Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mary Jane Wilson

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Excuse me. Those records were all for 1884. Here's the one from the 6th of June 1884 where she was picked up on Netherfield Road and put in the Infirmary for 3 days. Her closest friend is her sister in Birkenhead rather than her husband.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	image_19770.jpg
Views:	255
Size:	11.0 KB
ID:	726117
    He's listed as deserted in August when their daughter is taken from the Main Bridewell when Mary gets arrested for drunkenness. That was August 20.

    Click image for larger version  Name:	christina1884.png Views:	0 Size:	16.3 KB ID:	726118



    Comment


    • Transcript of above 2 registers:


      Wilson Mary J b 1849 C of E husband Robert, a baker, parish: Everton, admitted: 6th June 1884, discharged: 9th June 1884 R.W. (from Workhouse of Register), found in Netherfield Rd by P.C.388, closest friend and address: Mrs Dixon 201 Peel St, Birkenhead.
      Mill Road Hospital, West Derby Union Workhouse

      Christina Wilson 4 admitted by JMcGuire, in school, father deserted mother locked up admitted 20 aug 1884 where slept last night: Main Bridewell, recieved relief before-yes
      Liverpool Board Of Guardians Workhouse

      3rd Register:

      Christina Wilson admitted 19 Aug 1884, age 3, admitted from Main Bridewell, mother locked up drunk , brought in by PC148 discharged 20 aug 1884 RHouse (Discharged from the House of Register) Liverpool Board Of Guardians Workhouse
      Admissions & Discharges Religious Creed Register

      Click image for larger version  Name:	lockedup drunk.jpg Views:	0 Size:	9.8 KB ID:	726133

      Those are the 3 registers of Mary Jane and Christina Wilson for 1884. Her son Robert Bruce is with her deserted husband Robert. Nothing in 85 and 86 and then nothing but proven crimes against the public record by the grandmother and her sister-in-law who was impersonating her even after everyone agrees MJW was dead.

      Her absence from the Liverpool record for 2 years prior to 1884 suggests she was across the river in Birkenhead with her sister where I believe Police Constable George West probably saw her or heard of her and thought she might be MJK based on the "apocryphal" stories of her begging with a child.
      Last edited by Trapperologist; 10-26-2019, 06:48 PM.

      Comment


      • Good afternoon Trapper and welcome to the discussion group,

        Originally posted by Trapperologist View Post
        ...the grandmother and her sister-in-law who was impersonating her even after everyone agrees MJW was dead. ...
        So Florence Pash met an impersonater after 1890 when Mary Jane Wilson died? Is that when the Royal Theory began? It would explain a lot of things.

        Roy
        Sink the Bismark

        Comment


        • G'Day, Roy.

          I thought Florence met Mary in 1885. I no longer hold to the MJK survived theory. That's too romantic even for me. But the impersonator of MJW is a proven fact, unless you believe in major clerical errors where an aunt is penciled in as the mother in orphanage records of children with both parents proven to be dead. (Children can be admitted without being actual orphans.)
          Last edited by Trapperologist; 10-27-2019, 12:51 AM.

          Comment


          • Remember this is a 1892 orphanage record with the "updates" penciled in after the original admission entry.

            This has to be the aunt Jane Wilson who was masquerading as MJW in the workhouse in 1888 using the name Jane Wilson born 1847 which matches her. Everyone agrees MJW is dead by 1889, so there's no problem with the Single Impostor Theory.

            Click image for larger version

Name:	image_19774.jpg
Views:	220
Size:	146.8 KB
ID:	726158

            Comment


            • When it was found that Jane Wilson was possibly impersonating MJW in 1888 in the Workhouse, I went all in for the Single Impostor Theory when it was found that "MJW" died as "Jane Wilson" in 1889. Odds are that there was only one and it was the quick and easy way to prove the point. Just show that Jane Wilson disappeared after 1889. It turned out aunt Jane Wilson was still alive after 1900. So she wasn't the Jane Wilson who died 1889.

