Work among the fallen as seen in the prison cell

[Herlock Sholmes]

My dictionary describes 'Unfortunate' as a noun and an adjective.It does not describe them as prostitutes.I have yet to see Herlock produce any official source that states an 'Unfortunate' is the same as prostitute.Yes Paul and others,an unfortunate could also be a prostitute,but Herlock's claim is that unfortunate referred solely to prostitute,that all unfortunates were prostitutes.Jon,in one of his posts has stated otherwise.I have proved mathematically that the number of unfortunates vastly exceeded the number of officialy stated prostitutes(1200).Still Herlock will not accept that.

You haven’t ‘proved’ anything Harry because both Debra and myself asked you to produce your evidence for that bit of maths and you haven’t done so. Simply stating something as if it’s a fact is not proof; it’s just something that you have stated. So again Harry, I ask you to produce that piece of evidence where the term ‘prostitute’ and ‘Unfortunate’ are both used with figures. I don’t think that you will though Harry because you know as well as I do that you took them from 2 different sources where one used the word ‘prostitute’ and the other used ‘unfortunate.’ Produce the evidence Harry.

Nichols for example has been described as both an unfortunate and a prostitute.She was an inmate of several workhouses,and a reading of any newspaper,or even these boards,will show that an inmate of a working-house were ,in the main,called unfortunates.So Debra,I have answered your question about Ellen Fisher.You do have the right person.Do you know why she was an inmate of a working-house?Why she was an unfortunate?

Then you need to produce those records Harry. You are simply stating things without proof. Find us an example of a male workhouse inmate listed as ‘an Unfortunate.’

Now Herlock questions whether I know the difference between a noun and an adjective.He also challenged me(post 46) to name a man who was described as an unfortunate.Henry McMahon was a man who was an unfortunate.He was described as such.He was a real person.He was bllind.

Again Harry, produce the evidence. Do you seriously expect that we should take a random sentence or two from you as proof? Prove that he was called ‘An Unfortunate.’ As a noun. Evidence Harry, not just words from you. Anyone can do that.

Over to you Herlock.

You’re just using the same avoidance tactics Harry. I can’t see how an intelligent adult could expect anyone to accept what you’ve said as proof. Claims need to be backed up with evidence. I produced evidence in black and white. I challenged you to do the same and you’ve continually failed to do so. I’m sorry to say this but the it’s because you know that you’re wrong Harry.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi all,

can't we just say... ...that all East End prostitutes were unfortunates but not all unfortunates were East End prostitutes?

Grüße,

Boris

The evidence thou Boris shows that whenever the phrase ‘an Unfortunate’ is used as a noun it means prostitute every single time. All that I or anyone can do is go with what the evidence shows us. Why Harry is so determinedly against this is baffling.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whether or not,Debra,there was an official classification of 'Unfortunate',we know that the term was widely used,before,during and after the Whitechpell killings,and was used to descibe persons like Ellen Fisher,and Henry McMahon.Ellen was widowed and left destitute,with two daughters.She however,had the good fortune to meet and marry a good man.
Mary Anne Cox,witness ,is reported to have been a self confessed 'Unfortunate',so I am sure the term was used and understood by the citizens of Whitechapel.
We cold say it Bolo,but Herlock writes otherwise.He insists that every 'Unfortunate' was a prostitute.

We know no such thing Harry. You haven’t provided one single verifiable example. I produced around 20 just at random. You haven’t produced a single verifiable example. Not one.

Because that’s what the evidence tells us in every single example that we see Harry. What are the chances of us of every single time finding examples of ‘an Unfortunate’ used as a noun and it always means prostitute if it want always used in that way. The chances are astronomically against this.

[PaulB]

My dictionary describes 'Unfortunate' as a noun and an adjective.It does not describe them as prostitutes.I have yet to see Herlock produce any official source that states an 'Unfortunate' is the same as prostitute.Yes Paul and others,an unfortunate could also be a prostitute,but Herlock's claim is that unfortunate referred solely to prostitute,that all unfortunates were prostitutes.Jon,in one of his posts has stated otherwise.I have proved mathematically that the number of unfortunates vastly exceeded the number of officialy stated prostitutes(1200).Still Herlock will not accept that.
Nichols for example has been described as both an unfortunate and a prostitute.She was an inmate of several workhouses,and a reading of any newspaper,or even these boards,will show that an inmate of a working-house were ,in the main,called unfortunates.So Debra,I have answered your question about Ellen Fisher.You do have the right person.Do you know why she was an inmate of a working-house?Why she was an unfortunate?
Now Herlock questions whether I know the difference between a noun and an adjective.He also challenged me(post 46) to name a man who was described as an unfortunate.Henry McMahon was a man who was an unfortunate.He was described as such.He was a real person.He was bllind.
Over to you Herlock.

