| Author |
Message |
    
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1796
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 4:05 pm: | 
|
Found this intriguing!
The address:
http://www.carlton-antiques.com/UKTopoPCards/london2.htm
refers to a website which sells old postcards and photos of London. if you go down the page to item number 7613 it is a photo of a road called Oakley Street, S.W. The photo as shown is very small:
The caption to the item for sale says that the card is uncaptioned but bears the following writing:
"This is the house of Jack Duke of Clarence, otherwise known as Jack the Ripper." The card is marked as having been used in 1909. This predates, as far as I known, any claimed links between Clarence and the Ripper.
Hope it's of interest.
If anyone wants to invest, it's for sale for £8!
Chris
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1797
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 4:09 pm: |
|
For info, Oakley Street is in London SW3, the Chelsea area and leads north from the Albert Bridge over the Thames:
 |
AP Wolf
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Apwolf
Post Number: 1870
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 18, 2005 - 6:05 pm: |
|
I wouldn't be shy on this one Chris.
Oakley Street was a real nob's area.
When Miss Mary Louisa Boyle popped her clogs in the LVP there was a massive funeral that started off in Oakley Street and all the right people were there. All your royals. |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 205
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 1:36 am: |
|
The caption to the item for sale says that the card is uncaptioned but bears the following writing:
"This is the house of Jack Duke of Clarence, otherwise known as Jack the Ripper." The card is marked as having been used in 1909. This predates, as far as I known, any claimed links between Clarence and the Ripper.
The marks that show the card having been used in 1909 is presumably a post mark.
But are the words about the Duke of Clarence in the same handwriting and do they date from the same time?
Members of the royal family certainly kept pied a terres in such fashionable areas at the time. Clarence's brother, the future King George V, kept a woman in a house near Lord's cricket ground. This might be something similar.
Phil |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1798
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 10:53 am: |
|
Bit more news - I phoned up the company this afternoon and this item sold this morning! So we may hear some more...
Chris |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 325
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, March 19, 2005 - 7:01 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
This postcard has quite intrigued me, so I phoned them and bought it, sorry if that is what you had intended, however once it arrives I shall post full details.
Somewhere I have read of a connection to Chelsea involving J.K. Stephen and his family, also living close by where one or two other people connected to the Ripper saga, saddly I cannot remember which book it was in and have spent sometime today going through various books.
If anybody knows what I am talking about I would appreciate hearing from you.
Regards
John Savage |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 207
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 1:56 am: |
|
John, I'd guess that the book you read was Michael Harrison's "Clarence" (c1972), but I don't have a copy to check.
The JK Stephen connection has been discussed by other authors though, though I can find no mention of Chelsea in Skinner and Howells, or Melvyn Fairclough's more recent (and totally unreliable) "Ripper and the Royals".
Phil |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 208
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 2:12 am: |
|
Additionally, I "Googled" on Oakley St and found this:}
plus a modern picture at:http://www.alovelyworld.com/webgb/htmgb/gb11.htm
Also:
E.F.Benson (1867-1940) lived at 395 Oxford Street, then to 102 Oakley Street, thence to 25 Brompton Square, (where English Heritage have placed a 'Blue Plaque', died February 29th 1940 of throat cancer in University College Hospital, London.
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=28690 has a Ist Edition OS map of Chelsea Village. It also has a history of the area - Oakley St appears not to have been very old in the 1880s:
Along the riverside, one of Chelsea's old mansions, Winchester House, was dilapidated and out of fashion by 1821, when the bishop obtained an Act enabling him to sell it, and the house and the grounds of 2½ a. were sold to the Cadogan Estate trustees. In 1825 the trustees obtained an Act to enable them to pull down the House, sell the materials, and grant building leases of the site. The house had been cleared by 1836, and the site was apparently still vacant in 1847, but Oakley Street was laid across the site and adjoining glebe from Cheyne Walk to King's Road c. 1850, and by 1850 ten houses at the northern end were occupied, and four at the southern end by 1851. Oakley Street was linked to existing streets such as Upper Cheyne Row, and gave access to Margaretta Terrace on the glebe, where similar terraced houses were being built by 1851. The land on the west side of Manor Street had been filled by the creation of Grove Cottages and Oakley Crescent, the latter enclosed by smaller Italianate houses in brick and stucco, linked to Oakley Street by Phené Street. By 1865 the southern end of Oakley Street and adjoining parts of Cheyne Walk on the former Winchester site had been built up with terraces of large stuccoed Italianate houses, including a public house which became the Pier Hotel, as was part of the east side from the northern end, though land in the centre belonging to the glebe and the former Shrewsbury House was still unbuilt.
