Barnett in 1901?

[lynn cates]

T

Hello Sally. Looks almost like "injury to the . . ." with the "t" having scarcely a visible crossing.

Good find.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

The signature looks like Hutchinson's!

Mike

Hi Mike

I think the register was filled in by the infirmary registrar, probably or somebody like that. I don't think the patients wrote in it themselves.

[The Good Michael]

The signature looks like Hutchinson's!

Mike

[Sally]

Joseph Barnett, Infirmary 1903-4

Here is the index entry for Joseph Barnett in 1903-4:



I'm not sure what it says - Injury to Head? Hand? Its difficult to tell because it appears to be an abbreviation.

What do people think?

[Sally]

Joesph and Louisa Barnett - 1898 - 1904

Here is the information extracted from the Raine Street Infirmary records regarding Joseph and Louisa Barnett between 1898 and 1904:

Louisa Barnett: b.1856
Date of admission: 2nd November 1898
Malady: Poisoned Hand
Date of discharge: 22nd November 1898
Reason: Own Desire

Joseph Barnett: b.1859 (aged 40)
Date of admission: 22nd September 1899
Malady: Gout
Date of discharge: 18th November 1899
Reason: Own Residence

Joseph Barnett: b.1859
Date of admission: 25th November 1899
Malady: Gout
Date of discharge: 22nd January 1900
Reason: Own Desire

Joseph Barnett: b.1859 (aged 44)
Date of admission:18th December 1903
Malady: Injury to head?
Date of discharge: 8th March 1904
Reason: Own Residence

The reason for Joseph's admission in 1903 is not clear. I will post the entry so that people can see and make their own minds up. It was an injury of some sort - presumably serious enough to keep him in the infirmary for almost 3 months.

We can see from the entries over autumn/winter of 1899-1900 that Joseph's gout was giving him trouble. Interestingly, a John Barnett listed in the records for the Whitechapel Infirmary, who I think might be his brother John was also suffering from Rheumatism in his leg or gout. Whatever the trouble actually was, there is a possibility that there was an inherited tendency to it.

Louisa appears only once, with an infected hand in 1898.

Although no address details are listed on the register, it is quite clear, I think that these people are the same ones listed on the 1911 Census.

I have later entries, which I will put up later. I hope this is of interest to people - at least now we can say with some confidence that Joseph Barnett isn't missing for quite as long!

[Natalie Severn]

From what can be gathered about Mary when operating her patch in Leman Street near the docks,she was keen on sailors----mostly, it has to be said, for their rum!

[miss marple]

Mary was a very attractive young woman, also an opportunist, the chance to live with a man who had a good regular income and was able to support her was two good an opportunity to turn down.Joe would not be the first man in Victorian england who thought he could reform a fallen woman
[George Gissing ] comes to mind.
Mary's interest in Joe dried up along with his income. The only work she had done in the past appeared to be that of a prostitute, there was nothing to stop her earning a respectable living, even working as a barmaid or a servant if she did not want to do factory work, but she appears to have enjoyed being a prostitute, working her own hours, drinking when she liked and meeting men. She probably found living with Joe constraining after a while, don't think she was cut out to be a domestic kind of a girl.
She probably took the room in her own name as a sign of her independence and convinced Joe she needed security to help her off the streets.
Joe was probably frustrated that when he lost his job he lost his leverage with her, he could not forbid her to do anything, but after he left still kept an eye on her and tried to help her. He was out of his league I think.
Miss Marple

[jason_c]

Indeed, and grounds for not starting the relationship in the first place.

Not so much if she had promised to stop when the relationship began.

[Stephen Thomas]

not wishing your lover to have sex with dirty old men is reasonable enough grounds for ending a relationship though.

Indeed, and grounds for not starting the relationship in the first place.

[jason_c]

How romantic, Jason. Cue the violins. The fact of the matter is that absolutely nobody would admit to living off the proceeds of prostitution back then as it was a serious criminal offence so please take poor Joe's pathetic protestations with a pinch of salt.

I will put away my violin when you provide evidence.

