If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Now that, Amanda, could open a myriad of worm-filled cans.
Well done!!!!
Amanda,
Well done, indeed. Do you know how (if) he was related to Frederick Mocatta, the East End philanthropist, to whom a memorial drinking fountain was erected outside St Botolphs, Aldgate ?
Interesting find, but Amos is unlikely to have been Jewish since he had a C of E wedding :
Well, that's right. But if the family (through Jane) had Jewish connections, then that could (NB only could) be how it came into the Simpson's possession.
Having said that, Mocatta was London-born and not an East European immigrant, so as Amanda says, it probably doesn't mean much, since the shawl is now theorised as coming from Eastern Europe.
I give up. Paint ain't what it used to be. It's on Ancestry anyway.
I don't think Paint was ever what it used to be. I finally gave up on Windows after 20-odd years and moved to a Mac 3 months ago. Wish I'd done it years earlier.
Well done, indeed. Do you know how (if) he was related to Frederick Mocatta, the East End philanthropist, to whom a memorial drinking fountain was erected outside St Botolphs, Aldgate ?
Hi Mr.B,
Frederick Mocatta was Abraham's uncle (father's brother).
Probably not, Moonbeggar. There were 37 Ellen Simpsons on the 1945 London electoral roll alone . Yours was at 15 Mitchinson Road, where she can be shown living between 1945 and 1960.
She may have been Ellen G Bowden who married William HS Simpson in Paddington in 1923 and who may have had a child Audrey GS Simpson in 1925.
Having said that, until someone does the genealogy, we can't know for sure.
As Ed states, work is ongoing. He is doing his research, independent of my own research, and I must say that it seems he is coming to the same conclusion as I.
As for Special Duties, Simpsons position as a uniformed officer makes it unlikely he would work undercover, in fact it would be unprecedented.
He either was acting as duty sergeant, or a section sergeant. He was, as some stage, a reserve sergeant, and possibly clerk sergeant, which is supported by his role as a coroners officer.
Suffice to say, ALL of these roles are far removed from undercover work as suggested in Edwards book.
Monty
Of course, as you're probably aware this need not be a problem if- and accept it is a big if- he had been temporarily transferred to the City Force. Thus, in August, 1888, Major Henry Smith, the head of the City Police, put a almost a third of his force into plain clothes. They were instructed to do things that, for a constable, would normally be regarded, in the words of Major Smith, as "subversive to discipline". This involved activities such as picking up gossip, sitting on doorsteps and frequenting public-houses.
Of course, as you're probably aware this need not be a problem if- and accept it is a big if- he had been temporarily transferred to the City Force. Thus, in August, 1888, Major Henry Smith, the head of the City Police, put a almost a third of his force into plain clothes. They were instructed to do things that, for a constable, would normally be regarded, in the words of Major Smith, as "subversive to discipline". This involved activities such as picking up gossip, sitting on doorsteps and frequenting public-houses.
That's correct, however the transfer of men in to plain clothes would be noted in Police Orders. Insp Chandler's transfer was noted, as was Constable Pennett, when they both donned plain clothes in 88, however I cannot see Simpsons name...yet.
Amanda mentions it in post #54, that's all I really know about it, just I know a number of police who have been injured on duty and then given posts [that they were qualified for] that were less physical and wondered if the same happened in '80's.
G U T
There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.
Possible, though the role would have been given to him on merit.
What was the date of that assault?
Monty
Hi Monty,
Sorry, got confused with the dates, too many articles open. The assault was 17th March 1871.
The 1876 article was about Amos Simpson giving chase to a thief. So I guess the 'desk duty' theory goes out of the window, as he was still walking his beat five years after the assault.
Amanda
Last edited by Amanda; 09-21-2014, 02:53 PM.
Reason: Incorrect date
Comment