| Author |
Message |
    
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4295
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 7:35 am: | 
|
I think Mr Scott's middle name was "Beeby". I have seen him listed as James B Scott in the censuses, and here are two enlargements, the first of the directory entry, and the second of his Times death notice Sept 23rd 1914.
Robert |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 234
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 8:24 am: |
|
The message about Agnes, sounds as if it relates to a package. Agnes (presumably the maid or housekeeper, as none of the family have that name) would "take in" whatever it was that the recipient of the card had mentioned in his last letter/communication, when it arrived.
Thus, I think we have some sort of context, based on internal information.
Mr Scott is known to the writer of the card, is in or expected to arrive at Selby, and in the meantime, has sent a card to the writer of the present card (who I don't think lives in 104 Oakley St) to say that a (package? not a person as the card refers to "it") is being sent. Mr Scott is himself expected in due course and the weather has been poor lately.
It cannot be the card which is being "taken in" as it has clearly already been received and read.
The card confirms that someone is aware of what is going on and will accept whatever "it" is. the alternatives are that Agnes will take the card somewhere else - as "she will take it in to the lawyer's office". But I doubt that is the meaning personally.
An alternative reading, using "take in" to mean read and inwardly digest" would not, I think, be grammatical for 1909.
The writing and ink on front and back appear similar, but the inscription on the front implies (as noted by others) that the writer is not resident normally at 104.
The door shown might be the front door of this house, as it is a corner house. It looks too grand for a side or tradesman's door. There is also an "area" below ground level, and the servants and tradesmen would have used a gate in the railings and gone down a flight of stone steps to the basement "area". Windows would then face the main street.
The next house along would have it's entrance on to the street. As an end of terrace, that arrangement would maximise the light and space in the reception rooms, having moved the front door and hallway back, and thus make this house somewhat "grander" than it's neighbours.
But where does the Duke of Clarence fit in?
Just some thoughts and ideas,
Phil
I still remain puzzled by why (apart from the family) anyone should want a picture of this anonymous house as a postcard. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1383
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 9:05 am: |
|
Hi all
That is assuredly a side entrance and you can bet that the front entrance was much grander. Just look at the difference between the side windows and the visible windows in the front façade, which hint at the importance the main entrance might possess. I am reminded of Robert Louis Stevenson's "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" and the use by Mr. Hyde of the back, concealed entrance compared to Dr. Jekyll's use of the front entrance.
Am I dreaming, but isn't that the house number on the iron fence, John? Perhaps you can make it out.
The question does remain why anyone would want to take a photograph of a side entrance. Hmmmm...
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 236
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 10:35 am: |
|
I'm not sure you are right, Chris. I don't know this house or oakley St, but I have seen plenty of similar terraces in Belgravia and Kensington, where the end house is differently designed to the others.
I think the house would be three bays (windows) wide on the front.
Sorry to disagree (and of, course, I could be wrong!),
Phil |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1385
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 10:35 am: |
|
Hi all
On the matter of whether someone might commit a Ripper forgery and not expect to make money on it, unfortunately I have to say that we have a number of examples of that. The 17 September "Ripper" letter found at the PRO that Stewart Evans and Keith Skinner believe to be forgery placed in the archive by a prankster, and a number of the on-line pranks by Arfa Kidney pulled on this very site come to mind. I think some people get a kick out of devising such artifacts and seeing us Ripperologists taken in. 
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1827
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 10:48 am: |
|
The question of why anyone would make a postcard of this apparently insignificant house (albeit quite a grand one!) may lie in the fact that I beleive in times past pne could have an ordinary photo one had taken oneself made up into a postcard for purely personal use. In fact I know this is the case as I have two photos of my parents which must have been taken in the 1940s which were printed up as postcards. We think of postcards now as commercially marketed views so they would would to have a wide appeal but it is quite possible this was a personal card made up from a picture which the writer had taken himself, or had taken.
Regards
Chris |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1387
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
Hi Chris
You are exactly right about postcards being made up of personal or family photographs. I have a photograph of my father as a young nipper, nude with back to camera that was so treated and posted by my grandmother to my grandfather, whom I never met, as well as other family photographs that were similarly made into postcards.
