A Cross by any other name...smells like JtR?

[lynn cates]

Hear, hear!

Hello Caroline.

"Rather than indicating a controlling nature, I think it shows the opposite - a wish to comply with authority and do the right thing, for himself and his family. My father certainly fell into this category, and I do too to only a slightly lesser degree."

Hear, hear!

Cheers.
LC

[MrBarnett]

Hi Caz,

I remember that long cold winter too. I also remember how difficult it was to blag a day off school. I remember on one occasion sniffing pepper in an attempt convince my mum that I had a cold - it didn't work!

MrB

[GUT]

G'day Caz

Hi MrB,

I well remember moving house when I was 9, in the terrible winter of 62/63, when the snow was deep and our pipes froze and then burst. Granted it didn't involve a change of school, as the houses were about a half-hour's walk away in south west London. But the last thing my parents would have wanted was me and my brothers getting in the way during the moving process (or in fact skipping school for any reason unless we were at death's door ). So they were all too grateful to pack us off to school as usual. Depending on how young the Lechmere brood was when the family moved home and changed schools, it might have suited everyone concerned to send the kids off for the day while the move went ahead.

The meticulous form-filling by Charles Allen Lechmere also reminds me of my own father. Rather than indicating a controlling nature, I think it shows the opposite - a wish to comply with authority and do the right thing, for himself and his family. My father certainly fell into this category, and I do too to only a slightly lesser degree.

Love,

Caz
X

Your parents were soft the day I died mine still sent me to school.

[Lechmere]

Caz
I’m not at all sure of the value in drawing comparisons between the impact of moving home on school attendance in suburban south west London in the early 1960s, a period of unprecedented social conformity, with the same in the East End of 1888.
The same goes for form filling 1961 style compared to the 1880s and 1890s.

Whoever the culprit was, we must guess that he did not go equipped with a mirror, soap, bucket of water and a bullseye lantern.
After the Chapman and Eddowes murders, where there was considerably more risk of blood splatter on the culprit than after the Nichols, one must wonder what precautions he took in the event – quite possible – that he might be stopped by a passing policeman. Maybe he trusted to luck. That seems to me to be the most likely answer.
I think we have to assume that the killer trusted to luck, so I see no reason why Lechmere, if he was the killer, should have trusted to anything else.

In the case of Lechmere – if you momentarily suspend your refusal to consider that there is a case – you might consider that he was lucky Mizen didn’t switch on his lamp. Mizen’s account of their brief meeting certainly suggests he did not.
Or you may say he was unlucky to have bumped into Mizen.
Or that he managed the situation by saying something to Mizen to disarm him – to as far as possible create his own luck.

[MrBarnett]

Ed,

I'm sure there are reams of academic research to back up your contention that 1880's East Enders were less conformist than those of the 1960's, but I remain unconvinced.

Because we focus here on the dregs of Victorian London it's easy to lose sight of just how deferential the wider society was. Those who were in the direst straits, the blackest of Charles Booth's black classification effectively of no fixed abode and not knowing where their next meal was coming from, can be forgiven for not leaving a perfect paper trail. But someone in Charles' position, with a stable job and accommodation would be keen to maintain an air of respectability. So filling in forms as required by law and not falling foul of the local school inspector would be high on his list of priorities.

MrB

[Sally]

Ed,

I'm sure there are reams of academic research to back up your contention that 1880's East Enders were less conformist than those of the 1960's, but I remain unconvinced.

Because we focus here on the dregs of Victorian London it's easy to lose sight of just how deferential the wider society was. Those who were in the direst straits, the blackest of Charles Booth's black classification effectively of no fixed abode and not knowing where their next meal was coming from, can be forgiven for not leaving a perfect paper trail. But someone in Charles' position, with a stable job and accommodation would be keen to maintain an air of respectability. So filling in forms as required by law and not falling foul of the local school inspector would be high on his list of priorities.

MrB

Smart post Mr B.

The blackest of Booth's black were legion, of course; and are evidenced as such in surviving records. The scale and depth of want present on the contemporary streets of London is truly shocking, as anybody who's spent any length of time studying local demographics will know.

The contrast between the lives of these people and the likes of Crossmere is stark - they did not inhabit the same world, but that world was apparent to them, nonetheless. For many, the fear of entering the poverty stricken underworld was very real. As you say, most people fortunate enough to be in a long term stable position would have been likely to adopt the mantle of respectability where they could.

Adherence to the 'right' social group is common human behaviour, widely attested.

[Cogidubnus]

It is of course the very typical late Victorian aspiration of dragging one's life and family out of the working classes and more towards the emerging lower middle classes...even if you didn't quite get there that was the aspiration that was encouraged...

Hence perhaps the progress from carman to shop proprieter? From "labour" to "trade"...a small differential today, but I suspect a greater one then.

All the best

Dave

[Lechmere]

Sally, no it’s not really a very smart post, with all due respect to Mr B.

I would suggest there was a vast difference in degrees of conformity between Caz’s South West London and the East End of the 1960s and even greater difference between the 1960s and the 1888s.
As I said – the 1950s and early 1960s were sociologically almost the most conformist decade in our history, with for example, record breaking low crime rates.

