RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: Maggie. on Tuesday 15 July 08 13:02 BST (UK)
-
I am trying to identify the baby in this photograph of a rather care-worn lady and it would help to have an approximate date confirmed. I would appreciate any help from the experts.
Thank you in anticipation.
Magge
-
Not sure on dates, but I had a go at brightening her up a bit!
-
one from me
Irene
-
Thanks Tricia and Irene - she looks like she needs a bit of brightening up doesn't she?
Maggie
-
Hi Maggie...can't see much of the lady's dress, which is a major dating tool, but the hairstyle is strongly indicative of early 1870s.
Cheers,
China
-
Thanks China - thats interesting.
If it could help I can post better detail of the dress but I am rushing today.
Thanks for your help.
Maggie
-
Hello Maggie & China
Agree about the hairstyle,how did they get these intricate styles like this one,must have spent ages in front of the mirror.Do I spot rounded corners to this.If so a bit later.The baby looks to be about 2 so a birth date c.1875 I think.
Regards
Jim
-
Hi Jim & China.
Here are 2 more efforts - one with dress detail and a bigger one of the original.
If the baby is who I am thinking it might be, he was born in 1882, so this photo would have been taken around 1884, which means the lady is sporting a very old hairstyle. I am pretty sure there was not a lot of money around in that family so perhaps this could account for the hairstyle being of a much earlier fashion. That top lump certainly doesn't look to be her own hair. Also her hands look very battered - I don't think she was a lady who had an easy life.
Do you think the baby is a boy or girl? Also the baby looks a bit 'slumped' - perhaps younger than 2 years?
Thanks for helping.
Maggie
-
Another.
-
This was taken 1884,there are similarities with your picture.
-
the baby dies indeed look slumped its not a post-mortem carte de visite is it?
-
Jim - yes there are similarities, apart from my lady has a great deal more hair piled on top of her head, and this dating would fit my scenario.
Toni - slumped baby - if it is who I suspect it is, he lasted until 1934, although I would agree he or she does not look in the best of health in this photo.
Charles - thanks for this - it is nice to have all the speckles and blotches removed. I would love to know for sure who this lady is - I suspect she may be my gt. grandmother and grandfather is the baby. I have had the photo for years, since way before I became interested in family research. I seem to remember my grandmother giving it to me and saying she didn't know who it was but suspected it may be 'something to do with her husband' (who at the time had been dead for over 30 years so we couldn't ask!).
Maggie
-
I know this is marked completed, but could i be so rude as to enquire if you found out if the baby was who you thought it was?
The reason I asked is because i, like toni wonder if this is a post-mortem carte de visite, the eyes seem wrong and as a practise was to paint "eyes" on closed lids it looks possible. I am also certain i have seen an almost identical pic on a victorian post mortem collection.
Hope i'm not being too rude and apologises if i am but post mortem pics are intrest of mine.
jj
-
Hi Maggie........I can't help with dates so I have coloured your photo instead.
Carolyn :)
-
Perhaps I had better remove the 'Completed Thanks', as JJ and I have been exchanging PMs (and I mean messages not post-mortems ;)) on this baby all afternoon ;D
The conclusion we are arriving at is that it is indeed a post-mortem picture and I think the baby's eyes are open rather than painted on the lids as there is a very hollow, ill look to the eyes. Presumably had they been painted, they would have been made to look healthier.
The census records for what I think is this family do not indicate any children died between 1871 and 1881 but there is quite a large gap between the birth dates of my grandfather and his 2 older sisters, which could indicate the death of a sibling.
Thanks so much, Carolyn, for the added colour - much appreciated
Maggie
-
Wonder why the mother's hands look so relaxed...?
China
-
Its a very odd photo - her eyes are very peculiar, her hands also. Could she also be PM :o :o
-
Yikes, hadn't occurred to me but all the pm photos I have seen have been with the "sitter" in a supine position. It would take a very great deal of work to position a 130-pound woman in an upright pose and I don't think you'd get much in the way of a lifelike look....in other words this may be an odd photo but with a dead woman posing I think it would look a great deal odder :P :o ;D
China
-
I am a novice in this PM business - but am I right in thinking some of the adults have been 'propped-up' :o
Incidentally - I agree Yikees!!!!! But it is food for thought ..... and she does look VERY weird...... those eyes ???
