What do you think?
Rate this book
Birthright
The astonishing story that inspired Robert Louis Stevenson’s classic novel Kidnapped.
In 1728, in the wake of his father’s death, the twelve-year-old heir to five aristocratic titles and the scion of Ireland’s mighty house of Annesley was kidnapped by his uncle and shipped to America as an indentured servant. Only after twelve more years did “Jemmy” Annesley at last escape, returning to Ireland to bring his blood rival, the Earl of Anglesea, to justice in one of the most captivating trials of the century. Hundreds of years later, historian A. Roger Ekirch delves into the court transcripts and rarely seen legal depositions that chronicle Jemmy’s attempt to reclaim his birthright, in the process vividly evoking the volatile world of Georgian Ireland—complete with its violence, debauchery, ancient rituals, and tenacious loyalties.
In 1728, in the wake of his father’s death, the twelve-year-old heir to five aristocratic titles and the scion of Ireland’s mighty house of Annesley was kidnapped by his uncle and shipped to America as an indentured servant. Only after twelve more years did “Jemmy” Annesley at last escape, returning to Ireland to bring his blood rival, the Earl of Anglesea, to justice in one of the most captivating trials of the century. Hundreds of years later, historian A. Roger Ekirch delves into the court transcripts and rarely seen legal depositions that chronicle Jemmy’s attempt to reclaim his birthright, in the process vividly evoking the volatile world of Georgian Ireland—complete with its violence, debauchery, ancient rituals, and tenacious loyalties.
289 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 25, 2010
37 people are currently reading
334 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
February 16, 2010
Ekirch's thorough research and entertaining style leads to a great story and a fast read. Will engage serious historians as well as those readers who love the intrigues of royal (and not very well behaved) society, as well as the poverty stricken class who supports them. Highly recommended !
January 21, 2013
Dr.Ekirch has resurrected a winning story at a fortuitous time.It is a hundred and one years since Andrew Lang published the last book on this utterly fascinating and absolutely unique case .On any theory of what really happened( and pace Dr. Ekirch,many theories are possible) it involves more certain perjury(whoever was lying) than any other case ever tried in a
British or American court of law on native soil.The Bahwal case in India is even more insidious and convoluted but the Sacco and Vanzetti case and the Alger Hiss Case,even the Tichborne case,are small potatoes compared to this one.
Dr.Ekirch's main problem with his massive,almost entirely unpublished,material is that he fails to classify his story for what it really is- that most marvelous of all archetypal legends which, about once in a hundred years,actually gets into a court of law: the classic back from the dead case:
A young person of high birth disappears at a time of tremendous social upheaval and is reported dead on no certain evidence Rumors continually circulate that the "deceased" has been seen at some remote part of the globe.Fifteen
or twenty years later he,she,or somebody,returns to a very strange homecoming indeed.Once you're into a back from dead case ordinary rules (designed to deal with rational situations) largely and increasing ly to apply.
Moreover ,in one respect, the Annesley case is the weirdest of them all for it is neither a legitimacy case nor an identity case(both of which terms Dr.Ekirch employs),but an EXISTENCE case.It is as if the Grand Duchess Anastasia arrives back from the dead and is told by the Romanov family,sorry,my dear,you can't
be our legitimate relative because Nicholas and Alexandria never had a daughter named Anastasia.And we have hundreds,if necessary,thousands of witnesses who will back us up under oath.You are trying to impersonate someone who never got herself born.
The only remotely similar case seems to involve a family of beleaguered Protestant aristocrats in seventeenth century France.
It is not for nothing that the last writer to publish a book on James Annesley published nearly twenty volumes of folk mythology and authored a book on the Shakespeare authorship question.Lang ended believing in his man but also admitting he believed against fantastic odds and he fairly stated the huge rational objections to his theory, almost all of which objections are completely ignored in the work under review.
For Dr.Ekrich,apparently the only living person who has read,or at least skimmed, some six hundred unpublished affidavits from both sides,the case proved "much less difficult than anticipated". The incumbent Richard Annesley is unquestionably one of the most morally loathsome people in the history of non-lethal true crime.Whether or not he was robbing alleged nephew Jemmy of his birthright,he, despite his denials,certainly shanghaied the twelve year kid and sold him out to fifteen years of penal servitude.When Jemmy,like the nine-lived cool cat that he was,came back as a naval hero and sued the man he liked to call "Uncle Dick" .Richard invested up to two hundred pounds (worth thousands on today's scale)into getting Jemmy framed for murder.When Jemmy was acquitted with much favorable publicity,a Richard supporter tried to shoot him.
