Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sarah Lewis ID

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I'm somewhat confused by the Emily Alexandra whose birth Chris traced to 1888.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
      Hi Debs,

      I was just about to mention the second point myself. I have to say I'm surprised Chris didn't pursue John Walter's birth as it might have confirmed the '5 month's pregnant' claim and provided an 1888/9 Whitechapel address for the family.

      It turns out it doesn't do either and my suspicion is that, despite Chris's protestations to the contrary, there has been an element of retrospective evidence gathering to support the family story.


      Gary
      Thanks, Gary. I agree totally. I know we are in a better position these days because there are more sources available for us to check these things than was available to Chris, for example, the GRO birth index with mother's maiden name but a birth certificate would have been very valuable at that time.
      I suppose there was also probably an element of Chris not wanting to upset the family who had shared their photographs etc.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Gary Barnett View Post
        I'm somewhat confused by the Emily Alexandra whose birth Chris traced to 1888.
        Yes, she doesn't seem to have been a member of the family as she was registered in Poplar in June qtr 1888 and her mother's maiden name was Lee.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Debra Arif View Post
          Yes, she doesn't seem to have been a member of the family as she was registered in Poplar in June qtr 1888 and her mother's maiden name was Lee.
          The Emily Catherine mentioned was also born in Poplar, but no mother's maiden name given by the GRO.

          Comment


          • #20
            Hi Debs and Gary


            I spent a tidy sum on some certificates (I combed my hair before ordering them) and I seem to remember that I found nothing major which would invalidate Chris's ID (which I guess still depends on the family's reliability and Chris's assessment of that reliability).


            I think there was one point that the family seem to have been wrong on, and another point that Chris and/or the family seemed to me to be wrong on, but turned out to be right on.


            Debs I remember sending you the certs by email and we had a conversation about them. Later I had a conversation with 'Observer' on Casebook if I recall correctly.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
              Hi Debs and Gary


              I spent a tidy sum on some certificates (I combed my hair before ordering them) and I seem to remember that I found nothing major which would invalidate Chris's ID (which I guess still depends on the family's reliability and Chris's assessment of that reliability).


              I think there was one point that the family seem to have been wrong on, and another point that Chris and/or the family seemed to me to be wrong on, but turned out to be right on.


              Debs I remember sending you the certs by email and we had a conversation about them. Later I had a conversation with 'Observer' on Casebook if I recall correctly.
              One of the odd things about the story is the non-use of the Gotheimer name. It's a rather unusual name. FreeBMD has only three births in total, one of which - the only one in London - is that of John Walter.

              Comment


              • #22
                Hi Gary


                I think maybe Chris wasn't expecting that the family, having started with Emily Catherine Lewis, and subsequently continued with the name Lewis, would revert to Gotheimer early on. Plus, John didn't die with his middle name.


                Emily Alexandra's birth looked ideal to allow a five months pregnancy by November 1888, with John dying aged 2 rather than 3.


                I never managed to establish contact with the people Chris spoke to, but I did have contact with another family member who, if I remember correctly, insisted that John didn't die in infancy but lived to adulthood and his subsequent life had been traced.

                Comment


                • #23
                  But isn't this the key to the whole thing?

                  2 The younger child, John, aged 2 being born in Whitechapel. This would place his birth in or about 1889 so this must the child that Sarah was carrying at the time of Kelly’s death (family reports say that she was ve months pregnant at the time she was a witness at Kelly’s inquest) - if carried to full term John would have been born in about March 1889. This would indicate that at that time the family was living in Whitechapel rather than Bethnal Green. Also the fact that he is not listed in 1901 (when he would have been 12) probably indicates that by that date he had passed away.

                  Chris ultimately plumps for John over Emily as the child Sarah was carrying. Surely you leave no tone unsturned until you find his birth?

                  If John was indeed born in Feb/March, 1889 and the address is 24/34 Great Pearl Street, it's game over. And if you can't find an obvious John Lewis (Never Knowingly Undersold!) in the index, surely you'd give Gotenheimer a whirl?

                  (Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing?)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
                    Hi Debs and Gary


                    I spent a tidy sum on some certificates (I combed my hair before ordering them) and I seem to remember that I found nothing major which would invalidate Chris's ID (which I guess still depends on the family's reliability and Chris's assessment of that reliability).


                    I think there was one point that the family seem to have been wrong on, and another point that Chris and/or the family seemed to me to be wrong on, but turned out to be right on.


                    Debs I remember sending you the certs by email and we had a conversation about them. Later I had a conversation with 'Observer' on Casebook if I recall correctly.
                    Hi Robert,
                    I must offer you my apologies here. I vaguely remember a conversation about this but I don't recall seeing any certificates. Not that I'm saying you didn't email me any, just that I have no recollection of that at all.

                    I'm discussing Chris's ID simply because I feel that the other Sarah Lewis, newly made Sarah Lewis in Sept 88, seems a better fit and I wanted to be able to explore her life and see what came up.

                    There is something about Sarah Lewis, nee Pike, that seems to fit better with her being the witness, for me. It's just based on my opinion so I am merely suggesting it, rather than saying I think the other ID is incorrect.

                    Sarah Ann Lewis nee Pike was known to be a resident of Spitalfields in 88, before and after, she can be placed in Spitalfields in the Autumn of 88 an was newly married, seemingly encouraged for moral reasons in a drive by the City Missionaries. Sarah Lewis the witness said she had a falling out with her husband that caused her to go to Miller's Court in the early hours that morning.
                    There has been speculation in the past that Sarah Lewis may actually have been out soliciting herself and I think that is a possibility. I just can't imagine a woman who had recently given birth leaving her young baby at home in the middle of the night who would still need feeding every couple of hours by his mother and there don't seem to be any links to Spitalfields with the family, none that have been discovered yet anyway.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Robert, did you get John Walter Gotheimer's birth certificate? If not I will order it now.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Thanks for posting it Robert. Yes, I do remember it now because I think I expressed the same doubt over the baby on Casebook too?

                        Like Gary, I think the point about the family possibly tailoring what thought they had found on the family tree in to their family story is something to take in to account.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Courtesy of Robert Linford

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Thanks Debs. I didn't know how to delete an attachment so I deleted the whole post.


                            Of course, another point is that if Emily Alexandra's mum was given the baby to feed, why didn't Sarah spend the night with them, even if it meant sleeping in a chair, which is what she did at the Keylers' anyway.


                            Anyway if you think that a mother wouldn't leave her baby for the night, even with another woman, then I'm fine with that. My experience in matters like these is very minimal!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
                              Thanks Debs. I didn't know how to delete an attachment so I deleted the whole post.


                              Of course, another point is that if Emily Alexandra's mum was given the baby to feed, why didn't Sarah spend the night with them, even if it meant sleeping in a chair, which is what she did at the Keylers' anyway.


                              Anyway if you think that a mother wouldn't leave her baby for the night, even with another woman, then I'm fine with that. My experience in matters like these is very minimal!
                              Robert, was Emily Alexander's mum related to Sarah Lewis? Sorry if you already told me this.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Courtesy of Robert Linford

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X