|
 |
 |
|
|
|
** 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 **
Archive through February 05, 2001
Casebook Message Boards: Ripper Victims: General Discussion:
Locating the Victims on the 1881 Census:
Archive through February 05, 2001
Author: Colleen Andrews
Thursday, 18 January 2001 - 11:51 pm |        | Pinpointing the “Ripper Victims” in 1881
I have located most of the alleged victims of Jack the Ripper in the 1881 British census. This census has been made widely available by the Church of Latter-day Saints as a genealogical tool in the form of 25 CD-ROMS & includes a national index.
Martha (White) Tabran, a.k.a. Martha Tabram:
The 1881 census lists Martha’s surname as Tabran. There were very few Tabrams in England in 1881 & none of them could be Martha, her husband, or her children. However, there were only 5 Tabrans in all of England, & 3 of them were Martha’s immediate family. Although Martha was said to have lived with a Henry Turner after the break-up of her marriage, in 1881 she was living in the workhouse at 35 St. Thomas Street, Whitechapel, with her 2 sons. She gave her age as 30 (making her born circa 1851), said she was widowed, & described herself as a flower hawker. Her birthplace was listed with a question mark, & then Surrey, as were both her sons. Frederick & Charles Tabran were aged 8 & 7 respectively.
The only plausible candidate for Martha’s husband in all of Britain in 1881 was one Hy. S. Tabran (Henry Samuel?), a general labourer & boarder at 14 River Terrace, Greenwich, Kent. The problem is this H. S. Tabran was only 20 years old in 1881, & therefore would have only been 8 years old when Martha married Henry Samuel Tabran in 1869. Obviously this cannot be Martha’s husband, nor could it be a son of hers. He was probably closely related to her husband, but exactly where her husband was in 1881, or what name he was living under, is a mystery.
Mary Ann (Walker) Nichols, a.k.a. Polly Nichols:
Polly Nichols has eluded identification so far through the 1881 census. According to sources, her marriage broke up in 1881 & indeed on the census, her husband & children are living alone at 6D Block Peabody Buildings, Lambeth, Surrey. William Nichols is described as a married 38-year-old machine printer born in Oxford. In spite of his own father’s testimony after Polly’s death, the oldest son Edward John was still living at home on the 1881 census; he was 15 & described as an “engineer turner.” His birthplace is given as Camberwell. Percy George was 13 & a printer; his birthplace & that of Alice Esther (9) were given as Walworth. Eliza Sarah (4) & Henry Alfred (2) were listed as being born in Blackfriars, Middlesex.
There are a couple of possible candidates for Polly herself: one is Mary A. Nicholls, described as an unmarried 37 year old milliner, lodging at 23 Rotherfield Street, Islington with Francis & Catherine Cleveland. She gave her birthplace as Clerkenwell, Middlesex. This Mary A. is a year older than sources say Polly would have been, & was unmarried, although she may have merely told the census-taker that. Another possible candidate is Mary Ann Nicholls, a married 40-year-old laundress, lodging at 61 Wellington Road, Islington. She was living with one George Crawshaw, a married 40-year-old “scavenger,” & while both are described as lodgers, there were no other people living with them, & George is also described as the head of the household. He was born in Holloway, Middlesex, & Mary Ann in Finsbury, Middlesex. This candidate would look very promising were it not for the fact she was 6 years older than Polly is thought to have been.
A third possible candidate is one Mary Ann Nichols lodging at 59 Crown Street, St. Giles-in-the-Fields, London. She listed herself as a widowed 38-year-old charwoman born in St. Giles. She was lodging with a Charles & Frances Hartley & there were 4 other people lodging there as well; 3 men & 1 woman.
Eliza Ann Smith Chapman, a.k.a. Annie Chapman:
Most sources state that Annie & her husband John moved to Windsor in 1881, & separated in 1884 or 1885. But the 1881 census shows they were already living apart. John was aged 39, married, & living alone in the apartments over the stables at St. Leonard’s Hill in Clewer, Berkshire. His occupation was given as coachman/domestic servant, & his birthplace was given as Newmarket, Suffolk.
Annie was living with her mother Ruth Smith, a 62-year-old widowed laundress, at 29 Montpelier Place, Westminster (St. Margaret), London. Annie gave her age as 40, her occupation as “stud groom’s wife,” & listed her birthplace as Knightsbridge, Middlesex. Her 3 children were with her: Emily Chapman, aged 10, born Knightsbridge, Annie Chapman, aged 7, born St. George’s, & John Chapman, aged 4 months, born Windsor, Berkshire. This seems to indicate Annie & her husband separated directly after the birth of their son. While the 3 children are described as visiting grandchildren of the head of the household, Annie herself is not described as a visitor. Also living with Ruth Smith in 1881 were her son Fountain Smith (spelled “Fontin” in the census), a 20-year-old unmarried stationer’s assistant, & her daughter Georgina Smith, a 25-year-old unmarried laundress. Ruth Smith’s birthplace was given as Herstmonceux, Sussex. Interestingly, her oldest child Georgina is listed as being born in Windsor, Berkshire, although Fountain & Annie were born in Knightsbridge. Annie’s daughters Emily & Annie were both in school.
Catherine Eddowes, a.k.a. Kate Conway:
In 1881 Kate Eddowes was living with Thomas Conway at 71 Lower George Street, Chelsea, London. She was listed as Kate Conway & they told the census-taker they were married. Thomas was a 46-year-old hawker, born in Ireland. Kate was a 38-year-old charwoman, born in Staffordshire. They had 2 sons with them: Thomas, 13, born Middlesex, & George, 7, born Middlesex; both were attending school.
Elizabeth (Gustafsdottir) Stride:
Although Liz Stride claimed her husband went down with the Princess Alice in 1878, she can be seen living with him on the 1881 census at 69 Usher Road, Bow, London. John T. Stride is described as a 54-year-old carpenter born in Sheerness, Kent. Elizabeth was listed as 34 & born in Stockholm (BS), Sweden. There were no children or other individuals living with them.
Mary Ann Kelly, a.k.a. Mary Jane Kelly:
In 1881 the Kelly family lived at 19 Homfray Street, in the parish of St. Mary’s, Cardiff, Glamorgan, Wales. The household contained John Kelly, general labourer, aged 55, born Ireland, his wife Margaret Kelly, 57, also born in Ireland, daughter Helen Kelly, aged 24, born in Cardiff, son John Kelly, aged 19, general labourer, born in Cardiff, & Mary Ann Kelly, aged 16, born in Cardiff. The contemporary accounts stating that Mary Ann Kelly only “called herself Irish” would seem to be supported by this. In fact she was Irish by blood, but Welsh by birth. Interestingly, her sister Helen’s occupation is given as “at home” but Mary Ann’s is given as “no occupation.” Although there were reports that Mary Ann married a collier named Davies when she was 16, she listed herself as unmarried on the census.
