+- Lincoln Discussion Symposium (https://rogerjnorton.com/LincolnDiscussionSymposium)
+-- Forum: Lincoln Discussion Symposium (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Assassination (/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Booth's women (/thread-3707.html)
Pages: 1 2
Booth's women - Steve - 04-22-2018 11:12 AM
The New York Post has an interesting article on Booth and his love life:
https://nypost.com/2018/04/21/lincolns-assassin-was-a-real-ladykiller/
RE: Booth's women - RJNorton - 04-22-2018 11:49 AM
Has there ever been definite proof that the veiled woman who came onto the Montauk was Lucy Hale?
RE: Booth's women - ReignetteC - 04-22-2018 08:49 PM
(04-22-2018 11:12 AM)Steve Wrote: The New York Post has an interesting article on Booth and his love life:
https://nypost.com/2018/04/21/lincolns-assassin-was-a-real-ladykiller/
The print edition's title is: "The Sexiest Man (no longer) Alive."
RE: Booth's women - Jenny - 04-22-2018 09:06 PM
(04-22-2018 11:49 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Has there ever been definite proof that the veiled woman who came onto the Montauk was Lucy Hale?
No, but I suspect she would have been the woman with the best chance of being there due to her father’s position.
I also have to say that I am not impressed with the new book about John and his women. There is a lot of speculation and some sketchy resources.
Edit May 5th 2018: I enjoyed the book more after a second reading.
RE: Booth's women - Rsmyth - 04-23-2018 06:24 AM
Even so, the book seems to go into more detail about these women than previously known. I think I will purchase it.
RE: Booth's women - Gene C - 04-23-2018 07:14 AM
(04-22-2018 09:06 PM)Jenny Wrote: I also have to say that I am not impressed with the new book about John and his women. There is a lot of speculation and some sketchy resources.
Thanks for that comment Jenny.
I can always read Bill O'Reilly's book when I want a dose of that.
Any truth to this from the article in the New York Post linked to above?
"Some went to extremes to make an impression. One, a Miss Becket of Richmond, Va., cut off her hair and gifted it to Booth just before she died of typhus in 1860. He made it into a stage wig that he wore for the rest of his life."
RE: Booth's women - Susan Higginbotham - 04-23-2018 08:36 AM
What is the source for the veiled-woman story? Unless I missed it, Terry Alford didn't include it in his Booth biography.
Never mind--I found it, "Guarding Booth's Body," in the April 15, 1890, Washington Evening Star, which reproduces a report by Lieutenant Commander Stone, reading, "A lady accompanied by two naval officers came on board, to visit the ship, and not to gratify a morbid curiosity." It's interesting how that evolved into the account in some secondary sources of a veiled lady wringing her hands and swooning over Booth's body.
RE: Booth's women - Jenny - 04-23-2018 10:30 AM
(04-23-2018 06:24 AM)Rsmyth Wrote: Even so, the book seems to go into more detail about these women than previously known. I think I will purchase it.
That’s absolutely true; I will give him credit for that!
RE: Booth's women - iva281 - 04-23-2018 07:05 PM
(04-23-2018 07:14 AM)Gene C Wrote:Abel’s book cites the Atlanta Constitution, December 4, 1881, 9. The book says only that it was reputed to be his favorite wig, but mentions nothing about him wearing it for the rest of his life.(04-22-2018 09:06 PM)Jenny Wrote: I also have to say that I am not impressed with the new book about John and his women. There is a lot of speculation and some sketchy resources.
Thanks for that comment Jenny.
I can always read Bill O'Reilly's book when I want a dose of that.
Any truth to this from the article in the New York Post linked to above?
"Some went to extremes to make an impression. One, a Miss Becket of Richmond, Va., cut off her hair and gifted it to Booth just before she died of typhus in 1860. He made it into a stage wig that he wore for the rest of his life."
RE: Booth's women - Ernesto - 05-02-2018 12:34 PM
(04-22-2018 11:49 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Has there ever been definite proof that the veiled woman who came onto the Montauk was Lucy Hale?
The other suspect was Maggie Mitchell. There was no veiled woman, neither Maggie nor Lucy
(04-22-2018 09:06 PM)Jenny Wrote: [quote='RJNorton' pid='70906' dateline='1524415767']
Has there ever been definite proof that the veiled woman who came onto the Montauk was Lucy Hale?
No, but I suspect she would have been the woman with the best chance of being there due to her father’s position.
I also have to say that I am not impressed with the new book about John and his women. There is a lot of speculation and some sketchy resources.
[/quote
you are joking. You entertain unfounded speculation about Lucy, about whom her father did the best to deny any relationship, and you question "lot of speculation" elsewhere.
RE: Booth's women - Wild Bill - 05-03-2018 05:49 AM
I found Abel's book on Booth's women to be well researched and well done. Working with Booth and what we can find out about him involves speculation because there are so many gaps in his story. Whatever speculation appears in Abel's work is based on his research and knowledge of the topic IMO.
