|
 |
 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
    
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 712
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 6:59 am: | 
|
Hi Jen,
You've lost me. Which one under which entry? You'll have to review for me, since we've been talking about this other nonsense for so long.
I remember Chris Phillips published some numbers telling us that no Mrs. Hammersmiths were found anywhere near Liverpool during the time, but perhaps you mean someone else or somewhere else.
Incidentally, remember what I said about this name and pop music and performances and recordings in the 70s and 80s? I have since learned that this name is gone from the scene now, although it would have been quite prominent in all the media when the diary first appeared.
Now I must head off to school.
Take care,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 915
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 7:28 am: |
|
John,
no worries the 1901 census lists two Hammersmiths in Caistor Lincs UK Alfred 6 and Edith four,
although knowing what the 1901 census online is like......
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 713
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 1:18 pm: |
|
Hi Jen,
I'm on lunch break and saw your post. Thanks for returning us to the thread topic after the silliness.
I don't remember this, in whose house does it say these children lived?
Without time to read the archives,
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 921
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 01, 2004 - 4:08 pm: |
|
I don't know because i have only used the online searchable index and have no credits about at this moment in time!!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
debra Arif
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Thursday, September 02, 2004 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Hi Jennifer
I looked at this entry too a while ago on the 1901 census online and the name was actually mis transcribed and was actually Harmsworth I seem to remember.
I have looked at all the entries indexed as Hammersmith for 1871, 1891 and 1901 and they are nearly all the name Harmsworth wrongly transcribed for the index.
I have only found one genuine Hammersmith, a single man born in Bohemia ( Austria) on the 1901 census.
I think Chris Scott has looked at a few of the supposed Hammersmith census entries and given details earlier in this thread.
regards
Debra |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 948
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 4:53 am: |
|
Thank you so much Debra
you are an unbelieavable star!!!
Thank you so very much
Jenni
ps therefore one can conclude there are no Hammersmiths Mrs around!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1226
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 10:49 am: |
|
How melodramatic John O is being lately.
And how inappropriate that he should now be classing me with Feldy, because I remarked upon the irony of the coincidence: namely that the Aunspaughs had Michael classing himself with those great poets, while our diarist had James classing himself with his brother when it came to mastering the art of verse.
Where did I quote any of Feldy’s own words, or suggest that his theory concerning Michael had merit?
Nowhere.
Where did I claim that Michael had any poetry or song lyrics published?
Nowhere.
And, in fact, John O has actually underlined the Aunspaugh/diarist comparison for me, by putting Flo’s words in their fuller context. This makes it clear that Flo was writing about the song, Holy City, for which Michael wrote the music. Yet the association made when describing Michael’s increasingly inflated ego (“especially after he wrote ‘The Holy City’”), was with four famous poets, followed by the joke about Michael engaging a tomb in Westminster Abbey alongside his wordsmith heroes – and not a composer in sight, famous or otherwise.
Similarly, our diarist had Michael writing a ‘merry tune’, but James making an association between his brother and poetry.
So John O couldn’t be more wrong for imagining that I took the famous poets remark out of context in order to mislead. Putting it back in context for me has made it even clearer: the diarist wasn’t the only one to make an association between the composer, Michael Maybrick and poetry; a real person and close friend of James Maybrick did exactly the same thing – even if John O believes the reasons for doing so could not have been more different.
Any misleading came from John himself, when he desperately dragged Feldy and his totally irrelevant theory into this discussion, and did his melodramatic best to associate them both with me and my own observations. Just in case anyone fell for it, I am not claiming that Michael was really poet laureate and the diarist obviously knew it and so did the Aunspaughs and the diary is therefore genuine and… well, you get the picture. 
Love,
Caz
X
|
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 133
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 11:53 am: |
|
Since Michael didn't write any verse , he can only have been suggesting that he might have been as FAMOUS as Shakespeare et al , not celebrated as a great writer.
Which makes Florence's quote irrelevant. Florence and her father could simply have been mistaken if they thought Michael wrote verse , but James Maybrick himself would not have made that mistake.
