Author Topic: drownings in the thames  (Read 6288 times)

Offline Darian Zam

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: drownings in the thames
« Reply #108 on: Saturday 14 June 25 17:21 BST (UK) »
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
Quote
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”.

Offline Darian Zam

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: drownings in the thames
« Reply #109 on: Saturday 14 June 25 17:58 BST (UK) »
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.
 

Offline PatLac

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: drownings in the thames
« Reply #110 on: Saturday 14 June 25 19:16 BST (UK) »
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
"This information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk"

Online AlanBoyd

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,044
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: drownings in the thames
« Reply #111 on: Saturday 14 June 25 19:30 BST (UK) »
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
Boyd, Dove, Blakey, Burdon


Offline PatLac

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: drownings in the thames
« Reply #112 on: Saturday 14 June 25 20:00 BST (UK) »
And this portrait is named 'M. Tyree' but I think this is Kate?

https://collection.nelsonmuseum.co.nz/objects/37685/tyree-miss-m
"This information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk"

Offline rosie99

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 44,067
  • ALFIE 2009 - 2021 (Rosbercon Sky's the Limit)
    • View Profile
Re: drownings in the thames
« Reply #113 on: Saturday 14 June 25 20:12 BST (UK) »
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.
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Darian Zam

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: drownings in the thames
« Reply #114 on: Saturday 14 June 25 20:15 BST (UK) »
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

Offline Darian Zam

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 95
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: drownings in the thames
« Reply #115 on: Saturday 14 June 25 20:21 BST (UK) »
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

Offline PatLac

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 432
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: drownings in the thames
« Reply #116 on: Saturday 14 June 25 20:38 BST (UK) »
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.
"This information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk"