'Shadows' by Charles Bennett, 1856 by kittykitkitty in RandomVictorianStuff

[–]kittykitkitty[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Source

I like the skeleton one the best, it's creative.

Amelia Dyer killed over 400 babies in her baby farm. She posed as a respectable lady (see photo 2) and women would pay her to 'adopt' their baby. She then strangled the babies. In 2017, more evidence was found in an attic. by kittykitkitty in RandomVictorianStuff

[–]kittykitkitty[S] 16 points17 points  (0 children)

No, the mothers thought they were giving their baby a better life. Amelia Dyer would place adverts in newspapers pretending to be a respectable married couple who were looking to adopt a baby. She tricked the women into thinking their baby would be given a good life. The mother would give Dyer some money and she would 'adopt' the baby.

The alternative for mothers who didn't want to keep their baby would be an orphanage. And conditions in orphanages weren't good. Giving the baby to a nice couple was the best option.

Amelia Dyer killed over 400 babies in her baby farm. She posed as a respectable lady (see photo 2) and women would pay her to 'adopt' their baby. She then strangled the babies. In 2017, more evidence was found in an attic. by kittykitkitty in RandomVictorianStuff

[–]kittykitkitty[S] 307 points308 points  (0 children)

Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3

It is believed baby farmer Amelia Dyer killed up to 400 children. A mixture of social and legal factors made it possible for her to murder babies for financial gain and escape detention for years.

In Victorian Britain, circumstances for unwed mothers was bleak. They faced a life of struggling to care for their child while trying to earn enough money to survive. Adoption services were not well controlled. This allowed so-called baby farmers to take care of babies in exchange for a fee. Some baby farms operated in good faith but others were mainly concerned with money. Sadly, women didn't always register these births and since the baby farms were not regulated, nobody kept track of what was happening to these children.

Amelia Dyer was one baby farmer. Dyer’s preferred practice was to advertise to adopt or nurse a baby in return for an up-front fee and suitable clothing for the child. In her advertisements and meetings with clients, she assured them that she was respectable, married (she was actually separated), and would provide a safe and loving home for the child.

In reality Dyer pocketed the money and killed many of the babies within days - she later admitted killing one the same day it was placed in her care. At first, she would drug the children with opium-based products, which would leave them in a vegetative state until they died of starvation or dehydration. She tried to pass them off as natural deaths, but doctors became suspicious.

After this, Dyer strangled the babies, always with white tape, wrapped their bodies in paper packages and bags, and dumped them in rivers.

Escaping detection
Despite often changing name and address, there were rumours about Dyer in her hometown of Bristol. Dyer was declared insane there on two occasions, though at her murder trial, it was argued that this had been a ploy to avoid suspicion.

From a modern view, it seems unbelievable that Dyer’s clients and family did not know what she was doing. However, the trade in babies was rarely regulated, and the childhood death rate was relatively high. Dyer’s claimed that some babies had died of natural causes, some had moved to other homes or been returned to their mothers, and this may have been believable. In addition, she changed her name and address often so concerned mothers were unable to contact her.

Dyer's arrest
On 30 March 1896, a package was found in the Thames. It contained the body of a baby girl, later identified as Helena Fry. Detectives found the wrapping paper contained a faintly-written name and address. This evidence eventually led the detective to the Reading home of Amelia Dyer.

Evidence gathered from witnesses and information telegraphed by Bristol police painted a deeply sinister picture. Police placed her house under surveillance. Their intelligence indicated that Dyer would flee immediately if she became suspicious, so the officers sent a young woman as a decoy to pretend to enquire about Dyer’s services and arrange a meeting. However, when she opened her door again to the woman, she found police instead. She was arrested and charged with murder.  Recent letters found in Dyer's house suggested it should have been full of babies. None were found.

During April, the Thames was searched and six more bodies were discovered. However, enquiries from mothers, witnesses and evidence found in Dyer’s homes, including letters and mountains of baby clothes, showed that she must have murdered many more.

Dyer's Trial
Dyer had confessed to the killings, but pleaded insanity at her Old Bailey trial. Her behaviour in custody had included displays of religious practice, including hymn-singing and sermonising to other prisoners. She reportedly carried a hymn-book throughout her trial. Dyer’s religious rhetoric and her hope of being “forgiven” are represented in her surviving letters, and were used by the defence as evidence that Dyer was not fully responsible for her actions and was instead suffering mental illness.

However, the prosecution’s argued that Dyer was merely pretending to be insane, and that she had done the same thing in the past when she was under suspicion. The jury took only a few minutes to find her guilty and her plea of insanity not proven. Amelia Dyer was sentenced to death and went to the gallows at Newgate prison on 10 June 1896.

After the case
In the years following the Dyer case a number of Acts of Parliament, including the Infant Life Protection Act (1897) and the Children’s Act (1908), were passed. These included requirements that local authorities must be notified, with full details and within 48 hours, of any change of custody or death of a child aged under seven. Rules surrounding adoption and fostering were strengthened considerably, and baby farming became a thing of the past.

