The ALLEGED photograph of the Kelly family

[Cogidubnus]

A question for Chris...an odd thought that occurs...could you tell us please how long these pictures have been in your possession?

Many thanks

Dave

[Carol]

Hello everyone,

I'm very behind with Casebook at the moment and the three fascinating threads with regard to the proposed photographs of Mary Kelly and her family. So the last few days have been quite taken up with reading all the posts on these three threads. I have found the following regarding the gigot sleeves in Jayne Shrimpton's 'Family Photographs and how to date them'.

The 1890's chapter:

'Sleeves at this time were essentially narrow but featured a distinct vertical puff at the shoulder. By 1893, however, the puffed sleeve was expanding rapidly into the full gigot or leg-o'-mutton style, a shape characterised by a wide puff in the upper arm, while the lower arm fitted closely. This sleeve style dominated the decade between 1893 and 1897, and is easily recognisable in photographs. Sleeves were at their widest in 1895 and 1896, their width often exaggerated further by a broad collar or other horizontal detailing on the shoulders.'

Then there is a paragraph relating to bodices, followed by a paragraph which starts with this sentence:

'By 1897, the vast gigot or leg-o'-mutton sleeves were beginning to deflate and in the last years of the decade sleeves were essentially narrow but generally featured a neat, round puff ball, or gathered flounces or a modest puff at the top.'

My bound volume of Home Chat covering the dates January 4th to April 25th 1896, has paper patterns shown in every issue that ladies could send off for. Most of the patterns are for dresses and jackets (called coats) with enormous gigot sleeves. Mind you, the winds of fashion were just beginning to change judging from the following extract by Camilla, who, with her close friend, Lady Betty, was in charge of fashion at Home Chat.

'Town is a little dull this week, as everybody is taking a holiday preparatory to renewed exertion in the coming season; but before the world vanished, I obtained various glimpses of new modes from unsuspecting strangers and complient friends.

As a result of my observations, I came to the conclusion that the big sleeves will not be relinquished without many a struggle; indeed! On most afternoon gowns they are still conspicuously in evidence, and, so long as we retain the wide skirts and large hats, this is as it should be.

For the tailor-made cycling dress, or coat and skirt style, they are distinctly of less generous proportions than heretofore, and on some evening gowns; but the rule is by no means universal, so we may still appear in the beloved puff without risk of being quite demode.'

I would just like to say 'Thank you' to Chris and the mysterious lady and her family. Exciting, innit!

Carol

P.S. Great to have you back Archaic! Couldn't be more 'up your street' than this, could it!

[Chris Scott]

Originally Posted by Cogidubnus

A question for Chris...an odd thought that occurs...could you tell us please how long these pictures have been in your possession?

Many thanks

Dave

Just under two years
Chris

[Cogidubnus]

Thanks Chris...just my curiosity I guess...thanks again for posting them

Dave

[Semper_Eadem]

Hi Chris S, just a quick question and I might sound like an idiot for asking this but did the lady say that her family surname was Kelly? I can understand if it wasn't and she doesn't want to give the real surname.

The reason I say this is that we can't seem to find any Kellys that fit on the census from what I have seen. So again this leads me to think that Mary Kelly wasn't the real name of the woman who was murdered at Miller's Court.

[Bridewell]

Originally Posted by Semper_Eadem

Hi Chris S, just a quick question and I might sound like an idiot for asking this but did the lady say that her family surname was Kelly? I can understand if it wasn't and she doesn't want to give the real surname.

The reason I say this is that we can't seem to find any Kellys that fit on the census from what I have seen. So again this leads me to think that Mary Kelly wasn't the real name of the woman who was murdered at Miller's Court.

I don't think you sound like an idiot, as it's a very sensible question to ask. There has to be something amiss with the name or surely someone would have turned something up by now. I await Chris's reply with interest.

Regards, Bridewell.

[Chris Scott]

Hi
The only info I have been given is that the lady who has been in touch with me - and is the source of these two images - claims to be the descendant of one of the brothers shown in the back row of the family photo. His surname, obviously, was Kelly but she is descended from him (allegedly) via his married daughter and so the lady in question has never borne the surname of Kelly.
I keep carefully saying "alleged" and "she claims" etc not because I intrinsincally distrust her but because I have to date seen no documentary evidence in supoort of these claims
Chris

[Bridewell]

Thanks Chris. I'm sure we all understand why you write as you do. I think, unusually, this thread is one of the few where every poster is of the same mind. Can't say that very often!

Best Wishes, Bridewell.

[Brenda]

I've never felt that "Kelly" was the name we should be looking for. She had been married, and I've never heard of another Victorian woman that went back to her maiden name after the death of a husband.

[jason_c]

Originally Posted by Brenda

I've never felt that "Kelly" was the name we should be looking for. She had been married, and I've never heard of another Victorian woman that went back to her maiden name after the death of a husband.

Is this true? It could be very interesting information if it is.