Also boarding with the family were married couple Michael & Margaret Flavin, their baby Margaret (aged 3 months), 14 year old James Shea, & 6 year old Robert Downey. Michael Flavin was a general labourer born in Ireland as well. James Shea was born in Ireland & attending school. Robert Downey was born in Cardiff & also attending school. Who these 2 young boys were is unknown; perhaps they were relatives of Mr. or Mrs. Kelly. The Flavins may have been related to the Kellys as well. |
Author: Christopher T George
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 07:09 am | | Hi, Colleen:
Paul Begg may want to comment on this since I know that he has done some work on Mary Jane Kelly's supposed Cardiff background, but my understanding is that no one has verified Kelly's connections to Wales or to Ireland. The plain fact is that Kelly and even Mary Ann Kelly or Mary Jane Kelly are very common names, and it seems as likely as not to me that the "Mary Ann Kelly" that you are saying is the MJK killed in Miller's Court is not the right person. I do though wish you and anyone else who is trying to trace Mary Jane Kelly's family the best of luck. What you are doing is important work and may eventually turn up the goods.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 07:18 am | | Colleen,
Congratulations on an excellent piece of research.
You have definitely found the correct Tabram/Tabran family. Ann Morris only thought the elder son was about seventeen by the time of the inquest, so seven and a half years earlier is close enough by that reckoning. According to Sudgen, their respective ages should have been ten and eight. Similarly with Martha herself, a discrepancy of two years exists between the result of your research and the age most commonly given for her (39). As you can’t have failed to notice, people were either very vague about their ages or were for some reason reluctant to state their proper ages in those days. It is quite amusing to see how families seemed to age at different rates between the successive census returns. Why was she in the workhouse at the time? Hard to say, but Henry Turner’s inquest evidence included the following, “On and off I have lived with her for nearly nine years. Occasionally she had given away to drink, and then I had to leave her.” (East London Observer, 25th August 1888). In other words the relationship between Martha and Turner was probably much the same as that between Liz Stride and Michael Kidney.
Press reports give Henry Samuel Tabram’s address as River Terrace, Greenwich (though variously as nos. 5 and 6). As you say Tabram/Tabran was an uncommon name. So unless your research can prove that other family members were active in the area, the similarities of name and location suggest to me that you have got the right man, but that there is a clerical error in the census return. (Should it have read age 30 or 40, not 20?)
Your possibilities for Polly Nichols are intriguing. Obviously with a more common name like that it is harder to pinpoint the correct one. Of the three you list, despite another age discrepancy I’d favour the third one. Though the parish of her birth stated doesn’t quite match the real location (New Fetter Lane) it’s only a few minutes walk away. If this is ‘our’ Polly, she had gone back to an area she knew well, which is quite logical. She’s also described as a widow – the classic ruse of the ‘unfortunate’.
Concerning Kate Eddowes, the question arises of where her daughter Annie was living at the time, though she was of an age (16-ish?) that she could have left home, as many girls did to work in domestic service and the like.
Your research on Stride agrees with Bob Hinton’s findings. Liz’s attempts in 1878 to persuade the Swedish Church that she was destitute because her husband was dead appear to be nothing but a scam to gain money.
No doubt your identification of Mary Jane Kelly will prove the most controversial one. You offer us yet another alternative background for her. Kelly seems to have been something of a mystery in life and more so in death. Other than pointing it that Joe Barnett mentioned that she hailed from Carmathen and/or Caernarvon (themselves two places at opposite ends of Wales), I can offer no comment or assistance. Mary’s roots have been a popular topic for research over the years, and your observations are bound to attract a response.
Thanks for sharing this information with us in one of the best postes for some time.
Regards, V. |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 07:18 am | | Hi Colleen. Thanks for posting your hard work. Hope you don't mind a couple of questions.
1. Have you read the Addendum to the 2nd edition of Sugden's Complete History of Jack the Ripper? He lists Margaret Flavin as one of Mary's older sisters--Margaret was age 16 on the 1871 census, and age 27 and married on the 1881 census.
2. What made you decide on the spelling of Tabrun with an N, rather than Tabrum with an M? Sudgen goes with the Tabrum spelling and lists her sons as being born in 1871 & 1872--making them about 2 years older in 1881 than the two boys you found.
Thanks.
Open-mindedly yours,
Ashling |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 07:21 am | | G'day Colleen,
All of what we know about Millers Court Mary Jane Kelly comes from her boyfriend Joseph Barnett, who says she was born in 1864 and had six brothers and one sister.
He was told she was married to Davies when she was 16, but he was tragically killed in a mining accident only a year or two later. This means that she was no longer married in 1881.
LEANNE |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 07:34 am | | Hi Chris & Viper ... evidently y'all posted while I was composing mine.
Viper--
Two typos--wrong age and wrong address is a bit much for me. Since the Henry Tabrun age 20 is listed as living at #14 River Terrace, instead of #5 or #6--couldn't he be a nephew of Martha's husband ... and perhaps the older Henry is listed on the census under the spelling of Tabrum with an M?
I nearly despair of tracing my own grandfather ... my last name has 3 wildly dif spellings that sound the same.
Thanks,
Ashling |
Author: Guy Hatton
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 07:37 am | | Viper -
Am I right in thinking that some census returns from earlier years give ages only as rounded to the nearest 5 years, and that this may account for many cases of apparently bizarre ageing between censuses? (Unfortunately, I can't remember off hand where I read this originally).
All the Best
Guy |
Author: The Viper
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 07:43 am | | You might be right Ash, but people moved lodgings quite regularly and it's very feasible that the address is correct, and that Henry Tabram had moved along the street in the seven intervening years. The address is the least likely detail to be wrong, since the census was structured by address. As to whether there were other family members with the name Henry S. living in the area, that's something that Colleen might wish to persue.
Guy, Sorry, don't know the answer to that offhand. But somebody here must...
