Lizzie Borden Society Forum

I've been thinking about "the girls". It seems that when describing the Borden sisters, many people describe them in the same terms you would younger children. Lizzie and Emma were 32 and 41 respectively at the time of the murders. They still lived at home, but they were grown adult women that in their time would've been considered spinsters. Yet I have even caught myself speaking of them in the same terms you would a rebellious teenager today. Has anyone else noticed this, and do you have any thoughts on why this might occur?

I think that for all practical purposes, Emma and Lizzie were essentially dependent children. Neither one seemed willing to work or set up housekeeping on their own. They were not equal to the task of owning and maintaining the Ferry Street house as an income property which might have given them a sense of independence, even if only in the figurative sense. I don't know what the upkeep was on the Ferry Street house, but if it was not economically viable Andrew would have dropped it like a hot potato. As it was, he gave them five grand to buy it back rather than force them to sell it on the open market.

I guess since they maintained the role of dependent children regardless of their age, it would be natural for others to see them as "girls". Maybe the spinster concept became more apparent while they were at Maplecroft.

Those are some pretty good points. They did not seem to really lift much of a finger while living under Andrew's roof. Still they seemed to want to haggle over what they thought they were entitled to. Good points to ponder Yooper.

I think they probably seemed like "girls" to the general public because of their child-like status in the household.

From another angle; since the "girls" were obviously waiting for their ship to come in, Andrew had to be aware of the mindset. He had to know that they were expecting to inherit his estate, and likely hoping for all of it. He might have used the threat of leaving a will disfavoring his daughters as a means to control disharmony within the household.

The concept of Emma and Lizzie circling like vultures would have crossed more than just a few minds. They had adopted and maintained the status of dependent children. From one point of view, that of the working class, they would have seemed lazy and irresponsible. From another point of view, that of the independently wealthy, that behavior was to be expected of female children who were unwilling or unable to marry. For Lizzie and Emma to do otherwise, to get jobs and set up an independent household, might have temporarily relegated them to the working class and squelched any hope of acceptance by the upper reaches of society.

The Borden name was associated with "old money", the "nouveau riche" were considered pretenders by their standards and had no place among the wealthy founding families. Both groups were independently wealthy so from a practical standpoint, there was no tangible gain implied by acceptance as "old money", just the perceived right to look down one's nose at those who were not. Many new fortunes were made during the Victorian time period and the "nouveau riche" increased in number which would have lessened any dependence upon the "old money" people for banking, shipping, raw materials, etc. This would have decreased any influence "old money" once had over the "newly rich". Still, why aspire to be second best? Especially if your name is Borden?

I guess the perspective changes once independent wealth is obtained; making money is not necessarily the only or even the primary focus. Within the confines of "wealth and privilege", privilege takes the front seat once sufficient wealth is obtained. I expect that for most men, it takes the form of control in some manner. Maybe for women, acceptance and recognition by others of themselves and their immediate families is the most important.

Allen wrote:I've been thinking about "the girls". It seems that when describing the Borden sisters, many people describe them in the same terms you would younger children. Lizzie and Emma were 32 and 41 respectively at the time of the murders. They still lived at home, but they were grown adult women that in their time would've been considered spinsters. Yet I have even caught myself speaking of them in the same terms you would a rebellious teenager today. Has anyone else noticed this, and do you have any thoughts on why this might occur?

Yes I have noticed this. I think it is too things.First, it was a different generation. Women back then were basically excepted to get married, have kids. If nothing else, the were teachers governorness', that kind of thing. And, let's face it, at thier age with no job skills or man propects, where else would they be living and whom would be taking care of them?

I agree about the generation difference. How would it have looked to "society", and how would it have made Andrew look to his contemporaries if Emma & Lizzie went out & got jobs. I can't imagine being in that position. They had to have been bored, and on top of it got a yearly allowance to do whatever they wanted to do.

Yooper wrote: He might have used the threat of leaving a will disfavoring his daughters as a means to control disharmony within the household.

That's a possibility I had not thought of before. But it seems like it might be in character for Andrew to have done so. Maybe they believed it had become more than just an idle threat.

Nadzieja wrote:I agree about the generation difference. How would it have looked to "society", and how would it have made Andrew look to his contemporaries if Emma & Lizzie went out & got jobs. I can't imagine being in that position. They had to have been bored, and on top of it got a yearly allowance to do whatever they wanted to do.

It seemed to be the role of the upper class woman was clearly defined to let a man take care of her, whether that man was her husband or her father, they were not expected to work. However, many women did volunteer their time to charitable causes and organizations. I think this is the closest they were expected to come to having a job.

The other possiblity for them not have married might have been that maybe Andrew didn't approve of any male callers. He might been real strict about that. No one else could take care of his girls better than him.

Allen wrote:It seemed to be the role of the upper class woman was clearly defined to let a man take care of her, whether that man was her husband or her father, they were not expected to work. However, many women did volunteer their time to charitable causes and organizations. I think this is the closest they were expected to come to having a job.

Of course that's the case. There were no jobs for women of Lizzie and Emma's station, and I very much doubt the thought would have entered their heads.

Allen wrote:I've been thinking about "the girls". It seems that when describing the Borden sisters, many people describe them in the same terms you would younger children. Lizzie and Emma were 32 and 41 respectively at the time of the murders. They still lived at home, but they were grown adult women that in their time would've been considered spinsters. Yet I have even caught myself speaking of them in the same terms you would a rebellious teenager today. Has anyone else noticed this, and do you have any thoughts on why this might occur?

Well I have a habit of referring to women as girls but I thought I read that Lizzie was a librarian before the murders? I wonder why she didn't purchase a small place or apartment and carry on while waiting for her "fortune?"

Unfortunately neither ever had a job. How much more satisfying for them both if they had been able to go to college and get some sort of an interesting job (not that there was much for women of that era, apart from teaching and perhaps nursing. I think Victorian spinsters living with elderly parents were often referred to as 'girls' unfortunately.

It wasn't the norm for children to move out of the family home unless they were married. Also women of their "station" didn't work, unless it was for the church or a charitable cause. Today we'd say move out & support yourself, but that wasn't the case back then.

Yes I agree with much of what you say, Nadzieja. However, things were changing a little in 1890's America. Younger women were slowly moving into several professions by the end of the decade. Sometimes middleclass families were beginning to realise they couldn't financially support unmarried 'girls' for the rest of their lives!

Of course this wasn't true of Andrew's daughters and that college-educated elite would have been considerably younger than 32 and 42 (Lizzie and Emma's ages.)