Acquiring A Victorian Diary

[John G]

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'. "

Yes, David, it may very well have been the nanny who used the expression. Nonetheless, the same logic applies; its a highly unusual means of referring to someone not entitled to a title, even more so if it was said by a Victorian servant to a guest of the master of the household.

One therefore wonders if the Sir "title" could have been used in the household as, say, an affectionate means of address to Maybrick.

[David Orsam]

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

You are confusing a "form of address" with a joke in the modern world and with an informal remark between two servants, or one servant and a young girl, in the Victorian world.

[David Orsam]

Yes, David, it may very well have been the nanny who used the expression. Nonetheless, the same logic applies; its a highly unusual means of referring to someone not entitled to a title, even more so if it was said by a Victorian servant to a guest of the master of the household.

One therefore wonders if the Sir "title" could have been used in the household as, say, an affectionate means of address to Maybrick.

But I've just quoted quite a few examples where Florence (in the context of people actually addressing James) does not refer to Maybrick as "Sir" at all!! So what you say seems very unlikely.

When you say "its a highly unusual means of referring to someone not entitled to a title" what experience do you have of chatter between servants in the Victorian period to make such a statement?

Keith tells us that it wasn't said to a "guest of the master" (which is an interesting way of referring to a young girl) but by one servant to another and overheard by a young girl.

Really John, there's nothing in this at all.

[Abby Normal]

If I may be so bold, I think Abby was querying why it is taking so long for your membership to be approved and for you to be able to post here in your own name, which thought has also been occurring to me.

Ill ask again, why is it taking so long for mr skinner to get on here?
Weird.

[John G]

But I've just quoted quite a few examples where Florence (in the context of people actually addressing James) does not refer to Maybrick as "Sir" at all!! So what you say seems very unlikely.

When you say "its a highly unusual means of referring to someone not entitled to a title" what experience do you have of chatter between servants in the Victorian period to make such a statement?

Keith tells us that it wasn't said to a "guest of the master" (which is an interesting way of referring to a young girl) but by one servant to another and overheard by a young girl.

Really John, there's nothing in this at all.

David, do you have any examples of Victorian servants referring to their non-titled master in such a way? In any event, I doubt it was said in a mocking tone, especially in front of a guest of Maybricks-and if that wasn't young Florence's status, exactly what was it? Therefore, why did the servant refer to the master of the household in that way?

[Hunter]

Thank you for your post (#650) which I take to be a reaction to what I wrote in post #649?

Apologies if I have misunderstood.

Could you please clarify - all of what was supposed to have happened during the course of one day?

Thank you.
Best Wishes, KS

Hi Keith,

I'm afraid that I was was being a bit facetious. My apologies. The quote from "Inside Story" not only has the mention of contacting Pan Books and Doreen Montgomery, but that Barrett claimed to have done extentive research to see if the story would "tally". Of course that would squeeze the single day timeline quite a bit. In the debates that proceeded your entry it seemed things concerning Barrett were either shoehorned in or dismissed, depending on the proclivities of the theorist involved...Such is Ripperology, eh?

I do hope your membership is cleared soon. A researcher such as yourself will be an asset -- beyond this controversial topic -- to others here who actually want to learn something.

[Hunter]

Jeremy Beadle was one of the nicest human beings one could have had the pleasure of meeting. Gone far too soon.

Agreed on both counts.

"People are fooled because they are receptive to being fooled." - Jeremy Beadle

[Iconoclast]

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

Steve,

To use your example (Sir Geoff) to contradict the point being made, it is not 'in real life' (I assume you mean in public) that he needs to not refer to himself as 'Sir Geoff'. He needs to not refer to himself as 'Sir Geoff' in his own private journal. Then you can say you've made your point.

If you have never read his private journal, then you just can't know whether he refers to himself as 'Sir Geoff' in there or not.

Listen, interesting debate, but you'd get a lot more out of spending time on a proper thread, mate ...

Ike

[Abby Normal]

David, do you have any examples of Victorian servants referring to their non-titled master in such a way? In any event, I doubt it was said in a mocking tone, especially in front of a guest of Maybricks-and if that wasn't young Florence's status, exactly what was it? Therefore, why did the servant refer to the master of the household in that way?

So we have one instance of Maybrick being referred to as sir in front of his name.

It’s such a common word, whether using as peerage, or as a mark of respect, or used as courtesy or sarcastically or jokingly that’s its a non starter any way.

Certainly not even close to him being called that on a regular basis, or that he liked to or referred to himself that way!

[Iconoclast]

So we have one instance of Maybrick being referred to as sir in front of his name.

It’s such a common word, whether using as peerage, or as a mark of respect, or used as courtesy or sarcastically or jokingly that’s its a non starter any way.

