Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[scarletpimpernel]

Debra and Rob

Really good. I can see the well marked signature and the downward strokes on the W, P and G. Really interesting.

[Ben]

My grateful thanks to Rob and Debs for their research efforts.

Interesting stuff!

[Rob Clack]

Here's the Topping wedding signature:



Rob

[Fisherman]

Debs writes:

"I mean that because the George and Hutchinson bit were cut from the full signature and pasted together, that the slant of the writing sample (cut and pasted wedding signature) we were comparing, looks slightly different when seen in full."

I donīt suppose you could post the two alongside each other, so that we can all have a look? I have a general idea of what you are getting at, but I may be mistaken, so any further elaboration would be welcome!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Ah, I'm with you now, Debs.

[Debra A]

Sam, I'm not meaning the natural slant difference that might occur when writing his full name compared to just plain old George Hutchinson. I mean that because the George and Hutchinson bit were cut from the full signature and pasted together, that the slant of the writing sample (cut and pasted wedding signature) we were comparing, looks slightly different when seen in full.
Anyway, I'm not wanting to resurrect this thread like I said, so I will leave it at that. Anyone who wants to see for themselves can now thanks to the LMA.
If anyone wants a copy emailing just pm me.

[Sam Flynn]

The inclusion of the middle names kind of alters the angle of the slant of the handwriting, not by much, but it does look different to what's been posted on the thread.

I shouldn't be surprised if it did, Debs. After all, "W-I-L-L-I-A-M--T-O-P-P-I-N-G" takes up a bit of space, so it's not surprising if the angle of the writing either side of it got a bit wonky compared to plain "George Hutchinson" on its own. I have little doubt that, if I were to write out my full names, the end result would look a little different than my usual signature, which omits all those extra letters. Another reason to exercise caution when considering Iremonger's apparent verdict on the marriage cert signature versus those on the witness statement.

[Debra A]

Hi Roy, Sam.
No, it has nothing to do with George Thomas Hutchison of Cottage Grove.

I must say though that Toppy's full signature on his marriage entry, including middle names (David Knott only posted the George and Hutchinson section) does look slightly different when viewed as a whole signature. The inclusion of the middle names kind of alters the angle of the slant of the handwriting, not by much, but it does look different to what's been posted on the thread.

[Sam Flynn]

Not knowing any better, I'll ask a question. Since Holy Trinity is right there, does this have anythiing to do with the individual from Cottage Grove?

It doesn't, Roy. George J Hutchinson (or "Ticker-Nicker George") is listed as a Widower in the 1891 Census, living with his parents in Cottage Grove, Bow. He's still living there, and still listed as a Widower, in 1901 - albeit living with his widowed mother by that time. In both censuses his occupation is given as a "Stationer" and, what's more, his family name is consistently spelled "HutchISon", not "HutchINSon".

"Ticker-Nicker George" was therefore not the man who married Florence Jervis.

[Roy Corduroy]

Thanks Debs.

Not knowing any better, I'll ask a question. Since Holy Trinity is right there, does this have anythiing to do with the individual from Cottage Grove?

Roy

[Debra A]

I am not wanting to resurect this thread, but I discovered yesterday that a microfiche version of the original marriage entry of George William Topping Hutchinson exists at the London Metropolitan Archives, of which I now have a copy.
I thought it would be useful to have the reference on the thread, for anyone who might want to undertake research in the future.

The reference is:
London Metropolitan Archives, Holy Trinity, Mile End Old Town, Register of marriages, P93/TRI, Item 020

Debs

[babybird67]

well Sam...

Peace Envoy Extraordinaire, i am happy to leave my trench (not tench) and play footy (or is that footsie?) with the enemy!

[Sam Flynn]

I know it wasn't, BB. I just thought that a ceasefire on all fronts was long overdue!

[babybird67]

yes of course it is simple

document examiners have no need to actually examine documents...of course they don't...and even when they themselves say that they DO, they really don't, because we know better.



Sam, i am happy to leave this discussion...i posted to Garry to put him in the picture regarding the non-existent professional report that he appeared to be waiting for from Leander, that's all. It was not my intention for any of this ridiculous argument to resurface.

[Fisherman]

Letīs just say that I am taking Sams advice and leaving the discussion, Babybird. Do join me, by all means!

Since I am a sucker for semantics, I will take my leave by quoting Ben:

"You can't have a "fully documented investigation" in the absence of the "full documents"!

If I document everything I do when I examine a tiny bit of a full selection of documents, I have performed a fully documented investigation on that bit, Ben. No need to see all the documents to reach such a level. And we do have a full documentation of Leanders work, in spite of the fact that he did not examine the full documentation. Same ****, different story, kind of.
It is a very simple distinction once you get the hang of it.

The very best,
Fisherman