The ALLEGED photograph of Mary Jane Kelly

[Henry Flower]

Indeed Mike - we can now only wait to hear what other information Chris is given, or what else he can discover about the family and the photos.

And of course we can expect allegations quickly to be made of definite resemblances between the photo and half the women in hats ever to appear in Sickert paintings. Oh, I can't wait...

I'm off now. Good day to to you, and to all.

[Robert]

Is there anything to be gleaned regarding the differences in dress between Bridget and "Mary"? To me as a non-expert, the dresses look very different regarding the shoulders. "Mary's" dress seems to have very rounded shoulders, whereas Bridget's has more angular shoulders - NOT the absurd shoulder pads of "Dynasty" of course, but there certainly seems to be a difference.

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Phil

Well, the only people currently claiming that it is "our" Mary, are the family. Chris certainly isn't claiming it and nor, I think, is anyone on this thread. I don't know whether the family will tell Chris precisely why they believe that this is indeed THE Mary Kelly. Let's see.

As does Chris Scott, I have a completely open mind on the photograph being an image of the Mary Jane Kelly who died in Miller's Court. I just count this new puzzle as one more intriguing mystery to add to the many we have to ponder in this case of all cases. So, plod on, fellow Ripperologists!

Best regards

Chris George

[Bridewell]

Good Afternoon All.

http://www.cartes.fsnet.co.uk/date/main.htm

I don't know if this helps -doesn't seem to show many ladies wearing hats, but hardly surprising for indoor shots. Most women in the 1880's do seem to have worn their hair up, though, if these are anything to go by. I don't see how it's possible to tell the length of the lady's hair in the photo unless she removes that hat!

Regards, Bridewell.

[Robert]

The third photo from 1888 has a rather elaborate hat.

[ChrisGeorge]

Good Afternoon All.

http://www.cartes.fsnet.co.uk/date/main.htm

I don't know if this helps -doesn't seem to show many ladies wearing hats, but hardly surprising for indoor shots. Most women in the 1880's do seem to have worn their hair up, though, if these are anything to go by. I don't see how it's possible to tell the length of the lady's hair in the photo unless she removes that hat!

Regards, Bridewell.

Hello Bridewell

You are correct that in public ladies or women in the Victorian and Edwardian eras wore their hair piled up. She probably would not unpin it except in private. It might have been seen also as unseemly for woman, as opposed to a girl, to be seen out of doors with her hair down. As stated on one blog that discusses particularly Edwardian and 20th Century hats:

"In the late Victorian and early Edwardian period hats were worn perched atop piled-up hair, often tipped to one side or forward over the face. Mens' styles such as boaters and trilbys had been adopted into female fashion in the 1880s, and were popular daywear, embellished with flowers and feathers.

"The later Edwardian period saw the silhouette become narrower, and hats conversely became more vast. Enormous hats reached a peak during the 'Titanic' era, with brims sometimes extending beyond the wearer's shoulders. To secure these huge creations to the head, hat pins up to 18 inches long were skewered through the hair and hat (in a pinch, these could also double as a handy weapon)."

Also see this selection of images per Mr. Google here.

It would seem to me that in the 1880's the hat worn by a woman in public would be more likely to be the smaller hat, worn closer to the head than the wide-brimmed hat seen in the Edwardian era or indeed in the supposed photograph of Mary Kelly. You can see how I am wavering in my opinion of the photograph in question.

Best regards

Chris

[Semper_Eadem]

Hey all,

I'm starting to wonder if perhaps the 2 pictures of Mary and her sister Bridget might of become mixed up through the years. I know that sounds far fetched but it happens and Bridget looks more like the Mary from descriptions that I have seen with her light hair. Her build could also be described as stout although not very. I don't know sounds if i am clutching at straws or theories. I gotta say that both the Kelly sisters are very attractive.