Now though getting back to the postcard in question, is it not possible that the strange view of a private house was in fact the house of the sender which makes perfect sense why they would send such a card. If a hoax is in play here, the hoaxer has taken this postcard view of a private house and would have us believe it is a house unconnected to them which they happen to know (how?) was frequented by the Duke of Clarence. Thus if a hoax is involved that explains the why of the rather odd postcard view with its excitable and inflammatory Ripper declaration that might not make sense if the writer of the address side and the writer of the picture side were the same person.
All the best
Chris
(Message edited by ChrisG on March 24, 2005)
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 237
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 11:54 am: |
|
Grateful for the confirmation on period "individualised" postcards.
Phil |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 333
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
Hi All,
I have been able to get a better scan made of the postcard today, which I have mailed to Chris Scott, and perhaps he will post it here if he thinks it helpful. However I have cleaned up the area were the street sign is on the corner of the house, and with an enlargement of this new scan I think that the sign may actually read Oakley Crescent SW.
I have also mailed the dealer from whom I purchased the card to ask about were he obtained it, so far no information, however I beleive he has looked at this sight and may post here later.
Also obtained a fountain pen and an artists caligraphy nib, which sellotaped to an old biro makes a good old fashioned pen, I shall be experimenting with this later. Tommorrow I shall be out on the road and may make a detour via Selby, I thought it may be worthwhile to have a look in the local churchyard for any gravestones with the name Scott. Any other suggestions welcome.
Phil, Thanks for your interpretation of the wording on the card, which I think is well thought out and quite possible, but as you say, still does not lead us to the Duke of Clarence.
Chris G. Thanks for your help on personalised postcards. The sign on the fence is not a house number, but the letter H, which I take to mean Hydrant, and would be to assist the fire brigade in locating the nearest point from which to draw water.
Rgds
John |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1828
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:37 pm: |
|
Hi all
With regards to John's message above, the image below is enhancement of the street name.
 |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1829
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:38 pm: |
|
There is one other piece of information from the high definition scan that John sent me. The number on the side door visible ends in "7"
 |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1830
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 12:42 pm: |
|
Spooky coincidence - or is it?
There is one person already mentioned on Casebook in connection with the murders who lived at 17 Oakley Crescent from 1882 to 1884. That person was George Gissing.
In an online biography of Gissing included the following:
"George Gissing:
1882 Gissing moved to 17 Oakley Crescent, Chelsea, where he lived two years."
For those not familiar with Gissing alleged involvement this article from
http://ehlt.flinders.edu.au/english/Gissing/Gissing&Jack.html
might help
GEORGE GISSING AND JACK THE RIPPER:
WAS GISSING QUESTIONED?
The ridiculous idea that Gissing might have been Jack the Ripper, or had some connection with the Whitechapel murders, seems to have taken on a life of its own; I have heard it mentioned by students who know almost nothing else about Gissing's life. The rumour has appeared in more than one paperback 'encyclopedia' about the murderer. Furthermore, there is surely some echo of the suggestion in Peter Ackroyd's recent novel Dan Leno and the Limehouse Golem, although the dates are changed in the novel and the Gissing character isn't 'guilty'.
Ludicrous though the idea is, it does have a certain historical interest. The story must have come from somewhere, and it does raise the possibility that Gissing was perhaps questioned by police after he returned from Italy. If this really happened, it may of course only have been because the authorities knew about his professional interest in low-life London, especially as this was presumably around the time of the publication of The Nether World. The first time the rumour of Gissing's involvement appeared in print was in Richard Whittington-Egan's A Casebook on Jack the Ripper (London: Wiley, 1975) -- this is the authority cited by all other authors.
There is sort of mad coincidence in the Ripper assertion, though. Nell dies in misery in Lambeth in February of '88, and gives rise to the famous agonised Diary entry. Gissing writes The Nether World between then and July. As Halperin says, he was in a state of 'savage moodiness and misanthropy' and probably at this time was using the services of prostitutes. Unfortunately for the theory, he went off to Italy on 16 September and was there during the Ripper murders in October-November. There is a passing allusion to them in the Letters.
