Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What social class did Jack the Ripper belong to?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What social class did Jack the Ripper belong to?

    12
    Working Class
    58.33%
    7
    Middle Class
    33.33%
    4
    Upper Class
    0%
    0
    None of the above...
    8.33%
    1
    Working class, middle class, or upper class?

    Just for the sake of this poll I've cobbled, I mean carefully crafted, the following rough definitions from the t'internet:

    Working Class:
    The social group that consists of people who earn little money, often being paid only for the hours or days that they work, and who usually do
    manual work or industrial work.

    Middle Class:
    The social group between the upper and working classes, including professional and business people and their families.
    Consists of people well-educated people, such as doctors, lawyers, and teachers, who have good jobs and are not poor, but are not very rich.

    Upper Class:
    The group of people who have the highest position and the most social and economic influence in a society, especially the aristocracy.
    "it is important that the children of the upper class attend the ‘right’ school".

    Martyn


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

    How so? There's nothing to suggest that he couldn't have been a casual worker.
    hi sam
    i think the ripper needed a place of his own and did have one, a bolt hole of some sort to bring his goodies back, clean up etc. this suggests steady employment. so as i said, probably upper working class. also to lure and have money to entice his victims he probably had money in his pocket. and the witness descriptions tend toward upper working class with steady employment as opposed to poor and or casual employment. so:

    1. place of own, however modest for bolt hole
    2. money in pocket, ease in convincing victims hes legit.
    3. witness descriptions-seems to be a bit higher in class/ employment than his victims.

    all point toward he was steady (upper)working class and not poor or casual worker.

    and btw im arguing against my favored subject hutch in this case as hutch seems to be in the casual worker lower working class category. so if anyone ever accuses me of interpreting evidence to suit my favored candidate you can **** off because obviously I dont. : )

    Leave a comment:


  • John Wheat
    replied
    Working class.

    Leave a comment:


  • seanr
    replied
    I voted 'None of the above' as I'm not sure he'd even fit within the terms of what would be called working class. Charles Booth described, somewhat unkindly, the population of some of the impoverished areas of London as a 'criminal class'. I tend to think the Ripper was one of those.

    Although, the question of what he did with the stolen organs (if indeed he took organs with him to his home) does rather trouble me, as on the face of it he would have to have some place of privacy, where the presence of human organs would not be questioned and concerning. Owning such a space does somewhat suggest someone of the working class or upper working class, as a minimum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Christian
    replied
    Working class for sure Someone who would blend in not stand out on some rough dangerous streets and courts and therefore if needed would be quite handy in a fight or cornered !! Also without a doubt a long standing local who knew every alley - road- court-dead end back in 1880s area was a warren and labyrinth unlike today’s east end that’s my thoughts

    Leave a comment:


  • John G
    replied
    Probably working-class class. Almost certainly a local, otherwise the focus on such a tiny geographical area makes no sense whatsoever.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by APerno View Post
    If I am making a Hollywood film he is a West End surgeon with top hat and cape, driving a black carriage through the streets of Whitechapel; clicking down the cobblestones, a giant black steed snorts steam from its nostrils. When not at his trade (of butchering whores) you can find him in Leicester Square rubbing elbows with the theater crowd.

    But if I actually want to find him I am looking for a horse slaughterer or hog butcher living south of Commercial Street (I don't buy Stride as a victim; south of Commercial Street was his safe zone, he didn't kill there.) He lived a site better than the poverty to his north; employed full time he lives alone, a recent widow, or if never married, he has just lost his mother, with whom he had been living.

    He was working class!
    The evidence suggests a local man, someone non-descript, and someone likely in a trade involving butchering animals. At least that's most peoples view...despite the fact that in September the police looked at medical practitioners and students. Either way, he likely had work, and as a butcher, he was already out every night preparing his meats...like Isenschmidt.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    There had to be something reassuring and not alarming or suspicious about his demeanor...
    Would not a fellow member of the working-class be less suspicious, Jon? As for respectability - you can be poor and still respectable in appearance. Besides, apart from Hutchinson's suspect, most witness descriptions paint a pcture of a rather ordinary looking Ripper. Finally, as for ruling him out as a local because everyone was watching and he'd have been flushed out... a killer who struck in the middle of the night... in Whitechapel, a neighbourhood with so many rootless lost souls?

