Barnett's candidacy - a few issues

[Sally]

Hi Craig,

Below is Louisa Barnett's death certificate (November, 1926). Louisa died of pneumonia and described her husband's job as a dock labourer.

Is the address of "3 Raine St" the Raine St Infirmary ?

Thanks for posting those, and for the info regarding Louisa's burial place - very interesting. I'd be interested to see what Brookwood Cemetery come up with.

And yes, 3 Raine St. was the address of the workhouse infirmary.

It also highlights the Barnetts were poor. This suggests they probably didn't have a civil marriage so unlikely to appear in FreeBMD as married. Additionally, they had no children - which may have been a reason to get married.

They were poor - hence their several appearances in the Raine Street infirmary records over several years. Other people were poor though, and were still officially married, so I'm not sure that entirely explains the situation. Certainly two, and perhaps all of Joe's siblings were married.

How do we know Lizzie was sometimes called Louisa ? That would make sense

Well, I don't think we do - isn't that simply a stab in the dark? 'Lizzie' and wouldn't normally be a contraction of 'Louisa' - it'd be 'Lucy' or something of that nature.

I don't know anything of Louisa Day - perhaps somebody would be able to elaborate?

[MayBea]

Louisa Day was a woman arrested in Bethnal Green on November 23rd, 1888, for being "out of control". She claimed she was being chased by the Ripper and related to the Royals.

http://www.casebook.org/press_report.../18881123.html

I suggested her because she is in Bethnal Green where our Louisa was born and she seems like someone who would insinuate herself into the case and fancy Joe.

Regarding, Lizzie Albrook: Albrook, with one L, is not a common name, and there is a Louisa Albrook born in Whitechapel in 1866 but that's ten years too young. Albrook might not be the correct spelling.

[Craig H]

Regarding, Lizzie Albrook: Albrook, with one L, is not a common name, and there is a Louisa Albrook born in Whitechapel in 1866 but that's ten years too young. Albrook might not be the correct spelling.

Could this be the Selina Elizabeth Frith who married Edward Hampden Allbrook in September 1879 ? This Selina is in the 1891 Census with Edward Allbrook.

[Craig H]

Hi Craig,

And yes, 3 Raine St. was the address of the workhouse infirmary.

I remember someone found information on Joseph and Louisa around 1900in the Raine St Infirmary record. Has anyone looked to see if there were any mention of Louisa, Joseph or "Emily" in Infirmary records around 1890 - 91 ? I mention Emily was listed as married to Joseph in the 1891 Census. Do we know where these records are kept (if at all ??)

[Sally]

I remember someone found information on Joseph and Louisa around 1900in the Raine St Infirmary record. Has anyone looked to see if there were any mention of Louisa, Joseph or "Emily" in Infirmary records around 1890 - 91 ? I mention Emily was listed as married to Joseph in the 1891 Census. Do we know where these records are kept (if at all ??)

Yeah, that was me, from 1896 onwards. I don't think there was anything between 1890-91, though. I can't remember whether that was because there wasn't anything in the record or because that record set didn't survive. The records are all available to view online via Ancestry. It's the Poor Law records for London that you want. The originals are kept by the LMA.

Re. Selina Elizabeth Frith - I don't see why not a face value, many people went by their middle name. Do you have any more information on her?

[miss marple]

1891 census

Lets eliminate Joseph Barnett and Louisa Rowe once and for all.
Firstly, the marriage certificate, Both living in Homerton, Hackney. Joseph 28 a musician, father Michael, a coachman. I don't know where the mariner came in.

I think this is them in the 1891 CENSUS. They are living in Prestwich Lancashire. Joseph Barnett 32 is an employed attendant at the County Asylum. He is born in Waterford Ireland, His wife Louisa 24 is born in Hackney London. This is the closest match for them.

It is also possible that the Joseph Barnett at 18 New Gravel Lane in 1901 with Emily is wrong,this could be a red herring, as he is some six years older than our Joe. There were other Joe Barnett's around, this one is a dock worker, not a fish porter or general labourer.
New Gravel Lane was one of those streets that would have housed a lot of men in similar occupations.