The Ripper is usually assumed to have been consumed by a psychopathic resentment towards women, especially prostitutes. There is no hint of that in Gissing's biography. Though he is often savagely satirical about women -- especially lower middle class, vulgar women -- he is I think invariably pitying towards 'unfortunates' - though it goes along with a certain erotic fascination with them.
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1896
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:31 pm: |
|
There is certainly some interest in this Oakley Crescent thing.
Just to add some more fuel to the fire, I have a Henry Haynes, Agent, of 27 Oakley Crescent, Chelsea who in 1879 was up at the Old Bailey for assault and the 'attempted defilation of a young lady.
This comes as no surprise because Oakley Crescent in that year boasted 'St Marys Home for Friendless Girls'.
I'm assuming that means 'unfortunates'.
Enjoying this. |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 780
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Thanks for those details, John and Chris. May I ask what software you use to get these sharply detailed close-ups? I always end up with a mess of blocky pixels whenever I try to enlarge images.
Dave
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1832
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:39 pm: |
|
Hi Dave
John had a very high definition scan done (2.5mb)so how it looks when it is enlarged depends more on the dpi than on the original image size.
I always use the same software - its a freeware package called Irfan View and I find it amazingly useful.
Chris |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 781
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:47 pm: |
|
Thanks very much, Chris. I'll give Irfan View a try.
Dave |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1389
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Hi AP
"Home for Friendless Girls" might denote unfortunates but I think it is more likely to be girls who are in danger of become unfortunates. It seems that a number of towns had both one or more homes for fallen women as well as a home or homes for friendless girls, so there is a distinction. The following period letter about a California case helps to clarify matters and also highlight period attitudes toward the women and the religious basis for the social activism of people such as the writer, Mrs. H. A. Watson--
[Los Angeles] Times, April 21, 1887, p. 6
A Home for Friendless Girls.
Los Angeles, April 19.--[To the Editor of The Times.]
Trusting you will allow this a place in the columns of your paper, I take the liberty to address a line to the public, stating the necessities of the hour and the urgency that demands immediate action. I commenced a work here especially for children, having obtained permission to forward to the Boys and Girls' Aid Society, San Francisco, those for which we have no provision here. I am receiving applications from parents and guardians (also girls who are strangers here and in need of protection and help) to take charge of a class for which there is no home; every door is closed against them.
Where shall the young girl go? To whom can she appeal for aid to assist her to rise above a life of shame? With all the avenues of sin and death that wait to ensnare her and lead her down, there is not one place in our city where welcome is written over the door to one who would turn from a life worse than death. Cast out from society, friendless, what is left for poor, fallen woman? Last week I received notice that two young girls must be looked after or they would be lost. Yesterday three more such cases were reported to me. I appeal to the Christian public to assist in a work that demands immediate attention.
The officers, policemen and judges are doing all in their power, but, as one of them said to me: "You have no home for them. Shall we search them out and rescue them only to send them adrift again." My answer is no, it shall not be. The city, famous for its unbounded charity, will surely respond to an appeal for help for this class. They will not "weary in well-doing" till a home is provided where every returning wanderer will receive a hearty welcome.
Very truly,
MRS. H. A. WATSON.
From "Charity" in "LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE: LOS ANGELES TIMES, 1881-1889"compiled by Ralph E. Shaffer, Professor Emeritus, Department of History, Cal State Polytechnic Univ, Pomona, CA.
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 239
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 2:24 pm: |
|
Interestingly though we seem to be moving away from 104 Oakley St to a House with a number including a terminal 7, in or adjacent to Oakley Crescent.
This doesn't add up to anything genuine to me.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1717
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 2:26 pm: |
|
Cheyne walk which corners Oakley Street has housed many past and present London celebrities as the vast number of blue plaques confirm.
It began with Thomas More whose statue graces the entrance to the quarter and who it is believed entertained Erasmus there.
In Victorian times Dante Gabriel Rossetti and his Lizzie became delirious with love and some form of medication there to the extent that poor Lizzie eventually expired.
