Jack, Son of Jack

[MayBea]

Have you ever traced the homes' records?

Re your Jack: A person I knew of many years ago was presumed killed in action in the Great War. However I dont know if he done a runner or what but he wasnt dead, he died in 50/60s. Maybe your Jack went AWOL...I looked for John Wilson of the Warwickshire regiment but couldnt find any, have you seen these papers?
Sorry for all the questions but Jacks war records could help if I can find his attestation papers....or pension papers

I've seen all of his enlistment/pension records from the Cameron Highlanders and the RHA/RFA, available at Findmypast. And there were the records of his WW1 medals for service with the RWR.

This site has the pictures of the actual medals:
http://webspace.webring.com/people/q...ll/medals.html

It was his brother Robert who was incorrectly presumed dead in WW1.

[MayBea]

...He was John Sullivan in WWI fighting with the Royal Warwickshire Regiment.

He re-enlisted in the Royal Horse and Field Artillery under the name John Wilson sometime prior to going to India where he is found in the 1911Census.

If something strange happened to him to make him change his name to Sullivan, it would have happened while in India or upon his return...

He was actually John Sullivan when he served in India with the RHA/RFA so the adoption of the name Sullivan was at his enlistment in the Artillery regiment.

A name change when re-enlisting is common. But why did he deny being John Wilson to an officer of the Cameron Highlanders after his retirement?

The encounter happened during the time he was living in London. I'm thinking it had something to do with his real identity in connection to London.

[Roy Corduroy]

Everton, Liverpool

Robsart Street - Christina's birth 1880, Penrhyn Street - the 1881 Household census, Buckingham Street - William's birth 1887, St Anthony's- William baptised

The Wilson family 1881 census (click) with Christina's age probably a mistake, should be 0.

So essentially, MayBea you propose Mary Jane Wilson (maiden name Kelly) lived a double life.

Roy

[MayBea]

So essentially, MayBea you propose Mary Jane Wilson (maiden name Kelly) lived a double life.

Not exactly, Roy. I propose she left Liverpool sometime between 1881 and 1884 and she only returned in 1887 when she had a newborn child.

Her sister in Birkenhead was probably sick since she died in the first quarter of 1888 so her old neighbourhood makes sense. (Her mother gives Great Homer street as her address when giving Christina up for adoption, so she's still in that neighbourhood in 1890. Great Homer is in the centre of the map.)

What do you think Mary Jane Kelly would do with a baby? Why not take it back to Wales or Liverpool to her family and make his birth legitimate?

[MayBea]

Robsart Street - Christina's birth 1880, Penrhyn Street - the 1881 Household census, Buckingham Street - William's birth 1887, St Anthony's- William baptised

Thanks for the map, Roy.

It also shows Bostock street where they were living in 1861.

In 1871, she was living with her parents on Victoria Street. This has been incorrectly identified as the Victoria Street downtown, near the Postehouse. It is actually a street that no longer exists in the same poor neighbourhood she always lived in.

[Debra A]

What do you think Mary Jane Kelly would do with a baby? Why not take it back to Wales or Liverpool to her family and make his birth legitimate?

Hi MB
The child's birth would have been legitimate anyway because Mary Jane Wilson was a married woman and could therefore automatically place her husband's name as the father of her baby, whether he was or not or even knew anything about the birth and wherever she registered the child (which legally should have been London if he was born there). The father does not have to be present to be named on a birth certificate if the couple are legally married.

[MayBea]

...Mary Jane Wilson was a married woman and could therefore automatically place her husband's name as the father of her baby, whether he was or not or even knew anything about the birth and wherever she registered the child (which legally should have been London if he was born there)...

You are correct, Debra. But wasn't Mary Kelly hiding her identity in London? Wouldn't she be giving herself away if she registered the birth of her child and gave her real maiden name?

Either way, I think you agree she'd have to leave Whitechapel and register the birth in location away from there, and then find someone to take the baby. So why not back in Liverpool? The Salvation Army could have helped in that regard.

A return visit to Liverpool could also be explained as a last visit with her sister in neighbouring Birkenhead before she died early in 1888.

[MayBea]

I also don't think Mary Jane Wilson would have just added her husband's name without insuring that he hadn't died in the infirmary in Liverpool more than nine months previously.

There are several reasonable scenarios, all of which I believe could be intended partly to hide the pregnancy and birth from her present boyfriend. She had to either abandon it or give it up for adoption or give it to friends or family, the farther away the better.

[Roy Corduroy]

So to summarize, all Liverpool -

Robert Wilson born 1854 and Mary Jane Kelly born 1855 marry in 1872 and he is a baker by trade. They have children - Robert in 1874, Rosa born 1878 who dies 1880, Christina in 1880 and William in 1887.

Robert Wilson the father dies of TB in the workhouse in 1890 and William is an orphan at the workhouse in 1891 and Christina an orphan at the cottages in nearby Wavetree that year.

And the mother, Mary Jane Wilson (maiden name Kelly) can't be located in any further census, birth, death or marriage returns after 1887 when she is thirty two years old.

