Who in the world was Ivy Francis Smith?

I wrote in my previous post about the surprise discovery that Ivy Francis Smith, child of Emily and William Smith, was actually a girl, not a boy. ivy was, of course, the contemporary of my grandfather, David Scott Ritchie Jr. She is one of the siblings whose lives I am currently investigating in order to locate contemporaries of mine who might function as second cousins by virtue of shared adoptive great-grandparents.

Grandad was obviously not Ivy's biological brother because he was the son of Maude and David Ritchie. Maude, you will remember, was in full-time service as a live-in cook, while David was in the London County Asylum being treated for insanity. Ivy, on the other hand, appears to have been fostered. When she lists herself on the 1939 Register along with two other members of the Smith family, she gives her surname as "Batchelor [Fordham[".

Now, it would make sense if Ivy was born Fordham and married somebody called Batchelor before 1939. However, things weren't that simple. I found a marriage record stating that Ivy F Fordham married James L Batchelor in Wandsworth, but the marriage date is 1945. Could it be that Ivy and James became engaged or unofficially married before he went to war and only registered the event after he returned?

There were no children, which is not surprising, considering that Ivy would have been 37 at the start of the Second World War and 43 when the war ended. She lived till the age of 76 and died in Wandsworth in 1978.

Am I disappointed with these findings? Yes, in a way, because ivy and James' children would have been contemporaries of my mother and aunt, and it would have been interesting to learn about where they lived and what kind of careers they followed. Their children, in turn, would have been accessible online to me today, and I could have contacted them via Facebook or some other social media network to compare notes about Emily and William Smith. Yet I have no other connection to the Fordham family besides the fact that ivy, like Grandad, spent many years living with Maude's sister Emily. I might just be wasting my time if I work on taking this line of inquiry further.

At this point, I feel rather stuck with regard to the members of the Smith household. If all of the Smith children were fostered or adopted as I suspect, I should rather focus my attention on something else. Admittedly, I could be missing some important clues by not consulting newspaper archives, and perhaps I will seek help at some stage in this regard. At present, I'm only able to consult records which have been transcribed and are accessible to my screen-reader.

Photo credit: "1941 Soda Ad, Royal Crown Soda with British Actress Anna Neagle" by Classic Film.

The strange case of the Smith family of St John's Wood

This post is a continuation of my previous post about finding second cousins on my mother's side. In that post, I reached the conclusion that I should examine the children of Emily and William Smith, the couple who cared for my grandfather David Scott Ritchie from about 1909 onwards. This led to some frustrating research, a surprising finding and an illuminating dream.

Emily and William had 5 children of their own, as far as I can tell from census records, plus Grandad, their "adopted" son who was living with them in St John's Wood in 1911. Here is what I managed to find by trawling through hints on Findmypast.co.uk:

LS Smith, a daughter born in 1892 in Marylebone, could be one of several people in the military records, death records and 1939 Register. There seems to be no birth or baptism record . Perhaps the date of birth on the census is incorrect, except that Emily and William only married in 1891, making it unlikely that she was born before 1892.

Frank E Smith, a son born in 1893 in Marylebone, is slightly less mysterious, although I still had to make some big assumptions based on the year of his birth. I believe he was born on 20 July 1893, served in the Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment in 1914, and married Ella B [maiden name unknown]. Together they had a son named Vernon F Smith, who was born on 28 August 1929. At the time of the 1939 Register, Frank, Ella and Vernon were living in Dorchester Way in what appears now to be a 5-bedroom semi-detached house. Frank was a post office sorter. He died in Marylebone in 1960. Note that no birth or baptism record turned up for him either.

Alice M Smith, a daughter born in 1899 in Marylebone, is once again a very mysterious individual. She may have served as a nurse in a volunteer unit but another record of a nurse with a similar name gives the wrong birth date. An Elsie M Smith crops up in Marylebone married to Ernest Smith, but they would have had to share the same name before marriage if she had remained a Smith after marriage, which seems unlikely. Again, no birth certificate turned up in the hints and no marriage certificate.

Ivy Smith is a really difficult case. A son born in 1902 in Marylebone, he was Grandad's contemporary and would likely have been in the same class at school. I will come back to him.

