Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Charles Who?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    From memory yes I think so. I think someone mixed up her birth date with baptism.

    Comment


    • #47
      All this talk of Lechmere makes me Cross.
      Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
      https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

      Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
      Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

      Comment


      • #48
        Happened to Charles himself too, actually ...!

        Christer

        Comment


        • #49
          What did?

          Comment


          • #50
            He suddenly found that the name Lechmere was too much in swing, and so that made him Cross ...

            Sort of.

            Christer

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Debra Arif
              OK, thanks Edward.
              What kind of mistake would this be? How does someone get entered into the parish records as 'mistakenly' christened? Just curious, it's something I've never come across before.
              Hello Debs.

              Happy New Year.

              I have two records of my great great grandfather being married on two different dates, in two different, neighbouring parishes, to the same woman, within 2 weeks of each other. After much to-ing and fro-ing it was revealed to me that very occasionally, the same minister attends the different churches because of sickness or illness, and registers in the church book some things in one church he may have already have registered in another church book.... to which it was added that sometimes a baptism can be registered twice in two different parishes as well, the mother's and the father's parish.....! least that was the explanation I got quite a few years ago. (I have never personally seen this before either).

              Don't know if this can explain the above problem, but am only quoting in full what I was told by a local archive expert a good few years ago. Both marraige references appeared in neighbouring East London parishes, by the way... (her mother parish and his mother parish).

              Phil
              from 1905...to 19.05..it was written in the stars

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Phil Carter
                Hello Debs.

                Happy New Year.

                I have two records of my great great grandfather being married on two different dates, in two different, neighbouring parishes, to the same woman, within 2 weeks of each other. After much to-ing and fro-ing it was revealed to me that very occasionally, the same minister attends the different churches because of sickness or illness, and registers in the church book some things in one church he may have already have registered in another church book.... to which it was added that sometimes a baptism can be registered twice in two different parishes as well, the mother's and the father's parish.....! least that was the explanation I got quite a few years ago. (I have never personally seen this before either).

                Don't know if this can explain the above problem, but am only quoting in full what I was told by a local archive expert a good few years ago. Both marraige references appeared in neighbouring East London parishes, by the way... (her mother parish and his mother parish).

                Phil
                Hi Phil,

                This is something different to the banns and double parish thing, I think.

                The two baptism entries for Emily are 12 years apart and in two different counties. The source call numbers show that the 1859 christening record and the 1847 christening record are from the same database "England, Births and Christenings, 1538-1975" At first I thought the 1847 record may have been user submitted but it doesn't appear to be on checking further.

                Now I have looked at the source call numbers of both records they both appear to be from genuine church records -St Peter Hereford for the 1847 one and St Dunstan Stepney for the 1859 one. The question then would be-did St Peter's Hereford record births in their parish records?

                Comment


                • #53
                  The reason I was originally interested in the possibility of Emily having had two christenings was because I wondered if both Charles and Emily's christening in 1859 as older children may have been for legal reasons? They had a step father by then, Thomas Cross, but their real father's name appears on the christening records as Colin has mentioned earlier in the thread. Could it be something to do with that? Or for inheritance purposes or something similar?
                  When did John Allen Lechmere die?

                  If Emily was christened twice and the entry in 1847 wasn't a mistake or a user submitted record (although if it is from a genuine church record it cannot really be a mistake it has to be a recording of a birth in the church records? Which would be rare, it was christenings, marriages and burials recorded, usually)

                  I'm curious as I haven't come across this before and would like to understand it.
                  Does anyone have an idea?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Debra Arif
                    Hi Phil,

                    This is something different to the banns and double parish thing, I think.

                    The two baptism entries for Emily are 12 years apart and in two different counties. The source call numbers show that the 1859 christening record and the 1847 christening record are from the same database "England, Births and Christenings, 1538-1975" At first I thought the 1847 record may have been user submitted but it doesn't appear to be on checking further.

                    Now I have looked at the source call numbers of both records they both appear to be from genuine church records -St Peter Hereford for the 1847 one and St Dunstan Stepney for the 1859 one. The question then would be-did St Peter's Hereford record births in their parish records?
                    Hello Debs,

                    Thanks for the further clarification.
                    I admit that at this point I am a little at a loss, as your follow up post further explains.
                    Again, the only instance I call recall is of my granfather being christened aged 7, after my great grandfather never returned from working on a ship 6 or more years previously. He, the great grandfather, was missing presume dead, apparently, as no other record of the man exists. So perhaps in times of death of the male "parent", when no previous christening has occured, then this happens?
                    However as you explained in this particular instance, we have a christening 12years before a christening of the same child. Most odd indeed. I have a feeling it may have to do with death of the "father"..but am very much on unsure ground.