Maggie
-
hi, yikes hadn't thought of that!!!
However, having looked at the pic alot I don't think mum is pm!! Although adults were indeed propped, there seems no way of doing this without evidence in the pose she is in.
Suggestions for strange pose?
Hands - imagine this woman's grief, lost a child then expected to "pose" for pic, dont think i'd want to hold to close!!! (might not let go again!!)
and her face would seem to be of someone biting their lip and rolling their eyes to avoid crying (???)
hadn't thought of this aspect until someone suggest she might be pm!! sorry Maggie!
-
I just cannot stop looking at my copy of this photo - it's far more interesting than what is on the telly anyway ;D
We are all agreed - yikees :o..... but mum's left hand looks 'touched -up'. My OH has been peering through his magifying eyeglass thingy at the original and reckons the left hand has been painted between the fingers and looks false. Also note very dirty fingernails ???. She looks very dishevelled as well. And I am still very uncomfortable with her eyes, which look even more surreal when viewed through OH's eyeglass thingy ::).
Maggie
-
The way she's sitting kind of sidewise in relation to the chair back...how would they prop her up??
Any chance of a high-res crop pf just mum & baby? From her hands to her head, at about 600dpi?
Cheers,
C
-
If you want to look at the gruesome side of it.Mother & baby would have to die at the same time,you would then have to get them to the photographers fully dressed and pose them in this position before rigormortis set in.You would also have to apply makeup as by this time ears,nose,lips & ends of fingers would be going black.With regard to the hand,I don't think prosthetics had advanced that far at this time.
Mother very much alive.
jim
-
Good point.
Rigor mortis begins about 3 hours after death, so they'd have to move quickly. After about 72 hours it starts to relax, as enzymes break down the locked-up muscle tissue. This enzymatic process is actual decomposition, so they wouldn't be easy to handle and they wouldn't smell very salutary.
I'm with Jim...the mother may look a bit peculiar but at least she's not a corpse in the photo... :P
China
-
Despite me posing the question, I am inclined to agree........ but its made an interesting discussion topic ;D ;D
Also if I am on the correct family there would be no money to spare for expensive PM sessions at the photographers with 2 dead bodies. The more I look at the baby though, I think it is PM - it just looks so lifeless.
I will post a high res. pic later, and thanks for the interest.
Maggie
-
Scanned at 600 dpi
-
and another
-
Hi
Looking at the file size, I couldn't believe it was scanned at 600dpi :-\ :-\
When I checked I made the resolution 72dpi :( :(
mudge
-
I rarely post here other than asking for help because I have no experience or knowledge in this area, but I have to put in my opinion. I have studied baby and mom and it seems they are both looking in the same direction, is that coincidence or my hope that little baby is just feeling ill and not ... It also looks like baby's left hand is ready to grasp the clothing.
-
had another go
Irene
-
Hi mudge,
Perhaps I am doing something wrong ??? It SAID it was scanning at 600dpi but I'm no great expert at this.
Hi brendam,
Ummmm - I would say mum is looking at the camera whilst the baby is looking slightly to the right hand side of the camera. I agree the baby could be ready to grasp at the clothing .......... but...... could that little hand have been 'positioned' that way :-\
Thanks Irene, for the tidyup. The baby's eyes look very deep and hollow don't they?
Maggie
-
I'm with maggie, i don't think the baby is looking the same way as mum, mum seems to be looking upwards and baby just direction of head. (although given my views on this pic i would say that ;))
I don't think the hand looks as though its going to grab, but could it be rigored outstrecthed??
Also on the rescanned image (last one) i think mum looks very ill but very much alive.
JJ
-
Hi Maggie and JJ,
You are probably correct in your assessment. I have no experience in this sort of thing. The baby reminded me of a photo I have of my daughter when she was that size, she was very sick with asthma and her oxygen levels were at 70%, in the photo she is laying in the same way, she coudl barely lift her little arms.
This is a hard one for sure.
