Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[DVV]

He wasn't 6'7, Mike.

I don't know even if there was ONE guy that tall in London 1888.

In a circus, perhaps.

[The Good Michael]

Oh yah. That 6'7" guy that remains elusive.


Mike

[DVV]

BUt a young man, I don't think so.
Mike

I don't think either that Toppy, who was 21 or 22 in 1888, could have known MJK for 3 years, unless he had followed her like her shadow.

The only person living in Whitechapel in 1888 who knew Mary for about 3 years is Joseph Fleming.

Cheers all

[The Good Michael]

There definitely is a characterization of soldiers in the LVP, particularly cavalry officers, of being lean and broad-shouldered, cutting a dashing figure. Of course we know that soldiers run the gamut of size and shape, though ideally, they should be fit and ready for battle. Military appearance definitely indicates some sort of soldierly way in carrying oneself. I'm sure a stout man could pull it off if he was trained to do so. BUt a young man, I don't think so. I think he either had to have been in the military or to have carried himself as sort of a cavalry officer. lean, chin up, confident. In order for even a suspect witness such as Lewis to have suggested the man in Dorset Street had a military appearance, he needed to have followed the phenotype that Lechmere gives.
Then again, the papers said this, and not necessarily Lewis. Even if Lewis said this, it could have been a change in testimony ala Schwartz, Packer, Hutchinson (both then and in later years), and most witnesses. They fill in memory gaps with what makes sense to them, true or not, and that becomes true in their minds.

Mike

[Ben]

“Probably because I illustrated how those texts showed that the apprenticeship system for plumbers in London largely collapsed in the 1880s.”

But you didn’t illustrate any such thing, Lechmere, because no such "collapse" ever happened, and to assert that Sally “accepted it” is grossly to misinterpret her actual comments on the subject, which were as follows:

“No such collapse appears to have taken place. Not my opinion, but contemporary evidence. Lots of it.”

As contemporary records indicate, apprenticeships were still very much in place, and formal tuition was often made possible through a familial connection. In Toppy’s case, that familial connection would have been readily available in the form of his father. This is what Sally “accepted” or rather has researched herself, which is quite the opposite of what you have been asserting.

“It provided an exaggerated illustration of ‘military appearance’ as that is what caricatures tend to do.”

And in this case, the caricature depicted a rigid pose, straight back and a military uniform. Still nothing to do with physique. Even today you’ll encounter comedy or caricature versions of military types as upper class, lanky “toodle-pip” characters, but they are still a very long way off the true military ideal in the physical sense.

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
Well no I copied some excerpts, put them up and then discussed them. You really have a problem with that for some perverse reason. Probably because I illustrated how those texts showed that the apprenticeship system for plumbers in London largely collapsed in the 1880s. When those texts were originally put up you distinguished yourself by spectacularly and noisily misinterpreting them.
You seem to have a basic problem with comprehending this. I think Sally accepted it by the way, I may be wrong of course.
You can persist in your delusions about apprenticeships and even about military appearances, it matters not to me.
The cartoon that you take such exception to was by the way was a contemporary caricature of a soldier. It provided an exaggerated illustration of ‘military appearance’ as that is what caricatures tend to do. That will have been lost on you. I am quite satisfied that your knowledge of the Victorian military is zero.

[Ben]

“I specifically spoke of the collapse of the apprenticeship system with respect to for plumbers in London.”

Well no, what you really did was copy and paste a few press sources that another poster had already provided in mid-2009, neglect to mention where you obtained them from, and draw errant conclusions from them accordingly. Sally and Garry have successfully demolished the suggestion that the apprenticeship system had collapsed.

“I am saying you are spectacularly ill informed in misquoting one passage”

I haven’t misquoted anything, Lechmere. I’ve quoted Archaic’s sources with complete accuracy, and unfortunately for you, they utterly dispense with the suggestion that “military appearance” meant anything different to “military bearing”. They also dispense with the suggestion that either expression had anything remotely to do with height or weight when it was used in the 19th century. These expressions were in specific reference to posture, carriage and demeanour, which is an unfortunate reality for your quest to create a schism between Lewis’ loiterer and Hutchinson, who were almost certainly one and the same.

