RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => London & Middlesex Lookup Requests => London and Middlesex => England => London & Middlesex Completed Lookup Requests => Topic started by: kenith on Friday 24 August 07 20:57 BST (UK)
-
Are there records that show people that died due to drowning in the thames, e.g river police? My man supposedly died in the late 1800s and short of checking all the London newspapers from that time I do not know what to look at------- any ideas?
-
Is his name very common and you are having difficulty locating his death certificate, otherwise the certificate itself will give you his cause of death, the place and the date. If he drowned in the Thames his death would be subject to an inquest which might have been reported in a local London newspaper - local to where he drowned.
Regards
Valda
-
Do you know if the drowning was above or below Teddington Lock?
-
Is his name very common and you are having difficulty locating his death certificate, otherwise the certificate itself will give you his cause of death, the place and the date. If he drowned in the Thames his death would be subject to an inquest which might have been reported in a local London newspaper - local to where he drowned.
Regards
Valda
it would probably only be reported if it was something spectacular, and few records remain of inquests. There is at least one corpse a week recovered from the Thames today, and its nothing new. The St Georges canal alone had at least one drowning per week in the 1880s-if you can find a record, you will be lucky
-
I am looking for someone named Mary who apparently drowned accidentally in the Thames holidaying with her husband. This would be some time after 1892, I think. What other sources may there be besides newspapers of the time and what's the best database of British newspapers?
-
This thread is from 2007, maybe you should consider starting a new thread asking for help for information about Mary, or ask a moderator to do this?
How do you know she drowned in the Thames, is it from the death certificate? Although you don't seem to have the actual date? Perhaps looking for her death might be a first start.
Newspapers would be a good place for more detail, there are a few subscription sites eg british newspaper achive (BNA), findmypast, newpapers.com. I use my Australian National Library card to access Gale Primary Sources which includes British Library Newspapers free from home - other libraries around the globe have similar access.
What is her name? Happy to do a look up in papers I have access to.
-
Ah, wonderful. Thanks for your response. I don't think restarting a thread is necessary. Was just hoping for someone who had combed through these drowning instances previously.
Yes I was on to BNA, and have looked at some potential articles I can see for free but nothing matches yet. Is there a global library edition of BNA like Ancestry for public libraries you can access for free as a member, or is it only available for users in Britain?
Her name was originally Mary Hodgman Tyree, b 1872 Queenstown, New Zealand. She was known as Polly Tyree. Although we have zero evidence her name was Mary Ann, as we know 'Polly' was a standard replacement for that.
I have worked with other relatives in the past to try find what happened to her. None of us have been able to crack it with all our combined research work and experience, She's a real mystery case who last appears in family portraits taken 1892. Then she completely vanishes.
I have now been working with a younger descendant who has been responsible for sorting through a recently departed grandmother's possessions including her old family history research and has become interested in his ancestry. He is now also fascinated by the mystery or what happened to Mary and why she cannot be found.
Although we have actually uncovered a little more new information such as school records and pinpointed the date to being 1893 she was probably last living with her family, we have made no real headway in months.
Until today, when he found a hand drawn part of a tree with Mary in it, from another relative, with a note on her name saying she drowned in the Thames with her husband on a visit to London. So we know that she likely married and her name changed, a foregone conclusion since she effectively 'disappeared'. This still doesn't help to find a marriage record which just doesn't seem to exist in NZ, most AU states, or UK.
This should give us more to work with but it doesn't as we have never found a single further piece of information on her and this new info doesn't yet connect with anything obvious.
This was a previous thread some time ago here, in which we made no real headway but it gives you the background:
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=888912.0
-
Have you looked at ship passenger lists of her coming to England. You would get her and husbands name.
-
Have you any idea of her date of birth?
If it came to searching through Mary Ann's deaths in 1893 an age would help, do you also mean her husband drowned as well?
Also you would have to consider that her identity was not known and her death could be recorded as unknown woman.
-
Have you considered that she may have died in Thames, New Zealand?
Rather than London, England.
-
Have you looked at ship passenger lists of her coming to England. You would get her and husbands name.
I wasn't perhaps entirely clear. We don't know what her married name was and who her husband was.
As above
Mary Hodgman Tyree b 1872 Queenstown NZ
Has a birth record
Known as Polly which was diminutive of Mary or Mary Ann
Last known whereabouts Nelson, South Island, NZ in 1892
She had portraits taken at Tyree Studios by her brothers at this time
Married unknown man no record ever found
Traveled to London from origin unknown
Drowned with him in some kind of accident
Occurred in the Thames River
It would have happened after 1892, speculating in the 1890s
She is never mentioned again even in wills and probates
Which now brings me to this speculation. If Polly was never mentioned in wills and probates, and her mother died 1895 and her father 1899, it means she was deceased by then. So it is likely the accident happened between 1893 and 1894. Traveling overseas (if it wasn't a domestic trip) was often reserved for newly-wed couples.
-
I have considered that.
This morning I went through hundreds of mentions resulting from searches for Mary and/or Polly and/or Tyree and/or drown and/or Thames.
I went through both historical papers in NZ AND Australia
I found no mention. They were a notable family in both countries but regardless I feel one or the other country if not both would have reported on a 'tragedy' of newly-weds dying on a holiday regardless of where, when and why it happened.
However the note on the family tree specifically says visit to London
And intones both died in whatever the incident was.
Have you considered that she may have died in Thames, New Zealand?
Rather than London, England.
-
Apparently there is a database specifically of deaths in the Thames but it is not available online and one must visit in person to look at it.
-
However the note on the family tree specifically says visit to London
And intones both died in whatever the incident was.
Is this from a family story, rather than documentary evidence?
We had a family story that we had French blood. Nearest I found is a birth in Jersey, Channel Islands!
And that's in my tree which goes back to 1550! :D
-
Have you any idea of her date of birth?
As above 1872, 18 Jan 1872
If it came to searching through Mary Ann's deaths in 1893 an age would help, do you also mean her husband drowned as well?
It is inferred that her husband did not live through the incident by 'died with husband on visit to London.'
Also you would have to consider that her identity was not known and her death could be recorded as unknown woman.
It's possible but if the family knew about it she wasn't 'unknown.' Also if a man and woman died together or it was multiple victim incidents rather than singular it would narrow it down quite a lot.
I am pretty sure it can be avoided and if possible would be preferable to avoid going through Mary and/or Ann in any record since Mary and Anne/Anne are literally the two most common women's names historically. I have already done this with 20 years of electoral roll records in NZ to narrow it down to 6-10 potentials and that was tens of thousands. Would not recommend it.
-
Apparently there is a database specifically of deaths in the Thames but it is not available online and one must visit in person to look at it.
Where is it held :-\
-
The Great Storm In November, 1893:
https://lifeboatmagazinearchive.rnli.org/volume/15/171/the-great-storm-in-november-1893?searchterm=Yacht+Gan&page=1000
Tony
-
If and I think it is a big if they both drowned together how did the family find out about it?
Remember they wouldn't have had an address in London but would have been staying in an hotel and my guess is that way back then people wouldn't return to their hotel, the management would give them a couple of days then they would pack up any belongings store them and relet the room, I can't see the hotel writing to any address they found in New Zealand.
-
Gee I don't know, MAYBE THERE WERE WITNESSES TO THE DROWNING.
"but even if they witnessed each other's deaths then they were both dead so they couldn't be witnesses to it..."
Sometimes I just can't.
-
See this makes more sense to me than quibbling how on earth two people could drown in an accident and be noticed by anyone. I can envisage how a family story could morph. I've seen it happen many a time in my own family history and others. It may not be accurate, and it may take some time to work out exactly what transpired, but there is usually some basis of truth in it. People don't just invent fanciful stories out of boredom.
The Great Storm In November, 1893:
https://lifeboatmagazinearchive.rnli.org/volume/15/171/the-great-storm-in-november-1893?searchterm=Yacht+Gan&page=1000
Tony
-
The problem back in the 1890s is that people didn't walk round with a pocket full of ID documents like they do today. No Drivers Licence, no bank card easily no passport, people travelled the world without passports.
OK A local found drowned could be identified, someone would come forward with a description and they would identify the body.
Two people from thousands of miles away, no ID they would not be identified and no one to notify family.
I think if it had happened and family had been informed there would be something in local NZ newspapers.
I think someone somewhere drowned in N Z and a story became garbled. Could be something like ' that river is as big as the River Thames in London'
What happened to Polly? My guess she left for some reason and reinvented herself somewhere else.
Maybe DNA results could throw up an unknown line who were descended from her.
-
Which now brings me to this speculation. If Polly was never mentioned in wills and probates, and her mother died 1895 and her father 1899, it means she was deceased by then. So it is likely the accident happened between 1893 and 1894. Traveling overseas (if it wasn't a domestic trip) was often reserved for newly-wed couples.
When were these wills dated
-
Were her parents In NZ or did the come back to England?
-
The best and most efficient way forward, was from the beginning and still is, news articles of the time reporting on the matter.
You're probably trying to be helpful (?) but you basically discounted information as an implausible story on no basis of evidence except wild theorizing.
Then you double down on this making it into an even more fanciful scenario also based on nothing but speculation of how it may have played out which is even more likely to have not happened. She ran away and carried her life on under a new identity? Please just stop.
This is not actually helpful. This is not entries for a fan fiction competition. I am looking for facts based on some scant information which I believe like most family stories may well not be entirely accurate but is actually likely based in truth.
The problem back in the 1890s is that people didn't walk round with a pocket full of ID documents like they do today. No Drivers Licence, no bank card easily no passport, people travelled the world without passports.
OK A local found drowned could be identified, someone would come forward with a description and they would identify the body.
Two people from thousands of miles away, no ID they would not be identified and no one to notify family.
I think if it had happened and family had been informed there would be something in local NZ newspapers.
I think someone somewhere drowned in N Z and a story became garbled. Could be something like ' that river is as big as the River Thames in London'
What happened to Polly? My guess she left for some reason and reinvented herself somewhere else.
Maybe DNA results could throw up an unknown line who were descended from her.
-
But, you have no proof of marriage?
You have no proof of travel?
You have no proof of death?
Also, you don't answer questions put to you.
Were her parents In NZ or did the come back to England?
