Tweet
m_w_r
Police Constable Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14
An Alternative Annie Millwood - Ann[i]e [East] Perry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their recent The London of Jack the Ripper - Then and Now, Robert Clack and Philip Hutchinson present their reasons for believing Annie Millwood to have been, in fact, a Fanny Millwood.
They identify a Richard and Fanny Millwood living in St Pancras in the 1871 and 1881 censuses; and they explain that neither of these people can then be found in the 1891 census. This supports the known date of death of Annie Millwood, and her given status as a widow, recorded at the date of her admission to the Whitechapel Infirmary. They also identify a son of the above Richard and Fanny Millwood: George, born in 1880. (A scan of the BMD registers suggests that George may have been at least this couple's third child, two others - Richard Millwood [1874q3] and George Richard Millwood [1878q2] - having died in infancy in the years indicated.) Lastly, they observe that, if the census data can be trusted, and if they have identified the right woman, Fanny / Annie Millwood was actually 47 at the time of her attack, although she is recorded as 38 on admission to the Whitechapel Infirmary.
The surname "Millwood", however, offers us a variety of phonetic approximations and alternative spellings. We can hypothesise that Annie Millwood's surname was variably spelled; that this may be the cause of her general invisibility in the known historical record; and that she may therefore be detectable after all.
In the second quarter of 1872, in Chelsea, one Richard Milward married Annie East Perry. Neither of these people is consistently visible in the historical record, either, but here we have a scenario which fits our hypothesis. And there would seem to be some mileage in it. In the 1871 census, Annie East Perry seems to have been living at 10 St Peter's Road in Mile End Old Town. She was 17, and unmarried. The census notes that she was born in Islington. She may well be the same person (listed as Anne Perry) who was resident at 44 Bridge House Place at the time of the 1861 census (in which she is recorded as eight years old). Using these data, Ann[i]e would have been born in 1853 or 1854; and so she would have been 34 or 35 at the time of her attack, which is close-ish to her reported age in 1888.
Without knowing more about these Milwards, it is impossible to know whether the hypothesis truly stands up. I have not been able to trace the birth of the Ann[i]e [East] Perry to whom I have been referring - an Ann East Perry was born in St Giles in early 1844, and another in Greensted in Essex in January 1805, but neither of these women can really be thought to be identical with our younger Ann[i]e, and the latter, at least, would seem a very unlikely candidate to be getting married in Chelsea in 1872.
More research is obviously necessary - and I mean no disrespect to Clack / Hutchinson, whose book is really excellent. But I would be interested to hear contributors’ views about this alternative Annie...
Regards,
Mark Ripper
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by m_w_r : 12th December 2007 at 01:17 AM.
m_w_r
View Public Profile
Send a private message to m_w_r
Find all posts by m_w_r
12th December 2007, 01:58 AM
George Hutchinson
Superintendent Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Guildford, Surrey, England
Posts: 1,945
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mark. That piece of research was down to me. It is indeed a possibility; I can't disregard your idea as being untenable simply due to a different spelling of the surname as I am depending personally on a different first name AND date of birth whereas you have a different surname and date of birth. Obviously, I'm hoping my suggestion's the right one as I'd hate there to be any grating errors in the book (I've found a few small ones that are the result of typos or publisher errors, but nothing major) but I don't think either can be proven.
I do think, however, that the fact that Richard is not in the Census prior to 1871 might aid the idea of him having been a serving soldier at that time. Also, the fact that the son of Richard and Fanny was living in Hampshire (the county of Richard's origin) by 1891 although still a child suggests both parents had died fairly young before then. Both have disappeared from the 1891 Census and the son, Richard, is back in London as a young man.
There's no reason for either of our suggestions to be wrong. I just feel the one I discovered has a little more evidence (albeit circumstantial) to confirm what we have as received knowledge at present.
PHILIP
__________________
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
George Hutchinson
View Public Profile
Send a private message to George Hutchinson
Visit George Hutchinson's homepage!
Find all posts by George Hutchinson
12th December 2007, 12:52 PM
bobhinton
Chief Inspector Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kidwelly
Posts: 789
Census Returns
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware the Census, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
This of course is excellent advice for any researcher. The census is supposed to be an accurate record of people inhabiting these isles on a certain date, unfortunately they turn out to be a hodge podge of information that is literally at the whim and the wiles of the census taker.
For example you will search the 1881 in vain for George Hutchinson born 1859 in Shadwell. However stick in ‘Geo’ Hutchinson and up he comes. A slight misspelling of the person’s name can throw you completely out.
