Oh, Dear Boss: Druitt's on a Sticky Wicket

[Abby Normal]

here in the states its breakfast, lunch and dinner, although growing up it was supper(not dinner) in my house.

what you brits really got wrong though was holiday for vacation. how did you screw that up lol?

[GUT]

My Grandparents called the midday meal "dinner" and the evening meal "tea". My suggestion that they should be called "lunch" and "dinner" fell on deaf ears.

Cheers, George

We had breakfast lunch and tea, funny the different name used isn’t it.

[GBinOz]

Never seen Los Trios Ringbarkus?

No, in the 1980's I was up to my a***e in alligators with my job, my mortgage and my kids.

[DJA]

Never seen Los Trios Ringbarkus?

[GBinOz]

Are you from Sydney?

I was raised in Sydney, in Woolooware. I moved to the far south coast of NSW some 30 years ago.

[DJA]

Are you from Sydney?

[GBinOz]

Was taught the afternoon/evening thing in junior school,5th form,back in the 1950s in Melbourne.

My Grandparents called the midday meal "dinner" and the evening meal "tea". My suggestion that they should be called "lunch" and "dinner" fell on deaf ears.

Cheers, George

[harry]

DJA.
So you had afternoon tea,evening dinner,and late night supper?.Gloucester England,junior school,1930's

[DJA]

Was taught the afternoon/evening thing in junior school,5th form,back in the 1950s in Melbourne.

[Wickerman]

...

It's the way language evolves, and if it cuts out any previous ambiguities along the way, so much the better. It can be tricky to go back and correctly interpret Victorian speak, but also fascinating.

Today, 'nearly' tends to mean 'almost', or 'not quite'. It has become a bit of an anachronism to use it to mean 'closely', so when a Victorian does so, it can sound ambiguous to our modern ears.

Glad you raised this issue, it's a particular interest of mine to explore how terminology has changed. Just recently I was explaining how, in the Victorian days 'afternoon' and 'evening' were interchangeable terms when used for later in the day. The meaning of any sentence can change when we discover that one particular word had a different meaning in those days.
The first time I came across this was with the word 'opposite', everyone took it to mean on the other side of the road, yet in the late Vic. period it also meant "in front of". Which changed the location of a person in the story, thereby changing the whole meaning of the sentence.
It is always useful to keep a Victorian Dictionary handy to help clarify the meaning of a word.

[caz]

As my parents and grandparents were all 'Victorian',by birth not state,I am nor confused.
'Can be recognised".now who said that?

Hi harry,

All four of my grandparents were born in the 1870s, so it's probably easier for you and me to translate Victorian speak.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I can't recall reading anywhere what the size of those stones were.
The body was found floating so they didn't seem to work, though it could always be argued that it was putrification that brought it to the surface. From what I've read though, in order to counter the instinct to survive, assuming he was conscious when he went in, the stones would need to be much heavier than his own body weight.
A body's natural tendency is to float, no matter what the weight.

Druitt was not particularly heavy built, maybe 150lb?
How many coats have pockets big enough to hold a mans body weight (150lb) in stones?
Assuming you could fill all your pocket with 150lb? of stones, wouldn't your instinct be to pull the coat off?

Doesn't this suggest that either Druitt was not conscious when he went in the water, or he was restrained under water somehow until he drowned?

Morning Jon,

Well I don't think there is any evidence that Druitt had been violently knocked unconscious or held under the water, so it would be conjecture.

On 28 March 1941, Virginia Woolf is said to have drowned herself by filling her overcoat pockets with stones and walking into the river near her home. Her body was not found until 18 April. I don't think anyone has ever suggested she was murdered because she would have come up again naturally unless she had been rendered unconscious or held under the water.

But I agree that if Druitt was fully conscious when he entered the water, he could have pulled his coat off or emptied his pockets and then swam to safety, if his limbs still worked in the cold water and the current was not too strong. That would tend to rule out murder, because the killer would have wanted to make sure he didn't survive. And of course, a killer could have knocked him out first and then used his body weight in stones to make sure he wouldn't float!

I take George's point about the suicide note written in the past tense, which does sound a bit iffy to anyone without suicidal tendencies. But you don't write a note like that and then leave it to be found, unless you feel in your own mind that it's already over and you won't be coming back.

I know the murder theory has been with us for decades, but doesn't it stray a bit too close to Maybrick territory?

The theory has Florence knowing Jim has some terrible secrets [far worse than her own one-off instance of adultery, to give him a taste of his own medicine] but says nothing at her trial for his murder for reasons that may include: a) protecting her children; b) protecting her husband's reputation after death; c) taking advice to protect herself from providing a motive to have bumped him off.

It's all conjecture, isn't it, without evidence that Florie Maybrick suspected her old man, or William Druitt suspected his brother, of being Jack the Ripper? Neither could have had any actual proof back in the 1880s, and any suspicions could have resulted from either man becoming delusional from drug use or mental illness.

Has there ever been a case where someone has murdered a husband, brother, father or son, because they suspected him of being an active serial killer?

Love,

Caz
X

[harry]

As my parents and grandparents were all 'Victorian',by birth not state,I am nor confused.
'Can be recognised".now who said that?

[caz]

Do you not think Caz,that she meant near relation?

Yes, that's exactly what she meant, harry.

As in, a 'close' relation, such as a brother, father or son.

If you remember, there's a prayer with the line:

'follow Thee more nearly'.

Today that would translate as: 'follow You [God] more closely'.

We talk about a suspect being 'closely' watched. If we said he was 'nearly' watched it would give a totally different impression!

Another such example would be referring to a 'closely' guarded secret. It wouldn't be a secret at all today if it was 'nearly' guarded!

It's the way language evolves, and if it cuts out any previous ambiguities along the way, so much the better. It can be tricky to go back and correctly interpret Victorian speak, but also fascinating.

Today, 'nearly' tends to mean 'almost', or 'not quite'. It has become a bit of an anachronism to use it to mean 'closely', so when a Victorian does so, it can sound ambiguous to our modern ears.

The same can be said of 'supposed'.

If in 1888 a Mister X was 'supposed' to have shot a Mister Y, it would almost certainly have meant this was 'presumed' to be the case.

Today, it can sound like the opposite: that Mister X had orders to shoot Mister Y but didn't carry them out!

Confused yet?

Love,

Caz
X

[GBinOz]

Doesn't this suggest that either Druitt was not conscious when he went in the water, or he was restrained under water somehow until he drowned?

Hi Jon,

The other alternative that comes to mind is that he jumped from the Chiswick Bridge and hit the water in a horizontal position rendering himself insensible for long enough for the stones to do their job. I don't think he could have achieved his objective by just wading into the river. Be that as it may, I agree with your suggestion that he was not conscious when he went in the water.

Cheers, George