| Question Home |
Position:Home>Genealogy> Old photograph opinions wanted?Question:I'd like some fellow genealogists to take a look at the photograph below and tell me what you think: http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2039/... I already know that the studio photographer, Mrs Susan Williams is recorded at this address in 1895, 1899 and the 1901 census, but not in 1905, and obviously the style of the photo dates it to somewhere a couple of years either side of 1900. What is really puzzling me is the woman and the baby. The photo came from my granddads tin, but neither me or my aunt have any clue who she or the baby might be. To my mind, the lady in the photo looks quite old - too old to be the mother, so probably a grandmother. My gt grandfather married in 1897 in West Gorton, and the only one of his parents to be alive at this point until 1907 was his mother (my 2x gt grandma). Their first child to survive infancy was born in 1901, a girl. Does anyone have any opinions and ages of either party in the picture. Mum&Child or Grandma&Child? Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: I'd like some fellow genealogists to take a look at the photograph below and tell me what you think: http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/2039/... I already know that the studio photographer, Mrs Susan Williams is recorded at this address in 1895, 1899 and the 1901 census, but not in 1905, and obviously the style of the photo dates it to somewhere a couple of years either side of 1900. What is really puzzling me is the woman and the baby. The photo came from my granddads tin, but neither me or my aunt have any clue who she or the baby might be. To my mind, the lady in the photo looks quite old - too old to be the mother, so probably a grandmother. My gt grandfather married in 1897 in West Gorton, and the only one of his parents to be alive at this point until 1907 was his mother (my 2x gt grandma). Their first child to survive infancy was born in 1901, a girl. Does anyone have any opinions and ages of either party in the picture. Mum&Child or Grandma&Child? The photo does indeed date to the late 1800's, by all appearances. A physical description of the photo would help to hone into the date a bit more accurately, but I don't think that is necessary for your purposes. I put the baby at 9 to 18 months, and the lady at about 30-40, so I think it's possible to be the baby's grandmother. If I blow up a section of the lady's hand, it is seemingly smooth. Not aged. Hands often show age more than any other body part. This is not an "old" woman. Hand lotion was not popular at that time. Another area of consideration is clothing. Lets make a couple of assumptions: The woman in the photo is at least middle class or maybe better. Clothing is clean, pressed and modern for the period. The baby is certainly no worse off. Clothing is very nice....ruffles, lace and all the nice expensive things....those things were expensive back then. Even the cost of a photograph at the time would have cost a weeks pay in many circles. So, this is a photo of a rather well-to-do woman and child. Probably not a young woman in her teens or twenties who did not have the time to acquire these nice things. Now, these are really stabs in the dark, but that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. I think the damage done to the photo could be greatly affecting the perceived age of the woman, especially as it seems to add wrinkles. However I would lean towards grandmother, or older aunt. Also you might consider that it may be a godchild, or a friend of the family. In my gr-grandfather's trunk we found a handful of photos that despite sending a photocopy/email around to distant relatives, no one knows who they were. So I posted to DeadFred. The child does not appear to be able to sit unaided, although s/he is fairly solidly upright, so I would guess the age at around 6 mths. The old lady could be any age over 60 - people had harder lives 100+ years ago, so its hard to be sure. My guess is that she would be the grandma or great grandma. Yes, she does look too old to be the mother but, was it the done thing for a Grandma to have her picture taken with her grandchild then? This makes me think that maybe circumstances where she may have been left in sole charge of a baby? Maybe the natural mother died for example. This type of photograph, printed onto thick card, is more like 1880 than 1900. In my honest opinion she really doesn't look to be any older than about 60, bless her she does look as if she has the worries of the world on her shoulders, as if she has just had this poor baby thrust upon her. She doesn't seem to very attached to the child in a motherly or grand motherly sort of way. Could she possibly have been employed to mind the child? like a nanny or similar, or am I way of the mark do you think. I think your instinct in right: grandmother with about 6 month old grandchild. First, consider all possible grandmother/baby combinations. Infant boys c 1900 were often dressed in frills, too. Second, blu eyes said "was it the done thing for a Grandma to have her picture taken with her grandchild...may have been left in sole charge of a baby." It's completely possible that this is one of a set of pictures taken and the mother/baby and group pictures didn't survive or were given away. re dating/thick card. I have a photo of my father b. August1906, standing on a photographer's chair unaided, but not breeched; he is still wearing several petticoats. My photo is on thick card. The thoughts about photo being taken with grandmother - we have a studio family group photo and we were placed grandparents seated in front, daughter and son in law standing behind, granddaughter (aged 2) sitting on my lap. re age of adult - no contraception worth speaking about - my Gt. Gt. grandmother was 45+ when she had my Gt. grandmother and many women were producing beyond then, "change" babies were quite common pushing a mother into her early 50's. Her eyes are small and narrowed (older eyes), her hairline appears to have receded, suggesting post-menopausal. I'd like to see it again after you've had it restored - I love old photies. Bear in mind there was no contraception in those days, and a lot more children were born to parents in their 40s. My grandmother was born to her 47 year-old mother in 1878. She always said she felt Great Granny was more like her Grandmother than Mother. See if there is a Family History Society locally, usually by County. They sometimes have sessions on identifying old photographs. Could also try your Local Studies Library, if they have a help desk. Actually, it is quite possible that the woman is the child's mother. Before birth control came along, it wasn't at all uncommon for women to keep having children until they reached menopause. Not only that, but I once saw a picture from the late 19th century of a woman in the East End of London. She looked like she was in her 40s or 50s, but it was said that she was actually in her 20s or 30s. Since people lived harder lives back then and they didn't have an abundance of beauty products like we do now, it wasn't uncommon for them to look prematurely aged in our eyes. Of course, I don't know anything about the woman or the child in the photo, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the woman is the child's mother. you already have a jpeg of the pic, and the original, so you can use a photo editor to play with 'restoring' it for your self. This is something I have done.. adjusting the contrast can help a lot. I think there is no doubt that the woman in the pic is older..but that alone doesn't prove grandmother or ?? It MIGHT BE a more distant relative or even a dear friend of the family. Keep an open mind, and don't let desperation to id all the photos, lead you to something you cannot support. It could be Mum & child, people aged quicker as their lives were harsher poorer diet etc. Although the lady is in black, widows clothes so it could be the grandmother and it is in the style of earlier Victorian period. A difficult one. It looks to be an older woman, maybe a grandma, she looks like she might be in her 50's. I'd say the baby is about a year old, maybe between 9 months - 16 months. |