When that didn't work,Richard and a batch of over a hundred of his rooters charged Jemmy and several of his key witnesses (and heavy financial investors)at the Dublin Races,severely beating them.For which crimes he was not only convicted but received even worse headlines than previously in the newly budding mass media.
And if this wasn't bad enough at the height of the furor he openly took a third(third) wife even though there were already two well known women claiming to be married to him.
And if this wasn't bad enough.good King George eventually received;nephew" Jemmy as aristocracy and publicly chastised the "infamous Earl of Anglesea";.In the end his own daughter by the second "marriage" charged that her Dad brought her in for a reconciliation on his death bed, then whipped a revolver from under the sheets and opened fire.
A lot of this stuff is either completely new or unpublished by any researcher since the 18th century.It is understandable that
Dr.Ekirch is cheering for a incredibly brave little kid who lived by his wits on the Dublin streets from age eight onward,who at age twelve,clad in rags, disrupted his,putative,father's funeral and single handedly managed to,for the time being,to block
Uncle Dick's investature.
Six weeks later he was on his way to a fate worse than death,fifteen years in Philade[phia.But the cat came back and,in spite
of the combined resources of his many enemies, won a verdict in open court.American boy makes better than good...One of the three back from the dead claimants in world legal history to win a verdict in a court of law.
Nevertheless there are flashing red lights all over the place that this case is a gigantic Sting.
Since Dr.Ekirch began by miscatagorizing his subject,he failed to realize that the first thing the investigator should do in an archetypal case like this is
look for the dowager.There's always the ancient matriarch lurking in the background.The mother or grandmother(never the father or grandfather),whose word, IF she can be persuaded to testify ,will stand against a hundred,perhaps five hundred,lesser witnesses but not one of these matriarchs,ever in history,got to a public witness stand.
Jemmy and his extremely adroit backers certainly knew the name of a very old game from day one even if Dr.Ekirch doesn't.Jemmy made two strategic visits immediately on his return to London.(1)to cousin" Francis Annesley who was also suing Uncle Dick for megabucks.Francis wasn't signing anything -yet, but did not close the door to further,amiable negotiations(2) "his" step-grandmother Mary,Duchess of Buckingham.The Duchess was one of the most powerful women in England.When she died she had herself interred in the biggest tomb in Westminster Abbey.She knew the value of a legal documents.The Buckinghams were long one of the most powerful families in England(Think "Richard 3rd" and "Three Musketeers".The present Queen of England still lives in Buckingham Palace.)
If Jemmy could talk her into sicking her lawyers onto Uncle Dick there wouldn't be any court case.He'd pay.
There should have been a huge international correspondence on the birth of James Annesley on or about April 22nd,1715,if such a baby existed.After nearly ten years of sterility in what looked like an abortive international property merger,Molly Sheffield had finally delivered.Yet there was no birth registration,no newspaper report in either England or Ireland.Jemmy would claim that his parents,however rich, weren't the kind of people who bothered to write letters.May be not but they lived in the midst of a lot of people who did.The Butlers,the Colcloughs,the Loftuses,the Tenches,the Downses,the Piggotts,the Pallisers,the Fitzgeralds,names which are still well known in Irish society today.Yet in the entire case not one of these great families who so furiously cross-swore each other at the trials could(or would?)produce a single scrap of contemporary paper showing that that there was a such a baby though it was sworn that Protestant Mrs.Butler (of the great Butlers of Ormond from whom William Butler Yeats claimed descent) was present at the birth and the christening which followed somewhere between May 16 and May 30th,1715.Further her close family connection Catholic Major Fitzgerald dropped in the day after to see the heir.Fitzgerald's Protestant Aunt Piggott stood godmother,as did Catholic Anthony Colclough. Her brother-in-law Captain Tench attended and drank deep.Unfortunately all of these people, except Fitzgerald, were dead by the time Jemmy hit London with a fanfare of advance press coverage in October,1741.
But the Duchess certainly held correspondence,fourteen more years of it and would have the names of the witnesses to the birth and the baptism.Her step-daughter split with her husband forever in Feb.,1717.He,according to Jemmy and his lawyer Danial Mackercher,forcibly seized control of the baby.The child was worth multi-millions but, as much to the point, the Duke of Buckingham genuinely loved his foolish,passionate daughter. Why was no effort made to regain custody of the heir.Again,there should again have been substantial written evidence and,if it existed,the Duchess and/or her lawyers held the evidence.
Jemmy knew all this when he went to call on his grandmother.She declined to see him(actually,it was claimed she was in France,not precluding the possibility she might be open to negotiations on her "return".)Did he give up that easily? Hard to believe.But Dr. Ekrich has only one further reference to the Duchess in his entire book. In fact he doesn't even bother to index her!Apparently he doesn't regard her as all that important.