Regards, V. |
Author: stephen borsbey
Friday, 19 January 2001 - 01:40 pm | | | very interesting, but always remember when researching names that they will often have been corrupted. either by the census taker who has written them down wrongly, or by the person themselves who may have been illiterate and unable to spell thier own name. i found this in researching my own surname.....i remain your obedient servant..steve. |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Sunday, 21 January 2001 - 01:49 am | | Thanks to everyone for replying to my posting & giving me more food for thought
Re: Martha Tabran/Tabram:
I feel the theory put forth that there was a transcriptive or clerical error in recording Hy. S. Tabran's age on the census is a very strong possibility. In fact the 1881 British census on CD-ROM is entirely transcriptive; in order to view images of the actual census page one has to order the relevant microfilms from Salt Lake City, & in this case it is obviously necessary. The reason I searched for the spelling Tabran rather than Tabram is that a search under Tabram yielded me nothing. There were, in 1881, 86 people surnamed Tabram in the United Kingdom. None of these were Marthas or Henrys or Samuels. In contrast, there were in 1881 only 6 people surnamed Tabran. One of these was Martha, 2 more her sons, the 4th was the mysterious Hy. S. Tabran, & the 5th & 6th were unmarried female servants. One Mary J. Tabran, aged 19, was living with Charles & Rosa M. Langley at 58 Shaftesbury Road, Hammersmith, London in 1881. Mary J. was born in Dalham, Suffolk, was unmarried, & described herself as a general domestic servant. She could have been a sister of Hy. S., although they were listed under differing birthplaces. The 6th Tabran was one Ellen Tabran, aged 17, living in what appears to have been a confectioner's store at 29 Chapel Street, North Meols, Lancashire. She was born in South Meol, Lancashire, & described herself as a kitchen maid/domestic servant. The head of the household was one Annie G. Moss, unmarried, aged 24, a confectioner. There were 2 other assistant confectioners, 3 apprentice confectioners, & a cook living in the same dwelling. All were unmarried & only 2 of them had the same surname. This Ellen Tabran could also have been a sister of Hy. S. Tabran according to their ages, but again, she has a different birthplace from either Hy. S. or Mary J.
Re: Annie Conway, daughter of Catherine Eddowes:
The whereabouts of Annie Conway are indeed a mystery. A search of the national index to the 1881 census turned up only 4 Ann/Anne/Annie Conways born in Middlesex, England (where Kate's other 2 children were listed as being born) between 1860 & 1870. The first of these was one Ann Conway, aged 19, unmarried, listed as daughter to widow Ellen Conway of Victoria Street, Rishton, Lancashire. Ann was also born in Richton, England, apparently a different place from Rishton, Lancashire where her younger sister was born & where the family was living. She gave her occupation as a cotton winder. The second was one Annie Conway, aged 16, living with her widowed mother Margaret Conway at 60 Alfred Road, Paddington, London. Annie was born in Paddington also. The third was one Annie Conway, aged 16, living with her parents Timothy & Mary Conway at 6 Charles Place, St. Pancras, London. Anne was born in St. Pancras & was a dressmaker. The fourth was one Annie Conway, aged 15, living at 11 Woodstock Road, Action, Middlesex, with her parents George H. & Florence Conway. She was born in London. None of these 4 candidates seems likely to have been the daughter of Thomas Conway & Catherine Eddowes. Annie Conway may have been married in 1881 or living as married & therefore under another, as yet unknown, surname.
Re: Mary Ann Kelly:
The Mary Kelly controversy need only be a controversy, I believe, due to the apparently common nature of the names Mary & Kelly, even when (or especially when) combined with Ann or Jane. Sugden in the addendum to The Complete History of Jack the Ripper makes valid & valuable points regarding Kelly's probable family in the 1871 & 1881 censuses. Sugden expressed reservations about his findings based on the censuses listing the Kelly children as born in Cardiff. This didn't fit with contemporary accounts which state Mary Kelly was Irish. There was, however, at least one contemporary account that described Mary as merely "calling herself Irish." That her family background was Irish seems an established fact. What I believe has caused the confusion is a misinterpretation of the term "Irish" on the part of both Kelly's contemporaries & current researchers today. Kelly was in fact correct in calling herself Irish; according to the 1871 & 1881 censuses, both her parents were born in Ireland. In fact, by 19th century standards, she would have been correct in calling herself Irish if only her father had been Irish, no matter what her mother's background was. In Canada, a person's racial origin was asked for on the 1881 census, & you took this origin from your father, i.e. if your father was Irish & your mother Russian, officially, on the 1881 census, you were Irish. Mary Kelly could have been & by all intents & purposes seems indeed to have been born in Cardiff, Wales, but this didn't make her Welsh anymore than being born in a stable made Jesus Christ a horse. She was Welsh by nationality, but Irish by race. In fact since Wales wasn't even its own country anymore in 1881, the term "Welsh" as a national description is invalid; it only existed in terms of race, & racially Mary Kelly was Irish.
I believe Mary's shadowy "marriage" to a collier named Davies is a myth. Perhaps she had a relationship with some such person, but I believe if she had actually married him someone would have come up with the actual marriage record by now. It should not be that hard to locate a marriage between a Davies & a person named Mary Kelly somewhere in the British Isles between the years 1878 & 1888 (to use a very liberal timespan). Mary was said to have married this collier at 16; yet according to accounts that state she was born around 1864, she would have been nearly exactly 16 in 1881. I therefore did a few searches of the national index to the 1881 census & came up with the following results:
· Persons named Mary Kelly, born between 1859 & 1869 in Caernarvon, living in Caernarvon in 1881=0
· Persons named Mary Kelly, born between 1859 & 1869 in Caernarvon, living in Glamorgan in 1881=0
· Persons named Mary Kelly, born between 1859 & 1869 in Ireland, living in Caernarvon in 1881=0
· Persons named Mary Kelly, born between 1859 & 1869 in Ireland, living in Glamorgan in 1881=0
· Persons named Mary Kelly, born between 1859 & 1869 in Glamorgan, living in Glamorgan in 1881=3
· Persons named Mary Kelly, born between 1859 & 1869 in Glamorgan, living in Caernarvon in 1881=0
· Persons named Mary Kelly, born between 1859 & 1869 in Carmarthen, living in Glamorgan in 1881=0
· Persons named Mary Kelly, born between 1859 & 1869 in Glamorgan, living in Carmarthen in 1881=0
· Persons named Mary Kelly, born between 1859 & 1869 in Ireland, living in Carmarthen in 1881=0
· Persons named Mary Kelly, born between 1859 & 1869 in Carmarthen, living in Carmarthen in 1881=0
As can be seen, this narrows the immediate field quite a bit. I concentrated on Carmarthen & Caernarvon because contemporary accounts believed her family to have some connections with these Welsh counties. Glamorgan is the county in which Cardiff lies. Only 3 Mary Kellys turned up in all of these searches; all were born in Glamorgan & living in Glamorgan in 1881. Two were in Cardiff, the third was in Llantrisant.
1. The first is one Mary Kelly, aged 17, living as a servant with John George & Josephine Todd at St. Mary Street, Cardiff (St. Mary's parish). This Mary Kelly was unmarried, gave her occupation as nurse, & her birthplace as Dowlais, Glamorgan.
2. The second one is the Mary Kelly mentioned in my first posting. As someone else pointed out, Sugden in his book The Complete History of Jack the Ripper claims that the Margaret Flavin living with this Kelly family was Mary Kelly's sister. This is entirely possible; both were born in Cardiff, & Margaret Flavin may have been named after her "mother" Margaret Kelly. This seems even more logical when you note her baby daughter was named Margaret as well. Admittedly, if Margaret Flavin was the daughter of John Kelly, the head of the household, this relationship was missed by the census-taker or omitted by his informants; she is described simply as a boarder & wife of Michael Flavin, who is also described merely as a boarder & not a son-in-law. However, this is definitely the same family Sugden located in the 1871 census. Both parents were born in Ireland, the children in Cardiff. Mary Ann (note both names appear here) was listed as having no occupation & she was not married. She was 16.