Miss Marple

[Sally]

Hi Miss Marple,

]Lets eliminate Joseph Barnett and Louisa Rowe once and for all.
Firstly, the marriage certificate, Both living in Homerton, Hackney. Joseph 28 a musician, father Michael, a coachman. I don't know where the mariner came in.

I thought we had. The details don't match - there is really no chance that this couple is Kelly's Barnett and 'wife' Louisa. This Louisa is several years too young apart from anything else. She can be traced well before her marriage in the record - see above.

I think this is them in the 1891 CENSUS. They are living in Prestwich Lancashire. Joseph Barnett 32 is an employed attendant at the County Asylum. He is born in Waterford Ireland, His wife Louisa 24 is born in Hackney London. This is the closest match for them.

Yes, as I've already posted. It's uncertain what happens to them after that though.

It is also possible that the Joseph Barnett at 18 New Gravel Lane in 1901 with Emily is wrong, as he is some six years older than our Joe. There were other Joe Barnett's around, this one is a dock worker, not a fish porter or general labourer.
New Gravel Lane was one of those streets that would have housed a lot of men in similar occupations.

Hmm, but the problem is that there is good evidence from the Raine Street Infirmary records that Kelly's Barnett and Louisa were living in the immediate locale at that time - so if that isn't them, then where are they? I found the 1901 entry, and I'm the first to agree that it isn't perfect - but if it had been obvious, somebody much cleverer and more patient than me would've found it long before I did.

The 1901 Joe listed as a 'Dock Labourer' isn't an issue as far as I can see -a 'Fish Porter' is a dock labourer in all but name and I believe that Barnett's profession on his death certificate is listed as just that. Barnett's wife listed as 'Emily' may just mean that she went by more than one name, as many did. Note also that this couple, like Joe and Louisa, have no children.

Certainly there are points of mismatch - Barnett's age is the only one of any consequence, I think, and that may simply be an error. Yes, it could be the wrong record, but circumstantial evidence supports it nonetheless.

More than anything else, I find the close proximity of the residence at 18 New Gravel Lane to the other recorded residences of Barnett to support the match.

[miss marple]

Sorry Sally. Had not realised you had posted the 91 census. I will have to look more thoroughly/

Miss Marple

[Sally]

Sorry Sally. Had not realised you had posted the 91 census. I will have to look more thoroughly/

Miss Marple

Oh no worries Miss Marple, really. I'm pleased you came to the same conclusion I did regarding these Barnetts in the 91 census. I now think that the identification of Louisa Rowe with Barnett's 'wife' was based on assumption to begin with - there doesn't seem to be any substance to it.

Who knows who she really was? We may never discover.

[Craig H]

Mary Cox married Joseph Barnett ?

I’ve done some more research to explore the suggestion that Joseph Barnett married Mary Cox after Mary Kelly’s death.

As mentioned before ….

Louisa said in the 1911 Census that she was 55 years old. As the census was conducted on April 1 -2, then she must have been born sometime between April 1855 – March 1856. However, we know from the 1898 Raine Street Infirmary records that she was born in 1856. Therefore, she was born sometime in January – March 1856.

Both Joseph and Louisa said in the 1911 Census that they were married 23 years, which means they “married” in 1888. As Joseph was with Mary Kelly until she died in November, 1888, then this means they must have moved in together after the inquest.

The Wheeling Register of November 1888 had a reporter at the inquest who said Joseph was living with a woman who testified at the inquest. The paper described her as a “certain notorious Whitechapel character”. If correct, this is likely to be the person who married Joseph before the year finished.

Only 6 women testified at the MJK inquest – Elizabeth Prater, Sarah Lewis, Julia Venturney, Mary Ann Cox, Caroline Maxwell and Maria Harvey.

We can exclude those who had no children (as Louisa had none) or were married. That leaves only Mary Ann Cox – who was described as a widow and “unfortunate”. Mary Ann had also been arrested twice for assault in 1887 and 1888.