              Did that really mean there was no Impostor, not even a Single One? Hold on a second there. I see another light at the end of another rabbit hole. Going back over the old ground, it was found Jane Wilson was indeed acting as a Single Impostor in the 1892 register after MJW was surely dead. So the Single Impostor Theory was proven after all and my point should have been proven, surely. I shouldn't be the only one jumping to the Double Impostor Theory when the Single One was proven. Of course, there's the Mary Kelly Survived and came back only to die of illness in 1889 option.

              P.S. William said he was raised by two aunts, not by his mother - one was aunt Jane Wilson. The identity of the other aunt is uncertain but an "aunt" could be anyone.

              Comment


              • I’m trying to figure out why Jane Wilson changed the date of birth of her nephew William to 1888 from 1887 (Above post 185). I don’t see what difference that would make regarding MJW’s identity or his illegitimacy.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

                  The earliest place we can start with any certainty is some 4 years before Kelly's death, when she was knocking about down the Ratcliff Highway and later Stepney, when she was in relationships with "Morganstone" and Joseph Fleming, before hooking up with Joe Barnett and eventually moving to Spitalfields.

                  This doesn't give much time, or "geographical opportunity" (if I can put it that way) for Florence Pash to get to know Mary Kelly - or whatever her real name was - still less keep track of her.
                  Marys story includes time as a brothel consort, which could well have introduced her to people above her actual social status. She was taken to Paris....hardly a lower class destination.
                  Michael Richards

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                    Marys story includes time as a brothel consort, which could well have introduced her to people above her actual social status. She was taken to Paris....hardly a lower class destination.
                    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down...ris_and_London

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                      Marys story includes time as a brothel consort, which could well have introduced her to people above her actual social status. She was taken to Paris....hardly a lower class destination.
                      Thanks, Mike. We only have Mary’s word that she worked in a high end bordello in the West End. I think she came “respectable” and worked as a servant there. Either way, she would have been in contact with the well-off. The demographics of their clientele would be virtually the same. A prostitute might serve a blue-collar worker but would have more chance than a servant to work for an aristocrat.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Trapperologist View Post
                        I’m trying to figure out why Jane Wilson changed the date of birth of her nephew William to 1888 from 1887 (Above post 185). I don’t see what difference that would make regarding MJW’s identity or his illegitimacy.
                        The only thing I can think of is that she was persuaded to change his date of birth after reading about the Captain Verney trial in 1892. Or she feared the real father might come looking in the workhouse for his son. Changing the date of birth would confuse everything as would the listing of her mother as Jane instead of Mary Jane and alive instead of dead.

                        Comment


                        • A relative of MJW’s London in-laws, the Gould family, has been contacted on Ancestry. His mother in London was a Gould and her father was Angelica Gould’s great nephew and he son confirms the existence of a deep, dark family secret kept by his grandfather, Alan Gould. I doubt it’s just Angelica’s one daughter marrying Rosalie Ochse’s son and the other daughter having to be “rescued” by the City Missionary in Whitechapel.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by MayBea View Post
                            Margaret and Daniel Reardon were living at 93 Cleveland Street in 1891.

                            Here's Margaret's uncle's family still on Bolsover Street as Gold rather than Gould.



                            The list of relatives in London from Brother Henry's marriage is fairly long. If she is Mary Kelly and they are her relatives, I can't say why they didn't identify her.

                            But we already know Mary Kelly's relatives didn't identify her or, if they did, it wasn't publicized. The 'cousin' she blamed should have identified her, at least.
                            The Robert Gold here is not the Robert Gould, brother of Angelica. The real Robert Gould married Marjorie Ruxton and moved to New Zealand.

                            They might be distantly related but that’s one less group of close London relatives for MJW.

                            Comment


                            • Here's the real Robert Gould, Henry's (and Mary's) brother-in-law. He was on trial for Arson in Christchurch, NZ, in 1881. His distinguishing mark is a bayonet would he got while in the "Lancers".

                              Click image for larger version  Name:	robergouldarson.jpg Views:	0 Size:	23.3 KB ID:	729187

                              https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/pe...877&title=NZPG

                              Comment


                              • Here's a long article about the suspected arson case. It appears Robert Gould (Ruxton) was charged along with his wife and one other person of setting his own shop on fire. He was a tailor. They were acquitted.

                                https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/ne...can%27t%20read

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X