From: British History Online
Source: Settlement and building: From 1680 to 1865: Chelsea Village or Great Chelsea. A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume XII, Patricia E.C. Croot (editor) (2004).
URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=28690
Hope this might be of interest as general background,
Phil
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4273
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 4:48 am: |
|
By a strange coincidence there is a "body in the Thames" story connected with the street :
March 1st 1889
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1802
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 11:28 am: |
|
Hi John
Glad someone from Casebook got the photo!
I will be interested to see the pic and writing up close!
No need for apologies:-) As long as the image and any info are available ownership is not a big issue with me
All the best
Chris |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1695
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 2:02 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I remember reading about a connection to Tite Street-I am almost sure it was in Stephen Knight"s book.He drew a connection to Walter Sickert,Oscar Wilde,The Duke of Clarence and others partying together regularly in Tite Street.
As one of the senior police lived opposite[Warren or maybe Machnaghten-cant remember which damn it!]
he wondered whether they were ever joined by their police neighbour.
Tite Street is now and was then,like Oakley Street, a [Multi-]Millionaire Row.It runs parallel to Oakley Street and is a few minutes walk away.
Natalie |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 210
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 2:30 pm: |
|
As I recall Oscar Wilde lived in Tite St.
Phil |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1696
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 2:57 pm: |
|
I think you may be right ,Phil.
Natalie |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4278
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 3:07 pm: |
|
Wilde's mum lived at 146 Oakley St.
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 326
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, March 20, 2005 - 6:58 pm: |
|
Hi All,
Thanks everyone for your responce which I am sure will be of much assistance in assesing the value of this postcard.
Phill, I got Michael Harrison's book from the library yesterday but have not had time yet to re-read it. The links you provided are also very helpful.
Chris, As soon as I receive the postcard I will be posting full information with a scan if my scanner is up to it.
Natalie, Thanks for mentioning Stephen Knight's book, and although I have not yet checked I think you may be right. ( a little light flashed in my head when I read your post).
Robert, The information on that suicide was interesting, but most importantly it shows that a body that clearly went into the Thames at Whitehall was fished out a month later at Wapping, a distance I estimate to be about two miles. I think this is something that we might keep in mind when considering M.J. Druit.
Thanks again everybody, and to quote young Mr. Grace, "you've all done very well"
Rgds
John Savage
|
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 328
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Hi All,
I have received this morning the postcard of Oakley Street, and below you will see scans of both sides of the postcard.
The following observations are made in order that people have as much information as I can impart, so that they may come to their own opinions as to the veracity of this artefact.
The exact measurements of the card are3-7/16” x 5-1/2” [87 x 139mm]. The standard for postcards was 3-1/2” x 5-1/2”, therefore the postcard can be said to comply with the standard. The thickness of the card callipers .0105” The standard for postcards being calliper .010” again the postcard conforms to standard. The style of printing identifies this as a type known as divided back, [i.e. the left hand side for the message, the right hand side for the address]. First authorized in England 1902. Both sides of the card were examined under ultra violet light for signs of fluorescence, non was found; therefore this means the paper was manufactured before the 1930’s
Surface: Address side has a matt finish written on in pen and ink and a postmark can be read “NDON JUL2909”. The green half penny stamp bears the head of King Edward VII [who died 9th. May 1910]. The other side carries a photograph of a house on the corner of what can be identified by the street sign as Oakley Street SW. Having examined other postcards in a local antique shop, I am satisfied that this postcard is of the type known as a Real Photo card, that is a term coined to distinguish between commercially printed photographic images and actual photographs printed on paper with a pre printed back. Eastman Kodak issued affordable “folding pocket Kodak” cameras around 1906, this allowed the ordinary public to take black and white photographs and have them printed directly onto paper with postcard backs. The camera negatives were postcard size.
