Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I do think I am overly sensitive to this issue-- and hope that in being so I am not going to the other extreme-- which is just as bad as being narrow minded and prejudiced in my opinion....

This is an issue that hits a little close to home for me. My dearest brother in law is gay and his coming out tested his entire extended family-- a test many of them failed.

I can also be almost fanatical in my liberal views-- which in and of itself is a contradiction! Mon Dieu!

I do sincerely apologize to anyone if they did feel I put words in their mouths... See? I told you I wasn't a priss.

True.

But statistically, the odds would be in of favor of her being heterosexual.

william @ Sun May 14, 2006 1:55 pm wrote:True.

But statistically, the odds would be in of favor of her being heterosexual.

I think it has been discussed here in the past how people generally assume heterosexuality unless they have some reason to believe otherwise... warranted or not.

Usually feminine men are classified as gay-- where masculine women can be thought of as tom boys, and admired for this trait. Lesbians have it a lot easier in society in general in my opinion-- but probably not from their families.

DWilly @ Sun May 14, 2006 2:00 am wrote:

Kat @ Sat May 13, 2006 10:32 pm wrote:I never heard about men's hats and shoes, sorry.
I think makeup, maybe light makeup and most certainly perfume.

Rebello page 500, "Centenarian Recalls Lizzie Borden," New Bedford Standard Times, October 6,1975:17

"Mrs. Alice Dean, ' She [Lizzie] was a perfect lady, She was very religious. She was wonderful to us. She recalled Lizzie as being 'Very mannish looking person...she always wore men's hats and shoes, totally unlike her sister, who was very ladylike...it should be a closed business. Whether she did it or not is a big mystery. I don't know.' Mrs. Dean was a friend of Lizzie Borden and visited the Borden household.

Judge Justin Dewey (1893) warned about eyewitness testimony that can't be corroborated. Was there any truth in this statement?
What do the photographs (if any) tell?

Kat @ Sun May 14, 2006 6:14 am wrote:Well good you found it!
But- that says the person recalling is 100 years old, right?

My experience in reading memoirs of people who were 80, 90, 95 etc., or of people who were very young back then and are relying on memory in the 1970's and 1980's- sorry- they have just been wrong. Even the lady who was at the trial and covered it in the newspaper, E. Jordan. Even Louis Lyons who wrote a history of the Boston Globe. Even Abby Potter was probably mistaken in her memories. Even Arthur Phillips, Lizzie's own attorney. Some even think 85 year old Ruby was wrong in her memories.
Sorry, but that doesn't convince me nor should it convince anyone.

I'm willing to accept what a person remembers about their prior life. However it may have been changed by after events. But about another person who was scorned in her time?
"I remember the time I saw OJ running down the street with a bloody knife in his hand. Or was that Lizzie with a bloody hatchet? Its all sort of hazy after a while."
A few years ago around the time my aunt died, my cousin mentioned that she could remember things from 30-40 years ago clearly, but kept repeating the same questions when in the nursing home. This suggests old memories may linger in the aged. But I wouldn't want to convict on this.

william @ Sun May 14, 2006 2:55 pm wrote:True.

But statistically, the odds would be in of favor of her being heterosexual.

But, it still doesn't mean she was. Lizzie could have very well have fallen into the percentage that was gay. We don't know for sure. Now there are a few things we can look at and kick around. We know Lizzie never married and she never had a boyfriend. We can look at Nance O'Neil. Can anyone point to a man that Lizzie treated the way she did Nance? By that I mean giving money, sending flowers and throwing a party? Do we see that kind of thing going on with a male?

DWilly @ Sun May 14, 2006 4:03 pm wrote:

william @ Sun May 14, 2006 2:55 pm wrote:True.

But statistically, the odds would be in of favor of her being heterosexual.

But, it still doesn't mean she was. Lizzie could have very well have fallen into the percentage that was gay. We don't know for sure. Now there are a few things we can look at and kick around. We know Lizzie never married and she never had a boyfriend. We can look at Nance O'Neil. Can anyone point to a man that Lizzie treated the way she did Nance? By that I mean giving money, sending flowers and throwing a party? Do we see that kind of thing going on with a male?

We don't really know that Lizzie never had a boyfriend... Radin discusses men who took Lizzie about.

