|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** This is an archived, static copy of the Casebook messages boards dating from 1998 to 2003. These threads cannot be replied to here. If you want to participate in our current forums please go to https://forum.casebook.org **
Locating the Victims on the 1881 Census
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Locating the Victims on the 1881 Census
Author: Guy Hatton
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 04:34 am |        |
Quote:"The census entry in question, that of Samuel Lloyd Davies of 50 Upper Thomas Street (Brunswick Hotel) including his niece Mary Jane
Davies, contains more details that Bob Hinton left out of his posting. Samuel was widowed, 64, born in Cenarth, Carmarthen, & his occupation was given as "licensed victualer" (cook?) & "commercial traveller" - travelling salesman. This may have something to do with the limited success of his hotel, which may have been more along the lines of a modern day bed-&-breakfast since it had merely one guest when the census was taken.
The answer is, as you suggest, to be found in this description of Davies' occupation, but it is different to that which you propose, Colleen. "Licensed Victualer" means "publican", i.e. the owner or landlord of a public house, the main function of which is the sale of drink. Some would have had, and still do have, a few rooms to let as a side business, and so may be given the name "hotel". They were, however, different from a "hotel" in the more commonly accepted modern sense of an establishment dedicated primarily to temporary accommodation, and also from the modern bed'n'breakfast, which is a smaller-scale version of the same thing. Hence the small number of guests at census time does not necessarily imply a failing business, and may even be seen as perfectly normal.
All the Best
Guy |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 05:24 am | | Hi Colleen,
I spoke to Bob Hinton on Saturday night at the Cloak & Dagger Club meeting. Among the large number of Mary Davies you found, were any described as widows, apart from the Brunswick Hotel Mary Jane? I hope I'm not misrepresenting Bob by saying I don't think he found any other widows.
Out of curiosity, I decided to check the precise definition of niece, and was surprised to find the following in my Chambers:
n. orig. a granddaughter, or any female descendant: now, a brother's or sister's daughter: extended to a like relation by marriage: euphemistically, a pope's or priest's daughter
It's all a bit broader than I had expected.
I still tend to think that there's likely to be a simple explanation for the lack of relatives to be found, on both Mary's and her supposedly deceased husband's sides, after she was found murdered, and the difficulties in tracking down any conclusive documentation for the couple.
Like you, I don't understand why Mary would choose to revert to her maiden name when she came to London, if she could have been the tragic young widow Davies quite legitimately. Exactly which parts of her past was she trying to leave behind, I wonder, when she came to London? Was she ever running from people who might want to track her down, or simply from herself and unhappy situations in her past? If Davies was a temporary name, adopted to suit temporary circumstances, and perhaps yet another escape, from her original homelife and identity, she might well drop it again and adopt an anonymous name like Kelly when it was time for her next escape, to London.
Unless or until something more fruitful turns up, I tend to think our Mary may have had good reason to run from her true identity and never return.
Congratulations on all the wonderful work you are doing.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 05:26 am | | G'day Colleen,
Reading Kelly's inquest testimonies, Barnett said her fathers name was "John" and one brothers name was "Henry". The man she married was "Davis" or "Davies".
If what she told Barnett was the truth, perhaps we should be looking for 'Mary Jane Davis' and looking for 'Henry Kelly' with a sister 'Mary'?????
Leanne! |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 01:18 pm | | Guy:
Thank you for explaining "licensed victualer" more clearly; this makes more sense to me, also. Even though I thought it odd that the "hotel" would have only one guest, I don't as some seem to, think that the establishment was some sort of sordid &/or incestuous brothel, with Sam & Jane acting as Mary Jane's pimps!
As soon as I have the chance I am going to visit my nearest Family History Centre & search the civil registration indices for England & Wales until I find a marriage between a Mary Kelly & a Davis or Davies between 1878 & 1888. If one existed I will find it, & locate the marriage certificate. |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 05:34 pm | | Having just searched the 1881 census again, this time for John or Henry Kellys, I have made the following discoveries.
There were a staggering 3,821 people named John Kelly living in the United Kingdom in 1881. 1,050 of these were born in Ireland. 41 who were born in Ireland were living in Wales. 17 were born in Ireland & living in Glamorgan. And there were 6 born in Ireland & living in Cardiff.
