Charles Lechmere interesting link

[moonbegger]

Cheers Fish ,

It was just a interesting alternative thought .

moonbegger

[Fisherman]

Cheers Fish ,

It was just a interesting alternative thought .

moonbegger

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

I havenīt seen the last alternative thought on the issue, Iīm sure.

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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.

[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 .

[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 didnīt solve the real problem we are having here.

All 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]

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? Wouldnīt a goldgetter marry a RICH man - and hang on to him?
Whereīs 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 Charlesī 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 Lechmereīs 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?

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

The best,
Fisherman

[MrBarnett]

Hi Fish,

The reason I don't spend as much time questioning some of the other highlights of Lech's case is that I don't have as much trouble believing them. I have said this before, but perhaps it didn't sink in. I don't get the name swap and I have a problem with the confidence regarding the routes to work. Most of the other stuff makes sense to me. Think of me as Doubting Thomas rather than Judas Iscariot.

I am well aware that late baptisms were quite common. Quite often you can figure out the reason. A couple may have a child out of wedlock or be too poor afford the baptismal fee. Then when a subsequent child comes along they have both children baptised. In this case, though, we have the anomaly of the children being baptised Lechmere shortly after she marries Mr Cross. I bet that situation was not very common. And I actually see it as confirmation of the use of the name Cross. She had the children baptised as Lechmere to keep the name alive at a time when it seemed it might fade away. So in my perverse world we have only two instances of Charles's surname around the time he began his career. One is the explicit use of the name Cross in the census, and the other makes most sense as a reaction to the fear that the name Cross might predominate and any hope of a Lechmere inheritance might be lost.

If you can think of a more convincing argument as to why a woman would marry for the second time and shortly afterwards insist her children were baptised in the name of her philandering ex, I'd love to hear of it.

MrB

[MrBarnett]

I tire easily too, Fish, and I need my strength because if the rain stops I will be going on a nice guided tour of the East End this afternoon. All in a good cause and led by a very knowledgable person, I understand.

The reason these discussions go on ad nauseum is that often the point bring made is missed or ignored. What I think a lot of people think is very plausible is that while Charles was living as TC's stepson he may have unofficially adopted the name Cross. There are many on here, myself included, who have provided personal anecdotal evidence of just that kind of scenario. And what is significant about that period in his life is that is when he began his career.

The fact that before his mother married Cross and after Cross had died he used the name Lechmere is irrelevant. You have no more evidence of his using the name Lechmere at that time than you do of his using Cross. One example of each. 50:50. Except that one formal use of Lechmere can be interpreted as confirmation of the general use of Cross, whereas the one use of Cross for the whole family is unequivocal.

MrB

[Fisherman]

MrBarnett:

If you can think of a more convincing argument as to why a woman would marry for the second time and shortly afterwards insist her children were baptised in the name of her philandering ex, I'd love to hear of it.

She was a Lechmere before she married Thomas cross, MrBarnett - and she was a Lechmere after that too.
She married Cross bigamously. So in the eyes of the law, she was not a remarried woman, she was Maria Louisa Lechmere, married to John Allen Lechmere.
Consequently, in the eyes of the law, she could not baptize the kids Cross, could she? I mean, yes, she could have the act performed, but it would not be legally acknowledgeable, as far as I can tell.

" ...we have only two instances of Charles's surname around the time he began his career. One is the explicit use of the name Cross in the census, and the other makes most sense as a reaction to the fear that the name Cross might predominate and any hope of a Lechmere inheritance might be lost."

The baptism was in 1859, when he was approaching ten. The name that was given was Lechmere.

The census listing was in 1861, when he was eleven, going on twelve. It was in all probability filled out by his stepfather.

Therefore, in 1861, we still have no examples at all where he signed his name himself.

I think he would have begun working at Broad Street at around the age of 19, years later. He said that he had been working at Pickfords for twenty years, and that takes us back to 1868. Incidentally, the Broad Street depot opened that very year, so it all makes sense this way.

His marriage is thus much closer in time to that occasion, and he was married - at the age of 20 - as Charles Lechmere. He signed the name himself. And indeed, legally and technically, he could not have been a Cross in the first place on account of his mothers marriage to Thomas Cross being bigamous.

I donīt have a problem as such with Maria Louisa having used the name Lechmere with a built-in hope to some day perhaps aquire some of the Lechmere fortune on account of it. On the contrary, to me it dovetails perfectly with the sort of woman I think she would have been - industrious, dominant and strong, with a propensity to plan ahead.

What I would like to see, however, is that the Lechmeres - the wealthy ones, that is - actually did testify or give away money to children by the name of Lechmere and with a family link to themselves.
As for me, I would have thought that such a thing would point to a desire to lift their relatives out of the squalor of the East End and provide them with a life more worthy of their ancestry. But I donīt see this happening. All I can clearly see is how the deprived branch of the family was left to sink after Charlesīgrandfather had squandered his fortune.

This is why I do accept that Maria Louisaīs decision to baptise her children Lechmere could have had partly a legal background as per the bigamous wedding to Thomas Cross, and perhaps also a background rooted in some sort of hope of a future coincidence opening up some sort of prosperous opportunity for her kids.