Audrey @ Sun May 14, 2006 5:32 pm wrote:

DWilly @ Sun May 14, 2006 4:03 pm wrote:

william @ Sun May 14, 2006 2:55 pm wrote:True.

But statistically, the odds would be in of favor of her being heterosexual.

But, it still doesn't mean she was. Lizzie could have very well have fallen into the percentage that was gay. We don't know for sure. Now there are a few things we can look at and kick around. We know Lizzie never married and she never had a boyfriend. We can look at Nance O'Neil. Can anyone point to a man that Lizzie treated the way she did Nance? By that I mean giving money, sending flowers and throwing a party? Do we see that kind of thing going on with a male?

We don't really know that Lizzie never had a boyfriend... Radin discusses men who took Lizzie about.

Vaguely it's discussed. Notice how no one names pops up. Sounds to me like her so called dates were ones that were arranged. No one male stood out. Also, you have to keep in mind that Lizzie, like many lesbians, may have tried to fit in and just gone out with a few guys to do it.

Few quotes from Rebello:

page 231, speaking about Lizzie, " And absolutely without any desire for marriage."

And of course we know Lizzie never did marry.


page 229, " She has avoided the company of young men..."


Again, please name a boyfriend. Can you find a guy who comes close to Nance in the way Lizzie acted?

All I would like to do is dress Lizbeth appropriately in her own style, in the 1920's.
I think a woman with a lot of money in the twenties, who liked to go to New York and Boston and Providence to shop, and attended the theatre and museums and went out to dinner probably had a very nice wardrobe to do these things in.
And what Audrey said made sense to me about actresses in the early movies making makeup popular.
I can see a light dusting of powder, maybe a bit of red on the cheeks and lips, a nice black velvet handbag, and a lacy tea gown for brunch in New York City. I haven't pictured her shoes yet.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- Nance O'Neil was married. And there is not proof there were no boyfriends for Miss Borden- even if Lizzie/Lizbeth didn't know herself what her personal persuasian was.
I can't figure out how any topic that has to do with Lizzie/Lizbeth's possibly being a regular girl who liked jewelry and nice clothes and art and pretty furnishings turns into a gay question?
Who is doing that?
Let's just dress Lizbeth.

BTW: Tracy has the right idea in pointing to past discussions on the Ruby question. There is a push hereabouts I've noticed to completely discredit Ruby and Gramma and that probably has driven her away. I don't like that thought that she can't post here without worrying she will not be accepted.
Let her have her say. She's been around a long time. And she's related to a companion of Lizbeths. Why alienate her to suit one's agenda?
We should be more tolerant.

BTW: 2: I think it's very possible that at the farm, if Lizbeth was being assertive and active, once pants became more acceptable for women, that she would wear pants and flat shoes to walk the farm or go fishing.

Kat @ Sun May 14, 2006 7:59 pm wrote:All I would like to do is dress Lizbeth appropriately in her own style, in the 1920's.
I think a woman with a lot of money in the twenties, who liked to go to New York and Boston and Providence to shop, and attended the theatre and museums and went out to dinner probably had a very nice wardrobe to do these things in.
And what Audrey said made sense to me about actresses in the early movies making makeup popular.
I can see a light dusting of powder, maybe a bit of red on the cheeks and lips, a nice black velvet handbag, and a lacy tea gown for brunch in New York City. I haven't pictured her shoes yet.

I've said it before and I'll say it again- Nance O'Neil was married. And there is not proof there were no boyfriends for Miss Borden- even if Lizzie/Lizbeth didn't know herself what her personal persuasian was.
I can't figure out how any topic that has to do with Lizzie/Lizbeth's possibly being a regular girl who liked jewelry and nice clothes and art and pretty furnishings turns into a gay question?
Who is doing that?
Let's just dress Lizbeth.

BTW: Tracy has the right idea in pointing to past discussions on the Ruby question. There is a push hereabouts I've noticed to completely discredit Ruby and Gramma and that probably has driven her away. I don't like that thought that she can't post here without worrying she will not be accepted.
Let her have her say. She's been around a long time. And she's related to a companion of Lizbeths. Why alienate her to suit one's agenda?
We should be more tolerant.

