Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

George William Topping Hutchinson Records

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lechmere
    replied
    I have checked the electoral registers for Southwark West for every year between 1895 and 1904.
    In 1905 Toppy is on the electoral register at 44 Grove Road, Mile End Old Town.
    Both 10 Barbel Street and 80 Tower Street (where Toppy was listed in the 1901 census) are in Southwark West.

    It is clear that he was living at either address at least from 1898 to 1901. This confirms my suspicion about Toppy having a casual attitude towards form filling.
    There is nothing at all for Toppy... except this one entry...
    Click image for larger version

Name:	toppy electoral register 1902.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	224.8 KB
ID:	663014
    It is for 1902.
    He was living as a lodger at 80 Tower Street.
    His rent was 6s 6d. per week which is just over 11d. per day.
    The Toppy family was living in two unfurnished rooms on the first floor (they would have provided their own furniture).
    The landlord, Charles Turner, lived in the remainder of the dwelling and was also on the electoral register.
    This wasn’t a common lodging house. The Toppy family were lodgers in someone else’s house.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lechmere
    replied
    I have checked the electoral register for Mile End Old Town and Toppy only appears under 44 Grove Road in 1905 and 1906. After this he either moved or neglected to put himself down.

    In the 1911 census his children are listed as being born as follows:

    George William in 1898, Westminster. It would seem that they were living at Barbel Street which is in Southwark, but just off Westminster Bridge Road. Most people don’t know the intricacies of local government nor of ecclesiastical parish boundaries so perhaps he assumed it was in Westminster.

    Albert Thomas in 1900, Westminster. Again they were actually living in Barbel Street in Southwark.

    Florence Clara Jane in 1903, Mile End. This tallies.

    Leonard in 1906, Bethnal Green. Where in Bethnal Green I have no idea, but this explains why they aren’t listed at Grove Road any more.

    William in 1907, Stratford. This can be taken to imply that they weren’t at Tuscan Street in 1906, but had merely neglected to go onto the electoral register until 1910 They seem to have gone to Bethnal Green in 1906, then Stratford in 1907 and then back to Bethnal Green by 1910. I think this may be William Percy Hutchinson who was born on 15th November 1907 and who was the father of two children killed in the Bethnal Green Tube Disaster, and who himself died in December 1991 in Hackney.

    Clara Adelaide in 1909, Bethnal Green. I suspect she was born soon after they moved into Tuscan Street. She appeared on the electoral register at Tuscan Street in 1931, soon after her 21st birthday.

    Two and possibly three children followed the 1911 census.
    Mary – born before 1915. I base this on her appearance on the electoral register in 1936.
    Reginald Ernest – born 20th March 1916 and died January 1997. The familiar ‘Reg’.
    David Knott has said there was another younger son born after Reg, who may still be alive.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lechmere
    replied
    I tracked down the baptismal records for two of Toppy’s children (I have already reproduced the baptismal record for his eldest son George).

    His second child was called Albert Thomas Hutchinson.
    He was baptised on 31st January 1900 in St Paul’s Church, Southwark – which was in Newington, a mile or so south of Barbel Street, which seems slightly strange as it was a different parish and different Registration District to where they lived.
    They were living at 10 Barbel Street, the same address that they were listed at in April 1898 when their firstborn George was baptised.
    Barbel Street it will be remembered was the worst street in that area of inner south London.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	toppy son albert baptism a.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	29.2 KB
ID:	663012
    His third child was called Florence Clara Jane Hutchinson.
    She was baptised on 22nd September 1903, but had been born on 28th August 1903.
    Now they were living at 44 Grove Road and the baptism took place at the ‘family’ church – Holy Trinity on Morgan Street.
    This document allowed me to find Toppy in the electoral register at 44 Grove Road. The slightly odd thing being that he doesn’t appear on the electoral register for that address until 1905.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	toppy daughter florence baptism.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	28.7 KB
ID:	663013

    Leave a comment:


  • Malcolm X
    replied
    Originally posted by Garry Wroe View Post
    What I'm expecting, FM, is that at some point someone will notice the similitude of the Toppy signatures and then compare this to the lack of consistency in the three Hutchinson signatures - one of which is even signed 'Geo Hutchinson'.

