Jack, Son of Jack

[MayBea]

Now for something completely different! Or not...

A mystery orphan born in 1887 with family ties to Whitechapel in 1887, mother's name the same as one of Jack's victims, claimed the Salvation Army "saved his neck"...What do you think?

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7863

[MayBea]

Jack, Son of Jack?

Re: the Paternity Question
With a birthday of September 1st and a conception date in or around December 1886 or January '87, we're looking at someone like Joseph Flemming. Or, if you believe in the Diego Laurenz/Mr. Lawrence/Maybrick theory, then James Maybrick.

We have no picture of Joe Flemming, so I'm comparing the pictures of Jack with James.

[MayBea]

Here is the 1861 Census putting Jack Wilson's uncle's sister-in-law, Angelica Gould, in the residence of a cotton broker. The uncle's name is Henry Kelly, married to Margaret Gould.

Agelica's daughter, Margaret Rawlinson, was living on Thrawl Street in February 1887, according to her marriage certificate.

I've looked at some of the arguments against Jack Wilson, and the main one seems to be that Joe Barnett would have mentioned a pregnancy and a birth. But that is to disregard all the newspaper reports that he lived with Mary, quote/unquote, "spasmodically".

[GUT]

G'Day

But I wonder how many others had a Kelly relative, I'm stupid, but just don't get the argument.

GUT

[MayBea]

Thanks, GUT, for the reply. It is confusing if you don't know the background of the argument.

Jack Wilson's mother registered his (Sept. 1st) birth in Liverpool on the 24th of October, 1887. (She reported his father to be her husband, Robert Wilson, who died of TB less than a year and a half later.) To me, all this does do, definitively, is put his mother in Liverpool on the 24th of October.

Liverpool is what--a two hour train ride from London? It's not a trip beyond the means of someone living in Whitechapel to take without anyone knowing about it, namely Barnett.

Thanks again for wading in. You got guts, for sure.

[MayBea]

I've uploaded the image of William John Wilson's birth certificate registered in Liverpool

For comparison, I recently ordered and received his sister Christina's birth certificate.

She was born 7 years earlier in 1880 and, I don't know about you, but I see numerous differences and irregularities that make me think the situation with William was unusual and suspicious.

[GUT]

G'Day MayBea

Perhaps f I'd seen that his mother was "Mary Jane" before you posted the certificate I wouldn't have been so daft.

GUT

[GUT]

But I'd never seen that mentioned before. My Bad.

[MayBea]

I guess I should have mentioned Mary Jane at the beginning but I was too focused on the paternity.

I'm sure this Mary Kelly child was on the forum prior to the crash but not since. The forum seemed lacking without it, so I thought I'd bring it up.

Who else would do it but us novice constables and detectives? We got nothing to lose.

[MayBea]

As for the discrepancies that I see, there are two big ones:

1. The lengths of time before reporting the births: Christina 9 days, William 54 days.

2. The difference in reported occupation of the father: first Baker and second Baker Journeyman.

Why Journeyman? He always lived in the same neighbourhood and he died of tuberculosis less than a year and a half later in the Workhouse.

Did the registrar ask her about the 'alleged' father's whereabouts? Is it possible she had no idea where he was because she hadn't seen him in 6 years?

[MayBea]

1. The lengths of time before reporting the births: Christina 9 days, William 54 days.

54 days was 12 more than the legal limit of 42.

As a result of the Births and Deaths Act 1874, registration was made compulsory from 1875 ... Births had to be registered within 42 days at the district or sub-district office, usually by the mother or father. If more days had elapsed but it was less than 3 months since the birth, the Superintendent Registrar had to be present...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...land_and_Wales

[MayBea]

2. The difference in reported occupation of the father: first Baker and second Baker Journeyman.

The term Journeyman seems to have a different definition than I thought. It's more like a day labourer, journey being derived from the French for day.
http://www.british-genealogy.com/for...377-Journeyman

But I still think it has a connotation of traveling to work.

[Bridewell]

The term Journeyman seems to have a different definition than I thought. It's more like a day labourer, journey being derived from the French for day.
http://www.british-genealogy.com/for...377-Journeyman

But I still think it has a connotation of traveling to work.

A journeyman baker could be one who travels about but the more likely meaning is the alternative:

A Journeyman Baker being one who has completed his apprenticeship but is not yet qualified as a Master Baker.

[GUT]

G'Day Bridewell and MayBea

A Journeyman Baker being one who has completed his apprenticeship but is not yet qualified as a Master Baker.

Employed as day labor. [ie not in permanent employment]

That is the generally accepted definition.

[MayBea]

Thank you, Bridewell and GUT.

I'll agree with your assessments and I drop suggestion #2 that Journeyman is a suspicious entry on the birth registry.

I still don't agree with others' assessments that the certificate is proof of paternity, and proof that the mother was in Liverpool for two months from the birth to the registration, and/or that Barnett would necessarily have mentioned it.

Might I mention that Jack Wilson was very talented musically. Family claims he could play every instrument by the age of ten, a claim similarly made of Sir Arthur Sullivan.

The talent and the name change to Arthur Sullivan is what led to earlier suggestions that the father was Sir Arthur Sullivan, famous patron of prostitutes.