I think those hats in the link Chris George supplied are more Edwardian then Victorian however their were a few that look circa 1888's. I knew the big hats from Titanic and Bonnets but almost nothing about the transition between the two. Perhaps Mary got a man's hat cheap and set to work feminizing for the picture. Also looking at her broach, I think the chain on it is interesting. Maybe she made that as well out of some old pieces. Maybe Mary was quite the fashionista

Geo~

[Bridewell]

Hello Bridewell


"In the late Victorian and early Edwardian period hats were worn perched atop piled-up hair, often tipped to one side or forward over the face. Mens' styles such as boaters and trilbys had been adopted into female fashion in the 1880s, and were popular daywear, embellished with flowers and feathers.

It would seem to me that in the 1880's the hat worn by a woman in public would be more likely to be the smaller hat, worn closer to the head than the wide-brimmed hat seen in the Edwardian era or indeed in the supposed photograph of Mary Kelly. You can see how I am wavering in my opinion of the photograph in question.

Best regards

Chris

Hi Chris,

Many thanks for that. The closest match I could find in the link:



Unfortunately it's labelled as Edwardian, so presumably 1901 - 1910 if that is correct. Having said that, I suspect that Parisian fashion and London fashion were not aligned to the same degree in the 19th century as they are today. I, too, am undecided, but that is how it should be, I think, at this stage. In fact it's quite encouraging that no-one has rushed to either accept or reject this image on the evidence available.

Regards, Bridewell.

[The Good Michael]

I just asked an expert who owns a hat museum. She says that the pin and dress are Victorian and the hat is Edwardian.

The problem as I see it is that the French Belle Epoque period covers late Victorian and early Edwardian, so where are we?

Possibilities.

Mike

[Addy]

Hi all,

It is absolutely fascinating! Thanks to Chris and the family for posting this picture. I feel there is indeed a lot of difference between these two women and I'm inclined to think "Mary" looks too dark to be the sister of Bridget, who has more the look of what you would expect from Mary. But who knows? I'm curious about extra information, if the family is willing to share.

Greetings,

Addy

[Abby Normal]

I am glad to end all the cloak and dagger shenanigans that I hate. After very persistent but gentle pressure from myself the lady who originally sent this image has agreed to it being openly posted for comment and opinion.
The alleged information I was sent claims that Kelly was one of six children - 4 brothers (originally 5 but one died young) and 2 daughters. The only names of her siblings I was given was that her sister was named Bridget and her oldest brother was named Henry John Joseph. Her parents were named Bridget Kelly and John Joseph Kelly. At an unspecified date after Mary Jane's murder the whole family moved to the USA and, as far as I am aware, remained there.
The only info specific to the image I am posting below is that it was allegedly taken in 1885.
Let me emphasise (and the person who sent this to me is well aware of this) I am by no means convinced that this is an image of the Mary Kelly who died at Millers Court. One of the main stumbling blocks for me is the (in my opinion) lack of resemblance between this alleged image of mary and that of her sister Bridget from the family group photo.
To be as even handed as I can I am posting this same post on Casebook and JTR Forums at the same time.
Also let me emphasise that no financial transaction has taken place - no money has been asked for or offered for this image.
Chris

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.

[Archaic]

Explaination of Terminology

Hi everyone. Thought I would take a minute to explain some of the terminology being used in this discussion. I'm so familiar with them that I sometimes forget that others are not.

Strictly speaking, the Victorian Period spans the years of Queen Victoria's long reign, 1837-1901.

- Thus the latter portion of the Victorian Era includes the 13 years from 1888-1901 when Mary Kelly was already deceased. So her dress and jewelry could be called "Victorian", but if they can be definitely traced to that 13-year span the photo cannot be her.

People continued to wear "Victorian" items in later years, particularly jewelry. (I'm sure many of us wear favorite antique pieces and old family heirlooms today.)

Strictly speaking, the Edwardian Period spans King Edward's reign, 1901-1910. But it's usually extended to at least WWI, and often to the end of WWI, and even to the 1919 Treaty of Versailles.

