Hi Nigel and Frances,

I am beginning to wish I'd never raised this one, as the more one looks at it, the less intelligible it becomes.

As Nigel say, an extraordinary situation. Had it arisen a century before, in the days of Bishop Wilson, then heaven help the pair of them, and Eliza might have been dragged across Ramsey harbour. As to protection from Thomas Arthur Corlett, as I understand it, he was High Bailiff until 1828, and Nigel's article says it was only after that period that he became Vicar General.

If William Christian Ballakey had a first wife who was incapable of bearing children or mentally unstable, then an affair with a widow would be even more likely to attract criticism than if he was single, and I have not so far found any other available wife. That does not mean there isn't one, of course.

However, Frances makes a good point about the churchwardens not presenting her for repeated illegitimacies. Why didn't they ? If you have "friends at court" then you can get away with a lot, and the Corlett family of Lezayre and Christian Ballakey were influential, but unless this was seen as understandable, then I doubt that even that much influence would cover it.

Another problem is the question of rights not passing to a widow if the marriage lasts less than a year. As the husband died in six months, the year period does not apply so in theory ELiza Corlett/Cowle would not be entitled to widow rights on that ground alone.

I had originally wondered if this whole fantastic episode was to protect the daughter, Ann, in some way, but where there is a legitimate daughter of a marriage, the property should descend to the child regardless of her mother's entilement, so at present i cannot see that Ann stood to benefit from this, BUT it was only in 1827, when she would be 14, and therefore of legal age, that her mother Eliza married. That may be coincidence, or it may be significant.

All I can do ay this stage is to pose a series of theories,

a) The Cowle family (i.e. Thos Cowle's parents and siblings, uncles etc) seem to have had no problem with the baby girl, Ann Cowle, inheriting the Ballavair property, and she did so without hindrance. Unlike the 1836 case wehre there were next of kin to object that did not happen here, so Ann's rights were never challenged, and nor seemingly were her mother's.

b) Someone looked after the Ballavair Estate. I cant find Ballavair in the on line copy of Pigot's directory of 1823. What I did find was an entry, "Corlett Thos. Esq. Ballbeabyn" I cant find Ballbeabyn in Kneen's place names or in Woods Atlas, so if it exists, where is it, and secondly, is it possible that as Thomas A Corlett was one of the guardians for Ann Cowle that he is the Thos Corlett at this place with a peculiar name, (How many Manx places are there Ball B... and it does not appear in the 1837 issue) Is Ballbeabyn a corrupt version of the missing Ballavair ?

c) Someone looked after the little girl. This could have been her mother, Eliza in which case she would have been brought up with her growing family of step-siblings (if there is such a term !!!), or by her guardian, Thos Corlett.

d) The churchwardens apparently did not present Eliza. Either they had given up in general by then, and can anyone comment on that ? If they were still making presentments, then she was seemingly an exception. Influence, and who you know matters, but this went on for so long that it had to be regarded as acceptable.

That in the end is my conclusion. The whole episode had to be common knowledge in Bride, and had to be seen as acceptable.

Robert