I would not compare Lechmere to people inhabiting Booth’s black districts – and never have.
Not so long ago Sally disbelieved that there were over 100 Lechmere records – now she thinks it was the norm for someone like Lechmere
It wasn’t the norm.
As I have said universal male suffrage was new – it was not established. These things take time to take hold, via procedures to make the registration of electors efficient and by electors becoming used to the process of registering themselves.
Similarly universal education was new. The role and wok of school inspectors had not had time to bed down. The East End was a place where – particularly in the 1960s and dare I say even today – many people did not put a very heavy premium on education.

[Lechmere]

And to reiterate a point I have made before.
In the 1888s London and the East End were still expanding with people pouring though it from Europe and the rest of the British isles.
It was much more transient and life more mobile.
Local government was in its infancy and council housing unknown.
These factors affected how people lived there lives and often makes the exact tracing of people through every year difficult.
But it is not at all difficult for Charles Lechmere

[MrBarnett]

Hi Ed,

Guess who Charles Booth used as the foot soldiers for his original survey (published in 1889, presumably researched a year or two previously) - school inspectors . I doubt he would have used them if they were not already firmly embedded in their locality.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

Low crime rates in the 50's and 60's had more to do with prosperity than innate conformity or deference to authority.

Sadly, I am old enough to have had Victorian grandparents, and believe me they were appalled at the lack of respect their children and grandchildren had for authority. The experience of two generations coming back from world wars had put paid to all that nonsense, but their elders were fixed in their ways.

My old nan (born in Breezers Hill in 1896, gord bless 'er) used to reply 'Good night, Mister' to the nice gentleman on the BBC TV news every night, because he had said good night to her and it would have been rude not to. Our s******s were ignored. She was one of Booth's blackest of the black, but from a very early age she had learned where the power lay in society and
did not want to fall foul of it.

MrB

Unfortunately the censor considers the word for a surreptitious laugh that rhymes with rigour to be racist.

[Lechmere]

Mr B
I didn't say school board inspectors dud not exist.
And we are more prosperous now than in the 1950s and 60s.

[MrBarnett]

Mr B
I didn't say school board inspectors dud not exist.
And we are more prosperous now than in the 1950s and 60s.

No, you said they hadn't had time to bed down. If that were the case, why would Booth have used them?

Yes, crime rates are higher now, and so is form filling. My descendent will have no trouble digging up 100+ records of my life.

Like Sally, I was initially surprised at the 100+ claim. But the more I think it about the more unremarkable it becomes. If you have 11 children then every form you fill out relating to a child has to be multiplied by 11:

11 birth registrations
11 baptisms
11 school registrations x 2 for move from infants to juniors x no. of house moves
11 marriage certs

Add to that his own birth, baptism, marriage, death, probate records, census returns, electoral register appearances and (possibly) trade journal entries and you've got a very high number without breaking into a sweat.

MrB

[Sally]

Sally, no it’s not really a very smart post, with all due respect to Mr B.

Ah, Dear Ed - when will you learn? Spouting nonsense with authority only carries weight with the unversed and with those who struggle with joined up thinking.

But by all means, carry on - I simply adore reading your posts, as you know

Not so long ago Sally disbelieved that there were over 100 Lechmere records – now she thinks it was the norm for someone like Lechmere
It wasn’t the norm.

I did? I doubt that, Ed. I do recall asking you to list them for us [which I seem to recall you refused] but I'm afraid it matters little to me whether history has preserved 100, 200 or a thousand 'Lechmere' records since I remain unconvinced that it matters a jot in terms of your cherished theory.

You see evidence in what you claim is an unusually large number of records that your pet suspect was a control freak. Yeah - and if it transpired that Crossmere had been a regular church goer that could be evidence that he was a religious extremist who wanted to punish 'bad women'; and if it turned out that his favourite colour was red.... well - I can only imagine.

Most people with the ability to think and to look at it objectively would struggle to see an indication of abnormality in Crossmere's diligent record keeping.

Similarly universal education was new. The role and wok of school inspectors had not had time to bed down. The East End was a place where – particularly in the 1960s and dare I say even today – many people did not put a very heavy premium on education.

Ed, the very great majority of children in London - whether East or West, went to school between the ages of 5 and 13 in the LVP - that was the law. Many people may not have 'put a very heavy premium' on education; but that isn't the point. Schooling wasn't optional.

The historic record demonstrates that even the very poorest of people sent their children to school, on the whole. Hell, even orphans went to school.

Crossmere dutifully sending his children to school is neither here nor there.

[Sally]

Like Sally, I was initially surprised at the 100+ claim. But the more I think it about the more unremarkable it becomes. If you have 11 children then every form you fill out relating to a child has to be multiplied by 11:

11 birth registrations
11 baptisms
11 school registrations x 2 for move from infants to juniors x no. of house moves
11 marriage certs

Add to that his own birth, baptism, marriage, death, probate records, census returns, electoral register appearances and (possibly) trade journal entries and you've got a very high number without breaking into a sweat.

Yep Mr. B.

Exactly so.