Richard William Smith, a son born in 1904 in Marylebone, is thankfully a little less complicated. However, as in the case of Frank E Smith, I had to guess his identity based on his birth year, there being several other Richard Smiths in the mix. I believe he was born on 16 January 1904 and became a general clerk. He married, although his wife was not present with him in Wandsworth on the 1939 Register, nor any children. He died in Wandsworth in 1981.

Now to the surprising finding. Although Richard William Smith's household in the 1939 Register didn't include his wife or children, it does include his widowed mother, Emily Eliza Smith. It also, interestingly enough, includes an Ivy Francis Smith, born on 2 January 1902. You will remember that Ivy was previously listed as a son of Emily and William, but now she is listed as female, working as a saleslady in a drapery shop. Clearly, the earlier census record was incorrect on this point. But there is something else which is troubling. Instead of giving her surname as Smith, she gives it as "Batchelor [Fordham]". If the name "Batchelor" is not confusing enough, harking back to the question of her gender, then surely the name in brackets, her maiden name, should be Smith, not Fordham?

I went to bed pondering this issue, then had a dream which brought clarity. In the dream, I was questioning a little girl about her parents' names, trying to solve a mystery about where Ivy fitted in. I awoke with the conviction that she must have been adopted. Fordham was the name of her biological mother. Hmmm. Interesting....

What if Emily and William could not have children of their own? What if all their children were adopted? It would certainly explain the absence, as far as I can presently tell, of birth records for them under the Smith name. It would also fit in with their informal adoption of my grandfather. This is all a matter of speculation for now as I'm still very much in the middle of my research into this family, but it does point a way forward. I believe that, by further investigating Ivy Batchelor [Fordham[, I will discover more about the rest of the family, even if it doesn't lead to second cousins who are actual DNA relatives!

Photo credit: "Frost fairies" by Plum leaves.

In search of second cousins on my mother's side

I've decided to take a break from reporting on David Ritchie Sr's mental illness in order to post a couple of updates on my search for DNA relatives. According to 23andMe, we each have about 250 first and second cousins, which I find amazing and hard to believe. my own family is really small, with just 2 cousins on my mother's side and 2 on my father's side. How can it be that this number could multiply so quickly?

Let's look at definitions. A first cousin is someone who shares a set of grandparents with you. He or she is the child of one of your parent's siblings. In my case, my mother's sister had 2 children who are my first cousins on my mother's side, and my father's sister had 2 children who are my first cousins on my father's side. Neither my mother nor my father had a brother, so that's it.

A second cousin, by definition, is someone who shares a set of great-grandparents with you. he or she is the child of one of your parents' first cousins. At this point, i find myself rather stumped. i don't know any of my parents' first cousins. Why? It never even occurred to me to ask about it while my parents were alive. Now that I am looking into my family's history, it strikes me as rather puzzling and worth investigating.

I'll focus today on my mother's side. Her parents, Dave and Sandy Ritchie, were both only children. At least, that's the story. Grandma definitely didn't have siblings. Grandad always claimed that he had no brothers or sisters but that's not completely true. i have a census record where his mother Maude states that she gave birth to 2 children, one of whom is living and one of whom died. Then there is the fact that Grandad appears on the 1911 census as the "son" of Emily and William Smith. Did they formally adopt him? I don't think so, as it is Maude, not Emily, who is pictured in photographs of my grandfather and my aunt as a baby. Yet they must have thought of him as part of their family to have called him a son on the census.

To give some background, Emily was Maude's elder sister. Emily and William were looking after Grandad because his father, my great-grandfather, had been committed to an asylum a couple of years earlier. Their children would have been like brothers and sisters to my grandfather while he was at school. That being the case, it follows that the Smiths' grandchildren should have been like my mother's cousins. And, taking the argument to its logical conclusion, the children of those grandchildren should be like my second cousins, if not by blood then by virtue of descending from a common childhood home.

