Charles Lechmere interesting link

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett:

It does Fish if you start from the premise that he was known as Cross at work.

And I am ready to do that once you prove it. Up til that stage, however, it applies - as usual - that the nameswap is a cause for suspicion.

I know there's no evidence to prove it. But just as you can legitimately assume Lech's guilt as a starting point and then run the movie to see whether it stacks up, we must be allowed a similar freedom.

The difference seems to be that I back my take up with lots of circumstantial evidence, whereas you only use that freedom you speak of.

When I did this previously the baptisms didn't ring true. Now they make perfect sense. Why else go to the trouble and expense of baptising your kids at that point? If she was concerned for their souls, she would have done so years before

Late baptisms were quite common, MrBarnett. Maybe you should factor that in?

No, it wasn't their immortal souls she was worried about, it was their inheritance. She was an enterprising lady and one of the first investments she made was marrying into money (or so she thought).

No, she did not. John Allen Lechmere was poor. She married a poor man, MrBarnett. And if she was that interested in money, why did she not hang on to John Allen Lechmere? How true does that ring to you? Wouldn´t a goldgetter marry a RICH man - and hang on to him?
Where´s the evidence that poor children with the name Lechmere were provided for by the richer parts of the family? Did Charles and Emily inherit? Did Charles´ children inherit?

And there is a slight difference between providing a name for a census/electoral roll/BMD and giving it to the police as a witness. If you were called upon to provide evidence of your name to a solicitor in search of Lechmere heirs, you would not say ' ask the police', but you would dig out your certificates and you might expect to have your name checked through the electoral roll.

Aha! So he only told the name Lechmere to authorities that were knit to his chances of milking his relatives on wealth? He actually first pondered whether the authorities he currently spoke to would be in any fashion knit to the opportunities for his relatives to provide for him by means of inheritance, before he chose what name to use? Yes?

Apart from that being a rather ridiculous suggestion - at least to my mind - why did he not tell the school administration that his name was Cross? Nobody would check with them before handing over the money.

Back to the drawing board, perhaps?

I can feel a irritation-tinged admiration for the stubbornness with which you pursue the hunt for alternative explanations to the nameswop. But can you really muster the same grit to take on all the other pointers to guilt on Lechmere´s behalf? And - more pertinently - would it not be more rational to admit that innocent people do normally not have heaps of pointers to guilt clinging to them?

I´m off for now. I tire a lot easier than you do, MrBarnett.

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

It does Fish if you start from the premise that he was known as Cross at work. I know there's no evidence to prove it. But just as you can legitimately assume Lech's guilt as a starting point and then run the movie to see whether it stacks up, we must be allowed a similar freedom. When I did this previously the baptisms didn't ring true. Now they make perfect sense. Why else go to the trouble and expense of baptising your kids at that point? If she was concerned for their souls, she would have done so years before. No, it wasn't their immortal souls she was worried about, it was their inheritance. She was an enterprising lady and one of the first investments she made was marrying into money (or so she thought).

And there is a slight difference between providing a name for a census/electoral roll/BMD and giving it to the police as a witness. If you were called upon to provide evidence of your name to a solicitor in search of Lechmere heirs, you would not say ' ask the police', but you would dig out your certificates and you might expect to have your name checked through the electoral roll.

MrB

[Fisherman]

This would neatly explain why Charles called himself Lechmere when speaking to the authoritites - not because he wanted to per se, but since he knew that it was the only way to keep in contact with that money. THAT is why he said "Lechmere" when the school asked him for his name, THAT is why he said "Lechmere" when the census listers asked him for his name, when the church asked him for his name and when the police ... no, wait, hang on a second...?

Guys? It didn´t solve the real problem we are having here.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Hello Drstrange ,

If a woman was widowed, and later remarried, the children of her first marriage often took the name of the step-father. But, to maintain their right to their inheritance, they would use the step-father's name as an alias

I recently stumbled across it on the net .. this is the page .. I found it explained a few possibilities ,

https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/Use_of_Aliases_-_an_Overview

moonbegger .

[drstrange169]

>>If a woman was widowed, and later remarried, the children of her first marriage often took the name of the step-father. But, to maintain their right to their inheritance, they would use the step-father's name as an alias.<<

Sorry I didn't see who posted this, but it is something well worth investigating.

I've come across it before.

The Pre-Raphealite model, Lizzy Siddal's father did much the same thing as he was vaguely related to a wealthy family.

There were certainly some well off contemporaneous Lechmere's.

Not sure it is our answer, but still well worth a look.

[MrBarnett]

Cheers Fish ,

It was just a interesting alternative thought .

moonbegger

It certainly provides an explanation of why the kids would be baptised Lechmere shortly after their mother married Thomas Cross, something I had always thought a bit odd.

At the time, Charles was too young to be anal or controlling about his name, so it must have been either his mother or stepfather who insisted upon it. I could never figure out why either of them would want to. But with the possibility of an inheritance in mind, it could have been both of them. The equivalent of buying a lottery ticket.

MrB

[Fisherman]

Cheers Fish ,

It was just a interesting alternative thought .

moonbegger

Yes, I know, Moonbegger. And I don´t mind, as such. Not as long as we all realize what the implications of the nameswop are.

I haven´t seen the last alternative thought on the issue, I´m sure.

The best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Cheers Fish ,

It was just a interesting alternative thought .

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Now there's a thought !


moonbegger .

Kids sometimes dislike the names they are given, both chritian names and surnames. So somebody born Gregory Parsons could well warm to the thought of having been born Jonathan Haines instead.

That may be the explanation that lies behind the whole name issue.