When were these wills dated
Apparently there is a database specifically of deaths in the Thames but it is not available online and one must visit in person to look at it.
Where is it held :-\
-
Just to confirm something here if you will.
In your previous thread which you have linked here as https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=888912.0
In Reply #13 there is a question from Lucy2 asking about the death certificates (or printouts) of "Polly's" parents, specifically the section issue living and dead.
Reading your response to that query (reply #19) does not make clear whether or not you hold them.
Sue
-
https://digupyourancestors.com/2020/04/04/a-person-unknown-drowned-in-the-thames/
This makes interesting reading. I found it whilst looking for a couple of my ancestors who committed "suicide" in the Thames.
-
https://digupyourancestors.com/2020/04/04/a-person-unknown-drowned-in-the-thames/
This makes interesting reading. I found it whilst looking for a couple of my ancestors who committed "suicide" in the Thames.
Interesting but that covered the 17 hundreds we are talking about the 1890s here.
As far as I can see the OP has absolutely no evidence of anything connected with their story.
Saying there must be something in the family story is not always true.
My family story is our connection to the Jennings millions (( google it ) .
Doing my family research I found the man who brought the Jennings name into the family wasn't born with that surname, he was illegitimate and his mother later married a Mr Jennings whose surname he took. I have no DNA I can trace to Mr Jennings so the line is extremely tenuous to say the least.
-
Have you looked at ship passenger lists of her coming to England. You would get her and husbands name.
I wasn't perhaps entirely clear. We don't know what her married name was and who her husband was.
As above
Mary Hodgman Tyree b 1872 Queenstown NZ
Has a birth record
Known as Polly which was diminutive of Mary or Mary Ann
Last known whereabouts Nelson, South Island, NZ in 1892
She had portraits taken at Tyree Studios by her brothers at this time
Married unknown man no record ever found
Traveled to London from origin unknown
Drowned with him in some kind of accident
Occurred in the Thames River
It would have happened after 1892, speculating in the 1890s
She is never mentioned again even in wills and probates
Which now brings me to this speculation. If Polly was never mentioned in wills and probates, and her mother died 1895 and her father 1899, it means she was deceased by then. So it is likely the accident happened between 1893 and 1894. Traveling overseas (if it wasn't a domestic trip) was often reserved for newly-wed couples.
Did you mean to say her mother died in 1885 and her father 1889?
-
There is no evidence to link this with Polly apart from circumstantial details, it's more in the spirit of illustrating the problems highlighted by others.
Incidentally, a question for the experts: how would this death have been registered, if at all?
23 August 1894: London Evening Standard
A THAMES MYSTERY.
Mr. A. Braxton Hicks held an inquiry to-day at Batterses relative to the death of a female found in the River Thames entangled in the paddle-wheel of the steamboat Shamrock, lying at the Victoria Steamboats Dockyard. Church-road. Battersea.— Police-constable Day, 259 V, deposed that the deceased was wearing very little clothing when found. She was about 20 years of age, and 5 ft. 3 in. in length, her complexion was fresh, and her hair dark brown. She had on an old blue serge bodice, and one button boot on the right foot. —Dr. P. Kempster, who had made a post-mortem examination, said that death was due to asphyxia from drowning. Deceased, who had been in the water about ten days, had an old scar over the bridge of the nose. —The Jury returned an open verdict of Found Drowned.
-
Could this have belonged to Mary Hodgman?
Correct me if I'm wrong, it looks like her parents lived at "Forth Place, George Street North" their entire lives in NZ? From 1874 Tyree Bros (boots and shoes manufacturers) ads until their death in 1885 (Ann Catherine) and 1889 (William)?
Page 3 Advertisements Column 5
Evening Star, Issue 10882, 16 March 1899, Page 3
FOUND
Initials M.H., Forth place, Gold Brooch. Apply William Andrew, St. David street.
On second thought, it seems Wiliam's brother James was selling the premises soon after his death.
TO LET, the Premises in Forth place and George street, recently occupied hy Mr Jas. Tyrie. Specially suitable for Cab Proprietor. Four Cottages, Stable, Paved Yard, and Vacant Section; will be let cheap to respectable tenant. Edmund Smith, Savings Bank.
Advertisements Column 4
Evening Star, Issue 8041, 18 October 1889, Page 3
-
There is no evidence to link this with Polly apart from circumstantial details, it's more in the spirit of illustrating the problems highlighted by others.
Incidentally, a question for the experts: how would this death have been registered, if at all?
23 August 1894: London Evening Standard
A THAMES MYSTERY.
Mr. A. Braxton Hicks held an inquiry to-day at Batterses relative to the death of a female found in the River Thames entangled in the paddle-wheel of the steamboat Shamrock, lying at the Victoria Steamboats Dockyard. Church-road. Battersea.— Police-constable Day, 259 V, deposed that the deceased was wearing very little clothing when found. She was about 20 years of age, and 5 ft. 3 in. in length, her complexion was fresh, and her hair dark brown. She had on an old blue serge bodice, and one button boot on the right foot. —Dr. P. Kempster, who had made a post-mortem examination, said that death was due to asphyxia from drowning. Deceased, who had been in the water about ten days, had an old scar over the bridge of the nose. —The Jury returned an open verdict of Found Drowned.
Deaths Sep 1894 (>99%)
Unknown Female 20-25 Wandsworth 1d 316
-
Thanks PatLac!
-
FOUND
Initials M.H., Forth place, Gold Brooch. Apply William Andrew, St. David street
Just because the brooch was found in 1899 doesn't mean it was lost in 1899, it could have been lost many years earlier.
-
FOUND
Initials M.H., Forth place, Gold Brooch. Apply William Andrew, St. David street
Just because the brooch was found in 1899 doesn't mean it was lost in 1899, it could have been lost many years earlier.
True! I was wondering if this is the brooch.
LOST, Saturday, between Forth place and High street, front Gold Brooch, engraved ; reward. Mr. Jones, photographer.
Page 3 Advertisements Column 3
Evening Star, Issue 10122, 28 September 1896, Page 3
-
Following from the other thread https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=888912.0
Darian says Katherine "Kate" was born in 1871 in Marylebone, but I think this is her birth record? And her actual name was Kate?
TYREE, KATE BAKER
GRO Reference: 1870 J Quarter in EDMONTON Volume 03A Page 160
-
I wonder if Polly could be one of the three Misses Tyree sailing from Sydney to Vancouver via Fiji and Honolulu on 18 March 1895?
I think Mrs. Hughes and child could be Emily Sarah Cherry who married Polly's cousin William Alfred Tyree in 1876 (daughters Misses Emily Mary Louise "Polly" b. 1877, and Pauline Rose Tyree b. 1880) and after his death (1886) married Thomas Hughes in 1892 (daughter Emily Florence b. in NSW in 1893, son Charles Melton b. in Fiji in 1895, daughter May b. 189?, daughter Dorothy b. in NSW in 1902)?
Polly was 13 when her mother Ann Catherine died and 17 when her father William died, so it's likely that she lived with other relatives. If she is the 3rd Miss Tyree, maybe she married abroad?
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/235989862?searchTerm=%22miss%20tyree%22%20%22new%20zealand%22#
https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/G99C-72G
-
Patlac, Well found :)
That would make sense, it is certainly something else we need to be looking at
-
I haven't been able to find May's birth certificate. Her wedding record:
14849/1929 HILL DOUGLAS R HUGHES MAY J SYDNEY
I wonder if she was also born in Fiji, and maybe Polly remained there or went to Canada?
On the other hand, maybe this wasn't Polly, I can see that her namesake who married Rev. Horace Eustace SEXTON went to Canada. ::)
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/209262288/mary-hodgeman-sexton
She was born in Victoria so maybe NSW, Fiji, Honolulu and Canada are places to look for Polly. ;D
-
Kentish Independent 4th May 1901
A Woolwich Mystery
The bodies of a Man and a Woman were found in the Thames last week, and at the inquest a verdict of "Found Drowned' was returned. On Saturday the deceased man was identified as Arthur E Grant, a Steward formerly employed on the P&O Liner Moravian. He and a young woman from Australia, whose name was Mary Tyrel, had been living together at the house of Mrs Harden, 28 Westdale Road, Plumstead and the woman was expecting to become a mother
ADDED
They are not at 28 Westdale Road on the 1901 census
-
Kentish Independent 4th May 1901
A Woolwich Mystery
The bodies of a Man and a Woman were found in the Thames last week, and at the inquest a verdict of "Found Drowned' was returned. On Saturday the deceased man was identified as Arthur E Grant, a Steward formerly employed on the P&O Liner Moravian. He and a young woman from Australia, whose name was Mary Tyree, had been living together at the house of Mrs Harden, 28 Westdale Road, Plumstead and the woman was expecting to become a mother
BRILLIANT! (although very sad)
-
I could not believe it when it popped up ;D
-
I could not believe it when it popped up ;D
I know the feeling ;D 🥳
-
Deaths Jun 1901 (>99%)
Grant Arthur 21 Woolwich 1d 657
No death record for Mary.
-
Kentish Mail & Greenwich and Deptford Observer - May 3rd 1901 had this added
They left the house on Monday April 22nd, and after leaving the woman came back and threw her arms around Mrs Harden's neck and kissed her saying I regret that I have given you trouble you are a good woman. On the following day their bodies were found in the river. It has been stated they had become reduced almost to a state of destitution
Also in Lloyds Weekly Newspaper 28th April
-
So sad :'(
-
It certainly is sad. I wonder why her death isn't registered.
-
Yes, if it had been registered this mystery wouldn't exist at all!
-
What about this death
Female
Age 24
Estimated Birth Year abt 1877
Registration Quarter Apr-May-Jun
Death Registration Place Woolwich, London, United Kingdom
Death Date Jun 1901
Inferred Death Place London, United Kingdom
Volume 1d
Page 658
-
That's it, well done!
-
PatLac, That is very true.
jaywit, Thank you that looks perfect ;D
There is a notice in the Leeds Mercury 29th December 1900 under Shipping Notices about the Moravian sailing out to Australia. I wonder if they had both been on it when it had come to England
-
Would there be a passenger list?
It's odd that the newspapers had her name and place of birth (although she was born in NZ) in April and her death was registered in June without a name.
