Lambeth Workhouse

[Debra A]

Thanks. I note that for Lambeth there seem to be a couple of census pages that were unreadable and wondered if she might originally have been on one of those. I'll take a look at the ones you mention.

Hi MS

Thanks. That's probably the explanation because the Lambeth, Renfrew Road workhouse creed register has a Mary Ann Nichols aged 39, charwoman being admitted on 8 February 1881 and discharged on 26th May 1881 (136 years to the day!) which covers the date of the census, meaning she was there for the 1881 census as some books have stated.

This rules out the Mary Ann Nichols in Newington casual ward that I mentioned earlier, appearing several times in 1881 and born in 1852, the same year of birth given by Mary Ann Nichols in the Lambeth workhouse and other institutions in 1887/88.


Strangely, the older Mary Ann Nichols (49) who appears in the 1881 census at Lambeth workhouse is in the same creed register too, further down the same page, but is noted as being admitted May 26th 1881 and discharged June 17th to police. So she wasn't there for the census but is listed on the census for that institution!
That's odd.

Mary Ann Monk also appears in this same Lambeth workhouse Renfrew Road creed register for 1880/81

[MysterySinger]

Thanks. I note that for Lambeth there seem to be a couple of census pages that were unreadable and wondered if she might originally have been on one of those. I'll take a look at the ones you mention.

[Debra A]

Just a quick question - do we know where Polly Nichols was in the 1881 census please?

I don't think we do.
There are a lot of possibles. One I have considered is a woman who took to the casual wards around 1881. Southwark first and also maybe Mile End in April 81, although the Mile End Polly said she wasn't married.

[MysterySinger]

Just a quick question - do we know where Polly Nichols was in the 1881 census please?

[MrBarnett]

Thanks, Gary. I take it that Rochester is close to Chatham and that Minverva Street is just off the Old Bethnal Green Road then?

I believe they are.

[Debra A]

All her work is excellent.

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

Thanks GUT, that's very kind of you to say.

[Debra A]

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?

[GUT]

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.

[MrBarnett]

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.

[GUT]

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.

[Robert]

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.

[Debra A]

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

[GUT]

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...

[Debra A]

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...

[Joshua Rogan]

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?