Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A new front in the history wars? A new article on 'the five'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Observer View Post
    Ok Mr B. Yes, didn't the author of the work on George Chapman, who's name escapes me get help from members of this forum? That's the way to do it I suppose.

    BTW off topic. I've just been looking at some old maps of George Street, did it begin i.e. at number 1 at Wiltshire Street, that is the street running North South West of Breezers Hill? There seems to be a block of buildings in between Wiltshire Street, and Breezers Hill. Therefore it's a bit confusing if the PH at the junction of Breezers Hill, and George Street is number 1. In short there is a block of buildings in George Street west of what is in effect number 1. What was their address?
    Do you mean Virginia Street? That block was the sugar refinery/wool warehouse. It must have been considered to be in East Smithfield which was the westward continuation of the Highway to Tower Hill.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post

      I think that you’re right to be more than annoyed Tristan because this isn’t a history ‘war’ it’s a ‘massacre.’ And it’s an ongoing massacre because the field of ‘battle’ isn’t an open or an honest one. The voices of Rubenhold, Bleakley and many others are the only voices that are being heard by the general public. Ripperology lies silent which implies an embarrassed acceptance that we have been caught out engaging in the kind of bias that we are being accused of. Rubenhold et al speak to the world and we talk amongst ourselves on forums that the general public are unlikely ever to visit. Apparently (and I don’t use social media) Rubenhold has no truck with dissenting voices and sadly she has been ‘martyred’ by some unpleasant comments on these platforms which are now considered the true voices of ripperology. Some think that we shouldn’t respond and that this will go away but I think that it might be too late for that. Labels that can be attached in an instant can take a lifetime to remove; if they ever are.

      It’s interesting that Bleakley uses ‘research’ when writing about ripperologists research. Apparently only a qualified Historian can be trusted to do real research? It’s a relentless drip of denigration which we are taking lying down. And what’s really annoying is that much of what is written is easily refutable. For example, is it a realistic proposition that on the 8th September the ripper walked along Hanbury Street trying doors until he finds one open. He then walks through a passageway on the off chance that the back door was unlocked and bingo! What an incredible stroke of luck...a sleeping woman. Really?

      So yes, I think you’re right to be annoyed Tristan. We’ve been labelled and demonised by people with an agenda taking the dishonest approach that we are accused of employing. That’s the way it now is. We’ve waived the white flag.

      You should post that on JTRForums btw Tristan.
      Thanks for response Herlock. I think you really hit the nail on the head here. I shall re-post this!
      Best Regards,

      Tristan

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Observer View Post

        Is there that much "stick"? If so, so what? Does it annoy you? It doesn't annoy me, why should it. In my opinion, contributing to this type of forum is nothing more than a pastime.

        The problem is that certain posters take themselves too seriously, particularly those with a suspect in mind. Some eat, sleep, and breath this forum. I'm surprised they get any time to do anything else.

        I'm a casual member of three serial killer forums two JTR, and one Zodiac Killer, they are very similar in intensity.

        Of course, the conspiracy theorists don't help, neither do the "what if", "perhaps", "surely not" merchants.

        Don't get me wrong, I've taken part in heated argument, but as soon as I've signed out, that's it, I'm not up half the night thinking it over in my mind. I'm sure there are posters who display this type of behavior.

        In short, my advice to any would be contributor to this type of forum is, don't take the subject too seriously, we're all hobbyists, it's not life or death, treat it as a pastime.
        I hear what you are saying but I think it is more than just getting 'wound up'. Yes, for a lot of people, including myself, this is an occasional hobby thing but there are a lot of people, who have worked really hard on research, writing books etc. Why is it that their opinions and research can either be dismissed or frowned upon because they are not an academic? It could apply to a whole range of other areas as well, not just this one. And for me, that's the point here I don't like some getting all snobby about history, its the kind of thing that can put people off.