The appearance or otherwise of a certain person in a certain census is not a strong indication of their existence. They might simply be away from their normal abode; they might have gone abroad for a myriad of reasons. Sometimes people who you know without a shadow of a doubt should appear just don’t.
One person I wrote about was a certain Thomas Henry Sweetman who committed a murder in 1900 aged 16. He was alive in 1901 without a doubt but simply does not appear anywhere.
If anyone finds him I would be most grateful. (Thinking back I believe Abberline doesn’t appear in the 1881 either)
__________________
Bob Hinton
bobhinton
View Public Profile
Send a private message to bobhinton
Visit bobhinton's homepage!
Find all posts by bobhinton
12th December 2007, 04:26 PM
Just peachy
Inspector Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 208
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mark
May I just ask a couple of quick questions regarding the interesting information you have provided above? Just to get it clear in my own head.
1. Regarding the 1872 Chelsea marriage between Annie East Perry and Richard millward. Is there any reason why Annie East Perry concerned in that marriage couldn't also be the Ann East Perry b 1844 in Bloomsbury? (knocking on a bit granted, but not exactly over the hill for a marriage)
2.Does the actual entry for St Peter Road in 1871 give the name as Annie East Perry? I have looked at it and there is an E with a bit of a squiggle above it, but I can't make it out properly but can't see it as East either.
3.Could the Annie E Perry b Islington on the 1871 St Peter Road entry (if it doesn't say East of course) be Ann Eliza Perry registered June qtr 1853 in Islington?
Thanks
Debs
Just peachy
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Just peachy
Find all posts by Just peachy
12th December 2007, 05:05 PM
suzi
Chief Superintendent Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickham
Posts: 3,149
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Bob-just as a by the by......
As to Abberline I still find it almost beyond belief that there's no recognised photograph of our Fred in existance..it IS odd isn't it when it seems that every copper around at the time, no matter how lowly, seems to be in a photograph and credited somewhere.
Perhaps Fred himself is disappearing into mythology
Suz x
__________________
'
"Time spent with a cat is never wasted"
-Sigmund Freud
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by suzi : 12th December 2007 at 05:12 PM.
suzi
View Public Profile
Send a private message to suzi
Find all posts by suzi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police Constable Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 14
An Alternative Annie Millwood - Ann[i]e [East] Perry
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In their recent The London of Jack the Ripper - Then and Now, Robert Clack and Philip Hutchinson present their reasons for believing Annie Millwood to have been, in fact, a Fanny Millwood.
They identify a Richard and Fanny Millwood living in St Pancras in the 1871 and 1881 censuses; and they explain that neither of these people can then be found in the 1891 census. This supports the known date of death of Annie Millwood, and her given status as a widow, recorded at the date of her admission to the Whitechapel Infirmary. They also identify a son of the above Richard and Fanny Millwood: George, born in 1880. (A scan of the BMD registers suggests that George may have been at least this couple's third child, two others - Richard Millwood [1874q3] and George Richard Millwood [1878q2] - having died in infancy in the years indicated.) Lastly, they observe that, if the census data can be trusted, and if they have identified the right woman, Fanny / Annie Millwood was actually 47 at the time of her attack, although she is recorded as 38 on admission to the Whitechapel Infirmary.
The surname "Millwood", however, offers us a variety of phonetic approximations and alternative spellings. We can hypothesise that Annie Millwood's surname was variably spelled; that this may be the cause of her general invisibility in the known historical record; and that she may therefore be detectable after all.
In the second quarter of 1872, in Chelsea, one Richard Milward married Annie East Perry. Neither of these people is consistently visible in the historical record, either, but here we have a scenario which fits our hypothesis. And there would seem to be some mileage in it. In the 1871 census, Annie East Perry seems to have been living at 10 St Peter's Road in Mile End Old Town. She was 17, and unmarried. The census notes that she was born in Islington. She may well be the same person (listed as Anne Perry) who was resident at 44 Bridge House Place at the time of the 1861 census (in which she is recorded as eight years old). Using these data, Ann[i]e would have been born in 1853 or 1854; and so she would have been 34 or 35 at the time of her attack, which is close-ish to her reported age in 1888.
Without knowing more about these Milwards, it is impossible to know whether the hypothesis truly stands up. I have not been able to trace the birth of the Ann[i]e [East] Perry to whom I have been referring - an Ann East Perry was born in St Giles in early 1844, and another in Greensted in Essex in January 1805, but neither of these women can really be thought to be identical with our younger Ann[i]e, and the latter, at least, would seem a very unlikely candidate to be getting married in Chelsea in 1872.