(Message edited by simonowen on September 08, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 738
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 08, 2004 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Well, that took a while.
So let's go back and see what was actually written.
By Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 6:52 am, Caroline Morris has "the real" Michael Maybrick "apparently obsessing over the comparative stature of poets such as Shakespeare, Byron, Milton and Tennyson."
But, as a close reading of the full quote in Feldman reveals, there is no evidence whatsoever that he ever did any such thing. In fact, it's not even clear whose associations these originally were -- Michael's, Florence's, or her father's (who came up with the Westminster joke to indicate what a self-important jerk Mike had become after writing the music to a popular song).
Caroline simply imagines a "real" Michael obsessing about poets and his place among them when there's no evidence that he ever did any such thing, certainly not in this quote that appears in Feldman anyway.
Still, Paul would be proud of this creative fiction.
And, incidentally, I "dragged Feldy" into this because that's where the quote appears. I realize actually going to the text and reading might be anathema to some around here, but it's the responsible thing to do.
And as Chris George has already pointed out, this is a memory that could only have taken place well after the real James was dead, since the song wasn't even written until years later.
So Flo's little roll call amidst her childhood memory of her father telling her what a jerk Mike was being after writing some music tells us nothing at all about whether the real Michael thought of himself as a poet or even wrote verse at all, let alone was a success at it or ever "obsessed" over it.
So now Caroline returns to say that she was only claiming that the daughter of a friend of James's named very famous writers when he was talking about Michael's swollen head and bad behavior.
But this by itself tells us nothing at all about what's actually written in the diary. Why, we are still left to ask, would the diarist have James obsessing jealously over not what actually made his brother such a success (and we all know what that was) but rather over something he might or might not have been able to do (something there is no record anywhere of him actually doing)?
We can readily understand why a forger would do this, especially if they did not completely understand what Michael actually wrote. It makes good sense, what with it allowing them to fill page after page with silly rhymes and what with the already existing Ripper rhymes in the letters and what with the convenience and being able to thereby include less specific details and facts about the murders that might be checked against history. Yes, it's easy to understand. But why would the real James?
Well, of course, there's no answering that question, because after all, he was a drug crazed serial killer.
We've seen this vicious circle of excuse-making and elaborate imagination before and we know how it works. But it doesn't change what's on the page.
Even if Michael has "apparently" stopped obsessing.
Chuckling at what passes for reading around here sometimes,
--John |
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1232
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 5:28 am: |
|
For Gawd’s sake – I was simply observing that two independent associations have been made between Michael Maybrick and poetry: one by an alleged modern hoaxer in the late 1980s, who had James obsessing over Michael’s superior abilities at rhyming verse (I’m not famous for it either, but I can succeed in rhyming bad with mad, and working out exactly which category John puts me in, for my failure to ‘admit’ the diary is a cheap modern fake and therefore turning a blind eye to others who are ‘pimping’ it as old or genuine); t’other by close family friends of the real James Maybrick, who chuckled to think of Michael ranking himself in the hall of fame next to Shakespeare (and presumably in a different league from Mozart).
Why would Michael have needed to publish a single line of his own verse for my observation to remain valid? He wouldn’t.
Why is my observation invalid because Michael wrote the music to Holy City after James’s death? It’s not.
Have a great weekend all, and get over yourselves – this is no big deal. Carry on believing a modern faker made a fatal error by having one brother try to outdo the other in writing verse, if it makes you happy.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 978
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 5:43 am: |
|
This has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that not a single Mrs Hammersmith seems to have existed but...
Here's where we have to agree to disagree, if Michael Maybrick thought himself any good at all in verse writing (verse incidentially can mean lyrics or poetry) why would he work with someone else who could write verse to his music? Why would he do that? If he thought himself so good at verse writing?
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 754
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 8:27 am: |
|
Now Caroline is just lying.
Let's look at the words, shall we?