-
From Deceased online
Arthur Grant
Burial date 30 April 1901
Location Greenwich
ADDED GRO have Mary's listed as
UNKNOWN, - 24
GRO Reference: 1901 J Quarter in WOOLWICH Volume 01D Page 658
It is available as a Certificate or PDF but not digital
-
Well done, rosie! I hope Darian is following this thread, or maybe one of us should send him a PM?
-
Would Mary be listed in the 1901 England Census?
-
I can't see her at the moment, she was not at the address on the newspaper report.
Ancestry has incoming to UK passenger lists for the Moravian :-\
-
Kentish Independent 4th May 1901
A Woolwich Mystery
The bodies of a Man and a Woman were found in the Thames last week, and at the inquest a verdict of "Found Drowned' was returned. On Saturday the deceased man was identified as Arthur E Grant, a Steward formerly employed on the P&O Liner Moravian. He and a young woman from Australia, whose name was Mary Tyree, had been living together at the house of Mrs Harden, 28 Westdale Road, Plumstead and the woman was expecting to become a mother
ADDED
They are not at 28 Westdale Road on the 1901 census
Oh WOW!!!!Rosie..Well done :o
-
The Surrey Times 4th May 1901 has a lengthy article on Arthur Grant - He lived in Weybridge, Surrey with his parents. He had apparently been living in Woolwich fro about 10 weeks prior to drowning, his father suggested that he had lost his life trying to save the woman who was with him
Thank you Hepburn, it was pure luck. Strange how things happen like that sometimes :)
-
Well done Rosie, I’m feeling quite jealous.
-
Her relatives did know something about her drowning then!
-
;D
I think that we have all been working hard at this. As ever it is down to everyones input, we still need to know when she arrived in England and where from.
I am glad that at least this part of the mystery has been solved. Where was she buried
-
The obit for Arthur mentions he returned to England on January 5th. He was due to be buried but his uncle saw something in the paper and contacted Arthurs father and they identified him before that burial. His funeral was then postponed to the following week.
Where are they on the 1901 census
-
The 1901 census was taken on 31st March, if they were short of money they could have been sleeping anywhere.
-
I don't have a subscription to BNA or FindMyPast. Have you checked if this has more info?
THE KENTISH INDEPENDENT
... A WOOLWICH MYSTERY —The bodies of a man and woman were found in the Thames at Woolwich last week, and the inquest of found drowned was returned, Os Saturday the deceased man was identified as Arthur E. Grant ...
Published: Saturday 04 May 1901
Newspaper: Kentish Independent
County: London, England
-
Isn’t this Rosie’s initial find?
-
Isn’t this Rosie’s initial find?
Oops sorry ;D
-
Well, Congratulations to Rosie and PatLac in particular and to all who have worked on this.
Another true Rootschat success story!
Poor girl, expecting a baby and nowhere to turn. Tragic.
Sue
-
Excellent result! I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to do a newspaper search before Rosie's great find. :D
Is there a global library edition of BNA like Ancestry for public libraries you can access for free as a member, or is it only available for users in Britain?
In answer to this early question from Darian, I'm not sure about a library edition of BNA, it might depend on the particular library and whether they are happy to subscribe. I know my local library has both Ancestry and findmypast available for members to use on site.
-
This has been posted on their other post.
Wow. I think this must be it! I don't think there were any other Mary Tyrees in Australasia that qualify. The others were as stated cousins or other relatives - and another Mary Tyree in Australia who was a later generation is ruled out, attached to another family in no way connected that we know of. Thank you so much. Very exciting to think we may have it finally.
They don't appear to be following this post, they certainly have not responded to a lot of our replies on here :-\
-
Whoops, In my excitement I misread the name in the newspaper they had the surname as Tyrel. As she had not been identified at that time I am sure it should be Tyree as all the other information matches
Ignore that, It does say Tyree in some papers ::)
-
This is Mary Hodgman Tyree Mary (Polly) Tyree's cousin born in VIC AU west of Melbourne and yes she became Sexton, marrying a minister and dying in Canada. I think they did spend time in Fiji as many ministries did in the islands. On the other thread at the beginning I listed off all the Mary Hodgman and/or Tyrees she was NOT just for clarity.
The administrators of her FaG memorial refuse to acknowledge her birth as 1882 even though I have now provided them a state government birth record. For some reason they think 'headstone dates' are more reliable. Go figure
I haven't been able to find May's birth certificate. Her wedding record:
14849/1929 HILL DOUGLAS R HUGHES MAY J SYDNEY
I wonder if she was also born in Fiji, and maybe Polly remained there or went to Canada?
On the other hand, maybe this wasn't Polly, I can see that her namesake who married Rev. Horace Eustace SEXTON went to Canada. ::)
https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/209262288/mary-hodgeman-sexton
She was born in Victoria so maybe NSW, Fiji, Honolulu and Canada are places to look for Polly. ;D
-
I agree. With time as a a historian, genealogist or whatever, you have seen enough it's a little more lateral and you can almost go with a sense of something over accuracy % of matching factual data. So many things don't match up exactly and it can be a balance of probabilities tied with experience of researching many stories and knowledge of human and/or machine error.
Of course we had explored misspellings and variations as a probability. If database searches have options or just are a little fuzzy it will raise some slight mismatches. I had only seen Tyrie as one misspelling in Australian press for the family, and one the same in New Zealand, but Tyre comes up a lot as it was also a similar Irish surname.
Whoops, In my excitement I misread the name in the newspaper they had the surname as Tyrel. As she had not been identified at that time I am sure it should be Tyree as all the other information matches
-
I have just looked at all the articles again and it does say Tyree in some so please ignore my previous amendment
-
The new information dependent on accuracy of reportage and what means it passed through, combined with historical knowledge of the family, raises a couple of dozen questions to be explored.
Just one being how much of the information about themselves Arthur and Mary passed to the landlady was accurate or true, to begin with. Obviously she was not from Australia and there's various possibilities how this misinformation came about, but it could have been deliberate. I am also speculating they may have told the landlady they were a married couple.
By this time Mary's (step) brother Alfred, once in business with her brothers William and Fred in photography, was successful enough as a merchant and industrialist to have London offices so there's possibility it played into this situation.
Clearly the family made a pact to not mention it and just let the 'scandal' die and that was a relatively successful strategy. Especially as info was thin on the ground and the incident was relatively minor and out of the news cycle pretty quickly. There are no records of the deaths I can find which sparks a number of questions in itself pointing to what *really* happened.
As I say on the other thread the Tyrees were no stranger to illegitimacy and had a curiously cavalier to creation and raising of progeny, to put it nicely.
So I think the illegitimate child was far less of a reason than, say, other factors may have been for all that happened.
I should clarify that my understanding from what I read is what was inferred between the lines, that it was likely a double suicide or rather, triple if you count a child which sounds like it was quite a way along, But who knows, for sure.
Mary may have fallen in and then Arthur jumped in to save her and also drowned but given her specifically odd behavior and words to the landlady in the last conversation and sighting of them alive, well as it was relayed via the press, it sure doesn't sound like they were planning on coming back.
There are still a bunch of things that don't entirely add up about all of it. i guess we will continue to explore and see where that takes us.
Whoops, In my excitement I misread the name in the newspaper they had the surname as Tyrel. As she had not been identified at that time I am sure it should be Tyree as all the other information matches
-
It is a horrible and tragic story but I would not describe living with a partner who has stuck by you as having 'nowhere to turn.'
I mention in previous comment that whilst the illegitimate pregnancy was likely a factor over all, given the family's history it was less of a factor than other aspects like not having any means.
Why Arthur lost his job is one of many questions and plays into the finale seemingly. Mary had a wealthy brother with London connections.
I don't have time to recount the out of wedlock children, partner swaps, giving away children, and even kid swaps in this local branch but they just kept moving along through it all as if it wasn't a big deal.
It's just that I think this potential 'scandal' was 3 x worse and by the time it happened the family had a number of successful and prominent businessmen; and more of a 'reputation' to protect was motivation in what was - and to a degree WASN'T - done in response perhaps. They sure didn't repatriate her body.
it's obvious the family made effort to bury the incident. Quite successfully for over 120 years! Mainly by just not acknowledging it or her existence. The way it was worded in the tree, with Arthur, unnamed in the note, as Mary's 'husband'...'died with husband on visit to London...' does indicate a retelling passed down by someone who did know and decided to finally tell but only what was chosen to be told, the scantest of details that were not really 'clues' per se. It was not a 'visit' which makes it sound like a holiday.
At that time when this person was researching the kind of resources we tap into now just weren't freely available but I believe if they had access to these articles as someone who clearly paid attention to detail it would have been described accurately.
We don't know anything about Arthur Grant yet, there is a lot to look into.
Over all I think what is horrible is that her family, particularly brothers and sisters all just pretended she never existed. One of them must have loved and missed her, and been saddened by what transpired. Yet it was more important to hush it up than express grief in any way publicly.
Well, Congratulations to Rosie and PatLac in particular and to all who have worked on this.
Another true Rootschat success story!
Poor girl, expecting a baby and nowhere to turn. Tragic.
Sue
-
Better two than none! Thanks.
Isn’t this Rosie’s initial find?
Oops sorry ;D
-
Find My Past seem to have an 'arrangement' with BNA so it is more likely they have a library edition or at least the info is accessible via FindMyPast, as FindMyPast definitely have a library edition which is able to be used for free with any library card in Australia.There is on eway to find out, I guess.
Excellent result! I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to do a newspaper search before Rosie's great find. :D
Is there a global library edition of BNA like Ancestry for public libraries you can access for free as a member, or is it only available for users in Britain?
In answer to this early question from Darian, I'm not sure about a library edition of BNA, it might depend on the particular library and whether they are happy to subscribe. I know my local library has both Ancestry and findmypast available for members to use on site.
-
Thanks for this.
The Surrey Times 4th May 1901 has a lengthy article on Arthur Grant - He lived in Weybridge, Surrey with his parents. He had apparently been living in Woolwich for about 10 weeks prior to drowning, his father suggested that he had lost his life trying to save the woman who was with him
Thank you Hepburn, it was pure luck. Strange how things happen like that sometimes :)
-
SS 'Moravian' manifest showing 'Mrs. M. Tyree', married, age about 27, embarking from Sydney, Australia in Nov 1900 to Melbourne, Albany West Australia, then Natal Brazil, Capetown South Africa, ending at London.
