Talk:James Annesley

A Discussion

 * Green Cardamon has edited my contribution,removing the typos(which I was on my way back to correct myself) and adding two very valuable cross-references to the writings Lillian de la Torre but maintaining only what he regards as "good" facts.
 * He writes to me in a letter:"These sentences make sense only if we know who the author is". I must disagree.Re:Your three citations
 * (1)The James Annesley people had ,compared to the defendant,a relatively small amount of cash.They squandered it gathering up one hundred and eighty six witnesses for what was in effect a grudge fight prosecution.They saw it all lost inside twenty minutes.They needed that money to bring their witnesses to the House of Lords and it was not(as the above cited appeal bears witness )forthcoming the third time around.The second jury didn't believe James' witnesses;staking a third trial was no longer the sure fire bet which  it seemed after the first trial. The Mary Heath prosecution was "a very big- and a very costly- mistake" for James Annesley.
 * (2)"probably because of the uncontested evidence that the evil defendant had wickedly kidnapped his nephew".Two of the three judges in the Trial at Bar devoted lengthy parts of their summations to the "wickedness" and "evil" intent of the defendant in kidnapping a twelve year old boy and further plainly instructed the jurors that if they were  uncertain which way to go on the other evidence they could(not must) take the kidnapping as tipping the scales.
 * (3)"Mary Heath was quite a different person".She was.She was a devoted confidant who had cared for the semi-paralyzed and dying Lady Annesley during the last twelve years of the latter's wretchedly impoverished life.If she, or her mistress, had been in a position to produce a legitimate heir,it is very difficult to see why they didn't do so then.That's what Mary's attorneys,truly or falsely, successfully argued to the 1744 jury.
 * I chose my words carefully and trust the facts,good and bad, may be,minus the typos, reinserted in the article.If there ever was a case that had(and has) two sides to it,it is this one, and the article should reflect this.
 * The reference to the de la Torre Annesley manuscript was formerly on the de la Torre page at the Mystery Writers of America.I will try to track it down.I also met Irish people who assisted her in her research.She undoubtedly saw things which Ekrich could not.
 * I also take exception to references to my grammar,which is, most always, deliberate as distinct from my typos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil Hayman (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Neil (I hope that is OK, I apologize for any mis-characterizations), Ekirch is the most recent published authority. Since we (at Wikipedia) write articles based on sources that are Reliable and Verifiable, Ekrich appears to be the only one we have to work with. De la Torre never published her work (other than a few articles) and Andrew Lang is over a century old. I would encourage you to read the "reliable" and "verifiable" links. If you have sources, that I can verify and that are reliable (per the above links), and they present a different POV from Ekrich, than we can incorporate those alternate views into the article with appropriate weight. But it's not appropriate to add material based on Original Research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. Green Cardamom (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just a moment.Ekrich admits that his book is written in the form of a novel.Only the last chapter professes to give reasons why he accepts the plaintiff's version as given by his counsel.He does not adduce any new evidence to this effect.How can he replace thousands of pages of commentary whiich he does not even discuss? What makes you think that he intends to?
 * Old edition of the DNB states categorically,Vol II,"The weight of evidence seems to be against the legitimacy, as the parents had strong reasons for establishing the birth of a legitimate heir; though Lord Anglesey's unscrupulous behaviour implies doubt as to the sufficiency of his cause. The verdict, however, was given for the claimant. Mary Heath was prosecuted for perjury on 3 Feb. 1744, but, after a repetition of much of the former evidence, was acquitted. On 3 Aug. 1744." The jury didn't believe James' witnesses.The believed Mary Heath. They took only twenty minutes to dismiss the entire story story.
 * Which jury is right and which jury is wrong we will never certainly know.The transcripts of both trials are on line.I do not believe the current DNB has altered its previous judgment Those are the main generally available sources and that is the position.With a bit of further research I think you will find that no major Irish historian has ever come out unequivocally for the Claimant.