There were 452 people named Henry Kelly living in the United Kingdom in 1881. 32 were born in Ireland. There were 8 Henry Kellys in Wales, but none of these were born in Ireland. There were 4 Henry Kellys living in 1881 who were born in Ireland between 1850 & 1860, & 7 born in Ireland between 1860 & 1870, but again, none of these were living in Wales. There was one Henry Kelly born in Glamorgan, Wales, in 1878.
I recall reading somewhere that Mary's brother Henry was supposedly a sailor or soldier--I can't remember which--& that his nickname was "Johnto". Why this would be a nickname for "Henry" I have no idea; in fact it sounds more like an Irishism for John that anything else. I can't seem to find the reference to this sailor/soldier Henry in Sugden's book, but I do recall it.
But I did find one possible candidate. There was a Henry Kelly, aged 20, born in Ireland, living in the Royal Marine Artillery Barracks Eastney, Portsea, Hampshire. This Henry was a gunner with the Royal Marine Artillery & was unmarried. Could this be Mary's brother? He would have been born around 1861 which would put him very close in age to Mary.
I could not find anymore Henry Kellys who were either soldiers or sailors, but I found several John Kellys who were. Since Henry's nickname was reportedly "Johnto" the census-taker may have translated that as "John."
In any case, there was a John Kelly, aged 39, unmarried, born in Ireland, living in the Barracks in St. John's Parish, Cardiff, in 1881. He was a private in the 41st Regiment, according to the census. The fact this John Kelly was stationed in Cardiff in 1881 makes him seem more likely to be Mary's brother, but he was around 20 years older than Mary. It's still possible that he was her brother, since she was said to come from a large family.
Also in Cardiff, in St. Mary's Parish, there was a John Kelly aboard the vessel Samuel. His occupation was simply given as "able bodied seaman" & he was 26, unmarried, & born in Castlebar, Ireland. This John would be born about 1855 & therefore less than 10 years older than Mary.
Still in Cardiff, St. Mary's parish, aboard the vessel Ida, there was a John Kelly, 35, married, also an able-bodied seaman, born in Skeris, Co. Dublin, Ireland. This John would have been born about 1846 & would have been about 17 years older than Mary.
I also found another John Kelly who, while neither soldier or sailor, caught my eye. He was 24 years old & living at 81 Salop Street, Penarth, Glamorgan with his wife Bridget & their infant daughter Cathrine (sic). John was born in Penarth, Glamorgan, & his wife in Cardiff. His occupation was given as coal trimmer.
At 7 Corn Street, Newport, Monmouth, Wales there lived John William & Catherine Kelly. John was 49, a customs house officer, & born in Ireland, as was his 40 yr old wife. They had children: Edward, 17, nailmaking dos works, Albert, 15, nailmaking dos works, Agnes, 13, John, 11, Henry, 10, George, 8, Joseph James, 3. Edward & Albert were born in Walmer, Kent, England. Agnes & John were born in Brecon, Brecknock, Wales, & the youngest 3 were born in Newport, Monmouth, Wales. Here we have a John Kelly born in Ireland with sons John & Henry, but alas, no Mary, unless she had left home by then.
I should mention that the 1881 census search engine includes "Davis" & even "David" when searching for Davies. There was a total of 2,349 people named either Mary Davis/Davies/David living in the United Kingdom in 1881 who were born between 1858 & 1868. 636 of these were born in Glamorgan between 1858 & 1868 & were living in Wales in 1881. 591 of these were living in Glamorgan. Of these, exactly 507 were named Davies & 25 Davis. As I stated in an earlier posting, only 2 Mary Davies/Davis/David were born in Ireland. Both were in fact Davies & as I also previously mentioned only one could possibly be "our" Mary.
I have not had time to search every one of these 2000-odd Marys, but I did find another widowed Mary Davies. At 46 Oxford Street, Aberdare, Glamorgan, there lived Mary Ann Davies, aged 22, widowed, an annuitant, born in Ystalyfera, Glamorgan. She was boarding with William & Jane Williams, a collier & his wife, & with her was 2 yr old Mary Jane Davies, born in Aberdare, Glamorgan, likely her daughter.
