Filling the Gap

[Greensleeves]

I don't think the woman with him in the 1841 is Amelia though at the mo that's just a hunch.  It seems, looking at the later census returns, that he and Amelia didn't live together and after he died, in 1874 Amelia remarried within months.

1837 - marriage to Amelia Jenkins, Chepstow

1851 - F M Martyn, married, 41, Major, living at 17 Charles Street, Hanover Square
1851 - Amelia Martyn, married living at 132 Mount Street (with servants, no husband)

1856 - PO Directory:  Lt Col F M Martyn, 17 Charles Street, Berkeley Square and Fern Cottage, Windsor

1861 - Francis M Martyn, married, 51, Colonel, Army (no wife in household)

1871 - trans as J M Martyn, married, 61, Colonel retired (no wife in household)
1874 - death of F M Martyn 24 January

[Roy G]

Thanks once again.   Do the census records show any children of this separated couple at any address?    Roy G

[abc12345]

Hi guys - I have just bought a painting from 1839 titled 'Mrs Mountjoy Martyn'.
 
I have been searching for Major Mountjoy Martyn's wife with no luck until I stumbled across the site. I would love to see a photo of his wife (Amelia Jenkins) if anyone is able to access one. The portrait that I have bought looks somewhat like Wikipedia image of Harriet Howard.

The portrait was painted in London so if she was living as his illegitimate wife, that could match up. I've attached an image of the painting.

Any other info or images would be much appreciated

Cheers

[Roy G]

Re The Countess of Beauregard, formerly Harriet Howard, born Eliza(beth) Ann Haryett of Brighton (1823 -1865)

Unless Major Mountjoy Martyn's wife and mistress were clones of each other, the picture you have is almost certainly his red haired mistress Eliza(beth) Haryett formerly of Brighton, who the major's circle of wealthy Londoners and titled aristocrats knowingly addressed as his wife.

Although your picture has a date of 1839, the probable age of the lady, the quality of her clothing and her acquired jewelery makes me think it may be from a little later.  In 1839, Eliza was only in her late teens and better known as the actress Harriet Howard, and at the most, had only recently come 'under the major's protection' and been accommodated at a separate address from him in Mayfair. 

Re:  Two other known images of Mrs Mountjoy Martyn.
I leave it to you to decide whether it is possible that your picture is is predated by one used in the Countess of Blessington's book on Health & Beauty published 1841.  I believe the picture of Mrs Mountjoy Martyn shown on the following website comes from that: http://www.old-print.com/cgi-bin/category.cgi?item=B3761870214  It shows Eliza as a voluptuous female with poise, beauty and adorned by simple trinkets, perhaps explaining why so many wealthy admirers were attracted to her. 

The picture you have is better suited to being a few years on, for a more mature Eliza now sports the expensive (but in my opinion a little tasteless) jewelery that had been showered upon her, possibly as rewards for her favours after her association with the major had waned.  These may have been the very jewels she later sold in order to fund Napoleon III's return to France. 

Lastly there is the magnificent portrait of her as the Countess of Beauregard (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Howard ) by which time this simple shoemaker's daughter from a Brighton backstreet had risen from poverty, and having negotiated repayment for her earlier loan (and perhaps discreteness?) gained a title and a French Chateau.  In that final picture she somehow seems to radiate the satisfied grace and opulence of those deemed to have come from an aristocratic bloodline.   

I have seen it suggested that due to Napoleon IIIs rekindled interest, her unfortunate early demise was engineered by a representative of the French government "Napoleon III and the women he loved", but no evidence to substantiate that has ever emerged.   Roy G

[abc12345]

Hi Roy,

Thanks for your reply. I agree, the painting looks very much like Harriet Howard. The painting is definitely from 1839 or earlier as it was published in the 1839 edition of Heath's Book of Beauty. The photo of the painting and the poem that describes it (from Heath's Book of Beauty 1839) are on the back of the painting. You are correct about the painting of Mrs Mountjoy Martyn in the 1841 edition of Heath's Book of Beauty.

The artist was a well known socialist painter of the time but if this is Harriet Howard she would have only been about 16 years old. Interesting stuff but I guess we will never really know. I have read quite alot about the life of Harriet and it would be nice if the painting was of her!

Thanks again for your reply. Appreciate the info.

[Roy G]

Yes its the age thing that bothers me too.  As you say, in 1839 Harriet was about 16, and the painting does not look like a 16 year old.  By 1839 Harriet had only recently parted from Jem Mason the Jockey and from what I have read, had become a rather talentless actress, who was making additional income in a tavern renowned for its gaming facilities and pretty but light fingered wenches.  I believe her association with the major may only have just started in 1839, hence the point I made about being skeptical about her already being known as Mrs Mountjoy Martyn when so young. 

