Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Suggested annotations for Hallie Rubenhold's book "The Five" (2019)

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

  • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

    Thanks very much - that's very helpful.

    The image corresponding to the first part of your transcript is at post 54 of that thread:
    https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...323#post425323

    The image corresponding to the part numbered 1, 2, 3 was posted by Stewart Evans, who headed it "Holborn Union 12 March 1888":
    https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...147#post268147

    I assume the final bit is a continuation of that.

    As you say, the notes on the examination are a copy from Lambeth records. But unless there was any more than that in the Holborn record cited by Rubenhold, it doesn't appear to say anything about Holborn awarding her a payment. If I understand correctly, it says a payment had been "agreed" at a previous time. And that is according to Polly herself.
    Yes, if that is the record Rubenhold was working from , it says nothing about Tavener other than the amount was agreed at one time . The whole record was to establish if Nichols had any right to be staying in the Holborn Union through settlement and part of that examination was about William, her husband, paying her maintenance and mentions Tavener of the Lambeth workhouse concerning a time in the past. It's a history of Nichols settlement.
    It would be interesting if the Holborn version is different because as I mentioned in another post recently, Stewart Evans once posted a page from a settlement record for Nichols which mentioned her having a stepfather, which is very curious.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

      Yes, if that is the record Rubenhold was working from , it says nothing about Tavener other than the amount was agreed at one time . The whole record was to establish if Nichols had any right to be staying in the Holborn Union through settlement and part of that examination was about William, her husband, paying her maintenance and mentions Tavener of the Lambeth workhouse concerning a time in the past. It's a history of Nichols settlement.
      It would be interesting if the Holborn version is different because as I mentioned in another post recently, Stewart Evans once posted a page from a settlement record for Nichols which mentioned her having a stepfather, which is very curious.
      Sorry, I should have said it didn't mention Lambeth awarding her a payment, not Holborn!

      Comment


      • If you look at the the images posted by Stewart Evans and said to be from the Holborn records, it shows the letter addressed from the Holborn Union, dated 12th February 1888 that is also in the images I posted from the Lambeth records. Would the Holborn Union have a letter addressed from themselves in the file? Perhaps it is the case that they kept a duplicate of everything to keep in both sets of records but it seems unusual. I'd expect the Holborn version to include the replies from Lambeth Union?

        Comment


        • So as we have it in that Lambeth copy, there is only an agreement that her husband should pay the weekly sum, not an "award". And going back to the point Rubenhold was making - that the relieving officer couldn't have accepted that the marriage had broken down because of her drinking (because the author of a book of advice for Guardians of the Poor didn't think outdoor relief should be granted to a deserted wife who drank), that argument is therefore baseless, because there is no evidence that she was granted anything by the Guardians except indoor relief.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
            If you look at the the images posted by Stewart Evans and said to be from the Holborn records, it shows the letter addressed from the Holborn Union, dated 12th February 1888 that is also in the images I posted from the Lambeth records. Would the Holborn Union have a letter addressed from themselves in the file? Perhaps it is the case that they kept a duplicate of everything to keep in both sets of records but it seems unusual. I'd expect the Holborn version to include the replies from Lambeth Union?
            That's a good point. And Stewart's headings may have been indicating only that those documents originated from Holborn Union, not which archival series they were held in.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post


              HOBG/510/018 is described in the LMA catalogue as Holborn Board of Guardians, "Settlement examinations: Grays Inn Road and City Road (Indexed)," and is dated 1888. It should be available on Ancestry, but after spending some time browsing for it (I hope in the right collection(s) this time) I haven't been able to find it. I wonder if anyone here has either already seen it, or is able to locate it?
              The only settlement books for Holborn on Ancestry that I managed to locate for the right dates all began HO503 or 504 and most of them were related to St Giles and St George Bloomsbury.
              I checked Orders of removal,settlement and relief and Miscellaneous for Holborn>Holborn, City of London>Holborn, Holborn>City of London and City of London>City of London but came up blank.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

                The only settlement books for Holborn on Ancestry that I managed to locate for the right dates all began HO503 or 504 and most of them were related to St Giles and St George Bloomsbury.
                I checked Orders of removal,settlement and relief and Miscellaneous for Holborn>Holborn, City of London>Holborn, Holborn>City of London and City of London>City of London but came up blank.
                Thanks very much for trying. At least it's not just me this time.

                I think I'll email the LMA to see if they can advise me how to find this record on Ancestry. I feel sure it would be a waste of time asking Ancestry.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                  Thanks very much for trying. At least it's not just me this time.