As far as locating these people is concerned, I'm making slow progress. I've managed to establish that the Smiths had 5 of their own children, all of whom were born in Marylebone. They are, in order of birth, LS Smith [a girl] born in 1892, FE Smith [a boy] born in 1893, Alice M Smith born in 1899, Ivy Smith [a boy] born in 1902, and Richard William Smith born in 1904. Now the challenge is to track their spouses and children, and those children's spouses and children, until I eventually find descendants of Emily and William who belong to my own generation.

Granted, these descendants wouldn't actually be my second cousins, but so what? I'm going to be painfully short of second cousins if i don't count them. Besides, they are still my relatives on the Parker side. If they don't have old photos and stories about my great-grandfather's childhood, I can still ask them if they are interested in taking a DNA test and locating second cousins of their own.

Photo credit: "Ascending the Stairs" by Thad Zajdowicz.

Sheer lunacy or something else?

I'm not a psychologist but...

This is what the notes in the medical casebook of David Ritchie Sr say about his mental condition shortly after arriving at the London County Asylum in Hanwell:

"When about 18 years old, patient had religious mania, length of time unknown. Six years ago patient again became peculiar for 3 days, he then went to church army. He has been quite all right till last Thursday fortnight, when he was told by his master that he would not suit him and was told that he could go as soon as he got another place, he had only been in this situation a week. This seemed to worry him greatly and that evening he wandered out and gave his money away and had a drink or two and did not get back till five in the morning, he gave his watch away and also his overcoat and also about 2 or 3 pounds in money, and next day wandered about all over Hampstead Heath, and on the Saturday he began to get above [delusions, etcetera] and was taken to the infirmary. Has always been quiet and somewhat strange in his manner. Irritable over trifles. No history of syphilis or drink."

According to the Collins English Dictionary, the word "lunacy" is no longer in technical use and is generally regarded as offensive. It was formerly used to describe any severe mental illness characterised by strange or foolish behaviour. People once thought that insanity was related to the phases of the moon, hence the similarity between "lunacy" and "lunar". Today, much more is known about the causes and symptoms of mental illness, leading to breakthroughs in treatment and a dramatic change in attitudes towards the mentally ill.

It would be very interesting, I think, to get a professional opinion on David Ritchie's presenting symptoms. As someone who has an amateur interest in psychology, I would hazard a guess that what is described in the above notes is standard psychosis, a psychotic break with reality. A psychotic episode can be easily treated with anti-psychotic medication, bringing the patient off his "high" so he can enter therapy. However, David Ritchie Sr wasn't given tablets, nor did he want them. No doubt, he had seen how drugs put some inmates of the asylum into a catatonic state, and was determined to maintain self-control so he could work towards recovery.

I'm not suggesting that the treatment he received was bad. Families who benefitted from the pauper asylums probably felt grateful to the government for what it provided for their sick fathers, mothers, daughters and sons. Yet I still feel desperately sorry for this man whose life could have been so different had he had access to modern medicine. If nothing else, he could have derived so much pleasure out of watching his granddaughters grow up, get married, and give birth to us, his great-grandchildren.

Photo credit: "On Hampstead Heath" by Adrian Clark.

David Ritchie Sr's condition on admission to the Hanwell asylum

This post deals with the physical health assessment done on David Ritchie Sr when he was admitted to the London County Asylum in 1909. It provides considerably more information than the report supplied by Dr Menzies at the Marylebone Workhouse. As with the notes taken on his personal and family history, I will omit details that are repetitive and summarise sections that are too technical for general interest.

Most striking for me is that David Ritchie weighed just 8 stone or 51,6kg. This is extremely light for a man of 35. No height is given on the report but he must have been fairly small in stature. Then again, he was admitted as a pauper so was probably under-nourished. I expect his mental illness affected his eating habits too, as did his insomnia.

On the plus side, his temperature was a normal 97.8ºF and his pulse was 72 beats per minute. No signs, therefore, of fever as I previously supposed. His thyroid, speech and gait were normal. His coordination and musculature were good. He had normal eyesight and his pupils were of equal and normal size. Both eyes responded properly to light. They were hazel in colour.

On the minus side, he presented with several old abrasions and bruises on his legs and a sebaceous cyst on his forehead. He exhibited slight tremors but no real motor impairment.