There are two probable Harriet Howards in the 1841 census that could be her.  One in Islington and the one below which I favour because that would tie in with an address in Mayfair.   Harriet Howard: Female Age: 18 Birthplace: Middlesex 
Registration District: St Marylebone Sub-district: Christ Church Civil Parish: St Marylebone

The likeness and red hair however still convinces me that the picture you have was of her and not the major's legitimate wife Amelia Jenkins who he married in the Chepstow district in 1837.  Unless of course Amelia was another red haired beauty.  Whatever the outcome, I'm sure you and I will never come to blows over it.

I have looked back at my notes to try to put an age on Amelia Jenkins and find any other info that might help differentiate one from the other.  All I have at present is a marriage in Oct 1837, between Captain Francis Mountjoy Martyn and Amelia Jenkins, dtr of the late R Jenkins [Sir Richard JP formerly of Bicton Hall?] of Beachley Lodge, that took place in Tidenham, Gloucester.  Amelia MAY have been born in 1819 (IGI).  The couple produced a daughter Martha (aka Marie) Louisa Martyn who subsequently eloped and then married Frederic A Weatherly in 1857. 

You say you have read quite a lot about Harriet Howard.  My research using censuses, parish records and early street directories, suggests that over the years quite a number of falsehoods about her have been published and then accepted as fact.  Some earlier researchers also seem to have overlooked a probable second child of hers (William Alderton Haryett) who appears out of the blue and then goes missing, never to be heard of again.  He was born c1847 so could either have been Napoleon IIIs or impinged on the relationship Harriet was having with him.  No birth under the above name was ever registered, but he was baptised as a child of his elderly grandparents, just as his half brother had been several years earlier.  Send me a PM with your e-mail address, and I'll forward you a copy of my research as it stands at present with a few supporting references I have managed to find.

Roy G
I am adding a probably totally unrelated postscript, but it is a time-slip coincidence well worth mentioning. 
The picture you possess also shows the lady holding what seems to be a large pearl.  One notable excessively large pearl in those times was 'La Peregrina Pearl' then known to be in the possession of Napoleon III.  If the painting had been from marginally later, I would think the artist (who may never have seen the actual jewel) was in a way, trying to infer something by its strategic placement. 

The history of 'La Peregrina Pearl' however, is well documented and was known to be in the possession of Napoleon  III during his exile in London, before being sold to the 2nd Marques of Abercorn to help fund Napoleon's return to France.  In 1968, the same pearl was on the market again, the purchaser this time was Richard Burton who presented it to Elizabeth Taylor.   If my theory about date of the picture being a little later held water, this would have provided you with a great after dinner conversation topic.
Roy

[Roy G]

Further to the rather lengthy message I have just written, I have been looking into things a little deeper and need to ask a question.
I found a copy of Chalon's painting from 1839 advertised on the Internet, which the Gallery called:
     "Lady Mountjoy Martin" a 1839 Watercolour, 31x23 cms Illustrated in "Heaths Book of Beauty." 
Is this an error by them, for up until now, everything I have seen, including yours is entitled, "Mrs Mountjoy Martyn?" 

Could it be that the gallery has titled it incorrectly, or could the artist have produced two paintings, one of the titled wife (Lady) and later the mistress (Mrs) perhaps with subtle changes?   I am of the opinion that the legitimate wife was the daughter of Sir Richard Jenkins JP, so being know as 'Lady' would befit her. 

Unfortunately the internet image is tiny and from an oblique angle, so I am unable to say whether the image shown is identical to the one you possess, nor do I know whether that artist had a penchant for also producing mischievous alternatives.  What do you think?  
http://www.artfact.com/auction-lot/alfred-edward-chalon-1780-1860-british-lady-btq28tcns5-6-m-50c2fa7d1e
Roy G

[abc12345]

Hi Roy,

Sorry for the delayed reply. I will send you my email address as I would be really interested to see the information you have. All I have to go from is the information I can find on the internet.

The painting name is an error. The painting in your link is the same one that I have purchased and I was told it was titled 'Lady Mountjoy Martyn' as well however the hand written inscription on the back of the painting reads 'Mrs Mountjoy Maryn' and below I think it says 'Rich Hill Delf London 1839' (not sure about Delf)

After receiving the painting I am sceptical that it is the same as that featured in Heaths Book of Beauty 1839 as there are subtle differences between the picture and the painting so it may have been painted from the image in the book.

I can see what you mean about the pearl that she is holding. I had never picked up on this before.

I will send you my email address and look forward to reading your information.

Cheers

[Roy G]

Just trying to reconnect with abc12345, for several recent PMs and e-mails direct to him/you have gone unanswered.   I would like to use the illustration you posted on this website in an article being published in the June edition of the Sussex Family Historian and am asking again if you have any objection to this?
Roy G