Anna Maria de Blaquiere - Sources should be required for such a profile

Sharyn, I'm not quite sure why you would think that I would announce to the world that my gt-gt-gt-gt-grandmother went insane if it were not seemingly true. Anna Maria de Blaquiere was, after all, my ancestor not yours. And I don't know what you mean by "unkind to her memory". What memory? Neither I nor anyone else I have come across had any knowledge whatsoever of the poor woman, so there is no memory to be unkind to - and anyone (even a child) who actually knew her must have been dead for nigh on a century.

In fact, if you click on the "media" tab you'll see the two documents I posted on April 5th at the same time I wrote the story. These are the two pages that make up the extensive newspaper report (The Bucks Herald Feb 20th, 1836) of the eight-day court case that legally established her insanity. I'm not sure what else you would like me to do.

Perhaps the press report is not evidence enough for you. I obviously cannot vouch personally for the accuracy of the very long report of the case; nor can I prove that the case itself was not 'fixed' by the establishment in cahoots with various villainous males of the Orkney family to suppress and rid themselves of an inconvenient woman (though one suspects her own family might have had something to say about it). Perhaps the Fitzmaurices were all Freemasons, I haven't a clue: is it relevant? Or do you believe that all C19th Freemasons (no, I am not one) were constantly conspiring to suppress all non-masons (especially women) to ensure their hold on power was never threatened? Perhaps they did put drugs in her tea, who knows?. It's all possible, and I can't prove it didn't happen. I can't prove that the Twin Towers weren't blown up by the US Government either, but I tend to go with Ockham's Razor on things like this.

Finally, why would you think that I might have exaggerated the story? As it happens I took enormous trouble to try and precis its main features accurately and in not too long a form - but why would you, with no knowledge of me whatsoever, suspect that I did? And why would you also presume, as you seem to, that I have no experience of mental vulnerability? Because I'm a man?

It seems clear (to me) that there was an imbalance in Anna's mind pretty early on - titled aristocrats did not separate their children from their mothers without some reason, because it would have been publicly very embarrassing - "bad form" - to do so except under exceptional circumstances. Nor did they embark on lengthy, hugely expensive public court cases discussing the sanity of family members unless there was no alternative. I feel desperately sorry for Anna, especially since the separation from her children seems, understandably, to have tipped her mental state still further out of kilter. It is a sad, sad story, and frankly I feel sorry for everyone involved in it. There were no winners.

Were the FitzMaurices Freemasons? Question, and, hoping you read what I have now deleted, you, in your reply, did what so many do, label a question as a Statement of belief. Do that to a vulnerable person, who has been drugged constantly, deprive them of their children causing them to believe themselves dangerous, humiliate them with public display and court. Discredit them, anything they may contest to, and alienate them from everyone who may care for them. What would you call that? She knew something, that's for sure.

Were they Catholic?

I see. Not one single word of regret or apology for having failed to see the documents I'd posted, and for jumping to conclusions - with absolutely no evidence - about me, how I write and just about everything else. You also fail to answer a single question of several I asked you, and now you claim (again with not one shred of evidence outside your own mind) that poor Anna Kirkwall was "drugged constantly". That "she knew something, that's for sure" - um, why 'for sure'? Because YOU think so? And now after Freemasons you're on about...Catholics???? Which the Fitzmaurices were not, as far as I can ascertain...but perhaps they were secretly, who knows? Perhaps I am secretly a devil-worshipper or a secret agent for MI6 - hard for me to prove I'm not if it's a secret.

It seems to me that you know very little about British history and the lives and traits of the aristocracy: Lord knows, there is enough to dislike and be appalled by in many of their actions without having to disappear into vanishingly improbable scenarios like yours. I do not live at all in the rarified world of money, class and power, but my grandparents did, and I knew them well. The thing you fail to realize is that easily the most important thing to such people is how they appear publicly. If Anna Kirkwall were embarrassing them or threatening them that badly in some unspecified way, I rather think your 'conspirators' would have arranged a quiet "accident" for her, rather than suffering decades of public ridicule as Anna lived, unrestricted in any way, an increasingly erratic life, paid for by them, in posh houses bang next door to their aristocratic friends; that public life culminating in the gross indignities of a multi-million pound (equivalent) court case reported in intricate detail by the newspapers. I'm afraid it just doesn't make SENSE as a conspiracy - a sad hunting accident would have neatly done the trick 25 years before, and saved them a ton of trouble and expense.

I normally take such pleasure in internet genealogy, because unlike the rest of the internet it is largely free of fringe believers and conspiracy theorists - most people are calm, friendly, logical, inquisitive and seek out fairly simple and straightforward truths. I am a bit depressed to find myself under attack when all I did was to reveal an extraordinary and sad story about one of my ancestors that I had found in a C19th newspaper.

