Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Nothing to see]

U'mmmmm.

What?

This proves what about Hutchinson?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
This proves what about Hutchinson?
Well I would love to say 'I was right all along', i would love to receive a post privately, or via the message boards from JD, however that is all wishful thinking, however even if the truth is still laying dormant, it still will not alter my opinion that Topping was exactly what Reg depicted him as, a solid reliable/observant character, and not the green eyed monster that is portrayed on Casebook.
Regards Richard.

[Nothing to see]

Hi,
This proves what about Hutchinson?
Well I would love to say 'I was right all along', i would love to receive a post privately, or via the message boards from JD, however that is all wishful thinking, however even if the truth is still laying dormant, it still will not alter my opinion that Topping was exactly what Reg depicted him as, a solid reliable/observant character, and not the green eyed monster that is portrayed on Casebook.
Regards Richard.

Man, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'm thinking that's probably a good thing.

[Ben]

To be fair to those who detect a similarity, I'd be fibbling if I claimed that they were stark staring bonkers to think so, and it's worth reiterating at this point that the witness/Toppy comparison was not as disasterously dissimilar as I'd previously believed. However, and without getting bogged down again in small "n"s and curly "H"s, I still find it almost impossible to believed that they were penned by the same individual. The differences are just too significant to be explained away by a passage of time to my mind. I'm no expert either, but it's noteworthy that one expert document examiner subscribes to my view, in addition to others who are more accustomed than I am to examining such documents.

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

I agree - gathering Hutchinson handwriting samples even now. Watch this space.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"The differences are just too significant to be explained away by a passage of time to my mind."

I respect your wiew, Ben. But I would like to point you to an example that shows us that curls and such can change over no period of time at all:

If you take a renewed look at Sams post 157, you will find that there are a handful of capital H´s about. And there is every reason to accept that these letters were all written by the same hand. Now, all of the H´s have a left leg that is basically a pole. But in the case of the deceased fathers name, the left leg of the H in Hutchinson that is written in that space has a flag attached to the pole!

If there had been such a thing involved in the ongoing discussion, and if somebody had said "Hey, that H has a flag on it´s left leg pole!", I would have found it a very valuable point, prompting me to consider the possibility of two different authors. But in this case, we know that it was not so - all the rest of the letters are in total agreement with the rest of the text material.
The bottom line is that we need perhaps not call for significant spaces of time to explain what appears to be significant differences. The overall impression must be a lot more important to us than such things, I feel. And that overall impression suggests very strongly to me that Hutch HAS found an identity.
It will be interesting to follow the development, that´s for sure!

Take care,
Fisherman

[David Knott]

Just to confirm, the marriage signature posted earlier is different to the one I have a copy of.

Bearing in mind GWTH's signature is now in the public domain (from the 1911 census) I can't see that it going to be a major issue if I post an image of the 'George' and the 'Hutchinson'.

Will do so later.

David

[Fisherman]

Great news, David; thanks!

Regards,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

If you take a renewed look at Sams post 157, you will find that there are a handful of capital H´s about. And there is every reason to accept that these letters were all written by the same hand. Now, all of the H´s have a left leg that is basically a pole. But in the case of the deceased fathers name, the left leg of the H in Hutchinson that is written in that space has a flag attached to the pole!

I respect your view too, but I am supremely confident the expert who adjudged the Toppy/witness comparison to have been a mismatch would have taken such things into account. Of course you can vary the look of your capital H - we know that the real witness did precisely that. In his fist signature, he opted for a curly "H" which he later rejects in favour of the standard formation of the letter when penning the other two signatures, and yet despite this variation, there is enough independent support elsewhere in the signatures to support the case for all three witness signatures being written by the same individual.

In Toppy's case, I find that independent support to be wholly lacking, with the "different" look of the H to be in accordance with the numerous other differences elsewhere.

And that overall impression suggests very strongly to me that Hutch HAS found an identity

I've of the reverse opinion, Fish; very much so.

But yes, exciting developments all round!

All the best,
Ben

P.S. Just a minor clarification on an earlier point; there's no evidence that Toppy lived in the East End in 1888.

[Debra A]

Just to confirm, the marriage signature posted earlier is different to the one I have a copy of.

Bearing in mind GWTH's signature is now in the public domain (from the 1911 census) I can't see that it going to be a major issue if I post an image of the 'George' and the 'Hutchinson'.

Will do so later.

David

Good news David, thanks.
Might put the curiosity of some of us on the borderline to rest.

[Sam Flynn]

Just to confirm, the marriage signature posted earlier is different to the one I have a copy of. Bearing in mind GWTH's signature is now in the public domain (from the 1911 census) I can't see that it going to be a major issue if I post an image of the 'George' and the 'Hutchinson'. Will do so later.

Thanks, David - much obliged.

The question remains of whether Sue Iremonger evaluated that one, or the (official and apparently near-contemporary) copy that the NA sent me, excerpts of which I posted in good faith and for which - in hindsight - I might have wasted 20-something bloody quid ) Still, it's all in a good cause...

[Debra A]

That happened to me too Sam! I was promised a photocopy from the original register then got a handwritten copy done by the registrar....after I'd parted with me brass.

[Sam Flynn]

That happened to me too Sam! I was promised a photocopy from the original register then got a handwritten copy done by the registrar....after I'd parted with me brass.

I sympathise, Debs - however the TNA image I bought clearly is a scan of an old document (as is apparent by the writing) rather than a freshly-minted transcript. Given that this document is filed under "Blahblah-Stepney-Quarter-Year" in the National Archives - which is how I was able to order it - it still strikes me as possible that a version of the same official copy may have been the one seen by Sue Iremonger.

[David Knott]

The 'George' and the 'Hutchinson' from 1898...

and the 'George Hutchinson' from 1911...

[Sam Flynn]

The 'George' and the 'Hutchinson' from 1898...

and the 'George Hutchinson' from 1911...

Many thanks, David. Well, the circle is complete for me - I reckon Toppy was our man all along. Hutch the witness, at least

I can only imagine that Sue Iremonger was looking at the same copy of the certificate as I bought (plus postage!), because that 1898 signature is certainly not unlike the 1888 one at all. The similarity with the 1911 signature is, as you rightly perceived, extremely close also.