 * "...any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." I really don't understand what you are saying.No statement has been made that is not found in the sources.The only statement that could be remotely construed as such is that James had plenty of money to launch a private prosecution  against Mary Heath.He no longer had the necessary funds when he tried to take his case to the House of Lords.The public was not minded to give him more money.These are successive facts presented in chronological order.They  require neither "synthesis nor analysis of published materials".I will be happy to delete the "big mistake" phrase.That is an inference.May be James felt beating hell out of Mary Heath was worth the price of the Annesley estates.


 * Can we compromise by printing the DNB opinion at the end of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neil Hayman (talk • contribs) 19:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We can use DNB, but if it's an old version, it has to be sourced as an old version, which makes it less reliable. Do you have access? If not I might be able through a library here in the US, but I'm not sure I can, and if your in the UK, most libraries have it and can be accessed online with a library card (I think). Ekrich's book is not a novel, it's a well researched history book by a practicing academic historian, in the Preface he describes sources used: newspaper reports, family legal documents, 400 legal depositions, court transcripts, etc. he says in the chapter "A Note on Legal Sources" that he relied heavily on the court transcripts (same ones we link too in this article), but also other contemporary accounts, and in some cases alternative transcripts he found more detailed. Many of the sources he uses are only available in research libraries in Ireland and elsewhere and are not online, his descriptions of sources are complex and detailed and go on for pages. I really have the sense no one has researched it to the degree he has, it's taken him years, and these sources may not not have all been available to previous researchers. He also talks about the extent of perjury among witnesses at the time, it was very common in 18th century Ireland, thus making court transcripts difficult for unraveling the controversy. However:
 * "In the end my task turned out to be less torturous than I first imagined. Despite its inconsistencies, the totality of evidence, I discovered, veered strongly in Annesley's favor. Independent sources, when available, almost always corroborated the claims of James and his followers. With few exceptions, their statements, in and out of court, were more apt to be accurate. [Examples follow.. with further reasoning on why James was the heir]".

The full quote above is pages 209-211 which can be read via Amazon Look Inside in case you don't have the book (search on a sentence quoted above to bring up the page).

Perhaps the thing to do in a case like this, where there is no clear answer and multiple opinions, is to separate out the facts we know from the conclusions made by various commentators. See Fall of the Roman Empire for example. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "...the thing to do in a case like this,,where there is no clear answer and multiple opinions,is to separate the facts we know from the conclusions made by various commentators" Now we can agree completely.Unfortunately this discussion page would fill as much space as at least one volume of "The Fall of the Roman Empire",if we really tore into the mass of contradictory evidence on even the three or four absolutely basic issues.


 * Please,I wasn't being derogatory when I referred to Dr.Ekrich's book being written in novelistic form.It was his own description of the body of his text.He says if you want to view his voluminous sources see the last chapter. I did and I am delighted to find the 217 depositions from a Suffolk bookseller which had been acquired by Lillian de la Torre in 1965 are now back in Ireland at the  National Library. I learned about this trove in the early seventies(as indicated in my earlier communication) but couldn't speak about it here as the rules here forbid discussion of original research.I knew local people who helped Ms.de la Torre with her researches.But by the time I was back in the States in the 80's,she was dead. So I never got a first hand account from her.