The added scenario suggests that after the birth of Christina, sometime in the early to mid 1880's Mary Jane Wilson left her husband, son and daughter, went to London and lived the life of Mary Jane Kelly we hear of from Elizabeth Phoenix and what Joe Barnett said. Then, in 1887, she gets pregnant, and goes back to Liverpool to have baby William there and baptize him. She then returns again to London alone resuming her life as Mary Jane Kelly. Until she is murdered in November of 1888.

My initial impression is she is not the murder victim and didn't do all that going back and forth. The people who knew the murder victim Mary Jane Kelly don't seem to describe her as a 33 year old woman who had been married for awhile and given birth to several children already. That's just my opinion, don't let it dissuade you from your interest, please.

Roy

[GUT]

G'Day Roy

My initial impression is she is not the murder victim and didn't do all that going back and forth. The people who knew the murder victim Mary Jane Kelly don't seem to describe her as a 33 year old woman who had been married for awhile and given birth to several children already. That's just my opinion, don't let it dissuade you from your interest, please.

Couldn't agree more.

[MayBea]

The added scenario suggests that after the birth of Christina, sometime in the early to mid 1880's Mary Jane Wilson left her husband, son and daughter, went to London and lived the life of Mary Jane Kelly ... Then, in 1887, she gets pregnant, and goes back to Liverpool to have baby William there and baptize him. She then returns again to London alone resuming her life as Mary Jane Kelly. Until she is murdered in November of 1888.

Almost right, Roy. She may have gone to London with Christina. Her son, Robert, was already 11 or 12. He could have been on his own already, or sick in the infirmary. Christina could have been left with anyone.

Mary Wilson would have only taken one trip to Liverpool in October to register the baby. The name on the baptism doesn't positively represent her presence in December. Names must only match the birth certificate. I don't think one day trip is out of the question for her to be Mary Kelly.

The godmother has been identified as a 58 year old woman who died about a year later. She couldn't find someone younger?

Thanks for your input, Roy and Gut. But I'm already past the Mary Kelly question. The family ties to the West End and the East End and the missing death record is a match to the real Mary Kelly because all we know for certain is where and when she died and that she only has the two known death records.

My interest is the father.

[MayBea]

For comparison purposes, here is a picture of his brother, Robert Bruce, from his merchant marine ID, next to James.

Where is the similarity if Jack's resemblance is coincidental?

[Roy Corduroy]

Thanks for your input, Roy and Gut.

You're welcome

But I'm already past the Mary Kelly question

Then you've left me in the dust. I've just now figured out how Margaret Rawlinson is connected. She who married at age 20 on Thrawl Street, London in 1887. Her mother Angelina Rawlinson nee Gould was the sister of Emiline Kelly nee Gould whose husband, Henry was the brother of Mary Jane Wilson nee Kelly. If that's true I get a gold star.

My interest is the father

I don't now if they resemble, those two. Robert looks like he could play for Everton FC when he got off ship.

But I do find this all very interesting. If you have more detailed information about the Kelly family, her parents and siblings, I would enjoy seeing that presented in a straightforward manner, please. Like ... you've said they lived on Bostock in 61, (who) or a 'godmother' ? There's a lot I still don't know.

Roy

[Roy Corduroy]

My bad I didn't say that very well, Maybea. My question is - did I get the part right about Margaret Rawlinson? Because I am building my own model at home to follow along. Using the disparate internet sources. As best I know no one has yet issued a pamphlet with all the data in one place.

A thorough, systematic history and a list with known addresses of all her relatives would be helpful. Her immediate family, parents and siblings, in-laws, and in fact anyone else such as friends, neighbors, etc.

Then we can conduct an experiment. Go back in time to November 1888 and go down the list and ask ourselves one by one why none of these people came forward to identify her. For instance, Margaret Rawlinson. Why didn't she go to the local police station in Whitechapel. Because we see that for the other vicitms, their relatives did do that sad duty of coming forward.

That is a question we must ask. Why, when this murder was front page news all over the British Isles, no one identified the victim as Mary Jane Wilson, nee Kelly, born and raised in Liverpool. And even if no relative did, why did not any policeman or other authority, or in fact anyone at all make the connection at the time.

A comprehensive approach built on a strong research foundation. I hope this suggestion is helpful to you in your efforts.

Roy

[MayBea]

My bad I didn't say that very well, Maybea. My question is - did I get the part right about Margaret Rawlinson? Because I am building my own model at home to follow along....

Thanks for the clarification, Roy. I thought you were suggesting the connection was convoluted, like mother's sister's friend's hair dresser's second cousin twice removed.

You have it right--brother's wife's sister's daughter, or brother's niece.

It might be good to start a Mary Jane Wilson thread, probably in this section rather than the Mary Jane Kelly one. Anyone willing to start one up?

Can we be sure that no relative of Mary Jane Kelly reported her identity to the police?

I'm attaching Jack Wilson's marriage certificate, using the name Arthur John Sullivan. I'm glad you find it interesting, at least.