Relatives

[John Bennett]

This is all very fascinating. I trust Chris' judgement and ability as a researcher to the effect that he is onto a very exciting lead.

I await any further news with great interest!

[Robert]

Thanks all. I probably have pictures of grandmothers in hats and so forth, but not sure where they are. I know one of my grannies had very long hatpins. I used to use them to put the catherine wheels on when it was Nov 5th.

[curious4]

So-called false fringes (or "fronts") were very popular, as well as false hair pieces, teeth etc, so much so that a law was brought in ensuring that the lady revealed any fake bits before marriage, so that hubby was spared the shock of his new bride taking more and more bits off on their wedding night (apart from her clothes). I believe there was a popular song about this including a wooden leg lol.

Cheers,
C4

P.S. While we are correcting Miss M., itīs sociology, not socialogy.

[miss marple]

Debra is right, Bridget hair is pinned up. The fringe became fashionable in the 1880s but was regarded as'fast'
In most Victorian photo studios, settings are interiors, so woman are not often photographed in hats, unless they are showing off say an outdoor outfit. In the early to middle period older women wore lace caps indoors. By the mid 1890s when hats got larger and with more middle classes owning cheaper cameras, there are more informal outdoor shots of women in hats. The great popularity of large picture hats as worn by aristocrats and actresses in the 1900s made portraits showing off the hat more popular.
Bridget's sleeves definitely look 'leg of mutton' to me.
I know I'm going on about this, but ' the devil is in the detail' Every aspect has to be considered with something so important

Miss Marple

Nico it would have to be your school friends ancestors, the school friends are the descendants. I think most people living in the East End at the time claimed connections with the murders, then stories are passed down.

[Debra A]

Didn't some of the match girls striking in 1888 have short hair though, come to think of it?

[Debra A]

Robert, it was probably still long in the back and pinned up. I've got a picture of my 2 x great grandma and she has a really short fringe and side pieces and they are curled up really tightly and look very frizzy. I don't know if it was a fashion statement or she went to the local butcher's shop for it doing.

[Robert]

I was really surprised by the photo of Bridget. I didn't think young women had their hair that short until the 1960s with Mia Farrow etc. Also her clothes look good but she is not wearing a hat.

[miss marple]

The pictures Beowolf posted of the small brimmed hats are nothing like the big brimmed hat ' Mary is wearing. The combination of the picture of 'Mary' and 'Bridget' suggest a period of late 1890s 1900s.

A picture of Mary with her family would have to come from the early 1880s. Most people of modest means then would be photographed by a professional photographer in a studio. They had to sit very still, because of longer exposure times These studios photos are very stiff and formal and have a different quality to photos taken twenty years later.The first celluloid film came out in 1889 and the first Kodak box single shutter camera in 1888. The invention of the box brownie in 1900 enabled snapshots.
The Bridget picture suggests film. The evidence of the pictures is not just the clothes but also the type of camera shot and whether it is on on a plate or a film.
Incidentally I have dealt in vintage costume on and off for many years, sold victorian costume, worked in theatres and BBC, been in big costume departments, seen costume collections, hundreds of Victorian photos, collect Victorian fashion plates and have many reference books so I do think I know what I am talking about.

If you want to look at photos of Victorian ladies go to the Roger Vaughn collection on line. He also has Edwardian actresses, there is a photo of Constance Collier and Evelyn Millard wearing almost identical hats to the' Mary Kelly' one.

Miss Marple

[niko]

Eye lid's

Hi every one, nice "find" Chris and I'm so glad to see new thing's coming out to light. I for one think that the image of "allegedly" Mary Kelly's sister is definitely a member of Mary Kelly's family.
As I've mentioned before, three of my school mates great, great, descendent's were in one way or another linked to the Whitechapel murder's.
One was Kelly, the reason I believe this image is not a hoax is because the Kelly I knew and the Kelly in the image have the same eyes, what I mean with this is the hanging eyelid over the eye.

I think we should all remember that all the victim's, suspect's, police, doctor's and more related to the Whitechapel murder's have relatives who are living today, so let's not forget to show "respect" I think !! all the best, agur.

niko

[Debra A]

I've always felt it would be great to see a photo of Mary, but now I somehow don't want it to be her. It would be sad to see her, in a way.