The trouble is that we know that "unfortunate" would mean someone down on their luck, jobless, homeless, destitute, and so on, but we also know an unfortunate was an established euphemism for prostitutes. Nobody has made that up, Harry, it's accepted as fact in Ripperology and beyond. An inmate of a workhouse was certainly unfortunate to be there, but she wasn't called an unfortunate. Ellen Fisher was a workhouse inmate and was described as a pauper, but where was she actually described as an unfortunate? Do you have the source where Henry McMahon was described as an unfortunate? Are you sure that Debs isn't correct and that you have misunderstood unfortunate to describe an inmate of the workhouse?

[Debra A]

There's a one-day old male child listed as an 'unfortunate' in the Westminster Union Workhouse in 1881, but the enumerator seemed to have thought better of it and scratched it out gain. I'll call it a draw.

Did they think better of it or it was a corrected clerical error, from putting his mother's occupation in the wrong column, RJ? His age is also crossed out from the female column and re entered in the male column and his place of birth is also altered from 'not known' (as his mothers is given) to London.

It's an interesting entry though because of the given occupation of his mother. In the actual Westminster workhouse admission and discharge register for this entry, Emily Cooney's occupation is given as needlewoman, she's a charwoman at her son's christening in April 1881 but later in August 1881 in the Mint St workhouse admission register, her occupation is given again as an unfortunate.
I managed to find a settlement record with a potted history for Emily Cooney's 1881 Westminster Union stay but unfortunately, it's the worst handwriting I have ever seen!

[PaulB]

Did they think better of it or it was a corrected clerical error, from putting his mother's occupation in the wrong column, RJ? His age is also crossed out from the female column and re entered in the male column and his place of birth is also altered from 'not known' (as his mothers is given) to London.

It's an interesting entry though because of the given occupation of his mother. In the actual Westminster workhouse admission and discharge register for this entry, Emily Cooney's occupation is given as needlewoman, she's a charwoman at her son's christening in April 1881 but later in August 1881 in the Mint St workhouse admission register, her occupation is given again as an unfortunate.
I managed to find a settlement record with a potted history for Emily Cooney's 1881 Westminster Union stay but unfortunately, it's the worst handwriting I have ever seen!

I think it's an obvious clerical error, Debs, but anyway so much doubt would hang over it that it hardly constitutes evidence of anything. Sadly.

[Debra A]

I think it's an obvious clerical error, Debs, but anyway so much doubt would hang over it that it hardly constitutes evidence of anything. Sadly.

I agree it's an obvious clerical error Paul, babies don't have occupations for one. But I'm interested in his mother Emily whose occupation was given as an unfortunate and what her story might be according to the poor law records.

[rjpalmer]

Did they think better of it or it was a corrected clerical error, from putting his mother's occupation in the wrong column, RJ? His age is also crossed out from the female column and re entered in the male column and his place of birth is also altered from 'not known' (as his mothers is given) to London.

Yes, I think you have a good point there, Debs. That is a better explanation.

As for the 'needlewoman' entry, I reckon it is a case of one person's needlewoman being another person's unfortunate. Josephine Butler mentioned the case of a young needlewoman who complained that she couldn't possibly make a living wage from needlework, so she occasionally resorted to turning a trick to earn extra money. Worse yet, this young woman insisted that her employer was well aware of this fact and justified his low wages because she could always be an 'unfortunate' on the side to make up the difference. So, while the casual observer might be inclined to call the needlewoman an unfortunate, is the casual observer going to similarly call her employer a pimp? No, of course not; he gets a pass.

