Barnett's candidacy - a few issues

[GUT]

G'day Brenda

I'm starting to get famous for chiming in with stuff I remember from the old boards that I can never prove existed, but.......

And why shouldn't you chime in, I did, in fact everyone does or all threads would be at most two people posting!

I remember speculation back in the day that old Joe's echolalia might have been the reason people thought he was drunk. It's plausible.

I would say more than just plausible.

A drink or two before attending I can buy, but drunk?

It would surely bring the ire of the coroner down on his head if he showed up drunk.

[Sally]

Hi Craig,

Thanks for posting the press articles from the Wheeling Register, most entertaining, if not terribly accurate.

There really is no mileage in treating the Wheeling Register as a reliable source. You say that it is a remarkable coincidence that the Wheeling Register suggests that Barnett was living with a new woman so soon after Kelly's death and then it turns out later that he was - but I think that's exactly what it is: a coincidence.

The bottom line is this - there is no other contemporary source that supports the stories in the Wheeling Register. No other press account that I have seen - and certainly no local source, corroborates any of them. I conclude that they are fantasies, based upon a kernel of truth, but no more than that.

It is untenable to suggest that of all the reporting press, some of whom were actually in Whitechapel at the time; were actually at the inquests; and actually did speak to the witnesses, The Wheeling Register, a small town rag, was the only one to know the truth.

It really doesn't hold water.

[Craig H]

Hi Sally,
You're probably right on this. I'll just check a couple more things then let it go.
Craig

[MayBea]

This old thread, linked below, has the 'three' 1891 local candidates for Joe.

One's Polish, one's been eliminated by the 1881 Census (not our Joe at 1 Horatio with his brother visiting), and the other is married to Flora (Rees) and isn't eliminated if you accept that Joe could have married a Jew and lived with Jews and he had at least one child that was his.

http://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-415.html

I kind of like the Joe married to Flora because his job is listed as costermonger which could be a seller of fish, and is crossed out as 'hawker' or 'orange hawker' and the Daily News said he filled his time as a fruit seller.

http://www.casebook.org/forum/messages/4922/13140.html

[Sam Flynn]

I kind of like the Joe married to Flora because his job is listed as costermonger which could be a seller of fish, and is crossed out as 'hawker' or 'orange hawker' and the Daily News said he filled his time as a fruit seller.

I like this Joe, too, MayBea, but wasn't the generalisation of "costermonger" to cover fish-sellers was a fairly recent development? Originally it meant apple-seller (from an Old English word for apple, costard), but by the 19th Century it had widened to include someone who sold any kind of fruit (even vegetables) from a "barrow" in the street. That definition would still fit Joe Barnett during his "orange-selling" phase, without it having to refer to his heyday as a fish-porter. (NB: he was always a porter, not a seller of fish, as far as I recall.)

[Sally]

I think this Joe can be easily traced via the census. He was a greengrocer in effect.

[MayBea]

I like this Joe, too, MayBea, but wasn't the generalisation of "costermonger" to cover fish-sellers was a fairly recent development?...

It appears to have included fish-sellers as early as Victorian times according to the Dictionary of Victorian London (1851).

The number of costermongers, -that it is to say, of those street-sellers attending the London "green" and "fish markets," -appears to be, from the best data at my command, now 30,000 men, women, and children.
http://www.victorianlondon.org/publi.../mayhew1-1.htm

Could this Joe have been, or been listed as, a general fruit seller/costermonger, and costermonger was scratched out to make him specifically an orange hawker, because of the large number of costermongers?

[Sam Flynn]

It appears to have included fish-sellers as early as Victorian times according to the Dictionary of Victorian London (1851).

Thanks for that, May - more info than the OED!

Nonetheless, Joe Barnett was never a "monger" (seller) of fish, as far as I know, only a porter at the market. When - after losing his porter's job - he was forced to hawking stuff on the street, he was a monger of the traditional fruit'n'veg variety.

[MayBea]

I think this Joe can be easily traced via the census. He was a greengrocer in effect.

I think you're right, Sally. There is a Joseph Barnett/Flora 49 and 47, so the right ages +/-2 years, in the 1911 Census.

We already have Joe and his wife in 1911 so it doesn't look like they're our Joseph or Louisa.

[MayBea]

The 1901 Joe listed as a 'Dock Labourer' isn't an issue as far as I can see ... 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....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.

I found a marriage in 1899 between a Joseph Edward Barnet and an Emily Steele in Mile End

Marriages Jun 1899 (>99%)

Askew Eleanor Mile End 1c 705
Barnet Joseph Edward Mile End 1c 705
Steele Emily Mile End 1c 705
Williams Walter Edward Mile End 1c 705

This Joe and Emily did get married. A Walter E. Williams has been found with an Eleanor.

1901 England Census about Eleanor Williams
Name: Eleanor Williams
Age: 26
Estimated birth year: abt 1875
Relation to Head: Wife
Gender: Female
Spouse: Walter E Williams
Birth Place: Hackney, London, England
Civil Parish: Hackney
Ecclesiastical parish: St Luke Homerton
County/Island: London
Country: England
Registration district: Hackney
Sub-registration district: South-East Hackney
Eleanor Williams 6
Percy Williams 1
Percy Williams 1 month

[MayBea]

This genealogical site has Joseph Edward Barnet/Barnett and Emily ne. Steele as about 20 years younger than Joseph and Emily from the 1901 Census.

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.co...-06/1182060881

It also has a son, Joseph, born 1899. I don't see a son on the census record posted by Sally. Could it be on the next page?

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5320

[MayBea]

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.

There is a marriage in the third quarter of 1900 of a Mary Ann E Emblen.

Marriages Sep 1900 (>99%)

Dowden Thomas George Bethnal G. 1c 319
Emblen Mary Ann E Bethnal G. 1c 319
Holman John Bethnal G. 1c 319
Styles Jessie Diana Bethnal G. 1c 319

She married John Holman. The marriage certificate for the Sept. 24, 1900 marriage states she is a widow, 45, occupation charing, address 19 Viaduct, father Joseph Cox, deceased.

[GUT]

G'day MayBea

You never cease to amaze.

[MayBea]

Thanks, GUT. I threw that one to a fellow member and he found it for me.

The father's name is Joseph instead of James, but the Mary Ann Cox who married William Emblen was definitely Mary Ann E, just like Mary Ann E Emblen/Holman from 1900.

Marriages Jun 1878
COX Mary Ann E Bethnal Green 1c 653
EMBLEN William John J Bethnal Green 1c 653

It's too bad, because I liked Craig's Cox theory, but it looks like she's eliminated from contention as Barnett's wife.

[GUT]

I need someone to teach me where to look, to help my family history research, totally stuck in one strand at about 1700, though another line I'm back to 1300's.