Ripperologist 133: August 2013

[Cogidubnus]

That which you yourself referred to in post 123

All the best

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Cogidubnus,

To which 1889 administrative legislation are you referring?

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Simon

I'm suggesting, (no stronger), that he may have been...your admitted ignorance of the practical effects of the 1889 administrative legislation may well support this view

All the best

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Cogidubnus,

Are you suggesting that "Edward Stanley" was still serving with a Hampshire militia brigade despite being too old and also having lived most of the previous 12 years in a Spitalfields lodging house?

Regards,

Simon

[Roy Corduroy]

Simon, you already know that an Edward Stanley can't be found in the relevant military records existing, or that such a record does not exist, because you have a top notch researcher in the UK you work with. Can't recall her name right off the bat, but you have sung her praises before.

Roy

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Cogidubnus,

What are you trying to get at?

Hello Simon

I'm suggesting that as it is by no means firmly determined that there is a 100% certainty of militia members being transferred between units as a result of legislative alterations, then it is certainly not firmly established that, in practise, they'd be similarly transferred as a result of their subsequent removals

All the best

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Scott,

H-H would have been easily recognised by parliamentary lobby correspondents from the heavy-hitting dailies, but as a rule these guys didn't tend to hang around East London inquests.

In fact, it's a safe bet to say that if the 1888 UK Cabinet had been placed in a Spitalfields line-up, few if any of the locals would have been able to identify them.

Regards,

Simon

[Scott Nelson]

As there was no cinema newsreel, television or newspaper photography in 1888, why should anyone at the Chapman inquest have recognised Hughes-Hallett?

I suggested Wynne Baxter as a long-short. Anyone else, probably not. The only police officials who might recognize a Member of Parliment would be individuals like Charles Warren or Robert Anderson, neither of whom attended inquests.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Cogidubnus,

What are you trying to get at?

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Simon

It shouldn't be too hard to find out.

Ok...so as regards Stanley shouldn't you go do thou likewise?

All the best

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Cogidubnus,

I have absolutely no idea.

Maybe the regiment changed its name.

It shouldn't be too hard to find out.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Simon

In 1888 Lambeth was part of Surrey. Hence the Surrey regiment. Lambeth became part of the County of London in 1889.

So in 1889 were the Royal West Surrey volunteers immediately transferred to one of the County of London units? (If so, with what seniority?)...or did they remain with their original units?

All the best

Dave

[Simon Wood]

Hi Stephen,

As there was no cinema newsreel, television or newspaper photography in 1888, why should anyone at the Chapman inquest have recognised Hughes-Hallett?

Hi Cogidubnus,

In 1888 Lambeth was part of Surrey. Hence the Surrey regiment. Lambeth became part of the County of London in 1889.

Regards,

Simon

[Cogidubnus]

Hold on folks

According to the site:

http://www.victorianforts.co.uk/rga.htm

In 1888 Fort Elsom was manned by the 4th Volunteer Battalion Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment.

So what, you might say....

However, according to the site:

http://www.queensroyalsurreys.org.uk/militia_vol_territorial/mvt42_1.html

This particular unit was originally raised in...Lambeth...

So were County Boundaries really so strictly observed as has been suggested...and could Stanley have not moved from his original address and yet retained membership in his old unit?

All the best

Dave

[Phil H]

Personally, I had avoided discussion of those aspects of Simon's case.

Too easy to mock.

Phil