A. Guelph gets married, 1853, 1856, & 1867

“A Strange Marriage.” Manchester Weekly Times and Examiner [Manchester, Greater Manchester, England] 15 Oct 1853; p. 9.

An elderly female, on Tuesday, applied to the Westminster magistrate on behalf of her daughter, who was 17 years of age, and who had been inveigled into marriage with a person whom she supposed to be a man, but whom she discovered at York to be a woman, dressed in man’s attire. She said that the pseudo husband was first introduced to her daughter in female attire, under the name of Mrs. Panton, but after an intimacy of some months, suddenly appeared in the costume of a gentleman, announcing himself as Mr. Alfred Guelph, and declaring that he was issue of George IV. and Queen Caroline, but that from certain reasons his existence had hitherto been kept a profound secret, but that his love for her had wrung it from his heart, and induced him to appear in the becoming habiliments of his own sex, in lieu of the female attire he had been disguised in for years, by direction of a very benign old lady, who met him periodically in Park Lane, and supplied him with cash ad libitum. As he dressed very fashionably, and always had plenty of money, applicant, believing the story, consented to their nuptials, and they were married on the 12th of September, 1852, at Highgate. The applicant was referred to the magistrate of that district.

“Westminster: Extraordinary Affair.” The Weekly Dispatch [London, London, England] 16 Oct 1853; p. 2.

On Tuesday a quiet-looking, elderly woman, solicited the magistrar’s assistance under the following circumstances:—Applicant complained that her daughter, a girl of 17, had gone through the ceremony of marriage without being blessed with a husband. It was, of course, at the time of the nuptials supposed that she was being united to one of the other sex, and they went to York to spend the honeymoon, but her daughter, to her great surprise, discovered that she had been married to a woman in male attire, and the mother of three children. Mr. Broderip observed that there was such a case as this in the books (Legal Reports), and inquired where the marriage took place? Applicant replied, at Highgate Church. Mr. Broderip referred her to the magistrate of that district. Applicant, before leaving the court, made the following extraordinary statement in the waiting-room,—that the pseudo-husband was first introduced to her in a female attire, under the name of Mrs. Panton, but, after an intimacy of some months, suddenly appeared in the costume of a gentleman, announcing himself as Mr. Alfred Guelph, and declaring that he was issue of George IV. and Queen Caroline, but that for certain reasons his existence had hitherto been kept a profound secret, but that his love for her fair daughter had wrung it from his heart, and induced him to appear in the becoming habiliments of his own sex, in lieu of the feminine attire he had been disguised in for years, by direction of a very benign old lady who met him periodically in Park-lane, and supplied him with cash ad libitum. As he dressed very fashionably and always had plenty of money, applicant, believing the story, consented to their nuptials, particularly as the soi-disant Mrs. Panton and her daughter had upon the occasion of little visits slept together before, and so Miss Robins changed her name for Mrs. Guelph, on the 12th of September, 1852, by license, at Highgate Church, but, alas! soon discovered that Mrs. Panton was but a woman after all, although endeavours were made for a considerable time to induce a contrary notion.

“The Man Woman!—Interesting Developments!” Syracuse Daily Standard [Syracuse, New York] 22 April 1856; p. 3.

Yesterday forenoon the female dressed in male attire, whose vagaries were briefly alluded to in yesterday’s Standard, was brought before Justice Durnford for examination. The circumstances attending this case, although still somewhat enveloped in mystery, are, as far as known, exceedingly singular.—There is now no doubt but the person is a woman, and although she is still attired in man’s apparel, we will speak of her as one of the female sex. In answer to the questions of the Justice yesterday morning, she said her name was Albert Guelph, that she is English by birth, has been in this country about two years; lived in Lodi about six months; part of the time with a colored woman named Dinah Jackson, and part of the time in the family of Mr. Lewis; she has no occupation; receives remittances from England, and the balance of her support is furnished by a sister, who resides in this city. In reply to the question, “are you a male or female?” she answered, “your officers can tell you,” or “have told you.” She refused to give any more direct answser to the inquiry in relation to her sex, and was committed for further examination.

From various persons we learn that this woman is well known in town in the character of a female, and she has probably assumed the disguise of a man within a few weeks. She is said to be an English woman, and to have a son, a blind boy, who lives with her sister, a very respectable woman named Mrs. Edgar, residing in the southern part of this city.