Moreover, one key piece of public documentation about the Duchess has been available since 1744 and Dr.Ekrich ignores it as well.A second woman who certainly held documents and knew Lady Annesley(actually Baroness Altham) much better than her step-mother was available.She was Mary Heath,Lady Annesley's legal executor and hourly companion from 1712 to the day of her death.According to Mackarcher's own witnesses "nobody knew that young gentleman's affairs better" than Mary Heath.Except for one week that she had taken off to bear a single daughter,
Sarah,Mary worked seventeen years non-stop for her deceased ladyship and ended up with an estate valued around 460 pounds,the greater part of which was in Sarah's name.
After procrastinating for six months Mackarcher(in the absence of his client) finally held an interview with Mary Heath on April 13th,1742.According to Mary (a biased witness to be sure but her account was never denied by Mackarcher)Dan came on her with a roll call of Irish witnesses whom she knew in the old days and were now living with him and one William Henderson whohad recently brought them over from Ireland.On the kindest interpretation the bombshell Irish witnesses were brought over and put on the Mackarcher payroll to prevent Uncle Dick from manhandling them.Mary pointed out that if she had anything to prove James Annesley was for real she wouldn't be living ,with her maiden daughter,on the income from four hundred and fifty pounds.And Mackarcher left claiming he was so impressed he was going to turn the pack of them out.
Mary went straight from Mackarcher to the Duchess of Buckingham.They talked for over two hours.Between them there could be no deceit.They and one Joan Landy,now living on Mackarcher's property,knew exactly what had, or had not, happened on or about April 22nd(old style),1715.If omly we knew what was said between Mary and the Duchess and Mackercher and Joan Landy that afternoon there would be no mystery about the Annesley case.One thing is certain Mackarcher left Mary Heath knowing that she and, quite possibly,the Duchess would be taking the stand against his client.On the other hand he held Jemmy's wet nurse(or natural mother) Joan Landy(Joan was also,purportedly, the former mistress of Uncle Dick),his alleged dry nurse Joan Laffan and a woman, Eleanor Howlett Murphy, who claimed to have birthed baby Jemmy.
Both Daniel and Mary were play-acting.His next move was to file suit against her for all documents and all monies which she,as her ladyship's executrix, had "wrongfully" seized from yet another estate rightfully belonging to his client.
Apparently Lady Annesley left a will but did not mention any surviving child.
And Mackercher was facing even greater credibility problems.Lloyd,the Protestant pastor who allegedly baptized Jemmy,did not keep a register of parish activities.But Father Downes,the Catholic priest,did( forty-three years long ) and it contained no mention of Jemmy Annesley.Plaintiff argued that a Catholic priest wouldn't register a Protestant child but Downes insisted that,considering the importance of the event and the alleged presence of a Catholic godparent,he would have put Jemmy down-if Jemmy had ever existed. Worse,he had baptized Jemmy Landy and would never forget the huge rabbit birthmark on the baby's left shoulder.That birthmark was on the child whom Baron Altham took into his house shortly after turning out his wife. By an odd coincidence the baby born to the mistress in April-early May,1714 was named James and the Baron likewise decided to name his legitimate son,born almost exactly one year later,James, and his wife not only put up with this but sent her child to live for a year with the mistress and her husband's bastard.Unfortunately Dr. Ekrich omits the Downes registries,
omits the rabbit mark and neglects to mention that both babies were named Jemmy!In fact Jemmy Landy,like "Grandmother" Buckingham, is not even indexed though he may well be the one and only Jemmy.
Next week I'll be back once more with six documents purportedly dating from April.1715 to 1730(not printed in this book which,if genuine,almost certainly show
the claimant was not Jemmy Annesley.
I will be back this week with six further pieces of documentation dating from April 1715 to 1730 which,if genuine, raise the strongest presumption that Jemmy (though he certainly ,in the beginning, believed that he was the rightful heir) was indeed Juggy Landy's boy.
British or American court of law on native soil.The Bahwal case in India is even more insidious and convoluted but the Sacco and Vanzetti case and the Alger Hiss Case,even the Tichborne case,are small potatoes compared to this one.
Dr.Ekirch's main problem with his massive,almost entirely unpublished,material is that he fails to classify his story for what it really is- that most marvelous of all archetypal legends which, about once in a hundred years,actually gets into a court of law: the classic back from the dead case:
A young person of high birth disappears at a time of tremendous social upheaval and is reported dead on no certain evidence Rumors continually circulate that the "deceased" has been seen at some remote part of the globe.Fifteen
or twenty years later he,she,or somebody,returns to a very strange homecoming indeed.Once you're into a back from dead case ordinary rules (designed to deal with rational situations) largely and increasing ly to apply.
