How Old was Rose Ball?

Note: More recent research has confirmed Rose's age on entering the Russell household and shows this article's main premise to be incorrect. Please see the article Rose and Charles Ball published on June 4, 2020. However, there are some things of value in the article below so it has not been deleted.

by Jerome

(reprinted)

Rose Ball and Ernest Henninges pictured in the front row of a group photograph at a Bible Students convention in Chicago in August 1893. Rose was 24 and Ernest 22 at the time. They would marry a few years later.

When Maria Russell sued Charles Taze Russell (hereafter referred to as CTR) for a divorce from bed and board, and accused him of improprieties with other females in the household, it attracted front page headlines in Pittsburgh. It was just the sort of story about a religious figure that the papers loved. Maria’s accusations, although judged inadmissible by the judge, were still given maximum publicity in the popular press.

There were actually two accusations. One featured Rose Ball, a member of CTR’s household who had been viewed as an unofficial adopted daughter; and the other featured a servant girl, Emily Matthews. Rose had subsequently married, and at the time of the court case in 1906 was living with her husband Ernest Henninges on the other side of the world in Australia. Rose had been out of the country for several years at this time, and since Maria’s accusations were not publicised in advance, there was no way she could be called on to give evidence for either side. However, the other accusation, one far less known, involving a servant girl named Emily Matthews, was dealt with by the court. Emily still lived in Pittsburgh, and when called as a witness under her married name Emily Sheesly, testified clearly that no impropriety had ever occurred with CTR. Maria’s counsel did not even bother to cross-examine her.

One feature of the Rose Ball accusation that has continued to raise questions is her age. Maria presented her as a fully grown woman; CTR presented her as a much younger person towards whom he acted in a “fatherly” manner. There are several schools of thought on this divergence. One is that CTR stressed his fatherly concern for a young person in his household, because that was innocent; although in today’s popular climate would likely backfire. Another school of thought blames the discrepancy on Maria; that Rose’s age was inflated so that her accusations would carry more weight in the popular climate that existed then. Another interesting theory is that maybe Rose herself falsified her age – one way or the other – to get into the Russell household. Or – looking at the above photograph taken of Rose when she was 24 – maybe in her late teens she really did just look young and dress young.

This article presents another suggestion, where a simple misunderstanding over dates could possibly resolve the inconsistency. I admit this relies on conjecture, but I would ask that readers at least consider it.

Rose was born on 19 March 1869 and died in Australia on 22 November 1950 aged 81. Since 1909 she and her husband, Ernest Henninges, led a movement that broke away from ZWT over the issue of the New Covenant. They published a journal called The New Covenant Advocate, which ran from 1909-1953. Ernest was chief editor until his death in 1939. Rose then served as editor until 1944 when she handed over the reins due to advancing years. As the original adherents died out, so the paper slowly declined until it ceased publication in 1953. However, it ran for sufficient years to record Rose’s obituary in the issue for January 1, 1951. This is where her birth date comes from, allowing researchers to link up with the correct Rose Ball from genealogical records. Rose was buried with her late husband in Burwood cemetery, Victoria, but her name was never added to his memorial inscription.

So how old was Rose when she joined the Russell household? Most histories that comment on the issue state that she joined his household in 1888. This statement tallies with ZWT for February 15, 1900, which states that she had been a member of the Watch Tower family for 12 years. This was written at the time she and husband Ernest set sail abroad. I am speculating that, depending on how you define matters, this date may be misleading.

Page references below are from the original transcript of the April 1906 Russell vs Russell hearing. (For any readers who have the Paper Book of Appellant, the pagination is obviously different but the text is the same.)

Maria claimed that Rose was 19 or 20 when she came to live with them (page 67). Whereas CTR (page 135) states “she looked to be about 13 - I don’t know how old she was” and later says “she was a very young looking woman”. Some of the worst critics of CTR have chosen to accept Maria’s accusation, but then to ignore her description of Rose in favour of CTR’s - simply so they can put the worst possible spin on it and accuse him of child molestation.

However, it is interesting to see how Maria’s claim is challenged by her own testimony. On page 11 of the transcript there is a very strange exchange, which no-one ever seems to have taken issue with:

Q  How long had (Rose) been with you before this trouble arose?

A  She came to us in about 1884.

Q That would be just about the time you moved on to Clifton Avenue?

A  No, we moved on to Clifton Avenue in 1883. It was about 1889 when she came, just shortly after we moved to Clifton Avenue.

Q  Did she live with you?

A  Yes Sir.

The above exchange doesn’t make any sense; did the stenographer have an off-day? Maria moved to Clifton Avenue in 1883, Rose joined them about 1884, or rather – hasty correction - she joined them in 1889 just after they moved to Clifton Avenue…

Did Maria suddenly change her testimony mid-sentence? 1889 of course would make Rose 19 or 20, which would fit Maria’s later allegation. But if Maria changed her testimony, or just got muddled in her responses, it is a shame no-one appeared to notice it on the day to query it!

