My question regarding Mary Ann Howell of Bilston

This blog post continues the account of my research into the ancestors of Florence Mary Sanderson. Florence Sanderson was my maternal grandmother and was very much a product of London's East End. However, her ancestors came from Yorkshire and Staffordshire, and it is with the Staffordshire branch that I am currently busy.

My grandmother's mother was Florence Mary Wilson, who was in turn the daughter of Mary Ann Howell. The Howells were from Bilston, Staffordshire, and it isn't clear how Mary Ann ended up in London. According to census records, she moved south between 1851 and 1861, or sometime between her fourth and fourteenth birthdays, so it is likely she accompanied her parents or relatives when they travelled south. Yet, from what I can tell, her parents never left Bilston. Joseph and Mary Howell remained at the same address for their entire married life. So, why exactly did Mary Ann leave Bilston, and did I even have the right parents for her in my family tree?

Genealogical websites often advise amateur family historians to start with their most recent ancestors and work backwards from there. When I tried to trace Mary Ann Howell in both London and Staffordshire, however, I only got confused. The name Howell is extremely common in both locations. Moreover, the name Mary Ann turns up frequently, and there is more than one person named Mary Ann Howell born in 1847 in the Bilston area. The Howells of Bilston appear to be a long-established family with deep roots, and there are multiple Samuels, Williams, Sarahs and Phoebes in each generation. Faced with so many options, I didn't know how to distinguish one family from another.

Finally, I had an idea. Focusing on just one collection, the 1841 census for England and Wales, I typed in the surname, birth year and birth location of the man I had identified as Mary Ann's father; namely, Joseph Howell. Deliberately omitting his first name, I sought all  men born in Bilston who were capable of fathering a daughter in 1847. Thus, I came up with a list of over 20 individuals, enabling me to sort out the different families according to street address. Then I did the same exercise using the 1851 census. This helped in two ways: First, it let me add other, younger children to the families. Second, it clarified who was who in each family because the later census included the category "Relationship to head" alongside each name. If an individual appeared as "nephew", for example, it established a possible link between that Howell household and another with children roughly the same age.

It took me days to go through all the family groups and I struggled to trace connections between them. While there were several Howell households in Bilston's Oxford Street in 1841, they weren't obviously related. Doubtless, they shared common ancestors and knew each other as cousins of some sort, but tracing them all back into the mid-1700's and beyond posed too great an obstacle for my flagging energy! I opted instead to check my references for all the people I had already included in Mary Ann's tree to see if they stood up to scrutiny and, happily, they did. I found convincing documentary evidence for her birth to Joseph Howell and Mary Vaughan of Oxford Street, as well as for Mary Vaughan's birth to Edward Timothy Vaughan and Ann Prosser of Bridge Street.

At the same time, I messaged several of my DNA matches and came up with a strong link between me and a descendant of George Frederick Wilson. George was, like my great-grandmother Florence Mary Wilson, a child of Mary Ann Howell and Thomas Wilson. The DNA match proves that the documentary evidence I have for Mary Ann Howell and her Bilston-based family is indeed correct, and it also proves that there weren't any cases of misattributed paternity in that line.

But my original question still exists; what brought Mary Ann Howell to London in her teens, and how did she meet Thomas Wilson of Bethnal Green? Such mysteries are what good stories are made of. I'm hoping that, by putting my question out there, someone will be able to solve the puzzle. For that matter, any information that can shed more light on the Howells of Bilston and the Wilsons of Bethnal Green would be much appreciated.

Photo credit:  "Bilston Town Hall: Church Street and Litchfield Street" by Elliott Brown

 

Surprising new family member in the Sanderson branch of our tree

In my last blog post, I mentioned the large gap in the ages of my maternal great-grandparents, Charles and Florence Sanderson of Shoreditch. Charles was 46 when they married in 1903 and Florence was just 28. It made me wonder, was Charles Sanderson married before?

Formulating this question made it easy to progress with my genealogical research. Working on FindMyPast, I ran a search for an early marriage record for Charles Sanderson. I estimated that the marriage would have taken place around 1880 when Charles was 23, and restricted the search location to Yorkshire, the county in which he was born.

Sure enough, my search produced a result. Charles Sanderson married Emma Elsey in 1879 in York. The record I found confirmed that Charles' father was Thomas Sanderson and gave Emma's father's name as George Elsey. The Elsey family came from Surrey and George was an agricultural labourer.