The surface is glossy, as would be seen in any photographic print, however held in a certain light; it is possible to detect a small difference in the surface glaze, in a small portion to the left hand side of the picture.
WRITING
On the picture are written the following words,
“This is the house of the Duke of Clarence otherwise known as “Jack the Ripper”
I stood outside today”
On the other side the card is addressed to,
E. Scott Esq.
Post Office
Selby
Yorks.
The message reads, (if my interpretation is correct)
“Your card received. Agnes will take it in. Hope you will get better weather when you come. It certainly is not good
Signed WH (?) 29/7/09
It should be noted that the writer has had some difficulty writing on the photograph side due to using a pen and ink on a hard glossy surface.
Rgds
John Savage |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 329
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 12:16 pm: |
|
I am having trouble uploading the photographs
Sorry!
|
Stephen P. Ryder
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 3219
Registered: 10-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Hi John -
If you email me the photos I will be happy to post them for you.
Nice find!
Stephen P. Ryder, Exec. Editor
Casebook: Jack the Ripper
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1818
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
Hi all
Here is the front of the card:
 |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1819
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 12:59 pm: |
|
Here is the reverse:
 |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1820
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 1:01 pm: |
|
Hi all,
John Savage, the purchaser of the card, forwarded the images to me and asked me to post as he is having trouble. I asked him about the attribution of the scene as being Oakley Street as I could see nothing on the card which indcated this.
John said:
"As you may be able to see the photo is of a corner house, and about half way up on the left hand side is a street sign. With the aid of a magnifying glass I am able to make out the words "Oakley Street SW".
It is rather faint and maybe does not show up well on the scans I have made, but is definitely there."
Chris
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1821
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Finally here is an enlargement of the crucial writing:
 |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1709
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 2:27 pm: |
|
Hi John,All,
If you like I can nip down to Oakley Street tomorrow morning and check whether it is there.Its only 10 mins away.
Natalie
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1822
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 2:35 pm: |
|
Hi Natalie
It would certainly be interesting to know if the building is still in existence and its exact location (i.e. it is on the corner of Oakley Street and which other?)
All the best
Chris
|
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 778
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 2:55 pm: |
|
Hi everybody,
John, I'm glad you picked this item up; thanks for giving us a good look at it. You mention a very small difference in surface glaze--do you think the photo half of the card could have been resurfaced? The double exclamation points seem a little modern, but that's just my uninformed opinion. For all I know, double punctuation has been around a lot longer than 1909.
I'm also confused. The photograph on the card John received is different from the photo Chris first posted about. Maybe I'm missing something?
It's intriguing though!
Cheers,
Dave |
Neal Stubbings
Inspector
Username: Neal
Post Number: 190
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 3:09 pm: |
|
Funny that Oakley Street should come up.
Some time ago, when I found the name of a woman called "Frida Bukie" on the 1881 census, I wondered whether she could be the Mrs Bukie who knew Mary Jane Kelly. The family that this Bukie worked for at 11 Edwardes Square in Kensington were called "Boulger".
I made a not too serious point at the time that maybe the Boulger's were Kelly's real family, but there was no record of a daughter of that name. So I made a search of the census for women called Boulger or Bolger and found a Mary Bolger aged 24 born Dublin a servant living at 29 Oakley Street, Chelsea!
Our Mary Kelly, probably not. But interesting that Oakley Street has come up again.
Neal
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1823
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 3:10 pm: |
|
Hi Dave
You are quite right in that the thumbnail pic on the Carlton website (vendor of the card)bears no relation to the image on the card itself. I have checked back to the site and the pic I posted is definitely the one they showed.
Chris |
David O'Flaherty
Chief Inspector
Username: Oberlin
Post Number: 779
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 3:16 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
I only just now thought that the previous owner probably just scanned the wrong picture on his site.
Cheers,
Dave |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 330
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 4:27 pm: |
|
Hi All,
First of all thanks to Chris Scott for posting the pictures for me, and the enlargement of the writing. I did try to e mail them to Stephen, but the e mail bounced (I'm just having a bad day with the computer).
David, if you look closely at the picture you will notice a faint line running from the top left hand side at an angle almost to the bottom. The bottom of this line has a small curve and it is my opinion that another photograph may have been placed on top, and over a period of time has allowed a small part of the glaze to wear more than the part that was covered up. I can't say how long the double punctuation marks have been in use but perhaps someone else may have an idea.
