Annie Crook

[Pressgang]

This is my first post. The comments that Annie Crook worked in a tobacconist's and then on her daughter's birth cert. she is listed as a confectionery assistant is one and the same. My parents own shop was listed as a tobacconists/confectioners. Also comments by Chris Scott that the family were just another ordinary family and nothing unusual I also find incorrect. My own research shows Annie Elizabeth Crook was born 1862 St. Pancras. However I have not found any birth registered for her, the General register office has nothing indexed and St. Pancras and Camden register office could find no entry for that name. The International Genealogy indexes for baptisms has an entry for the 10th October 1862 St. Pancras, the birth given as the St. Marylebone Infirmary but no source information is given. The Crook family are living at Upper Rathbone Place Marylebone according to the 1871 census and Annie had a sister Alice Crook born 10th May 1868 at 53 Cirencester Place, Marylebone but I have not been able to find the family in 1861. The father is William Crook and the mother is Sarah Crook nee Dryden. I have not been able to find a marriage for this couple. William Crook was baptised 24th Oct 1830 in Eton. In 1841 he lived at Crown Corner New Windsor Berks with his mother Sarah Crook age 34 a laundress, Sarah Quarterman (grandmother) and aunt Mary Flatt. In 1851 they had moved to 17 St. Pauls Terrace, St. Pancras and William was a pianoforte maker apprentice. William died 4th Dec 1891 at St. Pancras Infirmary cause of death was prostatic obstruction and bright's disease, his address was 9 Phoenix St. informant of death S.A.Crook widow of 21 Great George St. Pancras. On checking Alice Jackson nee Crook his daughter lived a 9 Phoenix St. In 1891 Sarah Ann Crook was found by Police destitute and having fits.
Annie Crook gave birth to her dau. Alice Margaret Crook 18th April 1885 Marylebone workhouse, Father's name is left blank. The fact Alice names William as her father on her marriage was common practice in these circumstances and does by no means suggest incest. In 1894 Poor Alice was destitute in Endell St. Workhouse and says mother is a prisoner, however unable to find Annie in 1894 but in 1891 she is living at 16 Upper Rathbone Place occupation Jam Maker, Confectioner. In 1902 Alice applied for relief, she had measles and notes say she was 'Stone deaf'. 1905 again Alice was distressed from her deafness and was suffering a bad foot.
To cut a long story short Annie died 1920 in the Lunacy Ward of the Hendon Workhouse, confused, noisy, hilarious, delusions of being totured, no interest in surroundings. She had hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) age given as 56.
Could anyone add more information? Where and when was Annie Crook born?
Linda

[Krinoid]

call to Experts..

How accurate is the above entry ??For example " In 1894 Poor Alice was destitute in Endell St. Workhouse and says mother is a prisoner, however unable to find Annie in 1894

[Krinoid]

. . In 1894 Poor Alice was destitute in Endell St. Workhouse and says mother is a prisoner, however unable to find Annie in 1894
Linda[/QUOTE]
Where did this information come form above??

[Simon Wood]

Hi Linda,

What, exactly, are you trying to establish?

Regards,

Simon

[Krinoid]

Hi Linda,

What, exactly, are you trying to establish?

Regards,

Simon

Linda posted it looks like a year ago, so I guess we will never know?

[Krinoid]

What is it with this forum-where are the experts on this thread and others,with the whole Royal theory immediately gets dismissed and not worth investigating. As even Begg says in JTR-The Facts-there seems to be some kernal of a story with this whole Sickert family thing,I mean why was Annie crook singled out in the first place if she was a nobody???

[Limehouse]

What is it with this forum-where are the experts on this thread and others,with the whole Royal theory immediately gets dismissed and not worth investigating. As even Begg says in JTR-The Facts-there seems to be some kernal of a story with this whole Sickert family thing,I mean why was Annie crook singled out in the first place if she was a nobody???

I guess she was singled out because she was somebody's grandmother who was alive at the time of the murders and - like many other people - someone (Joseph 'Sickert') has 'written' his grandmother into the Ripper story.

Do you honestly believe that minister of the church could legally marry a Prince and a commoner? There would never have been any need for a conspiracy to kill those women due to such a marriage because the marriage would have no legal basis.

Additionally - should the need arise for the establishment to dispose itself of a few mouthy prostitutes -it is much more likely to have drownwed them in the Thames or confined them to a lunacy ward than to have slit them open spread them all over the pavements of east London.

[claire]

Pithy post, Limehouse; nicely done

[Magpie]

Good post, Limehouse.

[Rubyretro]

The most interesting thing about the Royal Theory is where it originally sprung from and given the social context of the day (rise of Socialism etc)
-it's a rather glamourous 'urban myth' (people in the East End must have been far more in awe of the RF than they would be today, even if they were critical of their wealth and lifestyles).

The other interesting thing about it, is how well it's stuck. It's amazing how, if I mention JtR to intelligent people, they typically reply "I don't know anything about the subject -only that it was something to do with the Royal Family".

[Limehouse]

The most interesting thing about the Royal Theory is where it originally sprung from and given the social context of the day (rise of Socialism etc)
-it's a rather glamourous 'urban myth' (people in the East End must have been far more in awe of the RF than they would be today, even if they were critical of their wealth and lifestyles).

The other interesting thing about it, is how well it's stuck. It's amazing how, if I mention JtR to intelligent people, they typically reply "I don't know anything about the subject -only that it was something to do with the Royal Family".

Yes Ruby - I believe you are right. I also think that - because the murderer was not caught - people are far more likely to persist with stories about a royal connection because they think there has been a 'cover up'. I think many people underestimate how difficult it was to catch such a man with very little scientific knowledge about scenes-of-crime available to the police of the time.

[kensei]

I'm very into studying the paranormal as well as Jack the Ripper and other true crime stories, and with the ability of a widespread press release to influence large numbers of people I wish the fact that Joseph "Sickert" finally admitted his whole Royal Conspiracy was "a whopping fib" had been reported in the mainstream media even half as much as the ones debunking the Loch Ness Monster surgeon's photo or the crop circles of Doug and Dave.

[Krinoid]

Does any one know where this info came form??

Again -Experts is there any factual basis?

. . In 1894 Poor Alice was destitute in Endell St. Workhouse and says mother is a prisoner, however unable to find Annie in 1894
Linda

Where did this information come form above??[/QUOTE]

[Graham]

Couple of brief points:

1] don't think it's true that the Royal Family were held in much awe in those days - there were several attempts to assassinate Queen Victoria, and the Prince of Wales (later Edward VII) was quite often booed when he appeared in public. Including a divorce case and the Tranby Croft case when both times he appeared in court.

2] I made a quick check of when Walter Sickert was first associated by a third party with the Ripper Case, and the best I've come up with was 1947 when Sir Osbert Sitwell mentioned in some memoirs that Sickert often talked about the case and claimed to know the identity of JtR. I think this was the origin of the Mad Veterinary Student. Not that I looked all that hard, so I won't be surprised if someone comes up with an earlier date for the first reported association of Sickert with the case.

3] The very concept of a bunch of East End whores blackmailing the RF always sounded totally preposterous to me - for a start, how would they have gone about it? How would anyone go about it today?? Did they plan just to write a simple letter - "All is known" - and take it from there???

Cheers,

Graham

[Krinoid]

Pithy post, Limehouse; nicely done

I don't think the Limehouse post was that helpfull, while I agree there is no evidence for the Royal Conspiracy, you could argue that none of the Suspects discussed on this forum and in the many books have any hard evidence at all ALSO.