Excitedly, I set about trying to find out more. A census record for 1881 revealed that Charles and Emma were living in Roundhay, a rural district of Leeds, Yorkshire and that Charles was working as a coachman in domestic service. This detail was encouraging because his occupation later in life when he was married to Florence was horse keeper. When I researched Roundhay, I learnt that it is an ancient green space outside the city of Leeds, originally enclosed as a deer park, subsequently opened to the public as a recreational area, and more recently developed in part with houses for the working class. Presumably, when my great-grandfather Charles lived in Roundhay, he was serving a rich landowner and driving a carriage pulled by two tall, strong horses like the Yorkshire Coach Horse shown in the picture.

The 1881 census also showed that Charles and Emma were starting a family. Emma had recently given birth to a daughter named Caroline. Caroline Sanderson was just 10 months old at the time of the 1881 census.

This was an extraordinary find. It meant that Grandma, born an only child, actually had a half-sister who was 24 years older than she. Nothing had been suggested about this before, causing me to have serious doubts about the veracity of my evidence.

Then I made an even more astonishing discovery.

Returning to the Sanderson family Bible, I scanned through the names. One name jumped out at me. In a slightly smudged hand, someone had written, "Carre Sanderson born 5th April 1880 at Roundhay, Leeds". I searched for a birth record online and found Caroline Emma Sanderson born in April 1880 with her mother's maiden name given as Elsey. The name, date and location of this record all confirm that Caroline Sanderson, daughter of Charles and Emma, was indeed one of my ancestors.

I then turned to MyHeritage to see if I could find out more. Another census record popped up, this time from 1901 in the suburb of Bethnal Green. Clearly, the person who took down the family's details had terrible handwriting because Caroline's birthplace of Roundhay is transcribed as "Roimdhay" and the county of her birth is shown as Leicestershire, suggesting a faulty transcription of Leeds. In addition, Charles is transcribed as "Marles". Even so, there was enough to convince me that they were the right people. I knew that Charles had married Florence in London in 1903, so this record for the 1901 census helped establish his move. It also confirmed he  was a widower. He stated his occupation as "foreman/house keeper" which is probably another error in transcription, intended to read "foreman/horse keeper" as in the 1911 census. Caroline, at 20 years old,  stated her occupation as "household duties".

My investigation then turned to Emma's death. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any trace of it online. All I know is that it occurred sometime in the 20 years between the 1881 and 1901 census. I tried to find evidence of Caroline getting married or, failing that, appearing on the 1911 census or 1939 register but again, had no luck. I couldn't even find a death record for her, since all the death records for women named Caroline Sanderson corresponded with census records that showed them married to men named Sanderson.

This isn't the end of the world, though. I have lots to investigate for now. Up to this point, the city of Leeds and its surrounding countryside held no interest for me, but that has changed. If I get the chance to travel to Yorkshire, I will definitely make a pilgrimage to Roundhay to walk in the footsteps of Charles, Emma and Caroline.

Photo credit: Cigarette card: Yorkshire Coach Horse by CigCardPix.

 

Census record for Charles Sanderson sheds light on Grandma's early life

There is a story in Grandad's memoir about him and Grandma attending fox-hunting events while they were courting. Given that neither of them came from noble families, their presence at these events didn't make sense. Now some new information has emerged which throws light on this mystery.

Grandma was an only child who grew up in the East End of London. I knew very little about her early life when I began this blog except that her maiden name was Florence Mary Sanderson and that she was born in Shoreditch in 1905.

From research done on My Heritage and Find My Past, I've been able to discover a little more about her roots. Her father was Charles Sanderson, born in York, Yorkshire in 1857. Her mother was Florence Mary Wilson, born in Bethnal Green, London in 1875. What is remarkable here is the age difference between her parents. Charles was nearly 18 years older than Florence, which may explain why they only had one child.

I am fortunate to have become the keeper of the Sanderson family Bible. It came to me in a very fragile state and I had it professionally re-bound to preserve the precious notes recorded on its front pages. Charles' name is listed, along with his father Thomas Winskill Sanderson and his mother Mary Ann Bland. The record shows that there were eleven children in all, although only eight made it to adulthood.

According to census records, all Charles' surviving siblings lived out their lives in Yorkshire. He was the only one who left and move to London. Perhaps his being the eldest son placed certain expectations on him, or perhaps he was simply looking to seek his fortune in the city. At any rate, that was how he met and married Florence Wilson.  The marriage took place in 1903, the year before Grandma was born.

It was from the 1911 census taken in Mile End Old Town that I learnt Charles Sanderson's occupation was horse keeper. This little detail reminded me that Grandma had a small brooch with a riding whip and horseshoe which she gifted me when I entered my first gymkhana as a child. She also fostered my interest in horses by buying me a subscription to an expensive English horse magazine. Grandma never rode after she and Grandad moved to South Africa but she must have retained fond memories of the horses her dad cared for back in London. When I shared what I had found with my sister, she reminded me that she had a three-handled mug depicting a hunting scene which had belonged to our mother, and that this may have been passed down from Grandma who received it from her father. I have added a photo of the mug here, and if anyone can suggest its provenance, I would be most grateful.