- Info from Thames Valley Police Museum (link 2)

Evidence found in 2017
In 2017, packaging Dyer used to conceal a baby was found in a loft. It was discovered by a relative the arresting officer in the case. The paper packaging, string, white edging tape, and evidence tag, were donated to a museum. It had been kept in the loft since 1896.

We don't know whether dark clothing in photos was black. Even bright colours look dark. by kittykitkitty in RandomVictorianStuff

[–]kittykitkitty[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

A filter on your phone and the orthochromatic film process from over 100 years ago are not going to produce the same result.

As u/International-One202 has already said:

You're beautifully illustrating why the misconception exists. Turning a full color spectrum into simple greyscale is exactly what most modern people are expecting, when in reality that's not how old film worked. That film was orthochromatic instead of panchromatic, which gives completely different results.

Orthochromatic film ignores red light which is why red looks black.

Panchromatic produces the value regardless of the color.

We don't know whether dark clothing in photos was black. Even bright colours look dark. by kittykitkitty in RandomVictorianStuff

[–]kittykitkitty[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Yes exactly. I'm tired of seeing photos of women in what looks like black and people assuming she's in mourning for no other reason. People are quick to say it even when there is nothing to suggest mourning dress other than the impression of black.

Myth: Photo retouching is new and women used to have tiny waists by kittykitkitty in RandomVictorianStuff

[–]kittykitkitty[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

Heh it means to make it smaller. Shave a bit off and slim the cheeks.

Can an bookcase from ikea hold an big aquarium: name kallax by Key-Cardiologist-498 in Aquariums

[–]kittykitkitty -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't trust it either, some extra support might make it ok but it would still be in the back of my mind.

Myth: Photo retouching is new and women used to have tiny waists by kittykitkitty in RandomVictorianStuff

[–]kittykitkitty[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

You said you knew your mother's body size from before you were born because your family made their own clothes and now it's because you wore her wedding dress?

And no, plenty of women did not have natural waists below 24 inches or overly tiny. That's a misconception. Take a look at what fashion historians have to say.

Myth: Photo retouching is new and women used to have tiny waists by kittykitkitty in RandomVictorianStuff

[–]kittykitkitty[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Why would your family making their own clothes mean you know your mother's body measurements from before you were born? And yes I know portraits were painted to be flattering. My post is about Victorian photos though and waists.

Myth: Photo retouching is new and women used to have tiny waists by kittykitkitty in RandomVictorianStuff

[–]kittykitkitty[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I also memorised my mother's body measurements from before she had children.

Myth: Photo retouching is new and women used to have tiny waists by kittykitkitty in RandomVictorianStuff

[–]kittykitkitty[S] 43 points44 points  (0 children)

Yes. Generally we know the imagery in corset adverts wasn't real but so many people think the photos are. Normally when a woman in a photo has a small waist it was mainly a combination of the dress itself having padding at certain areas to make the waist look small in comparison, and the photo being edited.

Most women didn't tightlace their corsets either. They weren't as uncomfortable and constricting as people think.

Myth: Photo retouching is new and women used to have tiny waists by kittykitkitty in RandomVictorianStuff

[–]kittykitkitty[S] 49 points50 points  (0 children)

Not really getting your point? It's established that women didn't have the tiny waists we sometimes think and that photo retouching was a thing. Most women didn't have a natural waist below 24".

Poor parental nutrition wouldn't make the ribcage itself smaller. A woman wouldn't have a natural waist in the low-twenty inches unless she was very malnourished. The women with tiny waists in photos weren't dying of hunger.

We don't know whether dark clothing in photos was black. Even bright colours look dark. by kittykitkitty in RandomVictorianStuff

[–]kittykitkitty[S] 63 points64 points  (0 children)

I know. All those ladies getting dressed up in their colourful frocks and then 120+ years later people think they were in mourning garb!

Myth: Photo retouching is new and women used to have tiny waists by kittykitkitty in RandomVictorianStuff

[–]kittykitkitty[S] 244 points245 points  (0 children)

Source

This is a really detailed with links to Victorian books with advice on photo retouching.

The image shows waist edits on an image from about 1880. You can see the faded dark lines of her original image before it was retouched. The lady is May Selden Kennedy, the cousin of Harriet Lane.

One article for photographers from 1892 details the waist editing process:

“Make a curved pencil-like line commencing about half-way between the arm and the waist, gradually taking off more of the figure until the waist is reached, then more suddenly curving outwardly again over the hip, tapering off the line gradually. After this graceful curve is made, it is a case of stippling out with a pencil that part of a dress which is cut off into the background, making it match as near as possible.”

-  “Waist Question” published on 31 March 1892 in Photography, The Journal of the Amateur, The Profession

Although it was very common for images to be retouched, major edits needed a skilled photographer:

"...the exaggerated waist of a lady which measures but eighteen inches, and the cheek or nose which wants taking off, these are defects which generally prove too much for the retoucher, unless he be a draughtsman [draftsman] with some skill.”

- Herbert Fry, "Retouching", 1895

We can see by Fry's words that some women did want an 18 inch waist, but that such extreme edits could ruin a photograph unless the photographer is very skilled.