Regarding his mental state, the report reads as follows:

"Has marked elation and talks a great deal, lapsing into incoherancy. He is quite happy-go-lucky. has a good idea of his powers, says he is a good singer, also a good runner, and that he believes he could win the marathon race. Has no delusions about wealth. Pharyngeal reflex is quite absent, there are no other definite signs of GP except very slight tremors in fingers, also tongue, and these are not at all definite. Coordination is good, also speech and gait. No Tabes."

According to Judy Lester of Kerrywood Research, one of the main things the asylum doctors would have been looking out for when admitting patients was Syphilis, or any symptoms of it. A common symptom was General Paralysis (or Paresis) of the Insane, often abbreviated to "GP,". Lack of pharyngeal reflex could also be a symptom of syphilis, which is why they tested for it. likewise, the comment "No Tabes" is a reference to Tabes dorsalis, a complication of late -stage syphilis infection in which bacteria attack the spinal cord and peripheral nervous system. hence the doctor's remarks about musculature, coordination, gait, vision and speech.

Given the photographs I shared in my previous post and the above extract from the medical notes, my mental image of David Ritchie Sr. is changing. Originally, I pictured him looking quite a bit like my grandfather—tall, well-built and distinguished. Now, he makes me think of Puck in Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream. Small and spritely, he exhibits childlike mannerisms and seems capable of both cruelty and charm. I wish I could connect with his brothers' descendants to learn more. Please get in touch if you can help.

Photo credit: "Doctor and Brain" by amenclinicsphotos.

The long-awaited photographs of David Ritchie Sr

The medical casebook from hanwell includes 2 photographs of the man who was ostensibly my great-grandfather. i say "ostensibly" because this post will show why there is doubt in that regard. It took me a while to get permission to publish the pictures as they are owned by West London Mental Health Trust, but once I had provided all the information they needed, they kindly said I could go ahead.

Being visually impaired and unable to see and comment on the photos myself, I include here the comments of a few family members:

well Lee, the face has absolutely no resemblance to Grandad, not even a slight bit. The plot thickens me thinks. #Fakefather Lee I have had a look at the picture and it does not resemble Grandad in any way. The whole make-up of the face and ears are so different. The nose and the ears and face more elongated. He is very different to Grandad. Seems like a small man with much slighter features, dark eyes and sloping shoulders, dark hair which could even be a redhead. Also the nose. The nose is not strong, and to me that royal looking nose is quite important. Looking at photos of a younger Grandad, his nose is quite recognisable and has been passed down through to us.

This brings me back to wondering whether this David Scott Ritchie was my grandfather's biological father. From the comments of my family members, it is obvious that they have serious doubts. I've tended to be more cautious because the alternative [that he was the illegitimate son of a gentleman] is too complicated to deal with on a number of levels. Yet I can't ignore the fact that this man married my great-grandmother Maude 6 weeks before Grandad was born. That's why I'm going the DNA route, hoping that the nature of the connection can be established once and for all.

Photo credit: London Metropolitan Archives, City of London. Hanwell Asylum [later Saint Bernard's Hospital] Collection. Item number: H11/HLL/B/20/037,

David Richie's medical casebook notes from the London County Asylum

In my last 3 blog posts, I shared letters written by my great-grandfather after being admitted to the London County Asylum in Hanwell. Now I am going to turn to the notes contained in his medical casebook, which were accessed from the London Metropolitan Archives and transcribed for me by Judy Lester of Kerrywood Research.

The notes are fairly brief. They begin with a partially-completed report on David Ritchie's personal and family background. Much of the information in the report has come up before in regard to his admission to the Marylebone Workhouse and Dr Menzies' assessment of his physical condition. I will, therefore, share only what is new or interesting.

For example, many of the questions relating to David Ritchie's childhood were left blank. Presumably, the reason for this is that the person filling in the report skipped over several of the questions because they weren't relevant to the case. If my great-grandfather had objected to answering them, a note would surely have been made to this effect. At any rate, it is a pity because such information would have been extremely valuable from a genealogical point of view.

Nevertheless, some useful facts do emerge. The patient "is the second of a family of three of which all are alive." He is well educated. He has not always been "weak-minded". He has been able to earn his own living since just before admittance. He did not suffer convulsions as a child, nor has he ever experienced fits or seizures. He has no history of somnambulism, rickets, chorea, rheumatic fever, scarlet fever, giddiness, headaches, asthma, influenza or gout, and has never contracted syphilis or gonorrhoea.