3. The third candidate was one Mary Ann Kelly (again, note the complete name), aged 15, living with her parents Thomas & Dorothy Kelly at Penrhiwfer, 7 Caemawr Terrace, Llantrisant. She was unmarried & there was no occupation listed. Both of her parents were born in Cornwall, her father in Provose & her mother in St. Austell. There were 4 Kelly brothers living with the family as well: James, William, Tom, & Alfred. One Kelly sister was in the household with her husband Joseph Brown & their 2 young sons. The oldest 3 children, aged 20, 18 & 17 respectively, were born in St. Austell, Cornwall. The rest of the children, starting with 15 yr old Mary Ann, were born in Llantrisant. We can conclude therefore that this Kelly family was Cornish in origin & moved from St. Austell to Llantrisant, Wales between 1864 & 1866.
Obviously the third Mary is not the Kelly we are looking for. You could make a case for the first Mary, but I believe the second one fits all the requirements satisfactorily. However for the sake of argument let's say that Mary Kelly was Mary Davies in 1881 & search the 1881 census again:
· Persons named Mary Davies born between 1859 & 1869 in Glamorgan, living in Glamorgan in 1881=640
· Persons named Mary Davies born between 1859 & 1869 in Glamorgan, living in Caernarvon in 1881=0
· Persons named Mary Davies born between 1859 & 1869 in Caernarvon, living in Glamorgan in 1881=0
· Persons named Mary Davies born between 1859 & 1869 in Caernarvon, living in Caernarvon in 1881=44
· Persons named Mary Davies born between 1859 & 1869 in Ireland, living in Glamorgan in 1881=0
· Persons named Mary Davies born between 1859 & 1869 in Ireland, living in Caernarvon in1881=0
· Persons named Mary Davies born between 1859 & 1869 in Ireland, living in Carmarthen in 1881=0
· Persons named Mary Davies born between 1859 & 1869 in Glamorgan, living in Carmarthen in 1881=10
· Persons named Mary Davies born between 1859 & 1869 in Carmarthen, living in Glamorgan in 1881=42
Obviously Davies was an even more common name than Kelly, especially in Wales. The worst scenario here is the 640 Mary Davies in Caernarvon in 1881, all of them born in Glamorgan within the same 10 years. If we narrow the field down to 1862-1866 there are still 307 Mary Davies in Caernarvon in 1881, all of them born in Glamorgan. There are more possibilities for Mary Kelly under the name Davies, but personally I think the Mary Kelly we're looking for is one of the 3 mentioned above.
Finally, while it is true that ages given on censuses are often suspect, as a general rule I've found that on the 1881 British censuses people often appear a year younger than they actually were because the census was taken in the spring. As well, while people could & did get their ages wrong & sometimes their marital status (witness Catherine Eddowes, alias Kate Conway), birthplaces were more or less accurate to within a few miles. As Sugden states, it's a mystery why Mary Kelly's birth in Cardiff between 1863 & 1866 hasn't been located yet. It would be interesting to search for the birth record of one of her siblings first, or her parents' marriage record. I also wonder if there's a possibility, since the family was obviously of Irish origin, of the original family name being O'Kelly. |
Author: Jon
Sunday, 21 January 2001 - 09:23 am | | | Excellent contributions Colleen, thankyou. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 21 January 2001 - 09:44 am | | Hi Colleen:
I second Jon's thanks. I am intrigued by the possibility that the Margaret Flavin you found to be living with one Kelly family was Mary Kelly's sister. I wonder though about your closing statement, wondering if the original family name could have been O'Kelly. Since Kelly is in and of itself Irish, why should the original name have been O'Kelly?
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Sunday, 21 January 2001 - 01:35 pm | | Chris:
True Irish surnames, i.e. those that were not Anglo-Norman surnames from the 12th century, nearly all had the prefix "O'" originally, since this was the original Irish for "son of" in the same way "Mac/Mc" was Scots for "son of." Those who think "Mac" denotes Scottish origin & "Mc" Irish origin are only partly right: both mean the same thing & "Mc" usually prefixes the surnames of Scots-Irish who originally settled in Ireland during the plantations of the 17th & 18th centuries. Those who research Irish genealogy notice very early on that virtually every Irish surname has two versions: with & without the prefix "O'."
My speculation regarding Mary Kelly being an "O'Kelly" is merely that: speculation. While I don't doubt that the surname was originally O'Kelly at one time, it was likely centuries before Mary Kelly's time. |
Author: Christopher T George
Sunday, 21 January 2001 - 01:46 pm | | Hi, Colleen:
Thanks for your reply. It would be my expectation as well that if Mary Kelly's family had originally been called "O'Kelly" it was centuries before the era in which we are interested.
Best regards
Chris George |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Sunday, 21 January 2001 - 05:10 pm | | 1881 Census Again: Polly Nichols & Mary Kelly
I noticed something in Sugden’s book I overlooked regarding Polly Nichols: according to Sugden, she was in Lambeth Workhouse from September 6, 1880 to May 31, 1881. Unfortunately I cannot find any reference in any of my sources to the exact date the 1881 British census was taken, but I decided to search the index again anyway. The only Mary Ann or Polly Nichols born between 1840 & 1850, living in a London workhouse in the 1881 census was one Mary A. Nockold, aged 38, an unmarried needlewoman. However this Mary was in the Islington Workhouse, not the Lambeth one, & she was described as a lunatic. Her birthplace was Holborn, Middlesex. This is unlikely to be the right Polly Nichols.
Another intriguing possibility, though, is a Mary Nickels, aged 34, married (though her husband is not in the household), & a cook for Edward & Lucy M. Drummond at 13 St. James’ Place, Westminster (St. James). This Mary gave her birthplace simply as London, Middlesex. She was 2 years younger than the Ripper victim Mary Ann Nichols, but this is the only detail that rules her out. Mary “Nickels” employer was retired from the Bengal civil service & evidently quite wealthy: the household also contained a butler, footman, kitchenmaid, lady’s maid, & housemaid as well as cook Mary, all catering to one couple & their 13 yr old daughter.