BTW: 2: I think it's very possible that at the farm, if Lizbeth was being assertive and active, once pants became more acceptable for women, that she would wear pants and flat shoes to walk the farm or go fishing.

A few things:

Nance being married late in life doesn't mean anything. Oscar Wilde and Billie Jean King were also married.


As far as Gramma goes I don't think anyone is trying to run her off. The thing is she cannot just post whatever she wants and not expect people to question her. I think it's very unfair and biased on your part to tell any of us we can't question her. Especially since many of her claims come from such dubious sources. Just because you "like" her theory does not mean all of us have to accept everything she says without question. Tolerance is a two way street. I am not advocating anyone to be rude to Gramma or disrespectful. Only that we all don't have to accept everything she says. That's not pushing an agenda. I am simply pointing out that this is a discussion board and so people are going to discuss and ask questions and challenge views.

Kat is 'k'orrect.....

I just cannot seem to imgine Lizzie in trousers.

I think her shoes were probably always dark in color, more of a pump than anything else. As she aged they may have included laces more often than not.

Dressy shoes would have been slip ons with an ankle strap.

http://www.costumes.org/history/100page ... 1920s1.htm

Lizzie had money and she wasn't shy about spending it. I doubt she did without much!

Too bad we can't see those purported later snapshots of Lizzie, taken by someone on her staff. Those would tell us a great deal!

It would be marvelous to see something akin to a snapshot of her wouldn't it?

Lizzie wore only the latest of fashion during the trial, and in her photos, the leg-o-mutton sleeves were the last word in fashion in the early 1890s. Could be that because of her broad shoulders she simply didn't photograph daintily. She does tend to look rather massive on some photos, but compare that to the dress on display at the B&B. I have a feeling if we were to see Lizzie in person, we all would have been shocked at how small she was.
And, certain hat styles from the Edwardian era literally were created from taking a man's boater and adding flowers and decoration to it. I would imagine that Lizzie stayed with styles perhaps up to the Edwardian period, and then stuck with that for the rest of her life. I doubt that she forayed into the "flapper" era of clothing, as her figure was decidedly NOT a '20s one!
I have a hat and pair of women's lace up shoes in my shop at the moment that definitely have a masculine look to them. But they were not unusual for a stocky, middle-aged woman to have had them in her wardrobe.

Well, Audrey, we can only hope that one day we will get to see all such photos!

stuartwsa @ Sun May 14, 2006 8:01 pm wrote:Lizzie wore only the latest of fashion during the trial, and in her photos, the leg-o-mutton sleeves were the last word in fashion in the early 1890s. Could be that because of her broad shoulders she simply didn't photograph daintily. She does tend to look rather massive on some photos, but compare that to the dress on display at the B&B. I have a feeling if we were to see Lizzie in person, we all would have been shocked at how small she was.
And, certain hat styles from the Edwardian era literally were created from taking a man's boater and adding flowers and decoration to it. I would imagine that Lizzie stayed with styles perhaps up to the Edwardian period, and then stuck with that for the rest of her life. I doubt that she forayed into the "flapper" era of clothing, as her figure was decidedly NOT a '20s one!
I have a hat and pair of women's lace up shoes in my shop at the moment that definitely have a masculine look to them. But they were not unusual for a stocky, middle-aged woman to have had them in her wardrobe.

As for the shoes... Even well placed ladies in those times walked a great deal. A lady may very well have walked several blocks making calls, going shopping, doing the things she did everyday. Even in wealthy families-- many women did not drive and depended on her own steam to get around town. Those masculine looking lace up shoes may have just been the thing to give her a bit of height and a great deal of support.

stuartwsa @ Sun May 14, 2006 8:03 pm wrote:Well, Audrey, we can only hope that one day we will get to see all such photos!

Nice edit... But you may call me 'Vivvie' if you like.... (It's what my family calls me)

In the 1920's Lizzie would've just been entering her 60's. I think her clothes would've been expensive, and well made, but that she leaned more towards what was comfortable and common sense. Like a common sense heal, and comfortable fit dresses. I don't think Lizzie was ever flashy to begin with. I think they would've been tasteful, but not really anything that stood out. In my opinion she stuck with what she liked. Did her dresses still sweep the floor, or did she change with the times? I personally can't see Lizzie showing any leg. I have a hard time with her wearing face powder and lipstick when she was 32, for some reason I have an even harder time seeing it when she was entering her 60's. For shoes I see her in something like what I posted below.