        Of course it is not life and death for you or me but it may feel like it a bit to someone, who is really passionate about a subject or has put in a hell of a lot of work into something to then have it disparaged, simply because they didn't have the right letters after their name.
        Best Regards,

        Tristan

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

          Do you mean Virginia Street? That block was the sugar refinery/wool warehouse. It must have been considered to be in East Smithfield which was the westward continuation of the Highway to Tower Hill.
          Yes I did mean Virginia Street, don't know why I wrote Wiltshire Street, been looking at that many streets lately. So that block was a sugar refinery/ wool warehouse, right, and yes it must of been the very last block in East Smithfield. Looking at the map, it's easy to see why you would mistake it to be the beginning of George Street, but as you say if the corner of Breezers Hill/George Street is number 1, then obviuosly that's where george street began. Thanks for clearing that up

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Losmandris View Post

            I hear what you are saying but I think it is more than just getting 'wound up'. Yes, for a lot of people, including myself, this is an occasional hobby thing but there are a lot of people, who have worked really hard on research, writing books etc. Why is it that their opinions and research can either be dismissed or frowned upon because they are not an academic? It could apply to a whole range of other areas as well, not just this one. And for me, that's the point here I don't like some getting all snobby about history, its the kind of thing that can put people off.

            Of course it is not life and death for you or me but it may feel like it a bit to someone, who is really passionate about a subject or has put in a hell of a lot of work into something to then have it disparaged, simply because they didn't have the right letters after their name.
            Hi

            It's an individual outlook isn't it? As I said earlier, if my livelihood depended upon writing books, or producing magazines on the subject of JTR, and the sales were adversely affected by disparaging remarks by academics, then yes, I would have a beef. For we hobbyists, in my opinion, it's best to just ignore said disparaging remarks, there's no point in getting wound up.

            Comment


            • #81
              Below is just a sample of the notes we used to prepare for Rippercast’s review of ‘The Five’.
              Compiled and with Commentary by Paul Begg.
              Paul has recently said elsewhere that “The author (Bleakley) misunderstood what concerned Ripperologists. Rubenhold's upset the "Ripper community" for two reasons, her assertion that Ripperologists had ignored the victims, which wasn't true, and her claim that the victims were not prostitutes, which is unsupported by the evidence (evidence that Rubenhold ignored). And the idea that the victims being prostitutes was something Ripperologists were fiercely defending is wrong. Whether the victims were prostitutes or not didn’t matter to anyone, except Rubenhold. If her evidence – if there had been any! – had been sound, there wouldn’t have been a problem.”

              ****
              NOT PROSTITUTES

              The theme running through the book and taking a prominent role in the publicity surrounding The Five is the author’s claim that three of the victims, Nichols, Chapman, and Eddowes, were not prostitutes. Further, that the sexist police in 1888 branded all homeless women prostitutes and that this has been unquestionably accepted ever since.

              Now, without getting into the history of our understanding of the complexities of serial killing - and the term wasn’t coined until the 1970s - it has to be emphasised that Ripperologists aren’t arguing that these people were prostitutes. We’re not wanting them to be prostitutes. It is Hallie Rubenhold who wants them NOT to be. We’re simply confused about her evidence for that claim.

              To put that in perspective, for 130 years it has been accepted that the victims of Jack the Ripper were prostitutes. That was the conclusion reached by the police and press in 1888, and it has been accepted ever since. It hasn’t been accepted unquestioningly. The authors of The Jack the Ripper A to Z examined it over twenty years ago, concluding that Eddowes might not have been a prostitute.

              [1] Pg.15 HR writes, ‘Jack the Ripper killed prostitutes, or so it has always been believed, but there is no hard evidence to suggest that three of his five victims were prostitutes at all.’

              [2]. Pg.15: HR writes, ‘As soon as each body was discovered, in dark yards or streets, the police assumed that they were prostitutes and that they had been killed by a maniac who had lured them to these places for sex. There is, and never was, any proof of this either. On the contrary , it was ascertained in the course of the coroner’s inquests that Jack the Ripper never had sex with his victims.’

              [3]. Pg. 345: HR writes, ‘In the absence of any evidence that Polly, Annie, and Kate had ever engaged in common prostitution, many have taken to claiming that these women participated in “casual prostitution,”…

              On 7 September 1888, a police report written by Inspector Helson, J Division, summarised the investigation to date and refered to the evidence of William Nichols: ‘They separated about 9 years since in consequence of her drunken habits. For some time he allowed her 5/- per week, but in 1882, it having come to his knowledge that she was living the life of a prostitute he discontinued the allowance. In consequence of this she became chargeable to the Guardians of the Parish of Lambeth by whom the husband was Summoned to show cause why he should not be ordered to contribute towards her support, and on these facts being proved, the summons was dismissed.’ (MEPO 3/140, ff. 235–8).

              The book makes no mention of Helson’s report. It ignores it.