The migration manifests for crew were usually separate from what I've seen. If it exists it should list him as A Grant a steward sometime between mid 1900 and mid 1901.
However 'Moravian' was an Aberdeen White Star Line ship launched Jan 1899 and this seems to have been its regular route London to Australia and vice versa.
One would assume Polly must have met Arthur on the ship, as a steward and they started to have an affair. I wonder if this had something to do with him losing his job but clearly not that we can tell. Because Arthur worked for the P&O Lines. Well, assuming the press had that detail correct, or at some point he could have changed jobs.
The order as listed on the document may not be completely correct it obviously makes more sense the vessel went to South Africa, Brazil then London.
So, a young lady's 'Grand Tour' gone wrong? Or, well, not quite as intended.
Name M Tyree
Sex Female
Age 27
Birth Date 1873
Arrival Date 9 Nov 1900
Marital Status Married
Event Type Emigration
Event Date 9 Nov 1900
Event Place Victoria, Australia
Assuming 'Mrs' and married' are errors as per shipping manifests being riddled with them.
prov.vic.gov.au/archive/1185CAA6-FA02-11E9-AE98-F784F22FEE0D?image=101
PatLac, That is very true.
jaywit, Thank you that looks perfect ;D
There is a notice in the Leeds Mercury 29th December 1900 under Shipping Notices about the Moravian sailing out to Australia. I wonder if they had both been on it when it had come to England
-
James Tyree had his own studio here for a time, in Forth Place and the Tyree family home was in Forth Place, which no longer exists. William Tyree, James' brother is mentioned in Mary Hodgman Tyree's school records as being her father living at Forth Place. William was photographers Fred and William Tyree's father, James was their uncle, he almost definitely taught them photography. At this time James was selling up his premises and leaving to go back to Australia where he had previously had studios West of Melbourne in the Goldfields district (Arrarat, Ballarat etc). He returned to Victoria and that part of the family settled in the Grampians, a town named Stawell from memory, where James established another studio, which was taken over by his sister, Mary Hddgman Brown nee Tyree, Mary Hodgman (Polly) Tyree's aunt and/or then taken over by Polly's brother Edward Tyree.
So plausibility of the brooch engraved 'M.H.' being Polly's is very high.
Could this have belonged to Mary Hodgman?
Correct me if I'm wrong, it looks like her parents lived at "Forth Place, George Street North" their entire lives in NZ? From 1874 Tyree Bros (boots and shoes manufacturers) ads until their death in 1885 (Ann Catherine) and 1889 (William)?
Page 3 Advertisements Column 5
Evening Star, Issue 10882, 16 March 1899, Page 3
FOUND
Initials M.H., Forth place, Gold Brooch. Apply William Andrew, St. David street.
On second thought, it seems Wiliam's brother James was selling the premises soon after his death.
TO LET, the Premises in Forth place and George street, recently occupied hy Mr Jas. Tyrie. Specially suitable for Cab Proprietor. Four Cottages, Stable, Paved Yard, and Vacant Section; will be let cheap to respectable tenant. Edmund Smith, Savings Bank.
Advertisements Column 4
Evening Star, Issue 8041, 18 October 1889, Page 3
-
Just wondering whether anyone has looked for Mrs Harden in the 1901 census?
-
Due to time constraints I'm only answering questions that I feel is information which is not obvious and/or available online, already discussed and people don't read, and also now relevant rather than redundant at this point given we've come quite some way in solving this.
I'll try to remember to ask about the drownings data archive. Not sure it's the same as the other one for which a link has been provided - which is earlier and obviously available online.
But, you have no proof of marriage?
You have no proof of travel?
You have no proof of death?
Also, you don't answer questions put to you.
Were her parents In NZ or did the come back to England?
When were these wills dated
Apparently there is a database specifically of deaths in the Thames but it is not available online and one must visit in person to look at it.
Where is it held :-\
-
It doesn't say where but possibly he left for a passenger ship run, beginnning in London to Capetown, Natal, Albany, Melbourne Sydney and back again. I've no idea how long the run took, but if this is him it could indicate has was, or at least by this time, working as a steward on White Star Lines and then the likelihood he met Mary on the return trip from Sydney back to London is a real possibility. This would mean the trip one way would take about 2 weeks? I'm not sure that's enough time but possible. He could have done a couple of return runs by Jan 5. Some things don't match up exactly but worth consideration. This was the only real possiblity for Arthur and/or A Grant in migrant records.
Name Mr A Grant
Sex Male
Age 23 years
Birth Date 1877
Event Place (Original) England, United Kingdom
Travel Place CAPE, SOUTH AFRICA
Arrival Place SOUTH AFRICA
Marital Status Single
Occupation SEAMAN
Event Type Emigration
Event Date 27 October 1900
www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:68GQ-942X?lang=en
The obit for Arthur mentions he returned to England on January 5th. He was due to be buried but his uncle saw something in the paper and contacted Arthurs father and they identified him before that burial. His funeral was then postponed to the following week.
Where are they on the 1901 census
-
According to the newspaper he was 21 and a steward!
-
As suspected the press made a mistake in reportage. The Moravian was not P&O, it was White Star. Therefore Polly met Arthur on her passage between Sydney and London when he was working as a steward and they started an affair and she became pregnant. This would have happened by Dec 1900 and she obviously knew and told him when he returned from further runs in early Jan 1901, and they had moved in together at Plumstead by early Feb.
Also as suspected it is likely the loss of his job had something to do with this as well as the fact he moved out of his parents' home.
It is highly likely that John Grant retells a sanitized version of the story as more was known at the time than he lets on. He would have known that Polly was not some random woman who fell in the water and his son just happened to be strolling by and tried to come to the rescue but he decided to influence the story to make it more palatable.
I am not sure how accessible London papers were in Australia and New Zealand so how quick news was able to be conveyed. Telephones existed but were not common at this time, the first trans-Atlantic call took until 1927 but perhaps telegrams were popular by this time. Mary's sister in law Alice Tyree was still keeping a diary and writing letters and cards on their 1905 journey to London, published in 1996 by Arbour Press as 'A Budget of News.' She does not mention anything about Polly in it although, I will read it again to make sure I didn't miss anything.
I digress, Alfred Tyree, Alice's husband and Polly's brother, may have asked the manager of the London office to keep an eye on the press for any articles so they were informed (on how to not attract any attention to themselves).
Kentish Independent 4th May 1901
A Woolwich Mystery
The bodies of a Man and a Woman were found in the Thames last week, and at the inquest a verdict of "Found Drowned' was returned. On Saturday the deceased man was identified as Arthur E Grant, a Steward formerly employed on the P&O Liner Moravian. He and a young woman from Australia, whose name was Mary Tyrel, had been living together at the house of Mrs Harden, 28 Westdale Road, Plumstead and the woman was expecting to become a mother
ADDED
They are not at 28 Westdale Road on the 1901 census
-
Absolutely, somebody knew something but they all decided to join ranks and pretend it didn't happen. They didn't repatriate her body or memorialize her in any way and forgot about her with deliberation.
We found you, Polly. We see you. You existed. I'm sorry this happened to you.
(https://i.imgur.com/jzQSs8j.jpeg)
Mary Hodgman (Polly Tyree, 1872-1901
Her relatives did know something about her drowning then!
-
They have looked for Arthur and Polly in the 1901 census earlier in this thread. No dice. I also looked... but there are a handful of Mrs Hardens in Plumstead. Maybe 4 give or take. Hard to know which one she is without any extra info.
Just wondering whether anyone has looked for Mrs Harden in the 1901 census?
-
Jessie E Harden was at 28 Westdale Road in the 1901 census with her husband, children, brother in law and one lodger
-
Hi
I have followed this thread with interest although I thought some posts were not quite "polite"
I am pleased that you have closure for your Mary.
In my opinion, our ancestors deserve that. Their lifetimes were so very different to ours in the "moral" sense.
Rebel
-
Great. Thanks! I'd be interested to know when they usually conducted the census and whether they did it throughout then Britain at the same time or it varied. In New Zealand it was conducted around mid-June with a supplementary added in July from memory. Sometimes this can make all the difference in working out a story timeline.
Jessie E Harden was at 28 Westdale Road in the 1901 census with her husband, children, brother in law and one lodger
-
This has taken over 8 years to solve from when the first Tyree descendant approached me in frustration over this issue of Polly's disappearance. Great work everyone, you have been amazing. Thank you.
Obviously there are a number of questions yet to answer such as, what happened to her body, where is she interred. Obviously some time between Apr 29-May 3 the inquest was conducted and ruling made on cause of death, so she was recorded as a death around that time to appear in the quarter end Jun 1901.
I wonder if she was buried outside of consecrated ground, because of her condition and the circumstances. I'm not definite on the Tyree's denomination but assuming Catholic since they were Irish originally. It doesn't even nominate a denomination on the family plot in Dunedin.
I wonder if anyone knows what the situation was with unclaimed, unidentified and destitute individuals, was there a pauper's cemetery or mass grave in London at that time? I don't know what protocol was in such situations in early C20th.
;D
I think that we have all been working hard at this. As ever it is down to everyones input, we still need to know when she arrived in England and where from.
I am glad that at least this part of the mystery has been solved. Where was she buried
-
Great. Thanks! I'd be interested to know when they usually conducted the census and whether they did it throughout then Britain at the same time or it varied. In New Zealand it was conducted around mid-June with a supplementary added in July from memory. Sometimes this can make all the difference in working out a story timeline.
Jessie E Harden was at 28 Westdale Road in the 1901 census with her husband, children, brother in law and one lodger
The 1901 census was taken at midnight on 31st March 1901.
That was throughout the UK.
https://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/tutorials/1901-census
-
Well yes, he was a lot younger than her another factor on top of everything else that made it repellent for the family obviously.
Clearly since Arthur Grant was a steward for White Star Lines specifically on the SS Moravian which is the liner Polly traveled on from Sydney to London, this is how they met. The news reports misquoted the company as P&O when it was actually Aberdeen.If the run was a about 13 days one way, by the time the Arthur Grant I quoted found in migration records left London via Capetown, he would have been in Sydney more or less the same day the ship she was booked on left for Melbourne..