Moreover ,in one respect, the Annesley case is the weirdest of them all for it is neither a legitimacy case nor an identity case(both of which terms Dr.Ekirch employs),but an EXISTENCE case.It is as if the Grand Duchess Anastasia arrives back from the dead and is told by the Romanov family,sorry,my dear,you can't
be our legitimate relative because Nicholas and Alexandria never had a daughter named Anastasia.And we have hundreds,if necessary,thousands of witnesses who will back us up under oath.You are trying to impersonate someone who never got herself born.
The only remotely similar case seems to involve a family of beleaguered Protestant aristocrats in seventeenth century France.
It is not for nothing that the last writer to publish a book on James Annesley published nearly twenty volumes of folk mythology and authored a book on the Shakespeare authorship question.Lang ended believing in his man but also admitting he believed against fantastic odds and he fairly stated the huge rational objections to his theory, almost all of which objections are completely ignored in the work under review.
For Dr.Ekrich,apparently the only living person who has read,or at least skimmed, some six hundred unpublished affidavits from both sides,the case proved "much less difficult than anticipated". The incumbent Richard Annesley is unquestionably one of the most morally loathsome people in the history of non-lethal true crime.Whether or not he was robbing alleged nephew Jemmy of his birthright,he, despite his denials,certainly shanghaied the twelve year kid and sold him out to fifteen years of penal servitude.When Jemmy,like the nine-lived cool cat that he was,came back as a naval hero and sued the man he liked to call "Uncle Dick" .Richard invested up to two hundred pounds (worth thousands on today's scale)into getting Jemmy framed for murder.When Jemmy was acquitted with much favorable publicity,a Richard supporter tried to shoot him.
When that didn't work,Richard and a batch of over a hundred of his rooters charged Jemmy and several of his key witnesses (and heavy financial investors)at the Dublin Races,severely beating them.For which crimes he was not only convicted but received even worse headlines than previously in the newly budding mass media.
And if this wasn't bad enough at the height of the furor he openly took a third(third) wife even though there were already two well known women claiming to be married to him.
And if this wasn't bad enough.good King George eventually received;nephew" Jemmy as aristocracy and publicly chastised the "infamous Earl of Anglesea";.In the end his own daughter by the second "marriage" charged that her Dad brought her in for a reconciliation on his death bed, then whipped a revolver from under the sheets and opened fire.
A lot of this stuff is either completely new or unpublished by any researcher since the 18th century.It is understandable that
Dr.Ekirch is cheering for a incredibly brave little kid who lived by his wits on the Dublin streets from age eight onward,who at age twelve,clad in rags, disrupted his,putative,father's funeral and single handedly managed to,for the time being,to block
Uncle Dick's investature.
Six weeks later he was on his way to a fate worse than death,fifteen years in Philade[phia.But the cat came back and,in spite
of the combined resources of his many enemies, won a verdict in open court.American boy makes better than good...One of the three back from the dead claimants in world legal history to win a verdict in a court of law.
Nevertheless there are flashing red lights all over the place that this case is a gigantic Sting.
Since Dr.Ekirch began by miscatagorizing his subject,he failed to realize that the first thing the investigator should do in an archetypal case like this is
look for the dowager.There's always the ancient matriarch lurking in the background.The mother or grandmother(never the father or grandfather),whose word, IF she can be persuaded to testify ,will stand against a hundred,perhaps five hundred,lesser witnesses but not one of these matriarchs,ever in history,got to a public witness stand.
Jemmy and his extremely adroit backers certainly knew the name of a very old game from day one even if Dr.Ekirch doesn't.Jemmy made two strategic visits immediately on his return to London.(1)to cousin" Francis Annesley who was also suing Uncle Dick for megabucks.Francis wasn't signing anything -yet, but did not close the door to further,amiable negotiations(2) "his" step-grandmother Mary,Duchess of Buckingham.The Duchess was one of the most powerful women in England.When she died she had herself interred in the biggest tomb in Westminster Abbey.She knew the value of a legal documents.The Buckinghams were long one of the most powerful families in England(Think "Richard 3rd" and "Three Musketeers".The present Queen of England still lives in Buckingham Palace.)
If Jemmy could talk her into sicking her lawyers onto Uncle Dick there wouldn't be any court case.He'd pay.