Here's Caroline from her last post:
"For Gawd’s sake – I was simply observing that two independent associations have been made between Michael Maybrick and poetry."
and here's Caroline's actual "observation," from Tuesday, August 31, 2004 - 6:52 am above:
"What the diarist succeeds in doing is to portray Sir Jim obsessing over Michael and his comparatively successful attempts at rhyming verse, at a time when the real Michael was apparently obsessing over the comparative stature of poets such as Shakespeare, Byron, Milton and Tennyson."
The second quote, which has the real Michael obsessing about poets, is a dramatic but Feldmaniacal fiction. There is no evidence that it ever happened.
And a reading of the original source quote reveals that instantly.
The record is quite clear.
And this sort of blatant revisionism is the last refuge of the rhetorically desperate.
--John
PS: Actually, it's reading that "makes me happy."
(Message edited by omlor on September 10, 2004)
(Message edited by omlor on September 10, 2004) |
Simon Owen
Detective Sergeant
Username: Simonowen
Post Number: 143
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 8:41 am: |
|
Caroline is right here though , there are two independent opinions that Michael Maybrick wrote poetry.
1) Florence Aunspaugh's comments about Michael classing himself with Byron and Shakespeare.
2) The person who wrote the Diary thought that Michael was successful at writing verse.
The simple fact however is that Michael can by no stretch of the imagination be considered a successful poet because he had no verse or lyrics published. There is no tradition of him writing or reciting any verse since he was a composer of music. Maybe he meant his name might be considered among the greats as he had worked with Fred Weatherly , it would be their co-written work that would survive. Well , maybe. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 755
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 8:53 am: |
|
Simon,
If you read the Florence quote closely, you'll see that not only is she not giving the opinion that "Michael wrote poetry," but it is not even clear that she was originally naming these poets (or whether her father was and she was remembering back) or that she was saying that Michael classed himself with these or any other poets at all. She is saying that she remembers her father saying that Michael got a big head and acted like a jerk after one of the songs he wrote music for became popular, and as part of the description of his boorish behavior they talk about him jokingly in terms of these iconic English writers (you know, as if he were like THAT...). This is not at all the same as Florence saying that Michael actually named those specific writers ever or, of course, as Michael saying anything at all (or obsessing about anything at all, as Caroline originally claimed).
It's important to see what the words actually say.
But I do understand your second point.
It's just not at all clear that Michael actually said anything at all about any of these specific writers.
Staying focused on the words,
--John
(Message edited by omlor on September 10, 2004)
(Message edited by omlor on September 10, 2004) |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 758
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 6:22 pm: |
|
Hi all,
One other small point, now that I have had a chance to read things again carefully.
When Caroline writes:
"What the diarist succeeds in doing is to portray Sir Jim obsessing over Michael and his comparatively successful attempts at rhyming verse, at a time when the real Michael was apparently obsessing over the comparative stature of poets such as Shakespeare, Byron, Milton and Tennyson."
She is clearly suggesting, by her phrase "at a time when," that the diarist has Jim writing at the same time Florence is referring to in her quote about Michael and the poets.
We now know that this too is not correct.
The real "Sir Jim" was dead when Florence has Michael thinking this stuff.
So not only is Caroline's scenario that has "the real Michael" obsessing over poets a purely dramatic fiction not actually afforded us by the original citation, but her placing the two sets of events together at the same time (Jim writing and Mike obsessing) is also completely contradicted by the known history of the citation.
There is no evidence that Mike himself was obsessing over poets and the two events described (Jim writing the diary and Mike acting like a jerk after writing The Holy City) took place years apart, not "at a time when...."
So the "diarist" has not in fact "succeeded in doing" anything like what she describes in her words above.
Just a bit more reading, in the name of the facts.
--John
PS: And since we're talking about timing, I remind you all again that Florence would have been only 8-10 years old at the time in question, so when she later says about Michael, "He thought he should be classed with..." we do not know whether that's her memory of something Michael said to her or whether that is her memory of what her father said to her (as is directly suggested by the next line in the pasage) or just her own recollection of his behavior. We have no idea who picked these names. So we certainly cannot say Mike was ever obsessing over them, and certainly not "at a time when" the real James was writing the diary -- two years earlier.
