This has to be one of the most interesting stories I have found recently in my One Name Study!<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Whilst searching the newspapers for Levers entries I came across an article from 1827 where a woman named Jane Levers<\/strong> had brought action against her former suitor Robert Faulkes<\/strong>. She claimed he had promised to marry her but eventually married his own niece so therefore could not marry Jane. Yes, he married his own niece!<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to the newspaper reports, the story goes like this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jane was born and brought up in East Bridgford where her father occupied a large reputable farm, part of which was his own property. She received a good education and upon the death of her father and mother, Jane was left a little fortune of between \u00a3800 and \u00a31000. She then undertook a respectable situation and on leaving this she went to reside with her sister and brother in law, Elizabeth and John Hall, at Hoveringham in Nottinghamshire. This was around 1822.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A neighbour of the Halls was Mr Robert Faulkes. He was a miller, factor and a considerable landed proprietor and despite being upwards of 50, he was unmarried. Robert Faulkes began paying his attentions to Jane Levers who was almost thirty. Robert Faulkes and Jane’s brother in law John were relatives so John trusted him..<\/p>\n\n\n\n Robert Faulkes visited Jane at the Hall’s residence regularly. Various witnesses heard him talk about his intention to marry Jane. He even asked Jane’s niece, then Sarah Hall, to be bridesmaid. John and Elizabeth Hall were convinced that his intentions were honourable and that he was going to marry Jane. They allowed him to visit for long periods and everyone, family and friends, expected a marriage to be forthcoming<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the summer of 1825 Jane Levers left Hoveringham and went to stay at Matlock. She was pregnant. Unfortunately no details of the child were included in the newspaper reports. However, a witness spoke of seeing Jane and Robert together at Matlock supposedly looking for furniture for a home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, no marriage ever took place between Robert and Jane. In fact in January 1827 Robert Faulkes put an end to any thought of marrying Jane, by marrying his own niece. The newspaper reports that he married his sister’s daughter, but in fact it was his brother’s. Oddly, there was no secrecy surrounding this illegal marriage. In fact it was announced in the newspaper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On Sunday 6th at Derby, Robert Faulkes Esq of Caythorpe House to Sarah, 2nd daughter of the late Thomas Faulkes Esq of Sibthorpe Hall. (Stamford Mercury 19 Jan 1827)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Announcing to the world that he had married his own brother’s daughter seems bizarre. His brother Thomas had considerable assets and one has to wonder whether Robert Faulkes was attempting to lay claim to these assets by marrying into the family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In England, in 1560, a list of forbidden marriages was drawn up by the Church of England. This remained unchanged until various changes in the 20th century. However it was illegal then for a man to marry his niece, just as it is today.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When Jane realised there would never be a marriage with Robert Faulkes, she sued him for Breach of Promise. The case was heard at the Nottingham Assizes in March 1827.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The story of the promise to marry, the seduction, the consequent child and then the illegal marriage were all described.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jane’s lawyer called Robert Faulkes a “veteran seducer” . In fact, searching the newspapers for more articles regarding Robert Faulkes, an interesting case came to light. In April 1822, Robert Faulkes (presumably the same one), was brought before the court at Nottingham Sessions and ordered to pay 2 shillings and sixpence per week each for the upkeep of two babies he had fathered. The babies were the children of two sisters from Radford, Nottinghamshire, who had both been in service to Robert Faulkes. The official reprimanded Faulkes saying he should have protected the sisters and not debauched them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This case had happened just before Jane Levers arrived in Hoveringham and caught the eye of the rich local landowner and miller.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The jury heard various witnesses state how Robert Faulkes had talked of marrying Jane and even asked two girls to be bridesmaids. He made no secret of the fact he was intending to marry her.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Lord Chief Justice when summing up called Robert Faulke’s marriage to his niece “infamous and incestuous”. He stated that anyone listening to the witnesses would be under no doubt that Robert Faulks had indeed promised to marry Jane Levers. The question was how much damages was she entitled to given the injuries sustained. The judge talked of how Jane Levers’s prospects in life had been greatly impaired given the length of time from Jane’s first meeting with Robert Faulkes in 1822 to Faulkes’s marriage to his niece. Jane Levers had spent a few years waiting for Robert Faulkes to marry her and by now she was in her thirties, had given birth to an illegitimate child and was now cast aside. In the polite society they inhabited, it would be difficult for Jane to find a suitable husband.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Damages<\/p>\n\n\n\n The jury at the Nottingham Assizes that spring day of 1827, after listening to the lawyers for both sides and the summing up by the judge, decided that Robert Faulkes was indeed guilty of Breach of Promise. Due to his considerable fortune he was ordered to pay Jane Levers the sum of \u00a31,600.<\/p>\n\n\n\n