However, jewelry and fashions are evaluated stylistically and by the details of their constructions, materials, etc. Styles have a tendency to develop, overlap, morph, recede, revive, etc- there are no hard and fast dates. Dates really only come in when there is solid proof, such as a patent date, a maker's mark, etc., that can be traced. As with photographs, this usually results in a time period being indicated as "not earlier than" a given date. It seldom results in a hard-and-fast date.

When evaluating jewelry and fashions, the terms Victorian, Art Nouveau, and Edwardian are much more nebulous. For example, the artistic style known as "Art Nouveau", "New Art", is often described as the period from 1890 or 1895 to 1915 or 1918...this is because the style developed over time, influencing other styles to a greater or lesser extent, mixing with them, etc. The style didn't start and stop on a given day. (Example: If you consult an early 1920's catalog, chances are you will encounter items that show definite stylistic traits one would term 'Art Nouveau'. The new Art Deco style was developing, but didn't really burst forth until 1925.)

'Belle Epoque' is an even more nebulous a term. It's generally applied to the period in France encompassing the late 19th C. up to the advent of WWI in 1914. I've seen a number of different "starting dates" for it. There really is no starting date. It's applied stylistically to a highly creative period in art, literature, fashion, etc.

I believe the best chance of firmly dating the photograph beyond dispute rests with whether the cardstock contains a studio name, address, date, or printing code.
Even the font used on the card can be dated stylistically, but that won't be anywhere near as accurate as being able to trace the photography studio or cardstock printer. If that leads us to a firm date later than 1888 we'll know it's not the Mary we are seeking.

And as I think Robert pointed out earlier, even if this photo can be reliably proven to pre-date 1888, that still won't prove it's of "the" Mary Kelly who was murdered in Miller's Court. Instead it will lead to a rigorous genealogical investigation. Evaluating the photograph is only a first step.

Hope this helps a little.
Best regards,
Archaic

[Scorpio]

I am glad to end all the cloak and dagger shenanigans that I hate. After very persistent but gentle pressure from myself the lady who originally sent this image has agreed to it being openly posted for comment and opinion.
The alleged information I was sent claims that Kelly was one of six children - 4 brothers (originally 5 but one died young) and 2 daughters. The only names of her siblings I was given was that her sister was named Bridget and her oldest brother was named Henry John Joseph. Her parents were named Bridget Kelly and John Joseph Kelly. At an unspecified date after Mary Jane's murder the whole family moved to the USA and, as far as I am aware, remained there.
The only info specific to the image I am posting below is that it was allegedly taken in 1885.
Let me emphasise (and the person who sent this to me is well aware of this) I am by no means convinced that this is an image of the Mary Kelly who died at Millers Court. One of the main stumbling blocks for me is the (in my opinion) lack of resemblance between this alleged image of mary and that of her sister Bridget from the family group photo.
To be as even handed as I can I am posting this same post on Casebook and JTR Forums at the same time.
Also let me emphasise that no financial transaction has taken place - no money has been asked for or offered for this image.
Chris

Hi, Mary Kelly had a full face with a light, slightly freckly complexion, quite light blue eyes, and thick dark chestnut hair. This person is not
Mary Kelly.

[Stephen Thomas]

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

And also a cropped dark Beatle style haircut which Victorian women didn't wear back then unless they worked down the mines or whatever and is completely different from the hair of the body on the bed which is straight and swept back .

Thanks for the side by side photos on page 4 here, Roy.

They look like the same person to me. Check the left eyebrow.

And if this is the same Mrs Bartlett I wouldn't be surprised that glamorous (sic) photos of her were sold on street corners for a penny.

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=def1-466-18860405&div=t18860405-466#highlight

[Phil Carter]

Hello Archaic,

Your insight into LVP and Edwardian finery and fashion has been fascinating to read. Thank you for taking the time to write and explain.

For the record, it was I who pointed out the business of other genealogical evidence re, this claim attached to this photograph. In actual fact twice, once quite early in the thread and again when adressing Robert.

Best wishes

Phil