Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[The Good Michael]

Hi all,

Some things have interested me from Chris Scott's wonderful research on Toppy back in 2004. First, George Hutchinson senior was living in Lambeth in 1871, which is a coincidence with our other Lambeth George (or is it). Next, George Senior was a plumber which may be where Toppy got his skills. I can imagine a young man struggling to make it on his own, but then having to fall back on his father's trade.
It is also interesting that George senior got a divorce sometime before 1891 and remarried. The last bit that interests me is that in 1891 George W T Hutchinson is listed as single and as a plumber, but also was a lodger. This would indicate that he wasn't necessarily a cut above our George Hutchinson, and probably struggled a bit to make it, even 3 years after Kelly's death. From son to groom to struggling plumber is not only not a stretch, but it smacks of doing something one doesn't want to do out of necessity, and makes Toppy seem not so different from the rest of us along with his alter ego ,(possibly) Hutch. Yet, what do I know?

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

Yes, that could have been Toppy's life.
But would a struggling young groom have given shillings to Kelly ? Not really impossible, but a bit unlikely.
I'd like to find in Reg's story something like: "I was happy with the money I got, for I was out of job and dossing, at the time of the murders..."
But instead, he said his father had almost always worked.

Amitiés,
David

[Crystal]

Yes, the groom bit bothers me- no certainty here, I concede, but we don't really know that Toppy wasn't always a plumber (well, not since birth, obviously). I don't think I'm convinced. Anyway, we seem to be straying on this thread somewhat.

[DVV]

Somewhat straying, yes.
Bright sun shining. Better go to the beach and forget Toppy for a while. Have also to try my new fishing-rod this evening.

[The Good Michael]

Leaving the signatures aside (I will come back to them), why is it so difficult to see a groom become a plumber? Really? I was a computer software guy before I became a teacher. My brother was a painter before he became a banker. My cousins all became construction workers after they vowed they would never do that job. Like father like sons, after a time. I think many don't want to make any connections. This Hutchinson stuff has become personal. "Hutchinson was a liar, so he must be guilty of something more." No matter that the police, so far as we know, had no doubts about his story, initially. We (some of us) connect him with Fleming and Kelly and love triangles and murder. How can those things possibly be more reasonable than a common laborer becoming, initially a down on his luck plumber, especially since his father was one? Back to the signatures, as I promised. There is nothing particulary bold or flamboyant about either signature. The hand of a laborer or a plumber, why not? Surely it wasn't that of a lord or a clerk. People need to step back from their preconceptions about Hutch and really look at logical and mundane possibilities, without settling on the nefarious.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I can imagine a young man struggling to make it on his own, but then having to fall back on his father's trade

Possibly, but I can far more easily imagine him making the most of his parental connections by following his father into the plumbing trade as soon as possible. He was a plumber for the rest of his life from, at least, 1891 (tallying somewhat with Reg's observations that his father was "rarely, if ever", out of work) and I doubt this would have been the case it plumbing was simply the "fall-back option" or "Plan B".

The last bit that interests me is that in 1891 George W T Hutchinson is listed as single and as a plumber, but also was a lodger. This would indicate that he wasn't necessarily a cut above our George Hutchinson

In 1891, Toppy living in Warren Street, near the heart of the West End; world's away from the epicentre (near enough) of what was generally regarded as one of the worst "vicious semi-criminal" in the whole of London, let alone the East End. In 1888, witness Hutchinson allegedly stated to the press that he was a former groom, now working as a labourer - no mention of plumbing at all. It's really not a question of leaping to the most nefarious conclusion. Even at the most benal level, I'd observe that the details don't quite tally. He didn't need to be down on his lack if he was prudent enough to take advantage of his father's employment.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

Laborer becoming plumber is, as I've said, not even close to a stretch. Think of your own occupations and what you've done. I'd say your life changes are far greater than that. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers,
Mike

[Crystal]

Mike-it's not personal for me at all, I just don't buy Toppy as Hutch.
Ben! Lucid and balanced as usual I see-I think in context you are more likely to be right on this.

[The Good Michael]

Two roads diverged in a wood
And I took the one less traveled by
And that has made all the difference

George William Topping Hutchinson

[Crystal]

Oh-I've done all sorts of jobs, but it's down to temporal context again.

[The Good Michael]

Crystal,

Boys will be boys, temporal context notwithstanding.

Cheers,

Mike

[Crystal]

You know Mike, I can't think of a single thing to say in response to that..

[The Good Michael]

Crystal? Speechless? Say it ain't so! I like you Crystal. Such a fun person. If I'm lyin' I'm dyin'.

Take care,

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

Mike-it's not personal for me at all, I just don't buy Toppy as Hutch.

Why not, Crystal? Is it because of its being tainted by association with Reg's hero-worshipping story about his dad, and the extra concocted nonsense that Melvin Fairclough almost certainly added to it?

As I've said before, we should divorce what happened later from our assessment of the matter-in-hand. I fear that much of the "anti-signature" arguments are born out of people's jaded views of "Le Roman de Reg", and nothing else.

[The Good Michael]

As I've said before, we should divorce what happened later from our assessment of the matter-in-hand. I fear that much of the "anti-signature" arguments are born out of people's jaded views of "Le Roman de Reg", and nothing else.

Gareth,

I think you've put this nicely, though I'm afraid it may fall on deaf ears, or indeed, it may be impossible to separate chaff from wheat and come to a conclusion that is logical, but doesn't toss everything out the window.

Cheers,

Mike