Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[David Orsam]

I was simply questioning the allegation that Maybrick was known as "Sir Jim" or "Sir James". Nothing more, nothing less.

Leave it you to twist around the wording in other people's posts to fit your warped preconceptions.

What an insecure ******* you are.

Once again, Scott, that is not a truthful post. The insecurity can only be yours for failing to admit to an obvious error.

[David Orsam]

...from memory, I believe it was Dixon’s and I just cannot recall what he paid except, confusingly, I believe he may have said it was second hand.

Indeed, and resolving that confusion was one of the reasons why I asked to see the receipt.

[David Orsam]

Personally, I find the Aunspaugh letter intriguing. It's odd that Maybrick is being referred to as "Sir James", considering that the Victorians were much more formal in their use of etiquette than would be typical today

Why do you say that John? Are you saying that loads of people are called "Sir" today who are not entitled to be?

What about the possibility of a servant in the 19th century saying to another: "Take this up to his Lordship". Would you accept that might well have happened (a thousand times) in respect of someone who was not a Lord? Or is that something you believe that should only have been said about a genuine peer of the realm?

[John G]

Why do you say that John? Are you saying that loads of people are called "Sir" today who are not entitled to be?

What about the possibility of a servant in the 19th century saying to another: "Take this up to his Lordship". Would you accept that might well have happened (a thousand times) in respect of someone who was not a Lord? Or is that something you believe that should only have been said about a genuine peer of the realm?

No, David, I'm suggesting the opposite: that it would be very unusual for somone to be referred to by the title "Sir", if they were not so entitled.

Regarding your His Lordship analogy. I very much doubt that Maybrick's servants would refer to him by using a mock title, at least not in the earshot of a family member or guest of the household!

Of course, in modern parlance, referring to a person as "His Lordship", despite them not being a peer of the realm, is a facetious means of describing someone who has acted in a supercilious manner. However, I'm not aware that it it has ever been common to refer to someone who is not a knight as "Sir" in the same context or, indeed, in any context.

[David Orsam]

No, David, I'm suggesting the opposite: that it would be very unusual for somone to be referred to by the title "Sir", if they were not so entitled.

Regarding your His Lordship analogy. I very much doubt that Maybrick's servants would refer to him by using a mock title, at least not in the earshot of a family member or guest of the household!

Of course, in modern parlance, referring to a person as "His Lordship", despite them not being a peer of the realm, is a facetious means of describing someone who has acted in a supercilious manner. However, I'm not aware that it it has ever been common to refer to someone who is not a knight as "Sir" in the same context or, indeed, in any context.

So what are you saying then John? That on the basis of the conversation recollected by Aunspaugh, Maybrick was known as Sir James Maybrick in Liverpool during the 1880s? Seriously?

[Elamarna]

No, David, I'm suggesting the opposite: that it would be very unusual for somone to be referred to by the title "Sir", if they were not so entitled.

Regarding your His Lordship analogy. I very much doubt that Maybrick's servants would refer to him by using a mock title, at least not in the earshot of a family member or guest of the household!

Of course, in modern parlance, referring to a person as "His Lordship", despite them not being a peer of the realm, is a facetious means of describing someone who has acted in a supercilious manner. However, I'm not aware that it it has ever been common to refer to someone who is not a knight as "Sir" in the same context or, indeed, in any context.

Hi,
staying out of this debate on the whole.
However making a few comments, could go here on on the other long thread, which is certainly not the greatest of all.

There is no conclusive evidence to say the diary was written by Maybrick, like it or not that is fact, note i use the word conclusive .
There is no conclusive evidence to show it is an old forgery.

John
i can think of one example, cricket, "Sir Geoffrey" when he is not. i don't think however he refers to himself as such.


Steve

[David Orsam]

i can think of one example, cricket, "Sir Geoffrey" when he is not. i don't think however he refers to himself as such.

And, of course, Sir Les Ferdinand!

[John G]

So what are you saying then John? That on the basis of the conversation recollected by Aunspaugh, Maybrick was known as Sir James Maybrick in Liverpool during the 1880s? Seriously?

No, David, I'm most definitely not saying that either. What I'm suggesting is that the young Florence may have overheard Maybrick being referred to as "Sir James", whilst in the household, by either a family member or by Maybrick himself, i.e. as a kind of esoteric joke.

Of course, this is pure speculation on my part but, in any event, I find it decidedly odd that she elects to use the reference "Sir James"-in a letter that is not at all mocking in tone- and even more so if she had not previously heard Maybrick being referred to in that manner.

[Elamarna]

And, of course, Sir Les Ferdinand!

yes David

comments made about individuals by others, often because it is believed the individual should have received the honour or should do; not used by the person themselves.


Steve

[Iconoclast]

i can think of one example, cricket, "Sir Geoffrey" when he is not. i don't think however he refers to himself as such.
Steve

Have a wee think, oh misguided one (you've forced me off The Greatest Thread of All with your cruel insults!), how often does 'Sir' Geoff or indeed 'Sir' Les (one of the greatest ever to wear the famous barcodes, of course) refer to themselves as such in their private journals?

