New Mary Ann Nichols family information

[Madam Detective]

Hi Azarna, this idea is already in the pipeline: http://www.thebookseller.com/news/ja...ubleday-324724

[MrBarnett]

Thanks Gary,

Are you suggesting this, The Coventry canal was a vital trade artery for many years. In particular, it was part of the Birmingham-London route via the B&F Canal, Coventry Canal, Oxford Canal, and River Thames, as a possible route? It did include the inland part of the River Thames so maybe that was the reference to arrival from the Thames.

Yes, that must be it .

[jerryd]

Hi Jerry,

You might find this interesting.

Gary.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vXaxxPm3DTg

Thanks Gary,

Are you suggesting this, The Coventry canal was a vital trade artery for many years. In particular, it was part of the Birmingham-London route via the B&F Canal, Coventry Canal, Oxford Canal, and River Thames, as a possible route? It did include the inland part of the River Thames so maybe that was the reference to arrival from the Thames.

[MrBarnett]

Sorry to quote myself but I wanted to add this to it.

From "England Occupations Inland Waterways (National Institute)" research wiki.

Barges and other inland waterway craft were registered by the Clerk of the Peace from 1795-1871 and records exist in the port books and canal boat registers (Richardson).


Maybe there is a record of their travel and a route?

Hi Jerry,

You might find this interesting.

Gary.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vXaxxPm3DTg

[MrBarnett]

Yes, of course, I apologise. The start of the thread was concerned with the Nichols-family, which threw me off.



I agree.

From the single sentence that has been quoted, I don't see any indication that they only travelled on one barge, though.

Indeed not. But to have transhipped from a narrow boat to a Thames sailing barge would have made even less sense.

I'm assuming you are familiar with both kinds of craft and appreciate the differences.

[jerryd]

This is a statement by Emma Jones, sister of Catherine Eddowes.

London Standard October 4, 1888

My parents formerly resided in Wolverhampton, and many years ago made up their minds to come to London. I remember the occasion when we reached the Metropolis in a barge; there were father, mother, one brother and four sisters, two other boys and two girls being afterwards born in London. My sister, who is now lying at the mortuary, was at this time about twelve months old.

Sorry to quote myself but I wanted to add this to it.

From "England Occupations Inland Waterways (National Institute)" research wiki.

Barges and other inland waterway craft were registered by the Clerk of the Peace from 1795-1871 and records exist in the port books and canal boat registers (Richardson).


Maybe there is a record of their travel and a route?

[Kattrup]

First things first. It is the Eddowes family we are talking about. Their origins were in Wolverhampton. Nichols was a born and bred Londoner and didn't need to travel by boat to anywhere in London.

Yes, of course, I apologise. The start of the thread was concerned with the Nichols-family, which threw me off.

My point, and perhaps I haven't made it clear enough, is that the sort of boat that would have brought them down from the West Midlands was not suitable for operating between the canal system and 'The City'.

I agree.

From the single sentence that has been quoted, I don't see any indication that they only travelled on one barge, though.

[jerryd]

First things first. It is the Eddowes family we are talking about. Their origins were in Wolverhampton. Nichols was a born and bred Londoner and didn't need to travel by boat to anywhere in London.

My point, and perhaps I haven't made it clear enough, is that the sort of boat that would have brought them down from the West Midlands was not suitable for operating between the canal system and 'The City'.

So the statement that they 'reached the City on a barge up the Thames' sounds wrong.

This is a statement by Emma Jones, sister of Catherine Eddowes.

London Standard October 4, 1888

My parents formerly resided in Wolverhampton, and many years ago made up their minds to come to London. I remember the occasion when we reached the Metropolis in a barge; there were father, mother, one brother and four sisters, two other boys and two girls being afterwards born in London. My sister, who is now lying at the mortuary, was at this time about twelve months old.

[MrBarnett]

I have compared it to the photo, and am perfectly satisfied that the two vessels are different sizes and types.

I guess I'm not sure what you're suggesting?

The canal barges that were towed did not have sails or oars. They were towed, or, I assume, at times propelled forward with poles, like gondolas - a technique that is not too difficult to learn, but would, of course, be useless on the deeper rivers like the Thames.

The Thames sailing barges were not towed as a rule, since they had sails. Even in the 1840s.

Before the development of the sailing barge, there were different types of vessels needed to navigate the Thames, the shallow-drafted ones being rowboats used to ferry goods ashore from the larger vessels.

So I honestly do not know what we're arguing, MrBarnett. I just wanted to make a small comment about the possibilty of sailing upstream on a barge, since you wondered what the propulsion would be.
My argument is that it was entirely possible, the propulsion in the 1840s being primarily wind power.

From this, I see no reason to distrust the statement that the Nichols-family moved to London on a barge up the river Thames. The statement, as quoted, does not need to imply that the entire journey was made on the same barge.

But, as I said, I don't know the source and there can, of course, be other reasons to do so.