There should have been a huge international correspondence on the birth of James Annesley on or about April 22nd,1715,if such a baby existed.After nearly ten years of sterility in what looked like an abortive international property merger,Molly Sheffield had finally delivered.Yet there was no birth registration,no newspaper report in either England or Ireland.Jemmy would claim that his parents,however rich, weren't the kind of people who bothered to write letters.May be not but they lived in the midst of a lot of people who did.The Butlers,the Colcloughs,the Loftuses,the Tenches,the Downses,the Piggotts,the Pallisers,the Fitzgeralds,names which are still well known in Irish society today.Yet in the entire case not one of these great families who so furiously cross-swore each other at the trials could(or would?)produce a single scrap of contemporary paper showing that that there was a such a baby though it was sworn that Protestant Mrs.Butler (of the great Butlers of Ormond from whom William Butler Yeats claimed descent) was present at the birth and the christening which followed somewhere between May 16 and May 30th,1715.Further her close family connection Catholic Major Fitzgerald dropped in the day after to see the heir.Fitzgerald's Protestant Aunt Piggott stood godmother,as did Catholic Anthony Colclough. Her brother-in-law Captain Tench attended and drank deep.Unfortunately all of these people, except Fitzgerald, were dead by the time Jemmy hit London with a fanfare of advance press coverage in October,1741.
But the Duchess certainly held correspondence,fourteen more years of it and would have the names of the witnesses to the birth and the baptism.Her step-daughter split with her husband forever in Feb.,1717.He,according to Jemmy and his lawyer Danial Mackercher,forcibly seized control of the baby.The child was worth multi-millions but, as much to the point, the Duke of Buckingham genuinely loved his foolish,passionate daughter. Why was no effort made to regain custody of the heir.Again,there should again have been substantial written evidence and,if it existed,the Duchess and/or her lawyers held the evidence.
Jemmy knew all this when he went to call on his grandmother.She declined to see him(actually,it was claimed she was in France,not precluding the possibility she might be open to negotiations on her "return".)Did he give up that easily? Hard to believe.But Dr. Ekrich has only one further reference to the Duchess in his entire book. In fact he doesn't even bother to index her!Apparently he doesn't regard her as all that important.
Moreover, one key piece of public documentation about the Duchess has been available since 1744 and Dr.Ekrich ignores it as well.A second woman who certainly held documents and knew Lady Annesley(actually Baroness Altham) much better than her step-mother was available.She was Mary Heath,Lady Annesley's legal executor and hourly companion from 1712 to the day of her death.According to Mackarcher's own witnesses "nobody knew that young gentleman's affairs better" than Mary Heath.Except for one week that she had taken off to bear a single daughter,
Sarah,Mary worked seventeen years non-stop for her deceased ladyship and ended up with an estate valued around 460 pounds,the greater part of which was in Sarah's name.
After procrastinating for six months Mackarcher(in the absence of his client) finally held an interview with Mary Heath on April 13th,1742.According to Mary (a biased witness to be sure but her account was never denied by Mackarcher)Dan came on her with a roll call of Irish witnesses whom she knew in the old days and were now living with him and one William Henderson whohad recently brought them over from Ireland.On the kindest interpretation the bombshell Irish witnesses were brought over and put on the Mackarcher payroll to prevent Uncle Dick from manhandling them.Mary pointed out that if she had anything to prove James Annesley was for real she wouldn't be living ,with her maiden daughter,on the income from four hundred and fifty pounds.And Mackarcher left claiming he was so impressed he was going to turn the pack of them out.
Mary went straight from Mackarcher to the Duchess of Buckingham.They talked for over two hours.Between them there could be no deceit.They and one Joan Landy,now living on Mackarcher's property,knew exactly what had, or had not, happened on or about April 22nd(old style),1715.If omly we knew what was said between Mary and the Duchess and Mackercher and Joan Landy that afternoon there would be no mystery about the Annesley case.One thing is certain Mackarcher left Mary Heath knowing that she and, quite possibly,the Duchess would be taking the stand against his client.On the other hand he held Jemmy's wet nurse(or natural mother) Joan Landy(Joan was also,purportedly, the former mistress of Uncle Dick),his alleged dry nurse Joan Laffan and a woman, Eleanor Howlett Murphy, who claimed to have birthed baby Jemmy.
Both Daniel and Mary were play-acting.His next move was to file suit against her for all documents and all monies which she,as her ladyship's executrix, had "wrongfully" seized from yet another estate rightfully belonging to his client.
Apparently Lady Annesley left a will but did not mention any surviving child.
And Mackercher was facing even greater credibility problems.Lloyd,the Protestant pastor who allegedly baptized Jemmy,did not keep a register of parish activities.But Father Downes,the Catholic priest,did( forty-three years long ) and it contained no mention of Jemmy Annesley.Plaintiff argued that a Catholic priest wouldn't register a Protestant child but Downes insisted that,considering the importance of the event and the alleged presence of a Catholic godparent,he would have put Jemmy down-if Jemmy had ever existed. Worse,he had baptized Jemmy Landy and would never forget the huge rabbit birthmark on the baby's left shoulder.That birthmark was on the child whom Baron Altham took into his house shortly after turning out his wife. By an odd coincidence the baby born to the mistress in April-early May,1714 was named James and the Baron likewise decided to name his legitimate son,born almost exactly one year later,James, and his wife not only put up with this but sent her child to live for a year with the mistress and her husband's bastard.Unfortunately Dr. Ekrich omits the Downes registries,
omits the rabbit mark and neglects to mention that both babies were named Jemmy!In fact Jemmy Landy,like "Grandmother" Buckingham, is not even indexed though he may well be the one and only Jemmy.