What I find somewhat frustrating about l'affaire Rubenhold is that it does rather leave us splashing in the shallow end of the pool if we allow it, which is why I appreciate you swimming in deeper waters. I think you're right that an 'unfortunate' was a euphemism for prostitute. One point I might try to make is that words have connotations as well as denotations, and the connotations of 'unfortunate' are different than the connotations of 'prostitute,' in the same way that the connotations of 'prostitute' are not the same as the connotations of 'call girl' or the ugly word 'whore.' I could be wrong, and it may be just out-and-out Victorian prudery, but to me, the connotation of unfortunate is a tacit acknowledgment that the woman might not be an entirely willing participant in her plight--that she also slogs around and does needlework and cleaning among the Jews and stoppering medicine bottles-- whereas 'call girl' or 'prostitute' implies, perhaps, a more conscious choice of a deliberate profession. In this sense, maybe Mary Kelly was a prostitute, whereas Annie Chapman was an unfortunate. I wouldn't insist on it, though.

Another unspoken irony of Rubholdism is that a woman out on the streets of Spitalfields at 3 a.m. might be more likely arrested for sleeping rough without visual means of support than being arrested for wandering around in hopes of being picked up by a male. The law is an ass, said Dickins, and the truth is pretty grey. There are a lot of interesting subtleties to explore without turning these complexities into an either/whore debate (I meant either/or, but I think I'll let that stand!) which is where I think Rubenhold went wrong. She's dumbed it down, but then, like me, she's West Coast. We tend to be annoying extremists.

[PaulB]

Yes, I think you have a good point there, Debs. That is a better explanation.

As for the 'needlewoman' entry, I reckon it is a case of one person's needlewoman being another person's unfortunate. Josephine Butler mentioned the case of a young needlewoman who complained that she couldn't possibly make a living wage from needlework, so she occasionally resorted to turning a trick to earn extra money. Worse yet, this young woman insisted that her employer was well aware of this fact and justified his low wages because she could always be an 'unfortunate' on the side to make up the difference. So, while the casual observer might be inclined to call the needlewoman an unfortunate, is the casual observer going to similarly call her employer a pimp? No, of course not; he gets a pass.

What I find somewhat frustrating about l'affaire Rubenhold is that it does rather leave us splashing in the shallow end of the pool if we allow it, which is why I appreciate you swimming in deeper waters. I think you're right that an 'unfortunate' was a euphemism for prostitute. One point I might try to make is that words have connotations as well as denotations, and the connotations of 'unfortunate' are different than the connotations of 'prostitute,' in the same way that the connotations of 'prostitute' are not the same as the connotations of 'call girl' or the ugly word 'whore.' I could be wrong, and it may be just out-and-out Victorian prudery, but to me, the connotation of unfortunate is a tacit acknowledgment that the woman might not be an entirely willing participant in her plight--that she also slogs around and does needlework and cleaning among the Jews and stoppering medicine bottles-- whereas 'call girl' or 'prostitute' implies, perhaps, a more conscious choice of a deliberate profession. In this sense, maybe Mary Kelly was a prostitute, whereas Annie Chapman was an unfortunate. I wouldn't insist on it, though.

Another unspoken irony of Rubholdism is that a woman out on the streets of Spitalfields at 3 a.m. might be more likely arrested for sleeping rough without visual means of support than being arrested for wandering around in hopes of being picked up by a male. The law is an ass, said Dickins, and the truth is pretty grey. There are a lot of interesting subtleties to explore without turning these complexities into an either/whore debate (I meant either/or, but I think I'll let that stand!) which is where I think Rubenhold went wrong. She's dumbed it down, but then, like me, she's West Coast. We tend to be annoying extremists.

One question of interest is whether the Victorians distinguished between someone whose sole income was gained through selling sex and someone who seld sex as and when it was necessary to do so. In fact, did they classify as a prostitute a woman who had two or more sexual partners and didn't charge money, or who exchanged sex for food or alcohol or a new bonnet. And also whether the likes of Annie Chapman and Mary Nichols recognised themselves as prostitutes, or were recognised by their peers as prostitutes. In their circle, did the women and the men they lived with simply consider the selling of sex something that sometimes had to be done, like pawning one's boots. There's a lot we don't really understand. For us, though, the police called the victims prostitutes. Rubenhold says there is no evidence that they were and proceeds to rewrite a little history from there. We know that there is evidence (not proof, evidence) and that it needs to be considered before Rubenhold's rewrite is accepted. But, of course, Rubenhold does more than just that, like editing sources and so on).