RE: Booth's women - Susan Higginbotham - 05-03-2018 08:37 AM
There's always the possibility that the woman on the Montauk had no connection to Booth, but simply used her naval connections to get on board.
I've been reading the Abel book. So far so good.
RE: Booth's women - Jenny - 05-05-2018 12:12 PM
(05-03-2018 05:49 AM)Wild Bill Wrote: I found Abel's book on Booth's women to be well researched and well done. Working with Booth and what we can find out about him involves speculation because there are so many gaps in his story. Whatever speculation appears in Abel's work is based on his research and knowledge of the topic IMO.
I do agree, Wild Bill. I actually take back my first comment about the book now that I’ve read it again. None of his speculation is utterly “out there” because he did take the time to research. And I absolutely appreciate that he put out a book that has details on all of the known women; reading about the actresses was especially interesting to me. The main reason I mentioned the resources is because there are some errors in the bibliography with dates (it happens to the best of us), and there is absolutely no valid source cited for the second “Ella Starr letter” he claimed to find which was frustrating to me as I enjoy researching her. I shouldn’t have implied the entire book was sketchy. I apologize for that.
(05-03-2018 08:37 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: There's always the possibility that the woman on the Montauk had no connection to Booth, but simply used her naval connections to get on
Could be!!
(05-02-2018 12:34 PM)Ernesto Wrote:(04-22-2018 11:49 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Has there ever been definite proof that the veiled woman who came onto the Montauk was Lucy Hale?
The other suspect was Maggie Mitchell. There was no veiled woman, neither Maggie nor Lucy
(04-22-2018 09:06 PM)Jenny Wrote:you are joking. You entertain unfounded speculation about Lucy, about whom her father did the best to deny any relationship, and you question "lot of speculation" elsewhere.(04-22-2018 11:49 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Has there ever been definite proof that the veiled woman who came onto the Montauk was Lucy Hale?
No, but I suspect she would have been the woman with the best chance of being there due to her father’s position.
I also have to say that I am not impressed with the new book about John and his women. There is a lot of speculation and some sketchy resources.
Ernesto, I don’t understand how me speculating on who *I* personally think the woman on the Montauk could have been (IF there was one) when someone posed the question has anything to do about me questioning speculation by Abel or anyone else. Lucy’s father did a fantastic job of covering up Booth’s relationship with Lucy, but he was also one of the man who could have the influence to get his daughter aboard to secretly see the body (not to mention cover it up until 1890 when the first report of a possible woman showed up). How is that speculation unfounded?
I enjoyed the book a lot more and checked a few more of his resources after I read it a second time, but even educated speculation is *still* speculation. There is a lot of it when studying the assassination.
You also say that there “was no woman” on the Montauk. Prove it to me 100% please. I absolutely admit that *I* can’t fully prove there actually was a woman, much less prove that it was Lucy... I certainly wasn’t there on the ship back in 1865! Were you?
RE: Booth's women - Ernesto - 05-07-2018 08:30 AM
(05-05-2018 12:12 PM)Jenny Wrote:(05-03-2018 05:49 AM)Wild Bill Wrote: I found Abel's book on Booth's women to be well researched and well done. Working with Booth and what we can find out about him involves speculation because there are so many gaps in his story. Whatever speculation appears in Abel's work is based on his research and knowledge of the topic IMO.
I do agree, Wild Bill. I actually take back my first comment about the book now that I’ve read it again. None of his speculation is utterly “out there” because he did take the time to research. And I absolutely appreciate that he put out a book that has details on all of the known women; reading about the actresses was especially interesting to me. The main reason I mentioned the resources is because there are some errors in the bibliography with dates (it happens to the best of us), and there is absolutely no valid source cited for the second “Ella Starr letter” he claimed to find which was frustrating to me as I enjoy researching her. I shouldn’t have implied the entire book was sketchy. I apologize for that.
(05-03-2018 08:37 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: There's always the possibility that the woman on the Montauk had no connection to Booth, but simply used her naval connections to get on
Could be!!
(05-02-2018 12:34 PM)Ernesto Wrote:(04-22-2018 11:49 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Has there ever been definite proof that the veiled woman who came onto the Montauk was Lucy Hale?
The other suspect was Maggie Mitchell. There was no veiled woman, neither Maggie nor Lucy
(04-22-2018 09:06 PM)Jenny Wrote:you are joking. You entertain unfounded speculation about Lucy, about whom her father did the best to deny any relationship, and you question "lot of speculation" elsewhere.(04-22-2018 11:49 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Has there ever been definite proof that the veiled woman who came onto the Montauk was Lucy Hale?
No, but I suspect she would have been the woman with the best chance of being there due to her father’s position.
I also have to say that I am not impressed with the new book about John and his women. There is a lot of speculation and some sketchy resources.