Also, at 10 Senghenydd Street, Ystradyfodwg, Glamorgan, there was a Hannah Davies, aged 59, widowed, born in Glamorgan. Hannah was the head of the family but living with her was her "brother" (probably brother-in-law) Richard Davies, also widowed, aged 47, & a coal miner. Also in the household was Hannah's son Daniel Davies, aged 29, born Monmouth, a coal haulier, & his wife Mary A. Davies, aged 23, born in Glamorgan. The last member of the household was a Margaret A. Thomas, aged 8, described as Hannah's daughter & therefore likely illegitimate.
Finally, at 24 Caroline Street, Ystradyfodwg, Glamorgan, there was a Mary Ann Davies, aged 21, married, living with her husband Thomas Davies, a coal miner haulier also 21. The couple were lodging with 55 yr old widower William Thomas, a coal miner flueman. Mary Ann's birthplace was given as Glyn Neath, Glamorgan.
I still find it hard to understand why none of Mary's relatives or former friends came forward after her death. She was alone among all the other Ripper victims in this. Other than Barnett almost no one revealed any of her history, & only one female friend was found, & she was a recent one. Wherever Mary had been, she obviously covered her tracks well.
Another point: if Mary came to London, supposedly using her maiden name, in order to escape her past, I assume the past she was escaping was one of a young lady of dubious virtue. If this was the case, it was a futile & senseless gesture, since her London career did little to refute such a past. If she went to the lengths of changing her name & giving herself a false or skewed background in order to escape that past, why did she continue her amoral lifestyle in London??? This simply defies logic.
Sugden points out that no one has been able to find a marriage certificate for Mary Kelly & any Davies/Davis, but I will still look anyway. |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Tuesday, 06 February 2001 - 10:26 pm | | | I have just noticed something: Barnett reportedly said Mary Kelly had 6 brothers & one sister. In my previous posting I noted John & Catherine Kelly of Newport, Monmouth, Wales. The census return lists 6 sons: Edward, Albert, John, Henry, George, & Joseph James. It also lists one daughter, Agnes. There is no Mary but perhaps she was elsewhere (married, widowed, who knows?). This fits the family count, & the parents were born in Ireland. But the children were born in Kent, Brecknock, & Monmouth--this doesn't fit. Also the father was a customs house officer. There is no connection to the coal industry mentioned. Also it's the wrong part of Wales. But I thought it interesting nevertheless. |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 12:06 am | | It occurred to me to search for the people in Mary's life to see if that would offer more clues. It hasn't, so far, but anyway I've located Joseph Barnett & Joseph Flemming in the 1881 census.
In 1881 Joseph Flemming was lodging at 61 Crozier Terrace, Hackney, London. The head of the household was 35 yr old widow Ellen Copping, a laundress. Joseph was 22, unmarried, & a plasterer. He was born in Bethnal Green, Middlesex.
In 1881 Joseph Barnet (sic) was living at 10 Keate Street, Spitalfields, London. The head of the household was N. Sykes, a 31 yr old fish porter. From the odd assortment of people in this dwelling, it may have been a lodging house, although it's not designated as such nor are the inhabitants called lodgers. Only their occupations are given; no relationships to the head of the house. Joseph was a 23 year old costermonger born in London. Most interestingly, he was MARRIED in 1881, & his wife was living with him at 10 Keate Street. She was Annie Barnet, a 25 yr old cleaner, born in London also. If the couple had children, they were living elsewhere in 1881.
I tried searching for the Mrs. Buki that Mary was supposed to have lived with in St. George's Street, Ratcliffe Highway, but there was apparently no one of that name anywhere in the UK in 1881. Next I searched for the Mrs. Carthy that Mary lodged with at Breezer's Hill, Pennington Street. Unfortunately the search engine brings up all McCarthys as well & there's no way to stop it, so I had to scroll thru 2000-odd people. Of all the Carthys & Mrs. Carthys I found, however, none lived at that address, & I didn't have more information to identify them with. I looked for a Mary Kelly in Knightsbridge, thinking perhaps Mary was living with the "French lady" who seems to have been a madam, in 1881. I couldn't find any.
If only Mary had been living with either Barnett or Flemming in 1881!!!! |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 02:04 am | | COLLEEN, your persistance with the census and your patience with our barrage of questions is greatly appreciated.
