Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

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

  • The fact that the death notice described him as the oldest (longest serving?) Pier Commissioner, a position of some significance in the town, is omitted by HR. As you can see from the other examples (I looked at dozens) these notices were generally short and to the point. They weren’t obituaries, they were simple death notices.

    Comment


    • Just going back to Mr Taverner again - I was just looking at the thread Debs linked to, and getting more bewildered by the minute by the plethora of Mary Ann Nichol(l)ses, when I noticed these rough settlement notes posted by Debs, saying "the case is well known to Mr Taverner he having obtained an order for Husband to contribute":
      https://www.jtrforums.com/forum/the-...772#post466772

      Click image for larger version  Name:	OrderToContribute.jpg Views:	1 Size:	64.7 KB ID:	593881

      Comment


      • Are a number of Mary Annes really that bewildering to intelligent men?

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
          Are a number of Mary Annes really that bewildering to intelligent men?
          Perhaps only to me.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

            Perhaps only to me.
            I was hoping someone would come along and sort it all out as I seem to have forgotten a lot of what I've posted in the past.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

              I was hoping someone would come along and sort it all out as I seem to have forgotten a lot of what I've posted in the past.
              Perhaps I'm just being lazy. I must admit that now I've seen the explanation for the dates in 1880-1881 given by Sugden and others, and in view of Madam Detective's/your argument about the payments by her husband precluding additional relief, I don't feel there's so much incentive for the information to be disentangled. Though I suppose "MD" is also right that if Polly had ended up destitute despite the payments she might have received short-term relief of some kind.

              I feel it should be possible for the woman living in the same house as Crawshaw in 1881 to be traced in other records, assuming it's not Polly. But maybe the name is just too common.

              Comment


              • I'm totally lost in translation

                I've been reading and rereading this thread and all the linked ones since yesterday so as not to ask any nonsense, but really, I'm exhausted and I can't understand it (although it seems to be answered a dozen times), so dare I ask:

                "The question is, is this the right MAN? I don't think it is. I believe 'our' MAN didn't arrive at Lambeth workhouse until late 1882/3"

                But what about this:

                "In Polly's settlement statement, (which I posted a while back on the forums somewhere but can't find it at the moment.) she states that when she left her husband she entered the Lambeth workhouse straight from the family home at Peabody buildings. The split is supposed to have been around 1881 and Polly doesn't appear with her family in the 1881 census"

                Sorry guys

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jose Oranto View Post
                  I'm totally lost in translation

                  I've been reading and rereading this thread and all the linked ones since yesterday so as not to ask any nonsense, but really, I'm exhausted and I can't understand it (although it seems to be answered a dozen times), so dare I ask:

                  "The question is, is this the right MAN? I don't think it is. I believe 'our' MAN didn't arrive at Lambeth workhouse until late 1882/3"

                  But what about this:

                  "In Polly's settlement statement, (which I posted a while back on the forums somewhere but can't find it at the moment.) she states that when she left her husband she entered the Lambeth workhouse straight from the family home at Peabody buildings. The split is supposed to have been around 1881 and Polly doesn't appear with her family in the 1881 census"

                  Sorry guys
                  Not wanting to speak for anyone else, but I think the idea is that she didn't go into the workhouse (or at least the workhouse proper) when she left her husband, as he agreed (or judging by that last extract he may have been forced to agree) to pay for her support.

                  As far as I can see, the timings point to around April 1880 as the time she left him.

                  If she just went into the Casual Ward, the entries from Newington that might be relevant are the ones found by Gary on the thread that Debs linked to, namely (with links for those with access to Ancestry):

                  Admission
                  1880 22 April / 8-" pm / Nichols Mary Ann / 35 / Laundry / [Where slept last night] Wandsworth / [discharged 1st day after admission at] 11-0 / [Cleaning Mens Dormitories]
                  Discharge
                  [To what place going] Woolwich
                  Newington Workhouse Vagrants Register, 1880
                  https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discovery.../6036538:60391

