Lambeth Workhouse

[Debra A]

That's all really interesting and also what I discovered when looking through the A & D registers too, so obviously we're probably both on to something. It would make sense that 'our' Mary Ann only appears in the workhouse records from 1883 because in her examination she states that William paid her a maintenance for two years. In fact, there seems to be one entry which I identified as might being her dating from 24 April 1882 - 18 Jan 1883 at Lambeth Workhouse. If William cut her off because he needed the extra money to move out of the Peabody flats with Rosetta (which he did in July of that year) this would be about the right time frame.

This is true, and William and Rosetta had an extra mouth to feed by July 1883.
One thing though; there is mention in the settlement record that Mary Ann went straight to Lambeth workhouse from Peabody buildings when the couple separated. If the separation was in 1881 then that may indicate that she is the woman with an 1840's birth year (which is correct) and not the woman giving a birth year of 1850's who enters Lambeth workhouse after 1883 ( the birth year also given in workhouse records we know definitely relate to 'our' Polly Nichols).
The Lambeth Creed Register shows the woman born in the 1840's was in the workhouse for the 1881 census on April 1st 1881, even though the census does not corroborate this as I mentioned but instead shows an older woman of the same name, whom the Creed Regsiter shows wasn't there on census night.

"..Married at St Brides Church Fleet St 16 January 1864. Maiden name Walker. Husband has got the certificate-When we separated I went
direct into Lambeth workhouse from No 6 D Block. Then it was agreed husband should allow me s 5/- a week which he did for 2 years
which I received from Mr Tavener at Lambeth Workhouse..."

[Madam Detective]

That's all really interesting and also what I discovered when looking through the A & D registers too, so obviously we're probably both on to something. It would make sense that 'our' Mary Ann only appears in the workhouse records from 1883 because in her examination she states that William paid her a maintenance for two years. In fact, there seems to be one entry which I identified as might being her dating from 24 April 1882 - 18 Jan 1883 at Lambeth Workhouse. If William cut her off because he needed the extra money to move out of the Peabody flats with Rosetta (which he did in July of that year) this would be about the right time frame.

[Debra A]

Have you found a birth record in Bow?

Odds are you are correct,however she hasn't been found elsewhere.

Sort of like Mary Kelly being born in Limerick,Ireland

Mary Ann's birth certificate says she was born in Dawes Court Shoe Lane in 1845, that's the City. The GRO ref gives the registration district as the West End Union, which included Fleet St. As Mary Ann Walker in 1861 her place of birth is given as St Bride, which is describing the same place. In 1871 she just gives London

The Mary Ann Nichols in the census at the London Hospital in 1881 says she was born in Bow.

[DJA]

Have you found a birth record in Bow?

Odds are you are correct,however she hasn't been found elsewhere.

Sort of like Mary Kelly being born in Limerick,Ireland

[Debra A]

Might be "the younger version" of Mary Ann Nichols in the Ailie Street hospital for the 1881 Census.

The thing that puts me off that Mary Ann Nichols is that she was born in Bow whereas 'our' Mary Ann had her birth registered in West London.

[ChrisGeorge]

A period view and a modern view of Lambeth Workhouse --





See Victorian plan of the workhouse posted by Maggie Jones on Flickr at https://flic.kr/p/nzgqyw. She writes: "On the map it has rooms for men and women of good or bad character. This is the workhouse that Charlie Chaplin was sent to as a child with his older brother and mother."

See also http://www.workhouses.org.uk/Lambeth/

[DJA]

Might be "the younger version" of Mary Ann Nichols in the Ailie Street hospital for the 1881 Census.

[Debra A]

Just reading back through these old posts. One of the reasons that Polly won't appear in the workhouse records during the 1881 census is because she was being given a maintenance by William. This maintenance was designed to keep her out of the workhouse and living independently of the parish. However, this doesn't mean that she wouldn't turn up in the casual wards if she spent it all.

You are probably right. The interesting thing is there are three women named Mary Ann Nichols in the Lambeth workhouse records from 81 onwards. One (a) is much older and not the right woman, one (b) is the same age as the woman we are interested in and was in and out in 1881, and one is younger (c) but exactly the same age as the age we definitely know Mary Ann Nichols passed herself of as in the workhouse (William is mentioned in her settlement records) and she doesn't turn up in Lambeth workhouse until 1883. She does correspond to the age of the casual ward user in 1881 though.

One (a) appears in the the Lambeth workhouse in the 1881 census, but she is too old to be the Mary Ann Nichols we are interested in. But checking the creed registers of Lambeth workhouse, which record the admission and discharge dates of inmates, shows that this older MA Nichols (a) was not actually in the workhouse at the time of the 1881 census in April 1881 but the woman who is the same age (b), was, even though she isn't listed on teh 1881 census!..It's puzzling. Perhaps the person who compiled the creed register or the person who filled out the 1881 census return seem to have got their Mary Ann's in a twist.

[Madam Detective]

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

Just reading back through these old posts. One of the reasons that Polly won't appear in the workhouse records during the 1881 census is because she was being given a maintenance by William. This maintenance was designed to keep her out of the workhouse and living independently of the parish. However, this doesn't mean that she wouldn't turn up in the casual wards if she spent it all.

[Flower and Dean]

Returning to the date discrepancy in Nichols' letter, it occurs to me that she may have dated it earlier than it was written so as to make her concerned father believe that she had left the workhouse for gainful employment rather earlier than was actually the case.

That crossed my mind as well, but I wonder if in April she would have already known about where she would be and what she would be doing. Would she be told with this type of advance? And wouldn't the letter be specific enough (the address, postal markings, etc.) to make it possible to know where she was?

[Bridewell]

Returning to the date discrepancy in Nichols' letter, it occurs to me that she may have dated it earlier than it was written so as to make her concerned father believe that she had left the workhouse for gainful employment rather earlier than was actually the case.

[Bridewell]

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...

Albert Cadosch knocked almost a decade off his age when he entered into the bigamous marriage to Elizabeth Stobart - and was presumably credible in so doing.

[Debra A]

Good info Debs.

I don't know about you but I find some of the workhouse records rather sad. For example one of Martha Tabram's sons was admitted to Westminster Union Workhouse on 1st June 1878 "chgd with begging". Charles Henry Tabram was all of 5 years old!

Thanks, MS. I do find the workhouse records very sad sometimes but they give us a chance to glimpse aspects of these women's lives that we wouldn't ordinarily know about. Thanks for the info on Charles, it led me to the entry that noted Martha's children had been sent to her in prison. In his 'Fallen Women' piece, the Reverend Merrick wrote that several of the victims had been in Millbank Prison in their pasts and as the research has gone on over the years, that idea doesn't seem as ridiculous as some first thought!

[MysterySinger]

Good info Debs.

I don't know about you but I find some of the workhouse records rather sad. For example one of Martha Tabram's sons was admitted to Westminster Union Workhouse on 1st June 1878 "chgd with begging". Charles Henry Tabram was all of 5 years old!

[Debra A]

By 1883, another woman named Mary Ann Nichols is also using the same Lambeth workhouse. Her age is listed as 35. The two other MA Nichols aged 39/40 and 49/50 are also still regularly listed.