A few weeks since she assumed the garb of a man, and made the acquaintance of a young lady named Miss Lewis. After a brief courtship they were married by Rev. Mr. Gregory, of the Episcopal Church, and the parties have since resided together as husband and wife. The marriage ceremony was performed about three weeks since, and the bride’s father suspecting there was something wrong about his new son-in-law, obtained a private interview, and informed her of his suspicion that she was not what she pretended to be. At first she claimed that she was a man, but on closer questioning finally admitted that she was female. A partial examination was made at this time by the father-in-law and officer Barnes, which satisfied the officer that the person was a woman disguised, and he immediately arrested her, and placed her in the watch house, where she has remained since Saturday evening last.

We have not learned the proper name of this singular woman. She is about 40 years of age, with marked features, prominent nose, high cheek bones, black hair, worn long (for a man,) and curling at the end, and apparently brushed and oiled with care. She wears a glazed cap, blue coat, blue shirt, dark vest, snuff colored pants and gaiter boots, ad a shawl over her shoulders; speaks with considerable confidence, but is not very communicative.

It is understood that when this eccentric woman first came to the house of the bride’s father, she was attired in female apparel, and her clothing was changed to man’s attire, with the knowledge of the family. The probability is that the family supposed her woman’s dress was a disguise, and that she was assuming the proper habiliments of her sex.

The lady[’s] father was averse to the match but the bride still clings to her woman husband, and claims that the arrest is a conspiracy against them. They were allowed to meet in one of the ante-rooms of the Police Office, and embraced each other with the greatest marks of affection.

There are many absurd stories about, in relation to this singular case, but we believe the above are the only reliable facts that have been brought to light.

The Justice, as we have already remarked, remanded her for further examination, as it is understood that other charges will probably be brought against her.

“Hard Up.” Syracuse Daily Standard [Syracuse, New York] 23 April 1856; p. 3.

Our Devil thinks the women must be hard up for husbands when they take to marrying each other.

“The Female in Disguise.” Syracuse Daily Standard [Syracuse, New York] 23 April 1856; p. 3.

This singular case was the subject of almost universal discussion yesterday. No new facts, that we can learn, have been elicited. It was expected that a further investigation would be held yesterday, and crowds of people assembled at the Police office, but were obliged to go away disappointed. We are unable to learn what the real name of the woman is except that she was called “Nancy.” She was known by the name of Albert Ruger, at the time she resided in the family of Mr. Lewis. When arrested she called herself Albert Guelph, and claimed to be a relative of the Royal Family of Great Britain.—She also gave that name on her examination before the Justice, and talked rather incoherently about “my papers,” which she said were out of the reach of her enemies. The report that a charge of robbery was to be preferred against her grew out of an old charge, on which she was arrested about two years ago. She was then discharged because there was not proof enough to convict her. We believe there is no charge against [her] now, except appearing in disguise. Her son is about 19 years of age, and resides with her sister. The bride, or “wedded maid,” also resides with the sister, on account of an unpleasantness between herself and her father.—She still clings with apparent affection to her female husband, and is indignant about the prosecution. What the motive for the disguise can be, it is impossible to determine.

“The Female in Disguise.” Syracuse Daily Standard [Syracuse, New York] 24 April 1856; p. 3.

The woman, Nancy, alias Albert Guelph, was brought from the Penitentiary by officer Davis yesterday and taken before Justice Durnford for trial. She appeared dressed in male attire, blue frock coat, light pants, dark vest, and blue shirt, the same dress in which she was arrested.

Mr. Murphy appeared as her counsel, and after a brief interview with his client, she constned to plead guilty of vagrancy, and was called up to receive her sentence.

The Justice remarked that the circumstances attending this case were exceedingly singular, and the conduct of the prisoner had occasioned considerable excitement and astonishment in this community. There seemed to be no adequate cause for assuming the disguise in which she now appeared, and imposing upon a respectable female by contracting a marriage with her. The Justice was convinced, both by the admission of the prisoner herself, as well as the examination of Dr. Stuart, that she had practiced a foul deception upon the community, as well as upon the female with whom she had contracted marriage. There could be no longer a question that the prisoner was a female, and her dress a disguise adopted for the purpose of deception. Such conduct was in violation of the statute, and could not be tolerated. Considerable excitement and prejudice existed in the community, which the Justice believed would warrant him in inflicting severe punishment, but he was inclined to be lenient with the prisoner, because he was fully convinced that she was partially deranged. It was hardly possible to believe that any person possessed of sound reasoning powers would be guilty of such singular conduct without some apparent motive. He therefore sentenced her under her plea of vagrancy, to 90 days imprisonment in the Penitentiary, and expressed the hope that she would resume the habiliments of her sex, and when her term of sentence had expired conduct herself in such a manner as to win back the confidence and respect of community, which she had forfeited by her deception and imposition.

