The Unfortunates

[Guest]

Hello all,

It seems to me that at some point in time many began to feel that the the term "Unfortunate" is synonymous with "Prostitute", or "Street Whore".That thinking then taints how the person in question views circumstances where the activities of the "Unfortunate" cannot be determined.

For example.....when assessing what the Unfortunate known as Liz Stride is doing near the mens club, or why Kate Eddowes, another unfortunate, heads to Mitre Square that fateful night...or in another example, what a woman... who is not an Unfortunate by definition.... might do at 2am when its raining and she is at home fed and drunk.....assuming their main role is actually that of a prostitute and so their behavior would likely be the same, is not always prudent or warranted.

An Unfortunate to my understanding is a woman who is homeless, or without a permanent address, without work or means to support herself, and has no family, husband or friends caring for her financially.

In order to survive many Unfortunates turned to Prostitution as a sole means of acquiring food, drink and shelter,...but as we can see some Unfortunates made money in ways that are considered legitimate and acceptable even in Victorian times...Liz cleaned rooms, Kate could knit and sew, Maria Harvey takes in laundry. Kate pawned clothing...ok, not hers, but the point is made.

When considering why certain events transpired in the lives of these women, and what may have transpired when we cannot know for sure, I believe its in everyones best interest....including the deceased women, to remember that the life that included prostitution was not necessarily devoid of other ways to earn, nor is it something that they would have automatically embraced willingly, and that when we dont know why they were at certain locations or what they were doing, the suggestion that they were then selling themselves might be dependent on whether they had a bed paid for that night already, whether they had eaten that day or for some days in a row, and in many cases whether their taste for drink was sated. Or even how they felt about doing it on that night....let alone as a forced means of survival.

We can not assume that in periods when activities by the victims are unclear, that they were prostituting themselves. These were after all multi-dimensional people, not characters in a tall tale, and their lives and emotions could be as complex as we could imagine.

All the best folks.

[Supe]

Michael,

It seems to me that at some point in time many began to feel that the the term "Unfortunate" is synonymous with "Prostitute", or "Street Whore".

Well that "point in time" must have predated November 9, 1888, because in her police statement Mary Cox referred to herself as an "unfortunate." And she had a place to live and permanent address at that moment--and was not going out that night in the rain hawking umbrellas.

Otherwise, I must admit to confusion understanding what your post was about, though you once more return to your "King Charles's Head": whether Mary Jane Kelly went out after entertaining the gentleman with the carroty moustache. Give it a rest.

Don.

[perrymason]

Michael,

It seems to me that at some point in time many began to feel that the the term "Unfortunate" is synonymous with "Prostitute", or "Street Whore".

Well that "point in time" must have predated November 9, 1888, because in her police statement Mary Cox referred to herself as an "unfortunate." And she had a place to live and permanent address at that moment--and was not going out that night in the rain hawking umbrellas.

Otherwise, I must admit to confusion understanding what your post was about, though you once more return to your "King Charles's Head": whether Mary Jane Kelly went out after entertaining the gentleman with the carroty moustache. Give it a rest.

Don.

Hi Don,

Ill ignore the tone of your post, as I believe its you who have a problem with how things are presented and what entrenched dogmas are being shunned when I post.....but Mary Ann Cox was a woman in unfortunate circumstances, she was not the ideal of the term regardless of who used it in application to her...as you note, she had her own room...not just a bed to pay for each night. It does seem to me that she, along with Mary Jane, might be considered Street Whores more legitimately.

As to my example of a Street Whore that is not an Unfortunate by definition being assumed to have been working clientèle without evidence of it, the same goes for the case I made with the actual Unfortunates Liz and Kate. There is no evidence that any of these 3 women were soliciting the night they are killed. There are many assumptions to that effect...some embraced by you I gather.

Since Annie and Polly openly acknowledge they are seeking clients, not so much speculation there.

I posted this so people would remember that despite assurances from people like you and others that Mary Jane, Liz and Kate were soliciting when they meet their killers, there is in fact no proof of that anywhere in sight. I can take the insults from you and others who say that they must have been...but maybe some newer members might accept that position with some skepticism too if they read this first.

That you dont like what I suggest is abundantly clear, that you can prove it to be incorrect is another matter.

Enough bullying opinions Don...the facts are, we dont know why Liz was there, we dont know why Kate went to Mitre Street, and we have no accepted evidence that Mary went out whoring after 11:45pm November 8th. Like it or not....which is a joke, because I know you hate that kind of idea.

So I posted the thread....reminding people that opinions on what Unfortunates did when we have no records or explanations for their activities are like armpits, we all have them, and some stink.

Regards Don.