JMW Turner lived there "incognito"and George Eliot,Henry James,Ian Flemming,TS Eliot -to name but a few.In the 60"s Mick Jagger lived there with Marianne Faithfull.
So Eddie might well have enjoyed the bohemian ambience with those lassies and lads that took his fancy.
Once , when making my way to a cinema via Chelsea embankment, Keith Richards
made some very flattering remarks to me as he passed by!
He looked older then than he does now and it was about 20 years ago!
[forgive me the digression-I just couldnt resist dropping that one in-he was very good-looking too in a Byronic sort of way!]
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4296
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 3:36 pm: |
|
Here we go again.
Robert |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 240
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 4:29 pm: |
|
So Bette Walter, at No 17 (on a corner) comes into the frame. What year was this? 1909, or in PAV's lifetime?
Phil |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4297
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Hi Phil
This was 1910, the nearest I could get to the year of the card.
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 334
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 4:46 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
Thanks for posting those scans, and I must say the image you have is clearer than what I can get on my computer. Between your technical skills and my abilities with a damp cloth we now have a clear picture that tells us we are dealing with Oakley Crescent. Robert's posting of, I presume, the 1910 Kellys Directory entry shows No.17 to have been on a corner, so I think we are making progress. Interestingly there seems to be one or two tailors and a greengrocer in the crescent, I wonder, was it a case of the knobs living in the front in Oakley Street and the tradesmen living at the back in Oakley Crescent?
Rgds
John |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4298
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 5:25 pm: |
|
Here they are in 1895 :
Robert |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 783
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 7:06 pm: |
|
John,
You might be interested that the New Criminologist has released Stowell's "Jack the Ripper: A Solution" in an e-book format, along with some other archived articles.
Dave |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 755
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Doesn't the door numbered ?7 have to be on another street, at the corner with Oakley Crescent?
I assume Oakley Crescent is the crescent-shaped street shown on the modern map as Oakley Gardens.
So doesn't ?7 have to be one of the following?
(1) at the eastern end of the south side of Phene Street
(2) on the west side of Manor Street, just north of its southern junction with Oakley Crescent
(3) on the west side of Manor Street, just north of its northern junction with Oakley Crescent
Chris Phillips
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 335
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 8:40 pm: |
|
Here is a victorian map showing Oakley Crescent (today Oakley Gardens)
 |
Donald Souden
Inspector
Username: Supe
Post Number: 479
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 9:19 pm: |
|
Rather late into the discussion, but I just wanted to confirm that personal postcards were certainly reality. I suppose when they were really in vogue most folks took them to a photo shop to have them made, but postcard-size photo paper was available with the non-emulsion side pre-printed with spaces for a stamp, address and message.
Of course, the range of emulsion speed and contrast available was limited and the surcharge for the printing excessive. When my mom had her house and I had a darkroom I would make my own postcards and print or just hand-draw the reverse. One family bought a 100 with a picture of their young sons to use as a Christmas card. And their surname was actually Wellbeloved. Better, I'm sure, than Ramsbottom.
Don.
"He was so bad at foreign languages he needed subtitles to watch Marcel Marceau."
|
Clive Appleby
Police Constable
Username: Clive
Post Number: 7
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 5:01 am: |
|
Hi Christopher /All
In an earlier posting you observed that No. 4 Oakley Street was the address of the Richard III Society. No. 4 is in fact the address of Ms. Elizabeth Nokes, who has been Secretary of the Richard III Society for many years.
I have sent Elizabeth an e-mail as I'm sure that not only will she be interested anyway, but she may be able to contribute to this discussion from her own knowledge of Oakley Street. (I have also pointed out that there have been some complimentary comments made about the Richard III Society on the Casebook message boards).
We will have to wait and see whether Elizabeth has the interest, time or inclination to reply to my e-mail or make her own post.
Best Wishes,
Clive |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1833
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 9:50 am: |
|
Hi Phil
The 1910 listing for 17 Oakley Crescent is surname first, so the occupant would be Walter Betts. This fits in with the 1895 listing which shows a Miss Betts in residence, presumably the same family.