Where Mary Kelly is concerned I decided to try searching the index for her on the assumption that she was already in London in 1881. A blanket search of the national index turned up a staggering 977 Mary Kellys in Great Britain who were born between 1858 & 1868. However only 151 of these were born in Ireland. Eighty-two were born in Wales. There were 77 Mary Kellys living in London in 1881 who were born between 1858 & 1868 (only one of these was born in Wales). One of these census entries caught my eye, although chances are it does not refer to the right Mary Kelly. In the infirmary of the Whitechapel Union on Bakers Row, in Mile End Old Town, London, there was a Mary Kelly, aged 23. She was unmarried, born in Whitechapel, a pauper, & her occupation was given as prostitute. Her birthplace doesn’t coincide with sources regarding the Ripper’s Mary Kelly, & she was 5 or 6 years older than her as well. But this find is interesting in that there were several women in the infirmary listed as prostitutes. Despite Sugden’s comment wondering how Mary Kelly fell into prostitution at so young an age, this census entry demonstrates youth was no deterrent against squalor or degradation: there were 4 other prostitutes besides Mary Kelly in the same infirmary who were in their twenties, & one who was only 17.
There were 9 Mary Kellys living in London in 1881 who were born in Ireland between 1858 & 1868 (including a Mary O’Kelly & Mary McHale), so I decided to look at these. A few intriguing possibilities emerged.
1. At 1 Alfreds Cottages, Westminster (St. John Evangelist), there was a Mary Kelly living with a Rachel Barnett. This Rachel Barnett was described as a lodger but also the head of the household; she was a laundress, unmarried, & aged 23. Could she have been related to Joseph Barnett? Mary was described as a general servant who was unemployed, also a lodger, & she was 22 & unmarried. She gave her birthplace as Westminster. Again, this doesn’t coincide with what we know about the Ripper’s Mary Kelly, & this Mary Kelly is also about 4 or 5 years older than she should be, but the Kelly/Barnett context is, I think, worthy of note even if only a coincidence.
2. Another Mary Kelly lived with George & Margaret Law at 6A Gas Court, St. Marylebone, London. George Law was a 46-year-old shoemaker born in Kilkenny, Ireland. Mary Kelly was an unmarried 20-year-old servant, described as a relation of George Law’s. Again, this Mary Kelly was born in Marylebone, Middlesex instead of either Ireland or Wales, but she is closer in age to the Mary Kelly in question.
3. Another Mary Kelly was living with 50-year-old widow & housekeeper Catherine Mitchell at 4 Boundary Place, Shoreditch. Catherine Mitchell was born in Ireland & so was her “niece” & housemaid Mary Kelly, unmarried & 18 years old. This Mary Kelly is more promising than either of the preceding ones; her age fits exactly with what is thought to have been Mary Ann Kelly’s birthdate, & she was born in Ireland. Could this be the source of the contemporary report that Mary Kelly went to live with “cousins” after the end of her putative “marriage”? The contemporary sources say the cousins were in Wales, but this might be an error—here we have a Mary Kelly born at the right time in the right place living with an aunt in the right area of London within 7 years of Mary Kelly’s murder. Coincidence?
4. Even more startlingly, at 1 Suffolk Place, St. Marylebone, London, there lived in 1881 John & Mary Kelly & their 4 children. Both John & Mary were born in Ireland, & John was a pavier. Their children were John, Thomas, Briget (sic) & Catherine, all born in London. Also living with them was a Mary Kelly, aged 18, & born in London. No marital status is given, & her relationship to the head of the household is merely described as “lodger.” Her occupation is given as domestic servant. Again, another Mary Kelly, of possible Irish extraction if not birth (was she a relative of the head of the household?), born at the right time & living in London in 1881.
5. Again, in 1881 at 72 Oldfield Road, Stoke Newington, London, there lived “Jno.” (i.e. John) & Mary Kelly & their 7 daughters. John was a post office porter born in Limerick, Ireland. His wife was born in Bresna, Ireland. All of their daughters were born in Islington, but the 3rd daughter was Mary Ann Kelly, aged 17, unmarried, & a “prover tester.” She was unmarried. This Mary Kelly again is not born in the right place but her father is from Limerick. Contemporary accounts stated the Ripper’s Mary Kelly was from Limerick. This Mary Kelly is also in the right age bracket.
Next I searched Wales itself. There were 14 Mary Kellys living in Wales in 1881 who were born between 1858 & 1868. Only two of these were born in Ireland:
1. Mary Ann Kelly, aged 16, living on Church Street in Flint, Wales, with her parents John & Ellen Kelly, 2 brothers (including a John), & one sister. Her father’s occupation was given as “general labourer” & he was 43 years old, born in Ireland. Mary Ann herself was listed as a general labourer & her birthplace was given as “--, Ireland.” Her 14-year-old brother John was born in Caernarvon, Wales, & the youngest child in Flint, Wales. This Kelly family is in the wrong area of Wales to be the Ripper’s Mary Kelly, but nevertheless, we have a Mary Ann Kelly born in Ireland around 1865, daughter of a John Kelly, with a brother John Kelly. In addition to this, there is a reference to Caernarvon, & from the census data we can determine that this Kelly family left Ireland for Caernarvon, Wales between 1865 & 1867. This fits with contemporary accounts which state Mary Kelly came to Wales as a young child with her family.
2. In Broughton Colliery Cottages in Brymbo, Denbigh, Wales there lived in 1881 Hubert & Bridget Kelly. Hubert was 51, a general labourer, & born in Ireland, as was his wife. They had 9 children, of which the first 6 were born in Ireland. Among these 6 were a Mary Kelly, aged 17, unmarried, listed as a servant. There is also a son John. Confusingly, the first 6 children down to 10-year-old Elizabeth Kelly are listed as being born in Ireland. Seven-year-old Garret F. Kelly is said to be born in Lodge, Denbigh, Wales, but then 4-year-old Thomas E. Kelly is again said to be born in Ireland. One-year-old Timothy Kelly was born in Lodge, Denbigh, Wales. This family apparently left Ireland for Wales between 1871 & 1874 (when their Mary would have been aged 7 to 10), & bounced back to Ireland again briefly around 1877. This family is also interesting because it lists the first direct reference to a colliery, although we can’t rule out the possibility that any or all of the John Kellys we’ve looked at so far, listed as “general labourers,” were in fact colliers.
I’d appreciate any thoughts on these Kelly families. Personally I think the strongest contender other than the Cardiff family already mentioned in Sugden’s book & my previous postings is the Welsh family mentioned above from Flint. There is no denying that, however confused or inaccurate the contemporary accounts may be in their details, Mary Kelly had a definite Welsh connection of some sort as well as an Irish one.
Also, here’s something else I’ll throw out there just for the sake of speculation: could John Kelly who was living with Catherine Eddowes at the time of her death possibly have been Mary Ann Kelly’s brother? Could this explain how or why Kate Eddowes gave her name as Mary Ann Kelly at one point? Did she know her unfortunate “sister-in-law” & was Mary Ann Kelly part of the means by which Kate Eddowes first indulged in “casual” prostitution? This sounds far-fetched but Kate Eddowes’ reference to herself as Mary Ann Kelly has always bothered me, & in light of reports that Mary Ann Kelly had a brother John, this seems almost too coincidental. At the same time I find it hard to believe that if this connection existed, it escaped authorities in 1888. Any thoughts on this “theory” would be appreciated. |
Author: Stepan Poberowski
Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 04:36 am | | Good day, Colleen
Thank you for your excellent research.