Ernesto, I don’t understand how me speculating on who *I* personally think the woman on the Montauk could have been (IF there was one) when someone posed the question has anything to do about me questioning speculation by Abel or anyone else. Lucy’s father did a fantastic job of covering up Booth’s relationship with Lucy, but he was also one of the man who could have the influence to get his daughter aboard to secretly see the body (not to mention cover it up until 1890 when the first report of a possible woman showed up). How is that speculation unfounded?
I enjoyed the book a lot more and checked a few more of his resources after I read it a second time, but even educated speculation is *still* speculation. There is a lot of it when studying the assassination.
You also say that there “was no woman” on the Montauk. Prove it to me 100% please. I absolutely admit that *I* can’t fully prove there actually was a woman, much less prove that it was Lucy... I certainly wasn’t there on the ship back in 1865! Were you?
(05-07-2018 08:30 AM)Ernesto Wrote:(05-05-2018 12:12 PM)Jenny Wrote:(05-03-2018 05:49 AM)Wild Bill Wrote: I found Abel's book on Booth's women to be well researched and well done. Working with Booth and what we can find out about him involves speculation because there are so many gaps in his story. Whatever speculation appears in Abel's work is based on his research and knowledge of the topic IMO.
I do agree, Wild Bill. I actually take back my first comment about the book now that I’ve read it again. None of his speculation is utterly “out there” because he did take the time to research. And I absolutely appreciate that he put out a book that has details on all of the known women; reading about the actresses was especially interesting to me. The main reason I mentioned the resources is because there are some errors in the bibliography with dates (it happens to the best of us), and there is absolutely no valid source cited for the second “Ella Starr letter” he claimed to find which was frustrating to me as I enjoy researching her. I shouldn’t have implied the entire book was sketchy. I apologize for that.
(05-03-2018 08:37 AM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote: There's always the possibility that the woman on the Montauk had no connection to Booth, but simply used her naval connections to get on
Could be!!
(05-02-2018 12:34 PM)Ernesto Wrote:(04-22-2018 11:49 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Has there ever been definite proof that the veiled woman who came onto the Montauk was Lucy Hale?
The other suspect was Maggie Mitchell. There was no veiled woman, neither Maggie nor Lucy
(04-22-2018 09:06 PM)Jenny Wrote:you are joking. You entertain unfounded speculation about Lucy, about whom her father did the best to deny any relationship, and you question "lot of speculation" elsewhere.(04-22-2018 11:49 AM)RJNorton Wrote: Has there ever been definite proof that the veiled woman who came onto the Montauk was Lucy Hale?
No, but I suspect she would have been the woman with the best chance of being there due to her father’s position.
I also have to say that I am not impressed with the new book about John and his women. There is a lot of speculation and some sketchy resources.
Ernesto, I don’t understand how me speculating on who *I* personally think the woman on the Montauk could have been (IF there was one) when someone posed the question has anything to do about me questioning speculation by Abel or anyone else. Lucy’s father did a fantastic job of covering up Booth’s relationship with Lucy, but he was also one of the man who could have the influence to get his daughter aboard to secretly see the body (not to mention cover it up until 1890 when the first report of a possible woman showed up). How is that speculation unfounded?
I enjoyed the book a lot more and checked a few more of his resources after I read it a second time, but even educated speculation is *still* speculation. There is a lot of it when studying the assassination.
You also say that there “was no woman” on the Montauk. Prove it to me 100% please. I absolutely admit that *I* can’t fully prove there actually was a woman, much less prove that it was Lucy... I certainly wasn’t there on the ship back in 1865! Were you?
as famed Jimmy Durante (Im giving away my age) used to say, "everyone wants to get into the act". Witnesses at the assassination, "I knew Lincoln" etc. The mystery woman story comes out almost fifty yrs. later and is not corroborated, as far as I know, by anyone else. Getting on board the Montauk would have taken a lot of effort, but no one else mentioned the episode. I give it the same credibility as Lucy saying she would marry Booth even at the foot of the scaffold. How can anyone prove or disprove the mystery woman. But given all the press and later coverage, if there had been a woman, surely it would have been mentioned. Hence, the speculation, may be fun, but scarely, "worth the candle."
RE: Booth's women - Jenny - 05-07-2018 11:59 AM
Well, I agree with you, Ernesto, because it’s clear that a lot of falsities exist out there (including, at its worst, at least three imposter John Wilkes Booths!), and you do have to personally decide how much stock you to put into certain claims.
Roger, I think I remember you mentioning on a similar topic that Baker himself actually mentioned having to stop a woman on the ship from cutting off a lock of hair from Booth’s body. I am really rusty on that though so maybe you or someone else can help me out with it. I just swear that there was a reference to a lady on the Montauk that was much closer to the time of the actual assassination instead of in the 1890s. It’s also entirely possible I am completely off track and have a bad memory!