Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lambeth Workhouse

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Flower and Dean View Post
    I know it's been years since the last reply on this thread. I don't know about Parishrecords.com specifically, but sometimes the parish is called Lambeth St. Mary IIRC.

    Ancestry UK now has workhouse admission and discharge records. I was able to find a few hits for the name Mary Ann (and similar) Nichols in Lambeth. Unfortunately, I don't have a subscription to be able to see the scans but maybe someone can do that and clear it up.
    Hi F&D,
    The admission and discharge and creed registers definitely show what is part of Mary Ann Nicholls established timeline.
    Mary A Nicholls born 1852 was admitted to Mitcham Holborn on Jan 4th 1888 and discharged 'passed to Lambeth' on 16th April 1888.
    Renfrew Rd Workhouse Lambeth Creed register then shows Mary A Nicholls age 36 (b 1852) admitted from the Holborn Union on 16th April 1888. She was described as a servant, admitted by magistrate and discharged 12th May 1888 to a 'situation'.
    ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

    I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

    Comment


    • #17
      The Renfrew Road Creed register also shows that Mary Ann Monk, one of the women who identified Mary Ann Nicholls, was also in the workhouse for a couple of days in May 88, the same time as Mary Ann Nicholls, as well as a few years before. Mary Ann Monk was also a regular in the Newington casual ward and was there in 1888, a few weeks either side of Catherine Eddowes going there in April 1888.
      ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

      I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

      Comment


      • #18
        Thank you, Debra A.

        I suppose in that case Sluggo's question about Mary Ann Nichols's letter to her father remains... and now it's really bothering me!

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Flower and Dean View Post
          Thank you, Debra A.

          I suppose in that case Sluggo's question about Mary Ann Nichols's letter to her father remains... and now it's really bothering me!
          As already suggested in the thread, there was probably just a mistake made with the dating, possibly by Mary Ann herself. She left Lambeth workhouse on May 12th to go to a situation so perhaps wrote April instead of May in her letter?
          There is no doubt the workhouse stays at Holborn and Lambeth were the same woman later murdered in 1888 as the orders of removal registers detail her background and stays at Holborn and Lambeth Jan to May 1888.

          http://www.jtrforums.com/showpost.ph...1&postcount=54
          ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

          I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

          Comment


          • #20
            I don't doubt it was her, I'm just curious about whether the letter was misdated or what (which is a very minor point, I know, but I'm a very curious person!).

            That she dates it incorrectly seems most likely, though I also wonder whether her father wouldn't have noticed it when he received the letter in May. Maybe he assumed the letter had just taken a while to reach him? Who knows.

            Something I find interesting but probably meaningless is that a couple of reports mention that her father had last heard from her around Easter.

            The September 3 Daily Telegraph, for example, says:

            Edward Walker deposed: I live at 15, Maidwell-street, Albany-road, Camberwell, and have no occupation. I was a smith when I was at work, but I am not now. I have seen the body in the mortuary, and to the best of my belief it is my daughter; but I have not seen her for three years. I recognise her by her general appearance and by a little mark she has had on her forehead since she was a child. She also had either one or two teeth out, the same as the woman I have just seen. My daughter's name was Mary Ann Nicholls, and she had been married twenty-two years. Her husband's name is William Nicholls, and he is alive. He is a machinist. They have been living apart about seven or eight years. I last heard of her before Easter. She was forty-two years of age.

            The Coroner: How did you see her?

            Witness: She wrote to me.

            The Coroner: Is this letter in her handwriting?

            Witness: Yes, that is her writing.

            The letter, which was dated April 17, 1888, was read by the Coroner, and referred to a place which the deceased had gone to at Wandsworth.
            I remember seeing another one that more vaguely says something along the lines of "her father last heard from her last Easter" but I can't find it right now.

            I guess this is probably just a case of misquoting or misreporting, but interesting nevertheless!

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Flower and Dean View Post
              I don't doubt it was her, I'm just curious about whether the letter was misdated or what (which is a very minor point, I know, but I'm a very curious person!).

              That she dates it incorrectly seems most likely, though I also wonder whether her father wouldn't have noticed it when he received the letter in May. Maybe he assumed the letter had just taken a while to reach him? Who knows.