(Message edited by omlor on September 10, 2004) |
R.J. Palmer
Inspector
Username: Rjpalmer
Post Number: 458
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, September 10, 2004 - 8:47 pm: |
|
Hi.
History is a frustrating and suprising thing. That's what makes it so interesting.
Regarding Florence Aunspaugh...
Much of the information we know (or think we know) about life at Battlecrease comes from the reminiscences of an old lady who remembered staying with the Maybricks in Liverpool in the Summer of 1888 when she was just a little girl.
I wonder, though, is everything really as it seems?
The author Trevor Christie chased down Florence Aunspaugh when he was researching his book Etched in Arsenic. Christie knew that her father John Aunspaugh, a cotton broker, was an associate of Maybrick's. His daughter Florence had some remarkable memories.
According to the reports we are given (some repeated above), Florence Aunspaugh was eight years old when she stayed at Battlecrease in 1888. This is important, because it relates to an incident repeated in Shirley Harrison's book, showing Maybrick's violent nature. Little Florence Aunspaugh heard the Maybrick's baby Gladys crying, and tried to lift her from her crib. Being only eight, she couldn't quite do it, and she ended up dropping the baby back on to her bed. Nurse Yapp witnessed this, and grabbed Florence by the nape of her neck. Maybrick was just happening by at the moment and went ballistic. "I saw you grab that child by the back of the neck--you might have broken her neck. This child is far from her father and mother, in my house under my protection and if I ever hear you talking to her that way again I will kick you down the steps and break every God damn bone in you." (quoted, Harrison, 2nd edition, p. 49)
But did this really happen?
Are Florence Aunspaugh's recollections trustworthy?
Looking at the 1880 U.S. Census, I found something rather strange.
Florence’s father , as previously noted, was John Aunspaugh.
He is listed as a "cotton dealer" living in South Rome, Georgia, U.S.A.
So far, so good. This agrees with what we know.
But his two daughters, Vivian & Florence are listed as being 9 and 7 respectively. So Little Florence Aunspaugh is listed as being born in 1873. This would have made her 15 years old at the time of the alleged Yapp incident at Battlecrease in 1888. Clearly not the “little Miss” mentioned in the old lady’s recollections to Trevor Christie as having rambled around Florie & Jim's house in the year of the Ripper killings. (The 1930 Census lists Florence Aunspaugh as living with her sister Vivian in Dallas, Texas. Here, her age is listed as 55, which is only slightly different, but would still put her birth year at around 1874/1875. In the 1870 U.S. census, John & Virginia Aunspaugh's daughter Vivien is listed as 9 monts old, living with her father the "cotton broker" in Texas).
1880 Federal Census
John Aunspaugh
Age: 39 <b.>
Birthplace: Virginia
Occ: Cotton Dealer
Home: South Rome, Georgia, U.S.A.
Wife: Virginia, age 37.
Daughter: Vivian, age 9
Daughter: Florence, age 7
It seems to me that this places the 1888 "Battlecrease" recollections in a considerable amount of doubt. It might be worth remembering that Trevor Christie ultimately didn't use Florence Aunspaugh's information in his book. Memories are funny things, and, somewhat sadly, Miss Anspaugh's don't seem to quite add up.
Regards, RJ Palmer
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Chief Inspector
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 991
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, September 11, 2004 - 11:10 am: |
|
By the way we are on totally the wrong thread,
Even if her recollections are correct they do not mention that Michael Maybrick was successful at (or even ever attempted to) writing verse.
It is akin to saying a member of ones family thinks they are say Robbie Williams (bad choice - Americans read say Justin Timberlake!)
Saying this about someone would not mean x (made up person) was so boastful because they thought the songs they had recorded and charted at a relatively successful top 40 (Americans read Billboards top 100) position were in the same league as a mega famous and mega successful pop a lister.
In fact it is on akin with saying they are such an idiot for thinking that because they could no more sing than a donkey, isn't it?
