What is verifiable fact is that in 1639, Wenceslas Hollar, a renowned etcher from Prague, accompanied King Charles I to Hull to draw a plan of the important buildings and military establishments in the walls of the town. Hollar's plan of 1640 shows the area around Bowlalley lane and Land of Green Ginger to have several buildings but no White Hart. Why would the building, said to have been the home of the Town's Governor, not be on the map, that was made to show areas of military importance? Could it be, that the building wasn't built then? Interestingly several local historians wrote histories of Hull and none made any mention of this property being the home of Sir John Hotham.
Among them, Abraham De La Pryme, who wrote his work in 1700, but it remained unpublished until 1986, Thomas Gent, who wrote his work in 1735, and Hadley, who wrote his work in 1788.
Why would contempory historians not mention such an important detail in Hull's history?
Recent reports on the structure indicate the brickwork being no older then the 1660's, thus indicating that the building could not have been there for Hollar to draw, and certainly not have been there for Sir John Hotham to have been housed in.
So, when do we first learn that the building belonged to Sir John Hotham?
The earliest known publication is Sheahan's History of Hull 1864, in which he mentions that the building was, "Supposed to have been the residence of Sir John Hotham" Could it be that this was nothing more than a Victorian myth, that over the years, has grown to become accepted fact?