She interrupted the Justice several times, and indignantly repelled the insinuation that her reasoning powers were impaired. At the close of the Justice’s remarks she thanked him, and turning to the crowd of spectators assembled in the office, she said she had been guilty of no act of which she felt ashamed, and had sufficeint means to support her. She refused to give any name but Albert Guelph, but acknowledged that she had been formerly known by the name of Nancy. She also said she had a sufficient motive for her conduct, and would give a satisfactory explanation when her imprisonment had expired. The commitment was made out by the Justice in the name of “Nancy,” and she left the office under charge of officer Davis, who escorted her back to the Penitentiary, where she is now confined.

The mystery which hangs about this singular affair, is in our opinion, only partially developed. Perhaps time will afford an explanation.

“The Female in Disguise Discharged On a Writ of Habeas Corpus!” Syracuse Daily Standard [Syracuse, New York] 26 April 1856; p. 3.

Another chapter in this singular affair was furnished yesterday afternoon. Mr. Murphy, counsel for the female “Nancy,” alias “Albert Guelph,” applied for a writ of habeas corpus, which was granted by Judge Woolworth, and she was brought before the Judge by Mr. Norton, the Superintendent of the Penitentiary.

She appeared in male attire—the same as we have described on former occasions. Mr. Murphy sustained his application for a discharge in an argument of some length; contending that the commitment was invalid in several respects, but particularly in the fact that the prisoner was sentenced as a vagrant to 90 days imprisonment, when the statue positively restricts the sentence to 60 days. Other imperfections in the commitment were also pointed out.

Counsel also contended that it was no offence against the statute for a person to dress in the attire of the opposite sex, unless the face was painted or otherwise disguised, or the person carried arms. (It seems that the statute originated in the anti-rent troubles, and was particularly designed for those cases.)

Dist. Attorney Andrews is absent from the city, and his partner, Mr. Kennedy, appeared as counsel for the people, but did not [contend?] the case. After some conversation the counsel for the people expressed his conviction that the commitment was invalid on account of the illegal term of [illegible]r, and gave his assent to the discharge of the prisoner, and she was immediately set at liberty.

She thanked the Judge, and remarked that she would make some revelation in a few days that would astonish the community. At our request, she consented to prepare a history of the whole matter for publication, in a few days, and our readers may therefore expect some astounding developments in a short time.

“A young lady.” Syracuse Daily Standard [Syracuse, New York] 26 May 1856; p. 3.

“A young lady who traffics in delight,” to use her own poetic language, says the Albany Knickerbocker, was last week fined ten dollars in Philadelphia, for appearing in the public streets with male attire on. Served her right—she had no business to be a woman, if she prefers pants to pantaletts. If she will go suspenders and straps, let her strap herself off for a he geranium with somebody, and pay the difference like a man. Them’s our sentiments, and where’s the man that don’t agree with them?—He aint no where’s, and he’s laying down at that.

“Conundrums.” the Syracuse Daily Standard [Syracuse, New York] 10 June 1856; p. 3.

Genius will not be tramelled. The divine spark (like the measles) must break out or kill the patient. The following scintillations broke like thunder claps from the brain of one of our city friends, and we are happy to inform our readers that the gifted youth is now convalescent:

Why must a new block, now building in the city, go up slowly?

Because every important movement requires Dillays (delay.)

Why is the Standard Office like a garden?

Because it is enlivened by Summers’ genial rain (reign.) [Transcriber’s note: The masthead lists “Agan & Summers, Proprietors.”]

Why is Nancy Stours—the man-woman—like an ambitious blusterer?

Because she pants for notoriety.

“Communication From “Nancy” Alias “Albert R. Guelph.” Syracuse Daily Standard [Syracuse, New York] 8 May 1856; p. 3.

To the Editor of the Standard:—It gives me much concern to be obliged to appear in the eyes of the public with so daring a spirit of resistance, but I have taken such measures as I judged most proper and effectual, and in so doing I must act with resolution and caution. Allow me to observe I am no mercenary, no traitor, no spy or pretender.—I am acting in a just cause, and you may depend upon my firm and steadfast resolution.—In the meantime the only indulgence I have to ask is that the public will suspend their judgment and their disgusting accusations; for if report speaks true, it would be a disgrace to the brute creation. Surely man could not put himself on an equal with the beast of the field. I only ask them to act with a portion of decency, if they have any left, till such facts can be produced from which alone the truth can appear. Every one must be heard before they are condemned. I have been censured unheard—condemned before trial—but I am conscious my innocence must appear, when real facts are truly stated and fully proved.

