The Christmas that we celebrate and know today, is not the Christmas that we, in the UK, have always celebrated. Many of our Christmas traditions, activities and celebrations, are largely new. They came about or were made popular by, the Victorians. It is the Victorians that created the Christmas that we know and celebrate today. So, here are several reasons why the Victorians created the Christmas we celebrate today. #8 Christmas Cards
People didn't always send Christmas cards to each other, it is a relatively new custom. It wasn't until the late Victorian Era until giving Christmas cards really kicked off. It did so in 1880 when giving Christmas cards became a traditional part of British Christmas, with 11 million Christmas cards being sold.
However, the cards were invented long before that. They were actually invented in 1843 by a man named Henry Cole. Initially, at this time, the cards were so expensive that they could only be afforded by the wealthiest Victorians. It wasn't until almost 40 years later that they became affordable to most British people, which was part of the reason for their success.
Amazon
#7 Christmas Crackers The Christmas cracker is another Victorian invention. It actually seems like it would have its roots in the middle ages, with the king's hats, and scroll like feature for the crackers. However, the Christmas cracker was not invented in the middle ages, it was in fact invented in Victorian Britain. The crackers were invented by a man called Tom Smith. He sold sweets as a profession and came up with the idea to put the sweets on the cracker. It then progressed into them putting hats, jokes and creating a banging effect with the cracker. #6 Turkey Today it's becoming more common to see varied dishes served at Christmas, however, it is still the most popular and traditional dish - with thanks to the Victorians. The Victorians made the turkey the main meal at Christmastime. Before that, it was other meats which were used as the main dish. It was meats such as goose that were more traditional amongst Britons at Christmas. Although poorer Victorians could not afford turkey during the festive season, it was really a dish that becomes more widespread and common amongst the general population towards the latter half of the Victorian era and then the beginning of the 20th century. It was usually the wealthiest which would eat turkey.
#5 Carol Singing
Carol singing has actually been a part of British tradition and culture for a long time. The Tudors were famous for their carol singing at Christmas. However, it didn't really become famous until the Victorian era, when carols became a big part of Christmas traditions.
Whatsmore, the Victorians also created new carols. Their first batch of new carols came out in 1833, which perhaps made carol singing modern and relative to the Victorian era. Something that has been carried on since and to this day. #4 Boxing Day
A public bank holiday in the UK and some of the commonwealth countries, Boxing Day has become a traditional part of the Christmas calendar today. Although, today, Boxing Day is quite different from when the Victorians celebrated it. Today it is largely just a holiday which is celebrated with family and friends but isn't as significant as Christmas Day or Christmas Eve today.
However, Boxing Day in the Victorian era was largely a day where the rich gave the working class boxes as a festive present, which is probably where this name comes from, as the gifts were in boxes. This day has its origins in the Victorian era. Which leads to the next one....the giving of gifts... #3 The Giving Of Gifts
The giving of gifts wasn't always on Christmas Day. Today, thanks to the Victorians, we give gifts on Christmas Day. But it wasn't always like this, we didn't always give gifts on Christmas Day. For example, the Tudors didn't exchange gifts on Christmas Day, they exchanged gifts on New Years Day.
The Tudor Christmas was very different from the Christmas we see today, in many ways. Gifts were expected to be quite extravagant in the Tudor Era, however, they were more simple in the Victorian era. In the Victorian era, people exchanged things like fruit and nuts. These would be placed in stockings by poor people, hence the tradition of putting up Christmas stockings. Then it became more common to give gifts to children and for children to receive gifts. #2 Christmas Decorations
Christmas decorations were used prior to the Victorians. However, Christmas decorations were a lot more simplistic. The church in the middle ages would decorate trees with apples, however, trees weren't brought indoors and they weren't used in the same way that they are today. Whereas in the Tudor era, it was more common for people to use things such as holly and garlands.