More research is obviously necessary - and I mean no disrespect to Clack / Hutchinson, whose book is really excellent. But I would be interested to hear contributors’ views about this alternative Annie...
Regards,
Mark Ripper
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by m_w_r : 12th December 2007 at 01:17 AM.
m_w_r
View Public Profile
Send a private message to m_w_r
Find all posts by m_w_r
12th December 2007, 01:58 AM
George Hutchinson
Superintendent Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Guildford, Surrey, England
Posts: 1,945
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mark. That piece of research was down to me. It is indeed a possibility; I can't disregard your idea as being untenable simply due to a different spelling of the surname as I am depending personally on a different first name AND date of birth whereas you have a different surname and date of birth. Obviously, I'm hoping my suggestion's the right one as I'd hate there to be any grating errors in the book (I've found a few small ones that are the result of typos or publisher errors, but nothing major) but I don't think either can be proven.
I do think, however, that the fact that Richard is not in the Census prior to 1871 might aid the idea of him having been a serving soldier at that time. Also, the fact that the son of Richard and Fanny was living in Hampshire (the county of Richard's origin) by 1891 although still a child suggests both parents had died fairly young before then. Both have disappeared from the 1891 Census and the son, Richard, is back in London as a young man.
There's no reason for either of our suggestions to be wrong. I just feel the one I discovered has a little more evidence (albeit circumstantial) to confirm what we have as received knowledge at present.
PHILIP
__________________
Tour guides do it loudly in front of a crowd!
George Hutchinson
View Public Profile
Send a private message to George Hutchinson
Visit George Hutchinson's homepage!
Find all posts by George Hutchinson
12th December 2007, 12:52 PM
bobhinton
Chief Inspector Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kidwelly
Posts: 789
Census Returns
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware the Census, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"
This of course is excellent advice for any researcher. The census is supposed to be an accurate record of people inhabiting these isles on a certain date, unfortunately they turn out to be a hodge podge of information that is literally at the whim and the wiles of the census taker.
For example you will search the 1881 in vain for George Hutchinson born 1859 in Shadwell. However stick in ‘Geo’ Hutchinson and up he comes. A slight misspelling of the person’s name can throw you completely out.
The appearance or otherwise of a certain person in a certain census is not a strong indication of their existence. They might simply be away from their normal abode; they might have gone abroad for a myriad of reasons. Sometimes people who you know without a shadow of a doubt should appear just don’t.
One person I wrote about was a certain Thomas Henry Sweetman who committed a murder in 1900 aged 16. He was alive in 1901 without a doubt but simply does not appear anywhere.
If anyone finds him I would be most grateful. (Thinking back I believe Abberline doesn’t appear in the 1881 either)
__________________
Bob Hinton
bobhinton
View Public Profile
Send a private message to bobhinton
Visit bobhinton's homepage!
Find all posts by bobhinton
12th December 2007, 04:26 PM
Just peachy
Inspector Casebook Supporter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 208
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mark
May I just ask a couple of quick questions regarding the interesting information you have provided above? Just to get it clear in my own head.
1. Regarding the 1872 Chelsea marriage between Annie East Perry and Richard millward. Is there any reason why Annie East Perry concerned in that marriage couldn't also be the Ann East Perry b 1844 in Bloomsbury? (knocking on a bit granted, but not exactly over the hill for a marriage)
2.Does the actual entry for St Peter Road in 1871 give the name as Annie East Perry? I have looked at it and there is an E with a bit of a squiggle above it, but I can't make it out properly but can't see it as East either.
3.Could the Annie E Perry b Islington on the 1871 St Peter Road entry (if it doesn't say East of course) be Ann Eliza Perry registered June qtr 1853 in Islington?
Thanks
Debs
Just peachy
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Just peachy
Find all posts by Just peachy
12th December 2007, 05:05 PM
suzi
Chief Superintendent Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wickham
Posts: 3,149
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Bob-just as a by the by......
As to Abberline I still find it almost beyond belief that there's no recognised photograph of our Fred in existance..it IS odd isn't it when it seems that every copper around at the time, no matter how lowly, seems to be in a photograph and credited somewhere.
Perhaps Fred himself is disappearing into mythology
Suz x
__________________
'
"Time spent with a cat is never wasted"
-Sigmund Freud
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by suzi : 12th December 2007 at 05:12 PM.
suzi
View Public Profile
Send a private message to suzi
Find all posts by suzi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sink the Bismark
Comment