Bren
-
My OH's son was very ill with asthma as a baby, (as was my brother!) it's a tough time. Hope we haven't brought back unpleasant memories. and apologies from me if we have.
You are right its a tough one, and each pair of eyes see something different.
Hope we find out!
JJ
-
just found this on wikipedia, changed the words around just in case!!
It was common place to photograph very young children with a family member, most frequently the mother. Adults were more commonly posed in chairs or even braced on specially-designed frames.
Mum is too far forward to be "posed" and i can't see evidence of a frame (this usually involved the deceased standing too) So i'm going with the original assumption and all those who've said it since - Mum is alive, but maybe only just!!
-
small Post Mortem Carte de visite were popular fromt he 1850's they were around 5x9cm on a cardboard mount 6x10cm normally sold by the dozen they were intended for display in family albums, early cartes tend to have square corners and also the thickness helsp to set a date.
these were takent o commemorate the finl rite of passage, death itself, in Britian before 1939 the dead were kept in the family home where they were washed dressed and arranged ona bed freinds and relativescame to bid farewell. a post mortem portrait could bring comfort and consolation to those prevented for whateer reason from fulfilling these last obligations, disturbibng memories of a painful detah could be overlaid by an image of everlasting peace.
the majority of surviving PM photos featurebabies and young children , which reflects the high infant detah rate and parental afections.
to make loss more bearable the pm was intended to show the dead as if they were sleeping and would usually close their eyes and photographes were expected to use soft lighting to aim for an expression that was free from suffering and was peaceful
for exapmle a fringed shawl deliate and lustous materila would be draped and swirling olds intorduce movemnt where movement has ceased forever.
pm photos would have cots more as the photograpehr would have to work away fromt he studio.
on anther note, the woman looks very sad, the reason fro her hollow eyes a child has just died, and he / she was not a baby but about 9 months old but her fingers do look black onthe ends.
-
Hi JJ,
Oh my JJ, don't you worry, you have not brought back unpleasant memories. We got through that period and moved on. My daughter will be 13 next week and is doing very well. ;D
I agree, Mom is alive, but definately suffering from illness or grief.
-
HI Maggie,
If this photo is a pm photo of the child, are there any other babies born around the estimated time of the photo to indicate a child that died at a young age?
B
-
Thanks to all of you for your interest and help - it is good to read everybody's opinions. I am in touch with JJ via PM (that is private messages not post-mortem ;D) and I have spent yesterday and this afternoon trying to locate any children who may have died. It is complicated in that the lady could either be the first wife or the second wife of my gt. grandfather. His 1st wife died aged 26 in 1872 leaving 2 children who survived to adulthood. No other children appear in the census records. However I have now found evidence that there may have been another male child who was born in 1871 and died before he reach the age of one, in other words - around the time of his mother.
All this needs confirming so I have dug deep into funds and ordered in total 6 cetrtificates, including mum's death certificate and that of the (perhaps) baby. Incidentally does anyone agree with me that Mum has a consumptive look?.... hollow eyes ???
It is such a morbidly fascinating picture but I hope it isn't stirring up bad feelings for anybody. I have had this photo for many years and have mentally attached it to my father's side of the family because I think it was my paternal grandmother who gave it to me. But I have always found it a disturbing photo - that poor woman - it would be good to get a little closer to finding out who she is.
Incidentally my photo is not a 'carte' as such, but a photograph of probably a page in an album with the carte slotted into it. It is not annotated.
Maggie
-
Hi Maggie,
I do you hope you are able to match the photo to your family and be able to put faces to names.
I do agree that the Mom has hollow eyes. I hate to admit it, but my husband always tells me (befoe I tell him) when I am sick. My eyes are just like that, they sink into my head. I thought he was silly until I looked in the mirror one day. We had one of the fly viruses last year and the 'Mom' eyes look just like mine did while I was sick.
I hope you are able to solve this puzzule with the help of the great people here on RC.
take care
B
-
Hi brendam,
Yes - none of us look too good when we are sick, but unlike my lady in the pic. we generally manage to avoid all cameras at such times - in fact I tend to avoid all cameras these days even when I am well ;) ;).
I am sure when my batch of certificates arrive they will throw some light on the puzzle - it would be nice to give her a name.
