|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 876
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 3:47 pm: | 
|
In Stawell Heard's fine dissertation on Valentine's School (http://casebook.org/dissertations/dst-valentine.html) he notes that Valentine was no longer resident from about 1886. However, the Kelly directory for 1891 has an entry under private residences for George Valentine at 26 Dacre Park, Lee.
Perhaps this means only that Valentine was the owner of this residence at Eliot Place but did not live there. The school at 9 Eliot Place is also listed in the Commercial section as a "boarding school." No private resident other than Valentine is listed at 9 Eliot Place.
There is also a George Valentine resident at 26 Dacre Park, Lee. Heard states that Valentine lived at 6 Leyland Road, Lee from 1989 to 1906. Valentine had a nephew, also named George Valentine, with whom he later lived at 57 Lee Road.
Valentine's neighbors at Eliot Place in 1891:
no 1 David Evans
no 2 Alfred Cuthbert Aves
no 3 Mrs. Walkington
no 3A Miss Lingard
no 4 Frederick William Crane
no 5 Miss Heisch
no 6 Samuel Henry Winter, schoolmaster (residential and commercial listings for Winter)
no 7 Herbert S. Carey
no 7 (sic) Miss Simon
no 8 Alfred Poynder M.A.
no 9 VALENTINE'S SCHOOL
no 10 James G.L. Hemmerle
no 12 Mrs. Stephen Smith
no 13 Frederick William Cash
no 14 Edward Belleroche
no 15 Mrs. Christie
no 18 Alfred Potter, watch maker (commercial listing)
J.H. Lonsdale lived at 5 Eliot Cottages at some time during the 1880's. In 1891 that address was occupied by one Alexander Lee.
Andy S.
|
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 877
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - 6:10 pm: |
|
Correction:
I'm sorry -- I meant to say that the 1891 Kelly Directory lists George Valentine as resident at 9 Eliot Place and also lists a George Valentine resident at 26 Dacre Park, Lee. The wording in the above post didn't come out right.
It may be that the intent was to show that Valentine merely owned the residence at 9 Eliot Place, though no one else is listed as residing there.
Andy S. |
John Ruffels
Inspector
Username: Johnr
Post Number: 388
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 6:33 am: |
|
Andy,
I have previously pointed out this dual address for Valentine . It was on a thread discussing L J Leighton's recent book on Montague Druitt.
I understand John Leighton also thanked Stawell Heard for permission to cite his researches in the book.
So it is likely both Leighton and I picked up on
Valentine residing at Dacre Street from Heard.
I used that fact to suggest a reason for the delay in Valentine learning of Druitt's suicidal intentions.
As, possibly, the school was now closing for the Christmas break, and fewer boys were in residence. Valentine was not present at 9 Eliot Place every day.
And if Druitt had got into "serious trouble" "at the school", Headmaster Valentine would have been most anxious to send as many boys home, for Christmas, as quickly as possible to keep the lid on the scandal.
(Which he seems to have been successful in doing). |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4619
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 6:48 am: |
|
Hi
Chris Scott posted the 1891 census for George Valentine, and he was at No. 9 Eliot Place then. Whether this meant that he was merely staying overnight, I don't know.
Also there was a certain Elizabeth Sims, and I would dearly like to know if she was any relation to George Sims.
Robert |
Andrew Spallek
Chief Inspector
Username: Aspallek
Post Number: 881
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 30, 2005 - 12:15 pm: |
|
John --
I had missed your post on the Leighton thread and I can't seem to identify it now. I wonder if the George Valentine listed at 26 Dacre Park, Lee was in fact the nephew of our George Valentine with whom he would later live on Lee Road. If so, perhaps our George Valentine was resident at the school in 1891, and so presumably in 1888, after all.
I think the Kelly Directory should be used along with the census and it may give us a better indication of residences. As I understand it, the British census merely gives us a snapshot of who happened to be where on a given date as opposed to the American census data which reports on actual residences. The Kelly Directory is more like a modern phone book that would report residences. However, I wonder where the data for the Kelly Directory came from. I suspect it may have been from tax or public land ownership records and therefore may be reporting the owner of the property rather than the resident.
Andy S. |
|
Use of these
message boards implies agreement and consent to our Terms of Use.
The views expressed here in no way reflect the views of the owners and
operators of Casebook: Jack the Ripper.
Our old message board content (45,000+ messages) is no longer available online, but a complete archive
is available on the Casebook At Home Edition, for 19.99 (US) plus shipping.
The "At Home" Edition works just like the real web site, but with absolutely no advertisements.
You can browse it anywhere - in the car, on the plane, on your front porch - without ever needing to hook up to
an internet connection. Click here to buy the Casebook At Home Edition.
|
|
|
|
