No hat? So what?

[j.r-ahde]

Hello Suzi!

We were posting simultaneously!

By the way, the first one the left of bonnet free 'lovelies' seems to be somewhat marykellyish!

Where's that from?!

All the best
Jukka

[j.r-ahde]

Hello you all!

Then, maybe Saucy Jacky was The Mad Hatter!

All right, seriously;

since Mary obviously had a unique hair colour (that was probably considered red by ones and blonde by others), she got more attention without a hat!

All the best
Jukka

[Suzi]

Ah a wrap/cross[no relation to Charles]over may be interesting..... Ive found some lovelies and some serious bizarros when typing Victorian Prostitutes into Google images

Obviously VERY entertaining in 18 something!!!! Mind you it IS Punch!!!

Bonnet free 'lovelies'

A (whatever the collective noun is) of Rippers!!!!

[Sam Flynn]

I've read in a couple of different sources that not wearing a hat was common among the Irish lower class women of the area in general, apparently they preferred to wear shawls and covered their heads with these when they needed to, in bad weather and such.

Interestingly, Walkowitz also notes that prostitutes were sometimes given to not wearing shawls - so quite where that leaves MJK, I don't know! Having said that, it was rather chilly and raining on the night of her death, so maybe a wrap was "permissible" under such circumstances.

Not that I'm implying that every prostitute would have felt compelled to adhere to a "uniform", that is. My main purpose in flagging this up was to indicate that Kelly was probably not unique among "her kind" if she indeed chose not to wear a hat.

[Debra A]

I've read in a couple of different sources that not wearing a hat was common among the Irish lower class women of the area in general, apparently they preferred to wear shawls and covered their heads with these when they needed to, in bad weather and such.

[Celesta]

If Mary were in the habit of wearing a hat, she might have caught more notice, when she appeared without one, and, naturally, the reverse is true. The cover of Walkowitz's book shows that classic old photo of the women sitting on the curb. The inference has always seemed, to me, that these women were prostitutes, and I notice that most aren't wearing a hat. It's harder to tell on some though, as a dark hat might blend with dark hair in the picture. This is a domestic scene, but it might lend some credence to Walkowitz's hat theory. Yet there's no way of knowing if these women were prostitutes. Of all the pictures I've seen of women on the streets, most are wearing the uniform hat of the era. In some of the crowd scene photos, like those of Petticoat Lane, one is looking at a virtual sea of hats. I suppose we could do a statistical sampling of the available pix and do a hat versus a no hat count. Of course, our Polly had a "jolly hat," and the fact that she made a big deal out that could probably be used to confirm or deny the no hat notion, depending on what you believe.

After all, the common street walker offered sex on the spot, and I have doubts that the type of client she would attract would have the time to worry about whether her hair was free-flowing. Now, the kind of woman who had digs in which to entertain her client might go for the free-flowing style. Our Mary did fit, at least briefly, into that mold.

Polly had a "jolly bonnet" and was very happy about it. That she was proud of it, and seemed eager to wear it, suggests that she thought it would make her more attractive.

[Kelly]

I would imagine that a career prostitute would make choices considerably differently than a casual one. The casual prostitute might be eager for any sign that she is improving her station in life,and that would include a desire for respectable clothes.

However, even the career prostitute wouldn't always want to appear slatternly, and that's where the dress-lodgers came in. Women who appeared clean and well-dressed could attract a better class of client.

Essentially, any attempt to suggest that "prostitutes did (or wore) such-and-such" is lumping them all into one stereotyped class, as if they didn't all make varied and individual choices.

[Suzi]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm Gareth....a Good point... (YOUNG hair!!!!!!!!!! hehe)

I like to imagine that image too,,,,Where does this put us with Polly's 'Jolly Bonnet' line though....perhaps....as I've always suspected Polly was just a rather sad down and out ...not a 'sex worker' (don't you HATE that phrase!)

In that case though........ WHY was Mary 'noticed' by the hawkeyes of Dorset St for NOT wearing one?

Suzi x
The 'Red Hat no Drawers' line still lurks rather tantalisingly in my mind though!!!!

[Sam Flynn]

I was interested to read (Judith Walkowitz, 1982) that the dress code of many prostitutes at that time was not to wear anything on their heads - a free-flowing head of hair being perhaps a "come-on" that would attract customers, especially if that hair was young and luxuriant.

With that in mind, the "big deal" made of Kelly's habit of not wearing a hat is perhaps misplaced, and many others of her class would have adhered to the same style.

Observations and comments welcome.