[Supe]

Michael,

I would say it is you who have a confusion with the term "unfortunate." It is abundantly clear from all the contemporary evidence we have that in 1888, at least, "unfortunate" was a common euphemism for casual prostitute, That you think the term has has another meaning really isn't important here because its usage speaks for itself.

And having said that I am sure I will again be accused of "bullying." Really, Michael, your resort when challenged of making yourself out to be a victim is as tedious as your dragging in to any thread Kelly's activities on the night of her death.

Bur dinna greet laddie, I shan't bother answering any of your posts in the future as I have no intention of continuing to play your game. One last question though: Why do you so revel in the term "street whore"? Whore is a particularly ugly pehorative, but you do seem to enjoy throwing it around. Why?

Don.

[Brenda]

I did some quickie Google research:

"Interestingly the term 'prostitute' does not appear in the occupational dictionaries used to abstract data in the Census Office. Another euphemism for prostitute 'unfortunate' seems to have been struck out of the census returns, although one enumerator, in 1871, described every prostitute as 'fallen' in the occupational column." [Making Sense of the Census by Edward Higgs]

"How sexual mores affected Ireland’s ‘unfortunate girls’" - an article I found online about prostitution, regarding a book "Prostitution and Irish Society, 1800-1940. By Maria Luddy, Cambridge University Press"

"Another Unfortunate was responding to a fellow-prostitute who, in two letters signed 'One More Unfortunate' ( had described herself as a well-brought up ex-governess deeply ashamed of her fallen condition."
from "The Moving Pageant, A Literary Sourcebook on London Street Life 1700 - 1914." By Rick Allen


Interestingly, I cannot locate any thesaurus that offers "Unfortunate" as an alternative to "Prostitute" or vice versa. Maybe someone has an 1800's dictionary or thesaurus out there?

It seems that "unfortunate" was most definitely a euphemism for "prostitute" in the 1800's. If a woman were simply in bad circumstances, she would more often be described as "poor".

I'm sorry, perrymason, but if its any consolation, the plight of our ladies who fell victim to JTR really bothers me a lot too. One desperately wants to believe that they didn't have to resort to prostitution, but being rational, we have to conclude that this is most likely what they were up to on the nights/mornings they were killed.

Also as another consolation, I also read that the majority Victorian prostitutes weren't "on the game" 24/7 - most of them did pick up odd jobs when they could. These women weren't "evil whores" - they were among the most unlucky people the world has ever known. Yet they were surviving somehow - they were strong women, determined to keep on living no matter what. Till Mr. Ripper came along - he was the one who was "evil"

I would be proud if any of those unfortunates were my ancestor.

Keep a smile in your heart, perrymason!
Brenda

[protohistorian]

whether or not these women were selling sexual favours is irrellevent, the fact stands that individually each was forced by some reality of their individual circumstances to avail themselves to the public domain at hours that their contemporary's associated with the working class and marginalized. In Victorian London, a marginalized, woking class women frequently fell under the rubric of prostitute. The association appears unduly harsh only if one brings modern understandings of whore or prostitute to bear. In the context of 1888 the term unfortunate probably did not carry the negative connotations of the modern definition of whore or prostitute, it was probably not a pejoritive term, and as such would not have implied a concept similar to evil, rather marginalized.

[Limehouse]

Personally, I don't think it matters what these women's objectives were when they were killed. They had a right to live. No one had the right to decide their lives were worthless and to strike them down and rip them open, to be found without dignity or mercy.

It's interesting that, although someone could write the word 'fallen' or 'unfortunate' next to the census return of women who sold sexual favours, nothing would be written next to the name of a man who paid for sex from perhaps several hundred women during his adult lifetime.

Finally, despite the so-called Victorian 'sensibilities' about sex, there were all kinds of 'prostitutes' around. Some, reduced by circumstances, sold themselves to buy a bed for the night or a meal or their next desperately-needed drink. Others were the up-market play things of men in high places. In return for a nice suite of rooms, jewellery and a regular income, they provided 'comfort' to a few well-chosen men.

Sadly, nothing much has changed. Twenty minutes walk from where I live, in a leafy avenue with the houses of the prosperous just yard away, women - some of them as young as 15, sell their bodies to get money for drugs. About two years ago, one of them was dragged into a car park and stabbed to death.

[perrymason]

To Don,

I had no ulterior motive for posting what I did or phrasing it the way I did, and was just defending myself on the premise you made that I was.

The thread premise I felt was under explored, and it seems clear that many of the old guard free associate "Unfortunate" and "Prostitute" quite often. I believe statistically there were some 80,000 women in East London that fell under the term Unfortunate, some 30-35,000 of which are referred to as prostitutes. By the way Don, I find the term Street Whore coarse myself, but there has to be a way to distinguish what Mary Ann Cox does and what Catherine Eddowes for example does to survive, and how they lived. They may both sell themselves, but is that what they are? As far as I can determine, in Mary Anns case, we have evidence she left her room to get clients, and came in to get warm or whatever when she had none. That seems to be consistent with Mary Kellys lifestyle as described, both women having a room in their name....not common, as the term Unfortunate was, and both seem to derive any income they have from soliciting on the streets. In Marys case, due to her age and looks, she likely even gets some assistance without providing an agreed service for it.