The matter is further confused by Maria stating (still on page 11) that “Rose lived with us for about twelve years.” Since Maria ceased to be part of “us” in 1897, that doesn’t fit the 1888 claim. Neither is any acknowledgement made of Rose’s marriage to Ernest Henninges. According to Rose’s death certificate she was married at the age of 25, which would be the mid 1890s. (However, one must be cautious about dates on death certificates, since the one person who could verify the information is no longer there to do so. Some internet sources give the year 1897, but I have yet to see a marriage certificate.) However, whatever year it was in the 1890s, the marriage would certainly have changed both Rose’s name and status in the household.

The possible truth of the matter is found in Maria’s earlier testimony on page 4. When recounting her various homes, she states that she moved into Clifton Avenue and lived there for ten years before moving to the Bible House in 1894.

So according to Maria’s testimony, they moved to Clifton Avenue in 1884 (or with her later statement on page 67 perhaps earlier in 1883), and shortly thereafter Rose joined them. If that was the case, Rose joined them in 1883-84. The date 1884 for her joining the household is also given in a comprehensive thesis in Spanish on Watch Tower hymnology, where Rose wrote the lyrics for several hymns used by Bible Students.

With an 1869 birth date that would make her aged about 14-15.  CTR’s claim - I don’t know how old she was – she was young looking – maybe about 13? – and with the styles of clothing worn by young women of that age group – that could be more feasible than Maria’s portrayal of a fully grown-up 19-20 year old.

But twenty years or more on, with all the more important things to remember and all that water under the bridge, it is quite possible for memory to play tricks on exact years - so could the 1888 date in the July 15, 1906 ZWT be technically incorrect? And could CTR have had more in mind her working at the new headquarters – Bible House – rather than just living at his home – when talking of her joining the “Watch Tower” family, rather than his personal family, in ZWT February 15, 1900? That might explain the apparent discrepancy.

When living in Bible House, Rose played an active part in the affairs of the WT Society. Both she, and her future husband, Ernest Henninges, were directors of the Society at one point. It is reported that Rose became a Watch Tower Society director in April 1892 and then Vice-President in January 1893 for a year, remaining as a director thereafter until going abroad in 1900. (In reality these were honorary positions needed to fulfil legal requirements). After she and Ernest married, they eventually left America to start branches of the Society in England and Germany before ending up in Australia. Rose would have known all about the court hearing and Maria’s accusations because CTR published his side of matters in ZWT in 1906, and she and Ernest still actively supported CTR’s ministry until the rift over the New Covenant issue. (See for example Henninges’ glowing Australian reports to his “dear brother” in the annual reports in ZWT for both 1906 and 1907.)

Even when, in late 1908, they chose to oppose CTR’s views on certain theological issues, and then from 1909 propounded their views in a monthly journal, mentioning CTR by name, they never used his personal conduct in their arguments. Rose could have been the star witness had there been any truth in Maria’s accusations. And what is overlooked – Emily, the other girl named, turned up in court voluntarily and supported CTR’s account.

This “explanation” of a discrepancy in the hearing is – I freely admit – just speculation on my part.

Perhaps I might be forgiven for throwing impartiality into the long grass to conclude this article.

I would like to describe another religious figure – one who is actually far better known today that CTR. See if you can guess who this is.

He was born in Britain, but after completing his education travelled to America. While there, he was arrested for slander and given bail, but immediately skipped the area and ultimately the country to escape the consequences. He also left behind a young lady, having decided after casting lots (pieces of paper taken out of a hat!) that he wouldn't stay around and marry her. Back in England after another failed relationship, he eventually married a rich widow. But one day she rummaged in his desk and found loads of affectionate letters to other women, and stormed out of the house. He put a note in his diary that basically said "Good riddance - I won't ask you back!" While separated from this wife, he then took a woman of very dubious history on as his "housekeeper". Unfortunately for him and his "housekeeper" at a special meal with other ministers and dignitaries, he had the indignity of his estranged wife bursting in and ranting about the "whore" he was currently with - in front of everyone. Their ill-feeling towards each other was so public, that when his estranged wife took sick no-body bothered to tell him until after she was dead and buried.

This makes CTR's and Maria’s misfortunes in matrimony appear quite paltry in comparison.

Who am I describing above? John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church.

The point to be stressed is that - even if Wesley was 100% at fault in the above account (and in fairness to him I have no way of knowing either way) would one be right to judge the Methodist church on that slice of history? Would Wesley's personal life ever be a good argument for or against the veracity of Methodism? If anyone went down that road, I am sure that any rational person would view them as prejudiced and unreasonable. And the fact that the above historical details are not widely circulated shows that media of today shares that view.

So whatever happened in the sad disintegration of the Russells’ marriage and the bombshell Maria dropped without warning into an open hearing – any standard of judgment should be based on the beliefs and teachings of the principals, and in the context of the times.

But over the issue of Rose’s age, the above is a possible explanation that may help harmonise the varying accounts.