Did Grandma and Grandad gain access to fox-hunting events through Charles' job, I wonder? After all, it was through my own friend's father, who was a keen better on the races, that she and I gained access to the race course! It seems conceivable that Charles, who was responsible for  someone else's horses and therefore familiar with horsy events, should wish to open doors for his daughter and her fiancé, especially as David was always so keen on visiting new places.

I like this explanation of the story in Grandad's memoir. It feels right. I can just see my very tall grandfather  holding the elbow of my very petite and stylishly-dressed grandmother as they politely acknowledged the master of the hunt in his black top hat and scarlet coat, while throngs of riders, grooms and horses milled about on a grey winter's day.

Photo credit: Illustration of fox hunting from Sporting Sketches (1817-1818) by Henry Alken (1784-1851). Original from The New York Public Library. Digitally enhanced by rawpixel.

New information gleaned from oral interview

Some exciting new information has come to light about my grandfather's whereabouts following the 1911 census. It came through an interview I did with my oldest living relative, my aunt Gillian. I conducted the interview via Zoom using the recording function, then transcribed the important parts into my notes. Here is what I learnt:

My aunt travelled to Europe with her friend in the fifties. While in London, she visited several  elderly relatives, among them her father's uncle, Uncle Alf. This would have been Grandad's mother's youngest brother whom I had on record as Alfred Parker. According to my aunt, Uncle Alf was like a father to her dad and her Dad was very fond of him.

 "He was a big man and he was a lovely man," said my aunt Gillian. "He really was. He and his wife, they were very happy and they lived very simply. At that stage, I didn't really take much notice, I went over there, we had a cup of tea, and that was Uncle Alf sorted out." She added, "To us, he was old. I don't know what age they were but to us they were old, whereas we were young, we were hitching around Europe."

Hearing my aunt talk about her visit, I was surprised. According to what I had found out so far, Alfred was born in 1884 in Marylebone and was living with his widowed mother Jane in both the 1901 and 1911 censuses. This had led me to assume Alfred had never married but I was wrong. Preliminary research turned up a record on  Family Search that showed he married Florence Edith Harper in 1912.

Even more surprising was the information that Alfred was like a father to David. Did this mean David had lived with Alfred and his wife? The 1911 census showed that David was at the home of his maternal aunt and uncle, Emily and William Smith, in St John's Wood. Now I wondered if he had just been visiting, or if he had moved in with Alfred and Florence when they married the following year.

I did my best to imagine how the relationship between Alfred and David had developed.  Alfred would have been 18 at the time David was born. He would have been 25 when David's father, David Scott Ritchie Sr, was admitted to the Hanwell asylum. The Hanwell admission records show that he was with Emily and William in 1909, which is where he was in 1911 as well. Perhaps, then, he did only move in with Alfred after Alfred got married. The marriage certificate might provide clues but even more useful would be the 1921 census, showing where David was living at age 19. Access to the 1921 census is currently prohibited by the 100-year privacy rule but that restriction will fall away next year.

  I'm not sure what year my aunt visited Uncle Alf in London. The record on Family Search states that Alfred died in 1956 at the age of 72. Gillian would have been 24 at the time. I doubt she and her friend would have travelled to Europe earlier than that, so her memory of him as an old man was accurate.

My aunt Gillian is 88 going on 89 as I write this, and in very good health. It's truly a privilege to be able to learn family history from her first-hand accounts. Speaking to her gave me some excellent leads which I will be following up with online research and assistance from a professional genealogist. Look out for more information as I come across it!

Photo credit: "Wood Marylebone, Marylebone, NW1" by Ewan Munro

 

Refining my search for DNA relatives

I had intended to keep this blog updated regularly but, unfortunately, I have let my reporting lapse. This is a catch-up post. Contrary to the way things appear, I have made some progress in my search for my grandfathers background.

Most importantly, my cousin and I took a decision at the end of 2019 to get my aunts DNA assessed. We ordered the kit from My Heritage and my aunt supplied a sample for analysis. When the results came back, I uploaded my own DNA results from 23andMe to My Heritage so the two samples could be compared. This made it possible to separate the DNA relatives on my maternal grandparents’ side from the DNA relatives on my paternal grandparents’ side

Even so, the process of tracing family lines is fairly complicated. Most of the DNA relatives that come up are third to sixth cousins. They could relate to people in my grandmother Sandy’s lying and not my grandfather David’s line. I will have to keep plugging away until I find DNA relatives with surnames I recognise or, at least, from distinctive locations in the UK before i can say for sure that a particular grouping of matches belongs to David himself.

