Jane
Now, this case involves a woman who was almost certainly a prostitute, called Lucy Hungate. The case is about her attempts to get money from the Ray family. She had been having an affair with lady Olympia’s son, Sir Christopher Ray. He was a wealthy man, a Baronet, a young man and he died aged 27 of small pox and didn’t leave a will. She was trying to prove in this case that she had been married to him. because if she was married to him she was entitled to a third of his money.

There were hundreds of witnesses produced. These two volumes here contain the examinations of these witnesses and the first one that we’re going to look at is the wicked vicar himself. The vicar in a way is the leading character in the story. He was the only witness to this wedding, if it happened, he conducted it. He was called Randolph Yarwood, and here is his evidence. He was the vicar of Kentish Town and he was a notorious character. He was a drunkard, he was cruelsome, he rowed with his parishioners, he married people without licences, he went to court all the time. Anyway, this is his account of the wedding, and it’s perfectly straight forward. He conducted the wedding according to the book of common prayer and he signs it.

The next one’s his sister. Now, as far as one can make out, one of the other witnesses gave evidence to the fact that he’d actually seen Sir Christopher Ray, the deceased, in this part in this place, in bed with one Hungate sister on one side, and one Hungate sister on the other side. So you can’t really take too much notice if what Jane Hungate says, any more than Lucy. Anyway, her evidence again is totally circumstantial and it mainly concerns a venison pasty. Now a lot of this evidence concerns a venison pasty. You may wonder why - well apparently she says that a venison pasty was baked for the wedding breakfast and that her sister turned up one morning and said, "Here have a bit of Venison pasty, this was baked for my wedding breakfast. We should have had it yesterday but the vicar didn’t turn up so we’re going to get married today instead."

Bettany
That’s a ridiculous bit of evidence to bring there.

Jane
Yes it is.

Bettany
What do you think the balance of the case was? Were people pro-Lucy or pro-Lady Olympia.

Jane
Well, I don’t know about people, but I know I was utterly pro-Lady Olympia from the start because it was so obvious that this was a transparent story. Evidence that’s based heavily on a venison pasty, you can’t really believe it can you?

BettanyDerrick and Mary are in Worcestershire, still looking for their aristocratic lineage. Their ancestor Anne’s second marriage took place here at St Lawrence’s Church in Evesham. Derrick and Mary had come to see the marriage register to decide for themselves whether they think the entry was forged.

Derrick
Weddings in 1691 . . .

Mary
It says December 12th, Thomas Gorland, gent, and Anne Rawlins, widow of Edward Rawlins, was the late Viscount Lord Stafford.

Derrick
There’s the entry. I’m not an expert but unless you can look at letters of that Thomas, it could well be the same writing.

Bettany
Now, they’re a bit stuck. So we asked hand writing expert Elizabeth Denbury to give her opinion.

Elizabeth
Now there is a problem of course, because the hand writing on either side of the entry was quite obviously different and anybody could see that. It may be necessary to look at other parts of the register. In 1683, we have, I think, the same hand. "Thomas" again, just "Anne" - look at that "Anne, daughter of Thomas", and he goes on. 1685, 1687, 1688, 1690 and there he stops.

Bettany
So why did that writer’s hand appear again in the middle of 1691? Was it really a forgery or simply an afterthought?

Elizabeth
Did they get married in 1690 and he suddenly entered it in a fit of panic at the bottom? I do not know. It’s not a 19th century hand.

Derrick
That is extremely encouraging and interesting because the whole case of the Gerningham side was to indicate that this entry had been inserted in and round 1825.

Elizabeth
Well if it was, whoever did it was extremely good.

Bettany
So that’s Anne’s second marriage, and it looks like that wasn’t a forgery. What about the first? Time to go to Worcester record office.

Mary
I’m absolutely certain that it would have been almost impossible to fake this, the hand writing, everything. Anyhow, as far as I’m concerned it’s exonerated the McCarthys yet again.

Derrick
And the great thing is that we do know, from tracing our own lineage back from ourselves, that we have evidence of father to son, mother to son relationships, all the way from us right up to this good lady.

Mary
That is a very good thing to know.

Derrick
Whether or not she was the daughter of a peer.

Mary
Does that matter?

Derrick
Especially as they have got rid of the House of Lords’ privileges.

Bettany
From the 1830s the church gradually ceased to play such an important part in the country’s administration and record keeping. The State took over. The church courts hung on to wills until the 1850s but they were under frequent attack for making too much money out of them. In any case, with more Christian denominations around, people began to ask why the Church of England was involved in legal matters at all.

Perhaps, surprisingly, the church courts still exist but they aren’t what they used to be. At their height there were over 300 of them administering canon law throughout England and Wales. They still take their business seriously and they don’t allow their full proceedings to be filmed. But today the cases are about church property, mending roofs, or selling communion cups - maybe the odd indiscretion by a clergyman, if you’re lucky. It’s a far cry from the vivid insight they once gave into the passions and peccadilloes of the English people.

  < previous   Page 4 of 4

Content last updated: 03/04/2006

Comments