Annie's birth date

[MysterySinger]

MysterySinger, are you going by info you found in the birth records or did you find this somewhere else? Bizarrely, this website: https://www.thejacktheripperwalk.com/victims/#chapman says there's a family bible that states she was born on the 25th of Sept, 1840. I have no idea where this proverbial family bible is. Neal Shelden consulted it, so I can only guess it's in the hands of her descendants. However, in his book, Neal says Annie's birth date still isn't verified. I'm confused.

The date of 1st September 1841 was from Ancestry Family Trees (several quote this date) but the only record I could find that quoted it was Find A Grave. I suspect this may not be the most reliable source.

Whilst she was christened Annie Eliza Smith it doesn't necessarily follow that this would be the name on her birth record obviously. Nor, perhaps, that George was her true father. I have experience of something similar in my own family tree where a close relative was christened with one name (her Mum's married name) but her birth certificate reveals her real surname - that of the local coalman!. In other cases, the birth was registered under the maiden name of the mother.

Although searches do reveal one or two possibles around 1841 and a year or two either side, it's difficult to know whether/if any are Annie's. Most likely, I think, to be registered as Annie Chapman (yes her married name, but also the maiden name of her mother, Ruth).

If Annie was, in fact, born on 25th September 1840, then she should appear in the 1841 census. Here again, there is a blank because I've not located her, or her mother/father/siblings in either 1841 or 1851 (1841 as Chapman or 1851 as Smith). Curious. Better minds than mine have clearly had inconclusive searches, yet I suspect it will be found.

[Debra A]

Interestingly, in his army records George gave the date of his marriage as 22nd Feb 1840.

[MysterySinger]

A little odd that one Debra. At least the date of the marriage is one we can be sure of owing to the availability on line of the certificate. The army record might be a mistake or I'm wondering whether it may have been an attempt to disguise the fact that Annie was born before her parents tied the knot. Is there anything in there that shows his or Ruth's whereabouts in 1851 or 1841 even? Is the army record available on line?

As noted there are a small number of possible births recorded that might be Annie's. I think she was using Eliza more than Annie in the early days and I wonder whether she could have been registered simply as Eliza. One possibility in that case which provides a reasonable match is below

Registered Jul/Aug/Sep 1841 - Eliza Smith registered at Kensington (which seems to fit)

Similarly, in the same quarter, an Eliza Ann Smith was registered at St Pancras but this location may be unlikely (?).

[MysterySinger]

Annie has at least one thing in common with both Mary Jane Kelly and Kate Eddowes - this is what I've been terming Chelsea drift for want of a better expression. It's how they migrated from around the Chelsea area to Whitechapel.
I suspect there may be nothing in it (not a huge distance after all) but a curious thought.

Without wishing to be disrespectful, or flippant, but if drink was their downfall, maybe it was cheaper and more plentiful in Whitechapel than, say, Chelsea back then.

[Rosella]

Probably not so much the drink as the cheapness of accommodation, even though Chelsea was very much a mixed district in the 19th century.

[Rosella]

As for baptisms, as a member of the Church of England, I can only say that it is about three to six weeks after birth usually. If a baby is extremely ill and not expected to live, then of course it is baptised a lot sooner, sometimes hours after birth. There is no baptism for the dead in the Anglican Church.

That resulted unfortunately in stillborn babies sometimes being smuggled into the coffins of their mothers if the mothers had died during childbirth, in the 19th century and previously, as dead unbaptised babies were not allowed a burial site on consecrated ground ie churchyards.

[Debra A]

A little odd that one Debra. At least the date of the marriage is one we can be sure of owing to the availability on line of the certificate. The army record might be a mistake or I'm wondering whether it may have been an attempt to disguise the fact that Annie was born before her parents tied the knot. Is there anything in there that shows his or Ruth's whereabouts in 1851 or 1841 even? Is the army record available on line?

As noted there are a small number of possible births recorded that might be Annie's. I think she was using Eliza more than Annie in the early days and I wonder whether she could have been registered simply as Eliza. One possibility in that case which provides a reasonable match is below

Registered Jul/Aug/Sep 1841 - Eliza Smith registered at Kensington (which seems to fit)

Similarly, in the same quarter, an Eliza Ann Smith was registered at St Pancras but this location may be unlikely (?).

MS-My thoughts are that the marriage was backdated by George for the army records to cover Annie's illegitimate birth, or, the couple were pretending to be married at that time and living as a married couple in barracks.

George Smith joined the 2nd Regiment Life Guards as a boy aged 15 and left in 1862 after 24 years continued service with that regiment. There was no service abroad for the 2nd Life Guards. The army records are from 2 different sources. His pension record is on FMP but the marriage detail I posted is from the NA's WO 400 series. He had an excellent service record. Details in the service records are sparse because of the early date of the records {later records are much fuller} . George was born in Waddington Lincolnshire (from both sets of army records), rather than 'London' which stated in the 1861 census.

Annie's birth place is usually given as 'Knightsbridge' which could be reference to the Hyde Park Barracks, a base of the 2nd Life Guards that was in the Ecclesiastical District 'All Saints Knightsbridge.' It is possible that the actual place of birth as 'Knightsbridge' has come about because this is used as the address in the April 1842 christening record though and obviously refers to the barracks in that case. The registration district for the Hyde Park Kensington barracks would be Westminster I think.

Neither George nor his family are recorded at the Hyde Park barracks in 1851 where we see a large number of the 2nd Regiment Life Guards stationed (H107/ 1480 page 9 to 29 -although you've probably already looked here) there are no missing or damaged pages. If he wasn't discharged until 1862 though, he may have been living off barracks as they aren't in barracks in the 1861 census either are they?