I looked for someone who married a woman called “Mary Ann Cox” and then died before November 1888.

The only fit was Mary Ann Cox who married William John James Emblin in June 1878 ( have their certificate). William then died in September 1888 in Poplar district (I’ve ordered his death certificate).

In the 1881 Census, William Emblen (surname slightly different) is living with wife Mary Ann at 65 Canrobert St, Bethnal Green with Mary Ann’s sister Alice and brother Henry. William is a dock labourer (as was Joseph in the 1891 Census and on his death certificate). Mary Ann and Alice were both Stay (or corset) Makers. Henry was a porter.

There is also the possibility William Emblen and Joseph Barnett knew each other through work.

From William and Mary Ann’s marriage certificate, we know Mary Ann’s father was James. Through Ancestry.com and FreeBMD we know Mary Ann Cox was born in the March quarter, 1854 in Spitalfields to parents James and Hannah Cox. As mentioned above, Louisa was also born sometime March quarter.
1854 is two years earlier than the 1856 Louisa said on her 1898 and 1911 records. However, while people may change their age, it’s less likely they change the month they were born.

William and Mary Ann were unable to have children in their 10 years of marriage. Similarly, Joseph and Mary Ann had no children.

The above may provide some support to the idea that Mary Ann Cox married Joseph. It doesn’t explain why she changed her name in future censuses or why there was no work occupation for her.

I’m interested in the thoughts of others on the above.

[curious]

I’ve done some more research to explore the suggestion that Joseph Barnett married Mary Cox after Mary Kelly’s death.

As mentioned before ….

Louisa said in the 1911 Census that she was 55 years old. As the census was conducted on April 1 -2, then she must have been born sometime between April 1855 – March 1856. However, we know from the 1898 Raine Street Infirmary records that she was born in 1856. Therefore, she was born sometime in January – March 1856.

Both Joseph and Louisa said in the 1911 Census that they were married 23 years, which means they “married” in 1888. As Joseph was with Mary Kelly until she died in November, 1888, then this means they must have moved in together after the inquest.

The Wheeling Register of November 1888 had a reporter at the inquest who said Joseph was living with a woman who testified at the inquest. The paper described her as a “certain notorious Whitechapel character”. If correct, this is likely to be the person who married Joseph before the year finished.

Only 6 women testified at the MJK inquest – Elizabeth Prater, Sarah Lewis, Julia Venturney, Mary Ann Cox, Caroline Maxwell and Maria Harvey.

We can exclude those who had no children (as Louisa had none) or were married. That leaves only Mary Ann Cox – who was described as a widow and “unfortunate”. Mary Ann had also been arrested twice for assault in 1887 and 1888.

I looked for someone who married a woman called “Mary Ann Cox” and then died before November 1888.

The only fit was Mary Ann Cox who married William John James Emblin in June 1878 ( have their certificate). William then died in September 1888 in Poplar district (I’ve ordered his death certificate).

In the 1881 Census, William Emblen (surname slightly different) is living with wife Mary Ann at 65 Canrobert St, Bethnal Green with Mary Ann’s sister Alice and brother Henry. William is a dock labourer (as was Joseph in the 1891 Census and on his death certificate). Mary Ann and Alice were both Stay (or corset) Makers. Henry was a porter.

There is also the possibility William Emblen and Joseph Barnett knew each other through work.

From William and Mary Ann’s marriage certificate, we know Mary Ann’s father was James. Through Ancestry.com and FreeBMD we know Mary Ann Cox was born in the March quarter, 1854 in Spitalfields to parents James and Hannah Cox. As mentioned above, Louisa was also born sometime March quarter.
1854 is two years earlier than the 1856 Louisa said on her 1898 and 1911 records. However, while people may change their age, it’s less likely they change the month they were born.

William and Mary Ann were unable to have children in their 10 years of marriage. Similarly, Joseph and Mary Ann had no children.

The above may provide some support to the idea that Mary Ann Cox married Joseph. It doesn’t explain why she changed her name in future censuses or why there was no work occupation for her.

I’m interested in the thoughts of others on the above.