Natalie, thanks for your offer to take a walk down Oakley Street, I think it would be very helpful. I am unable to do it as I live a long way from London. Perhaps if you have a camera you could give us a modern day pic of the house?
PS you were also correct in the reference you gave me the other day about Stephen Knight.
Neal, an interesting contribution and perhaps in future it may help to interprate this postcard.
Rgds
John |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 587
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 4:39 pm: |
|
Odd. Very odd. If I were cynical (which I guess I am) I'd wonder if someone were forging things for ebay to make them sell better. Perhaps not, but it's odd.
Heh, I wonder if you can get the ink tested like the diary was. Not that that would necessarily tell us anything. I hope nobody takes it upon themselves to post a purple dragon every month if you don't.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
 Profile  Email  Dissertations  Website
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1710
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 4:40 pm: |
|
Hi Everybody,
I have just returned from Oakley Street.I may be wrong but I think the house in the picture has been demolished.The house in the photo looks identical[almost]to a large house on one corner which ends a fine curved terrace of old houses facing the River Thames and Battersea Bridge.Today Oakley Street is at a busy intersection on the embankment which allows a flow of traffic into the heart of Chelsea.However the houses on the opposite corner must have been demolished some time ago,probably to allow road widening at this point,and in their place is a 60"s type building which has Mercedes Show rooms at street level[discreetly shielded by a screen of trees]and flats above.The old houses opposite dont look old at all,they are gleaming
and polished with cream white cladding at ground level and clean and well pointed brick work above
and as I said they are more or less identical to that shown in the photo above.I took some pictures with a digital camcorder which I will post at the weekend if they are clear enough,otherwise I"ll take some in daylight in a day or two.
Hope this is of help,
Natalie
have been replaced with a 60"s type Brick building with Mercedes showrooms at street level
and flats above |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1711
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 4:42 pm: |
|
Sorry about the muddle at the bottom of my posting above-hadnt realised it was there! |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1375
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 4:50 pm: |
|
Hi all
This is a very intriguing find and I congratulate John Savage for purchasing the postcard.
I am a collector of period postcards of the Edwardian period so this card is of special interest to me, besides the obvious "Ripper" connection in the writing on the picture side of the card.
Except for that writing over the view of the urban building, presumed to be Oakley Street by Mr. Savage, there is nothing exceptional about the card. The salutation on the card appears to be typical, mentioning the weather, the other correspondendent's postcard received.
The question is, was the person who wrote on the address side of the card responsible for the writing on the picture side of the card, or is this a hoax? As stated, there would appear to be nothing on the address side to link with the writing on the picture side. The excitement expressed on the picture side in no way can be found in the run-of-the-mill message on the address side, though that does not necessarily mean the writer of both sides was not one and the same person.
So, is the writing consistent on both sides of the card? Well, perhaps, although the picture side appears to show bluer writing than on the address side. Admittedly, this could be an artifact of the scan or the surfaces on which the ink was applied, card stock versus glossy emulsion. Here I might note that many postcards in this period were what was known as "real photographs" just with the standard divide for address and correspondence printed on the other side. A private individual or a firm could have such postcards made up.
The writing on both sides is of a similar period-looking style but is perhaps not entirely identical at least to my eye. For example, the "k" in "Duke" and "Jack" seems larger and more clumsily done on the picture side than the "k" on the address side in "Yorks" in the last line of the address. Some of the difference in the style of writing and even the color of ink might conceivably be due to the writer writing on the glossy photograph.
The name "Clarence" is hardly legible and is not as neatly accomplished as the address side writing. The lettering on the picture appears to blot, again possibly because of trying to write on the glossy photograph.
The "D" in "Duke" I regret to say reminds me of the big open "D" I have seen in the Maybrick Diary. Look at the "D" at the bottom of the last diary page in "Dated this third day of May 1889" at Photographs of the Maybrick Diary.
However (big sigh of relief), I would hazard to say the Maybrick writing looks cruder and less natural, so I am not necessarily linking the two artifacts or the two writers.