Other news is that I have made an application for David Scott Ritchie’s unabridged death certificate in the hope that it will show his place of birth. As described earlier in this blog, all attempts to find his birth certificate have been in vain. In order to apply for UK citizenship, I need some sort of official documentation proving that he was born in England. The unabridged death certificate should, theoretically, have this information on it although I still don’t know whether it does because it has not yet been found. This in spite of the fact that I have been waiting on the South African Department of Home Affairs for a full 12 months.

Such are the challenges of tracing ones lineage! I could get frustrated but prefer to keep a positive outlook and regard it all as one big, fascinating adventure. When all is said and done, the past is the past and we must live in the present.
Photo credit: "DNA Kit" by Geoff Stearns.

The genealogical enigma continues

I saw my cousin last week and we had a chance to talk at length about my grandfather. She is very keen on the royal link which made for lots of outrageous speculation and laughter. When she left I found myself wanting to review the facts in order to check that we weren't fabricating a mystery. After all, I don't want to be putting a huge amount of effort into chasing what-ifs when a completely mundane explanation of Grandad's missing birth certificate is right under my nose.

For example, I took another look at my grandfather's name, David Scott Ritchie. My mother, his daughter, grew up with the surname "Scott-Ritchie". The double-barrel form of surname often happens when the surnames of spouses are joined together. Now, I know my grandmother's surname wasn't Scott, but what if my great-grandmother's surname was? In other words, what if Maude Scott married somebody Ritchie and they named their son David Scott Ritchie?

Well, I tried this theory out and turned up nothing useful.

So I went back to my notes to remind myself why I was so sure that David's mother Maude had married David Scott Ritchie Sr. Perhaps, I thought, I was placing too much weight on the fact that my grandfather's name was the same as the husband of Maude Alice Parker. None of the surviving members of my family actually remember what Granny Maude's maiden name was.

What I found though was undeniable evidence that David's mother was Maude Alice Parker. I had in my possession a statutory declaration which served as my grandfather's birth record, stating that Maude was living at 22 Albert Street when David was born in 1902. I also had a copy of Maude Parker's marriage certificate which shows that she was living at that same address. One document came directly from my grandfather and the other came from the Government Record Office. There is no doubt that Maude was born Parker and no doubt that the man she married is the man who spent the latter part of his life in the asylum at Hanwell.

So the enigma continues. My grandfather, senior businessman and world traveller, bearing the noble likeness of Henry Duke of Gloucester, was the son of a cook and a mentally-challenged butler. Perhaps it is no wonder Grandad never spoke about his childhood or teenage years. Yet there must be records relating to his scholastic achievements, if nothing else. I am determined to find these, and anything else besides, because a man with so much charisma and talent is a man whose story deserves to be told.

Photo credit: "Blowing questions" by Brian Yap.

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.

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.

Facts about David Ritchie Sr's whereabouts prior to his diagnosis of insanity

The final batch of documents relating to the admission of my great-grandfather to the London County Asylum in Hanwell contains illuminating details about his life in the years prior to his breakdown in June 1909. The documents are actually a series of procedural letters and forms aimed at establishing whether his expenses should be covered by the Parish of St Marylebone or the Parish of Kensington. Yet they provide valuable information to flesh out the story as we know it so far.

There is a letter to Miss Louisa Parker, the eldest sister of David's wife Maude, who is living in New Cavendish Street. In it, the Settlement Officer of St Marylebone asks for information pertaining to David Ritchie's stay at 10 Cornwall Gardens, South Kensington. Louisa Parker provides the following answers: Firstly, Mr David S Ritchie went to live at that address in May 1904, and stayed there till 30 September 1907. His stay there was continuous, as opposed to broken periods. While at Cornwall Gardens, he had nothing whatever to do with any hospital, infirmary or institution of any sort.

A second letter from the Settlement Officer is addressed to Miss Clara Philpott, 2 Portman Square. Miss Philpott gives basically the same answers: David Ritchie stayed at 10 Cornwall Gardens, South Kensington, for 3 years and 6 months, and he left on 30 September 1907. His stay there was continuous. Not once while at Cornwall Gardens did he become an in-patient at a hospital, infirmary or any other institution.

There follows a page of notes summing up the findings of the Settlement Officer. Here are the pertinent facts:

For the week preceding his arrival at the Marylebone Workhouse, David Ritchie stayed at Cleveland House in St James Square. He was with his wife Maude, who was working at this address.