According to the newspaper he was 21 and a steward!
-
Yeah I have spotted that this afternoon and it throws a rather large hole in the story Arthur Grant's father told the press about what had transpired since early January. The census as someone else pointed out shows the couple could not have been residing at Plumstead address until early April, therefore they were somewhere else for at least 8 weeks. The family have one boarder at the time named William Mitchell.
Great. Thanks! I'd be interested to know when they usually conducted the census and whether they did it throughout then Britain at the same time or it varied. In New Zealand it was conducted around mid-June with a supplementary added in July from memory. Sometimes this can make all the difference in working out a story timeline.
Jessie E Harden was at 28 Westdale Road in the 1901 census with her husband, children, brother in law and one lodger
The 1901 census was taken at midnight on 31st March 1901.
That was throughout the UK.
https://www.whodoyouthinkyouaremagazine.com/tutorials/1901-census
-
Well yes, he was a lot younger than her another factor on top of everything else that made it repellent for the family obviously.
Clearly since Arthur Grant was a steward for White Star Lines specifically on the SS Moravian which is the liner Polly traveled on from Sydney to London, this is how they met. The news reports misquoted the company as P&O when it was actually Aberdeen.If the run was a about 13 days one way, by the time the Arthur Grant I quoted found in migration records left London via Capetown, he would have been in Sydney more or less the same day the ship she was booked on left for Melbourne..
According to the newspaper he was 21 and a steward!
Being pedantic, the SS Moravian was launched in 1899 by the Aberdeen White Star Line.
There was accommodation for 50-1st and 650-3rd class passengers.
-
From Deceased online
Arthur Grant
Burial date 30 April 1901
Location Greenwich
If it's not been posted already :-\, via search on ancestry (Web: UK, Burial and Cremation Index, 1576-2014)
Name (Adult Female)
Register Type Burial
Death Date 23 Apr 1901
Burial or Cremation Date 30 Apr 1901
Burial or Cremation Place Greenwich, London, England
URL https://www.deceasedonline.com/servlet/GSDOSearch?DetsView=Summary&src=ext&fileid=3753843
-
Both of those burials appear to be at Woolwich Cemetery (but not in the same grave)
-
No it hasn't in this much detail. There has also been similar info claiming Grant was also interred 30 Apr but apparently that was delayed for another week after last minute identification by the family.
There are quite a number of cemeteries in Greenwich, there must have been one that was specified for unknown/unidentified bodies. How do you tell which one, and where the interment would be?
From Deceased online
Arthur Grant
Burial date 30 April 1901
Location Greenwich
If it's not been posted already :-\, via search on ancestry (Web: UK, Burial and Cremation Index, 1576-2014)
Name (Adult Female)
Register Type Burial
Death Date 23 Apr 1901
Burial or Cremation Date 30 Apr 1901
Burial or Cremation Place Greenwich, London, England
URL https://www.deceasedonline.com/servlet/GSDOSearch?DetsView=Summary&src=ext&fileid=3753843
-
According to GenUKI, cemetery at St Alphege, Greenwich.
https://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/KEN/Greenwich
Other possibilities:
Charlton Cemetery
Eltham Cemetery
Plumstead Cemetery
Woolwich Cemetery
See: https://www.royalgreenwich.gov.uk/directory/35/search_for_a_cemetery_or_crematorium
-
Thank you John ;D
From Deceased online
Arthur Grant
Burial date 30 April 1901
Location Greenwich
If it's not been posted already :-\, via search on ancestry (Web: UK, Burial and Cremation Index, 1576-2014)
Name (Adult Female)
Register Type Burial
Death Date 23 Apr 1901
Burial or Cremation Date 30 Apr 1901
Burial or Cremation Place Greenwich, London, England
URL https://www.deceasedonline.com/servlet/GSDOSearch?DetsView=Summary&src=ext&fileid=3753843
This link gives information on all of the UK (Not Scotland) census
https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/census-records/
-
The problem with census returns is the fact that not 100% of the population are recorded.
OK If you are the Smith family living at 2 Jones Street Anytown you are virtually going to be recorded.
What the census form says is record people who were in your household on the night of 31st March, the couple didn't have a fixed address and although the landlady stated they had lived with her it's possible they spent the night somewhere else, or it's possible she was only allowed to have one lodger who she did declare.
My way forward would be to get a copy of the unknown female death certificate to see what the cause of death was, if it was found drowned in the Thames then see if you can find more detailed information about the unknown female burial from the cemetery records, if it says found drowned in the Thames I think you will have found her. She will have been buried in a common grave.
-
the photo portraits demonstrate she was still present and closely associated with the family into, at the very least, the late 1880s.
I have doubts the photo portrait is Mary.
In my opinion-
The photo around which you have built your tribute to Mary, Reply #85, assuming it was taken in 1888/9, is not of a woman aged 16 or 17 years which is what she would be if born in 1872 as recorded
Other birth dates given such as the shipping manifest being born 1873 And that on the 1901 English death Registration being born 1877 would make her even younger.
I think woman photographed in late 1880’s is into her 20's.
Others may think differently.
Those who offer advice on the Restore and date Old Photos board may offer suggestions on this.
Sue
-
This photo is more accurately dated now, to probably have been taken a bit later than I thought, in 1893. It is probably from the same session as similar photos of her and her sister Kitty Cannon and/or their sister-in-law Mary Ann Tyree formerly Evans all by Tyree in the Nelson Provincial Museum collection.
In the portraits with her sister in law she is holding a photo of a man casually and we took this as a potential clue, possibly being someone of importance to her (ultimately it t wasn't). After man hours a Tyree descendant identified the photo as a portrait by Tyree of a man named George Edwin Field. On the same day he had a session at Tyree with his family including the youngest child born in 1893. That is why it pays to investigate every path off the trail.
Therefore she was actually around 21 or so here. To me she looks 15-17 but taking into account lighting which really changed appearance - and then retouching.
As I have explained on the other thread in detail there is very little doubt this is Mary for a number of reasons. She appears in a number of portraits and pictures with her sister-in-law Mary Ann Tyree in the studio, in the garden and on the verandah of a family homestead.
the photo portraits demonstrate she was still present and closely associated with the family into, at the very least, the late 1880s.
I have doubts the photo portrait is Mary.
In my opinion-
The photo around which you have built your tribute to Mary, Reply #85, assuming it was taken in 1888/9, is not of a woman aged 16 or 17 years which is what she would be if born in 1872 as recorded
Other birth dates given such as the shipping manifest being born 1873 And that on the 1901 English death Registration being born 1877 would make her even younger.
I think woman photographed in late 1880’s is into her 20's.
Others may think differently.
Those who offer advice on the Restore and date Old Photos board may offer suggestions on this.
Sue
-
In my experience I would speculate census accuracy in regards to people being present or missing is still a extremely high %.
Given that one runs across 'visitors' to households on census nights occasionally, maybe 10% of the time or less, in theory the same could be applied to those missing, more or less.
The Harden family already had quite a number of people living in the residence, at least five children, the parents, a relative and a boarder.
The probability another two people were living there and just happen to not be included because of absence is low. A point in favour is, if they were elsewhere the likelihood they would appear in that census somewhere in another residence, or as boarders in another place is high and they do not. If they were at an actual hotel during some weeks of this period the father John Grant claims they were living in the Plumstead area, they may not have been included.
It is wishful thinking that would make the story make more sense but most stories don't make sense and this entire story about Polly Tyree has made about the least logical sense of any I've encountered in over 15 years; which is exactly why it has been so difficult to unravel.
The problem with census returns is the fact that not 100% of the population are recorded.
OK If you are the Smith family living at 2 Jones Street Anytown you are virtually going to be recorded.
What the census form says is record people who were in your household on the night of 31st March, the couple didn't have a fixed address and although the landlady stated they had lived with her it's possible they spent the night somewhere else, or it's possible she was only allowed to have one lodger who she did declare.
My way forward would be to get a copy of the unknown female death certificate to see what the cause of death was, if it was found drowned in the Thames then see if you can find more detailed information about the unknown female burial from the cemetery records, if it says found drowned in the Thames I think you will have found her. She will have been buried in a common grave.
-
If you feel inclined to PM the text of the articles on the initial 'Woolwich Mystery', John Grant's interview and or/the obit I would really appreciate that. I'm going on bits and pieces and wondering if there is another clue in there which would help.
I have just looked at all the articles again and it does say Tyree in some so please ignore my previous amendment
-
This is the full text of the article mentioned in reply #57. I have derived this timeline from details therein:
Tuesday 23rd April — bodies found
Thursday 25th April — inquest held
Friday 26th April — uncle sees article in 'a Woolwich paper'
Tuesday 30th May — AG funeral
Saturday 4th April — West Surrey Times article
Saturday 4 May 1901: West Surrey Times
WEYBRIDGE YOUNG MAN'S SAD END.
A distressing ocurrence which took place last week, the finding of the body of Mr. Arthur Grant in the Thames at North Woolwich by the Thames Police, has roused considerable sympathy with Mr. J. Grant, Mr Arthur Grant's father, and the family. The Grants have lived at Weybridge for 18 years, and their present address is Holly Dale, Sandpits. They are naturally well-known and very much respected. Mr Grant senior is a deacon at the Congregational Church. Mr Arthur Grant, who was only 21 years of age, was educated at the Baker Street Schools, and upon leaving, he was employed by Mr. Pearson, greengrocer, Baker Street. Subsequently he worked in the green-grocery business at Woolwich, Stoke Newington, and Oxford. His health began to fail in September last year, and the doctor advised him to take a sea voyage. He therefore joined the 'Moravian' as steward, and went to Australia with her. During the voyage his parents frequently received interesting letters from him descriptive of his experiences. He arrived back in England on January 5th, and visited his family at Weybridge on January 7th. Shortly after that he left home again, and, strange to say, his parents neither heard nor saw anything more of him until his father identified his remains.