I know what you mean, Robert.
It would be nice to know the true details about her family and her background though, once and for all.

[Phil Carter]

Hi ,
I expected to log on this morning with a host of replies, referring to the picture [ alleged] of Kelly's younger sister , but apart from the Atherton comments, zero.
Here we have the [ alleged] sister of MJK, in black and white, [ even more important then Philip Hutchinson's yard discovery] but no endearing comments.
Why is that?
I say this with no disrespect to Chris, but it is abundantly clear to me ,that the sender of the photographs is just testing the water, and by letting a well respected researcher from the UK have them under lock and key, he, or she, knows that credibility is assured.
I hate to be so negative, and I really hope that the pictures are authentic, that would be a priceless find, and not just talking finance, but I am not holding my breath.
Regards Richard.

Hello Richard, Chris, all,

Richard is absolutely correct in saying the above, as is Chris in the replies he has given.

First of all, Chris,... THANK you for providing these photographs..and what is more, please pass on this one man's thanks to the current family owners for their permission to publish in the form they have allowed.

Now, I am a practical person, or so I'm told... and of course the story behind the emmigration will be of the utmost import, with dates etc.

I have a million questions that I realise you cannot answer... including why the family have waited 125 years to release a copy of the photo of Mary Kelly.

The "circus" the family fears is understandable. They will also realise that of all the poor women involved in these despicable outrages, Mary Kelly is the most well known. Her anomimity has infact contributed to making her so. It has created infamy.

Far be it from me to advise the family in any way, but for their information some of the more senior of those that are interested in the Whitechapel murders have slaved away for many many years searching high and low, using many many thousands of hours in trying to trace this dear lady, her origins, her background and her life in order to not only complete one piece of a jigsaw puzzle, by, in our way, to try to "right a wrong"..in a small way.
Our aim was to present to the world something that has been dearly needed, confirmation that "Mary Jane Kelly" actually was the person or wasn't the person we know of from the Whitechapel story.

Before any form of proof is brought to us however, and not unnaturally so, any question of authenticity as to whom this person is, or these people are, is bound to be met with extreme caution, which is something you are most correct in showing.

All sorts of theories over the years have been made, and many reasons for her non-authentification have been presented. It would indeed be THE most important single piece of information in the last 124 years that has been "discovered"..if that be the correct terminology, and would finally dispell all other ideas.

I myself, amongst many others over the years, have put forward a few of those ideas.. improbable as they may or may not seem, including deliberate name change by the lady herself. I have, over the last 42 years come to the (possibly wrong) conclusion that the lady who suffered at the hands of this horrible murderer could not have been "Mary Kelly", simply because it strikes me as most logical that if, after over 120 years of intense searching, we have not yet found evidence of the existance of "Mary Jane Kelly", then it simply must be a psuedonym.

Should the REAL truth now come out, I, along with thousands upon thousands of people would be truly grateful..on behalf of ALL the victims of the Whitechapel horrors. This family has, if they indeed have the genuine articles of provenance, the wonderful chance to put historical fact into place, where misleading guesswork and supposition, theorising and assumption, have replaced it. That is indeed a very rare honour. It would be truly wonderful if this was indeed the answer to a long awaited question.

I dont know if that makes any sense at all. If the family members are reading this, then I again thank them for their generosity, and can tell them that through Chris Scott, arguably THE best researcher in the field of Ripperology there is, they can be sure that their worries would be dealt with in the very best manner possible.

Chris... you have done a marvellous job. I bow.


kindly

Phil

[Robert]

I've always felt it would be great to see a photo of Mary, but now I somehow don't want it to be her. It would be sad to see her, in a way.

[Debra A]

I wonder if her jewelry could help to date the picture? She looks to be wearing something similar to a chatelaine/fob charm chain type object, but as a brooch.

[jason_c]

Hi all
Many thanks for all this detailed and specialist feedback - it is exactly the kind of info I need to make an informed judgement on these images.
Thanks
Chris

Chris,

Entirely a coincidence but I was browsing a youtube clip last night about a theatre production. Hats were mentioned from around this time period. I feel a person from a costume department working in theatre or television could better inform you. If you know anyone in the theatre or television industry it may be worthwhile asking them if they could get you in touch with the costume dept.

[Sally]

If she was in France, might she not have got the hat from there? I'm not saying for sure, but maybe a possibility?