.... and I cannot think of a better place to be asking the questions than RC :D.
Maggie
-
HI Maggie
I am sure with your experience you will get this photo match to your familyl I wish you all the bestl
B
-
Has anyone noticed that 'mum' is not wearing a wedding ring? At least, I can't see one. Is this maybe the child's nurse? I agree about the date.
-
Yes - we've noticed that Orinoco but fingers look puffy to me so perhaps it was taken off ???
I don't think there was much money around in this family so I don't know about the nurse scenario but perhaps an unmarried family member ? If - and its a big 'if' the death certificates I have ordered are correct - the mother of the child may have died over 3 months BEFORE the child, so perhaps the lady is NOT the child's mother. My gt. grandfather re-married in 1874, after the death of his first wife in 1872 (I know that for definite - a sourced fact). Could this lady be his future second wife helping out after the death of his first wife ???
Maggie
-
Hi,
We think we have the woman identified as dying in child birth in 1877, am i right in suggesting that we are presuming she died in labour with her first child? (this was most common childbirth death?)
what if (and please no shooting down in flames!!) This woman lost a child in June/July 1876 (i'm taken liberties and presuming dates are a given!) whilst 3 month pregnant, she then gives birth and dies (perhaps due to complications of compsumtion) in Jan 1877, the child survives a while and then dies in June 1877????
Just a thought that explains the dates!!
JJ
-
the pm was intended to show the dead as if they were sleeping and would usually close their eyes and photographes were expected to use soft lighting to aim for an expression that was free from suffering and was peaceful
I believe this was a later pratise, first practice would appear to be:
The earliest post-mortem photographs are usually close-ups of the face or shots of the full body and rarely include the coffin. The subject is usually depicted so as to seem in a deep sleep, or else arranged to appear more lifelike
-
i agree in each case the coffin was not shown
and the material would be folded around (swirled / creased) to hint a movement where movement had ceased
-
There are quite a few postmortem photos on Flickr, with and without coffins...
http://www.flickr.com/groups/postmortem/pool/
China
-
I'm sure the baby's eyes have been touched-up. The eyebrows look painted on, and the hair is unnatural...like it's wearing a toupée :o :P
C
-
there are load of pm pics on this site too, although so far most of them seem to be later (i.e no attempt at life like - so be warned!! ) only on page 3 of 11 on one albulm (he's got load of vic pics too) but so far only about 2 pics giving any attempt at hiding what it is, so i guess close to end of this tradition.
The before quoted website has some very life like pm pics, you have to look close at some of them!!!
http://www.boatswain.nl/4images/details.php?image_id=1516
JJ
-
Hi,
We think we have the woman identified as dying in child birth in 1877, am i right in suggesting that we are presuming she died in labour with her first child? (this was most common childbirth death?)
what if (and please no shooting down in flames!!) This woman lost a child in June/July 1876 (i'm taken liberties and presuming dates are a given!) whilst 3 month pregnant, she then gives birth and dies (perhaps due to complications of compsumtion) in Jan 1877, the child survives a while and then dies in June 1877????
Just a thought that explains the dates!!
JJ
JJ - this is all getting a bit confused - I have sent you a PM :-\
Maggie
-
Sorry but he just looks like a very sleepy or rather poorly little boy to me!
The mother just looks like she's tired, which is not surprising given the times they lived in.
They didn't have the benefit of make-up to hide the dark circles under their eyes like we do.
I also think the mother has rather pale eyes which probably accounts for the 'rolled' look too.
-
Hi maggie and all, just read thru the thread... and I tend to agree withBritgirl ...the child was sick and Ma exhausted with work and looking after him
or how about this: the child was very ill and the family thought he might die so stretched the budget to have a pic taken before death. He didn't die so... bingo... you have your grandfather, maggie. [not very sensitively put :o]
So we wait for 10 days or so for the certs to arrive.. then another lot of excitement meshing it all together.
charlotte
-
Hi Charlotte - I am not at all sure now that we have the correct scenario for this pic. as the more I look at the floppy child (my own copy) the more I see a child that if not already PM, is very close.