The body was found on Tuesday of last week, and what makes the affair more mysterious is that the body of a woman, who has not been identified, was picked up near the same spot about the same time. The collar which Mr. Grant was wearing at the time was marked 'A. Grant,' but it is probable he would have been buried without identification had not Mr. Grant's brother, who lives at Charlton, near Woolwich, noticed a report of the case in a Woolwich paper on Friday. Suspecting that the dead man might be his nephew, he wired to Weybridge, and subsequently, in company with the father, visited the mortuary. Unfortunateiy, there was no doubt of the identity, and the funeral, which had been arranged for the following day, was put off until Tuesday of this week. Mr. Grant also viewed the body of the woman, but he had not the faintest notion who she was.
A Coroner's inquest was held on the 25th ult., and at this, Mr. Grant informs our representative, an open verdict was returned. As the result of inquiries it has been discovered that the deceased young man had been living in Woolwich for about 10 weeks before his death. His father thinks he lost his life in trying to save that of the woman, who was found with him.
Like his father, Mr. Arthur Grant attended the Weybridge Congregational Church, and was also a Sunday School scholar. He was a fine-looking young fellow, and it is said that he was in the habit of carrying a well-marked Bible about with him. Prayers were said for the comfort of the bereaved at the Congregational Church on Sunday.
The funeral look place at Woolwich Cemetery on Tuesday. The service was conducted by the Rev. Mr. Hanson, a retired minister. There was a large following of relatives and friends. Mr. E. E. Bannister, Church Hill, Woolwich, was the undertaker who had charge of the funeral arrangements.
-
I think this must be the article that Arthur Grant's uncle saw (my emphasis).
Friday 26 April 1901: Greenwich and Deptford Observer
MAN AND WOMAN MYSTERIOUSLY DROWNED
An inquest was held at Woolwich yesterday on a man and woman unknown, whose bodies were picked up in the river at North Woolwich. The age of the man was about 32, and the woman about 24, respectably dressed, and the clothing was marked "A. F. Grant." The woman had false teeth. The bodies were found on the foreshore off Bull Point, North Woolwich, on Tuesday morning, the woman about three hours after the man. They are supposed to have been husband and wife. The body of the man had been in the water about six hours, and the woman about the same time. There was a gold ring on one of the man's fingers engraved with the initials M. T., and he had the appearance of a clerk. The woman was wearing a blue alpaca dress, pink blouse and black cloth cape, fur trimmed, and black sailor hat. She was wearing a metal brooch with "M" on it, and there was a piece of muslin in her mouth. Dr. Hirsch said the woman was pregnant and attributed death in both instances to drowning, He was of opinion that the woman had herself placed the muslin in her mouth. — The jury returned an open verdict of " Found drowned”.
-
Great finds,Alan :)
-
The more we know the weirder this gets.
Why the heck did she have a wad of muslin in her mouth, and why did the coroner assume she had put it in there herself? It's like some bizarre serial killer thing.
I mean it's hard to find ANY logical reason for that really. But after some ruminating I have two or three possible theories.
Arthur was wearing a band-style ring from her with her initials engraved, but it doesn't specifically say it was on his ring finger...and she didn't have one? If she had one, did she take it off and leave it at the boarding house, or did someone take it off the corpse? Unlikely or they would have probably taken the brooch too. If they were near completely broke she may have hocked it.
On the off-chance it's suggesting they were married, well actually the press have suggested that in articles a couple of times now...I rechecked all marriage databases again and specifically checked all on the White Star Lines regular route of the time, Nothing. I don't think they got married personally. If so the ring would have probably been engraved 'M.G.' would it not? And she likely would have been wearing one too. So it seems more like it was just a gift from her to him.
I wonder if the brooch actually said 'M.T.' and was maybe even the same one mentioned in Lost and Found in 1899. If she was getting things engraved she usually got M.T., so it seems odd she would only get 'M' a an identifier, not useful for identification and also out of habit. There is one photo with her wearing a metal brooch high on her collar, the portrait I used on the other thread about her.
Also the fact they assume she was several years younger than Grant rather than the reverse probably tracks with the fact she looked younger in her portraits, she was probably just young-looking. I mean they were comparing her to a 21 year old...
I think this has just opened up more questions really!
I think this must be the article that Arthur Grant's uncle saw (my emphasis).
Friday 26 April 1901: Greenwich and Deptford Observer
MAN AND WOMAN MYSTERIOUSLY DROWNED
An inquest was held at Woolwich yesterday on a man and woman unknown, whose bodies were picked up in the river at North Woolwich. The age of the man was about 32, and the woman about 24, respectably dressed, and the clothing was marked "A. F. Grant." The woman had false teeth. The bodies were found on the foreshore off Bull Point, North Woolwich, on Tuesday morning, the woman abcut three hours after the man. They are supposed to have been husband and wife. The body of the man had been in the water about six hours, and the woman about the same time. There was a gold ring on one of the man's fingers engraved with the initials M. T., and he had the appearance of a clerk. The woman was wearing a blue alpaca dress, pink blouse and black cloth cape, fur trimmed, and black sailor hat. She was wearing a metal brooch with "M" on it, and there was a piece of muslin in her mouth. Dr. Hirsch said the woman was pregnant and attributed death in both instances to drowning, He was of opinion that the woman had herself placed the muslin in her mouth. — The jury returned an open verdict of " Found drowned”.
-
I think they were referring to 'The Sandpit' a public land/park area adjacent to Weybridge outskirts and may have been considered part of it at the time, or again a press inaccuracy. It's in Sheerwater now considered part of Woking. It was apparently the inspiration for H.G. Wells’ novel, ‘The War of The Worlds' just as another weird side bar factoid in this story.
So he arrived back from a White Star run on the 5th, was *somewhere* for 2 days before visiting home, after being in constant contact with letters and cards, and then effectively disappeared after that for nearly 3 months and they never sought him out, wondering what happened? After frequent comms they no doubt thought this was out of character to not hear anything.
If he was away the entire time between Sept 1900 and Jan 5 1901 and did not visit them when back in London (it seems if I'm right on how long a run took he didn't really have time between turnarounds) they may have assumed that 11 weeks was expected. But no communication?
The press would not have remarked on it as 'strange' unless the family had conveyed that opinion, so they did think it was remiss and knew he was not around of his own volition.
I think Arthur must have lost his job at this time, or sometime soon after, explaining why they were described as 'almost destitute.'
I dunno, something about all of this doesn't add up.
I think the family knew what was going on. If they didn't ask him to move out...he may have told them he had accommodation with his job. But what I think actually happened is he spent time with Polly for the days between 5-7 and then went to tell his family what the situation was and they were not happy about it at all. So there was kind of a falling out over the whole thing and they actually weren't really looking for him.
Yet the uncle who noticed the news article because he was aware Arthur was 'missing' lived in Charlton kind of adjacent, not that far away in the scheme iof things from Plumstead and Woolwich so that's a little curious. He just happened to know Arthur was missing? I guess the family didn't tell him, he didn't know where Arthur was at all and was just kinda psychic.
Now we know the father was a deacon and they were big in the local church, it makes sense why the father left out so many details in an attempt to sort of cover up the situation. They literally would have seen the ring so, regardless they knew he was wearing a ring from Polly and other details such as, she was pregnant.
But they had the privilege to pretend not to know and leave a bunch of stuff out. The whole thing was probably shocking, and embarrassing given their position in the community and church. Their prerogative i guess. John Grant's whitewashing makes sense now. At least Arthur got proper burial, the same cannot be said of Mary.
'The Baker Street Schools' plural is a bit nebulous. There were two schools in Weybridge at that time neither in Baker St, and both primary I believe. The other Baker St in the Marylebone area did not seemingly have a school.
-
I have noticed that Polly is wearing a ring (left hand) and Kate is wearing a ring (right hand) in the photos you have linked on the other thread.
https://collection.nelsonmuseum.co.nz/objects/41157/tyree
https://collection.nelsonmuseum.co.nz/objects/37901/tyree-kate
-
Looking at census records I believe that Arthur Grant was the son of John Grant, gardener, and Harriet Grant (Horn) who were married in Lewisham in Q4 1877. In 1891 their address is Waverley Road, Weybridge (and Arthur is there, aged 10). In 1901 their address is Holly Dale, Waverley Road, Weybridge. I think Holly Dale was simply the name of the house: in that period many modest houses acquired names. The couple are still at that address in 1911 when we learn that they have had five children, one of whom of who has died. There five children were Frederick and Charles b 1875 Blackheath; Arthur, Percy b ~1882 Lewisham; and Edith b ~1884 Weybridge. Frederick and Charles seem to have been twins and were born before the marriage, and I haven't tied them down.
Harriet was born in 1848 Kidlington, Oxfordshire and can be traced through censuses in that area up to 1871 (when she was a servant.)
Here is Waverley Road on the 1896 25 inch OS map. I'm guessing that this area of Weybridge was known as Sandpits, but I haven't seen any direct evidence of that. There are a lot of large houses in the area, perfect for a domestic gardener.
https://maps.nls.uk/view/103314121#zoom=4.8&lat=3172&lon=15432&layers=BT
-
And this portrait is named 'M. Tyree' but I think this is Kate?
https://collection.nelsonmuseum.co.nz/objects/37685/tyree-miss-m
-
I think they were referring to 'The Sandpit' a public land/park area adjacent to Weybridge outskirts and may have been considered part of it at the time, or again a press inaccuracy. It's in Sheerwater now considered part of Woking. It was apparently the inspiration for H.G. Wells’ novel, ‘The War of The Worlds' just as another weird side bar factoid in this story.
The Sandpits mentioned by H.G. Wells were at Horsell not Sheerwater. They would not be considered to be part of Weybridge and in the days of H.G. Wells they would have been just Sandpits. I grew up in that area and played there as a child, it was just part of Horsell Common, no play area just Sand and trees.
-
33872 is Kitty Cannon (Kate Tyree), Polly's sister born less than 2 years before her
37085 I looked at that earlier today and decided it was part of one of the fern fronds. I dunno. Someone else thinks it's a ring. It's hard to tell, IMO.
Both were taken several years before she met Arthur Grant.