[harry]

I believe the term'Unfortunate' to be a proper description of Helen Fisher,for the following reason.There is/was under the common law,the rule of'Common usage'.That is,where it could be proven a term was commonly used,such as 'Unfortunate',it didn't need to be specified.Now who is going to argue that 'Unfortunate' was not commonly used in 1888,or at other times.
Yes Paul,I can prove the existence of Henry McMahon.It should be clear to posters I do not post names unless I have a source.
Rubenhold makes the same mistake in suggesting or claiming all the victims were not prostitutes,as posters here who claim they were.They could be,but that is not the same as proving they were.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I believe the term'Unfortunate' to be a proper description of Helen Fisher,for the following reason.There is/was under the common law,the rule of'Common usage'.That is,where it could be proven a term was commonly used,such as 'Unfortunate',it didn't need to be specified.Now who is going to argue that 'Unfortunate' was not commonly used in 1888,or at other times.
Yes Paul,I can prove the existence of Henry McMahon.It should be clear to posters I do not post names unless I have a source.
Rubenhold makes the same mistake in suggesting or claiming all the victims were not prostitutes,as posters here who claim they were.They could be,but that is not the same as proving they were.

Sorry Harry but I’ve rarely heard such nonsense. You can’t possibly expect anyone to accept that. Just because a word was ‘in common usage’ it doesn’t mean that it was used in regard to every single person (how can you even suggest it?) Just provide the written evidence where Helen Fisher was named as ‘an Unfortunate.’ If you can’t do that Harry, and the fact that you haven’t done it so far points to the fact that you can’t, it means that you have nothing as we knew all along.

The fact that you try he equally pathetic tactic (because ‘tactic’ is all that it is) of asking who can deny the Unfortunate was not commonly used beggars belief in a conversation between adults.

Equally, you still haven’t shown any evidence that Henry McMahon was called ‘an Unfortunate.’ And the reason that you haven’t Harry because he wasn’t. Everyone knows this and you know it too.

The term ‘an Unfortunate’ meant prostitute and nothing else. The evidence is completely overwhelming to everyone on the planet except you.

[Simon Wood]

Not one of the C5 had a rap sheet. They were labelled as prostitutes because, for the police, it was convenient to label them as such.

[PaulB]

I believe the term'Unfortunate' to be a proper description of Helen Fisher,for the following reason.There is/was under the common law,the rule of'Common usage'.That is,where it could be proven a term was commonly used,such as 'Unfortunate',it didn't need to be specified.Now who is going to argue that 'Unfortunate' was not commonly used in 1888,or at other times.
Yes Paul,I can prove the existence of Henry McMahon.It should be clear to posters I do not post names unless I have a source.
Rubenhold makes the same mistake in suggesting or claiming all the victims were not prostitutes,as posters here who claim they were.They could be,but that is not the same as proving they were.

Harry,
You have made a claim that runs counter to accepted fact. The onus is now on you to support your claim with evidence, and you have been asked to do so. You have been unable to do so. It has been suggested that you misunderstood "unfortunate" and "pauper" to mean the same thing, and it is pretty clear that this is what has happened. You have been asked to resolve this mix-up by showing where Ellen Fisher was described as “an unfortunate” in a context that did not mean prostitute, but you have not done do.

The rule of common usage simply means that if a word had a commonly accepted meaning, that meaning did not have to be specified. In other words, you need to demonstrate that “an unfortunate” was used sufficiently often in a context that did not mean “prostitute” for the alternative meaning to be reasonably interpreted, but you haven't come close to doing that.

Debs has spent some of her valuable time tracing Ellen Fisher in the available records and you should have the decency to reply to her points and suggestions, not ignore them like they don’t exist. Where did anyone ask you to prove the existence of Henry McMahon? You were asked to provide the source where he is described as an unfortunate, not that he existed. Hallie Rubenhold has not suggested that all the victims were not prostitutes, she has said that there is no evidence that they were. She is wrong, there is evidence that they were. She simply omitted it from her book and in doing so has misled her readers and apparently misrepresented the actions of the police. So, Harry, why don’t you just do what you have been asked to do? If you've confused "unfortunate" and "pauper", admit it and move on. Or produce the documentation that proves your case.

[PaulB]

Not one of the C5 had a rap sheet. They were labelled as prostitutes because, for the police, it was convenient to label them as such.

Sorry, Simon. Twaddle. As I think you know only too well.

[Simon Wood]

Not so fast. Apart from anecdotes, where is the official evidence the C5 were prostitutes?