The post from Chris Phillips is a good point in that the side door is on another street. The convention was (and still is) that if you live in a house which is on a corner, it will usually be counted as being in the street onto which the main door, the front door, faces. So the question here is whether door visible is a side door, in which case the building would probably be ?7 Oakley Crescent, or the front door in which case it would be ?7 ? Street.
Personally, having looked at the card closely, and comparing it to haouses locally, where we have a lot of Regency and Georgian architecture, the lack of windows on the side of the house facing and the much more imposing three storeyed facade just visible to the left strongly suggest that this is indeed a side entrance, and the main frontage of the house would be facing onto Oakley Crescent. From the 1895 and 1910 listings for Oakley Crescent there is only one number terminating in 7 which is situated on a corner, so I would suggest we are looking at the side of 17 Oakley Crescent.
Regards
Chris
(Message edited by Chris on March 25, 2005) |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1392
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 10:19 am: |
|
Hi Clive
Many thanks for clarifying that 4 Oakley Street is not the address of the Richard III Society as I stated but rather but that of Ms. Elizabeth Nokes, Secretary of the Richard III Society for many years. Thank you so much for alerting Ms. Nokes to this discussion. It will be interesting to see if she has anything useful to contribute to our investigation.
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 244
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 10:26 am: |
|
I doubt the house would have two elaborate (front) doors Chris, for the reasons I gave in an earlier post.
Even in places like Eaton Square (very exclusive) there was a front door and an entrance to the basement, through the railings.
Two front doors in this case would have to assume a house four bays wide which would be ENORMOUS. Try to imagine the floor plan with a large hall behind the (on your assumption) front door on Oakley Cresent and a passage or hall behind the door we can see. What does that imply for the reception room to the left (as we see it) of the door in the picture and to the right of the one you allege to exist? I don't think it works architecturally.
I am firmly of the view that this is the front door. Which means that if the windows face Oakley Crescent; and the numbering system is as you state, this must be No ?7 some other street.
It might mean the house sits on the strange projection between Oakley Cres and the unnamed cul-de-sac or mews. Thus this might be ?7 Manor Street. That situation might explain the odd rear of the house with that odd balustraded "extension" and the well to its rear.
Just some thoughts.
Phil |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1834
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 10:30 am: |
|
Here is what I have been able to glean from the census records regarding 17 Oakley Crescent and the Betts family:
17 Oakley Crescent
1901:
Head: Clara Betts aged 61 born London
Brothers:
Walter Betts aged 50 born London - Builder
Herbert Betts aged 38 born London - Solicitor's Clerk
1891:
Head: Clara Betts aged 51 born Pimlico - Dressmaker
Brothers:
Walter Betts aged 40 born Pimlico - Builder
Herbert Betts aged 28 born Pimlico - Clerk
1881:
3 Grosvenor Cottages, Belgrave
Head: Clara Betts aged 41 born Middlesex - Dressmaker
Brothers:
Walter Betts aged 30 born Middlesex - Carpenter
Herbert Betts aged 18 born Middlesex - Clerk
1871:
3 Grosvenor Cottages, Belgrave
Head: Clara Betts aged 31 born Pimlico - Dressmaker
Brothers:
Walter Betts aged 19 born Pimlico - Carpenter
Herbert Betts aged 8 born Pimlico
Sisters:
Fanny M Betts aged 11 born Pimlico
Rose Betts aged 5 born Pimlico
In 1881 17 Oakley Crescent is listed as uninhabited.
1871:
17 Oakley Crescent.
Head: Spencer J Hunt aged 45 born London - First class assistant Clerk - Education Department
Wife: Elizabeth Hunt aged 45 born Salisbury
Children:
Catherine aged 22 - Governess
Ada S aged 21
Annie L aged 19
Spencer aged 18 - Clerk
Arthur aged 16 - Clerk
Florence M aged 14
Percy A aged 12
Ella G aged 10
Alfred E aged 7
Walter A aged 5
Edith E aged 3
Servant:
Sarah A Heath aged 22
Note: The entry for 1881 is unusual. Usually when a building was empty at the time of the census it would be designated as either "U" - uninhabited, or "B" - being built. The 1881 entry for this building says what appears to be "1UR." I have no idea what this means.
