Relatives

[curious]

Thanks Chris.

Here's a link to a site with hats from the LVP and later. Scroll down.

http://gallery.villagehatshop.com/gallery/

There is a hat on Page 5 of the 1880 to 1890 images that appears to be to be very similar to this.

Anyone else?

[Ginger]

I'm a long way from being an expert in Victorian clothing, but I do note that the hat has ostrich plumes. Those were immensely popular from around 1895 until the First World War.

However, commercial ostrich farming during the early part of the period was restricted to South Africa (the United States joined in later once it was clear that there was money to be made), so that ostrich feathers, where ever in the world they ended up, generally travelled first through the port of London. It's plausible that London hatmakers would have been at the leading edge of that fashion, and there might have been ostrich feather hats worn earlier there than elsewhere.

I note too that the engraving of Kelly at http://www.casebook.org/victims/mary_jane_kelly.html (which I believe is probably from the "Illustrated Police News") shows her in a small-brimmed hat, but one which has some sort of decoration on the front that may or may not be feathers.

I think the photograph is unlikely to be from as early as 1888, but I wouldn't rule it out just from the presence of ostrich plumes.

-Ginger

[miss marple]

The picture is not from the 1880s.The hat and jacket are wrong. Everything about it is just wrong, I am talking years of experience here, you develop a feel for things, not just plucking pictures out of the internet. There is a lot of straw clutching going on here.

I would be happy to show this picture to a costume historian at the V&A. The picture is from the late 90s to 1900s,
I would bet on it.
Agree about the Ostrich feathers Ginger, I have sold several large ostrich fans which became fashionable in the 1900s,

Miss Marple
The picture in the police gazette shows a more typical 1880s hat

[Bridewell]

Hi C4
Barnett's various accounts suggest that there were 6 or 7 brothers and one sister who worked in the markets selling material

That's my understanding too.

The following is an extract from his inquest deposition held in the Greater London Record Office:

" .....Deceased has often told me as to her parents, she said she was born in Limerick - that she was 25 years of age - and from there went to Wales when very young. She told me she came to London about 4 years ago. Her father's name was John Kelly, he was a Gauger at some ironworks in Carnarvonshire. She told me she had one sister who was a traveller with materials from marketplace to marketplace. She also said she had six brothers, one was Henry Kelly. I never spoke to any of them....."

Interesting choice of words in the last phrase quoted, I think:

"I never spoke to any of them".

Why does he not say they never met if that was the case?

On the subject of Mary's age: Did Barnett recalculate Mary's age from the first occasion when she spoke of it? If not, Mary would have had one birthday, probably two, in the year and eight months that they had been living together. Perhaps a Mary Kelly born in 1861, not 1863?

Regards, Bridewell.

[Bridewell]

I'm way out of my depth talking about ladies' fashions in the LVP, but we don't (unless I've missed something) know where this photograph was taken. What were French women wearing in the 1880's? Were they wearing hats of this kind rather earlier than their London counterparts? I'm not clutching at straws, as I'm quite open-minded about whether or not this picture is genuine. I'm certainly not going to dismiss it out of hand as, quite apart from anything else, we don't know that MJK was a dedicated follower of fashion.

I bow to Miss Marple in the fashion stakes though, as she's probably more hip than Mrs Christie's pen picture suggests.

Regards, Bridewell.

[curious4]

relatives

Hello again,

Wasn't it police officer Dew who said Mary never wore a hat?

C4

[Chris Scott]

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

[The Good Michael]

The style of hat was worn in the 90s which means it could have been worn earlier as well. Fashion cannot be exactly pinpointed unless we're talking name brands. With that style of hat, I've seen plenty of photos from the 80s with similar things in them

Mike

[Beowulf]

Thanks for showing the photo Chris, I hate to pour cold water on this but the the hat and coat design is typically Edwardian about 1900 -5. The curved brimmed big hat with ostrich feathers is characteristic of the period and the big embroidered lapel jacket.
Mary died in 1888 and women's fashion underwent considerable change in the twenty years following, the dress profile changed and hats changed completely.Also if she had at some point expensive clothes they would probably date from the early 80s, not twenty years later!
1880S dresses had tight narrow sleeves, buttoned jackets,small or no lapels and massive bustles placing all the emphasis on the behind,Small hats perched on top of head.
In the 1890s the leg of mutton sleeve came in gathered and very full at the top, shrinking of bustles, different corsets.
The picture hat in the photo was immensely fashionable in 1895-1905 often worn by actresses of the day in picture postcards.

Regards Miss Marple

Exactly right, think Toulouse Lautrek in 1891 he began producing paintings and poster designs connected with the famous nightclub, Moulin Rouge, a few years later and showing the new fashion with plumes coming in.

Bloomingdale's 1888 catalog http://footnotesfromhistory.blogspot...y-dresses.html

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.