Kellys in the Scots Guards

[Wickerman]

( I still can't understand why her giving a false name is less acceptable than her brother doing it.) Either way without the name or a definite idea of which parts of her background story are true,it becomes very difficult to research.

It isn't any less acceptable Debs, (less likely perhaps, for reasons already offered), but lets say we all conceed that Mary/Marie Jane/Jeanette Kelly is false.

Lets follow your lead, where do we go now?

Regards, Jon S.

[PaulB]

[QUOTE=Debra A;217464]Hi Paul. Oh, I know you weren't, but it's amazing what other people read into a post!
Yes, that's the important thing I wanted to get across. The story hadn't been missed, and no one had found a woman fitting the name and details in Wales... and it has all been well researched donkey's years ago.

It seems to be that she lied to Mrs Carthy though, too? Didn't Mary tell her that she had a two year old daughter, but not living with her?
So, although Flemming, Morgan(stone/stein/stern) might be all genuine people in her recent past, they may have been told the same sorts of lies about her deeper history? But they do seem to confirm the timeline of MJK's life in London, I agree.

Mary may have lied, and I'd be surprised if she didn't, but not necessarily to hide her identity. Stride lied about her husband and child dying aboard the Princess Alice, but she seems to have been pitching for the sympathy vote rather than masking her identity. Mary may have done the same with her tale about losing her new husband in a mine accident or about having a child, but overall her story roughly pans out (although obviously we'd love to know more about Mrs Carthy and Mrs Buki and I am counting on you and Rob and Chris Scot to come up with that!). Given the rest of the slight confirmatory detail, he father trying to find her, possible letters from her mother/brother in Ireland, and the brother coming to see her... I dunno, the balance seems to tip in favour of Kelly.

Yes, the Scots Guards is frustrating and I bet it is a damn site easier researching the files online! The fact that there's still no easily identifiable Kelly in the Scots Guards is telling, perhaps? Either he gave a false name as has been suggested, or Mary did? ( I still can't understand why her giving a false name is less acceptable than her brother doing it.) Either way without the name or a definite idea of which parts of her background story are true,it becomes very difficult to research.

I have a vague memory - and I will dig out my old files to check - that Scots Guards records weren't all there. But as I hesitate to even dip my toe in 'missing files' waters, I will check the files when I get home tonight.

[PaulB]

Dave.
Here we go with that 'believe' again, where do I say anything about belief?

The two of you need to talk to a copper (yes, you too Trevor) about the difference between not dismissing something but not believing it either.
All the stories stay on the table because, we cannot tell which one is true and which is false.

I'm really bemused why this is so difficult to understand.

Not half as much as I am.

Paul.
I thumbed through both your A-Z & Uncensored Facts last night, yes I'd forgotten you'd covered that little story.

Regards, Jon S.[/QUOTE]

Easily done. Intriguing little tale. An exciting lead at the time.

[lynn cates]

boarder

Hello Debs. Thanks. Yes, that's the one.

"But Morganstern/stein/stone are all acceptable variations of the same name I would think"

To be sure. Of course, I did have a slight problem with his age and his having a family. But then MJK may have been a boarder?

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

It isn't any less acceptable Debs, (less likely perhaps, for reasons already offered), but lets say we all conceed that Mary/Marie Jane/Jeanette Kelly is false.

Lets follow your lead, where do we go now?

Regards, Jon S.

Which is a similar question to an earlier post I made on a completely different thread that sparked this one off.
I said- If any bit of MJK's story is false what evidence are we willing to accept from researchers to prove they have found the right woman?
Will we accept anywhere in Ireland as a birthplace, will we accept a brother in the army rather than the specific regiment, will we accept her father's name was Fred and they never lived in Wales? How we will know if it's the right girl?

You say we should consider Mary hasn't been identified as all sources haven't been exhausted and that's true but should we also be willing to accept there were some lies told?...Even you agree with this to some degree but you prefer to think it was Henry who told the lie. So, your ideas aren't that much different? Slot in a lie and it becomes the reason we can't trace her/him.

[lynn cates]

suggestion

Hello Jon.

"where do we go now?"

Well, I would suggest we look at our list above and try hypotheses about it. Who knows what might turn up?

