Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast Episode 340 – Mary/Charles Hamilton: The Original Female Husband

Saturday, April 18, 2026 - 13:40

lhmpodcast.jpg

Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast - Episode 340 – Mary/Charles Hamilton: The Original Female Husband - transcript

(Originally aired 2026/04/18)

Introduction

In 1746, a novelist named Henry Fielding wrote a sensational pamphlet, in the style of a criminal confession, titled The Female Husband: or, the Surprising History of Mrs Mary, Alias Mr George Hamilton. Hamilton was not the first case of a woman marrying while passing as a man. Nor was this the first use of the phrase “female husband”—there’s a reference in a ballad in the 17th century. But Fielding’s publication connected the phrase and the scenario in the popular imagination and helped spur a journalistic fascination for gender-crossing husbands that lasted at least a couple centuries. Yet Fielding’s pamphlet is—for the most part—a work of fiction. So what were the actual facts, and how did Fielding distort them?

This episode centers around a person who was assigned female at birth, lived as a woman until their mid-teens, then put on male-coded clothing and took up a male-coded profession, and later married a woman and engaged in penetrative sex. From a modern point of view, Hamilton’s story would appear to be unquestionably that of a trans man. From the point of view of Hamilton’s contemporaries, there was no question Hamilton was a woman. We have no direct evidence what Hamilton thought about the topic.

These questions are not simple or straightforward. In an era when economic opportunities were segregated by gender, and when maintaining a gender role came with certain expectations regarding romantic and sexual interactions, and when some theories of sexual desire considered that the object of one’s affections was evidence of one’s gender identity, we shouldn’t assume that gender performance always correlates with internal gender identity. That said, in order to acknowledge the ambiguity of Hamilton’s situation, in this podcast I will refer to Hamilton by surname and use they/them pronouns except when quoting primary sources.

Regardless of Hamilton’s individual identity, their case provides general evidence regarding how 18th century English society thought about the possibilities of female same-sex relations, especially in the highly fictionalized elaborations on the story that Henry Fielding created.

The Factual Outline

Before we turn to Fielding’s fictions, let’s review the documentary facts. In September 1746, a woman named Mary Price complained to town authorities that Charles Hamilton, the man she had recently married, was actually a woman. Depositions were taken, the matter was judged at the Quarter Sessions a month later, and Hamilton was convicted of fraud under the vagrancy laws and sentenced to whipping and 6 months hard labor.

The basic facts are laid out in the first-hand testimony recorded from Hamilton and Price. (Both statements were originally recorded in first person, then later edited to be in third person. I’ve restored the first person version for greater immediacy and edited it slightly to read more smoothly.) Hamilton was recorded as being one Mary Hamilton, daughter of William Hamilton and Mary his wife.

“I was Born in the County of Somerset but do not know in what parish, and went from thence to the Shire of Angus in Scotland, and there continued till I was about fourteen years of age, and then put on my brother’s clothes and travelled for England, and in Northumberland entered into the service of Doctor Edward Green, a mountebank and continued with him between two and three years, and then entered into the service of Doctor Finly Green and continued with him near a twelve month, and then set up for a quack doctor myself, and travelled through several counties of England, and at length came to the County of Devonshire, and from thence into Somersetshire in the month of May last past where I have followed the business of a quack doctor, continuing to wear man’s apparel ever since I put on my brother’s, before I came out of Scotland.

“In the course of my travels in man’s apparel I came to the city of Wells and went by the name of Charles Hamilton, and quartered in the house of Mary Creed, where lived her niece Mary Price, to whom I proposed marriage, and the said Mary Price consented, and then I put in the bans of marriage to Mr Kingston, curate of St Cuthberts in the City of Wells, and was by Mr Kingston married to Mary Price, in the parish Church of St Cuthberts on the sixteenth day of July last past, and have since traveled as a husband with her in several parts of the county .”

Hamilton’s testimony is spare and makes no mention of motivations. Was the gender-crossing specifically for the sake of pursuing a medical education? (Note that a mountebank or quack doctor referred to an informal medical practice as opposed to formal training at a university. The word didn’t necessarily have the implication of deceit and fraud that it has today.) Such an education would not have been accessible to a woman, and the 3 to 4-year apprenticeship described indicates a rather solid commitment to the profession. That alone could have been Hamilton’s reason for cross-dressing. Why did Hamilton propose marriage to Mary Price? Was it love? Would having a wife provide some practical advantage in their profession? Was it intended as a flirtation that got too serious and there was a risk of breach of promise? There are no clues. (Fielding offers a greater context, but Fielding lies a lot. We’ll get to that.)

Mary Price provided a deposition, giving her side of the story. (Again, I’ve restored the first person and done light editing to make the prose work.)