3rd April 1888 was the date of the 1881 Census. On that day (night) Polly Hichols was in Lambeth Workhouse (6 September 1880 - 31 May 1881).
Your access to the index can allow to shed some light on some matters connected, for example, with Tumblety. During the Whitechapel murders he has made the acts of rough obscenity with Albert Fisher, Arthur Brice, James Crowley and John Doughty. Their ages, occupations and residences can show the completely unexpected sides of a matters ñoncerning to Tumblety's stay in London and probability of his loging in Betty Street.
All best,
Stepan |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 10:42 am | | Stepan,
Thank you for giving me the date of the 1881 British census. However, this doesn't solve the mystery of Polly Nichols: she does NOT appear in Lambeth Workhouse in the index. Where was she? Or more accurately, which Mary (Ann) Nichols was she? As I stated earlier, the only possible candidate in a workhouse on April 3, 1881 was Mary A. Nockold, a 38 year old "lunatic" in Islington Workhouse, not Lambeth. If Polly was in the Lambeth Workhouse she must have been listed under another name. |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 10:53 am | | While searching thru the International Genealogical Index, I found what
appears to be the christening record of Martha Tabran/Tabram's husband.
Although both Martha, her children & her putative husband were listed under
the surname "Tabran" on the 1881 census, this christening record gives the
name as Tabram. One Henry Samuel Tabram was christened in St. Mary's
Whitchapel, Stepney, London on March 20, 1836, the son of John & Hannah
Tabram. There are no other Henrys &/or Samuel Tabram's in the IGI within the
same timespan, so this is very likely Martha's husband. If so, he was 13 years
older than her, would have been 33 at the time of their marriage, & 45 when
the 1881 census was taken. This begs the question of what age he actually
did give on the census & how the census-taker or the 20th century
transcriptionist misread it as 20. Even 30 would obviously have been very off.
Also, why did not only Hy. S. but Martha & children, living separately in a
workhouse, give their surnames as Tabran instead of Tabram? One possibility is Hy. S. wanted to distance himself from his immediate relatives for some reason or other, i.e. financial or social disgrace. |
Author: Jim Leen
Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 02:09 pm | | Hello Colleen,
You really have turned up quite the best research on the boards for a long while. My congratulations.
I note that you mention a possible Anglicisation of Kelly, from O'Kelly. Would it not be more likely for her forename to be corrupted? That is, Mhaire or Mhairi to Mary. Are there any entries during the relevant times for this name?
But very good work anyway. The only drawback is it will take about two days for all the detail to seep through my old grey matter.
Thanking you
Jim Leen |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Wednesday, 24 January 2001 - 10:28 pm | | | Further to the Polly Nichols mystery, I have looked thru all the Mary Nichols & variations who were born in London between 1840 & 1850 & who were living in London in 1881. There were only 33 of them & none of them seem any more likely to be "our" Polly than those already cited. A search of all of England for Mary Nichols born between 1840 & 1850 turned up little more; nearly all people with that name in 1881 seem to have lived in London. Even more oddly, I failed to find Polly's father Edward Walker--none of the Edward Walkers living in London in 1881 seemed likely to be him, nor could I see any living elsewhere in England who could be him either. Does anyone have any explanation for this? |
Author: John Dixon
Sunday, 28 January 2001 - 07:01 am | | Colleen,
I don't have my material with me so forgive any errors ... in regard to Mary Nichols ... look for Mary aged 10 years younger than her "true" age ... you'll find her in a workhouse in Mile-end ( I think from memory ) The basis for this identification is a statement Polly gives recorded in Rumblelow + a birth certificate recorded in the morman records. I give it credence based on the possibility that Polly was illegally married off aged 12. This would not have been convenient for either the father or husband to explain in 1888. So they uped her age 10 years. ( Census & Certificates only had to record dates to within 5 years back then I believe. ) Terrific work!
cheers John |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Sunday, 28 January 2001 - 07:25 pm | | John,
Thanks so much for this message, which is startling but seems to make sense. I looked Mary Ann up in the International Genealogical Index & as you say there is a record of Mary Ann Walker being born in August 1851 in Shoe Lane off Fetter Street, daughter of Edward Walker. However, this record is NOT from an original parish register or birth record--it was submitted by someone in 1991 in order have Mary Ann Walker posthumously "baptized" into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is not possible to find out who the submitter was at this point, but they must have had some basis for this date. Since as I've stated before the IGI is not comprehensive where parish registers are concerned after about 1840, the next logical step would be her birth certificate.
There was indeed a Mary Ann Nichols living in Mile End Workhouse (not Lambeth as Sugden said) in 1881, she listed herself as unmarried, aged 30, & an ironer. She was also described as "casual" rather than an actual inmate. This workhouse was on Bancroft Road.
There was also a Mary Nicholls, aged 26, living as an inmate in the Workhouse of St. George's-in-the-East. This workhouse was huge when the 1881 census was taken; there are 42 pages of inmates listed. This Mary was also unmarried,a domestic servant, & was born in St. George's in the East.
I'm still puzzled as to why I can't find Polly's father Edward Walker in the 1881 census. Presumably he was probably about 5 years younger than would be expected also, but I still can't locate him. And where was Polly's mother? When did she die?
I searched the IGI for Edward Walkers married to Carolines. The only plausible candidates were Edward Walker who married Caroline Weston on December 25, 1856 in Old Church, St. Pancras, London. If this is Polly's parents she was born some 5 years before they were married, which may explain why so far no christening record has been found. There was also an Edward Leonard Walker christened on October 12, 1868 in Old Church, St. Pancras, the son of Edward & Caroline. This was likely Polly's brother.
Caroline Weston may be the same Caroline Weston as the one christened in Old Church, St. Pancras on June 16, 1837, daughter of George & Mary Ann Weston. Polly may have been named for her maternal grandmother, & she had a son named Percy GEORGE. However, if this is Polly's mother, she was 19 at her marriage & only 14 at Polly's birth.
Even more disturbing, there was an Edward Walker christened in Old Church, St. Pancras on March 11, 1838, son of Charles & Ann Walker. This would make him 13 when Polly was born. I can believe that Polly's mother may have been only 14 when she was born, as horrifying as that must have been, but I find it hard to believe her father was only 13.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. |
Author: John Dixon
Tuesday, 30 January 2001 - 02:36 pm | | Colleen,
Although not in the same line of work Mayhew records a pickpocket who at 13 took up with a "genteel"girl of 15 ... after another jail stint he took up with a women 10 years his senior & then another women 2 years older with whom he formed a pernament relationship. ( Rememeber also for instance Kidney is younger than Stride ). I'm sorry I can't supply more at this stage. I have not looked for the victims parents.
