birthright over his own sons. In 1796 he took steps, in the Winchester High Court, to make sure that George would not inherit the title. In 1793, in the Hanover Square Court, he succeeded in having all lands, titles and bonds transferred from George to himself. It is recorded that the king agreed with "troubled heart."
Margaret Sheldon died when George was very young. Francis remarried a woman much younger than himself. His stepmother did not like George and was unkind to him. With the help of an uncle she had him put in the navy at the age of 14. He did not like the navy and deserted several times. For this he was flogged and sent back to the navy. He served in the Royal Navy for a number of years, taking part in the Battle of the Nile, the Battle of Trafalgar, an action off Cadiz, and the Battle of Copenhagen. A captain under whom he served said of him, "He is a lion and with him alone I could win ten battles."
In 1791, in the Hanover Square Court, he changed his name to John Stuart Talbot, in honor of an uncle, John Talbot, and his wife whose maiden name was Jane Stuart. This couple had been kind to him.
John Stuart Talbot married Priscilla Loveridge in 1802. He had six children by her, three boys and three girls. Having been deprived of his inheritance, He worked for a time as a shoemaker in Pimlico, London, where he lived. Later he became a coal merchant and a corn merchant, working in the coal exchange and the corn exchange in Pimlico.
In January 1820 King George III died and his son, George IV, acceded to the throne. The latter discovered, presumably from the royal archives, that John Stuart Talbot was his older half-brother. Fearing that John Stuart Talbot had a better claim to the throne than he, he ordered two of his secret agents to locate him and do away with him. A friend of John Stuart's, William Dundas, was privy to this knowledge. He warned John Stuart that the king was seeking his life and told him to get out of England as quickly as possible. He sailed with his family from Gravesend, on Feb 15th 1820 aboard the Aurora. He gave his occupation as "master mariner." On the way he interfered with the navigation of the ship and the captain had him put in irons. At Cape Town he was put ashore and prevented from coming back on board the Aurora. The Aurora had sailed from Gravesend in the company of another ship, the Brilliant. John Stuart went aboard the Brilliant, which arrived at Algoa Bay on the morning of the 15th May 1820. The Aurora arrived in the evening and John Stuart was there to meet his family as they disembarked.
John Stuart's youngest son Henry met up with some Mormon missionaries and became converted to the Mormon religion. He then emigrated with his wife and children to the United States. There he married a second wife who bore him sixteen children. Consequently, John Stuart Talbot has many descendants in the United States. It is mainly these descendants who have solved the mystery of his origin.
I, John Henry Talbot, born in 1931, and living in Johannesburg, South Africa, am the fifth in line of direct descent from John Stuart Talbot. Some of the researchers believe that I am the rightful king of England. Good luck to them!
There is another version of the story which largely concurs. It is THE STORY OF JOHN STUART TALBOT as compiled and written by Alice T. Memmott and Glenda T. Young on the Family Search website. See the link below.
Another story
Just to confuse things, there was someone called George Rex with similar claims at about the same time.
This comes from the Heritage Portal and was written by Patricia Storrar.
Georg Rex
The origins of the enigmatic George Rex, popularly supposed for almost a century and a half to have been the illegitimate son of King George III of Britain and a fair Quaker girl, Hannah Lightfoot, have at last been firmly established, thanks to the expertise of Professor Ian R Christie, Head of the Department of History at University College, London. All he had to go on was the fact that Rex had been a proctor of Doctors' Commons, London, that he had been appointed marshal and sergeant-at-mace of the vice-admiralty court, Cape of Good Hope, in 1797 and that he had a much-loved sister, Sarah Rex, who died at her home in Bath in 1842. The will of this Sarah Rex (who is acknowledged by all investigators, including Sanni Metelerkamp8, to have been George's sister) had already been examined and the fact noted that in it the children of George Rex were named among others as legatees.