I have noticed that Polly is wearing a ring (left hand) and Kate is wearing a ring (right hand) in the photos you have linked on the other thread.
https://collection.nelsonmuseum.co.nz/objects/41157/tyree
https://collection.nelsonmuseum.co.nz/objects/37901/tyree-kate
-
Yes this is Kate. Polly and Kitty looked almost identical but they had different noses. For what it's worth Kitty was the better looking one of the two. It's been misattributed somehow. NPM processed and catalogued over 110,000 negatives left to them so there were bound to be errors here and there.
And this portrait is named 'M. Tyree' but I think this is Kate?
https://collection.nelsonmuseum.co.nz/objects/37685/tyree-miss-m
-
I think it's definitely a ring and it shows that these 2 photos had been taken in different occasions. Polly looks younger in this one (no ring) https://collection.nelsonmuseum.co.nz/objects/37683/tyree-miss-m than in this one (with ring) https://collection.nelsonmuseum.co.nz/objects/56649/tyree-miss
The leg o'mutton sleeves were in fashion in the 1890s.
-
Yes both Polly. 49804 I think about 1895 as her face has matured somewhat by now. This session is probably the latest photos of her
Regardless she had no ring when she died so this isn't here or there. If she still owned this ring at the time of death we don't know that, or what happened to it. She may have sold it towards the end when broke, if she still had it.
I think it's definitely a ring and it shows that these 2 photos had been taken in different occasions. Polly looks younger in this one (no ring) https://collection.nelsonmuseum.co.nz/objects/37683/tyree-miss-m than in this one (with ring) https://collection.nelsonmuseum.co.nz/objects/56649/tyree-miss
The leg o'mutton sleeves were in fashion in the 1890s.
-
How do you tell which one, and where the interment would be?
I seem to remember that Deceased Online used to give the cemetery name in the free index, but that information has long been replaced by just the name of the local authority. Possibly if you have credits (I don't) you may still get the name in the search results.
However, sometimes there are ways and means!
Again, sorry if it's been mentioned, a few of the early reports of the bodies being found, etc., said that the young woman had auburn hair.
-
Looking at census records I believe that Arthur Grant was the son of John Grant, gardener, and Harriet Grant (Horn) who were married in Lewisham in Q4 1877. In 1891 their address is Waverley Road, Weybridge (and Arthur is there, aged 10). In 1901 their address is Holly Dale, Waverley Road, Weybridge. I think Holly Dale was simply the name of the house: in that period many modest houses acquired names. The couple are still at that address in 1911 when we learn that they have had five children, one of whom of who has died. There five children were Frederick and Charles b 1875 Blackheath; Arthur, Percy b ~1882 Lewisham; and Edith b ~1884 Weybridge. Frederick and Charles seem to have been twins and were born before the marriage, and I haven't tied them down.
Harriet was born in 1848 Kidlington, Oxfordshire and can be traced through censuses in that area up to 1871 (when she was a servant.)
Here is Waverley Road on the 1896 25 inch OS map. I'm guessing that this area of Weybridge was known as Sandpits, but I haven't seen any direct evidence of that. There are a lot of large houses in the area, perfect for a domestic gardener.
https://maps.nls.uk/view/103314121#zoom=4.8&lat=3172&lon=15432&layers=BT
Frederick John Henry Grant and Charles Thomas William Grant were the sons of John Grant with his first wife Naomi Caryer. They married in 1871 and Naomi died in 1875.
-
I think about halfway into this thread someone kindly posted the information that was available via that Deceased Online held.
The problem is a lot of those cemeteries in central London have a low % of documentation by Find A Grave. Probably because they are vast, so from what I'm seeing a lot are maybe 20-40% covered by volunteers thus far. It has a long way to go.
I've actually as of yesterday written to parks management who handle the cemeteries and asked if they can provide more information from any documentation they may hold.I've given them plenty to work with so maybe they hold more detailed records that are not public.
During research I've read a lot of very gross and incredibly unsavoury stories regarding internment practices in central London in the C19th :o
Enon Chapel still has me feeling ill. Imagine sitting through a sermon with flies from rotting corpses buzzing around and landing on you. Gag!
https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/559169/disgusting-victorian-cemetery-helped-change-burials-london-forever
How do you tell which one, and where the interment would be?
I seem to remember that Deceased Online used to give the cemetery name in the free index, but that information has long been replaced by just the name of the local authority. Possibly if you have credits (I don't) you may still get the name in the search results.
However, sometimes there are ways and means!
Again, sorry if it's been mentioned, a few of the early reports of the bodies being found, etc., said that the young woman had auburn hair.
-
Now it makes sense! I was concerned about finding the marriage in 1877, but not THAT concerned as I've run across a number of couples in my research travels recently who did not marry until after a couple of kids into the relationship.
Looking at census records I believe that Arthur Grant was the son of John Grant, gardener, and Harriet Grant (Horn) who were married in Lewisham in Q4 1877. In 1891 their address is Waverley Road, Weybridge (and Arthur is there, aged 10). In 1901 their address is Holly Dale, Waverley Road, Weybridge. I think Holly Dale was simply the name of the house: in that period many modest houses acquired names. The couple are still at that address in 1911 when we learn that they have had five children, one of whom of who has died. There five children were Frederick and Charles b 1875 Blackheath; Arthur, Percy b ~1882 Lewisham; and Edith b ~1884 Weybridge. Frederick and Charles seem to have been twins and were born before the marriage, and I haven't tied them down.
Harriet was born in 1848 Kidlington, Oxfordshire and can be traced through censuses in that area up to 1871 (when she was a servant.)
Here is Waverley Road on the 1896 25 inch OS map. I'm guessing that this area of Weybridge was known as Sandpits, but I haven't seen any direct evidence of that. There are a lot of large houses in the area, perfect for a domestic gardener.
https://maps.nls.uk/view/103314121#zoom=4.8&lat=3172&lon=15432&layers=BT
Frederick John Henry Grant and Charles Thomas William Grant were the sons of John Grant with his first wife Naomi Caryer. They married in 1871 and Naomi died in 1875.
-
Does anyone have an idea at what age someone lower-middle class would finish schooling in that era if they were expected to go to work and support the family? I'm speculating 14-16 years old. Arthur had at least four jobs in the grocery trade already, by Sept 1900.
'The Baker Street Schools' plural is a bit nebulous. There were two schools in Weybridge at that time neither in Baker St, and both primary I believe. The other Baker St in the Marylebone area did not seemingly have a school.
-
I think this must be the article that Arthur Grant's uncle saw (my emphasis).
Friday 26 April 1901: Greenwich and Deptford Observer
MAN AND WOMAN MYSTERIOUSLY DROWNED
She was wearing a metal brooch with "M" on it, and there was a piece of muslin in her mouth. Dr. Hirsch said the woman was pregnant and attributed death in both instances to drowning, He was of opinion that the woman had herself placed the muslin in her mouth. —
A comment.
Brooches fashioned in the form of an alphabet letter or decoratively engraved with a letter, were worn early in the 20th century and I can also see examples created before this.
Quite a variety of examples can be seen by google search. Perhaps it is this type she was wearing at death. M for Mary.
Could the muslin in her mouth have been something to do with the presence of her false teeth?
Doesn't really make sense though!
Sue
-
MORAVIAN
OF ABERDEEN, A. SIMPSON, MASTER, BURTHEN 2902 TONS
FROM THE PORT OF LONDON VIA PORTS TO SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES, 21ST OCTOBER 1900
Surname Given name Station Age Of what Nation Status
GRANT A GENERAL SERVANT 22 LEE CREW
https://marinersandships.com.au/1900/10/107mor.htm
Regarding your previous post mentioning Mrs. M. Tyree embarking on the Moravian, have you noticed that "Port at which Passengers have contracted to land" is Capetown? (I was hoping it was Natal in Brazil, given that I live in Brazil and I could try to find a marriage record ;D). Could she have married Arthur in Capetown?
By the way, I think Natal was in South Africa as well! https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C62524
https://prov.vic.gov.au/archive/1185CAA6-FA02-11E9-AE98-F784F22FEE0D?image=101
-
I wonder though, if they were married, whether the Kentish Independent newspaper would have said...
He and a young woman from Australia, whose name was Mary Tyree, had been living together at the house of Mrs Harden.
Wouldn't she be Mrs Grant or Mary Grant?
Sue
-
Earlier comment covered me rechecking all stops along the route for marriage records and found nothing. I didn't find anything in South African records but it always pays to look again.
If he left London on the 21st, it took 6 days to reach Capetown. I now understand it doesn't seem the order was wrong as there are three examples of Capetown being the first stop after or last stop before England. Anyway, it seems like my speculation for an England-Australia run of 13-14 days was pretty spot on for a rough guess. My calculation shows that Capetown to Melbourne was 7 days. That's 13 days with a day for restock, cargo, maintenance, board/unboard etc. So yes Natal makes WAY more sense, especially where I mention the stop was listed as 'Durban' later on.
(https://i.imgur.com/SVMBYoT.jpeg)
MORAVIAN
OF ABERDEEN, A. SIMPSON, MASTER, BURTHEN 2902 TONS
FROM THE PORT OF LONDON VIA PORTS TO SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES, 21ST OCTOBER 1900
Surname Given name Station Age Of what Nation Status
GRANT A GENERAL SERVANT 22 LEE CREW
https://marinersandships.com.au/1900/10/107mor.htm
Regarding your previous post mentioning Mrs. M. Tyree embarking on the Moravian, have you noticed that "Port at which Passengers have contracted to land" is Capetown? (I was hoping it was Natal in Brazil, given that I live in Brazil and I could try to find a marriage record ;D). Could she have married Arthur in Capetown?
By the way, I think Natal was in South Africa as well! https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C62524
https://prov.vic.gov.au/archive/1185CAA6-FA02-11E9-AE98-F784F22FEE0D?image=101
-
Oh, so it did actually go to Sydney. First mention I've seen of that. So that leg was the shortest, probably half a day in comparison.