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Caroline Anne Morris
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Caz
Post Number: 1235
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 7:18 am: |
|
Hi All,
Now I am accused by John of ‘lying’, because I dared to write:
What the diarist succeeds in doing is to portray Sir Jim obsessing over Michael and his comparatively successful attempts at rhyming verse, at a time when the real Michael was apparently obsessing over the comparative stature of poets such as Shakespeare, Byron, Milton and Tennyson.
Read again the words of Florence Aunspaugh, which gave rise to my observation, which I deliberately qualified with the word ‘apparently’, to imply ‘in the opinion of the Aunspaughs’:
Michael had the idea, especially after he wrote ‘The Holy City’, that he was floating on the Celestial plains and did not belong to earth…
He [Michael] thought he should be classed with Shakespeare, Byron, Milton and Tennyson. My father often laughed and said ‘Michael had already engaged a tomb in Westminster Abbey…
So, regardless of whether or not Florence was accurately reflecting her father’s opinions, and regardless of whether or not Michael had actually compared himself with the poets she named, is John seriously arguing that she didn’t mean to portray Michael as a man who was already becoming obsessed with his own position in the hall of fame, alongside the likes of Shakespeare and Tennyson, by the time he composed the music for ‘The Holy City’?
It’s a wonder John has to spend so much time splitting hairs like this, in order to call me a liar, if he could just stick to the basic argument and show how the diarist made a fatal error by suggesting Michael was better at rhyming verse than his brother James.
Love,
Caz
X
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1010
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 7:40 am: |
|
Caz,
This thread is about Mrs Hamersmith who did not exist!
Jenni
ps allow me to demonstrate where the verse thread is!
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 769
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 7:50 am: |
|
Ah yes, the old "apparently" defense…
But this time, it just won't wash.
Here's the quote again, with some emphasis added:
"What the diarist succeeds in doing is to portray Sir Jim obsessing over Michael and his comparatively successful attempts at rhyming verse, at a time when the real Michael was apparently obsessing over the comparative stature of poets such as Shakespeare, Byron, Milton and Tennyson."
And here's Caroline's later revised assertion of what she was claiming.
"For Gawd’s sake – I was simply observing that two independent associations have been made between Michael Maybrick and poetry."
Can everyone see the difference between her saying that she was "simply observing that two independent association have been made" and her earlier saying the diary successfully has the real James confessing "at a time when" the real Michael was "apparently obsessing over" poets?
Clearly, in her original post, she was doing far more than she claimed in her later one -- she was not only creating a Feldmaniacal fiction about Mike obsessing over poets (there is no evidence in any the quotes that he was ever doing any such thing, in fact we don't even know who named the poets to begin with), but she was also completely relocating the events in time to produce a false and completely unevidenced simultaneity (the Florence quote on page 350 clearly and repeatedly speaks about Michael’s behavior occurring two years after the real Jim is already dead).
Thus she has the diarist "succeeding" when the text does no such thing.
But why would Caroline create a fictional Michael "apparently" obsessing over poets at a completely unsubstantiated time in that first quote when the Aunspaugh quote does not allow for either the conclusion about Michael "obsessing" over any such thing or for the diary and the events in the quote being simultaneous?
It couldn't be just to make to diary look more "successful" than it actually is, could it?
Why on earth would she want to do that?
Anyway, the quotes stand for themselves. Despite her desperate revisionism. Close, detailed accurate reading often helps in serious discussions of texts.
Caroline was the one who came here and cited quote from Feldman's book and offered it in support of the diary and who then simply created a Michael obsessed (sorry, "apparently" obsessed) with poets while Jim was writing his confession, when the quote tells us neither that Mike was "obsessed" about any poets at all or anything about what he was like two years before the time the Aunspaugh's were clearly and repeatedly discussing. In fact, the idea that the boorish behavior is a direct consequence of his success in composing the music to the song The Holy City is mentioned explicitly in the quote THREE SEPARATE TIMES. Look it up.
Reading, as they say, is indeed FUNdamental.
We should do more of it around here.
--John (who appreciates the power of desire, honestly)
|
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 770
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 7:52 am: |
|
Sorry, Jenni,
I was writing "at a time when" you were. 