Professor Christie used this will of Sarah Rex as a starting point in his investigations. In it are mentioned various freehold and leasehold properties which were to be sold and the proceeds divided among various legatees; the sum of £1 000 was to be a bequest "to my nephews and nieces, the children of my late brother, George Rex, of the Cape of Good Hope ... "
The second vital link in the chain of evidence leading to the establishment of Rex's genealogy was a document found in the records of the Manor of West Ham Burnells in Essex and this records the sale of Sarah's lands in terms of her will. Certain copyhold lands, "all those three acres and three roods of land situate, lying and being in Bromley Brook in the parish of West Ham ... formerly in the tenure of John Warren ... " are described in detail. It is these copyhold lands which provide the key to the long-standing puzzle, "Who was George Rex?
The third important document constituting a confirmatory link in the chain is the claim, made on 20 April 1765 by one John Rex, a distiller of Goodmans' Fields, Whitechapel, to his right to take possession of certain copyhold lands left to him in terms of his maternal grandfather's will. These lands are described as "all those three acres and three roods of land lying in Bromley Brook in the parish of West Ham ... now in the tenure of John Warren". The similarity of the wording between this paragraph and that quoted from the will of Sarah
Rex, furnishes proof that this was one and the same parcel of lands. The next document to be examined lays bare the relationship which entitled Sarah Rex, spinster, to inherit the lands which John Rex inherited from his grandfather.
The spotlight now turned on the will of John Rex (George's father), who is shown in the London merchant directories of the seventeen-seventies in business as a distiller at 87 High Street, Whitechapel. This will mentions two lots of land in Plaistow Marsh "in the parish of West Ham in the county of Essex ... " which were clearly the same copyhold lands as those already proved to have been held by Sarah Rex. One interesting clause in John Rex's will reads: "In regard I have already advanced my eldest son George Rex considerably more than I have my other son and daughter, therefore from and immediately after the decease of my said wife, I give and devise the said freehold and copyhold lands ... unto my daughter Sarah Rex and to the heirs of her body lawfully begotten ... "
What more conclusive evidence could one find of George Rex's rightful lineage than the passing down of this parcel of lands through more than four generations: from John Rex's maternal grandfather to his eldest daughter's eldest son; from John Rex to his daughter, Sarah, in succession to his wife and, when Sarah died, the bequest to her nephews and nieces in South Africa from the sale of these same lands. In fact, had George not predeceased his sister he would have inherited these lands, because his younger brother, John, (also mentioned in the father's will) had died long before either of them.
It seems hardly necessary, after so neat a piece of detective work, to supply further evidence of George Rex having been the eldest son of John Rex of Whitechapel and his wife, but further evidence there is in plenty. In the register of christenings of St Mary's Church, Whitechapel, the christenings of George, John and Sarah, children of John and Sarah Rex, as well as of two other daughters who must have died young, as they are not mentioned in the father's will, are recorded.
According to this register George Rex was baptised on 2 September 1765 and the fact that he was born in August 1765 is confirmed by the information entered on his death certificate on 3 April 1839 that his age at the time of death was "73 years and 8 months". The birthdate of his sister, Sarah, who was baptised on 29 June 1770, corresponds exactly with the age given in her obituary notice when she died in Bath in August 1842.
The three children who survived in the family, George, John and Sarah, have now been firmly identified. The combined evidence of the four documents points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that George Rex was born the eldest son of Mr and Mrs John Rex of Whitechapel, London.
Although Rex was not royal he was nonetheless remarkable. Two further documents discovered in London in 1973 enabled the present writer to establish that he worked in Doctors' Commons for a total of 17 years - first as a clerk, then a notary and finally a proctor. He received the appointment of marshal and sergeant-at-mace when the vice-admiralty court was established at the Cape and held this position until the court was dissolved preparatory to the withdrawal of the British in 1803. In 1804 he settled at Knysna, where he built up his estate, Melkhout Kraal (bought reasonably in a deceased estate) to become a centre of gracious hospitality.