For most of our history, Christmas decorations haven't played a major role in the festivities, like they do today. And, it is thanks to the Victorians that we use Christmas decorations today. Hanging decorations up and on the ceiling became more popular. Where once decorations centred around simple evergreens, they became more elaborate. Especially when it came to the introduction of the Christmas tree.... #1 The Christmas Tree
The Christmas tree wasn't really used throughout the UK, prior to the Victorian era. There is evidence that trees were used in Christmas celebrations from the middle ages, but it was rare and not really a significant feature of the Christmas celebrations. Most people didn't use Christmas trees, that's until the Victorians used them. It was thanks to Queen Victoria's husband, Prince Albert, that we came to use the Christmas tree.
Prince Albert was from Germany, and in Germany, it was common to celebrate Christmas with a decorated Christmas tree. If it wasn't for Prince Albert marrying Queen Victoria, perhaps we wouldn't be using the Christmas tree at Christmas. Sources: http://www.medievalists.net/2010/12/christmas-in-the-middle-ages/ http://www.bbc.co.uk/victorianchristmas/history.shtml https://victorianchildren.org/victorian-christmas/ http://www.thetudorswiki.com/page/CHRISTMAS+with+The+Tudors
0 Comments
Charles Cross The Witness Who Has Been Under Our Nose All The Time. Is This Jack the Ripper?25/11/2017
What Was The Autumn Of Terror?
The Autumn of Terror was a collection of events which happened throughout the Autumn of 1888, in Whitechapel London. These events were a series of murders which happened from August 1888 up until November 1888. The murders were carried out by the serial killer, Jack the Ripper. But who was Jack the Ripper? For almost 130 years, the identity of the infamous Victorian serial killer has been shrouded in mystery. If you buy into the royal conspiracy theory, then some would say that it has been deliberately shrouded in secrecy. It's not just the royals, or those who served the royal family at the time, that have been linked to this Victorian historical true crime mystery. It seems that everyone and anyone who was alive during the events has been named as a Jack the Ripper suspect. The suspect list is endless. But, perhaps it didn't and doesn't need to be. Perhaps Jack the Ripper has been under our nose all of the time. Perhaps, Jack the Ripper was the very first man linked to the Ripper case - Charles Cross.
Amazon
Who Was Charles Cross?
Charles Cross or Charles Lechmere, as he also known, was the man who found the first woman who was murdered by the ripper - Mary Ann Nichols. Mary Ann Nichols was murdered in the early morning hours of the 31st of August in Bucks Row, Whitechapel. It's estimated that she was murdered at around 3.30am, according to Dr Henry Llewellyn, who was sought for when Mary Ann Nichols boy was found. Her body was found at 3.40am by Charles Cross, several minutes later, Dr Henry Llewellyn was called to the scene of the crime by the police. He lived not far away from the scene. Why Is Charles Cross A Suspect? Charles Cross was the first person to find Mary Ann Nichols. He was a cart driver who was on his way to work that morning. Soon after Cross found Nichols, another man was walking along Bucks Row, his name was Robert Paul. This is where suspicion arises, according to Robert Paul at the inquest into Mary's murder, on the 1st of September 1888, Paul said that he was walking down Bucks Row when he saw Charles Cross standing in the middle of the road, looking at the body of Mary who was lying on the ground.
From this, we should take Cross as a strong person of interest. He was found near the body of a woman that was still breathing when Paul reached her and she had just been murdered. Surely this should make him on the top of the suspects list?
However, if Cross was Jack the Ripper, why did he just stand there? There's evidence, or strong suspicion, that Jack the Ripper fled quickly from the crime scene, this is apparent from both Elizabeth Stride's murder and Catherine Eddowes murder. We can assume from both of these murders, that Jack didn't stay around long. He even went so far as to flee the scene of the crime when he must have heard the cart of Louis Diemschutz entered into Dutfield's Yard. With the murder of Catherine Eddowes, the ripper didn't hang about there either. We know this from the times of police patrols in Mitre Square, where the murdered body of Catherine Eddowes was found.