1. It's been suggested on these boards recently that what Joe Barnett said was John too, rather than Johnto--both would sound the same to the person transcribing his words. It might also have been John two, as in John, Jr.
One possibility is his name was Henry John or John Henry ... At home he was called Henry, so as not to be confused with his father. On entering the military he might have chosen to be called John, but if there was another John in his unit, they may have been called John #1 and John #2 = Johnto. All supposition of course.
2. Barnett's wording in his statement to the police gives details not found in his inquest testimony, and vice-versa.
Statement November 9, 1888:
"The deceased told me on one occasion that her father named John Kelly was a foreman of some iron works at [sic] lived at Carmarthen or Carnarvon, that she had a brother named Henry serving in 2nd Battn. Scots Guards, and known amongst his comrades as Johnto, and I believe the Regiment is now in Ireland. ... and that she left her home about 4 years ago, and that she was married to a collier, who was killed through some explosion ..."
Inquest Testimony November 12, 1888:
"Deceased has often told me as to her parents, she said she was born in Limerick--that she was 25 years of age--& from there went to Wales when very young. She told me she came to London about 4 years ago. Her father's name was John Kelly, he was a Gauger at some iron works in Carnarvonshire. She told me she had one sister, who was a traveller with materials from market place to market place. She also said she had 6 brothers at home and one in the army, one was Henry Kelly. I never spoke to any of them. She told me she had been married when very young in Wales. She was married to a collier ... she was lawfully married to him until he died in an explosion. She said she lived with him 2 or 3 years up to his death. She told me she was married at the age of 16 years. She came to London about 4 years ago, after her husband's death. She said she first went to Cardiff and was in an infirmary there 8 or 9 months and followed a bad life with a cousin whilst in Cardiff. When she left Cardiff she said she came to London."
a) "6 brothers at home and one in the army" sounds like 7 brothers total to me.
b) 1888 minus 4 years = 1884. 1884 minus 8 or 9 months = about 1883 ... but we don't know how long Mary "followed a bad life with a cousin whilst in Cardiff" before and/or after Mary was in the infirmary. If she was sick enough to need treatment for nearly a year, I hardly think she was crawling out the window at night to turn tricks. So it's impossible to say for sure whether Mary's status on the 1881 census would be married or widowed.
c) 1888 minus 25 years of age = born in 1863. 1863 + 16 years = married in 1879.
Davies dies in 2 years = 1881, but what month? Cenus was taken in April. If killed in January-March, Mary would be listed as widow ... If killed in May-December Mary listed as married.
If Davies dies in 3 years = 1882.
Hope this clears the muddy waters a tiny bit.
Ashling |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 04:07 am | | G'day Colleen,
If Mary married when she was 16 (1879), and her husband died 3 years later, she would have been 19 (1882).
She must have stayed with her family for 2 years, before moving to London at age 21 (1884). Then she died 4 years later age 25 (1888).
John and Catherine Kelly with six sons and one daughter looks good. Mary would have been married.
Where exactly is "Brecknock"and "Monmouth"?
LEANNE! |
Author: Franceska Kemp
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 08:57 am | | Hi Colleen
Re: your search for Joseph Barnett on the census.
Have another look for Barnett. I don't have the details to hand and it was a long time ago, but I seem to recall that there was another Joseph Barnett, living with his brother (Daniel?)in the vicinity. This Joseph was not married and generally fitted the profile well. I can't remember if anyone else was living with them. Hope this is of use.
Fran |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 10:50 am | | Although I can't find the reference right now, I recall reading somewhere (likely in Sugden) that a search of records was made for a Henry or John Kelly in the Scots Guards & none was found. While I'm inclined to think Mary had a brother (of whatever name) in some branch of the military, I'm not sure we should give the "Scots Guards" theory too much credence. Why an Irishman from Wales would enlist in the Scots Guards begs a question.
Again, Sugden says that there is a report the infirmary records of Cardiff were searched after Mary Kelly's death & she wasn't found. Admittedly I'm not sure if they searched under Davies as well, but presumably the authorities would have noticed a Mary Davies, since they were well aware of the marriage theory.
I'm wondering if like the Scots Guards story the infirmary story is basically true but distorted--as I posted earlier I found a Mary Kelly in an infirmary, in London, in 1881; she was 23 however.