    That would be a start, at least.
    there is something seriously wrong with the statement signatures for sure, all 3 of them could indeed have been signed by the police.

    JTR has no reason not to sign them, because for me it's dead easy to alter my sig too, i write sloping steeply, but i can easily change this to vertical, but if i do so; all 3 sigs will still look the same.
    these dont, reasons for variations could be due to writing on unevan surface, nervs, freezing cold fingers, or creased paper.

    all the rest of this GH stuff is of little use to us, unless of course you did up something really dodgy about him

    Leave a comment:


  • Sally
    replied
    Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
    Sally,

    As far as I can tell, Lechmere has been merely posting George Hutchinson records here for everyone to see with a bit of commentary thrown in. There is no wild speculation about anything and I think that speaks volumes for the information speaking for itself. You seem to have some issues with this and I can't see why. Unless you explain yourself, I have a tendency to think you're just stirring the pot with no objective other than to do so.

    Mike
    Mike, Not at all. I have my reasons, but as those are not directly concerned with Toppy, and who he was or wasn't - which doesn't much interest me to be frank - this is not the place for them. I have no intention either of derailing the thread, or of indulging in childish squabble. There are ways to address my own concerns, which I will pursue. For the time being, I have nothing further to add.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lechmere
    replied
    Here the basic registration entry for Toppy’s death in the first quarter of 1938.
    He died in Edmonton for some reason.
    Toppy didn’t appear on the 1938 electoral register which slightly surprises me as I would have expected it to be compiled at the end of 1937. Unless he was in an old people’s home or hospital in Edmonton for a short while before his death perhaps.
    The only other point of interest is that he is listed as George W. T. Hutchinson – so this is one of the few instances where the name Topping was applied to him. Although of course he didn’t fill out the form himself.
    Click image for larger version

Name:	toppy death a.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	162.3 KB
ID:	663011

    Leave a comment:


  • The Good Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by Sally View Post
    Lechmere. No you don't, obviously. But sure, thanks for your view. I'll bear it in mind.
    Sally,

    As far as I can tell, Lechmere has been merely posting George Hutchinson records here for everyone to see with a bit of commentary thrown in. There is no wild speculation about anything and I think that speaks volumes for the information speaking for itself. You seem to have some issues with this and I can't see why. Unless you explain yourself, I have a tendency to think you're just stirring the pot with no objective other than to do so.

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • Sally
    replied
    Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
    If it is of little concern to you and is a waste of time, then why are you bothering commenting... oh yes I know why.

    If my 'mental leapfrogging’ concerns you a tiny bit (and no more) then why don't you offer different explanations to describe the documents? Instead you blunder in with ill-informed and aggressive crass interventions about what is and what isn't a lodging house or what documents from the GRO are like. You merely showcase your ignorance.
    It's OK - I know why.
    Lechmere. No you don't, obviously. But sure, thanks for your view. I'll bear it in mind.

    Leave a comment:


  • Garry Wroe
    replied
    Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
    Garry ... Are you expecting an exact match? That's too much to ask.
    What I'm expecting, FM, is that at some point someone will notice the similitude of the Toppy signatures and then compare this to the lack of consistency in the three Hutchinson signatures - one of which is even signed 'Geo Hutchinson'.

    That would be a start, at least.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lechmere
    replied
    If it is of little concern to you and is a waste of time, then why are you bothering commenting... oh yes I know why.

    If my 'mental leapfrogging’ concerns you a tiny bit (and no more) then why don't you offer different explanations to describe the documents? Instead you blunder in with ill-informed and aggressive crass interventions about what is and what isn't a lodging house or what documents from the GRO are like. You merely showcase your ignorance.
    It's OK - I know why.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sally
    replied
    Sally – I made it abundantly clear that it is a guess on my part - I didn’t pretend otherwise - if you read what I have said about the copy that Sue Iremonger worked off. I most clearly wasn’t being dogmatic about it.
    Nevertheless I would maintain that the most logical conclusion, in the absence of any other information, is that Sue Iremonger did work off the GRO copy as whether you like it or not that would have been the most readily accessible copy in pre-internet days. To deny that it was the most accessible copy is preposterous.
    Backtrack. Supposition. Speculation. Baseless. Or as near as dammit is to swearing.