Since we know that Liz cleaned rooms and had been a maid, and we know Kate knits and sews and goes away to pick hops a few months a year, and that Maria Harvey is taking in laundry, along with what we assume are occasional clients, it seems to me that Unfortunates were human beings who differed in the way they managed to stay alive. For some, prostitution was the whole world,....to others, a resort only dealt with after all other possibles sources have been tapped. Like down to pawning clothing.

We do not know to what extent Prostitution dominated the existence of Elizabeth Stride, Kate Eddowes or Mary Kelly. And whether Annie or Polly sought other means out.

Thats my whole point. I dont have a problem with you Don, if you want to act like you suggested from now on thats your prerogative.

Best regards all.

[caz]

Perry,

Why the obsession with what these murder victims were doing with their own bodies when they met their killer? I thought it was supposed to be Jack who had a thing about doing stuff with female bodies.

Surely the only thing that matters here is the killer's perception of his victim. That perception could have been spot on (Polly was so sure that her jolly new bonnet would help earn her a bed, for instance), or it could have become distorted in his twisted mind, as it did with the Yorkshire Ripper, who appeared to convince himself that students and building society clerks were only out alone at night for one reason, and that reason made them "bad".

To be fair, though, Jack may not have thought anything beyond the fact that his victims ended up alone with him in the middle of the night and in a position of total vulnerability.

But you can use a bit of common sense here, if you really think it's important to establish why individual victims left themselves that vulnerable.

Did Martha's murderer think she was out polishing soldiers' buttons to earn some brass?

Was Polly's killer wondering if she was on her way to the cat walk to model the latest bonnets?

Did Annie's assassin assume she did a bit of light gardening at the crack of dawn for a living?

Was Liz's knifeman under the impression that she was selling prayer books?

Did Kate's killer expect her to whip out her sewing kit and darn his socks?

Was Mary's murderer hoping she would boil wash and iron all his bed linen before he set to work on her?

I just don't get this need to 'grade' the victims by how virtuously they may or may not have been trying to earn their last crust on earth. What difference does it make if Mary was doing a bit of 'light whoring', selling sexual favours morning, noon and night, or running a sodding laundry when her killer struck? Even if we could pinpoint the most likely answer, what would it really tell us about her killer apart from the fact that he managed to get her alone in that room for as long as it took to take her apart and scarper?

Someone judged that she was ripe for it, either for what she was, what she did, or just for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Someone judged all the victims ripe for it. He is the one whose behaviour should be judged.

I don't think you realise you are doing it, but every time you try to compare a victim favourably to your generic 'street whore', you judge the behaviour and morals of all prostitutes, all unfortunates and all the Whitechapel victims, doing none of them any favours and leaving their killer alone.

'Street whore', matchgirl or bleedin' princess, the victims' respective place in your personal moral heap is irrelevant. The man at the bottom of the heap had to look a very long way up to set his sights on any of them.

Love,

Caz
X

[perrymason]

Hi Caz,

I can now see why some take such offense at what I say because of your post. In actual fact my intentions are not to denegrate the women at all, nor do I have any preoccupation with the way in which they earned to live. In fact my position as in evidence by creating this thread is that many assume soliciting when they read an Unfortunate is placed anywhere...(Liz, must have been "working", Kate...must have gone left to pick up a client on Mitre, no one saw Mary go out but she did anyway because she was in debt and thats how she earned money),...

What this thread was about, and many of my arguments here, is that many people in this study take it for granted that if these women were all Unfortunates then they must have been selling themselves constantly, negating the fact that all the women killed not just the Canonicals were people, not occupations....and had lives and dreams and hopes and demons.

Its clear from what we do know that women without a husband or job did what ever they could do to survive on their own.....it is not clear though that when we read of these womens activities on the nights in question that they were most certainly engaged in those activities. Its widely assumed though....by almost everyone.

I believe the study would have a far better chance of meaningful revelations if it was remembered the women had men in their lives, some had children, and before assuming that the women met their killers while working, perhaps allow for the possibility they were not working at that time. Like Liz. And Kate. And Mary. None of those 3 women can be said to have been overtly soliciting on the nights they are killed.. by what is known.

Liz might have been waiting for a new man in her life since tossing Kidney, Kate may have been looking for someone, and Mary might have been sleeping off booze.

Its often a litmus test for Ripper victims... whether or not they were soliciting at the time they meet their killer...and if so, I just named 3 Ripper victims whose circumstances that night may have had nothing to do with soliciting at all.