I'm wondering why Mary Kelly was ever in an infirmary & why that information hasn't come down to us. If she was merely poverty-stricken she would have ended up in the workhouse, not the infirmary. Obviously she must have been ill or indisposed in some manner: possibly a nervous breakdown? Also Barnett's statement says that after her husband's death she "went to Cardiff", so where was she at the time?
Again, in the absence of any marriage record, this still seems hard to believe. Why for example was it necessary for Barnett to state Mary was "legally married" to the man until his death? Presumably "married" usually meant "legally married." And why did Mary specify to Barnett that she lived with Davies 2 or 3 years before his death? Presumably married people also lived together. And while it was not that uncommon for girls to be married at 16, generally the reason was they were pregnant--if this had been the case with Mary Kelly, even if the child didn't survive, surely we would have heard of it by now. And again, why not use her legitimate, legal, married surname when coming to London instead of reverting to her maiden name?
Four years also seems like a very short timespan in which to be corrupted by a French madam in Knightsbridge, spirited to France like a victim of white slavery, return to the East End, lodge at at least 2 separate addresses, & have significant relationships with 2 men before getting yourself murdered at 25.
Our only source for Mary Kelly's history is Barnett, who could not exactly be described as objective. Not only is it odd that we have to rely on his testimony alone, but it's highly unreliable--we have to assume firstly that he paid close attention to what Mary told him, that he had an accurate memory, & that he wasn't lying or omitting certain facts. Lastly but certainly not least, we have to assume Mary told Barnett the absolute truth, which I highly doubt--in fact in light of her seemingly sensational history I'm inclined to think that not only did she embroider, she probably fabricated the facts as well.
We're also assuming her age as given to Barnett was accurate--there is & was no other source for her age. All of the other victims had relatives who could support their ages & birth records have been traced, showing that a couple of them were in fact older than was believed. I see no reason why Mary Kelly could not have been older than was thought or than she said. There is not an appreciable difference between 25 & 30; speaking as a 30 yr old who is still asked for ID, I know it was not only possible but very likely for Mary to have passed herself off as 5 or even 10 years younger than she actually was.
And again, WHERE WERE those 6 or 7 brothers & one sister in 1888??? They couldn't all have vanished off the face of the earth.
Finally, Brecknock & Monmouth are in Wales, but I can't be more specific than that without getting out the atlas--my notion of Welsh geography is very hazy; I know where Cardiff is & where Anglesey is, & then I'm lost. |
Author: Martin Fido
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 11:10 am | | Colleen -
Bear in mind that 'Buki' is likely to be a reporter's phonetic rendering of a name he has heard: it could be Bookey, or (with a northern accent) Buckey or any other close variant. (Cf the 'Oram/Holland' mixup at Polly Nichols' inquest, or my own favourite, the pawnbroker Mr Collingbourne inthe Daniel Good case who appeared as 'Mr Columbine' in the first few newspaper reports.
Martin Fido |
Author: John Dixon
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 02:29 pm | | Colleen,
F Kemp above is right about J.Barnett being a boarder with Daniel "visitor" in the same house ... this is the person I took to be Joe.
I cannot encourage you enough to continue your work in this public place. Look at the support you are receiving! & I agree with your speculation, it was a surprise to me to find that few publications had their 1881 information correct.
Ashling re age of consent I have 2 sources that say 1875 was the year the age of consent was raised to 13 however what about the age at which a girl could be married? Anyone know what was the English limit on marriage was?
Cheers John |
Author: Ashling
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 03:58 pm | | Hi JOHN:
I found several web sites, each giving slightly dif years for age of consent, but I chose to post the Spartacus link because it's a school web site, and therefore a bit more reliable than many web sites maintained by individuals. My main point remains the same--that when Polly wed in 1864 the age of consent for girls was well below age 16.
Further, I think you'll find the age of consent encompasses the ability to marry. Sex was a "duty" of marriage for women then. It's highly doubtful the Victorians would have enacted laws to enable girls to legally have sex at age 13 outside of marriage, but force them to wait until age 16 or whatever to have sex within marriage.