              What is curious is that the bibliography includes a book called Common Prostitutes and Ordinary Citizens: Commercial Sex in London, 1885-1960 (2011), by Dr Julia Laite, a lecturer in modern British and gender history at Birkbeck, University in London. Laite referred to William Nichols’ statement to the police, writing, 'She had separated from her husband seven years before, and, like Tabram’s husband, he had subsequently cut off his support payment to her with the court’s consent, after he had proved she was earning money through prostitution."

              Women who shared Nichols’ lodgings at 18 Thrawl Street stated that they knew her as a prostitute. According to an early and widely published newspaper report, a number of people visited the mortuary to view the body but were unable to identify it. Then a woman, who we now know was Ellen Holland, identified the body as that of ‘Polly’, with whom she shared lodgings at 18 Thrawl Street. The report then reads: ‘Women from that place were fetched and they identified the deceased as "Polly," who had shared a room with three other women in the place on the usual terms of such houses --nightly payment of 4d. each, each woman having a separate bed. It was gathered that the deceased had led the life of an "unfortunate" while lodging in the house, which was only for about three weeks past. Nothing more was known of her by them but that when she presented herself for her lodging on Thursday night she was turned away by the deputy because she had not the money. She was then the worse for drink, but not drunk, and turned away laughing, saying, "I'll soon get my 'doss' money; see what a jolly bonnet I've got now." She was wearing a bonnet which she had not been seen with before, and left the lodging house door.’ (Pall Mall Gazette, 1 September 1888)

              HR knows about this report and uses it in the book, but the statement by these women is utterly ignored. It isn’t discussed.

              Ellen Holland, who identified the body as that of ‘Polly’ , was specifically asked at the inquest if she

              On 8 September 1888, the day Annie Chapman’s body was discovered, Inspector Joseph Chandler, H Division, wrote a report summarising the investigation in which he stated, ‘The woman has been identified by Timothy Donovan “Deputy” Crossinghams Lodging house 35 Dorset Street, Spitalfields, who states he has known her about 16 months, as a prostitute and for past 4 months she had lodged at above house…’ (MEPO 3/140, f11)

              Donovan became cagey when interviewed by journalists and called to the inquest, presumably aware that he could lose his job for letting a prostitute use his lodging house, but HR again ignores this evidence and doesn’t mention it in her book.

              At the inquest, Chapman’s friend, Amelia Palmer, was specifically asked whether Annie Chapman earned money from prostitution: "Is it correct to say that she used to get money on the streets?" Palmer replied, "I cannot say. I am afraid she is not particular. She was out late at night at times. She has told me so." (East London Observer, 8 September 1888) Palmer’s reply can be seen as evasive, and ‘I’m afraid she is not particular’ is a close to an admission that she was a prostitute as somebody was prepared to say in public.

              Julia Laite also wrote of Chapman, 'She found things difficult when he [her husband] died in 1886, and, if she had not done so before, she began to engage in prostitution.'

              To a journalist for The Star, ‘Thomas Bates, a watchman, told a reporter that "Long Liz” … ‘was a clean and hardworking woman. Her usual occupation was that of a charwoman, and it was only when driven to extremities that she walked the streets.’ He added, "Lor' bless you, when she could get no work she had to do the best she could for her living, but a neater and a cleaner woman never lived.” (The Star, 1 October 1888)

              There is no reason to doubt this statement which appears to be a first-hand account given directly to the journalist for The Star. And it’s also interesting because it refers to what has been known about the victims since 1888, namely that they resorted to prostitution only when other means of making money weren’t available.

              This evidence, accepted by Ripperologists and even by an authority like Dr Julia Laite, is omitted from The Five.

              Very few police and Home Office files on the case have survived, so we are lucky that two reports of witness evidence that Nichols and Chapman were prostitutes. These early statements suggest, contrary to what HR asserts, that the police concluded that Nichols and Chapman were prostitutes because people who knew them said they were, and not because they branded all homeless women prostitutes. We have no idea what other witnesses told the police, but it is likely that people were more inclined to be honest in private to the police than they would speak ill of the dead in open court.

              [3]. Pg. 345: HR writes, ‘In the absence of any evidence that Polly, Annie, and Kate had ever engaged in common prostitution, many have taken to claiming that these women participated in “casual prostitution,”…

              There is evidence that the victims were prostitutes, although it has been omitted from the book. That the victims were ‘casual prostitutes’ was known in 1888 and has been known ever since, nobody seems to have taken to claiming that.