                  Admission
                  1880 May 31. / 80pm. / Nichols Mary Ann / 34 / Laundry / [Where slept last night] Woolwich / [discharged 1st day after admission at] 3-0 / [Picking Oakum]
                  Discharge
                  [To what place going] Wandsworth
                  Newington Workhouse Vagrants Register, 1880
                  https://www.ancestry.co.uk/discovery.../6036859:60391

                  (Edit: And perhaps some of the later ones for the Casual Ward, particularly if she reduced her age.)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jose Oranto View Post
                    I'm totally lost in translation

                    I've been reading and rereading this thread and all the linked ones since yesterday so as not to ask any nonsense, but really, I'm exhausted and I can't understand it (although it seems to be answered a dozen times), so dare I ask:

                    "The question is, is this the right MAN? I don't think it is. I believe 'our' MAN didn't arrive at Lambeth workhouse until late 1882/3"

                    But what about this:

                    "In Polly's settlement statement, (which I posted a while back on the forums somewhere but can't find it at the moment.) she states that when she left her husband she entered the Lambeth workhouse straight from the family home at Peabody buildings. The split is supposed to have been around 1881 and Polly doesn't appear with her family in the 1881 census"

                    Sorry guys
                    Briefly if it helps-
                    The trouble is we don't know on exactly what date Polly separated from her husband for good. William Nichols stated that she had left him several times in the past.

                    During late 1880 to early 1881 there were two women admitted to Renfrew Rd workhouse named Mary Ann Nichols. One was aged 49, one aged 39. The 39 year old MAN is the one which the Renfrew Rd Creed register shows was admitted in Feb 1881 and discharged May 1881, meaning she was there for census night 1881 and previously said to be the Mary Ann Nichols we are interested in..
                    The 39 year old Mary Ann Nichols appears in the creed register for Renfrew Road (1880 to 1884) first of all in September 1880, described as a charwoman and discharged in October 1880. She entered again in Oct 1880, described as a laundress and discharged November 1880. She is readmitted again in November 1880 and discharged Feb 1881. She's admitted immediately again in Feb 1881 and discharged May 1881 and she is not admitted again until September 1881 where a note says she has come from prison. The next entry she is listed as aged 40 and admitted December 1881. She then disappears from the records and in April 1882 a younger (35) Mary Ann Nichols appears alongside the 49 year old already mentioned.
                    Does anyone know of Mary Ann Nichols being in prison between May and September 1881?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post


                      If she just went into the Casual Ward, the entries from Newington that might be relevant are the ones found by Gary on the thread that Debs linked to, namely (with links for those with access to Ancestry):

                      Didn't I find and post the Newington casual ward entries? Or have I gone completely gaga over this?!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

                        Didn't I find and post the Newington casual ward entries? Or have I gone completely gaga over this?!
                        Don’t ask me - I can’t remember what I had for breakfast this morning. If I were a betting man, though, I’d put my money on it having been you Debs.

                        It’s always bitter-sweet to read Robert’s contributions to such threads.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post

                          Don’t ask me - I can’t remember what I had for breakfast this morning. If I were a betting man, though, I’d put my money on it having been you Debs.

                          It’s always bitter-sweet to read Robert’s contributions to such threads.
                          Maybe I posted a dozen irrelevant ones in my list and the one I missed, which you mentioned later was the only relevant one :
                          Yes, I still miss Robert around here.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

                            Didn't I find and post the Newington casual ward entries? Or have I gone completely gaga over this?!
                            Yes*, you posted a large number, then Gary added a couple from earlier in 1880. Those were the ones I was highlighting, just because they were around the time when her husband seemed to be indicating she left, and also matched the age Polly should have been. But as you said, the later ones you found could be her if she reduced her age a little.

                            For her date of leaving, I was thinking William's claim that the last time she left the youngest child was a year and four months old sounded fairly precise and also the kind of detail he might have remembered:
                            https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../dt880910.html

                            I remembered the sequence of events on the other thread only because I had looked at it five minutes before posting .

                            (Edit: * That was in answer to the first question.)