Before Cleveland House, David Ritchie stayed for a month at 41 Cockrin Street in St John's Wood. This was the home of Maude's sister Emily and her husband William Smith.

Tracking backwards in time, the notes indicate that, for the 11 months prior to his stay with the Smiths, David Ritchie stayed at 14 Clafaine Road, Canonbury. No further details are given about this location.

Before that 11-month stay, he was at 10 Cornwall Gardens, South Kensington. It appears that the head of this household may have been Sir Henry Bliss, because there is a note beside his name that says, "Gone. Abingdon, Oxford. No relief here." Maybe Miss Clara Philpott, who was applied to for information about his stay, was a servant who worked with him at this address. I do not know who she could be otherwise.

The upshot of all this investigation was a lengthy printed order from St Marylebone regarding "Lunatic Settlement, Maintenance and Care", signed in the presence of the police. This was, in the words of Judy Lester, "a formal order of removal from the Parish of ST Marylebone to the Parish of Kensington, and a request for Kensington to reimburse St Marylebone with all the expenses of getting David Scott Ritchie to the asylum, plus the costs of his ongoing care and maintenance while he remained there. This was because his parish of legal settlement had been adjudged as Kensington, on the basis of 3 continuous years residence at Cornwall Gardens [1904 to 1907]. Point of interest: The costs of care and maintenance at hanwell were being charged at 1 shilling 5 3/4 pence per day."

Image Description - Vintage European style key engraving from Six Semaines de vacances by Paul Poiré (1880). Original from the British Library. Digitally enhanced by rawpixel.

Who will pay for the inmate's treatment?

One of the startling aspects of my great-grandfather's life is that he became a pauper, despite having a wife who was employed and a family of origin who were all respectable traders. I don't know how this came to be, and can only surmise that his insanity was too much for the family to bear. At any rate, the documents relating to the cost of David Ritchie Sr's admission to the London County Asylum make it clear that he was cared for by the parish.

As Judy Lester puts it, "St Marylebone investigated David Ritchie's place of legal settlement, in case they could pass the expenses of his removal and the costs of his ongoing care onto another parish. This included the need to establish his place of residence in previous years."

There is a page of scribbled notes which appear to have been made in the course of conversation. I imagine that someone must have questioned David Ritchie himself, as there was no-one else present who could furnish such personal details. The following is my interpretation of the rough notes, based on what I already know about the family's circumstances.

The patient's name is David Ritchie. He is 35 years old, a butler, and married. He belongs to the Church of England and is a member of a club. He was, until his recent breakdown, in service. He has a son named David, who is 7 years old and currently in the Hampstead Fever Hospital. Eighteen months ago he was living at Cornwall Gardens, Kensington, where he remained about 3 years altogether. He began working at a new place about a month ago, at which time he was troubled by deafness. He has a wife named Maude, who is a cook working at the same place as him. Her employer is Sir Charles Murray of Cleveland House, St James Square, Piccadilly. He has a sister-in-law named Mrs Emily Smith, who lives at 31 Cockrin Street. It is unclear whether he has any means.

As mentioned, I was able to decipher the meaning of the notes from what I've already learnt about David Ritchie's former life. To the person interviewing him, however, the story must have been difficult to follow. I see in my mind's eye a uniformed officer sitting at his desk, scratching his head, struggling to sift out the important facts from a long and rambling narrative. How grateful he must have been for the names and addresses already provided on the admission form.

he would gather the evidence he needed to establish which parish should carry the costs of David Ritchie's care and treatment, but more about that in my next post.

Photo credit: "Vintage Wallet — Interior" by J. Mark Bertrand.

A medical examination for the new inmate

Previous posts in this series about David Ritchie's admission to the London County Asylum have shown why he had to be admitted and how he got there. Here, I share the notes taken by the Medical Superintendent as to the state of his physical health. Once again, a big thanks to Judy Lester of Kerrywood Research for tracking down the records and sending them to me so I could include them in my blog. First, some background to set the scene. David Ritchie was a 35-year-old man, married, and a butler. He had a 7-year-old son, my grandfather, who was living with relatives in St John's Wood, presumably so that David and his wife Maude could both continue working.

David had suffered a previous attack of insanity when he was 18. That episode had lasted just a few days and was not treated. At that time, he was probably living with his widowed mother Emma Eliza Ritchie and 9-year-old sister Susan Elizabeth. This assumption is based on the fact that he was living with them in the 1891 census, taken a year earlier. Interestingly, David switched occupations from junior clerk to footman soon after that census was taken, suggesting that his health forced him to make the change. Nevertheless, he managed to rise to the position of butler and stay employed at Cleveland House in St James Square, so his condition certainly did not impair his normal functioning.

