The broken window

[Howard Brown]

"I've just rechecked my info. Over at the JTRF Howard and Monty had a conversation some time ago about Frank Cater being misprinted in Monty's book as Frank Carter, a mistake I repeated in my post. It was apparently a typo which occurred in the first edition.

The conversation, which was about the flyer found in Kate's possession after her death, continued in another thread there.

I hope Howard won't mind me paraphrasing what he said, but he wrote that a descendant of Cater's, who was apparently a grocer, Howard said, ( I've read elsewhere a cheesemonger) had contacted him in pursuit of more info on his grocer ancestor whose name had appeared on the flyer found with Eddowes. Tom Wescott in the same conversation said he was at one time going to write an article about Frank, who apparently lived with his brother."
Rosella

Dear Rosella:
Sorry to say, the relative of Frank Cater never got back to me. If I recall, his first name was David.

[packers stem]

But I don't believe I am wrong Simon. It is patently obvious that a fellow of the British Gynaecological Society could properly be described as a gynaecologist.

That alone could explain Dr Gabe's presence at Miller's Court on 9 November 1888.

Hi David
From what we know of the remains, I just can't see why a gynaecologist would be required.
There was nothing remaining requiring the expertise of one

[RockySullivan]

"I've just rechecked my info. Over at the JTRF Howard and Monty had a conversation some time ago about Frank Cater being misprinted in Monty's book as Frank Carter, a mistake I repeated in my post. It was apparently a typo which occurred in the first edition.

The conversation, which was about the flyer found in Kate's possession after her death, continued in another thread there.

I hope Howard won't mind me paraphrasing what he said, but he wrote that a descendant of Cater's, who was apparently a grocer, Howard said, ( I've read elsewhere a cheesemonger) had contacted him in pursuit of more info on his grocer ancestor whose name had appeared on the flyer found with Eddowes. Tom Wescott in the same conversation said he was at one time going to write an article about Frank, who apparently lived with his brother."
Rosella



Dear Rosella:
Sorry to say, the relative of Frank Cater never got back to me. If I recall, his first name was David.

Hi, so is the consensus that his name was surely cater and not carter?

[David Orsam]

Hi David
From what we know of the remains, I just can't see why a gynaecologist would be required.
There was nothing remaining requiring the expertise of one

Yet in post #251 you said:

"In all liklihood then ,they were checking for signs of pregnancy if there was no child there"

You seem to be arguing with yourself!

[packers stem]

Yet in post #251 you said:

"In all liklihood then ,they were checking for signs of pregnancy if there was no child there"

You seem to be arguing with yourself!

True,it was an off the cuff thought when it was first mentioned but it took only a little serious thought to realise it's an obvious nonsense. But it's at least given you the opportunity to work your way back through hundreds of posts...

[David Orsam]

True,it was an off the cuff thought when it was first mentioned but it took only a little serious thought to realise it's an obvious nonsense.

It might be helpful, packers, if you can flag the posts in which you write 'obvious nonsense' because otherwise I don't know if the ones I am replying to - such as your latest - also contain obvious nonsense.

But if the idea that a gynaecologist might have been required at Miller's Court is nonsense then have you wondered why Simon Wood is so reluctant to admit that Dr Gabe was a gynaecologist?

[Howard Brown]

Hi, so is the consensus that his name was surely cater and not carter?
-Rocky-

As far as I know, yes, it was Cater.

[packers stem]

It might be helpful, packers, if you can flag the posts in which you write 'obvious nonsense' because otherwise I don't know if the ones I am replying to - such as your latest - also contain obvious nonsense.

But if the idea that a gynaecologist might have been required at Miller's Court is nonsense then have you wondered why Simon Wood is so reluctant to admit that Dr Gabe was a gynaecologist?

It's OK David, there is no obvious nonsense in my later post,unlike many in this thread.I made a simple error of judgement initially.... I corrected my error, the body in 13 millers court was clearly not in need of a gynaecologist

[Robert]

Some of the volumes of the British Gynaecological Journal are online at the internet archive. I searched the first two volumes. Gabe is listed as a Fellow, but appears not to have contributed any articles or talks.

[Jon Guy]

. I corrected my error, the body in 13 millers court was clearly not in need of a gynaecologist

But it was !!
The Doctors had to put the body back together again, with the knowledge that reproductive organs had previously been take away.

[David Orsam]

the body in 13 millers court was clearly not in need of a gynaecologist

On that basis, packers, the body was clearly not in need of a doctor either, but a number of them turned up anyway.

[David Orsam]

Some of the volumes of the British Gynaecological Journal are online at the internet archive. I searched the first two volumes. Gabe is listed as a Fellow, but appears not to have contributed any articles or talks.

Thanks Robert, I wasn't aware of those volumes being online.

Looking at volume 1, I see that Dr Meddowes, the first president of the society, said to the attending Fellows at the inaugural meeting held on 11 March 1885:

'No wonder then that we gynaecologists have felt the need of another society, and we may well congratulate ourselves that now we shall have no less then eighteen meetings a year of one and a half hour each, giving us in all twenty-seven hours of the discussion of subjects exclusively gynaecological…I maintain it is impossible now for such a society as the Obstetrical adequately to represent the increasing importance of this subject, or to devote to its study that time, care and attention which we gynaecologists think it deserves.'

Very careless of him to use the expression 'we gynaecologists' bearing in mind that, as Simon tells us, being a founding fellow of the British Gynaecological Society did not make a doctor a gynaecologist.

[David Orsam]

Lawson Tait, of Birmingham, was the second president of the British Gynaecological Society, elected in 1886. The Yorkshire Herald of 6 February 1892 described him as 'the well-known gynaecologist'.

I'm thinking, therefore, that he must have been a gynaecologist but perhaps Simon Wood would disagree for in the 1891 census he described himself as a 'Consulting Surgeon'.

In fact, according to the Simon Wood test he definitely wasn't a gynaecologist for if we consult Kelly's Directory of Birmingham for 1892 we find the entry:

'Tait, Latham F.R.C.S. 7 Crescent'

No mention of this 'well-known gynaecologist' being a gynaecologist there at all! (F.R.C.S. meaning Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons).

[Robert]

David, I'm just wondering whether 'gynaecologist' was a bit blunt for some people in the early days, who may have preferred a circumlocution. When Protheroe Smith dies in 1889, "The Cornishman" calls him 'the well-known gynaecologist' while 'The Pall Mall Gazette' and others call him 'the well-known specialist in diseases of women.'

Posterity calls him a gynaecologist :


http://archives.wellcome.ac.uk/DServe/dserve.exe?dsqIni=Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqDb= Catalog&dsqCmd=show.tcl&dsqSearch=(RefNo=='MS7655% 2F82')

[Phil Carter]

David, I'm just wondering whether 'gynaecologist' was a bit blunt for some people in the early days, who may have preferred a circumlocution. When Protheroe Smith dies in 1889, "The Cornishman" calls him 'the well-known gynaecologist' while 'The Pall Mall Gazette' and others call him 'the well-known specialist in diseases of women.'

Posterity calls him a gynaecologist :


http://archives.wellcome.ac.uk/DServe/dserve.exe?dsqIni=Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqDb= Catalog&dsqCmd=show.tcl&dsqSearch=(RefNo=='MS7655% 2F82')

Hello Robert,

Knowing of your expertise in the area of research in archives relating to names and professions, from many areas, I would suggest this to be bang on. Posterity may well have a lot of influence in the branding or naming of a profession.
Thanks for your input. ☺



Phil