Next week I'll be back once more with six documents purportedly dating from April.1715 to 1730(not printed in this book which,if genuine,almost certainly show
the claimant was not Jemmy Annesley.
I will be back this week with six further pieces of documentation dating from April 1715 to 1730 which,if genuine, raise the strongest presumption that Jemmy (though he certainly ,in the beginning, believed that he was the rightful heir) was indeed Juggy Landy's boy.
Read
June 13, 2022Amazing story
Hard to believe that these events could take place, and yet the research seems quite sound. Sad to view society's ills and realize we're still fighting the same issues.
Hard to believe that these events could take place, and yet the research seems quite sound. Sad to view society's ills and realize we're still fighting the same issues.
April 4, 2023
Had to read this bad boy for class. Tbh it wasn't that bad, I've definitely read worst for a class lol. It was kinda boring but some parts were actually semi interesting so I'll take it.
March 21, 2013
There are the makings of a good book here -- scattered through at least a hundred pages of extraneous material.
The book advertises itself as "The True Story that Inspired Kidnapped". It's not, as I first thought on seeing it, about the Appin murder (the Scottish legal case that Robert Louis Stevenson's story centers around); it's about the notorious Irish legal case, also from the mid-1700s, that may have inspired the actual kidnapping portion of Stevenson's book, as well as every other "wicked uncle kidnaps true heir to usurp a peerage" story since then.
The basics of the story are told in a thirteen-page prologue: that a boy named James "Jemmy" Annesly, a Dublin street-urchin purportedly the son of the impoverished Earl of Anglesea (and purportedly kicked out of his father's house by the jealous mistress who was supporting the Earl), was sold overseas to the American colonies as an indentured servant at age twelve by his wicked uncle, the next in line for the earldom and four other titles. The writing in this section is conversational and engaging, though it does rather treat our street-urchin as definitely the heir - thus setting up the book's central conflict as "will he be vindicated and recover his heritage?" rather than "is he actually the heir?"
After that, we are suddenly catapulted into SIXTY PAGES of incredibly dry, confusing family history about the Earldom in question - a story of absentee landlords and entailed estates in which almost everybody is named either Arthur or Richard, and in which the same person can be called in the same sentence by his first name, his surname, and his title (such as "Anglesea") without any effort to distinguish who's who. By the time we get back to anyone we ever heard of before, my interest is completely lost.
I did sort of manage to finish the book. (I was skimming toward the end.) If you're interested in ALL THE DETAILS EVER about: (1) English landlords in Ireland, absentee and otherwise, during the early 1700s; (2) white indentured servants in the not-yet-U.S. during the same time; (3) English and Irish court proceedings, laws, lawyers, and courts; (4) our young hero's startling prosecution by his uncle's lawyer for accidentally shooting a poacher during a fistfight, with a passing note that the case was a landmark, being the first English case decided on the basis of medical evidence; (5) and every single particle of evidence by which our young hero attempts to claim his patrimony and his wicked uncle attempts to subvert him... well, have at it. O_O
(Spoiler: the kid, by now in his thirties, eventually gets a decision in his favor, having spent other people's fortunes on legal fees - but the uncle, not yet broke because he still has the lands, promptly appeals, and the kid dies a pauper before actually getting his earldom-and-so-forth. AND THEN THERE IS MORE BOOK. ;P The thing only ends when all the male children of Jemmy, his uncle, and his uncle's cousin are dead without issue.)
Dear author: learn to leave stuff out. :S
The book advertises itself as "The True Story that Inspired Kidnapped". It's not, as I first thought on seeing it, about the Appin murder (the Scottish legal case that Robert Louis Stevenson's story centers around); it's about the notorious Irish legal case, also from the mid-1700s, that may have inspired the actual kidnapping portion of Stevenson's book, as well as every other "wicked uncle kidnaps true heir to usurp a peerage" story since then.
The basics of the story are told in a thirteen-page prologue: that a boy named James "Jemmy" Annesly, a Dublin street-urchin purportedly the son of the impoverished Earl of Anglesea (and purportedly kicked out of his father's house by the jealous mistress who was supporting the Earl), was sold overseas to the American colonies as an indentured servant at age twelve by his wicked uncle, the next in line for the earldom and four other titles. The writing in this section is conversational and engaging, though it does rather treat our street-urchin as definitely the heir - thus setting up the book's central conflict as "will he be vindicated and recover his heritage?" rather than "is he actually the heir?"