Amazon
Therefore, given the way that Jack behaved during the murders of both Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes, it doesn't fit with the behaviour of Charles Cross.
There are other reasons that Charles Cross ignites suspicion. For example, Cross lied about two things to the police that morning of the murder of Nichols. The first thing that he lied about, was his name. He gave his name as Charles Cross, not Charles Lechmere, which was his real name. This isn't odd for the time though, which we should take into consideration. The victims of Jack the Ripper were also known by second names, such as Polly Nichols, Dark Annie and Long Liz. It seemed to be a common thing for the time - to go by a second name, a nickname. Therefore, it doesn't seem like something that we should look too deeply into. But another thing that comes to the fore, is that Charles Cross may have lied about something else that morning. According to PC Mitzen, Cross said to him that either '"You are wanted in Buck's row by a policeman; a woman is lying there." Or, "You're wanted down there (pointing to Buck's row)." Whichever one Cross had said, there is difficulty with them both. The first phrase is difficult in believing Cross because there was no policeman when Cross and Paul had left Bucks Row to find the police. The second phrase is difficult because it seems an odd way to say that a policeman is needed.
Amazon
It would be more natural for Cross to say, 'You are needed down there...', it would be more natural because that's how it would naturally be said. To say that 'you are wanted down there', suggests that Cross had already met someone who wanted him in Bucks Row. We know this isn't true.
Again, we could be reading to much into it. What if Cross was just shocked? What if he was still tired and shocked about what he found? Perhaps it was just the way that he spoke. The last reason that we have to suspect Charles Cross, is his route to work every morning. According to the documentary, it says that Cross could be placed at the scene of the crimes of all of the murders because they were on his route to work.
There are two problems with this, which the documentary does address with one of the problems. Two of the murders weren't exactly on Cross's route to work. The murders of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes were someone knocked off his usual route. But, there is an answer that the documentary has for this, that Cross's mother lived near where those two murders happened.
It does bring suspicions towards Cross again. He probably was walking by where the murders happened. But, given that we don't know his route to work every morning for those five Jack the Ripper murders, it is impossible to say that he was walking in the same street as each of the murders happened. What if he took a different street? There would have been thousands of people taking the same route to work every morning, walking up and down those streets getting from a to b, they couldn't have all been Jack the Ripper. So, saying he was in the area isn't enough to convict him. Which leads us to the second problem, there is no evidence that links him to any of the other murders. Cross wasn't found at any of the other murder sites. Where is the evidence of him being found at the scene of Annie Chapman's murder? Elizabeth Stride's murder? Catherine Eddowes murder? or Mary Jane Kelly's murder? There is none. That is as significant as finding him near the body of Mary Ann Nichols. Conclusion Charles Cross is certainly an interesting suspect to consider. He was found at the scene of the first murder, he lied about his name, he probably lied about the fact the there was already a policeman there and, the murders were on his route to work. This should make him one of our leading suspects. There is more against Cross than most of the other ripper suspects. Where Cross falls down, is the fact that there isn't enough evidence to say that Cross was the ripper. Why didn't he flee the scene of the crime, like Jack had done with other murders? Why didn't he take Paul out? Cross lived into the 20th century, so why did he just stop killing, if he was Jack the Ripper? There isn't enough evidence to say that Cross was Jack the Ripper. What can be said about him is that he is one of the more interesting suspects in the case and should be a strong person of interest, given that he was found at the scene of the crime. Though, what about the other people who found the other ripper victims? Other people found Annie Chapman, Elizabeth Stride, Catherine Eddowes and Mary Jane Kelly. If we treat Cross as a suspect, then, shouldn't we count the others as a suspect? They couldn't have all been Jack the Ripper. Sources: Casebook.org Jack the Ripper.org |
Archives
April 2023
Categories
All
← Resize me
|