Did you not see the posts I only left up for a bit, too personal to leave up here. Anna Kirkwall? De Blaquiere?

I am not bagging you, I am not that type of person, I guess I think that, for her memories sake, I want to defend her, as I relate very closely with what you wrote, and I know my truth at least.

What was the penalty for attempted murder in those days?

As I said before, I checked your relationship before I answered, you were not related to Anna, after I published the reply, I had to refresh that page, and you were related.

Fact based is one thing, and I agree, it is a pleasant change, especially for me, I do computer programming for the same reason. But, with posts like this, I think the subject is emotive, I often cry when doing a profile, sad lives...

Would you like me now to delete all this, and if you still worry, message me, is more private :)

I couldn't upload this, and you may have seen it.
[http://books.google.com.au/books?id=cF9HAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA278&l... The initial trouble I think] and if he died in 1820, maybe the stress killed him. I would say, the guilt may be why she could not accept his death, just surmising here. Sure, no winners, court is not the place to take these private affairs, but, in those days, it seems the law had a lot more say in moral behaviour.

I had seen it, thank you Shaz. I may try and screengrab the pages to upload it for you. As you probably know, the "criminal purposes" mentioned were just the adultery itself, the law had a weird (to us) way of describing it. It is very possible that the "libel" (which again has a somewhat different meaning to today) was a consensual legal process in order to provide evidence for a divorce which they probably both wanted by this point. I don't know if it ever happened - possibly not for reasons of its huge expense (a special Bill had to go through Parliament, hence its rarity in those days) - it is clear from another court case I found re the alimony paid (I may upload it later) that Lord Kirkwall was pretty much broke by this point.

I have rewritten the 'story', and added to it considerably in the light of what you have said, and as a result of finding a book that rather supports your ideas (and which I have uploaded). For reasons that I explain, I don't think it is really true in this case, but I accept that there is often more to these things than at first meets the eye. I hope, too, that you approve of a slightly more compassionate tone I have added to the story (though I know it won't go far enough for you!).

Finally, I apologize for my rather over-aggressive defence of what I originally wrote, and thank you for your softer and more conciliatory approach (which has caused my re-think).

Ossie

Thanks Ossie, it is not for me to approve anyhow, but, it has opened some interesting dialogue, and, hopefully one day, more answers will pop up. I saw the money litigation, and saw they were living on an Island called Kirkwall.

Good talking :)
Shaz

That is a very balanced and mature approach to the situation, well written and composed :) Her silence by then, may have been her only defence, and her trust may have been somewhat diminished along with her thought processes that, without medication, would have formed a habitual pattern.

If a man suspects his wife of being unfaithful, and she becomes pregnant, he doubts his paternity. It is possible that those same feelings, although illogical, can occur in a woman. Like they said, tainted bed, betrayal is hard to live with.

If it did occur, and also they speak of her lessened morality in later years, I wonder did either of them have further children ?

Shaz, I'm pretty sure that John & Anna Maria Kirkwall - together or separately - never lived at or even ever visited Kirkwall, which is not an island but the main town of the northern Isles of Orkney (part of Scotland), over 500 miles from London as the crow flies, and an awful lot further by road and boat! They married and lived together some of the time in Denbigh, North Wales, his then country home, but mainly, I think in London and nearby.

The title 'Earl of Orkney' was created for the gt-gt-grandfather of Lord Kirkwall (Anna Maria's husband) - 'Viscount Kirkwall' is a subsidiary title of the Earldom that is customarily born as a "courtesy title" by the main title holder's eldest son. The first Earl was a distinguished soldier, General Lord George Hamilton, but in reality the ennoblement was more in honour of his wife, Elizabeth Villiers, who was King William III's acknowledged mistress. A remarkable woman of great intelligence, wit and charisma, Jonathan Swift called her "the wisest woman I ever saw".

Although he was of Scottish birth, the choice of Orkney as the title for Hamilton was probably symbolic - Orkney is in the far north of Great Britain, and many other earldoms (Jersey, Portland, Dover, Scarbrough, Dartmouth, etc) were created in the late C17th & early C18th for people with no known connection to the places concerned - their geographical position at the edges of the kingdom was probably the reason.

Your confusion may perhaps lie with the full official name of the title, sometimes used in times past, which is "Viscount of Kirkwall", but I can't see any mention of that in the report of the alimony litigation of 1819.

Thanks Ossie, that information would be great to have on a profile somewhere I think. Geography and reading, not my strong points.

I remember how my husband laughed when I told him that I refused to by Chilean wine from a telephone salesman, because of Chenoble. Usually I look up the places on wiki, I like there little maps, and they tell you what is close, probably a goog reason to concentrate efforts in areas where you have knowledge, but, not alwayd easy to confine to that, in such a youg country as Australia.