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Chris Phillips View Post

                              Yes*, you posted a large number, then Gary added a couple from earlier in 1880. Those were the ones I was highlighting, just because they were around the time when her husband seemed to be indicating she left, and also matched the age Polly should have been. But as you said, the later ones you found could be her if she reduced her age a little.

                              For her date of leaving, I was thinking William's claim that the last time she left the youngest child was a year and four months old sounded fairly precise and also the kind of detail he might have remembered:
                              https://www.casebook.org/press_repor.../dt880910.html

                              I remembered the sequence of events on the other thread only because I had looked at it five minutes before posting .

                              (Edit: * That was in answer to the first question.)
                              Thanks Chris. I realised what you meant after I checked the thread and remembered Gary added a couple of different ones that weren't in my list.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post

                                The age on the 1881 census picked put by HR (and previously by a poster on Casebook back in early 2000) is maybe out by 5 years in the wrong direction too. Mary Ann Nichols usually had her age as several years younger than she was, never older.

                                The Lambeth workhouse puzzle is something we have discussed on both Casebook and JTRForums.
                                In a nutshell and some of this from memory:-
                                -There were three women using the name Mary Ann or Mary Nichol(l)s after 1882 and one of those appears to be 'our' Mary Ann Nichols.

                                -Before 1882, there are two women in Lambeth workhouse who appear in the creed registers for Renfrew Road too. One was aged 49 in 1881 and was born Bournemouth (from census). The other one is a woman aged 39, married and a laundress, believed by Sugden to be the right woman.

                                -The Lambeth Renfrew Road creed Register covering the period of the 1881 census shows that it was the 39 year Mary Ann Nicholls who was in Lambeth Renfrew Road at the time of the 1881 census (admitted 9 Feb and discharged 28 May 1881 and picked out by Sugden for these dates) but checking the 1881 census for that institution, it is the 49 year old Mary Ann Nicholls born in Bournemouth who is recorded as in Renfrew Road workhouse .The 49 year old MAN was not in the Renfrew Road workhouse according to the creed register on census night but was admitted and discharged on dates both before and after the date of the census.


                                -The settlement records show that the 39 year old Mary Ann Nicholls (also spelt Nichols) was the wife of a William James Nicholls who had lived at Queen Street (an address also given in one of the workhouse records as far as I remember) she had several children also in the workhouse and her husband had left her chargeable while he went to seek work.

                                ,
                                If Mary Ann Nichols was receiving maintenance from her husband in 1881 then wouldn't she have been turned away from the workhouse?

                                In 1880/81 and early 1882 there is a Mary Ann Nichols of around the right age used by 'our' Mary Ann Nichols in her settlement records etc (altered to be younger than her actual age) a regular in Newington Casual ward (there is a thread about this too somewhere) and this would perhaps fit more in the pattern of behaviour of someone who was still being maintained financially by her husband but occasionally ran out of money and needed to use the casual ward?
                                Jut to correct something due to my faulty memory when I wrote the first summary- after going back and checking the records again- the Mary Ann Nichols who was married to William James Nichols (their actual name was spelt Nickols and corrected in the settlement record) was aged 25, so not the 39 year old in Lambeth workhouse on census night. She was just one of the women with the same name in the Lambeth settlement records that had stuck in my memory for some strange reason.

                                As I mentioned earlier the 39 year in Lambeth workhouse on census night was readmitted to the workhouse in Sept 1881 from prison, which should clarify if it is the Mary Ann Nichols we are interested in or the similar aged Mary Ann Nichols who frequented the Lambeth workhouse in the late 1870s and who had a past record of being a disorderly pauper and assaulting a matron of the Lambeth workhouse and serving short sentences for that and similar offences (and confused in the press with 'our' MAN.) Unless anyone knows of an offence committed by 'our' Mary Ann Nichols at this time in September 1881?

                                I think I also came across another single page 1888 Holborn to Lambeth magistrates settlement record for 'our' Mary Ann Nichols.
                                It just gives her name and husbands name and says she is about 36 years old and has no legal settlement in Holborn and needs to be- removed to Lambeth, similar to the full multiple page examination version.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X