Regards,
Ashling |
Author: Leanne Perry
Wednesday, 07 February 2001 - 06:21 pm | | G'day Colleen,
At the back of Bruce Paleys book, under 'Joseph Barnett's Known Addresses' it says:
'1878+ North East Passage, Wellclose Square, St George in the East [porters licence]'
Then the next known address was dated 1887 and was with Mary Kelly.
His date of birth is given as 1858, he would have been 23 in 1881 and was born in London. Maybe he was married!
Leanne! |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 02:09 am | | Colleen, in Joseph Barnett's statement to the police of 9 November he stated:
"she had a brother named Henry serving in 2nd Battn. Scots Guards, and known amongst his comrades as Johnto, and I believe the Regiment is now in Ireland. ..." While you are correct in stating that no evidence of a Henry ‘Johnto' Kelly has been found in the records of the Scots Guards, Barnett was right in that the 2nd Battalion was stationed in Ireland at the time. This would seem to backup what Mary Kelly had told him.
Wolf. |
Author: Wolf Vanderlinden
Thursday, 08 February 2001 - 12:51 pm | | In addition to what I had written earlier, Mary Kelly's landlord, John McCarthy stated in an interview with the Times on 10 November:
"Her mother lives in Ireland, but in what county I do not know. Deceased used to receive letters from her occasionally."
It is not certain whether McCarthy actually said mother or was miss heard and actually stated brother. Either way, it is possible that either Mary Kelly's brother was stationed in Ireland or that she had other family members living there in 1888.
Wolf. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 07:03 am | | G'day Wolf,
That's worse than believing that Barnett was miss heard when he said: "Ears and Eyes" and actually said: "Hair and Eyes".
I don't think the reporters would have been that careless. The first sentence says: 'Her MOTHER...', then the second sentence says: '...used to receive letters from HER'.
LEANNE! |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 10:16 am | | Leanne:
I actually think reporters may have been that "careless" since it's been demonstrated before that as long as the story was sensational enough contemporary newspapers didn't mind printing inaccuracies or suppositions or theories about the Whitechapel murders. Also we can't tell if that sentence was a direct quote from McCarthy or a transcription of what the reporter thought he said. I also wonder why this fact would be given to us by Mary's landlord & not Barnett--if Barnett knew so much about the rest of Mary's background & life why did this fact escape him? The inconsistencies all add up to the fact we can't really rely on anything that is "known" about Mary, especially since so far not one of these "known" facts has been proven. The only thing we can prove is she was murdered. What about Mary's father? No one seems to have known if he was living or dead when Mary was killed. |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Friday, 09 February 2001 - 10:37 am | | | I have looked for Joseph Barnett with his brother Daniel in the census & failed to find him. There were only 8 Daniel Barnetts in London in 1881, & none of them had brothers named Joseph. One had a 5 yr old son named Joseph. I did find a Joseph Barnett, aged 22, lodging with George & Mary Bailey at 1 Horatio Street, Bethnal Green. This Joseph was a general labourer, unmarried & born in Whitechapel. There was a John Barnett in the same household, described as a visitor, who was 20 & born in Whitechapel, but while it looks like they may have been brothers we can't state this with any certainty; the census doesn't tell us that. They may have been cousins as well. This John Barnett was a fish porter, which is why the entry caught my eye. I haven't found a Joseph Barnett who was a porter of any kind in 1881. But the fact this one was in the same household as a fish porter named Barnett is a good sign. My previous choice for Barnett was also lodging with a porter, which also helped me pick him out. I think "our" Joseph Barnett is either this one in Bethnal Green or my previous choice. |
Author: Ashling
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 04:59 am | | COLLEEN, regarding our discussion from a few days ago ... On the board Catherine Eddowes > Catherine's Alias: Mary Ann Kelly the statement is made that John Kelly's wife died April 1887, and that fuller details are available in a 1996 issue of Ripperana. I don't have a subscription, but perhaps someone who does will be kind enough to post the details.
Regards,
Ashling |
Author: Leanne Perry
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 05:21 am | | G'day Colleen,
All four Barnett brothers got their fish porting licenses at the same time. So they were all fish porters, all were born in Whitechapel and John was three years younger than Joseph.