You're right. This belongs elsewhere.
--John |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 1015
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 - 8:48 am: |
|
That's ok,
just to remind you this thread is about Mrs hammersmith who did not not exist!
Jenni
"Think things, not words." - O.W. Holmes jr
|
Tiddley boyar
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Sunday, September 12, 2004 - 8:56 am: |
|
What is the problem with the existence or not of a Mrs. Hammersmith? There is no reason to suppose that she didn't exist in 1888, just because she is not evident in a census 'x' years either side of 1888. Did she briefly stay with a family in an area? Was she in fact from the Hammersmith area, and the diarist refers to her as Mrs Hammersmith? etc. We may never know and so what. How remiss of a hoaxer to use a name that can't be found in the area. And if she is found then it will OBVIOUSLY be the source of the hoaxer won't it? Heads I win, tails you lose! as with all the paltry arguments.
And while the Michael and his music/lyrics is raising its head on this thread (there I'm a poet too) it is common and also logical that any musician composing music will have to some degree an ability as a lyricist and vice versa, simple as that, I don't see why it should be such a problem to some other than desperation to create a fault that isn't there. It's no big deal. |
John V. Omlor
Chief Inspector
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 788
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 - 12:42 pm: |
|
TB's at it again.
There's no evidence whatsoever to support either of these claims the diary makes, in fact all the evidence we do have about one of them leads in the opposite direction. And the actual source of Michael's success is well documented.
But hey, that doesn't mean anything.
"No big deal."
Denial.
It trumps logic, it trumps history, it trumps evidence and the lack of evidence, it trumps rational and critical thought every time.
And it's great fun to watch.
Glad the discussion has taken the tone it deserves.
--John |
Lee McLoughlin
Detective Sergeant
Username: Lee
Post Number: 60
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 7:48 am: |
|
On a yahoo group I am a member of it is claimed by Paul Feldman that he has traced Mrs Hammersmith to Prescot in a census from 1881 |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2052
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 7:53 am: |
|
Hi Lee,
couldn't give us any more info could you like what he says her first name is etc etc etc.
and to think i used to belong to that group!
Jenni
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2053
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 7:59 am: |
|
Name Relation Marital Status Gender Age Birthplace Occupation Disability
John MOUSDELL Head M Male 38 St Helens, Lancashire, England Coal Miner
Catherine MOUSDELL Wife M Female 38 St Helens, Lancashire, England
Mary MOUSDELL Daur U Female 10 St Helens, Lancashire, England Scholar
Catherine MOUSDELL Daur U Female 8 Patricroft, Lancashire, England Scholar
Emma MOUSDELL Daur U Female 4 St Helens, Lancashire, England
Clara PENNINGTON Niece U Female 1 St Helens, Lancashire, England
Benjamin HAMERSMITH Son In Law M Male 21 St Helens, Lancashire, England Labourer
M. A. HAMERSMITH Daur M Female 17 St Helens, Lancashire, England Wife
not to worry this will be them,
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2054
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 8:04 am: |
|
Source Information:
Dwelling 21 Peter Street
Census Place Eccleston In Prescot, Lancashire, England
Family History Library Film 1341894
Public Records Office Reference RG11
Piece / Folio 3736 / 6
Page Number 6
|
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 776
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 8:22 am: |
|
Apparently this is a mistranscribed "Hamilton":
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=85078#POST85078
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2055
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 8:28 am: |
|
well, umm..we don't know this is who Feldy means, i mean its so unlike him to get anything wrong, so.. |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1249
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 29, 2005 - 9:05 am: |
|
Hi Lee,
Do you think you could get Paul Feldman to subscribe over here and start posting?
It would really ratchet up the fun quotient. The coming summer would be one long and twisted blast of joy.
Please say you'll try.
Many thanks in advance,
--John |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 996
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 5:40 am: |
|
I looked in Ancestry.com's index to the 1891 census, and found the following Hammersmiths:
Hammersmith, Annie [born] abt 1874 [in] Shropshire / Salop [living] Warwickshire
Hammersmith, Emma E abt 1832 London London
Hammersmith, Helen E abt 1864 London London
Hammersmith, Henry abt 1863 London London
Hammersmith, John H abt 1837 London London
Hammersmith, Mary A abt 1865 London London
More Hammersmiths, and only 3 years after 1888!
