Lizzie Allbrook

[Mystery Singer]

For this post, I'm starting with the assumption that Lizzie Albrook could be the same a Louisa Allbrook and assuming that it was pure bad luck that she was home from service in Lancashire at the time of the Ripper murders.

That would, in fact, be par for the course with this young lady because if all the "facts" are definitely in respect of the same person, then her "known" profile is one of sorrow and hardship at least for some time. It would be nice to know whether she found happiness because sometimes this research game is quite sad.

On Tuesday 12th November, 1872, Louisa aged 6 entered the workhouse along with her mother Jane who was pregnant and deserted. Their address is given as 48 Flower & Dean Street. Jane's husband is indicated to be William, a labourer. Louisa was discharged on 19th November to Forest Gate School - a location from which she would be admitted to the workhouse a number of times over a period. Jane is shown as discharged on 1st January 1873 - but there is more.

On Saturday 22nd February, 1873, Louisa, her mother Jane and new sister Kate (aged 4 weeks) were admitted again. Louisa was discharged on 28th March to Brentwood School, but Jane and Kate were not so fortunate. Kate died on 27th June 1873 and her mother Jane remained until 12th September when she also died.

Lizzie/Louisa would have had to become a most resilient lady.

[Debra Arif]

That's the lady I proposed too, MS.
We found she wasn't the Louisa who married Barnett (which is what we discussed on this thread) but I don't think we found anything to rule her out as 'Lizzie Allbrook' as far as I remember.

As an aside, while I was going through the Catholic records I did come across the surname 'Albrick', which sounds like a name worth looking at too as well as Holbrook, Allbrook and names similar sounding.

[Mystery Singer]

From these records, it's easy to see how a name can become corrupted in the sense that Jane, Louisa and Kate were registered in the workhouse with the name Allbrook. As such, the death records for Jane and Kate also show Allbrook since, I assume, workhouse staff had something to do with the registration. On a similar theme, Louisa may have been registered at the school as Allbrook.

However, Kate's birth is registered as Holbrook (she was born on 6th December 1872). That, I assume is her correct name as recorded by her mother when registering the birth.

Obviously Debra I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but I think sometimes it's good to get things down in case others don't have the info already (and so that it can be challenged if wrong).

[Debra Arif]

From these records, it's easy to see how a name can become corrupted in the sense that Jane, Louisa and Kate were registered in the workhouse with the name Allbrook. As such, the death records for Jane and Kate also show Allbrook since, I assume, workhouse staff had something to do with the registration. On a similar theme, Louisa may have been registered at the school as Allbrook.

However, Kate's birth is registered as Holbrook (she was born on 6th December 1872). That, I assume is her correct name as recorded by her mother when registering the birth.

Obviously Debra I'm not telling you anything you don't already know, but I think sometimes it's good to get things down in case others don't have the info already (and so that it can be challenged if wrong).

Thanks MS. It's just remembering where you put it once you get it down too!

[Anna Morris]

I don't have anything useful to ad but am enjoying the discussion! We may yet identify Lizzie.

[Debra Arif]

For this post, I'm starting with the assumption that Lizzie Albrook could be the same a Louisa Allbrook and assuming that it was pure bad luck that she was home from service in Lancashire at the time of the Ripper murders.

That would, in fact, be par for the course with this young lady because if all the "facts" are definitely in respect of the same person, then her "known" profile is one of sorrow and hardship at least for some time. It would be nice to know whether she found happiness because sometimes this research game is quite sad.

On Tuesday 12th November, 1872, Louisa aged 6 entered the workhouse along with her mother Jane who was pregnant and deserted. Their address is given as 48 Flower & Dean Street. Jane's husband is indicated to be William, a labourer. Louisa was discharged on 19th November to Forest Gate School - a location from which she would be admitted to the workhouse a number of times over a period. Jane is shown as discharged on 1st January 1873 - but there is more.

On Saturday 22nd February, 1873, Louisa, her mother Jane and new sister Kate (aged 4 weeks) were admitted again. Louisa was discharged on 28th March to Brentwood School, but Jane and Kate were not so fortunate. Kate died on 27th June 1873 and her mother Jane remained until 12th September when she also died.

Lizzie/Louisa would have had to become a most resilient lady.

I recently and accidentally came across a document that showed the Louisa Allbrook we were all interested in on this thread was sent on 30th March 1876 by Stepney Board of Guardians Limehouse, to live with a foster parent . The foster parent's name was Jane Robinson of Cross St Windemere.
On 11th November 1880 Louisa was placed in service with Miss Edmondson of Gresgarth Hall, Caton, Lancaster.

[R. J. Palmer]

On Tuesday 12th November, 1872, Louisa aged 6 entered the workhouse along with her mother Jane who was pregnant and deserted. Their address is given as 48 Flower & Dean Street. Jane's husband is indicated to be William, a labourer. Louisa was discharged on 19th November to Forest Gate School - a location from which she would be admitted to the workhouse a number of times over a period. Jane is shown as discharged on 1st January 1873 - but there is more.

On Saturday 22nd February, 1873, Louisa, her mother Jane and new sister Kate (aged 4 weeks) were admitted again. Louisa was discharged on 28th March to Brentwood School, but Jane and Kate were not so fortunate. Kate died on 27th June 1873 and her mother Jane remained until 12th September when she also died.

There is a contradiction, though, that we should be aware of.

Jane lists her husband as 'William,' as you note, but in a later entry, Louisa gives her father's name as "James." And it's obviously the same girl, as she is also admitted from Forest Gate School.

An article in the ELO states that this girl's school fed into Mrs. Barnett's school (wife of the famous Rev. Samuel) so this would explain how Louisa ended up in domestic service, since the Barnetts trained the girls mainly for that occupation. If this is the right woman, which seems very likely, she must have bolted in the 1880s and returned to East London.

The only James Allbrook I could find in East London was fancy box maker/marine store owner, but his wife was a good 18-20 years older than he was, and obviously not Jane, so that doesn't work. So perhaps 'James' was a mistake by a child that never actually knew her father (?)

I might also meekly suggest it was a corruption of "Jane's" (a child's mistake) but would they list a woman a 'laborer' ?? I dunno, but I think it's her.

[Anna Morris]

James could have been a stepfather or something.

This adds the possibility, IMO, that Joe Barnett's alleged wife Louisa could be Lizzie (Louisa) Allbrook as I suggested on a different thread today.

An argument against this is that Joe was in his 30's, and generally unemployed around the time they might have married. Lizzie was supposed to be around 19 so would she have wanted to marry an older, unemployed man?

A possible argument for it might be that Joe and Lizzie were or became close friends after Mary's demise. Joe sounded like a fairly nice guy in general.