Chris
 |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1835
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 10:37 am: |
|
One other small thing. The only other feature which caught my eye is a small plaque of some sort on the fence at lower left with letter H on it. Anone have any idea what this means?
 |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1720
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 10:39 am: |
|
I think I may have come close to solving this business.
I went over to Oakley Street again today on the way back from a painting exhibition.
I found Oakley Crescent/Gardens and at the corner exactly as depicted in the photograph stood our house along with a blue plaque denoting that "George Gissing"-writer lived there between 1882 and 1884.[d.o.b.1857 and died 1903].
This house is number 33 today.
The front door is in fact the one seen in the picture,the other side of the house having an almost blind wall.Servants would have entered by the side entrance still to be seen.The house is less grand that the ones in Oakley Street but again beautifully kept which greatly belies its age.
Out of interest I popped into our local booksellers,Waterstones and looked through several local history books which referred to Oakley Crescent and Oakley Street.None of them mentioned the Duke of Clarence but two of the three mentioned George Gissing as having lived at number 33.It is I repeat identical in every way with the one in the 1909 postcard.
Best Natalie |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 245
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 10:40 am: |
|
Fire hydrant sign was suggested, Chris - see earlier post above.
Phil |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 246
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 10:43 am: |
|
Wonderful work, Natalie. You well deserve your Asst Commissioner status here!!
So a postcard of this house relating to it's being the home of George Gissing might make sense too?
Phil |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1836
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 11:12 am: |
|
Well done Natalie!
Was there any known contact between Gissing and Clarence? Seems odd the house appears to be that of someone connected obliquely with the case. I'm just wondering if this is another case of facts getting muddled in the retelling and that Gissing's connection with the house and his rumoured involvement with the case became confused with Clarence.
However, there remains one oddity. If the writing on the front of the card is contemporary with the message on the back (and it is a big if) it seems odd that someone in 1909 would be referring to a house lived in by Gissing for only two years over twenty years earlier (1882-1884)
Chris
(Message edited by Chris on March 25, 2005) |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1837
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 11:15 am: |
|
Phil
Thanks for the note about fire hydrant - missed that one. That mnakes sense.
Chris
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 784
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 11:17 am: |
|
Natalie,
Thanks so much for going over there and clearing up the address.
Confused American Alert: I take it No. 17 became No. 33 sometime over the years since the door clearly bears a 7 in the photograph?
Chris Scott,
Regarding the Betts, Walter was still at No. 17 when he died in Nov. 1919--there's a legal notice about his estate in the Times, 3 March 1922. There's a similar legal notice in the 14 June 1924 edition for Herbert Betts which also gives his address as No. 17.
|
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1393
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 11:33 am: |
|
Hi Chris
As for "1UR" that you noticed ws the annotation made in the 1881 census for 17 Oakley Crescent when the house was listed as uninhabited:
1UR = one unusual Royal??? 
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 785
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 11:38 am: |
|
1UR=One Uninhabited Residence, I'm guessing.
Cheers,
Dave |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1721
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Hi Everybody,
Glad this has helped a little.
I lost my computer connection and couldnt reconnect for a while but want to add a few things.
The house almost looks as though it is situated in Phene Street-so 33 Phene Street may be worth looking up though the local history books have George at 33 Oakley Crescent from 1882-1884 which are the same dates as written on the plaque-so I guess it must be Oakley Crescent and not Phene Street.I say this because the main door with the numbering on looked like it was 33 Phene Street,the rest of this corner house being in what is now called Oakley Gardens but the only door there that was facing Oakley Gardens was right down in the basement.But a good stretch of the house is in Oakley Gardens so although its a bit confusing it would seem that the house address is Oakley Gardens.I was trying to get photos on a new digital camera and the battery ran flat[under use]andneighbours of no 33 started to become a bit "over interested" so I hurriedly moved off-without double checking the pros and cons of the Oakley Gardens address.
