Prosperous plasterer or pauper polisher?

[Sam Flynn]

if Mr Fleming had been in the workhouse in previous weeks, and records had not been updated, I'd imagine that all that would have happened was the enumerator was given a list of names, and no one would check who was still there. So, it's not impossible that the two apparently distinct fellows that Fisherman mentions are, in fact, one person.

Ingenious reasoning, Claire - but that then begs the question: where did the other Joseph Flem(m)ing, son of the impoverished Bethnal Green silk-weavers and born in the same year as "Joe the Plasterer", get to?

[claire]

Yes, it seems patently obvious that Joe Fleming aka James Evans has to be the son of Henrietta (otherwise, what on earth was she doing claiming the poor so and so as her son in the asylum?).

A word on censuses, though (from someone currently working on the development of the damned thing here in Qatar, where things seem closer to 1881 in all things census if nothing else)...they can take longer than the day that is intended to provide the snapshot current censuses aim for, particularly when you have enumerators going round door to door (as guidance, the one planned for here will use 1000 enumerators for a population of 1.3 million, and will take a little under a month). So migration within that period is perfectly possible, although it's worth checking the date(s) on the top of the enumerators' forms to see what the discrepancy is, if any, between the workhouse census date and that from Crozier T. Secondly, all that is required, and all that has been required, is for the householder to provide any data requested...if Mr Fleming had been in the workhouse in previous weeks, and records had not been updated, I'd imagine that all that would have happened was the enumerator was given a list of names, and no one would check who was still there. So, it's not impossible that the two apparently distinct fellows that Fisherman mentions are, in fact, one person.

Which is an idea that I like quite a lot.

[Scott Nelson]

... well, of course, it's fairly obvious isn't it?

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Miss M,

Decide on which Fleming is the ONE.

It's clear enough - to me, at least - that the plasterer with whom Mary Kelly was involved was the Joseph Fleming born in 1859 to Richard Fleming (plasterer) and Henrietta (née Mason/Masom). The same Joseph who went on to become a plasterer in his own right and was registered as such in the 1881 Census, when he was a lodger at Crozier Terrace, Hackney - and the same Joseph Fleming who would later go by the alias "James Evans".

[miss marple]

Births did not have to be legally registered until 1875, so many births, particularly in the East End and other poverty stricken parts of the metropolis went unregistered. Always a problem for genealogists. There were several namesake Flemings as well as namesakes for all the other major players. Decide on which Fleming is the ONE. Order some certificates and try to match up names addresses etc with census records and asylums. Miss Marple

[richardnunweek]

Hello Fisherman,
I agree our Mr Fleming is a intresting candidate, infact both Marys Joes are.
However I feel that if he is to be taken as a serious suspect two factors have to be established.
A] His proven height.
B] An expert at determining height in sketches in comparison to surroundings.
The latter remark refers to the sketch showing the service at Leytonstone cemetary, [ kellys funeral] I have always maintained that the male figure nearest to us, and bending slightly appearing to lay his wreath is a man of stature, he simply looks head and shoulders above the rest , look at his thigh and calf length...
Most casebook members have put this down to a trick of the eye, but I am not convinced.
We have the priest Father Colomban described somewhere, as 'A giant of a man', however unless the priest was not wearing his correct attire, it would appear not to have been him.
So could it be a possibility that Joe Fleming could have been present, and the priest and him were confused with one another?
It surely is a possibility that the party of eight mourners, consisted of six women that were made up of a representive of McCarthys, and the woman that knew her in the court, and attended her inquest, and both the men in her life in recent times the two Josephs.
That being the case we would have two major suspects present, and who knows it would not then be beyond the realms of possibilty that the 'infamous' grave spitting took place .
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Mark writes:

"I'm concerned that you're looking for perfection"

I prefer perfection, Mark - but I can easily see the sense in not craving it.

"You can take it or leave it"

I´d opt for taking it, as it stands. It would seem the more reasonable choice.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Whoa, Sam - was that Joseph Flem(m)ing number two or three...?

Number two: born in 1859, same year as the one born into the plumbing family.

[m_w_r]

All in all a reasonable suggestion - but it would be nice to find the missing bits and pieces to wrap things up!

