"Ladies of the Night"

[trachelospermum]

Hi, I hope this is the right board, I can't think of a better one so here goes. My 3rd great grandmother, Harriet Jopson (1832-1911), has an occupational mystery! From the birth of her first child in 1858 the space for her occupation in the census is always blank (except 1861 where she is a servant's wife, even tho' there is no record of her marrying at all). All her children's BC state "father unknown", and her subsequent children seem to have the first child, Alfred Stephen Jopson, as the father on their marriage certificates. Anyway, the point is that does anyone else think that she may have been a prostitute, and if so, how can I find out? She was living in London (Southwark/St Pancras/Marylebone) at the time and I suppose that's why I thought of prostitution. She was always down as the Head of the household, and there was no husband anywhere to be found. Any help with this little mystery would be greatly appreciated, as it is a bone of contention (some people think she was a kept woman, but I don't know enough about the social history of the time to argue about it!) Thanks, Jo

[jaywit]

It may be worthwhile trying to get hold of a copy of this book to see if it helps you.http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521270642/ref=pd_bxgy_text_2_cp/202-9151017-3381420

[Gadget]

Before spending any money, try this site:

http://www.victorianweb.org/

particularly the sections on London, Social History and Gender issues. I had a similar problem with one of my ancestors and found googling produced masses of info.

Also try this posting and links to relevant info.

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,163836.0.html

Gadget

[indiapaleale]

Hi Trach,
I think it's a fair  chance that your Harriet was a Lady of the Night. My hubby has a gg aunt who had 7 children..by 7 different fathers...and she had various occupations but mostly she was servant or in the workhouse. We are certain that she was a pro....and have found that in those days..1870-1890 ..prostitution was quite common.

Now, your lady isn't a servant and isn't in the workhouse....hmmm...so maybe she was kept...but also...maybe she was very good at her trade and was always able to maintain a home for herself and her children. I think if she was kept she would have stayed still.....if she was a pro..she would have kept moving!

Hope you solve the mystery
Indi

[PaulaToo]

You're in the same boat as me there. My Eliza got married (twice) but I think somewhere in between she toured the Portsmouth Docks and Barracks, a sort of 19century 'Eliza of the Lamplight.' I found it interesting that you say the children had 'no father' mine are like that, but they seem to suddenly find one, the first two of mine have the name on the first wedding certificate, so why not on their birth certificates? The one who matters, my Gran Harriet has 'no father' but on her wedding certificate has the name of the first son, who died young.... You've really set me thinking.

Just one other thing. Often children were given the same name as their parents, in the case of 'accidents' sometimes to name and shame. Could there have been an Alfred Stephen Jopson snr who scarpered quickish when things got too hot?

[Berlin-Bob]

For more general information, see also

Topic: Prostitute?
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,134310.0.html

Topic: occupation: Unfortunate
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,161505.0.html

and "search Rootschat" for dressmaker, or prostitute
for various discussions of "Dressmakers", prostitutes and "Ladies of the Night"

(or in german "Damen des horizontalen Gewerbe" - Ladies of the horizontal profession)

Bob

[trachelospermum]

Could there have been an Alfred Stephen Jopson snr who scarpered quickish when things got too hot?

Stephen Jopson was Harriet's father, hence the midddle name, and I think it'd be a fair coincidence if sh happened to "marry" someone with almost the same name as her father!
Thanks for the links, they were all very interesting! I'd love to know if her children were the result of her activities or the reason for them though. Wasn't it frowned upon in those times to have illegitimate children (especially five of them!)?

I think if she was kept she would have stayed still.....if she was a pro..she would have kept moving!

She did have a lot of addresses around that time - 6 that I acn find between 1851 and 1871, although I suppose that's less than me in the same time period!
Jo

[PaulaToo]

Mmmm, right, cheeky little monkey, giving her dad's name.
At least my Eliza didn't pull that one.
Come to think of it, every sighting of her, and there are enough of them, seems to come from a different address.
Is it possible these girls were 'in service' and fell foul to the employer, or someone else in the house? Perhaps they didn't go looking for trouble, it might have come looking for them.
trawling the North Marston registers I have found several cases where girls had children  by their empolyers, though in most cases it being a small village and everyone knowing everyone else's business, the men held their hands up to the crime.....all except one of my Franklin girls, and there's no clue as to who he was. Rotter!

[trachelospermum]

I have quite a few baseborn children in my tree (as have many others, no doubt!) and I have followed the possibility of employers being the father, but for Harriet, the only employer I could find her living with, was 7 years before the birth of her first child! The only possible father I have for my great grandfather, on the Latchford side was about 78 when he was born, so that got me nowhere either! Unfortunately, all sides of my family, from wiltshire, Suffolk, Herts etc, ended up in St Pancras, so the possible fathers all melted away into the night! Hope you have better luck! Jo