              Frankly, it’s difficult to understand why Hallie Rubenhold has been stating with absolute certainty that the victims weren’t prostitutes when there is evidence that they were. Whether she accepts that evidence or not, it is utterly unacceptable to have ignored it. People will now believe something which on the face of it is absolutely wrong.

              POLICE WRONG

              There are several mistakes throughout the book suggesting that the author doesn’t understand how the police were organised in 1888 or have any interest in the crime side of this case.

              [1] Pg. 6: HR writes of Nichols: 'She was to become the first of five ‘canonical’ victims of Jack the Ripper, or those whose deaths the police determined were committed by the same hand in the East End district of Whitechapel.'

              Not all the victims were murdered in Whitechapel. Eddowes was murdered in the City of London, which was in the jurisdiction of a completely different police force. The 'police' did not determine that the canonicals were murdered by the same perpetrator, it was Sir Melville Macnaghten. Other policemen thought differently. Sir Robert Anderson, the head of the CID included Martha Tabram, who was murdered short before Nichols, for example.

              [2] Pg. 7: HR writes, ‘Even with additional assistance from Scotland Yard and the City of London Police, none of this yielded anything useful.’

              H Division wasn’t investigating with help from Scotland Yard and the City Police. The latter was responsible for investigating a murder in their own jurisdiction. It’s not a big deal, but it doesn’t suggest that HR is familiar with the basic operation of the police. Jon Lee Rees suggested that HR might assume that it was a similar setup to regional investigations when Scotland Yard would send a detective to help the local investigation.

              [3]. Pg. 344: HR writes: ‘Those without homes or families, those who drank heavily and those who were dispossessed did not lead lives that adhered to conventional rules. No one knew or cared about what they did or where they went, and for this reason, rather than for a sexual motive, they would have appealed to a killer.’

              This misses the point completely; Jack the Ripper killed women. He killed prostitutes because they easier to take to were more likely than other women to take or accompany him to dark and lonely places, not because of the homeless lives they led.

              [4]. Where mistakes are made, they’re usually to do with crime. As we’ve seen, her understanding of the police forces involved is negligible, she calls Israel Lipski ‘Moses Lipski’ (pg.214) and Adolf Beck ‘Alfred Beck’ (pg.368). She describes the Ratcliffe Highway murders as ‘one of England’s first serial killings’ (pg. 318). And she describes the Ratcliffe Highway murders as ‘one of England’s first serial killings’.. And even makes mistakes with the names of Ripperologists and their book titles.

              QUESTIONABLE AND DISPUTABLE STATEMENTS

              [1] Pg. 81: HR writes, ‘On several occasions in the course of her testimony, the coroner posed questions to Ellen Holland about her friend’s moral character in the hope she would make an incriminating statement about Polly’s assumed profession. At each juncture, Ellen makes it perfectly plain that Polly was not what they insinuated. When asked if.’

              On the face of it this is an outrageous statement. It was the coroner’s job to ascertain as best he could the probable circumstances of a person’s death, and that involved establishing where Nicholls might have gone, what she was doing, who she might see, and so on. Nichols’ final words to Holland were that she intended to get her doss money and return to 18 Thrawl Street, and therefore Baxter was obliged to inquire how Holland thought Nichols intended to get her doss money. There is no evidence that Baxter posed the questions IN THE HOPE that Holland would ‘INCRIMINATE’ her friend.

              [2] Pg.81: HR writes, ‘“The coroner took the opportunity once more to probe Ellen over her comment that Polly intended to find the money for her lodgings. “I suppose you formed an opinion of what that meant,” he interjected.’

              The question was put by Mr Horey, the foreman of the jury, not by the coroner, Wynne Baxter. This may seem a not-picky point, but HR has already used biased language to claim that the coroner had an agenda-to get Holland to admit that Polly was a prostitute. Putting words into his mouth that weren't his, whether she intended to or not, conveniently helps HR to further illustrate this motive she's invented for Baxter.

              [3] Pg.80: HR writes, ‘However, before they had even listened to it fully,, both the authorities and the press were certain of one thing: Polly Nichols was obviously out soliciting that night, because she - like every other woman, regardless of her age, who moved between the lodging houses, the casual wards, and the bed she made in a dingy corner of an alley - was a prostitute.’