I hope that explains the position better.

Cheers Caz.

[caz]

Hi Perry,

I wasn't taking offence, I can assure you. But you do come across as incredibly patronising when you keep trying to teach us that the victims were 'people' too, with 'lives and dreams and hopes and demons' and all the rest of it. Where there is any possibility that a victim was not actively soliciting when she encountered her killer, you can be found laying your cloak across the muddy puddle, gallantly offering her your benefit of the doubt. What would you do if you found out that she had let you down and had been soliciting after all? Whip your cloak away again and leave her in the dirt?

I'm afraid speculation is a two-way street, and just as you are free to believe that a certain victim was not soliciting, others are free to believe she probably was, or very well might have been. But again, it boils down to whether the killer assumed his victim was soliciting when he encountered her. He may not have cared either way, but whoever he was, and whatever the woman was doing, he most assuredly wanted her dead.

I really can't see how it materially affects your theories if Liz, Kate or Mary were up for a bit of business or not the least bit interested. Kate's killer presumably thought she was, if he was the same man Polly tempted with her bonnet and Annie accompanied to that unsavoury backyard.

As for Liz and Mary, anyone who knew them intimately knew what they did to survive when times were bad. So Kidney and Barnett, both having recently split up with their partners, would have had at least as much reason as Jack himself for assuming they were back on the game. Isn't that precisely what is typically offered as the motive by those who favour domestic murder in either case? The estranged lover who flips because he is convinced his woman won't stop whoring herself?

'Liz might have been waiting for a new man in her life since tossing Kidney...'

She might equally have been trying to earn her doss money again after spending it.

Her killer still thought she was scum that deserved what she got.

'Kate may have been looking for someone...'

She may equally have been looking for anyone with money to spare.

Her killer still thought she was scum that deserved all she got.

'Mary might have been sleeping off booze.'

She might equally have dozed off in Blotchy's company, with the help of his ale, leaving him to pinch any money she had put by for the rent man.

Her killer still thought she was scum that deserved everything she got.

Is your own speculation in any way superior, or ultimately any more useful, just because it involves fewer victims offering sexual services?

Love,

Caz
X

[Robert]

One does occasionally see "prostitute" given as an occupation in the census, mostly I think when the woman had little control over what was written about her, e.g. in a prison or lodging house.

[Robert]

In fact, the 81 census lists more prostitutes than unfortunates! That might be skewed, however, by the apparent tendency of prisons to call women prostitutes rather than unfortunates.

NB I didn't search for "daughters of joy."

[Peter F Young]

Hi Perry,

I wasn't taking offence, I can assure you. But you do come across as incredibly patronising when you keep trying to teach us that the victims were 'people' too, with 'lives and dreams and hopes and demons' and all the rest of it. Where there is any possibility that a victim was not actively soliciting when she encountered her killer, you can be found laying your cloak across the muddy puddle, gallantly offering her your benefit of the doubt. What would you do if you found out that she had let you down and had been soliciting after all? Whip your cloak away again and leave her in the dirt?

I'm afraid speculation is a two-way street, and just as you are free to believe that a certain victim was not soliciting, others are free to believe she probably was, or very well might have been. But again, it boils down to whether the killer assumed his victim was soliciting when he encountered her. He may not have cared either way, but whoever he was, and whatever the woman was doing, he most assuredly wanted her dead.

I really can't see how it materially affects your theories if Liz, Kate or Mary were up for a bit of business or not the least bit interested. Kate's killer presumably thought she was, if he was the same man Polly tempted with her bonnet and Annie accompanied to that unsavoury backyard.

As for Liz and Mary, anyone who knew them intimately knew what they did to survive when times were bad. So Kidney and Barnett, both having recently split up with their partners, would have had at least as much reason as Jack himself for assuming they were back on the game. Isn't that precisely what is typically offered as the motive by those who favour domestic murder in either case? The estranged lover who flips because he is convinced his woman won't stop whoring herself?

'Liz might have been waiting for a new man in her life since tossing Kidney...'
Probably already found herself a new married gigolo..."

She might equally have been trying to earn her doss money again after spending it.

'Kate may have been looking for someone...'

She may equally have been looking for anyone with money to spare.

Her killer still thought she was scum that deserved all she got.
Or wanted revenge...

'Mary might have been sleeping off booze.'
Or just tired...

She might equally have dozed off in Blotchy's company, with the help of his ale, leaving him to pinch any money she had put by for the rent man.

or he bored her to sleep...

X

Was she lulled into a false sense of security by a companion she trusted while she slept?

[Sam Flynn]

In fact, the 81 census lists more prostitutes than unfortunates! NB I didn't search for "daughters of joy."

Plenty of women called "A. Tart", though...



(From 1881 Census)