Also, I think I have also discovered a child of Edward Rosthorn who was born and died within its first year - John Rosthorn, born to Edward and his first wife Margaret in 1872, in Accrington. Margaret also died in 1872. The certs. should confirm.
Cheers,
Maggie
PS - sorry to all interested readers of this thread, but unless the certs. come in super-quick time, I will not be around here to receive them as with glorious mis-planning we will be away for a few days >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
Flippin Eck! :o I missed this post first time around and have never heard about Post Mortem carte de visite!
Very Interesting & a bit shocking. You learn something new on RC every day. Cant pluck up the courage to have a look at the links showing other PMs though. ( :-\ I always was a Wimp)
I was thinking that the lady in the photos eyes look like she could have Thyroid Disease/Graves Disease, which combined with the angle she is holding her head gives her eyes "that look".
Anyway I hope it turns out not to be a PM for the poor mothers sake.
-
Duck everyone, coming in guns blazing...
There is something UP with this picture. It ain't'n't right.
Mum's right hand has been mucked about with and hasn't anyone noticed the baby only has one leg?
Well I can't see the other one.
I think the picture has been sliced across the line of the decoration on the child's dress.
All the PM photos I have seen have the child peaceful in bed, or a picture of it in the days when it was alive. They used to say it was less painful for the parents to see their children like that.
I think the child's left hand is out and lightly holding.
There were ways to keep children quiet in those days...you gave them a swig of something....generally something Mother kept locked in the medicine cabinet, that could be why the child is looking spaced out and floppy.
-
The other thing I would add to this that I can't see anyone has mentioned yet, is that the woman seems to have a slight smile on her face.
I know that people didn't smile in photographs of this era, but you can look grim or slightly less grim. If this IS a post mortem carte de visite, surely the mother would look grieving, rather than having a slight smile?
Just a thought.
-
Hi,
We think we have the woman identified as dying in child birth in 1877, am i right in suggesting that we are presuming she died in labour with her first child? (this was most common childbirth death?)
what if (and please no shooting down in flames!!) This woman lost a child in June/July 1876 (i'm taken liberties and presuming dates are a given!) whilst 3 month pregnant, she then gives birth and dies (perhaps due to complications of compsumtion) in Jan 1877, the child survives a while and then dies in June 1877????
Just a thought that explains the dates!!
JJ
JJ - this is all getting a bit confused - I have sent you a PM :-\
Maggie
This is an apology!!! Somehow (likely through tiredness and re-reading posts too many times) I managed to morph several folks into the one person (and i'm sure i added one who might have been an estimated date of pic!!)
So ignore the above quoted post from JJ - is't gibberish!!! :-[
Sorry Maggie10, your pm made things much clearer although i'm sure if i had waited till i was awake your posts would have too!!!
I'm with you one of the two suggestions - nothing else to do but wait on the certs!!! BTW: Mum on board - explaing family links to me ??? but i'll get there!
JJ
-
Interesting point about thyroid disease, monkeymajic - her eyes are very prominent and staring.
Paula, I agree about the hands - I mentioned earlier that her left hand looks 'touched-up' - very obvious 'drawn' lines between the fingers. Her finger nails are dirty also. My OH commented that her right hand looked false - like a bunch of bananas; I think it looks swollen. I agree the leg looks odd stuck out like that and makes you wonder where the other leg is - could it be under the child's left hand? Could the hand be lightly gripping the leg? I don't think the picture has been sliced, I think the dress is quite full and bunched up.
IgorStrav - I personally don't think she is smiling. To me, her mouth looks clenched - as though she is biting her bottom lip or pursing her lips. I think she looks fairly grim.
Who ever this photo is of, it was important enough to make it into someone's photo album. My copy is a photo of the album page and you can see one photograph corner where the carte which appears to be mounted on white card, is held in place . My original scan on page one shows it.
Maggie
Hi JJ :D
-
Sorry Maggie, I couldn't resist having a play with the photo.
Well, at least I've put in a second foot and she is sitting more squarely on the chair.
It's only crude, copy and paste job on the Vista Paint...really just because I felt like doing it. I hope you don't mind.
One other thing, does the photo have a black edge... memorial photos often did.