At least, not until June 1909, when he began displaying bizarre behaviour and had to be taken to the Marylebone Workhouse. After that, Dr Duncan Menzies pronounced him to be "of unsound mind and a proper person to be taken charge of and detained under care and treatment". He was then conveyed by the police to the asylum at Hanwell, where the Medical Superintendent examined him in preparation for formal admission.

Here is what the Superintendent noted:

1. As to cleanliness: Clean. 2. Bodily condition: Fair. 3. Positions and descriptions of any bruises, wounds, marks of injury, skin eruptions, sores, pain, tenderness, and any evidence of disease or disorder: Old vaccination marks, right arm. Faint bruise, left leg. Abrasion, left leg. Old scars, both knees. Sebacious cyst, forehead.

This is clearly not a sick or broken man. On the contrary, he has marks on his body which are consistent with work in a busy household full of dark corridors, narrow steps, heavy furniture and horses. If he looked anything like his son, my grandfather, he was also tall, big-boned, and strong. indeed he must have been because he survived the institution for an astonishing 57 years, until his death at the age of 92. Photo credit: "Some of Mike's wounds" by Ryan McFarland.

Taken charge of and detained under care and treatment

In my previous post, I began sharing some of the documents relating to David Ritchie Sr's admission to the London County Asylum in Hanwell. Here I present the next batch. In the words of Judy Lester who found the documents for me, "As you'd expect, under the provisions of the Lunacy Act (1890) there was a lot of paperwork connected with committal to an asylum. So there are many forms and notes."

One document lists the expenses incurred by the Relieving Officer in regard to the enquiry into David Ritchie Sr's state of mind. The Relieving Officer was the person at the workhouse who was in charge of deciding which residents were entitled to receive assistance, and exactly what form that should take. In this case, he was responsible for deciding whether David Ritchie should be admitted to the workhouse at all, and after establishing that he should not, he arranged for a Justice of the Peace [a policeman] to come and take him to the London County Asylum. The expenses were all incurred on 5 June 1909.

As you consider the list, I invite you to picture the scene. A cab draws up to the gates of the Marylebone Workhouse. Watery sunlight spills from the roof of the building and reflects off the vehicle's bonnet. A horse drawn cart clatters past, speeding up as it goes. From inside the cab, the keen-eyed passenger can't help noticing that the skinny woman holding the horse's reins has a decidedly guilty expression on her face, but before he can get distracted, he climbs out, reminds the driver to wait, and puts on his hat. Burnt porridge and wood fire smells seep from a high window, causing his nostrils to twitch as he looks around. Then he spots a pitiful-looking figure dressed in a worn-out coat with tails. Immediately, he calls out in an authoritative voice, instructing the inmate to bring someone with a key. At the same time he pulls out a sheaf of papers from the inside pocket of his jacket. It is time to meet and take charge of the lunatic within.

Now, here is the list of expenses, offered in my own words:

Two shillings for the hire of a cab to convey the Justice of the Peace from Duke Street to the workhouse, including waiting and return. Seven shillings 6 pence for the part-hire of a cab to remove David Ritchie to Hanwell asylum. One shilling 6 pence for the part-hire of a male attendant. Six shillings for expenses incurred by the Relieving officer with regard to filling in forms, waiting on the Justice of the Peace, etcetera. Seven pence for postage, etcetera [including 2 pence for correspondence with David Ritchie's wife Maude].

The above expenses came to 17 shillings 7 pence. In case you are not familiar with the old money used before the decimal system was introduced, bear in mind that there were 12 pence in a shilling and 20 shillings in a pound. Thus, the total amount incurred was nearly 1 pound.

Accompanying documents show that money was duly paid out to the Relieving Officer. These documents include an order from the Justice of the Peace to the Guardians of the Poor of the Parish of St Marylebone, directing them to reimburse the Relieving Officer the sum of 17 shillings and 7 pence. Also, receipts for payments made by the Relieving Officer to the Marylebone Workhouse, to cover the hire of the cab and a male attendant.

I share these details of expenses because they flesh out the journey my great-grandfather took on that fifth day of June 1909. What was for one man an entry into an unknown world of institutional food, padded rooms and locked wards was for others a routine day of driving, signing papers and issuing payments. History is surely full of contrasting perspectives.

Photo credit: "Great Britain 6 pence 1900" by Numismatic Coins & History.