“In the month of May last past, a person who called himself by the name of Charles Hamilton introduced himself into my company and made his Addresses to me, and prevailed on me to be married to him, which I accordingly was on the sixteenth day of July last by the Reverend Mr Kingston, Curate of the Parish of St Cuthbert in Wells. After our marriage we lay together several nights, and the pretended Charles Hamilton who had married me entered my body several times, which made me believe, at first, that Hamilton was a real man, but soon I had reason to judge that Hamilton was not a man but a woman, which Hamilton acknowledged and confessed afterwards on my complaint to the Justices when brought before them that she [that is, Hamilton] was such to my great prejudice.”

Prices’s story is that she was courted, persuaded to marry, and convinced that she had married a man. When she discovered otherwise, two months later, she brought the complaint. While Price could have had significant motivation to spin the story in a way that made her appear naïve and innocent, there’s nothing to indicate that she had any concerns about her husband before the marriage or that she was anything but surprised and disappointed once she learned differently. (This is not a universal experience for the wives of female husbands.)

If the newspapers are to be believed (which aren’t necessarily a fully reliable source), Hamilton put a bold face on their situation before the trial, continuing to ply their trade from jail. The Bath Journal notes, “There are great numbers of people flock to see her in Bridewell, to whom she sells a great deal of her quackery; and appears very bold and impudent. She seems very gay, with perriwig, ruffles, and breeches; and it is publicly talked, that she has deceived several of the fair sex, by marrying them.”

The Quarter Session records themselves make no reference to any other marriage entered into by Hamilton. While the Bath Journal initially asserts there were “several,” a later update expands the number to an implausible 14, while also offering several clearly false details, such as adding an alias of George Hamilton and extending the length of the marriage to Price, as well as introducing the motif that Hamilton performed sex “using certain vile and deceitful Practices, not fit to be mentioned.” These motifs will later show up in Fielding’s version.

Technically, although Price brought the matter to the attention of the town council, she made no accusation of a crime. It was the council who decided that they needed to identify a crime. In fact, the justices seem to have been uncertain how to charge Hamilton, based on a comment in the Bath Journal that, “There was a great debate for some time in court about the nature of her crime, and what to call it, but at last it was agreed, that she was an uncommon notorious Cheat.” The Quarter Sessions record that Hamilton was, “Continued as a vagrant for six months to hard labour” in addition to the corporal punishment.

Vagrancy was something of a catch-all category, especially for those not long-term residents in an area who were pursuing irregular or casual work. The maximum sentence for vagrancy was hard labor not exceeding 6 months, whipping, and being “sent away.” The first two punishments were clearly applied in Hamilton’s case. The last generally indicates being returned to the person’s parish of origin, but Hamilton appears to have traveled much further.

In 1752—6 years after Hamilton’s trial—an item appears in the Pennsylvania Gazette regarding an itinerant doctor named Charles Hamilton who had been “brought up to the business of a Doctor and Surgeon under one Doctor Green, a noted Mountebank in England” and had been sailing to Pennsylvania but by mischance ended up in North Carolina instead. After working northward through Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware, selling medicines and treating patients, Hamilton finally arrived in Philadelphia. For some unknown reason a local “suspected that the doctor was a woman in men’s clothes.” Dr Hamilton was examined and found to be a woman; and confessed they had used that disguise for several years. In this case, Dr. Hamilton was held briefly to see if anyone brought any complaints, but there being none, was discharged. The act of gender disguise itself was not a crime in 18th century Pennsylvania and the colonies necessarily had rather different attitudes towards itinerant workers than England did. The only concern was that the disguise had been for some nefarious purpose.

Is this the same “Charles Hamilton?” The coincidences are too strong to dismiss. An itinerant quack doctor who had trained under a Dr. Green, who was using the name Charles Hamilton, and who was a woman passing as a man? One might ask whether this was a newspaper fiction piggybacking on Fielding’s pamphlet, except that Fielding makes no reference at all to Dr. Green or to any aspect of Hamilton’s medical training. So whether Hamilton was sent to the colonies or went voluntarily, they appear to have ended up being able to practice their profession with slightly less harassment than in England. Is this evidence that Hamilton had a persistent male gender identity? Or is it evidence that, in order to continue to practice medicine, Hamilton needed to continue to do so as a man? Again, the question is unresolved.

Fielding’s Version of the Story

As S. Baker extensively demonstrates in a 1959 article, Fielding appears to have constructed his fictional version of the Hamilton story on the basis of two newspaper reports and possibly some personal discussion with a cousin who was consulted on the sentencing (but was not present at the trial). Fielding definitely was not present himself at the Quarter Sessions trial and appears to have had no access to the depositions presented there.