Colleen your work is terribly important here & just to show its direct relevance (directly to the case) I would ask you to comment when you are able on the possibility that the John Richardson that John Chapman ( husband of Annie ) is living with is the same Richardson who gives "difficult" evidence at her inquest. I am inclined to think there is some type of family relationship operating here ... so that Mrs Richardsons "charity" is no random event.
Cheers John |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Tuesday, 30 January 2001 - 07:36 pm | | John,
Thanks for the reply. I have no problem believing Polly Nichols' father was younger than her mother; what I have trouble believing is that a 13 yr old could have or would have fathered a child. Such tragedies did happen to girls of that age, it's true, but generally their partners were years older than they were.
I'm puzzled by your reference to a John Richardson that John Chapman was, you say, "living with." When was he living with him? As I mentioned in my first posting, on the 1881 census John Chapman was living alone above the stables at St. Leonard's Hill in Clewer, Berkshire. He was 39, married, a coachman/domestic servant, & born in Newmarket, Suffolk.
Anyway thanks again. |
Author: John Dixon
Wednesday, 31 January 2001 - 03:36 pm | | Colleen,
If you found the same Chapman I did , living in the same building is a John Richardson ( again I don't have access to all my material ) I didn't mean to imply anything about the 2 men except they appear to be working together ... Richardson is listed as a stable hand from memory.
Point taken regards Nichols ... I'll try to find a reference to early fathering ... My mums the expert regarding geneology!
Keep us up to date with your finds.
Cheers John |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Wednesday, 31 January 2001 - 06:24 pm | | John,
Sorry, I didn't think to look at the "neighbours" of Chapman in the same building--there is a "neighbours" function in the census CDs--but I will do so. Since he lived above the stables there must have been at least 2 apartments above them. This is interesting but then again Richardson (not to mention John) is a common enough name.
Thanks, I'll look again,
Colleen |
Author: Bob Hinton
Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 02:18 pm | | Dear Evryone,
Trying to track down a particular person, in this case Mary Jane Kelly, is like trying to knit fog! However it strikes me that you must do one of two things. Either you must accept the version of Mary's life as told by Barnett as true and accurate or you don't. If you don't then just about anyone can be made to fit the profile.
But if you do accept Barnett to be accurate, or very nearly so, then it strikes me you are looking in the wrong place.
Barnetts version has Mary married to a man called to Davies and then widowed at a very early age. If we accept what he says about Mary as being right then she should be about 16-18 in 1881, so what we should be looking for is a teenage widow called Mary Jane Davies.
I draw your attention to the Brunswick Hotel in 56 Upper Thomas St Merthyr Tydfil. The occupants are:
Samuel Lloyd Davies Head
Jane Davies Sister House Keeper
Mary Jane Davies Neice (sic) Widow 16yrs
Elizabeth Thomas Visitor age 16
Frances Adlam Boarder age 22
Mary Jones general servant age 20.
Notice anything strange here? We have a 'hotel' run by a brother and sister whose only guests appear to be young ladies. Now if I was of a suspicious nature.......
Merthyr Tydfil by the way is just up the valley from Cardiff.
All the best
Bob Hinton |
Author: Leanne Perry
Thursday, 01 February 2001 - 05:39 pm | | G'day Colleen,
Reading up on the 'Irish Civil Registration', I found that 'On 1st of January 1864 registration of births, marriages and deaths became mandatory'.
A bit further down the page it said: 'A person may be given one name at birth and another at the christening'.
LEANNE! |
Author: Grailfinder
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 04:41 am | | Hi all
A thought has just popped into my mind with regards Mary Kellys DOB.
The police, as we know, questioned Joe about MJK's past, and it is from Joe's memory that all the known facts of her are known.
Now surely one of the questions that was put to Joe was: What was Marys age? when was she born? etc.
The fact that these questions are still unanswerable, suggest to me that Joe had no idea of MJK's DOB.
So, if Joe met Mary in the April of 1888 and was with her almost up to her time of death on the 9th Nov 1888, then does this not suggest that she could not have celebrated a birthday between these periods? otherwise Joe and her friends would have said something like "I remember her saying it was her birthday back in September, we all went round to the 'Ringers' and sank a few bevvies to celebrate" etc
The fact that nobody remembers a birthday between the April and November of 1888 suggest to me that her DOB fell between the dates of 9th Nov and 8th April when she and Joe started dating, don't you think?
cheers |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 05:33 am | | G'day Grail,
Joe met Mary in April of 1887. She was then 22 or 23, "Born in Limerick, southwest Ireland, around 1864, she had as many as six brothers and at least one sister."
LEANNE! |
Author: Caroline Anne Morris
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 05:44 am | | Hi Bob,
Great to see you back!
Hmmm, suspicious? Me? :-)
The JtR A-Z tells us that Mary's story was that she married her collier husband c.1879, and that he died in a pit explosion two or three years later, whereupon she went to stay with a cousin in Cardiff and became a prostitute. That ties in rather nicely with your Brunswick 'Hotel' info, doesn't it?
So, on face value, could Mary have been the sister-in-law, cousin or niece by marriage of Samuel and Jane Davies?
Or, if I had that suspicious nature, I might wonder if the pair 'adopted' the young, single and comely Mary Jane (Kelly?), gave her a believable, tragic and 'respectable' widow status, and made her the prize catch, the money-maker. Depending on her success, and how well she fared under her 'hotelier in-laws'' roof, she might well have hearkened to the call of London and its high-class brothels.
Tragic indeed, whichever way you look at it. And I guess the possibility remains that her real surname never was Kelly.
Love,
Caz |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 06:07 am | | G'day,
I reckon Bob's found her at the Brunswick Hotel!
After Joe talked about her brothers and sister, he said: "...at 16 she married a collier who was tragically killed.....then went to stay with a cousin in Cardiff who was evidently a prostitute."
LEANNE! |
Author: Leanne Perry
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 06:10 am | | G'day Caz,
You and I typed the last two posts, at the same time!