It seemed not as grand as Oakley Street-but immaculately kept[worth a few million at least without a doubt these days BUT it was part of the Peabody Estate-the same charity that built the Wentworth dwellings I seem to remember ,so thats why grocers and tailors were living there in the 1891 census probably.
My own thoughts on why the Duke of Clarence etc is that this seems to have been part of folk lore even by 1909.So if there were questions asked about George Gissing back in the 1880"s/90s then the house would have been pointed out to people
as being "where the Ripper lived" and since some people already thought this meant the Duke,who was lond dead by 1909 and George was also dead
and probably unknown to the 1909 neighbours anyway
,people just assumed it meant the Duke of Clarence once lived there.Anyway the Duke Of Clarence isnt mentioned in the Chelsea History books although Wilde is as they are now so very proud to point out. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1396
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 2:44 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie
Thanks for this information. I can't wait to see a digital photograph when you can manage it and to compare it to the image on the postcard.
Nats, your theory of a transmigration of information in that Gissing lived in a house and was rumored to be the Ripper, with the house later being pointed out as being the Ripper's and people by then thinking that meant the Duke of Clarence, sounds quite plausible and could be the way the card became inscribed with this information in 1909. All very intriguing and mysterious. Hmmmmm... 
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1900
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 4:03 pm: |
|
We all might be suffering from some form of literary confusion here, and in the past.
There are some interesting historical connections between the Duke of Clarence and the Gissing family, in regard to poetry and the like, but perhaps the most telling point is that one of Gissing’s most favourite characters in his fiction was called ‘Clarence’.
This could be the source of all this. |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 336
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 9:34 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie,
Many thanks for taking the trouble to re-visit Oakley Crescent and all the info you have provided. I look forward to your posting some pics when you are able. I would also be interested to know if there is a fire hydrant or an H sign nearby, as we have this H sign in the photograph?
By the way when I first bought my digital camera I found that using disposable batteries (with which my camera was supplied) is not a good idea, they go flat very quickly. I bought some good quality re-chargeable batteries and have not had any problems since.
Rgds
John |
Harry Mann
Detective Sergeant
Username: Harry
Post Number: 58
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 2:51 am: |
|
The house without the writing.A quick job so not the best quality. |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 756
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 4:03 am: |
|
David
Confused American Alert: I take it No. 17 became No. 33 sometime over the years since the door clearly bears a 7 in the photograph?
Just a small comment.
Judging from the excerpt from the 1895 directory posted by Robert, the houses in the crescent were then numbered consecutively 1-17 starting on the outer side from Manor Street at "5 o'clock" and working clockwise to the junction with Phene Street at "8 o'clock".
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4920&post=125014#POST125014
It seems they must later have been renumbered more conventionally with odd numbers on the outside and even numbers on the inside. That would leave the 17 houses on the outside of the southern part numbered 1, 3, 5, ..., 33.
Chris Phillips
(Message edited by cgp100 on March 26, 2005) |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 789
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 5:37 am: |
|
Thanks, Chris. That's most helpful and I appreciate your explaining it to me. The renumbering must have taken place sometime after 1924.
Dave |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1724
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 26, 2005 - 4:05 pm: |
|
Hi Everybody,
-Thanks AP for enlightening me about Gissing-he deserves closer study by the sound of it,especially if he did know the Duke Of Clarence.
-Thanks Chris for the numbering information which seems to explain the puzzle.
John,
As soon as I can I will post the photos.They have come out well despite the flat batteries.I actually do have the rechargeable ones and have just recharged them and been able to see the photos.
Its quite a delight seeing the house today-looking exactly as it does in the 1909 postcard!
Even down to the flowers in the flower box on
the balcony!
Today there are two saplings either side of the door which is painted a deep cobalt blue.The blue of the door matches the blue of the plaque and the cladding on the lower part of the house is painted bright white as are the window frames and the eaves.The brickwork is a rustic brown-its all rather pretty and quaint.
Because the camera is quite new I havent yet worked out how to use the software but I have a few days over Easter and if my husband can help me
I should be able to manage to post the photos by
mid-week.
Oh and yes the H is still there-its now an orange/yellow colour denoting water hydrant [I think].
Natalie
|