Besides, much more efficient that going to a directory and beginning with Aardvark, Ethel and proceeding to Zymurgy, Zenon.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

sweet music

Hello Mr. Begg.

"So, although Flemming, Morgan(stone/stein/stern) might be all genuine people in her recent past, they may have been told the same sorts of lies about her deeper history?"

Ah! Now you are humming my tune!

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

Don't get excited-that particular statement was mine, Lynn!

[lynn cates]

We build excitement.

Hello Debs. Hmm, a quote of a quote? Very well--I'm still excited!

Cheers.
LC

[PaulB]

Hello Mr. Begg.

"So, although Flemming, Morgan(stone/stein/stern) might be all genuine people in her recent past, they may have been told the same sorts of lies about her deeper history?"

Ah! Now you are humming my tune!

Cheers.
LC

Yep, that's what Debs said. And whilst it is perfectly possible that they were lied to, I'd recommend absolute and total caution before coming anywhere near suggesting that they were lied to. Assuming untruth is an awfully easy way of getting past things we don't like or find awkward, and, of course, folk can dismiss any verification of anything Mary said as them being lied to too, which gives one a clear playing field on which to build any edifice one likes. What I am actually suggesting is that one looks very carefully at Mary's story in its totality, all its various parts, to see whether it appears true or not.

[Wickerman]

Which is a similar question to an earlier post I made on a completely different thread that sparked this one off.
I said- If any bit of MJK's story is false what evidence are we willing to accept from researchers to prove they have found the right woman?

A minimalistic opinion might have asked, "if any bit of MJK's story is true", so perhaps you are a closet maximalist?
Ok, I'm only teasing you, but it does seem by the structure of your question that you also keep all the stories on the table just the same as I do.

Will we accept anywhere in Ireland as a birthplace, will we accept a brother in the army rather than the specific regiment, will we accept her father's name was Fred and they never lived in Wales? How we will know if it's the right girl?

We likely never will know, so in order to use the process of elimination we do need to keep all her stories, that is to say, not reject anything prematurely, because we cannot say what will turn up next.

You say we should consider Mary hasn't been identified as all sources haven't been exhausted and that's true but should we also be willing to accept there were some lies told?...Even you agree with this to some degree but you prefer to think it was Henry who told the lie.

I see no benefit to accepting the alternative, thats what I'm getting at.
You know yourself that to reject Kelly's identity is the same as throwing the baby out in the bathwater. We are left with nothing.

As much as we may doubt some of her stories they are all potential leads. So the path of least resistance is to set aside that which we cannot 'prove' (the brother/soldier story?) and proceed with some other aspect. But you know this, and I know you know this. Just because we cannot find the brother/soldier does not mean he did not exist (incomplete records, etc?).

So, your ideas aren't that much different? Slot in a lie and it becomes the reason we can't trace her/him.

Agreed, so where do these ideas come from that "I accept anything", and "believe everything"?
It simply is not true, and, as you say, our views are not so different.

What is a serious impediment for many who are interested is that there is no central folder or location on Casebook where we can all turn to, to see what has been researched and what has been uncovered.
No-one wants to waste time going over a well trodden path, but many might like to help as time & finances permit.

I'm pretty sure Cris posted a list of miners named Davis/Davies who died by accident, and a list of marriage licences(?) for Davis/Davies. Were these ever followed up?
I'm sure there's plenty to look for that has never been satisfactorily resolved, co-ordination is what is missing, don't you think?

All the best, Jon S.

[Debra A]

What is a serious impediment for many who are interested is that there is no central folder or location on Casebook where we can all turn to, to see what has been researched and what has been uncovered.
No-one wants to waste time going over a well trodden path, but many might like to help as time & finances permit.

I'm pretty sure Cris posted a list of miners named Davis/Davies who died by accident, and a list of marriage licences(?) for Davis/Davies. Were these ever followed up?
I'm sure there's plenty to look for that has never been satisfactorily resolved, co-ordination is what is missing, don't you think?

All the best, Jon S.

Co-ordinated research is a good thing. Dictated research is a bad thing.

[Debra A]

A minimalistic opinion might have asked, "if any bit of MJK's story is true", so perhaps you are a closet maximalist?

