Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Millers Court Residents, 1888

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

  • #31
    Trevor
    Also over on another thread I am posting a list of the electoral roll for Spitalfields in 1888 and in the A sections there is a John Alcock living at 7 Millers Court.
    Attached Files

    Comment


    • #32
      Brilliant, thanks Chris - clearly we have some disagreement over Alcock or Clarke being in number 7 at the crucial time, and I suppose we'll never solve it; but as I suggested earlier in the thread when Debs mentioned Alcock, I am tempted to lean towards Alcock simply because it might fit nicely with the somewhat mysterious Lizzie Albrook.

      Does the 1891 census give us any idea of where the various 26 Dorset Street residents were, assuming you mean that this potential Lottie (very interesting indeed) was living in Millers Court, unless I have misunderstood and by that time they were living within number 26 itself?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Trevor Bond View Post
        Brilliant, thanks Chris - clearly we have some disagreement over Alcock or Clarke being in number 7 at the crucial time, and I suppose we'll never solve it; but as I suggested earlier in the thread when Debs mentioned Alcock, I am tempted to lean towards Alcock simply because it might fit nicely with the somewhat mysterious Lizzie Albrook.

        Does the 1891 census give us any idea of where the various 26 Dorset Street residents were, assuming you mean that this potential Lottie (very interesting indeed) was living in Millers Court, unless I have misunderstood and by that time they were living within number 26 itself?
        Trevor,
        I don't know if this applies here, just throwing it in, but I seem to recall reading about lodger voters in the electoral registers in very poor areas being among the most likely to be 'fake' voters, people allowed to claim residency and so register in an area where a particular party needed booster votes from outside....something along those lines.
        A possible Alcock/Albrook connection is interesting,though.

        Comment


        • #34
          I didn't know where to stick this and I can't remember if it has come up before but might interest some if not-

          Admitted May 29th 1884 Elizabeth Prater, age 24, no home, wife of Wm. boot machinist, cause of admission syphilis, Cof E, discharged July 1884
          Whitechapel Infirmary records.

          Comment


          • #35
            A possible for Mary Ann Cox too-anyone looked into this one?

            Whitechapel Infirmary admitted Nov 1883
            Mary Ann Cox, age 36, admitted from workhouse, widow of (can't read it- possibly George) Cause of admission syphilis. Discharged 14th Dec 1883.

            Comment


            • #36
              A little help?

              For fiction purpose, I need to put a character inside Miller's Court, who would have moved in a few days before the murder (no, he's not the killer). Would it be ok to put him at 9 or 11, or has researchers filled that void yet?

              Many thanks.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Sir John Falstaff View Post
                For fiction purpose, I need to put a character inside Miller's Court, who would have moved in a few days before the murder (no, he's not the killer). Would it be ok to put him at 9 or 11, or has researchers filled that void yet?

                Many thanks.
                Failing that you could place him in an upper room of the main building 22 or 24 perhaps. If you are making him a 'prime suspect' you could have him overlooking Kelly's door. I seem to remember that one or two rooms are mentioned as being empty, number 11 being one of them, being next to the 'privies' they would not be a popular choice. There is a more detailed plan of Millers Court on another thread IIRC.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Hi Debs

                  Prater only 24?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
                    Hi Debs

                    Prater only 24?
                    Hi Robert
                    Yes, iI realised this didn't tally with what is known about Prater's age from the census but I posted it because everything else seemed to fit-name of husband, his occupation etc. Another interesting thing was that this Elizabeth Prater said she had no home, so was probably estranged from her husband as Prater was.
                    I wondered if there had been a mistake with the age and re-checked, there is no ambiguity about the age, it is 24 in this entry, but I thought perhaps they may have written it down wrong.

                    edit-The same woman appears again in 1894 and 95 age 30, living at (8) Brick Lane. Again her husband is William, a boot maker so it looks like there were two women with the same name, both married to a bootmaker named William (both probably estranged from their husband)
                    In 1894 and 95 she admitted for an ulcerated leg which was probably related to her having had syphilis.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      You've got me thinking now, Robert.
                      Could this Elizabeth Prater also be a contender for the Elizabeth Prater of Dorset St? Looking at other sources, all the information given about her was that she was married to a man named William who was a boot maker and that he had deserted her previously. Here we have a woman married to a man named William, a bootmaker and who looks like she may have been desserted as she had 'no home' in 1884, near the time Elizabeth said she split from her husband in 83.
                      Is there a definite age given for Prater?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        According to a settlement record which I'm having trouble deciphering but will post in minute, this Elizabeth Prater was abandoned by her husband William shortly after the marriage when she went into Croydon Infirmary.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Hi Debs

                          I've just discovered that this other Elizabeth was Elizabeth Prater nee Broomer, and she married William Prater in October 1881...and this other William Prater was our William Prater's son. He fits with the family at 8 Blossom Place in 1881.
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            The woman in the settlement records was 25 in 1888. Curiously she gives one of her previous addresses as 8 Blossom place and mentions Norton Folgate, which ties in with the ID made by Chris Scott of a much older Elizabeth Prater.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Debs, your mention of Croydon fits with a birth for Elizabeth Broomer in 1863 in Croydon. It doesn't tally with her age on the marriage record but people sometimes boosted their age to 21.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Thanks Robert
                                You mentioning this was the son and his wife makes sense now in terms of the addresses on the settlement records. But which Elizabeth was the woman living at Dorset St I wonder? The younger woman seems like she was definitely abandoned by her husband at some point.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X