Thanks, Fisherman.

I'm concerned that you're looking for perfection, though. The poor kid was in the workhouse school by 1871. I'm not sure where his parents were, and to be honest I haven't looked to find out, but it's quite plausible that there was no relative around to pinpoint the precise date of his birth. Whichever functionary provided the enumerator with the information would have been entirely comfortable in the knowledge that they had provided a reasonable ballpark estimate of Joseph's age. This isn't fraud, or deliberate misinformation intended to provoke the frustration of historians of the future: sad to say, within the workings of Victorian state institutions at census time, it's just the way life was.

You can take it or leave it, and Sam's nearly-matching suggestion of an "alternative" Joseph Flem(m)ing is at least as compelling as mine, but I'm sure that all these examples show the importance of a bit of leeway and lateral thinking in making sense of the censuses.

Regards,

Mark

[Fisherman]

Whoa, Sam - was that Joseph Flem(m)ing number two or three...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that, Mark! This "alternative" Joseph, though, would have been born in 1858, and it seems there is no such birth registered for some reason. Also, he drops two years, travelling from 1861 to 1871. Of course, it may be just the one year depending on when the census and the workhouse school entries were made. Still, given the company of a Sarah Flemming, it seems that the girl may be reflecting her mother´s name, strengthening your case.

One thing that is dropped alongside that year or two, is of course one of the "m":s in "Flemming", but that may have a very simple explanation.

All in all a reasonable suggestion - but it would be nice to find the missing bits and pieces to wrap things up!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

There were at least two Joseph Flem(m)ings born in Bethnal Green in the same year, it appears. One - "James Evans" - was the son of Henrietta Fleming and husband Richard Fleming, a plasterer. The other - Joseph Flemming, with two "Ms" - was the son of James Flemming, silk-weaver, and Eliza (also a silk-weaver). The latter Joseph appears in the 1871 Census as an inmate at the Bethnal Green Workhouse School, and I suspect it is he who ended up in the Poplar Workhouse as a french polisher in 1881. His lowly family trade, and his early "career" in a workhouse school, all point to the same conclusion.

[m_w_r]

Hi all -

It's not unheard of for someone to appear twice in the same census, but in this case I would have to suggest that there were, in fact, two Joseph Flem(m)ings.

Here, for the sake of comparison is, plausibly, the other one:

1861: 31 Turville Street, Bethnal Green St Matthew
George Flemming, head, m, 40, shoemaker, b. Sheffield, Yorkshire
Sarah Flemming, wife, m, 41, b. Bethnal Green, Middlesex
George Flemming, son, u, 17, shoemaker, b. Bethnal Green, Middlesex
Charles Flemming, son, u, 14, wood chopper, b. Bethnal Green, Middlesex
Joseph Flemming, son, u, 3, b. Bethnal Green, Middlesex

1871: District Bethnal Green Workhouse School St Matthew
Joseph Flemming, inmate, 11, scholar, b. unknown
Sarah Flemming, inmate, 6, scholar, b. unknown

1881: Poplar Union Workhouse (= All Saints Poplar, district 42)
Joseph Fleming, inmate, u, 21, French polisher, b. Bethnal Green

Regards,

Mark

[Fisherman]

One question that becomes very vital here is how the census was performed. It could reasonably not have been allowed to drag out for any longer time, since that would have made sure that many people were added more than once to the listings, since there would have been an ongoing migration at all times.
So, if the census was a quick affair - how did Joe manage to live in two places at the same time. And under apparently radically different circumstances too...?

Let´s hear it from the guys and girls who know how the census was established!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

But why is he listed as two different entries in the same census? It makes no sense at all.

Moreover, if the two Flemings were indeed two different people, there is one of them missing in the birth entries, implying that this one may have become a Joseph Fleming AFTER his birth. It invites all kinds of conspiracysmelling suggestions, does it not?

Maybe we should also keep in mind that the more credible guess is that the Poplar workhouse Fleming was added to the inquest early in the year 1881 - he would have turned 22 in March if he is our man - and I cannot see how he could not be...?

This is driving me up the walls. And the name of Joseph Fleming is becoming more and more suspicious the more you look into him!

The best,
Fisherman