If that includes seeing nothing wrong with wanting to extend their own personal research to include other possibilities, like the idea that Johnto is a nickname used in conjunction with the surname John(s)ton, then, yes, I guess I am!

[Chris Scott]

I'm pretty sure Cris posted a list of miners named Davis/Davies who died by accident, and a list of marriage licences(?) for Davis/Davies. Were these ever followed up?
All the best, Jon S.

Hi Jon
You may be thinking of the following part of the Mary Kelly book I wrote:
So, we are looking for a Welsh mining disaster in 1881 or 1882 whose victims included a DAVIES or DAVIS. In fact 1881 was notable in the lack of fatalities for that year. In 1882 there were two incidents that resulted in fatalities:
On January 15th 1882, at Risca pit 4 died
On February 11th 1882, at Coedcae pit, 6 died.
On March 3rd 1882 at Henwaen Blaina, 5 died.
The death roll for the Coedcae incident on February 11th is:
George Warlow
Thomas Williams
Jacob Thomas
Howell James Lewis
Benjamin James
Joseph Rowlands
The Henwaen Blaina incident is described thus:
"On 3rd March 1882, five men were killed in a localised explosion. It was reported that their bodies had been blown a considerable distance."
A photograph exists of the workforce before this explosion
The death roll was:
William Bennet aged 26
? Hawkins aged 65
? Jones aged 42
John Jones aged 48
Thomas Miles aged 25
I have been unable to locate a list of the fatalities for the Risca incident of 15th January 1882.

There is one incident which occurred on December 10th 1880 and so impinges very closely on the possible time frame we are looking at. This disaster occurred at the Naval Steam Colliery, Penygraig and resulted in 96 deaths. From the death roll the following names and details are taken:
Evan Davies aged 49 from Coedymeibion, married with 4 children
Evan Davies, no details
John Davies, aged 42 from Penygraig, married with 2 children
John Davies, no details
John Davies, no details
William Davies from Ffwrdamos
William R Davies aged 23 from Penygraig
The deaths were registered in the January-March quarter of 1881 under the district of Pontypridd.
Evan Davies aged 49
Evan Davies aged 32
John Davies aged 42
John Davies, no details
William R Davies aged 23 (his middle name is Roderick)
William Davies, no details.
None of these victims of the name of Davies or Davis can be linked in legal marriage to a Mary Kelly.

With regard to a Kelly/Davi(e)s marriage, this was the end result in the book:
Mr. Davies or Davis is noticeable by his absence! In fact during this whole five year period (1877-1881) I have so far only found one record anywhere of a Mary Kelly marrying a man named Davis or Davies. This took place in Shoreditch in the first quarter of 1881 and involved a Mary Ann Kelly and a John Brook Davis. Fuller details of this marriage are given below.


The details were given as follows:-
The 1881 marriage is the wedding between Mary Ann Kelly and John Brook Davis registered in Shoreditch in the first quarter of that year. As this is the only marriage so far found between a Mary Kelly and a partner named Davis, it is important to follow this up and see if anything further can be found. There is only one census entry specifically under the named of John Brook Davis which occurs in the 1871 records. He is listed as a 19 year old unmarried boarder at 59 Township, Worcester and his occupation is listed as a chemist's assistant. Interestingly, he is listed as Welsh born, specifically as coming from Rhyl, Flintshire. He lodged with his employer, a chemist named Edwin Timms, aged 42. There is also another record of a marriage in Islington in 1883 between a John Brook Davis and either Eliza Faulkner or Charlotte King. However, it would appear that the Worcester, Welsh born John Davis is unrelated to the couple who married in Shoreditch in 1881. What I believe is their household record is listed in the 1881 census as follows:
Address: 33 Fanshaw Street, London
Head: John B Davis aged 23 born Shoreditch - Picture frame maker
Wife: Mary A Davis aged 18 born Bethnal Green - Boot machinist.

[Wickerman]

Very much appreciated Chris (sorry about the Cris).
Now as I dig a little deeper I noticed the old thread where you provide five extremely detailed posts on the subject.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=312

These may have been what I remembered.

Thanks again, Jon S.