20,000 At Frances Coles' Funeral

[Howard Brown]

According to The Standard...and I believe one or two other London papers, which probably can be found on The Forums....
I think that's an amazing number if true and a pretty decent display by the people.
You don't get 20, 000 people at a funeral now when an American Senator or Governor, British MP, or virtually any other celebrity dies.....

The Standard
February 26, 1891
***************

[Adam Went]

Also impressive how when any of these women died back then, genuine attempts were made to paint a positive light on them - statements of how they were good people who never gave any trouble, etc etc. These days, it doesn't matter if the person has just passed away or not, the dirty laundry is still aired out for the whole world to see!

As for Coles, if that figure is correct then it's even more impressive given that the initial Ripper threat and the public hype that came with it had mostly passed by in 1891.

Cheers,
Adam.

[Howard Brown]

AW:

I agree with you on both points.
Even if there were only 1,000 people present, at that time, 27 months after the Kelly murder and 19 months after the Mackenzie murder, it's another example of the impact the WM had.

In other words, I doubt if a crowd would have been that large for any random murder in the vicinity.

That's a lot of people when we really think about it, isn't it Adam ?

[Adam Went]

How:

That is a lot of people - i'm contemplating it from the point of view that the nearest major township to me has 25,000 people, so that would mean 4 out of every 5 people in that whole area went to Frances Coles' funeral....that covers a lot of people!!

Surely that is many more mourners (and perhaps some curious bystanders) than the actual canonical Ripper victims.....

Just shows how community has changed, and not necessarily for the better, over the past 120 years!

Cheers,
Adam.

[Howard Brown]

Adam:

There were quite a few in attendance at the Eddowes' affair.....but the number at Coles' funeral may have been the most of any of them.

[Adam Went]

How:

Only question with all of that is the ratio of genuine mourners to morbid sight-seers, which unfortunately cases like this did and do attract.

Cheers,
Adam.

[JDombrowski89]

According to The Standard...and I believe one or two other London papers, which probably can be found on The Forums....
I think that's an amazing number if true and a pretty decent display by the people.
You don't get 20, 000 people at a funeral now when an American Senator or Governor, British MP, or virtually any other celebrity dies.....

The Standard
February 26, 1891
***************

How,

Probably a typo in the paper. I believe Sudgen found from a source that it was 2,000, not 20,000. I'll look when I get home. Still 2,000 is a mighty feat to turn out for a funeral for a complete stranger. Shows how affected this 'community' was in post-ripper era.

Justin

[Howard Brown]

Thanks JD....I'll give the Complete a look to locate what Sugden says.

[George Hutchinson]

Isn't it curious that - if 20,000 people were there - she had no grave marker? I wonder what that says about social psychology then?

PHILIP

[Howard Brown]

Phil :
It might be a typical case of everyone thinking it was the next fellow's responsibility.
It is unusual in any event, Phil....you're quite right.

[JDombrowski89]

Thanks JD....I'll give the Complete a look to locate what Sugden says.

How,

I have no idea why the heck I mentioned that. In the span flipping between all of these books and newspaper articles I accidently confused Sugden with one of the newspaper articles which state 2,000.

JD