In opposition to you, however, I donīt for a second think the inheritance bit had any true anchoring in some hitherto unheard of general Lechmereian custom. I need to see proof of that one before I believe in it!

I think it is far more credible to acknowledge that the name of Lechmere was more likely to open doors in the class-levelled Victorian society than the name Cross, and that Maria Louisa would have realized this and acted upon it. A Vanderbilt, an Astor, a Rockefeller would not prefer the names of Smith, Brown and Jones as substitutions. Not primarily because they would loose an inheritance on account of it - if the relatives knew their true ascendance, they were free to pour money over them just the same - but instead because their real names were door-openers for them.

I know quite well that you are not opposing the theory for the hell of it, MrBarnett. But I really do think that you sometimes forget what the nameswop implications would have meant to any lawenforcing person - and for a reason!!

Now I really must tend to other things. Thanks for the debate.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. If the guide on your nightly tour is who I think he is - and it IS the 25:th! - then I wish you a real eye-opener of an experience. Donīt stay home if it rains, mind you...

[moonbegger]

I think he would have begun working at Broad Street at around the age of 19, years later. He said that he had been working at Pickfords for twenty years, and that takes us back to 1868. Incidentally, the Broad Street depot opened that very year, so it all makes sense this way.

But especially being the Step son of TC , he would have been working ( like all youngsters ) from the age a 13 .. at a job undoubtedly secured by his stepfather Cross's influence .. So six years of work as Cross the coppers son.
not an easy label to shake even if he wanted to . Especially if he needed a reference for Pickford's .

Charles's Son Thomas was named after ?? I do remember Team Lechmere being adamant it was not PC Thomas Cross . I recall Uncle Thomas was a favorite , was he perhaps a main influence in what name would be best for the children ?

PS .. I've not herd much of the Un Neighborly Neighbors conundrum since posting the Stepney 1903 Pic .. highlighting a Neighborly community ?

Cheers , Moonbegger

[Fisherman]

moonbegger:

But especially being the Step son of TC , he would have been working ( like all youngsters ) from the age a 13 .. at a job undoubtedly secured by his stepfather Cross's influence .. So six years of work as Cross the coppers son.
not an easy label to shake even if he wanted to . Especially if he needed a reference for Pickford's .

Nonsense. There is no reason to think he must have been labeled Cross at any stage, and we have his baptism to tell us what choice was made for him namewise.
At any rate, he could not have started working at the Broad Street depot until May 1868 - it was not opened until then. And he married in 1871 as Charles Allen Lechmere. The name he gave the census takers that same year, while staying in Mary Ann Street was Charles A Lechmere.

Born by a Lechmere, baptised Lechmere, married as a Lechmere, filling out his census form as Lechmere - yes, of course he would have called himself Cross!

Charles's Son Thomas was named after ?? I do remember Team Lechmere being adamant it was not PC Thomas Cross . I recall Uncle Thomas was a favorite , was he perhaps a main influence in what name would be best for the children ?

There were many Thomasī amongst the Lechmere relatives. And nobody can be "adamant" about which Thomas it was that gave his name to Charles' boy, since there can be no knowing. We CAN however be adamant that it need not have been his stepfathers name they took. What we can see is that the middle name Allen was added - and that one was a Lechmereian name. Itīs engraved on his gravestone - I know, because Iīve seen it. Charlesī father used the middle name Allen, Charles himself did and his son got it too. To me, that would seem to be a vote clearly in favour for his father and the Lechmereian name and heritage.

So once again, we are getting not an inch further - it remains an anomaly of a suspicious character that he used the name Cross one time and one time only as far as we can tell.

The best,
Fisherman

[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

Fish,

Fail in what exactly? Was this addressed to you?

The point was exactly as noted, whether he himself called himself Lech 100% of the time, others may call him Cross for the same reason as the example I provided.

No this guy didn't divulge both names in my example. If you read the case you'll see everyone knew him as his mother's maiden name, not his name, and yet he never ever even owned his mother's maiden name. Why did people know him as his mother's maiden name? Because she was in the hood for years selling fish (ironic I know). Is it just as likely a policeman's son in roughly the same situation be known in the hood as Cross? Yes in my opinion.

If you want to say that Lech was actually Lech because that is what he signed his name as, so far yes you appear correct. However, you can't say with the same certainty that he wasn't known in the hood as Cross. Those are two seperate matters that require their own seperate evidence to prove. I'm saying it's likely he was known as Cross by at least some of those that knew him in his hood(s).

Cheers
DRoy

[moonbegger]

Fish ,

I didn't actually mean working at broad street since 13 ..

At any rate, he could not have started working at the Broad Street depot until May 1868 - it was not opened until then.

But there would have been at least six years of work before he started at Broad street .. Unless you are suggesting that whilst all his friends were out working at age 13,14,15,16,17,18, he sat at home reading "How to commit the perfect murder" .

Just as a curiosity Fish .. At what point in his life, would you accept him being known as Cross ? baring in mind TeamL thought he had a good legit excuse for the use of the name if the Police came calling.

moonbegger