In habits, David Ritchie Sr is "steady". He has no history of heavy drinking. After he began to show symptoms of mental illness, he displayed violence towards his wife. He is suffering from insomnia but is not suicidal.

The report gives few details about his family of origin except that his father died of ptomaine poisoning, a very serious kind of food poisoning. Also, that the family had no history of intemperance or mental breakdown.

Reflecting on the above, I am reminded that the facts pertain to my family history too. If David Ritchie Sr is indeed my blood relative, then his healthy lifestyle, steady habits and stable childhood all factor into my genetic inheritance. The fact that he was found to be of unsound mind and committed to a lunatic asylum is, in my view, more a question of hyper-sensitivity and an inability to function properly in stressful situations. With luck, the progress notes in the casebook will provide more insight.

Photo credit: "Alcohol. Drunkenness. Ruin." by Ewan Munro.

Evidence of light in the darkness of a pauper lunatic asylum

The third and final letter in my great-grandfather's medical casebook was written a few years after the others, on 18 February 1915. In it, David Ritchie Sr addresses the Medical Superintendent by name. This, combined with the frank style of the letter, indicates to me that enough groundwork has been laid for raising issues of concern. Even so, the letter has disturbing elements, as you will see when you read it.

Once again, I thought hard about whether to publish the letter and decided to do so because it is an opportunity to bridge the gap between regular society and the mentally ill. I wish to show that not all people who spend time in a psychiatric hospital or ward are non-functional. In the case of David Ritchie Sr, he remained articulate and cooperative during his first 6 years at Hanwell and possibly beyond. Moreover, far from being a dangerous maniac, he was a person who preferred to avoid conflict and violence at all costs.

Here is the letter:

"Dr PW Bailey, Sir, There has been another fight in the ward this morning, two yesterday, and the man who cut my cheek open came up to me and said he would punch my b- face in. I had to seize his arm and had a job to get away from him without being struck. Does it please you to know that I am thoroughly miserable, that I do not know how to contain myself and be patient as I contemplate my life being wasted and rendered barren of all good by your callous neglect and cruel unmerciful treatment? You appear to do all you can to degrade and unman me and dishearten me and I shall place it all before the Lunacy Commissioners both orally and in writing and see whether I cannot secure fair play and different treatment in the future. Yours etcetera, DS Ritchie. PS When do you intend to place me with men like myself?"

Judy Lester, who transcribed the letter for me, added the following note: "The above letter has been annotated in red across the top left-hand corner: 'The fight referred to in this letter was an assault by Thomas F Williams on Thomas Brasier on February 18 PB'

I believe that, were David Ritchie Sr alive today, he would be recognised as an HSP [Highly Sensitive Person] and prescribed medication to treat his condition. Being locked up for a lifetime would not happen because his symptoms would be managed. He would be working as an artist, filmmaker, software developer or accountant in a quiet office. Conditions are so different today. People can choose the lifestyle that suits them, moving away from the city if the pressure is too great. This man, who fretted about his life being "wasted and rendered barren of all good" may even have turned his experience working in stately homes into a diplomatic career.

Yet this was only 1915. His life's story still has value a century later. I believe the letters and the rest of the medical casebook have come to light for a reason. If nothing else, his example is inspiring. From a broken man who was brought to the workhouse in a state of delirium, he put effort into his recovery and strove to get the kind of treatment he knew was his right.

Photo credit: "Northern light" by Patrice-photgraphiste.

The world is too noisy for me, says David Ritchie Sr

This is the second post in my series about the letters found in the medical casebook of my great-grandfather David Ritchie Sr, written to the staff of the London County Asylum in Hanwell. Here I examine the contents of the second letter, the one he wrote while out on 1 month's trial discharge.

Dated 4 March 1911, the letter is addressed from 51 Exeter Street, Lisson Grove, Marylebone. This appears from census records to be a row house with space for 2 families. Since David's wife Maude was at Cleveland House, St James Square in 1909 and again in April 1911, she probably rented the Exeter Street rooms especially for the month of his discharge.