Hi, Craig,
This is a nice piece of work. Thorough and thoughtful.

I have problems with it. The name change is huge for me.

Another problem is that as a widow would Mary Ann Cox not have kept her married name?

Have you looked for a Cox man's marriage to a woman named Mary Ann, but with an unknown last name? I don't think Cox would likely have been Mary Ann's birth name, but was instead her married name.

curious

Unless, of course, Mary Ann Cox was her street name and not her real name. She might not have wanted to embarrass family and friends or have them know of her circumstances. Then, you'd have a real problem

[Sally]

Hi Craig,

Louisa said in the 1911 Census that she was 55 years old. As the census was conducted on April 1 -2, then she must have been born sometime between April 1855 – March 1856. However, we know from the 1898 Raine Street Infirmary records that she was born in 1856. Therefore, she was born sometime in January – March 1856.

I think we're in the right ballpark with 1856, but you should recognise that people in an age which didn't document to the extent that we do were often quite vague about when they were born. Your reasoning is perfectly logical here, but I don't think we can assume that we're looking for somebody born in the first quarter of 1856.

Both Joseph and Louisa said in the 1911 Census that they were married 23 years, which means they “married” in 1888. As Joseph was with Mary Kelly until she died in November, 1888, then this means they must have moved in together after the inquest.

Again, possibly, but not necessarily. We must remember here that Joe and Mary had ended their relationship by November 1888. It is certainly possible that Joe had already met Louisa at that point.

The Wheeling Register of November 1888 had a reporter at the inquest who said Joseph was living with a woman who testified at the inquest. The paper described her as a “certain notorious Whitechapel character”. If correct, this is likely to be the person who married Joseph before the year finished.

The Wheeling Register - which also claimed that Joseph was 'roaring drunk' at the inquest. As far as I'm aware, neither claim is substantiated anywhere else, so I think the content of the Wheeling Register must be treated with caution.

Your entire chain of reasoning seems to stem from the premise that the Wheeling Register was correct. I'm not sure that it is. I think it's more in the line of salacious gossip, written to titillate the readership.

If you can find any corroboration for the claim made by the Wheeling Register, you might have a firmer basis from which to proceed. Even then, you still have some problems, not least the name change, for which their seems no obvious reason.

I'm sorry if this seems discouraging. Its clear that you're committed to research in this field and I think that's to be commended. Looking for Louisa is going to be tricky. You might try trawling through the Whitechapel Infimary records; it's possible that you might find some candidates there. The Louisa in question is fairly likely to have lived im the immediate area, so you might get lucky.

Good luck with it.

[Craig H]

Have you looked for a Cox man's marriage to a woman named Mary Ann, but with an unknown last name? I don't think Cox would likely have been Mary Ann's birth name, but was instead her married name.

curious

Hi Curious

Thanks for your ideas.

Yes - I originally had the same idea that Mary Ann Cox was her married name. I started looking at the men named Cox who died in the 10 years up to 1888 and cross checking against people with that name who married a woman called "Mary Ann". Very time consuming ! Not much originality with first names back then.

I then noticed some widows with a Cox who died in the 1880's were in the 1891 Census using their maiden name. This prompted me to look at Mary Ann cox as a maiden name.

It's just a suggestion - hopefully may lead to others with more experience than me to test it !

All the best .... Craig

[Craig H]

The Wheeling Register - which also claimed that Joseph was 'roaring drunk' at the inquest. As far as I'm aware, neither claim is substantiated anywhere else, so I think the content of the Wheeling Register must be treated with caution.

Thanks Sally.

The only Wheeling Register article I've seen is the one referring to Joseph Barnett. Were there other articles on JTR ? Were they accurate ?

[richardnunweek]

Hi.,
Why must the Wheeling register be treated with caution?
Because it is not repeated in other newspaper,, or not what is written down in books ..is that a good enough ?
Is in inconceivable that Barnett had some alcohol before the inquest, or is inconceivable that he may have tied up with another court resident, in a physical sense.?
Just because the report does not tally with others, does not dismiss it as phoney....
Regard Richard.