Undergarments

[Phil Carter]

All,

I raise a point I would CERTAINLY like to see discussed.

I would find it AMAZING that any woman would only have ONE pair of undergarments. However poor they were. Because of menstruation.

How many pairs of undergarments did MJK own? How many were found amongst her belongings? In her "home"?


best wishes

Phil

[corey123]

Phil,

Am I mistaken or did some of the C5 have no undergarments whatsoever?

Yours truly

[Phil Carter]

Exactly Corey...EXACTLY!

best wishes

Phil

[corey123]

Phil,

I dunno how much undergarments cost in 1888, so I bet the reason to them having NO undergarments would be of these two.

1)Poor.
2)didn't use them because it would be easier to work as a prostitute without them.

I would think the reason would be No.2.

Yours truly

[Mike Covell]

From the victim's section of this site,

Nichols
Flannel drawers
Chapman
No mention
Stride
No mention
Eddowes
Specifically mentions no undergarments
Kelly
No mention

[Phil Carter]

Corey,

Have a look at what Eddowes carried around. Hardly items that "makes things easier"..she was carrying half a shop!

Also, these women were NOT full time Prostitutes all... Eddowes, Stride for example.

It is NOT normal for a woman to NOT posess undergarments, especially in one's own home (Kelly), in cold November (Kelly) when one is def of the age to have menstruation periods (Kelly and others)

Look at the items in Kelly's room. Nothing, Corey, nothing that shows an alternative change of garments at all! Two items of CHILDREN'S clothing, one male, one female... ummm.. guess what it tells me about Kelly's home? You mean to say that this woman walked around day after day, week after week, month after month, with NO CLOTHES to change into? She would have stank to high heaven!

best wishes

Phil

Nothing for her week of menstruation. No extra squares of material, nothing.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Mike,

Many thanks!

best wishes

Phil

[corey123]

Phil,

I know this isn't likely but what if the Ripper took the undergarments?

Just a thought.

p.s You are right, they would have stank to heaven. whew! How did the Ripper do it?

[Mike Covell]

p.s You are right, they would have stank to heaven. whew! How did the Ripper do it?

You and I might think they smell by todays standards, but back then the odour could have been considered the norm for such a social class.

[tji]

Hi all

If I remember rightly isn't this when the members of Parliment took to soaking the curtains in chlorine as the smell of the Thames was so bad, with all teh raw sewage flowing directly into it?

Tj

[looby64]

Hi, found this on wapedia - Wiki. This is part of the article.

Until the birth of disposable pads, women used a variety of sewn or makeshift pads made from a variety of fabrics, often leftover scraps, to collect menstrual blood, although some women have used anything absorbent, including grass to collect menstrual blood. [2] Fabrics could generally be washed and used again. Some women, mostly ones living in rural areas or from a low socio-economic status, did not use anything to collect menstrual blood. [7] It was believed that they left a trail of blood behind them. When disposable pads were introduced, they were too expensive for many women to afford.

GRASS!
Hard to imagine how people used to live and this is the norm to them.
Lucky its not like that now!

The cost of living in 1888. Doesn't show undergarments but gives us an idea.
Clothing
Item £/S/d
1 overcoat 1/15/0
1 umbrella -/7/6
1 hat -/2/6
1 silk hat -/7/6
1 week-day suit 2/0/0
1 Sunday suit 2/10/0
1 pair socks -/1-/10
1 pair boots -/10/6
repairing boots -/6/0
1 under vest -/2/6
1 flannel shirt -/3/0
1 collar -/-/5
1 pair cuffs -/-/8
cutton, buttons -/0/1


x Looby

[Phil Carter]

Hello tji,

The problem of the Thames, the smell and the sewers, came to a head in the 1860's I believe.

best wishes

Phil

[Hunter]

Hello Phil,

In Kelly's case, we don't know what was burned in the fire. As far as clothes, the women wore all that they had. They dressed in layers and took everything with them because they didn't know where they might call home on a given night.
Now, Kelly did have a room and should have had more clothes, including undergarments, but, again, we don't know what was burned in the fire.
I'm only able to go by what I've learned about 19th century American practices, but women that were on their "period" cut rags and pinned them to a linen belt or the botton of their stays. You will notice that all of the victims killed outdoors were carring rags- hence the term " on the rag". These rags were probably used to "clean up" after a business session as well.
Though some may have only been part time prostitutes, they were likely pursuing that trade on the nights they were killed and couldn't be hampered with a garment that had to be pulled down to the ankles. I know it seems surreal to us now, but their's was a different world. Many of these people had lice. Even a scratch could turn septic because of the bacteria that was always present.

[Hunter]

Looks like Looby answered most of the question well enough. Got my post in late.

[Phil Carter]

Hunter, Looby,

An excellent comment from you both. Thank you.
The only question in your entire posting I will question is the presumption of what we do not know as fact... what was burnt on the fire. It becomes a negative supposition.
However, your other comments are excellent, and worthy of consideration.

best wishes

Phil