Dear sir, I must now justify the character of that lady whose fate is so mysteriously linked to mine, and one whose circumstances of life place her among those so far beneath her; but whose noble mind finds more pleasure in following the fortunes of the person of sorrow than in adorning the brilliant circles of a fashionable world. She is one of those beings that are seldom to be found, and it is bitterness indeed to hear the tongue of slander fall on one so spotless; one that a President or a King might be proud to own. I will now allude to the reports that are in circulation. Some say I found her laying about the streets, and I took compassion on her; others intimate that she will soon become a mother, and that I married her [illegible] the disgrace; others say it is owing to [illegible] property I have in England, or for some wicked design; some have even gone so far as to assert that I am going to take her to New York, and there dispose of her. All this I solemnly declare to be false. No one has yet guessed the true [illegible] the circumstances that has created as much comment and excitement.

I am afraid this will seem a very uninteresting history, but the simple incidents I have related, brief as they are, convey their own moral. What has become of the dreams of those who triumphed over our downfall? I could not fail to see how deeply their ambitious hopes have been burned, and how bitterly they mourn the loss.

I have much to relate, and as I have promised the public to give a reason why this marriage took place, I will keep my promise; but I must first understand the opinion of the public, for I have a proud spirit, and I am determined to justify myself—to defend my honor—to clear my reputation, and make known to the world what I am now contending for. Hence each victory won in the cause of truth is won forever. Her advances are slow, but they are sure. She never retrogrades. She may be held in check for a time, but she can never be driven back. What prompted Kepler to utter that sublime egotism? If God has waited five thousand years for a man to spring up capable of comprehending his wonderful works, I can well afford to wait one thousand for men to comprehend my discoveries. For the present I must bring my remarks to a close, at least for a few days. I have others to study beside the curious and vulgar. In my next I think it will be my duty to speak of persons who have been accused wrongfully; who have suffered much through me; who are still suffering, and will suffer, till this mystery is cleared.

Dear sir, allow me to remain,

Yours truly,

A. R. G.___

“The ‘Man Woman’ Arrested Again!” Syracuse Daily Standard [Syracuse, New York] 3 June 1856; p. 3.

Nancy Stours, alias Mary Dickinson, alias Albert Guelph, was brought up by officer Lowell, yesterday on a charge of vagrancy.

Since her discharge from the Penitentiary she has been living with a colored woman named Dinah Jackson, on west Water street, and a portion of the time Miss Lewis, the young lady to whom she was married has resided, at the same place.

Nancy retains her male attire, and appeared yesterday in dark frock coat, dark vest, cotton shirt, with narrow ribbon about her neck, and turn-over collar, dark pants, calf-skin boots, and blue cloth cap. She makes a very genteel looking man, but does not deny that she is a female. She was accompan[i]ed by her sister Mrs. Edgar, a very respectable appearing lady of mature age, who seemed to be greatly distressed at the position of her wayward relative.

Miss Lewis was not in court, but her brother app[ea]red as complainant and was sworn. He stated that Nancy had married his sister, and they had lived together for a short time; that Nancy had no visible means of support to his knowledge, but was living with a colored woman. At the request of the parents of Miss Lewis, officer Lowell had taken the young lady to his house, but the female husband still persisted in meeting her, and annoying the parents with her attentions.

Officer Lowell corroborated the statement of the brother, and said further, that the colored woman referred to was supported principally by charity, and she informed him that Nancy had paid her nothing for her boa[r]d.

Post-Master Maynard also testified that he had given assistance to Dinah Jackson, the colored woman spoken of.

Mr. Edgar, the brother-in-law of Nancy, testified that her name is Ann or Nancy Stours, that she has a son at his house about twenty years of age, and that the boy was supported by him, without any aid from Nancy. He also stated that he had known her to receive money from England, but not within the last 10 months.

The investigation was conducted by Mr. Murphy, for the People, and at the close, the Justice sentenced the prisoner to four months confinement in the Penitentiary as a vagrant.

Nancy protested against the sentence. Said she had plenty of money, and that she had in former times supported the family of Mr. Edgar. She also made some disconnected remarks about her papers being in safety, and the wonderful developments she could make if she was inclined. She was urged to make them but refused, saying she preferred to go to the Penitentiary, and she went.