LEANNE! |
Author: Warwick Parminter
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 07:20 am | | Hello Grailfinder,
as Leanne say's, Kelly and Barnett met on the 8th April,(Good Friday)1887. That gave them a good 18 months together, there had to be birthdays for both of them during that time. But considering their quality of life, and their surroundings maybe they didn't take too much notice of those sort of things! I'm not saying this applies to Barnett and Kelly, but a lot of people in those days didn't know how old they were. After 18 months together, I would have thought that Barnett knew more about Kelly than he stated at her inquest--if he had chosen to tell it. In a book I have, it states, Kelly's birthday,--1st April 1863,-- as discovered by John Morrison, of the Cloak and Dagger Club, Barnett's birthday,--25th May 1858
Regards Rick. |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 01:18 pm | | The Mary Jane Davies found at the Brunswick Hotel in Merthyr Tydfil is indeed interesting, however we need more proof--since as I mentioned in an earlier posting there was over 400 Mary Jane Davies born between 1858 & 1869 in Wales in 1881, it stands to reason there'd be a young widow among them somewhere. In fact there is probably more than one. What needs to be found now is 1) death certificate for ? Davies in Wales between about 1878 & 1881, 2) Mary Ann/Jane Kelly & ? Davies marriage certificate, same dates 3) Mary Ann/Jane Kelly's birth certificate, 1860-1865.
Also, we must remember that Mary may have given Barnett a false or indefinite age. If anything she would have lowered her age to him, not raised it. Therefore I'm inclined to think she can't have been born much after 1863 & perhaps as early as 1860. |
Author: Ashling
Friday, 02 February 2001 - 07:47 pm | | Hi BOB!
Thanks for the risque register tidbit on Mary Davies. This Mary gives us a promising area to research because ...
Although there were at least 13 major (more than 5 persons killed) mining disasters in Glamorganshire County between 1879 and 1884--Two of these occurred less than 10 miles from Merthyr Tydfil = one in 1879 and another in 1883.
This is second-hand info which I'm currently unable to verify. Hopefully, before long I can narrow it down a bit more by cross-matching with names. 6,500 people were killed in North and South Wales mining disasters between 1880 and 1884 alone. The good news is that only 95 of them were named Davies ... and of course not all of them were killed in Glamorganshire.
COLLEEN, Merthyr Tydfil is as good a place to start looking as any. BTW, I think searching for Mary Ann Kellys will complicate the search to no avail ... All those in London who knew her well called her Mary Jane. Just my two pence.
Thanks to all for a stimulating discussion.
Ashling |
Author: John Dixon
Saturday, 03 February 2001 - 04:56 am | | Any advance on Polly Nichols front?
I'm afraid I don't have any more.
I cannot take credit for my earlier Nichols info it resulted from a discussion on the boards some time ago.
Cheers John |
Author: Ashling
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 02:38 am | | Hi all. JOHN and COLLEEN: According to the below link the age of consent for girls was raised from age 12 to 13 in 1860, and then from age 13 to 16 in 1885. We have to remember that life expectancy was much shorter then than nowadays ... Making teenage weddings fairly commonplace when Polly Nichols was a girl.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Lconsent.htm |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 10:01 pm | | | Whatever the legal age of consent may have been, I've done enough genealogical research to know that marriage under the age of 16 was still the exception rather than the rule. |
Author: Colleen Andrews
Monday, 05 February 2001 - 10:40 pm | | Re: Mary Jane Davies
Just to put things in perspective, I'd like to remind everyone that there were no less than 1,094 people named Mary Davies, born between 1861 & 1865, living in Wales in 1881.
375 of these were living in Glamorgan.
In Merthyr Tydfil alone, there were 105 Mary Davies's born between 1860 & 1870. If we narrow that down to 1861-1865 there were still 50.
Yes, Merthyr Tydfil is "as good a place to start as any," but I'd like someone to give me a reason why it's any BETTER of a place to start than any, since there are so many.
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. Sam's sister Jane Davies was supposedly also widowed but had the same surname as he, & she was 34 & born in Merthyr Tydfil. Perhaps she was actually his sister-in-law. Jane was the hotel housekeeper.
Their "neice" Mary Jane was also widowed, 16, & born in Merthyr Tydfil, not Ireland. What's puzzling is how she was Sam's niece--if Davies was her married name & Samuel Davies was her uncle, then either he was actually her deceased husband's uncle or her husband was her cousin. While this is possible & not at all uncommon then, I'd have expected this relationship to have surfaced in her history before now.
The hotel's other occupants consisted of Frances C. Adlam, 22 yr old barmaid/inn servant from Newport, Monmouth, Mary Ann Jones, 20 yr old servant, & the solitary guest: Elizabeth Thomas, "visitor", 16, from the United States.
The chronology of Mary's "marriage" is confusing: if she was married at 16 & widowed "about 2 years later" then if she was 16 in 1881 she would in fact still be married, & not a widow. In fact there are several Mary Davies who were young wives in 1881 (obviously, since there were so many to begin with).
Of all the Mary Davies living in Wales in 1881 only 2 were born in Ireland. One is far too old to be the right Mary, the other was 22 years old & married, although her husband wasn't living with her. She was boarding at 41 North Street, Newport, Monmouth, Wales, & she was a cheese dealer.
Out of the myriad of other Mary Davies in Wales in 1881, there was a Mary Davies, aged 19, born in Glamorgan, living at 15 Long Row, Ystradyfodwg, Glamorgan with her husband David Davies (a coal miner) & her 2 young children Jennett & Elizabeth. A Mary Ann Davies was also an inmate of the Cardiff Union Workhouse; she was 19, born in Cardiff, & unmarried. Her occupation was given as domestic servant.
Obviously with so many Mary Davies in Wales (not to mention the rest of England) in 1881, searching for Mary Kelly this way is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Before anyone can properly identify the right one we need proof that she actually was married to a Davies, when, & where. The marriage certificate should not be that difficult to locate, & should show not only the date & place of marriage but Mary's parents' names & possibly her birthplace. In addition we need to locate a death certificate for a Davies killed in a mining accident (or at all within the right time-frame) & make sure it matches the name on the marriage certificate.
There are several reasons why I doubt the marriage to a Davies ever existed:
1) if Mary was trying to escape her past while in London, as contemporary reports said she was, then why was she using her maiden name? If anything she would have been more likely to use her married (& legal) name if she had one to use.
2) where were her dead "husband's" relatives when she was murdered? Not one of them turned up to tell their own story to authorities, which seems contrary to human nature if nothing else.
3) since widowhood was a disaster that forced many women in the 19th century into poverty & sometimes casual prostitution, Mary may have used this story to justify her living situation to Joseph Barnett & the other men in her life. Certainly she picked a common enough name for her "husband" & notice his first name hasn't come down to us.
There are a couple of points about Mary herself that puzzle me. Can anyone tell me why out of all the Ripper's victims, Mary was the only one who hasn't been traced to a workhouse at some time or other? Furthermore, where were Mary's own relatives when she was murdered? All the other victims, estranged though they may have been from their families, had relatives that were located by authorities when they were murdered. None of Mary's relatives seemingly could be found, & in fact her body was identified by her landlord. This seems very odd to me.
Finally, Ashling, I have not been searching for Mary ANN Kellys in the census at all: I've been searching for MARY KELLY & taking particular note of any Mary Jane/Mary Ann combinations. |
|
|
|
|