I will admit ultimately anything is possible in the Kelly/Barnett relationship. However, not wishing your lover to have sex with dirty old men is reasonable enough grounds for ending a relationship though.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The Barnett and Mary relationship, is not fully understood, it appears that Mary informed him of her past in some detail, and refrained from that way of life until at least the autumn of 88, but in order to keep a room over her head . looked for other avenues of income, which increasingly frustrated Joe, and anger increased between the couple, wich accumulated in a departure from Barnett , on the 31st oct.
One thing that confuses me is whos name was the room in?
According to McCarthy[press] Mary, came to live with a man called kelly, she was known to the court residents as Mary Jane, and because she posed as his wife, became known to McCarthy as Mary Kelly.
We all know that was wrong , but why the deception? why did Barnett not initially become himself?.
Surely any landlord now and then , would insist that the main breadwiiner in a relationship would be responsible for rent, and the popular view that Mjk was responsible for any overdue rent, surely would only be from the 30th oct 88, and I would say that most of the 28 shillings and sixpence owed was down to Barnett, however in the circumstances proberly would have been wavered .
Regards Richard.

[Stephen Thomas]

Barnett is much criticised in my opinion. Not wishing your girlfriend to walk the streets is hardly moralising, overbearing or unreasonable behaviour. Its one thing dating an ex prostitute, quite another to date a current one.

How romantic, Jason. Cue the violins. The fact of the matter is that absolutely nobody would admit to living off the proceeds of prostitution back then as it was a serious criminal offence so please take poor Joe's pathetic protestations with a pinch of salt.

[richardnunweek]

Sally,
Two words 'excellent work'
Regards Richard.

[jason_c]

Thats great work, the infirmary records add a bit of colour. [ the bit about the gout] Sally has nailed Joe's missing years conclusively.Turns out he was not missing after all, just leading the life he'd always led in the area he'd always lived.
Wonder if he ever referred to the Mary Kelly Years in his cups, or just kept quiet about it.
It would be great to trace Louisa but without her surname, no chance. and no marriage records.
I don't think Barnett was a violent man, but was quite a moral man who hated the idea of her street walking, and that led to some godawful rows, worse if Mary was drunk.after all he stayed in touch and tried to help her. I bet she could be quite aggressive when drunk. I like Tom Cullen's hearsay that she had a pitch outside the Ten Bells and attacked girls who tried to muscle in on her pitch. We know Joe meet her in Commercial street, so that sounds right.Also she dragged Mrs Buki up to Knightsbridge in the row about her clothes. I don't think she was a passive victim, but seemed very sparky and knew what she wanted and no one was going to interfer.
May be Louisa was quieter,a calm after the storm.

Miss Marple

Barnett is much criticised in my opinion. Not wishing your girlfriend to walk the streets is hardly moralising, overbearing or unreasonable behaviour. Its one thing dating an ex prostitute, quite another to date a current one.

[Sally]

Thats great work, the infirmary records add a bit of colour. [ the bit about the gout] Sally has nailed Joe's missing years conclusively.Turns out he was not missing after all, just leading the life he'd always led in the area he'd always lived.
Wonder if he ever referred to the Mary Kelly Years in his cups, or just kept quiet about it.
It would be great to trace Louisa but without her surname, no chance. and no marriage records.
I don't think Barnett was a violent man, but was quite a moral man who hated the idea of her street walking, and that led to some godawful rows, worse if Mary was drunk.after all he stayed in touch and tried to help her. I bet she could be quite aggressive when drunk. I like Tom Cullen's hearsay that she had a pitch outside the Ten Bells and attacked girls who tried to muscle in on her pitch. We know Joe meet her in Commercial street, so that sounds right.Also she dragged Mrs Buki up to Knightsbridge in the row about her clothes. I don't think she was a passive victim, but seemed very sparky and knew what she wanted and no one was going to interfer.
May be Louisa was quieter,a calm after the storm.

Miss Marple

Hi Miss Marple

As far as I can see, Joseph Barnett appears to have been a steady sort. Certainly he appears to have been with Louisa for most of his adult life and apparently to have led a stable life with her - there's no reason to think otherwise. As soon as I have all the information I think I'm going to get, I'll post it here - but I don't have any doubt myself now that the Joseph Barnet listed in the 1901 census is the same man who, earlier in life, lived with Mary Kelly in Dorset Street.

Best regards

Sally