                    Phil
                    from 1905...to 19.05..it was written in the stars

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Debra Arif
                      The reason I was originally interested in the possibility of Emily having had two christenings was because I wondered if both Charles and Emily's christening in 1859 as older children may have been for legal reasons? They had a step father by then, Thomas Cross, but their real father's name appears on the christening records as Colin has mentioned earlier in the thread. Could it be something to do with that? Or for inheritance purposes or something similar?
                      When did John Allen Lechmere die?

                      If Emily was christened twice and the entry in 1847 wasn't a mistake or a user submitted record (although if it is from a genuine church record it cannot really be a mistake it has to be a recording of a birth in the church records? Which would be rare, it was christenings, marriages and burials recorded, usually)

                      I'm curious as I haven't come across this before and would like to understand it.
                      Does anyone have an idea?
                      Hi Deb

                      The explanation could be that the original Emily died, then the family had another child that they named Emily, unless you know that it is definitely the same child.

                      Best regards

                      Chris
                      Christopher T. George, Lyricist & Co-Author, "Jack the Musical"
                      https://www.facebook.com/JackTheMusical/ Hear sample song at https://tinyurl.com/y8h4envx.

                      Organizer, RipperCon #JacktheRipper-#True Crime Conferences, April 2016 and 2018.
                      Hear RipperCon 2016 & 2018 talks at http://www.casebook.org/podcast/.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        I haven't got my records with me but I think that in 1859 John Lechmere was living in Daventry with another family - he didn't marry but his new partner called herself Lechmere. He died in about 1879.
                        Maria Lechmere described herself as a widow (I think - again going from memory) when she married Thomas Cross in (I think) 1857. This was before the baptism of her children.
                        The baptismal record merely records the fathers name. Not whether he is also alive or dead or present.
                        There are various loose ends I have to tie up at Hereford some time soon and when I do I will check Emily's records.

                        PS it was definately the same child as we have the age.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Chris G.
                          Hi Deb

                          The explanation could be that the original Emily died, then the family had another child that they named Emily, unless you know that it is definitely the same child.

                          Best regards

                          Chris
                          Chris, no it is definitely the same child as she appears aged 14 as Emily Cross on the 1861 census, along with the rest of Cross/Lechmere family.

                          Thanks Edward. I wonder if John ran off and was presumed dead?

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Phil Carter
                            Hello Debs,

                            Thanks for the further clarification.
                            I admit that at this point I am a little at a loss, as your follow up post further explains.
                            Again, the only instance I call recall is of my granfather being christened aged 7, after my great grandfather never returned from working on a ship 6 or more years previously. He, the great grandfather, was missing presume dead, apparently, as no other record of the man exists. So perhaps in times of death of the male "parent", when no previous christening has occured, then this happens?
                            However as you explained in this particular instance, we have a christening 12years before a christening of the same child. Most odd indeed. I have a feeling it may have to do with death of the "father"..but am very much on unsure ground.

                            Phil
                            Sorry Phil, missed this. Yes, it could still be to do a presumed death of the father maybe.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Here is a Christer’s article as it looked in the Sydsvenskannewspaper. And very impressive it is to.
                              I am sure that this will have sparked a new wave of interest in the Whitechapel Murders in Sweden. Even if one or two people on this forum don’t share Christer’s proffered solution, then that much should at least be agreed.
                              I think the graphics are amazing, and I like the avoidance of the top hat and cape motif.
                              I also like the map with various routes marked out.
                              Click image for larger version

Name:	christer 1.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	195.9 KB
ID:	553097
                              Click image for larger version

Name:	christer 2.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	316.5 KB
ID:	553098
                              Click image for larger version

Name:	christer 3.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	216.7 KB
ID:	553099

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Here’s the last page
                                Click image for larger version

Name:	christer 4.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	218.7 KB
ID:	553100
                                Who’s that geezer?
                                Click image for larger version

Name:	christer 5.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	205.5 KB
ID:	553101

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X
                                👍