                  I think I'll email the LMA to see if they can advise me how to find this record on Ancestry. I feel sure it would be a waste of time asking Ancestry.
                  I did also try to search via her name because as I think I mentioned before, as the browsable, unindexed records from the poor law database are eventually indexed, they go on to a different database and some records from Holborn settlement register appear to be on Selected Poor Law Removal and Settlement Records, 1698-1930. Having said that, i didn't have any luck there either.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

                    I did also try to search via her name because as I think I mentioned before, as the browsable, unindexed records from the poor law database are eventually indexed, they go on to a different database and some records from Holborn settlement register appear to be on Selected Poor Law Removal and Settlement Records, 1698-1930. Having said that, i didn't have any luck there either.
                    I think that was one of the collections I browsed earlier.

                    I've submitted an enquiry to LMA.

                    Comment


                    • An Information Officer from the LMA was very helpful. He sent me instructions on how to find HOBG 510/18 at Ancestry. He had managed to find it "After much searching".

                      Ancestry has placed it in the "Poor Law and Board of Guardian Records, 1738-1926" collection, under the borough of Camden, Poor Law Union of Holborn, section on Settlement Papers, as part of the item entitled "Settlement Examinations, 1868-1890". Regarding the payment to Polly by her husband, it says the same as the Lambeth Union copy posted by Debs previously.

                      The boundary map at visionofbritain.org.uk does indeed show that part of the then Holborn Poor Law Union was in the modern borough of Camden. So in a way the placement by Ancestry in that borough is correct, but I don't think it's at all a sensible way of organising historical records. But what would have made the record so difficult to find even looking in Camden is that that volume is just part of a 3942-image Ancestry item, starting at image 2908. I have to take my hat off to the tenacity of the man from the LMA.

                      Click image for larger version  Name:	NicholsExamination.jpg Views:	0 Size:	449.4 KB ID:	593405

                      Comment


                      • Wow, well done to that man at the LMA!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post
                          An Information Officer from the LMA was very helpful. He sent me instructions on how to find HOBG 510/18 at Ancestry. He had managed to find it "After much searching".

                          Ancestry has placed it in the "Poor Law and Board of Guardian Records, 1738-1926" collection, under the borough of Camden, Poor Law Union of Holborn, section on Settlement Papers, as part of the item entitled "Settlement Examinations, 1868-1890". Regarding the payment to Polly by her husband, it says the same as the Lambeth Union copy posted by Debs previously.

                          The boundary map at visionofbritain.org.uk does indeed show that part of the then Holborn Poor Law Union was in the modern borough of Camden. So in a way the placement by Ancestry in that borough is correct, but I don't think it's at all a sensible way of organising historical records. But what would have made the record so difficult to find even looking in Camden is that that volume is just part of a 3942-image Ancestry item, starting at image 2908. I have to take my hat off to the tenacity of the man from the LMA.
                          Great, Chris!

                          Comment


                          • Refreshing to read about someone going the the extra yards foe once!

                            Is the length of Mrs Nichols entry longer than normal compared to the others in there record book?
                            Thanks for your time,
                            dusty miller

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Dusty Miller View Post
                              Refreshing to read about someone going the the extra yards foe once!

                              Is the length of Mrs Nichols entry longer than normal compared to the others in there record book?
                              I just had a quick browse, and it is certainly longer than average. I saw a few others of about the same length, but not very many.

                              Comment


                              • I wonder if there are more detailed orders of removal outwards records from Holborn union other than the brief excerpts I transcribed a couple of years ago (and foolishly didn't note the BG reg No of)

                                Register of orders of removal outwards Holborn union
                                3342 Nicholls Mary Ann, 14 Feb order 7th March written underneath date, removed to Lambeth, nature of settlement residence,
                                posred 14th Feb 1888, not accepted.

                                3356 7th March Nicholls Mary Ann, settlement Lambeth, settlement through residence, posted at the post office K? Green on the
                                on the 12th March by me signature added William P? delivered to the porter the Lambeth workhouse on 16th April 1888 by the HB??
                                maintenance 1 p 5 s paid 19th May 1888, depns 21/3/88

                                Lambeth Lambeth Orders of Removal Register of orders of removal and adjudication inwards, 1877-1889
                                851 March 7th Nicholls Mary Ann, age 36, order obtained by Holborn Union, March 13th, pauper removed april 16th 1888,
                                from Mitcham workhouse, time charged 13th march 1888 to 16th april 1888, cost 1 pound 4 shillings 5 weeks, paid 2nd may 88

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X