Notes on David Ritchie's admission to the London County Asylum

The set of documents provided by Judy Lester relating to my great-grandfather's entry into the asylum at Hanwell are very illuminating. In this post, i will summarise the statements and facts which I find most interesting, omitting the parts relating to administrative procedure which don't really add to the story.

The original documents are held at the London Metropolitan Archives and form part of the collection from the St Marylebone Board of Guardians. They can be accessed online via Ancestry.com.

The first is an extract from the register of the Marylebone workhouse, dated 30 May 1909. It shows that David Richie entered the workhouse but the handwriting is so illegible that nothing can be gleaned from it. All I can say is that the information gathered relates to his age, religious persuasion, names of informant, from whence admitted, name of relieving officer, where sent in the house, date of admission and date of discharge.

The second document is the doctor's certificate I shared in my previous post. This is dated 1 June 1909. In it, Dr Duncan Menzies certifies that his patient is "of unsound mind and a proper person to be taken charge of and detained under care and treatment".

The third document is a permit for admission to an asylum, contained in a letter to the head of the Marylebone Workhouse. Originating from the Asylums Committee and dated 4 June 1909, it gives instructions on when and how the patient is to be removed from one institution to the other.

The fourth document is entitled "Order for reception of a pauper lunatic" and comes from a Justice of the Peace for the County of London. Addressed to the Superintendent of the London County Asylum, it contains the following statement:

I, Frank S Turner, having called to my assistance Dr Duncan Menzies of Dorset Square, London NW, a duly qualified medical practitioner, and being satisfied that David Ritchie, a butler, of Marylebone w/house, is in such circumstances as to require relief for his proper care and maintenance, and that the said David Ritchie is a person of unsound mind and a proper person to be taken charge of and detained under care and treatment, hereby direct you to receive the said David Ritchie as a patient into your asylum. Subjoined is a statement of particulars relating to the said David Ritchie.

Here are the particulars as given on the reception order:

Name of patient [with Christian name at length]: David Ritchie Sex and age: Male, 35 yrs Married, widowed or single: Married Rank, profession, or previous occupation [if any]: Butler Religious persuasion: Ch of Eng Residence at or immediately previous to date hereof: Cleveland House, Piccadilly Whether first attack: No Age on first attack: About 18 years, for about 3 days When and where previously under care and treatment as a person of unsound mind: Nowhere Duration of existing attack: Few days Supposed cause: Unknown Whether subject to epilepsy: No Whether suicidal: Yes Whether dangerous to others, and in what way: Whether any near relative has been afflicted with insanity: Not known Union to which lunacy is chargeable: St Marylebone Names, Christian names, and full postal addresses of one or more relatives of the patient: Wife, Maude [address given] Name of the person to whom notice of death to be sent, and full postal address: Sister-in-law, Mrs E Smith [address given]

The above order for reception concludes with a note by the relieving officer from the workhouse. It confirms that he removed David Ritchie to the London County Asylum on 5 June 1909 and deposited his clothing back at the workhouse.

Photo credit: "Chimney Pots" by Stephanie.

Medical certification under the Lunacy Act of 1890

The following extract from the certificate of the medical practitioner at the workhouse in the parish of St Marylebone makes for fascinating reading. I am indebted to Judy Lester of Kerrywood Research in London for her assistance in finding it for me.

If you are a descendant of David Scott Ritchie Sr and have not read my previous post entitled "What to do with insanity in the family", be sure to do so. Please also remember that what was known about mental illness in 1909 was scant compared to what is known today. Even if you or a member of your family should manifest exactly the same behaviours as described in the quoted report, the chances of being institutionalised are slim. If anything worries you, please consult a doctor or psychologist for an assessment.

With reference to the quote itself, the spelling and punctuation may not be exactly as Judy Lester transcribed it for me, due to the fact that I use screen-reading software which cannot access fine detail in all document formats.

Here is what the certificate of the medical practitioner says:

In the matter of David Ritchie of Marylebone w/house in the County of London, a butler, an alleged lunatic, I, the undersigned Duncan Menzies, do hereby certify as follows: 1. I am a person registered under the medical Act [1858] and I am in the actual practice of the medical profession. 2. On the first day of June 1909, at the w/house, St Marylebone, in the County of London, separately from any other practitioner, I personally examined the said David Ritchie and came to the conclusion that he is a person of unsound mind, and a proper person to be taken charge of and detained under care and treatment. 3. I formed this conclusion on the following grounds, viz, a. Facts indicating insanity observed by myself at the time of examination, viz, he laughs and sings aloud in bed, rambles and talks incoherently, has delusions, says he was born to elevate the human race, says his son and himself suffer from the same ailment at the same time. b. Facts communicated by others, viz, Walter WM Barnard [attendant Marylebone w/house] says patient tried to strangle himself yesterday and when interfered with became violent and had to be put in the padded room. He laughs and sings aloud and refuses his food at times. 4. The said David Ritchie appeared to me to be in a fit condition of bodily health to be removed to an asylum, hospital or licensed house. 5. I give this certificate, having first read the Section of the Act of Parliament printed below. Signed: Duncan Menzies, 40 Dorset Square, London NW. Dated the first day of June 1909. Extract from Section 317, Subsection 2, of the Lunacy Act [1890]: Any person who makes a wilful misstatement of any material fact in any medical or other certificate , or in any statement or report of bodily or mental condition under this Act, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.