 * However,when Dr.Ekrich gets down to listing his essential reasons for believing in believing James ,I found he isn't using the newly discovered evidence.He is using Annesley 001. I mean when I was living in Dublin of the 70's,I and some of the Trinity College actors staged a moot court performance of the Annesley Case in which we had to boil the whole thing down to three hour performing time.The "counsel" on both sides got to take their pick of the best evidence they wanted called and Dr.Ekrich's top four witnesses are among the top six or eight plaintiff's witnesses which the actors wanted called back then as well.Major Fitzgerald of the great Butler family who "actually" attended James' baptismal ceremony ,Deborah Annesley(who bucked her family to testify),the brave and kindly butcher Purcell who fed a starving twelve year old millionaire when nobody else would lift a finger ,the volatile and loquacious French dancing master.
 * This entire case does read like a novel.The six part BBC version should be spectacular.Perhaps Dr.Ekrich will be abe to sell his quite magnificent retelling.However,there is a quite different side to the story and the show will play much better if he allows it to be done as "Witness for the Prosecution" rather than "a story of redemption",his own phrase.
 * To play the devil's advocate let's start by citing Andrew Lang who,with a couple of strong reservations,believed in the Claimant.In the entire case,no one ever produced a single document(letter,newspaper clipping,birth or baptismal certificate) to prove any such person as James Annesley,heir to one of the largest fortunes in the British Isles was ever born.Deborah Annesley ,one of James' very best witnesses and certainly an honest woman,admittted she  first heard about the purported  birth years after the fact,if it was a fact.
 * The historical situation grows even more dubious when we consider Lady Annesley's position.She was bastard daughter to the great Duke of Buckingham and her step-mother has the distinction of occupying the most specious tomb in Westminster Abbey.The Buckinghams must have received a letter announcing the birth,if there ever was a birth.
 * The Buckinghams also held even more money than the Annesleys.Having a new grandson should also have opened up new business negotiations between the families .But no documents ,and no witnesses, from the Buckingham side of the family were ever produced.
 * Moreover,I referred to this earlier,Lady Annesley and Mary Heath lived in Dublin in extreme poverty during the last years of the Lady's life.They subsisted on a small pension which the Duchess continued after her husband's death.James,by this time,was running around the Dublin streets in rags.Why wouldn't he have gone to his mother and Mary Heath? The Duchess of Buckingham may not have cared much for her stepdaughter but it seems impossible that she wouldn't have moved  if she knew she had  a grandson who could be used to cut in on Richard Annesley's millions.
 * As Dr.Ekrich observes, perjury was rife in 18th century Irish courts,and Richard had a lot more money than James.This is overlooking the fact,as Andrew Lang observed,that Richard was both a vicious bully and a fool.He told the French dancing master he would sell out for so much cash.He unexpectedly lashed people he disliked or had them clubbed by thugs;he(despite his denials)apparently shanghaied a child.He told the French dancing master that he would sell out to James for so much cash.The thing that strikes one about the Annesley defense is,at the beginning, its absolutely raw quality.Richard was paying his lawyers well  but was not giving them much with which to work.Richard's attorneys(pending new documentation from Ekrich)still didn't know where they were going when they fought the Civil trial.They only called thirty-three witnesses of possible hundreds.James' attorneys,on the other hand, were fully prepared.They couldn't have done better with what they then had.
 * But compare the trial of Mary Heath(check the link here).Mary won a year later because ,second time around,the defense knew exactly where to hit James' key witnesses while the prosecution was unprepared for most of the new defense witnesses,only one of whom was a holdover from the first trial.
 * O.k.,I will now cite a single one of them. Read the evidence of the dying Reverend William Harvey at Mrs.Heath's trial, and carefully consider the import of his contemporary  document.A mere two pages of alibi testimony which I ,following,Lang, suggest at least balances against Dr. Ekrich's star witnesses, Major Fitzgerald and Deborah AnnesleyNeil Hayman (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I now have access to the latest DNB article. It is different from the 19th century version and uses one source dated 1999 with a "[forthcoming]" note, suggesting it was written around that time (by a John Martin). It doesn't make a claim one way or another, just that it was disputed and some doubts remain. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks,Green Cardamon. Yes,I found Mr.Martin.He's cited in another article here  on Richard Annesley but nobody I can locate  on the web quotes him.The earlier article is by Leslie Stephens,father of Virginia Wolfe Perhaps we can write in the main article that,despite the huge number of witnesses called on his behalf, the editors of both the old and the new editions  of the DNB remain extremelly sceptical of the Claimant's identity.
 * I think it interesting that while both Ekrich and de la Torre come down for the Claimant it is not because of all their newly discovered evidence.I suspect(and I'm going over to Dublin this summer to check it out)that all the newly discovered testimony in the end proves just  as confusing as the oldly discovered evidence.We can be sure James's peoples didn't take the apparently near ironclad Wexford alibi lying down and they must,eventually, have got people  who would swear that they did see the missing registers and the Annesley-Buckingham correspondence which would prove James was the rightful heir.And just as surely,judging from what we have,Richard's people will have found some credible sounding counter witnesses to swear it was all more lies.