On page 29 of Paley's book it reads: 'At some point Kelly's father came to London in search of her but she avoided seeing him, possibly out of shame but perhaps out of resentment, as she had once remarked to a friend that her parents had 'discarded' her. Barnett also told of a brother having once visited Kelly and there was mention of an actress cousin in London....'
LEANNE! |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Saturday, 10 February 2001 - 07:11 pm | | | Yes, the Joseph Barnett of 1 Horatio Street is looking a lot like the right Barnett. However, if all 4 brothers got "porting" licenses at the same time (1878), why would Joseph be described as a general labourer on the 1881 census while his younger "brother" was a fish porter? Also can anyone tell me exactly what a costermonger was? |
Author: Scott Nelson
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 01:44 am | | | The 1995 issue of Ripperana (no. 12 April, p. 15-16) contains a brief account by Mark King concerning Mary Ann Kelly, the first wife of John Kelly. He found her death certificate, which reads: Mary Ann Kelly, 15 May 1888, 55 Flower and Dean Street, Spitalfields, aged 42. Occupation - Chair Caner. Sudden death. Haemorrhage from the lungs. Natural causes. Inquest held 17 May 1888. |
Author: Ashling
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 04:42 am | | Thanks Scott! My mind boggles at the thought of John Kelly living with his long term girlfriend in the same lodging house that his wife was living in. Since Kelly is such a common name I wonder how Mark King determined for sure that this Mary Ann was the wife of "our" John Kelly. The inquest would make interesting reading ... especially if John testified at it.
Regards,
Ashling |
Author: Leanne Perry
Sunday, 11 February 2001 - 10:59 pm | | G'day Colleen,
Go to 'Dissertations' and read: "Hey Joe, Your Porter Story sounds Fishy", and you'll read all about the Barnett boys Billingsgate licences, and even read about the Horatio address you found.
It seems that all four Barnett brothers didn't get their licences at the same time and the weight of evidence is against Joseph working as a porter continuously.
Leanne |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 04:24 am | | Hi Colleen,
Henry Mayhew, writing circa 1851, gives the following information about costermongers:
'The number of costermongers, - that it is to say, of those street-sellers attending the London "green" and "fish" markets, - appears to be, from the best data at my command, now 30,000 men,women and children.'
Mayhew also gives us the following insight:
'Among the street-folk there are many distinct characters of people - people differing as widely from each other in tastes, habits, thoughts and creed, as one nation from another. Of these the costermongers form by far the largest and certainly the most broadly marked class. They appear to be a distinct race - perhaps, originally, of Irish extraction - seldom associating with any other of the street-folks, and being all known to each other.'
The word 'costermonger' actually comes from costard, a large kind of apple, and costardmonger, a seller of apples and other fruit; a seller of fruit and other wares from a barrow.
Hope this is of some use.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 12:14 pm | | Thanks Leanne & Caz,
This clears things up. I looked on the IGI & found a Joseph Barnett, son of Edward & Elizabeth Barnett, christened at St. Mary's Whitechapel, Stepney, London on July 5, 1857. This could be "our" Barnett but when I looked for his brothers I couldn't find any with the same set of parents! It might be, it might not be, we can't tell at this point.
I tried to look up (Catherine Eddowes') John Kelly on the 1881 census. I found 2 that I thought were likely to be him. At 3 Little Paternoster Row, Spitalfields, London there lived John & Mary Ann Kelly. John was 38, born in Spitalfields, & a dock labourer. His wife Mary ann was 38, born in Whitechapel, & a charwoman. John's aunt Ellen Price, also a charwoman, was living with them. Ellen was widowed, 63, & born in Lancashire.
At 18 Half Nichol Street, Bethnal Green, lived John & Mary A. Kelly with their 5 sons. John was 46, born in Shoreditch, & a hawker. His wife was 35 & a brush drawer, but no birthplace is given for her. The sons were John, 16, a printer, James, 14, a rope maker, Edward, 11, Henry, 4, & Thomas, 1. Edward was in school. John & James were born in St. Luke's, Edward, Henry & Thomas in Bethnal Green.
The occupation "hawker" caught my eye with the last John Kelly mentioned, but if he had several children, where were they at the time of either his wife's death or Catherine Eddowes' death?