Have you spotted the gap in your logic yet?

Infuriated Ike

[David Orsam]

No, David, I'm most definitely not saying that either. What I'm suggesting is that the young Florence may have overheard Maybrick being referred to as "Sir James", whilst in the household, by either a family member or by Maybrick himself, i.e. as a kind of esoteric joke.

Of course, this is pure speculation on my part but, in any event, I find it decidedly odd that she elects to use the reference "Sir James"-in a letter that is not at all mocking in tone- and even more so if she had not previously heard Maybrick being referred to in that manner.

I think you are confused John. As Keith has stated, young Florence appears to be recording something said on one occasion by Alice Yapp (the nanny). She's not using the expression herself (or, if she is, it's only being applied to this one conversation, either between herself and Yapp or, as Keith has fairly pointed out, between Yapp and the lodge keeper).

She never uses the name "Sir James" again in her correspondence with Christie. As I say in my article:

"Harrison quotes Aunspaugh as constantly referring to Maybrick as 'Mr Maybrick', with her father calling him 'Maybrick'. More pertinently, at page 91, she refers to Mrs Briggs as constantly addressing Mr Maybrick as 'James', thus completely contradicting the suggestion that he liked to be referred to as 'Sir James'.

On one occasion (p.94), she says that her father 'glanced at Mr James'. So once again, she fails to take the opportunity to refer to him as 'Sir James'. "

[John G]

Hi,
staying out of this debate on the whole.
However making a few comments, could go here on on the other long thread, which is certainly not the greatest of all.

There is no conclusive evidence to say the diary was written by Maybrick, like it or not that is fact, note i use the word conclusive .
There is no conclusive evidence to show it is an old forgery.

John
i can think of one example, cricket, "Sir Geoffrey" when he is not. i don't think however he refers to himself as such.


Steve

Thanks for the Boycott example, Steve. As I say, it's certainly a veey unusual form of address for a non knight.

[Iconoclast]

I think you are confused John. As Keith has stated, young Florence appears to be recording something said on one occasion by Alice Yapp (the nanny). She's not using the expression herself (or, if she is, it's only being applied to this one conversation, either between herself and Yapp or, as Keith has fairly pointed out, between Yapp and the lodge keeper).

She never uses the name "Sir James" again in her correspondence with Christie. As I say in my article:

"Harrison quotes Aunspaugh as constantly referring to Maybrick as 'Mr Maybrick', with her father calling him 'Maybrick'. More pertinently, at page 91, she refers to Mrs Briggs as constantly addressing Mr Maybrick as 'James', thus completely contradicting the suggestion that he liked to be referred to as 'Sir James'.

On one occasion (p.94), she says that her father 'glanced at Mr James'. So once again, she fails to take the opportunity to refer to him as 'Sir James'. "

Michty me mon!

Someone once indicated in a letter that Maybrick was at least once referred to as 'Sir James' in his own household. And a journal entirely unconnected with this fact suggests that Maybrick himself rather liked the appellation.

It's really not that complicated. He may or may not have been referred to as 'Sir James' in his household (but the letter suggests he may have done). The journal implies that Maybrick liked the title. The two are fine together. They do not conflict - they neither prove nor disprove anything.

Ike

[Elamarna]

Have a wee think, oh misguided one (you've forced me off The Greatest Thread of All with your cruel insults!), how often does 'Sir' Geoff or indeed 'Sir' Les (one of the greatest ever to wear the famous barcodes, of course) refer to themselves as such in their private journals?

Have you spotted the gap in your logic yet?

Infuriated Ike

Hi Ike
no gap at all, and certainly not misguided, Geoffrey certainly does not refer to himself as such in real life, which is the point.
Its not the "Greatest Thread of Al" simply the same old unsubstantiated, tired debate. offering not one jot of real conclusive evidence in favour of the photo album.


Steve

[David Orsam]

Michty me mon!

Someone once indicated in a letter that Maybrick was at least once referred to as 'Sir James' in his own household. And a journal entirely unconnected with this fact suggests that Maybrick himself rather liked the appellation.

It's really not that complicated. He may or may not have been referred to as 'Sir James' in his household (but the letter suggests he may have done). The journal implies that Maybrick liked the title. The two are fine together. They do not conflict - they neither prove nor disprove anything.

Well obviously the journal suggests that Maybrick liked the appellation. But that's not evidence that he actually did.

The way that the name is being used by a servant in Florence's letter clearly suggests it is slightly mocking (albeit friendly) and informal way but equally I would suggest that there is absolutely nothing unusual about it. Surely every head of every single household in the 19th century would have been referred to as "sir" by their servants. "Here you are sir", "Thank you sir", "Good night sir". It's a minor jump from one servant saying to another "Take it up to sir" and from there to "Take it up to Sir [First name]".

There's no reason to think that the real Maybrick would ever have been aware of this or that there is any connection between that comment and the way the author of the diary refers to himself which, as Sam Flynn has pointed out, seems to be based on Queen Victoria honouring him with a knighthood for services to murdering so that he says "I can now rise Sir Jim".