However, as we've seen, there are no Hammersmiths in the more reliable 1881 census index, and none older than 6 in the 1901 census index.
After a little searching, I found what seems to be 4 of the 5 London "Hammersmiths" recorded in the 1881 census index as "HARMSWORTH":
Dwelling 7 Gore Rd
Census Place London, Middlesex, England
Family History Library Film 1341067
Public Records Office Reference RG11
Piece / Folio 0312 / 105
Page Number 58
John H. HARMSWORTH / Head / M / Male / 46 / St Pancras, Middlesex, England / Clk Auctioneer
Emma E. HARMSWORTH / Wife / M / Female / 48 / London City, London, Middlesex, England
John W. HARMSWORTH / Son / U / Male / 23 / Shoreditch, Middlesex, England / Clk Auctioneer
George HARMSWORTH / Son / U / Male / 21 / Shoreditch, Middlesex, England / Printer
William HARMSWORTH / Son / U / Male / 20 / London City, Middlesex, England / Warehouseman Clothier
Henry HARMSWORTH / Son / U / Male / 18 /
London City, Middlesex, England /Clk Mancheste Warehouse
Mary A. HARMSWORTH / Daur / U / Female / 16 / London City, Middlesex, England
Mary S. MARRABLE / Serv / U / Female / 32 / Bethnal Green, Middlesex, England / Genl Serv Domestic
The 1881 transcription does seem to have the name right, as there is a matching birth registration of a Henry Harmsworth in East London, in the 2nd quarter of 1862.
So most of these 1891 "Hammersmiths" are really mistranscriptions. That leaves Annie and Helen still to check up on, if anyone feels it's worthwhile (Helen may or may not be connected with the Harmsworth family of Gore Road).
I hope I won't be accused of "playing games" if I suggest that on the basis of Ancestry's track record so far, we assume they aren't really Hammersmiths unless the accuracy of the transcription is confirmed.
Chris Phillips
|
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2403
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 6:47 am: |
|
Hi Chris,
thanks for that.
Jenni |
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 35
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 12:18 pm: |
|
While going through the 1861 census today, I came across 5 instances of the surname HAMMERSMITH on the index.
Out of curiosity I checked out two of the actual entries,only expecting to find a Harmsworth or somwthing similar, but both entries did actually say Hammersmith! and they were English born too.
Maybe the name does exist after all!...well it did in 1861
Debra
p.s. I was going to show the entry but I can't get the upload button to work.
|
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 36
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 12:33 pm: |
|
 |
Chris Phillips
Chief Inspector
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1000
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Debra
Interesting.
Of course, 1861 takes us back a generation before 1888, so given the absence of Hammersmiths from the 1881 census, this is unlikely to tell us anything about the possibility of Hammersmiths at the time of the murders.
And we do know that there were a few Hammersmiths about before 1881 from FreeBMD.
Perhaps one could argue on this basis that the hoaxer could have come across a Victorian example of the surname somewhere (though none of the ones we've seen has any Lancashire connection), and therefore may not be quite as stupid as appeared. But I still reckon that the hoaxer just coined the surname from the London district, and never bothered to check up on its prevalence.
Chris Phillips
|
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 37
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 2:57 pm: |
|
Hi Chris
I agree with what you are saying, but if all 5 Hammersmith entries from the 1861 census turned out to be correct then there is the remote possibility that they had families and descendants alive in 1888 and they have just not been found on the 1881 census yet, linking them to Lancashire is a harder job of course!
The two entries I looked at just out of interest were in Norfolk and Lincolnshire.
Debra
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1003
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Debra
But the 1881 census has been completely transcribed and indexed.
Errors are always possible - for example we know that "Hamilton" was mistranscribed as "Hammersmith" - but on the face of it these Hammersmiths fom 1861 were not in England in 1881.