              Something I find interesting but probably meaningless is that a couple of reports mention that her father had last heard from her around Easter.

              The September 3 Daily Telegraph, for example, says:



              I remember seeing another one that more vaguely says something along the lines of "her father last heard from her last Easter" but I can't find it right now.

              I guess this is probably just a case of misquoting or misreporting, but interesting nevertheless!
              I know you didn't suggest it wasn't the same woman, it was mentioned as a possibility earlier in the thread so I was just replying to that at the same time as well.
              It's a curious thing, I agree.
              ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

              I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                Hi F&D,
                The admission and discharge and creed registers definitely show what is part of Mary Ann Nicholls established timeline.
                Mary A Nicholls born 1852 was admitted to Mitcham Holborn on Jan 4th 1888 and discharged 'passed to Lambeth' on 16th April 1888.
                Renfrew Rd Workhouse Lambeth Creed register then shows Mary A Nicholls age 36 (b 1852) admitted from the Holborn Union on 16th April 1888. She was described as a servant, admitted by magistrate and discharged 12th May 1888 to a 'situation'.
                Hi Debra,
                I may be confused, but wasn't Polly born in 1845?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                  Hi Debra,
                  I may be confused, but wasn't Polly born in 1845?
                  Hi Joshua. No, you're not mistaken, she was born in 1845 but must have been passing herself off as 10 years younger, probably because she looked it too.
                  The records I linked to clearly show it is the same woman, her husband is the same man, her parents are the same parents...
                  ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

                  I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                    Hi Joshua. No, you're not mistaken, she was born in 1845 but must have been passing herself off as 10 years younger, probably because she looked it too.
                    The records I linked to clearly show it is the same woman, her husband is the same man, her parents are the same parents...
                    I've got numerous ancestors who "fudged it" with their age.

                    Some to marry
                    Some to go to war
                    Some to get work

                    Etc.

                    Age and names were a bit flexible.

                    Also if the family didn't celebrate birthdays loosing count would be easy and I suspect many years of birth were based on "how old are you" well that would mean born in...
                    G U T

                    There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by GUT View Post
                      I've got numerous ancestors who "fudged it" with their age.

                      Some to marry
                      Some to go to war
                      Some to get work

                      Etc.

                      Age and names were a bit flexible.

                      Also if the family didn't celebrate birthdays loosing count would be easy and I suspect many years of birth were based on "how old are you" well that would mean born in...
                      Hi GUT
                      Exactly. That's the experience I've had too.
                      It's interesting in respect of people like Mary Jane Kelly who hasn't been identified yet.
                      Elizabeth Prater was also passing herself off as six years younger than she actually was in 1888:
                      http://www.mangodesign.biz/ripperologist148.pdf
                      ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

                      I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Modern kids have birthday parties with candles, they have rites of passage like starting school, going up into the next year, going up into the secondary school, etc. It was a whole different world in the LVP. The most accurate ages tend to come from the well-off families.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                          Hi GUT
                          Exactly. That's the experience I've had too.
                          It's interesting in respect of people like Mary Jane Kelly who hasn't been identified yet.
                          Elizabeth Prater was also passing herself off as six years younger than she actually was in 1888:
                          http://www.mangodesign.biz/ripperologist148.pdf
                          I should also have added, some fudged up, some down.
                          G U T

                          There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Debra A View Post
                            Hi GUT
                            Exactly. That's the experience I've had too.
                            It's interesting in respect of people like Mary Jane Kelly who hasn't been identified yet.
                            Elizabeth Prater was also passing herself off as six years younger than she actually was in 1888:
                            http://www.mangodesign.biz/ripperologist148.pdf
                            Your Prater article was excellent, Debra.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                              Your Prater article was excellent, Debra.
                              All her work is excellent.

                              One reason is she sticks to the facts and doesn't over egg the pudding.
                              G U T

                              There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by MrBarnett View Post
                                Your Prater article was excellent, Debra.
                                Thanks, Gary. I take it that Rochester is close to Chatham and that Minverva Street is just off the Old Bethnal Green Road then?
                                ,,`,, Debs ,,`,,

                                I am not DJA. He's called Dave.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X