But what do YOU think?
Do we want to be descended from George III?
It is always fun to discover some famous link within one's genealogical records. Perhaps the heart beats faster for a second. But are such links something to be proud of?
George III was the king of Great Britain and Ireland from 1760 to 1820. Born on June 4, 1738, in London, he ascended the throne during the Seven Years' War and reigned for 60 years. His reign saw significant events, including Britain's victory in the Seven Years' War, the loss of the American colonies, and the struggle against Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, after which Britain emerged as a leading European power. In his later years, George III suffered from mental illness, leading to his son, the future George IV, acting as regent from 1811 until George III's death on January 29, 1820. [Britannica].
A member of the Hanover dynasty, which ruled England for almost two centuries, George III was the King of Great Britain during some of the nation’s most tumultuous years, including those of the American Revolutionary War. In 1788, illness brought on a mental breakdown, but he briefly recovered, regaining popularity and admiration for his virtue and steady leadership through the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. Ultimately, recurring bouts of insanity led Parliament to enact regency to his son, and George III lived his final years with sporadic periods of lucidity, until his death in 1820. [Biography].
The link may appear sound on MyHeritage, but that is not really proof . Although those who post the records there present the origins of the records, we must not be blinded by repetition appearing as proof of being correct. Flaws can creep in. Very similar names may be used even within different family lines of the same name and these can confuse the matter.
There is another version of the storywhich largely concurs. It was written by
The Scottish perspective
History is not just a straight narrative over time. It is full of flows and eddies. This subject is no exception. It was not until 1773 that George III first ventured further than Windsor or London by travelling to Portsmouth to oversee a naval review at the dockyard.
George III was sickly and when he died he was succeeded by George IV.
If we consider George IV we think of his influence on the very soul of Scotland. This though was not some grand talent or even policy of his, but rather of others. But he was nevertheless central to it. Walter Scott was the one who orchestrated it. It is because of this that we have a Watson tartan that we can wear unhindered by political hindrance from London. And the reason that tourists today can buy "Scottish" tat on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh or Buchanan Street in Glasgow (much of which is made in the Far East). The very invention of the modern SCOTLAND is through these events. An amazing story in its own right.
Scott’s influence on Scottish culture was profound. In 1822, he staged one of the most extraordinary events in modern Scottish history — the visit of King George IV to Edinburgh. It was the first time a reigning monarch had visited Scotland since Charles II in 1651. Scott organised the visit with meticulous attention to detail, encouraging Scots to wear Highland dress and stage traditional ceremonies. The king himself appeared in full Highland regalia — a carefully curated symbol of reconciliation between the Highlands and the Crown.
The event marked the rehabilitation of the Highland tradition, and Scott’s role in it was central. “Scott gave us back our tartan and our pride,” wrote historian John Prebble. “He made Highland dress, once the badge of rebellion, into the mark of national identity.”
If it hadn't been for the coming together of these two very different people, Scotland would simply not be the country it is today.
This coin (both sides are shown) fell into my hands by coincidence while I was writing this. It is dated 1808 and commemorates George III's link to Scotland through the act of Union.
[So are we connected to Walter Scott? Our "Scott" forebears (through marriage) were from the same area.]
BIOGRAPHY : https://www.biography.com/royalty/king-george-iii
BRITANNICA : https://www.britannica.com/event/American-Revolution/Conflict-begins-in-Massachusetts
MEMMOTT and YOUNG on Family Search : https://www.familysearch.org/en/memories/memory/179474625
PATRICIA STORRAR on Heritage Portal : Patricia Storrar: https://www.theheritageportal.co.za/article/george-rex-remarkable-not-royal
WIKITREE : https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Sheldon-1421
and Margaret Frances (Rooke) Sheldon (1721-1776) | WikiTree FREE Family Tree
FAMILY HISTORY FORUM : https://forum.familyhistory.uk.com/threads/son-of-king-george-iii-john-stuart-talbot.2377/