She had some nice sized gem stones in her jewelry, so she wasn't always practical.

I agree with your shoe pics.... She may have had some evening slippers as well, with or without a heel.

I learned at a fairly young age that a pump if far more comfortable to stand around in than any heel will ever be.

I wonder if she wore shoes about the house?

Apparently it was becoming a fad, at least in 1893, of women wearing men's clothes. Here's a September 1893 Boston Globe article.



Personally I don't think it meant anything if Lizzie did wear a few male items.

Looking at the old photos of Lizzie it's clear that she did like to wear nice clothes. The thing is she also was very conservative. Seems like every dress I've seen her in always went from about the top of her shoes and then clear up to her neck. Little skin was shown. I think by the 1920s, she may have loosened up a bit. Maybe even have gotten rid of the corset. I still doubt she wore any make up. She didn't wear it in her youth and I don't see why she would suddenly start wearing it when she was up in her 60s. Like I said, she leaned toward conservative wear. I do agree that she always loved to wear rings.

Here's a pic I have of some women tennis players in the 1920s. Their clothes look a lot looser and the skirts are shorter:

Makeup really didn't become the norm until the 20's... But I bet she still used a face powder.

Lizzie may have enjoyed a game of croquet a time or two, but I wager she never held a tennis racket in her life. Can you honestly imagine her darting about the court after the ball? I cannot.

Another fad around the century's turn was what the newspapers determined was an overdoing of public affection between women friends.
The article I read was similar in vein to the one Harry posted about the attire.
It was decried that females were putting on a public exhibition and likened the trend to an attention-getting scheme- maybe like the clothing fad.

I get the impression that Lizzie enjoyed being notorious. Nobody knew for certain whether she was acting or not. I think she rather enjoyed "putting one over" on people. Even her grave marker reads "Lizbeth" rather than "Lizzie". She had been relegated to the fringe area of society, perhaps she was just "acting" the part with relatively outlandish or extreme behavior. I wonder if the shoplifting episodes were a part of this, the absurdity of the daughter of a wealthy man feeling the need to steal something.

At the time of her death/planning what she wanted on her headstone, she was going by 'Lizbeth'. Also, on the 'family' marker, it says "Lizzie Andrews", the stone mason's error ?


Tracy...

Maybe even the stone mason couldn't believe that someone would name his daughter "Andrew".

Even if the stone mason didn't 'believe' the name, I wonder why they wouldn't have at least checked to make sure on the spelling. There must be a reason why it has been allowed to remain incorrect.


Tracy...

Could adding that 's' be her way of adding a final bit of separation between she and Andrew?

I'm sure the stonemason would have double checked if there was a question about the name "Andrew/s". I wonder if he was working from an explicit directive from Lizzie. He got the information somewhere, probably not Emma, and Emma died too soon after Lizzie to make a correction. "Lizbeth" appears on the monument as well as on the grave marker. It is a very subtle difference, not far removed from the truth. If it was an outright act of defiance, she might have chosen something like "Henrietta Glockenspeil Borden" as an assumed name to be buried under.

Come to think of it, if she really hated Andrew, she could have been buried somewhere else. If she was the murderer, perhaps she was providing the final clue as to why she murdered her father in addition to her step-mother. She simply detested the name she was given.

Lizzie hand wrote her own burial instructions in 1919, some 8 years before her death.

A reproduction of that paper can be found here:

http://www.handwriting.org/images/samples/lborden.htm

Whether there is an "s" at the end of Andrew is possible but it cannot said for certain as it is not clear enough. Attempts were made to contact the owner of the document with no response.

There is an interesting discussion of this note in the archives at:

http://www.lizzieandrewborden.com/Archi ... BLHand.htm

Could it just be that Lizzie's handwriting was so hard to read they thought that it actually said that from looking at it?

Very possible, Missy. William speculated on that as well in that thread. There is something after the "w" in Andrew, but whether it's an "s" or just the trail from the "w" is not clear.

If it was wrong it was probably too costly to repair and since there was no more immediate family they didn't bother.

Allen has a good point..

I have the 'Lizzie's Chop' font and I cannot decipher anything written in it unless I make it bigger..