The letter is much more descriptive of my great-grandfather's condition than the one in which he asked to be recommended for a trial discharge. Initially, I was hesitant to share it. I decided, however, to do so in the interests of educating people about what it is actually like to suffer from mental illness. If you have read the first letter, you may notice a distinct difference in style and wonder if it is symptomatic of an out-of-control personality. I put it down to the fact that David was dictating the letter to Maude, and that Maude did not have the same finesse in writing as he did. Here is what he tells the medical Superintendent:

"My wife and I think we had better come and see you next Monday instead of waiting for the month to expire. I have lived carefully and have been hoping all along that when I got used to the change I should go on all right but I have got into a state which I believe is doing my brain injury. From the day of my discharge I have not had my proper sleep. I have done all in my power to remedy this, taken opening medicine tired myself out with long walks and stopped my ears with cotton wool at night but to no effect. I usually get about four to five hours sleep but I am in semi-conscious condition all the time, I wake at every sound. This did not seem to affect my health for the first five or six days but after that I could not distinguish the events of one day from another and my memory seemed to go to pieces. In the middle of a sentence my mind would sometimes become a blank and I would follow the sense of conversation some way and then lose my grip of it and ask to have the latter part repeated. I have been to see my friends and relatives but now I am so conscious of my deficiencies that I do not feel inclined for society because I get into a most irritable state bordering on frenzy but it soon passes and I have not lost control of myself. I don't get cross with other people but with myself. I have been no trouble to others, have had no disagreements and have not said an unkind word to anyone since I left Hanwell but I am afraid of these irritable fits. I think I have left Hanwell too soon, my recovery has been very slow and it has not gone far enough. I would have seen a doctor had I the slightest hope of benefit, but I am afraid of drugs and I think it is the incessant movement and noise of the traffic which has excited my senses so that I cannot get into a proper condition for healthy sleep. I shall come prepared to stay at Hanwell till recovered. My wife has helped me with this letter, we are devoted to each other, and hope our reunion will only be put off for a time. She will accompany me on Monday. I thank you, sir, for recommending me for my discharge and hope it will not be regretted as I have given no trouble in any way."

It is interesting to note David Ritchie's reference to traffic noise. Hyper-awareness of sensory stimulation is often associated with a sensitive personality. Yet, even more telling, I think, is his insistence that he has conducted himself well and not been a nuisance, despite his difficulties with sleeping and losing track of conversation. Even the letter itself, with its respectful and accepting tone, suggests he is in the habit of downplaying his own needs in order to keep the peace.

Photo credit: "Trafalgar Square" by Leonard Bentley.

A glimpse inside my great-grandfather's troubled mind

About 18 months after entering the London County Asylum, David Scott Ritchie Sr wrote to the staff asking for a discharge. His letter was preserved along with the medical casebook from the London Metropolitan Archives. Its content came as somewhat of a surprise to me.

I don't really know what I was expecting, but certainly it was not the very respectful and well-worded letter that came from the pen of this so-called lunatic. See what you think:

Dear sir, I should be obliged if you would grant me an interview, with the idea of determining whether you could recommend me at the next sitting of the committee for my discharge, for a month on trial. My wife came to see me yesterday and spoke to Dr Cheadle in your absence. Dr Cheadle said he thought I was hardly so well as I was a few months ago, but this is not my experience; I feel better in health and spirits than I have for the past twelve months. I feel quite capable of earning my living and I beg you will give me the chance. My wife is writing you on the same subject. Hoping for your favourable consideration. I remain Yours respectfully, DS Ritchie

The letter is dated 31 January 1911. This means David Ritchie wrote it in the middle of winter. Yet it sounds as if he is feeling comfortable and upbeat. His comment about feeling better than he has for the last 12 months is interesting, given that 1910 saw the death of King Edward VII and the ascension to the throne of King George V.

Then again, his buoyancy of spirit may be completely unrelated to the events that took place beyond the asylum walls. It could simply be the result of rest, proper treatment and much-needed support from his wife.

Photo credit: "King George V, 1911" by Dr Ghulam Nabi Kazi.