The ALLEGED photograph of Mary Jane Kelly

[Debra A]

This photo is alleged to have been taken in
Europe, traveled across the Atlantic and then
passed down from generation to generation
and presumably from household to household.

Why is there no foxing, no missing corners, no
scratches, etc. ?

I have family photos taken in the same time
period. They are photos glued onto cardboard
as most were in those days. The corners are
missing, the surface is scratched, there are
white spots where there should be black or
gray coloration, there's foxing (brownish stains
looks tea colored), etc.

These photos stayed in the same blanket box
in the same farmhouse for over a hundred years,
until they were passed down to me.

Why is this photo so pristine?

Hey Debs,

Maybe "Johnto" should have been written "John two"
to differentiate between father and son.

Liv

Hi Liv,

Chris can correct me if I'm wrong, but this is a scan of the photograph and not the original I think? That might account for the corners not being damaged if nothing else, because it isn't a scan of the photograph in its entirety, it's a cropped portion perhaps?
It looks like an authentic period picture (whatever period it comes from) so it's in good nick whoever the woman was.

Someone else suggested John two as well, but to me (and maybe it's just me,i don't know) that's the same problem as with John too becoming 'Johnto' whoever was writing it down not only spelled two or too wrong but also made it into one word-a name. A two part mistake, if you see what I mean?

[Livia]

Maybe Robert.

Unless there were four generations of
John Kellys, then you'd have:

John Sr.
John Jr.
John I
John II

Regards,

Liv

P.S. No Maid Marion connotations either,
not if you valued your physical well being!

[Robert]

Hi Livia

"John One" and "John Two" sounds a bit unlikely. A better bet would be "Big John" and "Little John" (no John Wayne or Robin Hood connotations!)

[Phil Carter]

Hello Livia,

A good question indeed. Around 10 years ago I was invited to stay at a private residence previously owned and used by the Royal Family in the LVP and Edwardian times. There were photographs adorning the walls of virtually every room. Even these photographs were in 'used' (for want of a better word) condition, even those where light was limited, heat was 'normal' and some mounted behind glass in solid frames. There were photos of many members of the then Royal Family, with children and grandchildren, friends and guests in relaxed privacy.
Few of the photos, if any, to the best of my recollection, were 'pristine'.
A very legitimate question, imho.

Kindly

Phil

[Livia]

This photo is alleged to have been taken in
Europe, traveled across the Atlantic and then
passed down from generation to generation
and presumably from household to household.

Why is there no foxing, no missing corners, no
scratches, etc. ?

I have family photos taken in the same time
period. They are photos glued onto cardboard
as most were in those days. The corners are
missing, the surface is scratched, there are
white spots where there should be black or
gray coloration, there's foxing (brownish stains
looks tea colored), etc.

These photos stayed in the same blanket box
in the same farmhouse for over a hundred years,
until they were passed down to me.

Why is this photo so pristine?

Hey Debs,

Maybe "Johnto" should have been written "John two"
to differentiate between father and son.

Liv

[curious4]

photo

Hello Chris,

I have two photos of the period, one of a group of english soldiers, taken in france and dated, and one of a sailor taken in Malta, which isn t, so I suppose it varied. I don t know if the photo of Annie Chapman has a date on it?

Best wishes,

C4

[Robert]

Thanks Chris.

[ChrisGeorge]

Good morning all,

I wonder if this could be a case of family history by word of mouth being twisted over the generations? Thus, this is great aunt Mary, she knew Mary Kelly who was killed by Jack the Ripper becomes this is great, great aunt Mary who was killed by Jack the Ripper. Perhaps also a reason for emigrating - a new start and also away from the killer.

Hello C4

I don't know the exact circumstances surrounding the supposed photograph of Mary Jane Kelly -- perhaps Chris Scott knows more and can enlighten us. However, the scenario that you describe could well be the case. That is, if the photograph was not marked and dated at the time it was taken as to whom the person was who was photographed and when, an oral tradition can grow that the photograph depicts a person that it does not. Such oral traditions, elaborated upon or distorted through the years, can often be very misleading and unhelpful in trying to determine the truth.

Best regards

Chris

[curious4]

Hello again,

My point exactly. Many "facts" passed down by word of mouth in my family have turned out to have been twi sted when examined in the cold light of ancestry.com or whatever.
Best wishes

C4

[Chris Scott]

Going back to the fragment of the group photo, which shows Bridget : could the background of that be a photographer's studio? If anything, it looks like net curtains. Would curtains have been a normal background in a studio?

the alleged Kelly family pic is taken in a studio witj a painted backcloth
Hope this helps
Chris

[curious4]

photo

True Henry, but if her hair was her "crowning glory", would she want to cover it up?

Best wishes,
C4

[Henry Flower]

C4 -

I wonder if this could be a case of family history by word of mouth being twisted over the generations? Thus, this is great aunt Mary, she knew Mary Kelly who was killed by Jack the Ripper becomes this is great, great aunt Mary who was killed by Jack the Ripper. Perhaps also a reason for emigrating - a new start and also away from the killer.

I've been wondering the same thing - it seems very possible indeed. My old mum looks at old photos from her younger years and has a hard time remembering exactly which family member was which. And that's just looking back one generation.

[Abby Normal]

Wow. Just saw this thread. very exciting stuff.

However. Did not Mary kelly have blue eyes? The woman in this photo appears to have VERY dark eyes-dark brown i would say.

She looks French.

[Robert]

Going back to the fragment of the group photo, which shows Bridget : could the background of that be a photographer's studio? If anything, it looks like net curtains. Would curtains have been a normal background in a studio?

[Henry Flower]

Yes indeed C4 it does. What it doesn't say is that Mary Kelly had never worn a hat in her life, ever, not even once, for a formal cabinet photograph.