First things first. It is the Eddowes family we are talking about. Their origins were in Wolverhampton. Nichols was a born and bred Londoner and didn't need to travel by boat to anywhere in London.

My point, and perhaps I haven't made it clear enough, is that the sort of boat that would have brought them down from the West Midlands was not suitable for operating between the canal system and 'The City'.

So the statement that they 'reached the City on a barge up the Thames' sounds wrong.

[Debra A]

I'm sure I've read something that says the family walked to London.

[Kattrup]

This is a Thames sailing barge. Compare it to the image of the narrow boat above. They did not have sails or oars, or engines in the 1840s.

I have compared it to the photo, and am perfectly satisfied that the two vessels are different sizes and types.

I guess I'm not sure what you're suggesting?

The canal barges that were towed did not have sails or oars. They were towed, or, I assume, at times propelled forward with poles, like gondolas - a technique that is not too difficult to learn, but would, of course, be useless on the deeper rivers like the Thames.

The Thames sailing barges were not towed as a rule, since they had sails. Even in the 1840s.

Before the development of the sailing barge, there were different types of vessels needed to navigate the Thames, the shallow-drafted ones being rowboats used to ferry goods ashore from the larger vessels.

So I honestly do not know what we're arguing, MrBarnett. I just wanted to make a small comment about the possibilty of sailing upstream on a barge, since you wondered what the propulsion would be.
My argument is that it was entirely possible, the propulsion in the 1840s being primarily wind power.

From this, I see no reason to distrust the statement that the Nichols-family moved to London on a barge up the river Thames. The statement, as quoted, does not need to imply that the entire journey was made on the same barge.

But, as I said, I don't know the source and there can, of course, be other reasons to do so.

[MrBarnett]

I wonder if we need also be careful not to take some things too literally because we are no longer familiar with things that would have been commonplace back then.

I am thinking of things like how no matter where you go in England people always say they are going "up to London".

A friend lives on a narrow boat. She doesn't mind people referring to it as a canal boat, but is offended if one calls it a barge - even though technically it is all three of these things.

Or even how one might say "We went on holiday to California this year, we flew with British Airlines".... doesn't mean that ONLY a plane was involved. There is just no mention of the friend's car for the lift to the airport. the shuttle bus, the taxi and the hire car that were also involved in the overall journey.

Could this be similar? A general description of what happened, without all the specifics and including some vernacular?

But it was not recorded as a quote, it was stated as a fact in the Shelden book.

Your point about the holiday is spot on. What we have here is the equivalent of someone saying they went on holiday to California by taxi. And a taxi that flew through the air at that.

[MrBarnett]

I just chipped in to reply to this question originally, I don't know the source of the Nichols-info beyond what's quoted in this thread.

With respect, propulsion was wind power, or for smaller vessels rowing. The barges and ships were perfectly capable of sailing upstream, even when heavily laden, though the tide and currents would have made it more difficult - hence the need for pilots and crew specialized in that craft. And vessels, too - the sailing barges were shallow drafted, 3 feet as I recall, constructed to access docks and side rivers along the Thames.

Not knowing anything more about the source, I don't find any reason to distrust it. The route may seem illogical now, when looking at a map, but barring any conflicting statement, is there reason to disbelieve it?

This is a Thames sailing barge. Compare it to the image of the narrow boat above. They did not have sails or oars, or engines in the 1840s. Sailing barges would have plied the tidal Thames, narrow boats the canals such as the Grand Union that connected the West Midlands to London.

[Azarna]

I wonder if we need also be careful not to take some things too literally because we are no longer familiar with things that would have been commonplace back then.

I am thinking of things like how no matter where you go in England people always say they are going "up to London".

A friend lives on a narrow boat. She doesn't mind people referring to it as a canal boat, but is offended if one calls it a barge - even though technically it is all three of these things.

Or even how one might say "We went on holiday to California this year, we flew with British Airlines".... doesn't mean that ONLY a plane was involved. There is just no mention of the friend's car for the lift to the airport. the shuttle bus, the taxi and the hire car that were also involved in the overall journey.

Could this be similar? A general description of what happened, without all the specifics and including some vernacular?

[Kattrup]

I'm by no means an expert, but I don't think the shallow-drafted craft used on the canals would have been suited to the tidal Thames as it flowed through London. And the propulsion issue would have been the same in either direction.
.

I just chipped in to reply to this question originally, I don't know the source of the Nichols-info beyond what's quoted in this thread.

With respect, propulsion was wind power, or for smaller vessels rowing. The barges and ships were perfectly capable of sailing upstream, even when heavily laden, though the tide and currents would have made it more difficult - hence the need for pilots and crew specialized in that craft. And vessels, too - the sailing barges were shallow drafted, 3 feet as I recall, constructed to access docks and side rivers along the Thames.

Not knowing anything more about the source, I don't find any reason to distrust it. The route may seem illogical now, when looking at a map, but barring any conflicting statement, is there reason to disbelieve it?