drownings in the thames

[rosie99]

Thank you John 

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/

[jaywit]

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.

[sparrett]

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

[Darian Zam]

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

[Darian Zam]

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.

[Darian Zam]

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

[AlanBoyd]

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.

[AlanBoyd]

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”.

[hepburn]

Great finds,Alan