Talk:Hannah Lightfoot

Untitled
This article asserts, as fact, that the allegations of Hannah Lightfoot being the first wife of George III are false. Unfortunately several of the references cited in the article seem to believe they are true, consider the following quote from one of the articles listed: The Prince of Wales's wedding in 1759 to Quaker girl Hannah Lightfoot and the births of their three children, were concealed to allow him to marry Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz.

I have no idea whether Hannah was indeed the rightfull Queen of England or not, but some legitimate scholarly debate seems to exist even within the sources cited by this non neutral author!

In fact, as I look further, two of the references are novels, and thus not appropriate to citation in an encyclopedia article. Of the works which present themselves as non-fiction only The Great Prentenders seems to reject the idea that there is any credibility to this story, and one seems to embrace the story as true. The others are at least objective and open to possibilties.

Even if Hannah Lightfoot had been telling the truth, she had no right to the throne whatsoever. Undoubedly, she would have been Queen of the United Kingdom and Ireland as the consort of the King but she died before the 1761 marriage of King George III and Queen Charlotte. As the latter marriage had produced three sons and the former marriage had produced a daughter, those two daughters would have been ineligable to succeed due to their sex. Princess Olive or no she would have remained Princess Olive regardless of whether she was their child or not. The lines of King George IV, King William IV and Queen Victoria therefore would not have been in doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.44.1.200 (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If the Prince of Wales had married Miss Lightfoot the marriage would probably have been invalid under the Act of Settlement. IF she was already married (the stories aren't consistent on that point), she would have been a bigamist, casting further doubt on the validity of any marriage. In any event she died before 1761, so even if there was a valid marriage it would be irrelevant to the succession, or the legitimacy of the king's children.

When you look at if Hannah was indeed George 3 wife you must look at more then what is pointed out here. She could have ran away from her husband and found George 3 and got married to him and then had a friendly divorce and went on to do something else like go to America and help run things or get involved with someone else. There is no record of her death so she could have went on to live a long life. We also have no record of her saying anything and the idea of her not being able to become queen is false as that rule came about during his rule, they could have possibly been divorced by then. As for the children yeah I strongly doubt his queen was able to give birth too that many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.70.214 (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"E1" is a postal code, not a geographical description. I recommend its deletion.124.197.15.138 (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Not evidence
While the story seems unlikely in the extreme (I personally do not believe it), the assertion:

"there could have been no children of that marriage, as Lightfoot is presumed to have died within months of the purported date of April 1759 based on her widowers' (sic) remarriage in December 1759."

is false. While it is perhaps unlikely that Hannah Lightfoot would have still been alive at the end of 1759, the possibility of her husband (not necessarily widower) remarrying bigamously is not out of the question. Nor is the possibility that he lied about his marital status. In itself his second marriage proves nothing about Hannah. John2o2o2o (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC).
 * I agree and have removed the passage. AnthonyCamp (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2018 (UTC).

George Rex
In the article, George Rex is put as one of Hannah Lightfoot's issues. But according to George Rex's own article, this assertion has been refuted. Therefore, I'm going to remove George Rex's name, unless we decide otherwise. -- An d Re w 19:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, and take Mackelcan out of the 'issue' (under her picture) whilst you are doing it! 09:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthonyCamp (talk • contribs)

This article is a WP:OR train wreck
It is substantially unsourced and contains tons of highly controversial claims of fact. Unless referencing is improved in the near future I am likely going to stub the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Which facts do you claim are controversial? The facts of her life listed under Biography are a matter of record. The court case of "Princess Lavinia" and her forged documents is a matter of record.


 * The claims about her relationship with George III are listed under a section named "Allegations," clearly not claimed as fact. There are several sources listed, though they need to be cited within the article. Do you have suggestions for better sourcing? John Heneage Jesse possibly?History Lunatic (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)History Lunatic