Chris Phillips
|
Debra J. Arif
Sergeant
Username: Dj
Post Number: 38
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 3:45 pm: |
|
Chris
I do understand what you are saying but I have found from personal experience that the 1881 census index has many errors!
|
Tee@jtrforums
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 6:40 pm: |
|
I have not read the full archives to this thread I`m sorry ... but I scanned through much of it and didn`t see it here so thought I`d bring it up.
Being that this Mrs Hammersmith is mentioned within the Maybrick Diary scenario has no-one yet thought what the name Emma Smith (Early "Considered" victm of JtR) would sound like coming down a mid 1980`s BT phone line in a thick scouse accent would sound like to the untrained ear ??? |
Lars Nordman
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Saturday, May 14, 2005 - 8:37 am: |
|
Hei
What happens if you search for Hammerschmidt eller
Hamerschmidt, dying in England but not necessarily born there (immigrants)? I have tried this ancestry site but I am unfamiliar with it. Yet it seems I can pick up one or two people with these names which could possibly be "hammersmith" if someone was not familiar with the German?
Lars |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4669
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 11, 2005 - 4:48 pm: |
|
Here's another for the pot (a rather early one):
RICHARD HAMMER SMITH
Male Family
Event(s):
Birth:
Christening:
Death:
Burial:
Marriages:
Spouse: HENRIETTA FRANCES PIERCY
Family
Marriage: 16 APR 1853 Saint Thomas, Stepney, London, England
Messages:
Extracted marriage record for locality listed in the record. The source records are usually arranged chronologically by the marriage date.
Source Information:
Batch No.: Dates: Source Call No.: Type: Printout Call No.: Type:
M067881
1840 - 1850 0597931
Film 6903902
Film
M067881
1850 - 1859 0597932
Film NONE
M067881
1883 0597931
Film NONE
Sheet: 00
I don't know what became of this couple.
Robert |
Jennifer D. Pegg
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Jdpegg
Post Number: 2662
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 8:07 am: |
|
Robert,
ahh!! thanks all the same!
Jenni
"By the power of Greyskull - I have the power!"
|
Chris Phillips
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Cgp100
Post Number: 1176
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 8:28 am: |
|
Robert
Thank you for that.
But in your extract, the man's name isn't "Richard Hammersmith", it's "Richard Hammer Smith".
In the FreeBMD index, he appears under "Smith", not "Hammersmith". That index is compiled from the contemporary indexes that are arranged alphabetically by surname.
So unless someone has screwed up really badly, he's not a Hammersmith.
Chris Phillips
PS I suppose it is possible that there was some confusion about the groom's name when the index was compiled, and that it could have been entered under both possibilities (certainly "Hammer" seems an odd middle name). The FreeBMD index is not yet complete for this year. But there is nothing to indicate that the man's name should be "Hammersmith" apart from the oddness.
(Message edited by cgp100 on July 12, 2005) |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4673
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 9:21 am: |
|
Hi Chris
Yes, I agree that the man's name is probably "Richard Hammer Smith" and that it would be odd for a man to call a woman by her husband's middle name. "Mrs Richard Smith" would be OK, but not "Mrs Hammer Smith."
I got the name from
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~hughwallis/
Robert |
Paul Butler
Detective Sergeant
Username: Paul
Post Number: 103
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
|
What about the dozens of nineteenth century Hammersmiths unearthed by casebook contributor Connie in the States sometime last year? It seems the name was not at all uncommon in the southern states, and was probably an Anglicisation, or Americanisation, of immigrant Hammerschmidts.
It was also common practice in the nineteenth century in Britain to give children their Mother's maiden names as middle names. If Richard's middle name was Hammer, rather than a double barrel as in Hammer-Smith, then a likely source for such an odd middle name would be an old family surname!
Paul |
John V. Omlor
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Omlor
Post Number: 1697
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Paul,
Start here:
http://casebook.org/cgi-bin/forum/show.cgi?tpc=4922&post=101778#POST101778
And read through to the first of August, 2004.
That way we need not repeat ourselves.
--John |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page