              HR provides no evidence to support her statement that the authorities and the press were certain that all homeless women were prostitutes. The figures quoted by HR given by Sir Charles Warren suggest this wasn’t the case and the evidence of the MEPO files, not mentioned by HR, suggest that the conclusion was based on witness statements.

              [4] Pg. 81: Nichols told Holland that’The comment was made in contrast to the lodgings available at Wilmott’s, which were single sex and which she preferred. In reference to the White House, Polly stated that ‘she didn’t like
              to go there’, and that ‘there were too many men and women’.

              The source HR gives is the East London Observer, 8 September 1888. What that newspaper actually reported was two referenced by Holland to the White House, she said: (i) ’She told me that she was living in another house, together with a lot of men and women.’ And (ii) ‘… she said there were too many men and women at the place she was staying at, and she didn't like to go there.’ The first thing to note is that nothing Nichols said about the White House was in contrast to the single sex lodgings at Wilmott’s. Nichols complained about the numbers of people at the White House - ‘there were too many men and women at the place…’ - and the White House was indeed large establishment in comparison to Wilmott’s.

              By twisting what Nichols said to Holland, HR Nichols as someone who preferred a single sex establishment and thereby encourages her reader to draw inferences about her character, whereas the reality is that Nichols disliked the size and number of people in the White House, nothing thereby being inferred about her moral character. HR frequently slants her account to support her contention that the women weren’t prostitutes. And, of course, HR avoided asking why Nichols went to a mixed sex establishment in the neighbouring street and stayed there for ten days if she preferred the single sex Wilmott’s.

              [5]. Page 146. ’In impoverished areas, where little stigma was attached to the sale of sex, friends, family, and associates were not bashful about openly identifying a woman as a prostitute when she genuinely was one.’

              HR gives no evidence to support this statement. At the inquest, when she was specifically asked if Annie Chapman was a prostitution, she avoided a direct answer, but said, "I cannot say. I am afraid she is not particular. She was out late at night at times. She has told me so." (East London Observer, 8 September 1888)
              One newspaper compassionately reported on Palmer’s testimony, observing that "she could make out but a pitiful case, in which drink and despondency and lawless living and hunger and sickness made up a doleful record." That newspaper thought that Palmer was "Evidently anxious to say the best she could of her friend of five years' standing," Amelia Palmer didn’t want to say anything bad about her friend, but when confronted with a direct question whether Chapman engaged in prostitution, she couldn’t entirely avoid acknowledging that Chapman wasn’t particular about how she earned her money. [I've lost the newspaper article but will give the details when I find it.]

              [6]. Pg 337: A man named Edward Fairfield had written to The Times and HR comments on his letter: ’The actual deaths of ‘the Vicious inhabitants of Dorset Street and Flower and Dean Street’ were not what was bothering him. Edward Fairfield was far more anxious that in the wake of this disturbance women like Annie Chapman would be displaced from their hellish hovels in Spitalfields and make their way into his neighbourhood, carrying their ‘taint to the streets hitherto untainted’.

              HR appears to misrepresent Fairfield quite badly. He was commenting on suggestions made by correspondents to The Times over previous days who had been advocating the dispersal of the inhabitants of Dorset Street and Flower and Dean Street. He asked to where they would be dispersed. Pointing out that if they had a right to life, they also had a right to purchase shelter, he observed that dispersal would mean that they would move into hitherto ‘untainted’ streets where they would be ‘mulcted’ (be penalised) by having to pay more for their accommodation - ‘The price of a doss will rise from 8d. to 10d. or a shilling, the extra pennies representing an insurance fund against prosecution and disturbance.’

              Whilst Fairfield MAY not have been concerned about the inhabitants, he did see that unscrupulous landlords would up their rents and make their accommodation unaffordable by many. Nowhere in his letter did Fairfield state or even imply that he was concerned about anyone making their way to his neighbourhood.

              ERRORS

              We haven’t gone looking for errors, but a couple have jumped from the page.

              [1]. (Debs Arif): Pg 319, HR writes, "Mrs. Boeku, as she called herself, had been born in the Netherlands as Eliesbeth Bluma, the daughter of a sugar-baking family who appear to have immigrated and settled on Pennington Street during her youth.”

              Elizabeth Bluma was still living in Amsterdam in 1885 when he first three children were born. HR seems to have seen that a German sugar baker named Bluma was living on Pennington Street and assumed this was Elizabeth’s family.