 * The interest of the new evidence mainly lies in what it tells about the people and things we already know.Prime example:
 * Joan("Juggy") Landy,certainly either the mother or the wet nurse,was very much alive but neither side took her within a mile of the witness box.James argued that Richard had bribed just as he was bribing everybody else.Problem with that(this is in the court record but both sides touched lightly on it).Joan was originally James's witness.She was so much James's witness that the lawyers took her on a one thousand mile cross-country ride to London to visit Mary Heath(huh?).They spent two hours talking over old times(ha!) and then Mary immediately took off to "have tea" with the "grandmother",the Great Duchess of Buckingham.Mary admittedly stayed for two hours,presumably talking over more old times.
 * So,in the end,of the three women who absolutely knew what the truth was only one ever made it to the witness stand and neither side seemed at all anxious to quiz Mary on what was said at those two successive meetings.Who the spiders,who the flies?
 * Perhaps the new evidence will clarify the role that Joan played in the affair.Did she and Mary both sell James out? Or was the whole English negotiation a trap arranged between Mary and the Duchess both of whom knew there was no such person as James Annesley?
 * Or was the Duchess in league with Richard? But why? Having a wealthy Irish "grandson" should have suited her political, and financial, interests very well.
 * One thing alone is certain.It should make as great a movie as "Anastasia" any day.Neil Hayman (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Novel as a source
A novel can't be used as a source. The author of the novel is a novelist and writes fiction. Furthermore the story of him traveling to York where he meets his childhood friend is just one of many fanciful accounts that surround James Annesley that were published both contemporary and into the 19th century, it's apocryphal. Yes a modern novelist might pick up on these as a good story and try to establish it as fact on Wikipedia in order to give his novel more credibility, but the academics who have looked at this have not given those stories any credibility. I question what kind of WP:SPA would be so determined to use this novel as a source, peppering the article continually with that novel, while puffing the novel's importance up. It looks to me like someone with a conflict of interest who is as much interested in getting his novel cited throughout Wikipedia, getting his novels story into Wikipedia, instead of relying on what the reliable academic sources say. -- Green  C  14:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well some headway is made, you added a reliable source, although it's a WP:PRIMARY source, we need reliable scholarly secondary sources to interpret the primary sources for us. Furthermore the source doesn't say what you were originally contending about his childhood "friend" finding him in York. Rather it says a "schoolmate" in whose house he boarded (presumably in Ireland) recognized him. It also says another gentleman remembers when he went missing and corroborated the account, but apparently since that information is not in the Novel you didn't think it important to include in the Wikipedia article.. so I added a "relevant?" tag because it's hard to see why any of this is relevant.. unless the intention is to make the Wikipedia article in-line with the novel's storyline. Also unlinked the novel's wikilink since the notability of the novel is not established. And added a cite request to the contention the novel is the "first" historical novel about Annesley, this is obviously counter to other novels that have been published about him so it needs a secondary reliable source to clarify. -- Green  C  14:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

CITATION ABOUT CHILDHOOD FRIEND: The account of him being identified by a childhood schoolmate is now cited by the exact newspaper account. RELEVANCY: It is just as relevant as comments about his time in the Royal Navy, his encounter with Tobias Smollett, etc. FIRST NOVEL ABOUT JAMES AND TRIAL:   As for FORTUNATE SON being the first novel.... it is the first novel about his life AND the trial. I challenge "Green Cardamom" to cite another. There were other novels that were supposedly based on James, but those don't count as they aren't specifically about him. And the one that he supposedly wrote was published in 1743, before the trial, and thus was not 'about the trial'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclowriter (talk • contribs) 20:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The newspaper account is a contemporary source and should be looked at with caution as there are many half-truths and non-truths surrounding this case which is why we rely on modern scholarship, but in any case that contemporary newspaper doesn't say he was a "friend" nor that he found him on the docks of York as you had initially claimed, rather he was a former classmate who identified him after he arrived in Jamaica. As for the claim of being the first historical novel, it's a qualified distinction you're making and one I can only guess the author or publisher may say for marketing purposes. Nonetheless if you can produce a citation to a reliable secondary source, per the core rules of Wikipedia (WP:V & WP:OR), it might be included. -- Green  C  13:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)