In addition to changing Hamilton’s alias from Charles to George, Fielding changes their birthplace to the Isle of Man and adds biographical details for their parents. Residence in Scotland is eliminated from the story, and Hamilton is given an initial sapphic sexual initiation by a neighbor, whose sexual deviance is attributed to being a Methodist. Fielding seems to have had it seriously in for Methodists, for—after being thrown over by their first lover in favor of marriage to a man—Hamilton decides to put on men’s clothing and take up a career as a Methodist preacher in Dublin, Ireland.

While in Dublin, Hamilton progresses through two courtships of women. The first, inspired by love, is rejected. The second, inspired by mercenary desire for the woman’s back account, resulted in a marriage which was consummated “by means which decency forbids me even to mention.” Fielding is consistently coy with respect to sexual topics and in his final coda boasts that “not a single word occurs through the whole, which might shock the most delicate ear, or give offence to the purest chastity.” So while we can interpolate that some sort of sexual device may be indicated, we don’t know exactly what Fielding imagined.

This first wife soon discovered the truth of the matter and sent Hamilton packing—literally, for they left Dublin for England. There, Fielding finally introduces Hamilton’s medical career, though with no reference to any training. Hamilton falls in love with one of their patients and marries again, only to be once more revealed in bed, resulting in another flight. Mary Price was Hamilton’s fourth courtship and third marriage, and in Fieldings version was the daughter of Hamilton’s landlady, not her niece (as in the testimony). Per Fielding, Mary continued in ignorance of her husband’s nature—indeed, she protested that he was a true man—through the trial, and it was her mother who had become suspicious and made the complaint. Fielding adds the salacious detail that, during investigation of the complaint, Hamilton’s trunk was searched and turned up the artificial penis to be used in evidence against them. (The trial record makes no reference to anything of this sort. In fact the trial record could be consistent with digital penetration rather than using an instrument.)

Fielding offers the hope that publicizing Hamilton’s punishment will serve as a deterrent to others, though Hamilton is framed as unrepentant. Fielding invents a claim that Hamilton “offered the gaoler money, to procure her a young girl to satisfy her most monstrous and unnatural desires.”

In sum, Fielding’s inventions and additions include a seduction into lesbian sex preceding Hamilton’s cross-dressing, multiple marriages, at least one of which was for financial gain, an attempt to procure sex for money, and a clear indication that a penetrative instrument was used (something less conclusively hinted at in the trial record). The question of bigamy is never mentioned, presumably because no one considered any of Hamilton’s marriages to be valid in the first place. (This is a change from the marriage of Amy Poulter and Arabella Hunt, a century earlier, whose marriage was annulled specifically because Poulter was already married at the time.)

The Charges

But despite Fielding’s focus on the sexual aspects of the case, we return to the fact that what Hamilton was convicted of was a form of vagrancy, not a sexual offense. Now, “vagrancy” in 18th century England covered a wide variety of issues, all generally revolving around the idea that people pursuing an itinerant life—especially without a fixed or formal occupation—represented a hazard to the community. This included the homeless, the unemployed, and those whose employment was casual or was considered to include fraud. If you were homeless or unemployed, you were supposed to be the responsibility of your home parish, not the responsibility of whatever community you happened to be passing through. Regardless of how successful Hamilton’s profession of quack doctor might have been, it fell in a fuzzy category of suspect professions that also included traveling entertainers and unlicensed peddlers.

Vagrancy wasn’t the only possible charge that could have been brought. Other female husbands were charged with fraud, especially if it appeared that the marriage had been made to gain access to the bride’s money or goods.

But England had no laws against cross-dressing or against sex between women. Even apart from this lack, the public response to female husbands worked hard to erase or silence the potential sexual implications. Newspaper accounts use various techniques to avoid recognizing lesbian potential: ridicule, attribution of financial motives, an emphasis on elements of the stories that undermine the image of commitment, such as serial or bigamous marriages, or depicting the marriage as intended as a joke.

But the sexual possibilities were exactly what drew the most official attention. Women living as men in 18th century England were rarely prosecuted. Given the legal and social constraints on women’s lives, there were many non-romantic motivations for gender disguise. The law restricted its concern to cases involving marriage. Regardless of the legal facts, there was a general sense that lesbianism should be criminal, as reflected in the use of that word in casual references (or as a euphemism).

To some extent, it’s only in comparison to punishments for male sodomy that the punishments for female husbands seem light. Sentences of whipping, imprisonment, and pillorying were among the harshest available for non-capital crimes and often harsher than typical sentences for fraud and vagrancy, whereas men could be condemned to death. The point remains that, in contrast to male homosexuality, the simple fact of sex between women was neither officially criminal nor pursued by the law under other cover. Nor did simple cross-dressing typically attract legal response. It was only the conjunction of the two that left the authorities scrambling for an applicable charge. And even within that conjunction, the law often shrugged and turned away.