I would not, however, be daft enought to propose that the suggestion as such - or any other suggestion as to why Lechmere called himself Cross at the inquest - would somehow take precedence over the combination of the statistical fact that an overwhelming majority of the victorian men used just the one name and the proven fact that our carman habitually called himself Lechmere when he dealt with authorities.

After that, any alternative suggestion of why he would have used the name Cross on the inquest day must be regarded as a trivial pastime with no bearing on the overall issue, up til the moment when some sort of evidence can be presented that relates specifically to the carman, instead of generalized exceptions from the "days of copyhold land".

The interpretation that rules the day until such evidence is provided, is that suspicion must cling to the nameswap.

If I wanted to, I could have said all of this shorter: You are wasting your time.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

Now there's a thought !

In the days of copyhold land, a persons' entitlement to land was only recorded in the manor court rolls. Deeds as they are known today, did not exist. The only "proof" one had that one owned particular land was in the "copy" rolls held by the manorial clerk. If a woman was widowed, and later remarried, the children of her first marriage often took the name of the step-father. But, to maintain their right to their inheritance, they would use the step-father's name as an alias. There were variations in this practice. In one well-documented case circa 1558, William Camborne married Elinor Wilton Paynter, a widow with seven children, and adopted the surname of her first husband, becoming William Camborne alias Paynter of Trelissick, St. Erth. Their descendants used both Camborne and Paynter, with the use of Paynter eventually completely overtaking the use of Camborne within three generations.

In some cases, persons legally changed their names to obtain an inheritance from a line in their family which was in danger of "dying out." For instance, a man would take the name of his maternal uncle to become his legal heir.

moonbegger .

[Fisherman]

Moon & MrB,

There are cases in the Old Bailey where witnesses talk about their different names. Most of the ones I've found say something along the lines of they are known as _____ but their real name is _____ . I'm not talking about what people may call themselves, I mean what others knew them as.

This is important because Lech may be well known as Cross in the neighborhood regardless whether Lech signs his true name in documents.

Cheers
DRoy

It is important when you prove that it applies in Lechmeres case. Not before.

The Old Bailey people you speak of - but not exemplify ...? - divulged BOTH their names to the court. Lechmere did no such thing. He did not say "I am known as Cross, though my real name is Lechmere", did he? No, he gave just the ONE name, as if it was his true one.

Can you see the difference?

And please, DRoy, do keep in mind that 99 per cent of all honest men had just the one name, and were known under just that one name too.

There MAY be an innocent reason, but as it stands, the name swap remains suspicious, not least since we know for a fact that he used the name Lechmere regularly when speaking to authorities. And the police are a... yes...? CORRECT! The police are an authority!

So you fail once again. And to boot, you fail in the exact same fashion as on the last occasion. And the one before that. And the one before that. And the one ...

No that I have any hope at all that it will make you stop trying.

All the best,
Fisherman

[moonbegger]

you know it makes sense Rodney ..

[moonbegger]

Hello MrB ,

I agree with all you say (especially the last paragraph). I have argued this point before and was told in no uncertain terms that East End neighbourliness didn't begin until after WW1

Certainly looks like 1903 Stepney had a neighborly community ! And for all we know , that could be Mrs L at her front door .

[DRoy]

Moon & MrB,

There are cases in the Old Bailey where witnesses talk about their different names. Most of the ones I've found say something along the lines of they are known as _____ but their real name is _____ . I'm not talking about what people may call themselves, I mean what others knew them as.

This is important because Lech may be well known as Cross in the neighborhood regardless whether Lech signs his true name in documents. This could also have extended to his family, similar to this example...

HYAM HYAMS: The prisoner is my brother—my mother's maiden name was Mitchell—she being a hard-working woman, and a public character, by selling fish in the street, used to be called Mitchell, and as such I and my brothers are called Mitchell at times, but we have no right to the name.

Moonbegger & MrB are probably correct in their views that it would be difficult for Mrs Lech to not have heard anything nor be able to put 2 and 2 together.

Cheers
DRoy

[MrBarnett]

Hello MrB ,

Three things in life are for certain , Taxes , Death , & Women will gossip whenever the occasion rises

I'm not to sure my Nans knowledge of "all things nothing to do with her" , was an exceptional thing back in the day MrB , And I can speak with 100% certainty , that if a major murder to place in Dalston ( 5 mins away ) , between Nan and her Gossiping friends , there would be not a detail , a theory , a culprit , that was not discussed up and down the street , And that's before the papers even released squat .

And God forbid , if it happened to be on my poor old Granddad's route to work ( Let alone discovering the body ), I can only imagine he would have locked himself in the out house for some peace and quiet

There lies my problem with the whole Mrs L being completely in the dark regarding her husbands involvement in the discovery of Polly ..
Even as a new neighbor she would have been involved with the spiraling local gossip , whether she liked it or not .. And all this before the press even released her address !! And I can guarantee you once again MrB , if my Nans address appeared in (Any) local paper , within an hour , all the neighbors would be knocking ..

Having said that , I can see how some people who have no connection , or foundations with lower class or working class London , could perpetuate the myth that everyone kept themselves to themselves .. Peoples minds tend to gravitate towards their own personal and individual experiences .

cheers ,

moonbegger

Hello Moonbegger,

I agree with all you say (especially the last paragraph). I have argued this point before and was told in no uncertain terms that East End neighbourliness didn't begin until after WW1.

I have no doubt that with a large brood of children Mrs Lech would have soon made friends with her neighbours and the idea that they were all blissfully unaware of their connection to the most dramatic events of the day is absurd.

My point, though was about Mrs Lech's more general knowledge of East End criminality, such as gang activity. If my ancestors, all four legs, are anything to go by they were very territorial and for generations lived within a handful of interconnected streets. That was their world, especially the women who didn't moved further afield for work.

MrB