After that, we are suddenly catapulted into SIXTY PAGES of incredibly dry, confusing family history about the Earldom in question - a story of absentee landlords and entailed estates in which almost everybody is named either Arthur or Richard, and in which the same person can be called in the same sentence by his first name, his surname, and his title (such as "Anglesea") without any effort to distinguish who's who. By the time we get back to anyone we ever heard of before, my interest is completely lost.
I did sort of manage to finish the book. (I was skimming toward the end.) If you're interested in ALL THE DETAILS EVER about: (1) English landlords in Ireland, absentee and otherwise, during the early 1700s; (2) white indentured servants in the not-yet-U.S. during the same time; (3) English and Irish court proceedings, laws, lawyers, and courts; (4) our young hero's startling prosecution by his uncle's lawyer for accidentally shooting a poacher during a fistfight, with a passing note that the case was a landmark, being the first English case decided on the basis of medical evidence; (5) and every single particle of evidence by which our young hero attempts to claim his patrimony and his wicked uncle attempts to subvert him... well, have at it. O_O
(Spoiler: the kid, by now in his thirties, eventually gets a decision in his favor, having spent other people's fortunes on legal fees - but the uncle, not yet broke because he still has the lands, promptly appeals, and the kid dies a pauper before actually getting his earldom-and-so-forth. AND THEN THERE IS MORE BOOK. ;P The thing only ends when all the male children of Jemmy, his uncle, and his uncle's cousin are dead without issue.)
Dear author: learn to leave stuff out. :S
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 18, 2010
As always truth is at least as strange as fiction (although fiction is often more entertaining).
This book is about the true story that inspired the book Kidnapped (which is just a great, wonderful adventure story that you should read if you haven't). The true events behind the story are pretty gripping and astounding and this book is worth the read.
Fair warning - there is lots of intricate detail about inheritance laws and family ties in the beginning, but you need it to understand the later legal battle. For me this detail and the legal battle were the least interesting parts of the book. Far more interesting is the story of this family, the dastardly uncle, the heir transported to the colonies, his mother misused and put out of the house, and all the hardships that followed. This book also provides an interesting picture of Georgian Dublin and gave me a new perspective on the Protestant Irish gentry than I had had previously.
I'd like to say that everything turns out well, but it doesn't. This is a story where no one prospers no matter their behavior. Sad and shocking - a reminder that people have been doing terrible things to each other as long as we've been people.
This book is about the true story that inspired the book Kidnapped (which is just a great, wonderful adventure story that you should read if you haven't). The true events behind the story are pretty gripping and astounding and this book is worth the read.
Fair warning - there is lots of intricate detail about inheritance laws and family ties in the beginning, but you need it to understand the later legal battle. For me this detail and the legal battle were the least interesting parts of the book. Far more interesting is the story of this family, the dastardly uncle, the heir transported to the colonies, his mother misused and put out of the house, and all the hardships that followed. This book also provides an interesting picture of Georgian Dublin and gave me a new perspective on the Protestant Irish gentry than I had had previously.
I'd like to say that everything turns out well, but it doesn't. This is a story where no one prospers no matter their behavior. Sad and shocking - a reminder that people have been doing terrible things to each other as long as we've been people.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 22, 2012
Several years ago I read Ekirch's book At Close of Day, a history of night in the Early Modern era. At the time, I thought it explored an interesting topic prosaically. Since then, I've returned again and again to the ideas raised in the book; it's become a touchstone for much of my understanding of the pre-modern world, and my appreciation for the book has grown substantially.
Birthright paints on a much smaller canvass, but my initial reaction is similarly tepid. Once again, Ekirch has found a promising subject -- here, the drama of a struggle for justice by a kidnapped heir. The story involves vicious men in powerful places, unexpected allies, tragic accidents, attempts at intimidation and murder, and perhaps even an instance or two of true love. And yet, as the story unspooled, it felt nearly bloodless; my pulse rose once, for two pages. On the other hand, Ekirch provides an interesting window into changing standards of behavior, social structure, and legal practice in England and Ireland in the 1700s, and the book rides on a solid foundation of research. I'm glad to have read it; perhaps it will grow on me in retrospect, as At Close of Day has.