The Social Context

Fielding’s interest in the Hamilton case had a larger social and literary context, although he ran counter to those contexts in several ways. Masquerade entertainments were popular in the 18th century, including cross-gender masquerading. In combination with the sexual license encouraged by masked anonymity, these events created the potential for same-sex erotic encounters—whether by accident, by misperception, or using the disguise as cover. Moral concerns typically targeted the possibility that masquerades enabled male sexual encounters, while criticism of women attending masquerades in male garb more typically focused on it being a form of rebellion against “women’s proper place.” Fielding was among those who criticized the popularity of public masquerades as providing a context for vice and immorality.

Fielding’s treatise also comes at the end of a half century of an unusually positive interest in what Susan Lanser calls the “sapphic picaresque” genre of literature, which she defines as involving a same-sex connection within a non-domestic context, especially involving travel. These stories tend to have an episodic structure and present the illusion of a realistic “true narrative.” Drawing from the traditional picaresque genre, the protagonist often fits the “loveable rogue” image—morally ambiguous and unconventional. The protagonists challenge not only the patriarchal status quo but the interplay between class and sexuality.

As examples of this genre, Lanser notes Delarivier Manley’s New Atalantis, Eliza Haywood’s The British Recluse, Jane Barker’s The Unaccountable Wife, Giovanni Bianchi’s biography of Caterina Vizzani, Charlotte Charke’s autobiography, and the anonymous Travels and Adventures of Mademoiselle de Richelieu.

Fielding’s version of Hamilton fits into this genre in involving travel, episodic romantic encounters, a somewhat roguish protagonist, and presentation as a “true narrative.” It diverges from the sapphic picaresque genre in that some of the sapphic encounters are mediated through gender disguise, and in that the disguise inevitably fails. Whether or not Fielding was responding directly to this literary fashion, the juxtaposition points out that social attitudes towards sapphic themes can be erratic and contradictory. No era has displayed uniform hostility or uniform approval of sapphic lives.

Why did Fielding create this elaborate fiction of Hamilton’s life? The best answer seems to be “for the money”—which may well also be what motivated the real life Hamilton to take up a cross-dressed medical career. But people are complicated, and both Fielding and Hamilton no doubt had multiple reasons for their actions.

In this episode we talk about:

The factual story of Mary/Charles Hamilton
Henry Fielding’s fictional version in The Female Husband
The larger historic and literary context
Sources mentioned
- Baker, S. 1959. “Henry Fielding’s The Female Husband: Fact and Fiction” in PMLA, 74 pp.213-24.
- Castle, T. 1983-4. “Eros and Liberty at the English Masquerade, 1710-90” in Eighteenth-Century Studies, XVII, 2: 156-76.
- Derry, Caroline. 2020. Lesbianism and the Criminal Law: Three Centuries of Legal Regulation in England and Wales. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-3-030-35299-8
- Donoghue, Emma. 1995. Passions Between Women: British Lesbian Culture 1668-1801. Harper Perennial, New York. ISBN 0-06-017261-4
- Friedli, Lynne. 1987. “Passing Women: A Study of Gender Boundaries in the Eighteenth Century” in Rousseau, G. S. and Roy Porter (eds). Sexual Underworlds of the Enlightenment. Manchester University Press, Manchester. ISBN 0-8078-1782-1
- Fielding, Henry. 1746. The Female Husband: or, the Surprising History of Mrs Mary, Alias Mr George Hamilton. Liverpool, M. Cooper. (https://archive.org/details/bim_eighteenth-century_the-female-husband-or...)
- Lanser, Susan. 2001. “Sapphic Picaresque: Sexual Difference and the Challenges of Homoadventuring” in Textual Practice 15:2 (November 2001): 1-18.
- Lyons, Clare A. 2007. “Mapping an Atlantic Sexual Culture: Homoeroticism in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia” in: Foster, Thomas A. (ed). Long Before Stonewall: Histories of Same-Sex Sexuality in Early America. New York University Press, New York. ISBN 13-978-0-8147-2749-2
- Manion, Jen. “The Queer History of Passing as a Man in Early Pennsylvania.” Pennsylvania Legacies, vol. 16, no. 1, 2016, pp. 6–11.
- Manion, Jen. 2020. Female Husbands: A Trans History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 978-1-108-48380-3
The full text of The Female Husband by Henry Fielding can be found at archive.org
This topic is discussed in one or more entries of the Lesbian Historic Motif Project here: Charles/Mary Hamilton, The Female Husband (Henry Fielding)