Photo credit: "Salvador Dali" by Hans Olofsson.

Unexpected details about David Ritchie Sr's admission to the London County Asylum

I received a surprise email last week from Judy Lester of Kerrywood Research about my great-grandfather's admission into the asylum at Hanwell. Having become fascinated in the case from reading my blog, she sourced the 1909 admission record and wanted to share it with me at no charge. This is very generous of her.

The admission record is not, as I had imagined, just an entry in a hospital register. On the contrary, it comprises a whole series of letters and documents which detail David Ritchie's removal from the workhouse in Marylebone to the London County Asylum as well as his movements over the preceding years. I didn't think these sorts of documents even existed but they do, thanks to the National Archives and a very good public service administration system.

The information, however, is sensitive. It affects all direct relatives of David Scott Ritchie Sr, including his one living granddaughter, his four living great-grandchildren, his many great-great-grandchildren and all the living descendants of his brothers, William and Thomas Scott Ritchie. Facts of this nature can be disturbing, especially if they come out of the blue and without a framework in which to view them. I shall, therefore, present them over several days, along with some additional background information and suggestions for integrating new pieces of data with existing ideas about self-image and family identity.

What the admission record will show is that David Ritchie was deemed, at the age of 35, to be of unsound mind on the basis of some bizarre behaviours. Once an apparently sane man who was employed and married with a son, he ended up in an institution for the care of paupers. Questions arise about the condition from which he suffered and whether it is genetically transmitted. Also, what did he do that was so bad as to make his entire family abandon him? Are we to be afraid of his legacy or ashamed of it? Does knowing that he was a so-called lunatic open a Pandora's box of ugly possibilities which can never be chased back into the place of unknowing?

Personally, I don't find the information upsetting. What happened was consistent with the way people responded to mental illness at the time. The situation is very different today, thank goodness. As for how we should approach insanity in the family, I believe it can be viewed as an opportunity for improving our own lives. But more about that in my next post.

Photo credit: "Fire Escape" by Judith.

David Scott Ritchie Sr dies at Hanwell

The final record contained in the research report I received from Judy Lester was a death record for my great-grandfather David Scott Ritchie Sr. An image of the death certificate was included. After learning that I am visually impaired, Judy kindly transcribed it for me so I could access all the available details.

David Ritchie Sr died on 31 January 1967 at the age of 92. The cause of death is stated as bronchopneumonia, which isn't surprising because it was the middle of winter. The death certificate also states that he was suffering from senility. His death was first reported by a fellow inmate of the hospital and certified by somebody called GC Siegruhn MB. The name of the hospital registrar is also given on the certificate.

Surviving in a mental institution to the age of 92 must be something of an anomaly, I should think. David Ritchie Sr was admitted to the asylum at 35, which meant he spent an incredible 57 years of his life disconnected from the world. Two world wars passed him by. His son raised a family in South Africa and his granddaughters both married and had children. His wife of 65 years, Maude Alice Ritchie, probably predeceased him by several years.

Most astonishing to me is that this great-grandfather of mine was alive when I was born in 1963. I never even knew of his existence. Granted, I probably never thought to ask about him when I was growing up but that was because my parents never referred to any great-grandparents at all, either on my father's side or my mother's side. We just weren't a very connected family, or so I thought. it didn't occur to me that there was a skeleton in the cupboard. Obviously, someone at some point made a conscious decision to distance him- or herself from the lunatic in the asylum and so a deep silence fell around the man. I myself wouldn't have discovered the secret except that my sister and I needed to find a birth certificate for my grandfather in order to apply for UK citizenship.

It may be possible to learn more about my great-grandfather's life at St Bernard's Hospital. Although the formal medical case-book is closed to public access under the 100-year privacy rule because it includes entries made after 1918 I could perhaps find details relating to his admission in 1909. Certainly, his is an intriguing story which i feel compelled to investigate further.

Photo credit: "Old time doc" by Thad Zajdowicz.