Oct 21-7 Nov 1900 (17 days) arr Sydney 7 Nov 1900, new run departs Sydney 8 Nov 1900. Counting 1 day stop at each country hence migration records being present. Liner probably restocked/cargo on these days and turnaround day in Sydney. My estimate based on Arthur’s migration records London 21 Oct 1900 and Capetown 27 Oct 1900 respectively and Polly’s arrival in Melbourne from Sydney Nov 9 1900:
London- Capetown Oct 21-27
Capetown 24 hours Oct 28
Depart Capetown Oct 29
Arr Albany WA Nov 4
Albany-Melbourne 5
Melbourne arr 5 Nov
Melbourne 24 hours 6
Melbourne-Sydney 7
Depart Sydney 8
Sydney-Melbourne 9
Arr Melbourne 9 Nov
Depart Melbourne 10 Nov
(https://i.imgur.com/hope3pD.jpeg)
-
Reading the description again, that actually makes more sense, yes. A brooch that was an actual M, rather than engraved with an M.
I think this must be the article that Arthur Grant's uncle saw (my emphasis).
Friday 26 April 1901: Greenwich and Deptford Observer
MAN AND WOMAN MYSTERIOUSLY DROWNED
She was wearing a metal brooch with "M" on it, and there was a piece of muslin in her mouth. Dr. Hirsch said the woman was pregnant and attributed death in both instances to drowning, He was of opinion that the woman had herself placed the muslin in her mouth. —
A comment.
Brooches fashioned in the form of an alphabet letter or decoratively engraved with a letter, were worn early in the 20th century and I can also see examples created before this.
Quite a variety of examples can be seen by google search. Perhaps it is this type she was wearing at death. M for Mary.
Could the muslin in her mouth have been something to do with the presence of her false teeth?
Doesn't really make sense though!
Sue
-
As you know the Moravian left Sydney 9 Nov 1901. Shipping reports in various newspapers give the following timeline:
12 Nov - arr Melbourne
14 Nov - left Melbourne
20 Nov - arr Albany
7 Dec - arr Natal
13 Dec - left Table Bay
29 Dec - arr Teneriffe
3 Jan - passed Ushant
5 Jan - passed Prawle Point
5 Jan - arr Gravesend (for Royal Albert Dock)
Modified to add:
Interesting note about the Moravian and it's Captain SIMPSON:
"One of the most popular skippers on ocean steamers is, perhaps, "auld mon" Simpson, of the Aberdeen liner Moravian. He is essentially a democrat, and when evening concerts are held not only arranges for the passengers to attend irespective of "class", but also allows the crew to be present. He is known amongst seamen as "Our blue-eyed skipper."
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/167245126
-
It is worth considering the possibility that some sort of marriage ceremony was conducted on board the Moravian. My understanding is that such a marriage would not be legal under UK law, but had to be recorded in the ship's log. This would be the case regardless of whether it was conducted by the captain, or by a member of the clergy. But, of course, the participants might be romantically inclined to believe that they were now married.
SS Moravian was launched in 1899 by the Aberdeen White Star Line — https://mfo.me.uk/showmedia.php?mediaID=1911 — so there may have been a further complication arising from the fact that under Scots Law a marriage could (can still?) be conducted by a simple declaration. Thus it is possible that a marriage on board a Scottish ship might be able to be validated later through a sheriff's warrant and/or cohabitation.
I have searched in the 1901 Scottish census for "Arthur Grant" and only found one case in the correct age range, but he was 18 and living in Lasswade, so he seems unlikely and I have not looked at the full record. I searched for Arthur Tyre* and got no hits. I searched for Mary Tyre* and got two hits for women called Mary Tyre.
I found a Polly Grant, but it was not the right woman.
-
Where was Hollydale, Waverley Road, Weybridge?
In the 1901 census there are two households listed at Hollydale: the Grant family; and an Elizabeth Robinson, widow, with her daughter and grandson. In 1911 the situation is similar: the Grants at Hollydale with their neighbour Elizabeth Robinson next door, also Hollydale.
I have found these properties in the 1910 Valuation records. The details of the Grant residence are:
Waverley Road, Cottage and Garden
occupier: Grant
owner: E Robinson, 1 Hollydale, Waverley Road, freeholder
weekly tenancy
annual rent £20 16s [=8s per week, there is an annotation that this seems low, should be valued at 9s]
3 Bedrooms, Parlour, Kitchen, Scullery
Coals, Pantry, & W.C. — good
brick slate — good
This property and Mrs Robinson's are a pair of semi-detached cottages, presumably referred to at that time as 1 and 2 Hollydale. The associated maps show clearly that these correspond today to nos. 4 and 6 Waverley Road. I was all set to post an image, forgetting that this is a lookup thread, no images allowed. So, you will have to go on to streetview and find it for yourself: no. 6 corresponds to the Grant house and is at the north end of the street, on the east side.
Finally, unless John Grant ran a gardening business and was employing others (there is no evidence for this), I don't think he would be considered to be lower middle class; rather he was skilled working class. In the 1911 census he is classified as 'worker'.
-
Scenes from Hollydale
Frederick Grant seeking employment
19 May 1894: Reading Mercury
AS CARRIAGE GROOM, or GROOM under a coachman. Age 20. 2½ years' good character. — F. Grant, Hollydale, Weybridge, Surrey.
Mrs Robinson, in memoriam
6 November 1915: Surrey Advertiser
ROBINSON — In loving memory of our dear mother, Elizabeth Robinson, late of Hollydale, Weybridge, who departed this life 1st November, 1914. Ever remembered by her children.
-
The Baker Street Schools
'The Baker Street Schools' plural is a bit nebulous. There were two schools in Weybridge at that time neither in Baker St, and both primary I believe.
@reply #109
There are various newspaper references to the schools in Baker Street, Weybridge.
Here are the schools marked on the 1914 25 inch map at the junction of Springfield Meadows and Baker Street. Waverley Road (to the south and just off this map) is a few minutes walk away, down Springfield Meadows then Melrose Road.
https://maps.nls.uk/view/103314127#zoom=5.4&lat=5919&lon=1802&layers=BT
-
Yes I already covered that speculation in an earlier comment, if the ring was a wedding band it would have been engraved with letters inside 'M.G.' But it wasn't. It was 'M.T.'
I wonder though, if they were married, whether the Kentish Independent newspaper would have said...
He and a young woman from Australia, whose name was Mary Tyree, had been living together at the house of Mrs Harden.
Wouldn't she be Mrs Grant or Mary Grant?
Sue
-
55 days? That's insane. Well it was really more of a sight-seeing trip than A to B then. I suppose that means the other migration records for Arthur Grant need to be struck off because he couldn't have been in London 21 Oct or Capetown 27 Oct.
As you know the Moravian left Sydney 9 Nov 1901. Shipping reports in various newspapers give the following timeline:
12 Nov - arr Melbourne
14 Nov - left Melbourne
20 Nov - arr Albany
7 Dec - arr Natal
13 Dec - left Table Bay
29 Dec - arr Teneriffe
3 Jan - passed Ushant
5 Jan - passed Prawle Point
5 Jan - arr Gravesend (for Royal Albert Dock)
Modified to add:
Interesting note about the Moravian and it's Captain SIMPSON:
"One of the most popular skippers on ocean steamers is, perhaps, "auld mon" Simpson, of the Aberdeen liner Moravian. He is essentially a democrat, and when evening concerts are held not only arranges for the passengers to attend irespective of "class", but also allows the crew to be present. He is known amongst seamen as "Our blue-eyed skipper."
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/167245126
-
55 days? That's insane. Well it was really more of a sight-seeing trip than A to B then.
The Moravian had a speed of 13 knots (see link below). She was a single-screw steamship, but was also a three-master, rigged for sail. My AI friend tells me that for a vessel like this the speed of 13 knots would be achievable under steam power, and under sail power with favourable winds.
The typical sea route from Melbourne is 13,508 nautical miles. If Moravian had maintained the speed of 13 knots continuously the journey would have taken 43 days.
An AI-generated estimate based on the coal capacity and fuel efficiency of similar ships of the time suggests a steaming range of between 3,100 and 3,700 nautical miles. Thus she would probably have relied quite heavily upon sail, and fallen back on steaming when the wind was unfavourable. She would likely have re-coaled in South Africa.
So all in all, a voyage of 55 days doesn't seem unreasonable.
https://mfo.me.uk/showmedia.php?mediaID=1911
-
I'm curious to know what happened between the death of Polly's father in 1889 in Dunedin and Polly's final trip to London in 1900.
A lot of things could have happened in a decade, which could explain her sad demise. Maybe Arthur Grant was just the final chapter of a long story.
Her sister Kate married in Geraldton WA in 1895 and there's no mention of Polly (or anyone else for that matter).
A VERY pretty though quiet wedding was
celebrated at St. John's church on Sunday
afternoon by the Rev. A. H. Macdonald.
The contracting parties were Miss Kitty
Tyree, daughter of the late William Tyree,
of Dunedin, New Zealand, and niece of
Mrs. Browne, Of Hawthorne, Melbourne,
and Mr. William Cannon, assistant Regis-
trar at Cue. The church was prettily decorated
for the occasion, with evergreens and
white wild flowers. The bride wore a travelling
dress of gray tweed, with a French
toque trimmed with blue poppies. After
the ceremony the Sunday school children
lined the approach to the Church, and as
the bride walked down they showered her
with white daisies. The wedding march
played by Miss Sydney Gibbons completed
a very effective ceremony. Shortly afterwards
Mr. and Mrs. Cannon left the Manse,
where the bride has been staying since her
arrival in the colony, for a few days sojourn
at Greenough.
Geraldton Advertiser (WA : 1893 - 1905) Mon 9 Sept 1895 Page 2 LOCAL AND GENERAL.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/252762007
Polly embarked in Sydney in 1900. Where was she living? Was she travelling alone to Cape Town, South Africa? Why her final destination according to the ship's log was not London?
-
For interest, here are the Moravian sightings for the trip out to Australia.
4 Sept - leave Gravesend
6 Sept - passed St Catherine's Point
13 Sept - "speaking" at 17N, 18W
27 Sep - left Capetown
1 Oct - left Table Bay
17 Oct - arr Melbourne
21 Oct - arr Sydney
Nice description of the Moravian here:
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/14253912
-
A description of the voyage from London to Sydney by the Moravian - it mentions crew, but not A GRANT.
https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/230631344
-
Might be because he's only a steward
-
The article mentions a number of crew including the Chief Steward, however from memory, on the crew list A GRANT is a general servant.
-
I have followed this thread with interest.
It must be the busiest of "completed topics" ever!
Rebel