Nonetheless, I do counsel caution in accepting this postcard as the true bill. As Phil Hill noted, "The card is marked as having been used in 1909. This predates, as far as I known, any claimed links between Clarence and the Ripper."
I do believe there has been a thought that rumors about Eddy had circulated early on, though I believe no one has seen proof of them, and this would, to my knowledge, be the first written early allegation against Prince Albert Victor, the Duke of Clarence. But is it genuine???? 
Best regards
Chris George
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1824
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 4:56 pm: |
|
Hi Dan
I agree that any Ripper related item has to be viewed with caution but this item was not on Ebay. I found it via Google whilst searching for something completely different. When I spoke to the guy at Carlton (the vendors) he said he had had the card about eight weeks and no one had commented on or shown interest in the Jack connection. I certainly got the impression that he was a straightforward dealer - in fact he seemed a bit nonplussed at my interest in it!
Chris |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 231
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
The interesting question for me is "why a postcard of this otherwise anonymous house?"
I assume that postcards (ie a picture with a pre-printed rear), then as now, were made in reasonable numbers for sale somewhere?
Is there any record, anywhere that PAV was known to have owned this house? Or used it? So why depict that?
Something is odd here. Either this, plus the Mrs Buki/Bolger links; are a whole new revelation on the case. Or the postcard, at least, is problematic - akin to Diary and watch maybe?
Any historians of the postcard in the house?
Phil |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1376
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 5:12 pm: |
|
Hi again
Some more thoughts. I think the two pieces of writing, on the address side of the card and on the picture side are possibly NOT written by the same person. The reason that I say this is that the person that wrote the message on the address side almost consistently throughout uses a long trailing line after the words they have written. I am talking about "Your" at the beginning in "Your card..." "received" "will" "Hope you" -- both words -- "you come" -- again both words -- "good" and "Yorks" in the address, something that is not seen at all in the wording on the picture side of the card. Is this attributable to the person's excitement at being outside the Ripper's house or their difficulty of writing on the photograph, or does it mean someone else wrote the wording across the photograph later?
All my best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1713
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 5:22 pm: |
|
An additional point is that the house next door to the one I refer to above has a blue plaque saying "Captain Scott of the Antarctic lived here " written on it
Natalie |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1377
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 5:26 pm: |
|
Another caveat. It turns out that the Richard III Society is located at 4, Oakley Street, London, SW3 5NN. Is that the address pictured? Does the numbering run from the river? Of course, Richard was associated with the death of George, Duke of Clarence. Is this a leg pull?
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4290
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 5:49 pm: |
|
Since the postmark at least dates from 1909, does anyone know who the Duke of Clarence was at the time, or indeed whether there was a Duke of Clarence?
Robert |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1715
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 6:30 pm: |
|
Hi Chris,
The numbering doesnt appear to run from the river.The house on the corner ie the one at the intersection with the embankment is number 30.The one next door which was lived in by Scott from 1892 to 1906[I hope I have remembered correctly]
is number 28.I will be going again soon.Its not too far just traffic can be a bit of a nuisance
sometimes.As I say the house depicted is more or less identical in all respects except that number 30"s door is in a slightly different position and looks as though it has always been that way.
Natalie |
Dan Norder
Chief Inspector
Username: Dannorder
Post Number: 588
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 6:54 pm: |
|
Chris Scott-
Thanks for clearing that up for me. If someone did forge it you think they'd be a little more aggressive in trying to sell it to someone.
Robert,
According to Wikipedia, the Duke of Clarence title died with Prince Eddy.
Dan Norder, Editor
Ripper Notes: The International Journal for Ripper Studies
Profile Email Dissertations Website
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4292
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 7:11 pm: |
|
Thanks Dan.
Well, here it is in the 1910 Post Office street directory :
Robert |
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1825
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 23, 2005 - 11:11 pm: |
|
It's infuriating we don't have a clear name for the writer of the card, only some barely legible initials. the only name is the addressee, E. Scott Esq. But as this is addressed to a post office it will not lead anywhere I fear.
From my own family history researches I know that Scott is an infuriatingly common name, especially in the north of England
Chris |
Phil Hill
Inspector
Username: Phil
Post Number: 233
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:40 am: |
|
One the title, Duke of Clarence:
It has been quite an unlucky title, and has not been used since given to PAV.