    Leave a comment:


  • APerno
    replied
    If I am making a Hollywood film he is a West End surgeon with top hat and cape, driving a black carriage through the streets of Whitechapel; clicking down the cobblestones, a giant black steed snorts steam from its nostrils. When not at his trade (of butchering whores) you can find him in Leicester Square rubbing elbows with the theater crowd.

    But if I actually want to find him I am looking for a horse slaughterer or hog butcher living south of Commercial Street (I don't buy Stride as a victim; south of Commercial Street was his safe zone, he didn't kill there.) He lived a site better than the poverty to his north; employed full time he lives alone, a recent widow, or if never married, he has just lost his mother, with whom he had been living.

    He was working class!

    Leave a comment:


  • mpriestnall
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    I'm more inclined to see this killer as belonging to the same class as Dr. Neil Cream, George Chapman or Montie Druitt, so sort of or close to 'middle-class'.
    For sure he was one of the many suspects described as 'respectably dressed'.
    He wasn't a local as we might define the regular working class lodgers, and he almost certainly had a room to himself.
    I think if the killer had been a local, given the intense interest across the East End, and the fact everyone was watching each other, and all the finger pointing going on, he would have been flushed out.
    There had to be something reassuring and not alarming or suspicious about his demeanor, so someone who represented safety and respectability by his appearance and manners.
    I pretty much agree with all this.

    Martyn

    Leave a comment:


  • mpriestnall
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    upper working class. steady job
    Jack's state of employment is an interesting question. Sam raises the possiblity as Jack had casual employment.

    From Bond's profile: "also he is most likely to be a man without regular occupation, but with some small income or pension".

    I guess Bond is saying he needed some income but was trying to explain the irregular time he was keeping, shown in the timing of the murders?

    I would offer an alternative view on JTR. Jack was middle class who ran his own small business and as such didn't need to answer to anyone
    as to what hours he worked. Also the nature of his business might have entailed irregular hours. Therefore he could have been just as likely in full
    employment as non, or partial employment. Which I suppose doesn't get us anywhere...

    Just an alternative view.

    Martyn

    Leave a comment:


  • Losmandris
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    I'm more inclined to see this killer as belonging to the same class as Dr. Neil Cream, George Chapman or Montie Druitt, so sort of or close to 'middle-class'.
    For sure he was one of the many suspects described as 'respectably dressed'.
    He wasn't a local as we might define the regular working class lodgers, and he almost certainly had a room to himself.
    I think if the killer had been a local, given the intense interest across the East End, and the fact everyone was watching each other, and all the finger pointing going on, he would have been flushed out.
    There had to be something reassuring and not alarming or suspicious about his demeanor, so someone who represented safety and respectability by his appearance and manners.
    Good points. Would it have been possible to have carried out these crimes and lived in a common lodging house?

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    I'm more inclined to see this killer as belonging to the same class as Dr. Neil Cream, George Chapman or Montie Druitt, so sort of or close to 'middle-class'.
    For sure he was one of the many suspects described as 'respectably dressed'.
    He wasn't a local as we might define the regular working class lodgers, and he almost certainly had a room to himself.
    I think if the killer had been a local, given the intense interest across the East End, and the fact everyone was watching each other, and all the finger pointing going on, he would have been flushed out.
    There had to be something reassuring and not alarming or suspicious about his demeanor, so someone who represented safety and respectability by his appearance and manners.

    Leave a comment:


  • Harry D
    replied
    Local(ish) guy, lower/working class. Probably frustrated with all the immigrants flooding the neighbourhoods, hence the GSG.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    I'd lean more towards a local working-class man in his 30s or 40s, broadly in the same age range as the victims.

    I'm not so sure that he would have been steadily employed, because at least 3 out of 5 canonical victims were killed in the early hours of what would have been working days. No doubt he was prowling the streets on other days of the week too, but without success.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X