On this basis I'm inclined to think the first John Kelly is the right one, but it may be too early to say yet. |
Author: Leanne Perry
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 06:31 pm | | G'day Colleen,
Bruce Paley, who researched Barnett for about ten years, says that he was born in 1858 and the fourth child, third son, of John and Catherine Barnett. John was a fish porter at Billingsgate who died of pleurisy in July 1864, when Joe was just 6.
Hey, I just realised there was a copy of his birth certificate in Paley's book. This certificate is on file at St. Catherine's House, London WC2.
LEANNE! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 07:09 pm | | Leanne,
Barnett's father was a dock worker
Rick |
Author: Jon
Monday, 12 February 2001 - 08:54 pm | | | Paley researched Barnett for 10 years? |
Author: Ashling
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 04:20 am | | Hi to all. On Monday Feb. 5, I posted:
" ... age of consent for girls was raised from age 12 to 13 in 1860 and then from age 13 to 16 in 1885."
That is INCORRECT.
CORRECT INFO:
1860 - Age of consent = was age 12
1875 - Age of consent = raised to age 13
1885 - Age of consent = raised to age 16
Thanks JOHN for catching my major typo!
And now folks back to your regularly scheduled program ...
Ashling |
Author: Leanne Perry
Tuesday, 13 February 2001 - 05:19 am | | G'day Jon,
Sorry mate, that statement was from memory! It says here in the main Casebook that Bruce Paley researched Barnett as a suspect for over a decade and a half.
LEANNE! |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Tuesday, 20 February 2001 - 10:42 pm | | Here are a few more interesting things I've found. In the IGI I've found the marriage of Martha Tabram's parents. Charles White & Elizabeth Dowsett were married on July 26, 1831 at St. Giles, Camberwell, Surrey.
I've also found the marriage of Annie Chapman's parents. George Smith & Ruth Chapman were married on February 22, 1842 at St. James, Paddington, London. This date is worth noting because we don't have a satisfactory birthdate yet for Annie. On the 1881 census she gave her age as 40, which would make her born in 1841, a year BEFORE her parents were married. Taking into account that the census was taken on April 3, 1881, if she had not yet reached her birthday, she may have been born in 1840, 2 years before her parents were married.
I tried again to find the marriage of Polly Nichols' parents & could only find Edward Walker marrying a Caroline Weston on December 25, 1856 at Old Church, St. Pancras, London. I'm not satisfied with this; indeed I'm beginning to doubt the Mary Nicholls found in St. George's-in-the-East Workhouse on the 1881 census was actually "our" Polly Nichols. Mary Nicholls of the workhouse gave her age as 26 & said she was unmarried. While several women would & did lie about their marital state if estranged from their husbands, most said they were widows rather than spinsters. Further, if we accept the age given as 26, then Polly was merely 10 years old when married in 1864....this cannot be correct. Unless it's a misprint for 36, this cannot be our Mary Nichols. And if she was 36, then she was around the original age given, that is born circa 1844. Before I believe Polly was born in 1845, or 1850, or any other date, I want some more convincing proof.
I searched for Martha Tabram's companion Henry Turner on the 1881 census. I found what I believe to be him living in the Dorset Street lodging house in Spitalfields. A Henry Turner, aged 29, unmarried, & a carpenter was lodging there. The only other Henry Turner I found in London in 1881 who was a carpenter was around the same age & living with his parents.
What is more interesting about this census entry is that it shows the Dorset Street Lodging House occupied nos. 16-19 Dorset Street, perhaps explaining the slight fluctuations given in the addresses of people inhabiting lodging houses in the Ripper case. It's a shame the 1881 census CD-ROMs don't allow a search by address, for it would be interesting to locate each of the lodging houses in the area in 1881. The Dorset Street lodging house was kept by William & Mary Crossingham & their 14 year old daughter Annie. How large a lodging house that encompassed 4 street addresses would have been I can't tell, but in 1881 this one sheltered 164 inhabitants besides the owner, his wife & daughter. Oddly, all 164 were men--were women merely "unofficial" lodging house tenants? I can't believe the census-taker would have failed to enumerate ALL the women in a lodging house of this size. Most of the men were either unmarried (or said they were), or widowed, & ranged in age from the early '20s to one man of 71.
I would like to try & find the census return for the lodging house on Flower & Dean to see if it also contained only men. |
|
|
|
|
