Disclaimers
Please note: The written record on historic lesbians is sparse. While sodomy laws existed throughout the world criminalizing male homosexuality, oftentimes courts didn’t consider extending this further: unwilling or unable to conceptualize the idea of female homosexuality. Given the secrecy of these relationships, minimal record keeping, and the lack of overarching cultural terms, the people and relationships I write about may or may not have considered themselves ‘lesbians’ within our current cultural definitions. (I write more about the limits of applying modern labels backwards in the piece on Inanna-Ishtar.)
Many relationships or marriages between the female sex in the 18th-19th century, were guised under one individual adopting a male-passing name and dress. This could indicate that some of these individuals would have considered themselves transgender/nonbinary in our modern understanding, and not strictly or explicitly ‘female homosexuals’.
However, the choice to live outwardly as male may have been adopted simply for the purpose of safety or freedom to outwardly pursue interests towards other women. We rely heavily on court records and outsider perspectives for a look into 18th century ‘female homosexual’ relationships, so we often cannot be sure of their perspectives or identities – especially in attempts to apply or adhere to modern labels.
I will utilize an individual’s birth name and chosen name interchangeably unless explicitly noted elsewhere. I may also use a variety of pronouns when discussing these stories, depending on the context and records.
A coin toss in 1732
Mary East was born in 1716 in England. At age 16, she fell in love with her female friend (unnamed) and they decided to get married and begin their lives together.
In 1732 Mary East purchased a set of male clothing and adopted the name “James How(e)”.
This event was reported in a more palatable way for those reading this story in August of 1766 – explaining that the two friends decided to live together in this way because they had been ‘so heartbroken’ by the men in their lives that they couldn’t bear ever having to sustain that again.
It was also reported that the two decided on ‘who would be the man’ by tossing a coin, with Mary being who fate determined to live as James.
One deep dive a month, straight to your inbox.
A wealthy and well-respected couple
The couple settled in Poplar, England near London and gradually became admired, reputable members of their community. They purchased and ran a very successful tavern, The White Horse Public House, which lead to them purchasing other taverns across England and expanding their influence.
Mr. and Mrs. James How were wealthy pillars of their community, and James served in many official positions in the local Parish and juries.
The blackmail
After some years living publicly and happily, a woman cited as “Mrs. B” recognized James as Mary from their youth. Seeing their success, in 1750 Mrs. B decided to use this knowledge to blackmail James into paying her, under threat of exposing James as a woman. James complied under fear of exposure and concerns of arrest, sending her £10*. (*approx. £2,878.10 in 2026)
Over the years Mrs. B continued to periodically activate her extortion scheme, writing to James and demanding additional amounts in sums of £10 and £5. In 1765 James How’s wife died, and Mrs. B used this as an opportunity to ask for a much larger sum, hiring two men to help execute the increased extortion plan.
The two individuals forced James out of his house and through the field to Mrs. B’s house, threatening him, saying that they would let him alone if they were given £100*, otherwise he would be hanged within the month. (*Approx. £22,581.82 in 2026).
At Mrs. B’s home under these threats to his life, James agreed to get together the sum and pay it to them as soon as it was obtained, so they released him to go gather the resources.
James reported this matter to the justices with the full truth of his sex. When Mrs. B came to collect, both her and one of her hired men were arrested for extortion and assault.
In court, in a dress
James appeared before the court soon after as Mary East, and in female clothing. The report on this matter stated,
“The alteration of her dress from that of a man to that of a woman appeared so great, that together with her awkward behavior in her new assumed habit, caused great diversion to all.”
This story is one of awe and interest, that two women could not only cohabitate and operate in society, but also become very successful and well-respected in their community.
A report on the matter stated, “during the whole course of their co-habiting as man and wife, which is 34 years, they lived in good credit and esteem, having during this time traded for many thousand pounds, and to a day punctual to their payments; and had by honest means saved up between £4000; and £5000*; between them.” (*approx. £1,000,000 in 2026)
The author also noted that even with this vast accumulated wealth, they never hosted meetings in their home, never had a hired maid or help and that Mary/James would “draw beer, serve, fetch in and carry out pots always herself”.
The courts did not deem James How/Mary East as guilty of any criminal wrongdoing in this matter. The consequences of the proceedings and subsequent outing, being that the taverns must be sold and that she must resign from all public/parish offices.
James had no choice but to re-adopt the name Mary East following the court proceedings, and was reported to intend on living a quiet and wealthy retirement as a woman with “an unblemished character”.
James How died 14 years after these proceedings in 1780, and was buried as Mary East in the St. Matthias Churchyard in Poplar, England. She left her remaining wealth the family, friends, and the poor of Poplar.
What the papers decided to print
This profile of events, which was widely printed in newspapers across England, did not write Mary/James as criminal who was living in perversion, nor was she even seen as someone who was operating in the community unethically or under false means. Rather, they portrayed Mary East as a victim: An innocent heterosexual woman who simply couldn’t handle heartbreak. (so much so that she and her ‘best friend’ decided to live as man and wife for 34 years.)
It’s unclear if this portrayal and lack of criminalization was because of the goodwill and friendships James had acquired in his community over the years, or because it was a more easily accepted scenario that didn’t require any undoing of their worldview.
Female sexuality was not a consideration of society, even in heterosexual relationships of the time. It isn’t surprising that the concept of female homosexuality would have been almost incomprehensible. That same blind spot runs through three hundred years of Sappho translations.
It was much more comfortable to profile ‘Mary’ as a broken-hearted, victimized (albeit misguided) heterosexual woman.
Citations + Further Reading
- Leeds Intelligencer: August 19th, 1766 “The Female Husband; or a circumstantial Account of the extraordinary Affair which lately happened at Poplar; with many interesting Particulars, not mention’d in the publick Papers.” Accessed March 1st, 2026. <britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk>
- Rictor Norton. Ed. “Mary East, the Female Husband”, Homosexuality in Eighteenth-Century England: A Sourcebook. 6 December 2003 <http://rictornorton.co.uk/eighteen/1766east.htm>.
- “Mary East (aka James How) and Mrs How of the White Horse, Poplar”. East End Women’s Museum. Retrieved March 5, 2026. <https://eastendwomensmuseum.org/blog/2017/6/23/mary-east-aka-james-how-and-mrs-how-of-the-white-horse-poplar>