Birthright paints on a much smaller canvass, but my initial reaction is similarly tepid. Once again, Ekirch has found a promising subject -- here, the drama of a struggle for justice by a kidnapped heir. The story involves vicious men in powerful places, unexpected allies, tragic accidents, attempts at intimidation and murder, and perhaps even an instance or two of true love. And yet, as the story unspooled, it felt nearly bloodless; my pulse rose once, for two pages. On the other hand, Ekirch provides an interesting window into changing standards of behavior, social structure, and legal practice in England and Ireland in the 1700s, and the book rides on a solid foundation of research. I'm glad to have read it; perhaps it will grow on me in retrospect, as At Close of Day has.
July 2, 2010
The compelling true story that inspired RSL's "Kidnapped." Our young 18th-century hero Jemmy was turned out in the streets of Dublin by his sot-of-a-father and miserable stepmother before the age of 10. Nonetheless, he cried when his father, the fourth Baron Altham, died a few years later. Soon he had bigger problems: his father's brother plotted to get rid of Jemmy so that Uncle could inherit land and a passel of British titles. After he was kidnapped, Jemmy spent 13 years in the American colonies as an indentured servant. He returned to the British Isles as a young man to reclaim his birthright. The remainder of the book recounts his lenghty and dramatic battle through an imperfect court system to vindicate his rightful place in society. The story reads as if it were written by a history professor because it was. Ekirch does not have a flowing narrative style. For me, reading parts of the story was a bit of a slog. In the hands of a good story-teller, this would be a much better read. Recommended for history buffs.
March 21, 2010
This is one of those stranger-than-fiction stories. Real life is a lot messier than fiction, though, so unfortunately James died before he could win vindication in court, and his son didn't survive childhood. Karma apparently believes in the sins of the father because James' cousin, the son of the uncle who had him kidnapped to steal his estates, was declared illegitimate in English courts and the family's two English titles were declared obsolete. The uncle's too much of a bastard to feel sorry for, and he undoubtedly brought all his troubles on himself, but I have to wonder, if he knew he would never have an easy moment as Earl (James wasn't the only one who challenged his right to inherit) would he still have done it?
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 7, 2010
3.5 stars. The true story that inspired Robert Lewis Stevenson's Kidnapped - the kidnapping and transportation (from Dublin to America) at age 12 of James Annesley, the presumptive heir to five aristocratic titles, by his uncle in 1728, and Annesley's subsequent efforts to return home and see justice done.
NPR.com review: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...
Guardian,uk review: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/...
NPR.com review: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...
Guardian,uk review: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/...
January 6, 2013
A fantastic true story stranger than fiction could ever be, about an aristocratic child sold into indentured servitude by his wicked uncle who comes back years later to claim his birthright, only to face murder attempts, slander, and legal battles while trying to win over popular sentiment. It's an incredible yarn that served as the basis for several major novels by authors such as Sir Walter Scott and Robert Louis Stevenson, and though the place it eventually ends is a bit of a downer for everyone involved, it's a pretty gripping ride getting there.
March 15, 2010
Extremely interesting story of a family torn apart by greed, title, inheritance and in-fighting.
There's a lot of detail in the beginning of this book on family inheritance laws of the 1700s in England and Ireland but all of the information is needed to understand the legal fight that occurs later.
There's a lot of detail in the beginning of this book on family inheritance laws of the 1700s in England and Ireland but all of the information is needed to understand the legal fight that occurs later.
July 27, 2019
So did anyone read Robert Louis Stevenson's Kidnapped when they were young? No? How about the movie? Well it was all based on a true story which is, in and of itself, pretty fascinating. A. Roger Ekirch puts together a good tale from what little documentation does exist and breathes life into the story. this was a pretty good quick read.
May 18, 2016
It was an extremely interesting story, but the writing style was rather cluttered and there were a LOT of characters to keep straight. The justice system, such as it was at the time, was quite chilling. One has to feel sorry for James. He caught so few breaks and was unable to benefit even from those he got.
September 7, 2011
Fascinating story and well researched. Good window into life at the time. Unfortunately it is confusingly written, and very hard (at times impossible) to keep track of who is who, despite the genealogy that is included.
May 9, 2017
I loved this. I found every detail fascinating. My father used to love the story "Kidnapped" and the telling of the details of the true life story that it was based upon was amazing. This poor kid trying to regain his birthright.
September 11, 2014
Incredible coverage of a true story! This was a difficult book for me to put down as I just wanted to stay in the era during the investigations. Strong portrayal of human behavior and interactions during tragedy.
December 15, 2009
Boring (dense language, slow story)!
January 7, 2010
Wow. the true story behind "Kidnapped" one of my all time great books.
January 23, 2010
A well researched historical soap opera.
July 4, 2010
it was okay, not much more i can say about it.
May 20, 2014
I really had to struggle to finish this book.
June 23, 2011
It was truly interesting.
November 14, 2012
Read in conjunction with Kidnapped by Stevenson.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews