Mary Jane Wilson

[Livia]

I don't know why, but malwarebytes would not allow
me to access lancashirebmd.org, warning me of an
attempt to download "potentially malicious software".

[MayBea]

The certificate was in the mail today. Finally!

I haven't looked at it. I'll attach the image in a few minutes without comments.

[MayBea]

Mary Wilson, died Mar. 5, 1889, Toxteth Park

[Debra A]

The certificate was in the mail today. Finally!

I haven't looked at it. I'll attach the image in a few minutes without comments.

What a weird coincidence it coming the very day I asked about it!...Spooky.
Not her then.Thanks for posting it.

[MayBea]

You're welcome, Debra. And, may I say, I didn't waste my time and money.

Now I'm waiting on Robert Bruce Wilson's 1875 birth certificate.

My hope is to prove that William John Wilson's 1887 birth certificate is suspicious by comparison.

[MayBea]

In summation, FreeBMD Search proves there are no Mary Jane Wilson's age 28-41 in all of Lancashire who died between Sept 1887 and August 1890, dates of our MJW's second son's birth and her daughter entering an orphanage, when we can assume she must have died.

There are six Mary Wilsons in that age bracket and time frame in Lancashire who died and we now have the death records of both of those from Liverpool. Neither is our MJW.

If anyone really thinks she reverted to Kelly upon death, we have one Mary Jane Kelly and five Mary Kellys deaths in Liverpool. Wrong age, wrong name, and our MJW's mother was still alive and the one who put her daughter in the orphanage in 1890.

[MayBea]

So are we getting close to making the list? The list of her relatives who to the best of our knowledge were alive in November 1888. Who did not come forward to identify her, if she was the murder victim at Millers Court. Or do we suppose none of them knew this was her...

May I add, Roy, that only one of the descendants today will speak of their ancestor Mary Jane Wilson ne. Kelly. And she mostly tries to debunk her.

The rest of the family (5 or 6, at least) will not respond to inquiries, or will cut them off immediately, when they realize they realize it has something to do with Jack the Ripper and one of his victims.

This would be entirely consistent with MJK's family's response to her murder, if we assume they recognized her from the papers and yet did not come forth publicly to identify her.

[MayBea]

The birth certificate for Mary Wilson's first-born has arrived.

Robert Bruce Wilson, born February 12th, 1875.

[MayBea]

1875 was not a Leap Year so I calculate that the delay between the birth and the registration of Robert Jr.'s birth as 41 days, or 1 day less than the legal limit. The Wilson's seem to be law-abiding.

Christina was registered 19 days after her birth (I incorrectly said 9 on the Son of Jack thread).
http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=7913&page=2

William's registration 54 days after his birth remains suspicious, being 12 days past the legal limit of 42.

I forgot about Rosa who died in infancy. Her cerificate might also be helpful.

[MayBea]

I'm not the only one who thinks a delayed registration is suspicious. A genealogy.com article on Missing Fathers seems to agree:

In more recent times, a delayed birth certificate could indicate an irregularity, especially if the other children had timely certificates registered.

The author seems to consider "recent times" to be the Victorian times and afterwards.

http://www.genealogy.com/52_donna.html

[GUT]

Late Registration

I don't find a registration late by 2 weeks suspicious, there could have been illness, or birth difficulties or a number of reasons.

My cousin's middle child was sx months late in being registered because they kept changing their mind about the name.

[Debra A]

I'm not the only one who thinks a delayed registration is suspicious. A genealogy.com article on Missing Fathers seems to agree:



The author seems to consider "recent times" to be the Victorian times and afterwards.

http://www.genealogy.com/52_donna.html

41 days was cutting it a bit fine as well though?

The context of the "Love child" scenario you link to is different to that you are proposing. The article is describing the practice of couples registering the children of their unmarried daughters as their own to avoid the stigma of illegitimacy.

Maybe they just forgot? It doesn't seem like it was uncommon.

This from 1907:

[MayBea]

What about Robert Wilson Sr. being a Baker in 1875 and 1880 and then suddenly becoming Journeyman Baker in 1887?

[Sam Flynn]

So how could someone raised in Wales, and only four years removed to London, not be able to pass for Welsh with the one person you would think could tell the difference, if anyone in Whitechapel could?

If she was from Liverpool, why did nobody in Whitechapel mention her Scouse accent? There were many Liverpudlians in London (significantly more, in fact, than there were Welsh people), so the accent would have been very well-known and easily identifiable.

[Debra A]

What about Robert Wilson Sr. being a Baker in 1875 and 1880 and then suddenly becoming Journeyman Baker in 1887?

I don't see the significance. A journeyman baker was someone who had served an apprenticeship and was now a skilled worker. The next step would have been Master baker-if he'd have wanted to progress his career.