Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Catholic Census, 1893

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
    I notice on the 17th March discharge that it says he is being readmitted.
    I jotted it down as 9/4/1887. I've got a 4.a.m start tomorrow, so I'll get back to this on the train journey to sunny Dorset.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
      I jotted it down as 9/4/1887. I've got a 4.a.m start tomorrow, so I'll get back to this on the train journey to sunny Dorset.
      Duh! I took the address from the wrong column.

      Comment


      • I emailed Findmypast to ask when in 1893 the census was taken and received the very helpful response, ' The census was taken on and after June 1, 1890.'

        Comment


        • I’ve found what appears to be the 1893 Catholic Census record for the Crispin Street women’s refuge.

          It’s headed up ‘Crispin Street’ and it contains the names of approx 60 women and girls, so it’s obviously some kind of institution.

          The only problem is it is classified as being in the Moorfields Mission district. I’m wondering if that might have been a hangover from when the refuge was actually in Providence Row, near Finsbury Square, a short distance from the RC church of St. Mary, Moorfields.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
            I emailed Findmypast to ask when in 1893 the census was taken and received the very helpful response, ' The census was taken on and after June 1, 1890.'
            Belatedly (I only just saw this, having been away a while) - If this can be taken literally, (and maybe it can, because I doubt churches had anything like the resources of government departments), does this not then add some possible verisimilitude to the Carroty Nell entry mentioned earlier in the thread?

            Dave

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
              Belatedly (I only just saw this, having been away a while) - If this can be taken literally, (and maybe it can, because I doubt churches had anything like the resources of government departments), does this not then add some possible verisimilitude to the Carroty Nell entry mentioned earlier in the thread?

              Dave
              Dave,

              It hadn’t occurred to me that 1890 was anything other than a mistake. I think it must be, but I’ll get back to FMP to find out .

              Gary

              Comment


              • 1893-4 according to page 24 here :


                http://www.brin.ac.uk/wp-content/upl...statistics.pdf

                Comment


                • Thanks Gary, I've no particular axe to grind or anything, but it was just a passing thought having re-read the thread!
                  Dave

                  PS I've still got the tie, though even less of the hair!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
                    Thanks, Rob.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cogidubnus View Post
                      Thanks Gary, I've no particular axe to grind or anything, but it was just a passing thought having re-read the thread!
                      Dave

                      PS I've still got the tie, though even less of the hair!
                      No worries, Dave. I’ve sent them an email. I seem to remember they took an age to reply last time I contacted them.

                      Comment


                      • To Join JTR Forums :
                        Contact [email protected]

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
                          Debra Arif alerted us to the latest offerings from Find My Past, including the 1893 census of the Westminster Roman Catholic diocese.

                          I've started looking through it and it's a veritable gold mine - a cross between the national census and the commentaries of Charles Booth.

                          Just look at these comments about Ship Alley:

                          [ATTACH]17302[/ATTACH]
                          I’ve been discussing the Belgian aspect of Highway prostitution with someone elsewhere, and looking at this note again has me wondering whether the Belgian girls of Virginia Street and John’s Hill were in addition to the 20 at 5/6 Ship Alley. There are other references to Belgium - Antwerp in particular - in relation to this small area of the East End. The person I’ve been talking to raised the possibility that MJK may have gone to Belgium rather than France.

                          If the ‘Belgian girls’ were Catholic, does that make it more likely they were French speakers than Flemish speakers?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

                            I’ve been discussing the Belgian aspect of Highway prostitution with someone elsewhere, and looking at this note again has me wondering whether the Belgian girls of Virginia Street and John’s Hill were in addition to the 20 at 5/6 Ship Alley. There are other references to Belgium - Antwerp in particular - in relation to this small area of the East End. The person I’ve been talking to raised the possibility that MJK may have gone to Belgium rather than France.

                            If the ‘Belgian girls’ were Catholic, does that make it more likely they were French speakers than Flemish speakers?
                            It's a possibility I suppose, Gary.
                            We also touched very briefly on the Morgenstern's being in Antwerp and the possibility of them being involved in trafficking in the past, which is also an interesting idea.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

                              It's a possibility I suppose, Gary.
                              We also touched very briefly on the Morgenstern's being in Antwerp and the possibility of them being involved in trafficking in the past, which is also an interesting idea.
                              Yes, we did. Looking at the 1891 census, there was a mixture of nationalities living at those two addresses, French, German, Belgian, Dutch, Greek and Brits. The comment, ‘As to occupations not reliable’ suggests the enumerator had their suspicions.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X