I can't think of any Duke of Clarence succeeded by his son - Edward IIIs son had a daughter, I think from memory; George (brother of Edward IV's son, bore another name. William IV had no legitimate sons.
The name lives on as Clarence House, in Stable Yard (off the Mall) London, previously the residence of HM the Queen Mother; and now of HRH the Prince of Wales.
His brother george was Duke of York, and later George V. He did not use the title for any of his sons - these things, once extinct often miss a generation. George VI had no sons, only daughters. The present Queen has not employed the title for her children - Wales, York and Wessex. |
Christopher T George
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chrisg
Post Number: 1380
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 1:52 am: |
|
Hi Chris et al.
I wonder if the correspondent might be the resident at no. 104, James Horby (?) Scott, sending the card to a relative, E. Scott Esq., in Selby, Yorkshire. Those initials on the card might be "JH" conceivably, monogramed with the "H" dominant. What do you think, John?
All the best
Chris
Christopher T. George
North American Editor
Ripperologist
http://www.ripperologist.info
|
Chris Scott
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Chris
Post Number: 1826
Registered: 4-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 2:43 am: |
|
Hi Chris G
Well spotted with the name. The man in question is listed in 1901 as follows:
104 Oakley Street
Head: James Scott aged 75 born Chelsea - Retired, bank of England.
Wife: Ada Scott aged 56 born Kensington
Daughters:
Winifred aged 22 - School Governess
Mildred aged 15
|
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 4293
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 5:34 am: |
|
Hi Chris G
James Scott seems to have lived in Oakley St throughout 1871 - 1910, but before 1901 his address is given as No. 174. I feel that for someone to say that they "stood outside today" concerning a house in a street where he'd been living for nigh on 40 years or more, is a bit odd. Doesn't the comment rather suggest the thrill experienced by a visitor or tourist? Of course, the card may have been written by an (infrequent) visitor to the Scott home.
Robert |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 331
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 5:42 am: |
|
Hi All,
Thanks for the opinions on the writing, I am going to try and find an old pen or fountain pen, and some ink. Then I shall try writing on plain paper and some old glossy photographs and see what results I get, anyone who wants to join in at home can do so.
It has been suggested that this item could be a hoax, if so I expect the hoaxer would have been dissapointed at the low figure the card sold for (£8). However the only way to evaluate this card is, in my opinion to try and find out more about the people mentioned; so may I make the following observations;
(a) E Scott does not seem to have an address in Selby, the mail being only addressed to the local post office. Therefore could he have resided somewhere else and have been travelling (it was middle of summer), and would this have been a post box where he could have collected mail when he arrived at Selby?
(b) The writer of the card says "Your card received, Agnes will take it in". I take this to mean that Agnes would understand whatever had been written on this previous card, so the author, whatever his initials may be, would have been related to Agnes (wife or daughter I guess).
(c) The picture shows a house on a corner, and what could be a side entrance, why would anyone take a picture like that? The house had some significance, but if so why not photograph it from the front?
Chris George, I have suggested WH for the initials, however they are hard to make out and you could be right in your suggestion, but if others want to contribute their ideas on these initials I should be pleased to hear from them.
Rgds
John |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1716
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 6:45 am: |
|
Hi John
just a few points
the houses are very grand and quite high.Its not easy to get the whole house into the frame and this may account for the oddly positioned view.Also Cheyne Walk juts out in front of[what I believe is] its replacement again with a screen of trees partly obscuring a view of it from the front.
regarding the post office address
it is still the case that if a village is small enough you can simply write the name of the person
and sent the letter to the village pst office.
I have friends living outside Bristol who told me
all you need as far as directions/an address is their local post office and to ask for....
so if Selby was a small village this may have been the normal address.
Natalie |
John Savage
Inspector
Username: Johnsavage
Post Number: 332
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 24, 2005 - 7:01 am: |
|
Hi Natalie,
I appreciate what you say about the difficulties of photographing the houses, however the postcard seems to me to show a side entrance, which may have been a servants entrance.
Selby is a small town with a fine old medieval church, it was a small port on the river Ouse and has/had a flourishing trade in grain, shipbuilding, and even at one time a paper mill.
Rgds
John |