    Also, although Brown’s signature is a fair match to the writing on the rest of that form, it is not so close that it is impossible for it to be a different hand.
    I think that raising the possibility that Sue Iremonger may have examined the GRO copy is a fair point to make.
    Backtrack. And ridiculous to boot. As already pointed out.

    So far as 'agendas' go Sally, what happened to your claims about ‘ill-informed nonsense’?
    Your ‘agenda’ is clearly seen by the tone of your comments which have all the appearance of someone thoughtlessly lashing out when their position is threatened. At least that’s how it seems to me.
    How it seems to you, Lechmere, is of little concern to me. What does concern me a tiny bit (and really, no more than that) is your endless mental leapfrogging in order to present conclusions which you've obviously already decided upon. It shouldn't work like that. If you enjoy this Toppy stamp-collecting then sure, knock yourself out - but so far, you haven't added anything to your argument. I think all you're doing is attempting to create yet more factoids in this matter.

    Jeez - I have no idea why you care so much. No, wait, actually I do. How tedious. And how futile. It won't matter how many documents you post without permission on this forum Lechmere - unless you have something which amounts to evidence to further support your case, it's all a waste of time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Just looked at Sam Flynns's comparison, and the Toppy v Hutch is more of a match than my own three I did within seconds of one another.

    To me, there is enough to say Toppy was Hutch.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fleetwood Mac
    replied
    Originally posted by Garry Wroe View Post

    Except, of course, if you disregard those elements that do not correspond.

    Then they do.

    And if that seems ridiculous, welcome to my world.
    Garry,

    Are you expecting an exact match? That's too much to ask.

    I've just written my signature three times, and there are similarities and dissimilarities. Surely that is to be expected?

    For a start, I doubt Hutchinson was writing his signature day in day out, so the chances are that he wouldn't have perfected it to the point his signatures always looked the same.

    Try doing three of your own and see what they look like.

    There are enough similarities in the Utchinson to make them a match for me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lechmere
    replied
    Sally – I made it abundantly clear that it is a guess on my part - I didn’t pretend otherwise - if you read what I have said about the copy that Sue Iremonger worked off. I most clearly wasn’t being dogmatic about it.
    Nevertheless I would maintain that the most logical conclusion, in the absence of any other information, is that Sue Iremonger did work off the GRO copy as whether you like it or not that would have been the most readily accessible copy in pre-internet days. To deny that it was the most accessible copy is preposterous.

    Also, although Brown’s signature is a fair match to the writing on the rest of that form, it is not so close that it is impossible for it to be a different hand.
    I think that raising the possibility that Sue Iremonger may have examined the GRO copy is a fair point to make.
    That’s all I will say as I don’t want to get involved in a handwriting debate here.

    So far as 'agendas' go Sally, what happened to your claims about ‘ill-informed nonsense’?
    Your ‘agenda’ is clearly seen by the tone of your comments which have all the appearance of someone thoughtlessly lashing out when their position is threatened. At least that’s how it seems to me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sally
    replied
    Um...

    Lechmere

    However I believe Brown completed the fake copy in full.
    Yes, Lechmere, the same person does appear to have filled out the whole of the 'fake' certificate, I'll grant you that. So, if you can spot that (and let's face it, it is bleedin obvious) what makes you think that Sue Iremonger couldn't have, eh? Oh dear.

    Or do you think perhaps that she might have expected that 'Toppy' himself filled in the entire certificate, hmm? You certainly give the impression that you think nobody knows anything much except yourself.

    And then there's this - As this would have been the most easily accessible certificate in 1992 it is a fair assumption that this was the one used by Sue Iremonger. She would have naturally assumed that it bore Toppy’s authentic signature as it was from a reliable source.
    No, no, and no. Would it have been the most accessible certificate in 1992? Really? What, you think that in the days before those nice people at the National Archives digitised all those lovely marriage certficates (not 'wedding' certificates btw) and put them up on Ancestry for you to look at nobody could or did access the parish records? 1992 wasn't the Dark Ages y'knnow, and even then, in that dim and distant past, parish records were used routinely. What makes you think it would have been difficult?

    So it isn't a 'fair assumption' at all. Assumption, certainly. You have no basis of evidence for your assumption, none whatever. As I guessed, you're guessing.

    Careful, Lechmere, you're letting your agenda show.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X