“By contrast I have given numerous other examples, from prints, photographs, references to underwear, to details of military uniform.”

Which supposedly demonstrate what, exactly?

Are you seriously suggesting that your hastily-googled cartoons of bellboys carrying boss-eyed parrots assume more weight than Archaic’s unambiguous definitions of the phrases “military appearance” and “military bearing” as used in the late 19th century? You haven’t cast the slightest “doubt on the identification of Lewis's wideawake man and Hutchinson”, and it is pitiable and arrogant nonsense to claim that you have.

[Lechmere]

The only relevance is (I think) that it casts doubt on the identification of Lewis's wideawake man and Hutchinson. It isn't really a Toppy issue I would suggest.

Incidentally I am confident in my knowledge of the Victorian army so as not to be in the least desperate about defining what was and what wasn't a 'military appearance'.

But often on here the arguments take a ludicrous turn.
For example the 'accusation' that I had said there were no apprentices, when I clearly hadn't or the suggestion that I said most plumbers were bodgers, when I clearly hadn't or the suggestion that I said Toppy could have been a bodger when I clearly hadn't etc.

[DVV]

Even if I thought Toppy was the witness, I wouldn't use this "military appearance" as an evidence.

[DVV]

I'm afraid you only look more and more desperate on this, Lechmere.

[Lechmere]

Sally – I specifically spoke of the collapse of the apprenticeship system with respect to for plumbers in London. That is quite a specific target for collapse and in any case I did not say that this specific collapse implied there were absolutely no apprentice plumbers in London either.

Mr Ben – no I am not saying the sources are ill informed – I am saying you are spectacularly ill informed in misquoting one passage, which your repeated remarks imply to me constitute the sum total of your knowledge about the Victorian army.
Also why did you say sources – it was one source that concerned ‘military bearing’ - and didn’t provide any details at all relating to ‘military appearance’ – beyond that tantalising expression ‘soldierly attitude’.
By contrast I have given numerous other examples, from prints, photographs, references to underwear, to details of military uniform.
It is a non argument as anyone who has any knowledge (i.e. not you clearly) of the Victorian military ideal would be able to tell you.

[The Good Michael]

Things that are clear:

The apprenticship system changed when indentured servitude was outlawed in 1814. After that time, the 7 year system was much looser.

As capitalism increased so did people decide to hire cheaper labor in order to increase profit. This of course is seen in the LVP where Jewish immigrants worked for nearly half of what skilled workers got.

There can be no doubt that anyone who wanted to plumb at low wages, could find himself a job. If you plumb, you are a plumber. Case closed.

Mike

[Sally]

Lechmere

Sally – I don’t think anyone has suggested there were no apprentice plumbers in the 1880s.

I believe it was you who spoke of the 'collapse' of the apprenticeship system. No such collapse appears to have taken place. Not my opinion, but contemporary evidence. Lots of it.

[Ben]

“The two terms are not interchangeable as Mr Ben clearly seems to think.”

It has nothing to do with what I “think”, Lechmere, but what the sources actually tell us, as David and Babybird have both attempted to spell out for you.

The sources tell us that "Military Appearance" meant "Characterized By Military Bearing And A Soldierly Attitude" as defined in the late 19th century.

So what’s your response to the sources?

That’s right – you dismiss them as "ill informed" and insist that your version must be correct anyway, or even worse, you try to pretend that the sources don’t exist at all; that it was all in the mind of “Mr. Ben”. Let’s just clarify once and for all: military appearance meant "characterized by a military bearing", and your insistence to the contrary is completely worthless.

There has never been any tall and/or thin military stereotype, and common sense should dictate that a square-built, broad-shouldered muscular frame is far more suited to most tasks required by military operations.

Once again, this is just another very bad and ill-starred attempt to infer that the wideawake man was someone other that George Hutchinson.

[babybird67]

are you suggesting Hutch was wearing a bearskin?

lol.

It is clear from the source material that the phrase referred to comportment and behaviour, NOT physical characteristics, Lechmere. No matter how many times you want to try to make it mean something else.