Certainly not even close to him being called that on a regular basis, or that he liked to or referred to himself that way!

I'd be surprised if anyone made much more of it as that, Abby. It's just another one of those pesky coincidences that it gets a few mentions in the journal, and also gets a mention in Trevor Christie's personal collection. No more, no less. A coincidence is as much as we could hope to claim for that one.

[Elamarna]

Steve,

To use your example (Sir Geoff) to contradict the point being made, it is not 'in real life' (I assume you mean in public) that he needs to not refer to himself as 'Sir Geoff'. He needs to not refer to himself as 'Sir Geoff' in his own private journal. Then you can say you've made your point.

If you have never read his private journal, then you just can't know whether he refers to himself as 'Sir Geoff' in there or not.

Listen, interesting debate, but you'd get a lot more out of spending time on a proper thread, mate ...

Ike

Sorry i disagree entirely Ike, the onus is on those suggesting a theory, in this case that Maybrick, called himself "Sir Jim", to prove such.
its much like the chat of the Lee J Cobb charterer in "12 Angry Men" -

" you cant prove he didn't"

and remains as pointless now as in the film
I return to my first comments, there is no conclusive evidence that the photo album was either written by Maybrick, or that it was written before the second half of the 20th century

Considering that out of 3720+ posts the number on Maybrick is incredibly small, i actually do avoid the subject , obsessive belief in something rarely leads to meaningful debate.

all the best


Steve

[David Orsam]

David, do you have any examples of Victorian servants referring to their non-titled master in such a way?

Hold on John, you were the one saying it was so unusual, so it's for you to provide some evidence. And really John, can you not imagine the things that were said in the servants' quarters about the head of the house? It seems a perfectly natural remark to me, which is no doubt why Florence didn't feel the need to explain it to Christie. He would have understood the nature of the reference just as much as Florence obviously did.

In any event, I doubt it was said in a mocking tone, especially in front of a guest of Maybricks-and if that wasn't young Florence's status, exactly what was it?

You keep saying this John which means you obviously don't understand what Florence was saying in her letter. She was recording that Alice Yapp was calling her "that damned American" and saying that she didn't see why Maybrick was even allowing her to stay at Battlecrease!

So much for Florence being an esteemed guest of Maybrick to whom Yapp was supposed to defer.

And Florence notes that both Briggs and Yapp despised and hated Mrs Maybrick (so all kinds of things were being said in front of her). She also specifically notes that Mrs Briggs referred to Mr Maybrick as "James" which was noted because it was an outrageous informality. Not Sir James though!!!! And that itself disproves the notion that Maybrick was called Sir James within the household.

[Henry Flower]

It's not a fair comparison because we're not living in the LVP, and I have no servants, but my wife often refers to me as 'Sir Lee'.

Which is odd. Because 'Lee' isn't my name.

She calls me 'moody', 'miserable', misanthropic', and 'Sir Lee'.

It's weird.

Oh!.... oh, hang on.......

Ah. OK.

Surly. Got it. Sorry....

[John G]

Hold on John, you were the one saying it was so unusual, so it's for you to provide some evidence. And really John, can you not imagine the things that were said in the servants' quarters about the head of the house? It seems a perfectly natural remark to me, which is no doubt why Florence didn't feel the need to explain it to Christie. He would have understood the nature of the reference just as much as Florence obviously did.



You keep saying this John which means you obviously don't understand what Florence was saying in her letter. She was recording that Alice Yapp was calling her "that damned American" and saying that she didn't see why Maybrick was even allowing her to stay at Battlecrease!

So much for Florence being an esteemed guest of Maybrick to whom Yapp was supposed to defer.

And Florence notes that both Briggs and Yapp despised and hated Mrs Maybrick (so all kinds of things were being said in front of her). She also specifically notes that Mrs Briggs referred to Mr Maybrick as "James" which was noted because it was an outrageous informality. Not Sir James though!!!! And that itself disproves the notion that Maybrick was called Sir James within the household.

For clarification, David, when I said "mocking tone", I meant mocking in respect of James Maybrick, as one might today refer to a supercillious individual as "your Lordship." In other words, I was implying that their was an alternative reason why she may have referred to him as "Sir James", such as the possibility that he was referred to in that fashion by the family or Maybrick himself. However, your point about Mrs Briggs is well made.

[David Orsam]

For clarification, David, when I said "mocking tone", I meant mocking in respect of James Maybrick, as one might today refer to a supercillious individual as "your Lordship."

Yes, but as much at it is mocking it is also affectionate. The same for "His Lordship" or "His Nibs". It certainly doesn't need to be said of supercilious individual, it can be said of someone who is respected.

However, your point about Mrs Briggs is well made.

Thank you.