Of course this is not her actual handwriting but it might be a good example.

Before the murders, I doubt Lizzie wore even powder -- in Victorian times that was the mark of a fast woman, and I can't see any churchgoing woman wearing powder, or Abby and Andrew countenancing such a thing. Respectable American women didn't start wearing makeup again until the Roaring Twenties. (Why "again"? At the time of the American Revolution both men and women wore makeup.)

I can see Lizzie starting to try powder or even rouge and lipstick in the early years of the new century. Nance would be egging her on, and Emma would be shocked. Maybe that's why she moved out -- the wicked implications of Lizzie's painted face.

Lizzie was quite aware of color; that's why she had so many blue dresses. And she definitely longed for style and beauty.

Lynn

The Masculine Silhouette of 1920's Females
After the war when women's dress became more mannish, each year seemed to get more severe in line which almost emphasised the feminine woman beneath. Female clothes became looser and more shapeless in fit. The bust was suppressed, the waist disappeared, the shoulders became broader and hair shorter and shorter. Narrow boyish hips were preferred. The silhouette emphasised a flattened chest and womanly curves were eliminated as the line became more simplified.

From:
http://www.fashion-era.com/flapper_fash ... %20Females

Everything's relative to what came before...

From the same source:

Make Up Rites
During the era there was an increased use of make up and it was fashionable to perform the rites of make up in public. Instead of disappearing to the powder room women got out their engraved compact and applied lipstick and powder in sight of a whole restaurant or nightclub or tearoom. Ox blood lipstick was used lavishly, but rouge was still used sparingly. Today compacts from the 1920s are sought after by collectors.

Apparently the "s" really hasn't ever bothered anyone of any imporatnce to the family or the case to have it fixed or changed. Maybe it's just me who thinks it's weird to have it there when it is incorrect.


Tracy...

DWilly @ Sat May 13, 2006 11:00 pm wrote:

Kat @ Sat May 13, 2006 10:32 pm wrote:I never heard about men's hats and shoes, sorry.
I think makeup, maybe light makeup and most certainly perfume.

Rebello page 500, "Centenarian Recalls Lizzie Borden," New Bedford Standard Times, October 6,1975:17


"Mrs. Alice Dean, ' She [Lizzie] was a perfect lady, She was very religious. She was wonderful to us. She recalled Lizzie as being 'Very mannish looking person...she always wore men's hats and shoes, totally unlike her sister, who was very ladylike...it should be a closed business. Whether she did it or not is a big mystery. I don't know.' Mrs. Dean was a friend of Lizzie Borden and visited the Borden household.

After reading this description, this old pic came to mind:



Lizzie and Emma in the 20s? Actually its Gertrude Stein and Alice B. Toklas. Could Lizzie have dressed that way as described in Harry's article?

That's cool!

Wiki says Gertrude lived from Feb. 3, 1874 to July 27, 1946.

That's a different *generation* from Lizbeth, to my mind.
Plus she lived in Europe didn't she?

Kat @ Tue May 16, 2006 12:09 am wrote:That's cool!

Wiki says Gertrude lived from Feb. 3, 1874 to July 27, 1946.

That's a different *generation* from Lizbeth, to my mind.
Plus she lived in Europe didn't she?

darn Europeans!

Yes, Gertrude is of a different generation than Lizzie, but, they were both raised with the style of skirts that swept the floor. I picture Lizzie in skirts about that length that Gertrude is wearing later in her life. As for her shoes and hat, who knows? I guess if Lizzie never bobbed her hair, she couldn't wear a cloche hat, she'd have to wear something a bit looser in fit. Which just made me wonder something, nothing was ever mentioned about Andrew with a hat when he left the Borden house the day of the murders. Yet, we know that the standards of the day was to cover one's head when out in public, so, he must have had some sort of hat with him? Didn't Bridget cover her head with a shawl or something when she went on her errands on the murder day?

Morse had a hat he kept in the front foyer. Bridget did cover her head her second go-'round. Lizzie had a hat.
good question.
Wouldn't Abby also have a hat and might Bridget notice it was still there after she heard Lizzie say Abby had gone out?
That's the kind of thing I would notice. You'd check with your eye if the hat of Andrew or Abby was there so you'd know when or if the master or mistress was out.