              [2]. (Debs Arif) Pg 325 , 'Next door to the former Red Lion was 1 Breezer's Hill, a boarding house that belonged to Mrs Rose Mary (or Mary Rose) McCarthy and her husband, John. The McCarthys' establishment, like 79 Pennington Street, provided beds for women like Mary Jane and their guests* They were also running an unlicensed public house on the premises, which not only sold alcohol unlawfully, but used prostitutes to inveigle "sailors and other unwary persons into these places, where they were then robbed." Whether Mary Jane was involved in these activities is unknown, but presumably in such an environment, the McCarthys were not as concerned about her angry drunken antics, so long as she was capable of paying her rent."

              Rose and John McCarthy did live at 1 Breezer's Hill, there is no evidence that they lived there before 1890, two years after Mary Kelly's death. Kelly definitely was NOT involved in any of the activities that went on there.

              A very minor error, only worth mentioning because it is a part of the story, is that a footnote gives a source as the Evening Standard, 10 May 1891. It was in fact 10 May 1890.

              [3]. (Debs Arif) Pg 329, HR writes of Joseph Barnett, who lived with Mary Kelly: 'Like many children of his class and era, Joseph had lost both of his parents by the age of thirteen and was raised by his older siblings.'

              Barnett did not lose his mother when he was 13. In 1881 Barnett's mother was resident in the house of a man named Thomas Allman, who in 1885 she married. Barnett was an adult at this time.

              2 March 2019

              ****

              JM
              Last edited by jmenges; 02-24-2021, 01:31 PM.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Observer View Post

                Yes I did mean Virginia Street, don't know why I wrote Wiltshire Street, been looking at that many streets lately. So that block was a sugar refinery/ wool warehouse, right, and yes it must of been the very last block in East Smithfield. Looking at the map, it's easy to see why you would mistake it to be the beginning of George Street, but as you say if the corner of Breezers Hill/George Street is number 1, then obviuosly that's where george street began. Thanks for clearing that up
                The St Geo E/Wapping boundary ran west of the warehouse, though. I’ve seen the warehouse referred to as being in St George Street, East Smithfield, so I’m not totally sure.

                The Goad showing the north side of the Highway/East Smithfield might confirm where the street changed names.



                Comment


                • #83
                  JM,

                  That’s very interesting. There’s lots more, of course.

                  Perhaps we should put everything together and put out a book of our own. We could start with the 35 pages on MJK.

                  The BH stuff above perhaps needs to be reworded slightly.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                    The BH stuff above perhaps needs to be reworded slightly.
                    I put the date of March 2019 in there since I knew the BH stuff has been looked at and expanded on.
                    Some sort of book compilation, even including as many pieces cited in The Five from the Rip and other sources - with permission- might be a good idea. I’d support such a thing.

                    JM

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                      The St Geo E/Wapping boundary ran west of the warehouse, though. I’ve seen the warehouse referred to as being in St George Street, East Smithfield, so I’m not totally sure.

                      The Goad showing the north side of the Highway/East Smithfield might confirm where the street changed names.
                      Yes, the numbering on the North side of St George's Street goes west all the way to Well Street

                      Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot_20210224-135354.png
Views:	141
Size:	33.4 KB
ID:	751767

                      ​​​​​​​

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post

                        Yes, the numbering on the North side of St George's Street goes west all the way to Well Street

                        Click image for larger version

Name:	Screenshot_20210224-135354.png
Views:	141
Size:	33.4 KB
ID:	751767

                        ​​​​​​​
                        Thanks, Joshua.

                        That’s raised a number of questions in my mind.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post

                          Thanks, Joshua.

                          That’s raised a number of questions in my mind.
                          It seems as if Number 1 St George Street, The White Bear PH, prior to 1843 was known as number 8 Ratcliff Highway. That block before the White Bear could possibly have been 1-7 Ratcliff Highway. Possibly

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Then again another Street directory Robsons, has the White Bear as 1 Ratcliffe Highway.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Max Kosminsky 21 St George Street Grocer 1921. Probably well known to the researchers in here

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                At one point, the Highway beyond (W of) Virginia Street was called Parsons Street.

                                The numbering on Horwood’s map (c.1800) seems to have the White Bear corner plot as no. 21. That was before the sugar refinery was built and where it would later stand stood houses numbered 10 - 20.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X