Relatives

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[Debra A]

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

[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.

[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., it´s sociology, not socialogy.

[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.

[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!

[miss marple]

In the famous photo of the match girls they have fringes, which look very 1960s but I think the hair looks short because its tied up at the back and the hats hide it
I cant get my scanner to work which is really frustrating, as I could post the photo and others.

Miss Marple

[Debra A]

I think you're probably right, Miss M, they seem to have just been a bit scissor happy and extended their fringes completely over the tops of the ears too! But there was one particular girl in the photo with no hat and she looked to have a very layered and tousled hairdo, but I think the back will be long, yeah...the first ever mullet?

[John Bennett]

Regarding the size of, and plume on, the hat on the alleged MJK photo, this picture is a contemporary illustration of witness Elizabeth Tanner. It is 1888, obviously.

[Debra A]

I don't know if plumes are the problem, John. I've seen reference in the 80s to sailors bringing prized Ostrich feathers for East End prostitutes in particular, myself. I think it's the width of the brim of the hat that is thought to be too wide? Tall was in apparently.

[Beowulf]

I want the unvarnished truth as much as the most ardent here. I am not one to be comfortable believing in stories going the way I like them to go.

But what if this actually were more of a later period dress, say even early 1900s, which is what I think it is, and yet ACTUALLY a photo of Mary Kelly, if you get my drift.

[Debra A]

I just came across these two items in a Victorian women's fashion magazine. "Peterson's Magazine for June 1883"
I claim no expertiese at all, so don't shoot me, but, to me, this hat with the curved wide brim and plumes, plus the softer style dress with wide, open, shawl collar looks very similar in style to the ones worn in the pic?

I do think that dangling brooch I mentioned in an earlier post is quite unusual though. I've never seen jewellery like that before. I wonder if it was quite a rare item?