-
Oh eck and um.....
If it was a PM card, wouldn't the woman be in black....
I don't think that's faded black, because theres a band of decoration that is darker......
-
Hi Paula,
Thanks for the touch up and the foot addition - I don't mind at all and I think you are very talented :)
I think it was JJ that noticed her gown wasn't black, we came to the conclusion that it was perhaps brown - cerainly same tone as her hair. It never occured to me that it might be a memorial photo before I started this post, so all these things like the dress colour, I hadn't paid much attention to before. I just thought it was a couple of rather strange looking ancestors!!
I cannot see a black edge - just the photo on a white background which I assume was card. My photo is a copy on flimsy photographic paper. Goodness knows who photographed the album and when ???
I've been doing a spot of googling tonight to see what medical condition might explain those black marks on her hand. A suggestion from JJ's OH that it might be gangrene got me going. Anyway, whilst no medical expert, I have discovered that severe secondary Raynaud's disease can cause tissue death in the extremities resulting in gangrene!! Raynaud's disease can also result from problems with the thyroid, amongst other things. I wonder what those death certificates will reveal ???
-
Laudanum Paula,
That is what they used to quieten babies, in the old days it has a sort of sedative effect!
Rabbit B ;)
-
Mothers needing to return to work in the mill after giving birth, in order to put bread on the table would put the child out to be nursed. The child would be given 'sleeping stuff', readily available from the druggist for a few pence under various names - Mother's Helper, Infant's Quietness, Soothing Syrup, James’ Fever mixture to name a few. The thing they had in common was the inclusion of opiates.
The child would be dosed again to allow the parents to get some rest at night. Many children died through over dosage.
Maggie
-
Can't see the dress being dark brown. If the baby had just died it would be black black, not dark brown black, I'm sure.
I don't think it looks like a PM card. I just think it's a tired lady with a 'spaced out baby,' and I do think she has as much smile as she can muster.
Very interesting thread. I missed it in the beginning. So pleased it resurfaced.
-
Hi Everyone,
Here is my take on the subject! "knackered Mum, baby with ? colic and nobody getting any sleep" Both of them worn out!
I had one like that and my eyes looked the same!
Rabbit B ;D
-
There is a possibility that this lady is the 1st wife of my gt. grandfather. If it is her, I know from the newspaper obituary that she died in January 1872. She had 2 children born 1868 and 1870 who both survived to adulthood. Yesterday I found evidence of the birth of a 3rd child born 1871 (after the census so I hadn't picked him up). I have found the death of a child of the same name (and its not a common name) in the June Qtr of 1872, aged 0 years, that is to say within a few months of his mother if this scenario is correct (certificates sent for to hopefully confirm this).
I wonder whether this picture was taken in the knowledge that Mum and baby were both seriously ill. Mum doesn't look like she was a 'regular' in the photographic studio, the family probably couldn't have afforded it, but perhaps it was felt that a 'memorial' photo was an appropriate expense. ??? ??? ???
Maggie
-
Baby looks a bit more than 0 years... but quite possibly it could be one of the others, perhaps a first birthday photo, and Mum is beginning to wish she wasn't starting another one already.
-
Do you think so Paula? -- I put that child at about 8-9 months old. We have a grandchild of that age and she looks around the same size. The '0' years was from the GRO register where any child of less that 12 months is listed as '0'.
-
maggie, This is a fascinating discussion and all new ideas to me.
RE the delay in telling us what you learn from the certs that are coming... why not put your holiday off? :o :o :o :o
-
I'm thinking the child is a little older, because they didn't have the good food we do, and tended to be smaller, no other reason.
You're right Charlotte, this is a fascinating discussion.
-
maggie, This is a fascinating discussion and all new ideas to me.
RE the delay in telling us what you learn from the certs that are coming... why not put your holiday off? :o :o :o :o
No way, Charlotte - I've waited a long time for my hols. ;)
With a bit of luck the death certs. might be here by the weekend so you never know :D
On the other hand ....... I might make you all wait 'till I get back (only away for a week so its not too bad) ;D
Paula - you make a valid point re. poor food etc. I have just had loads of my photos of our grandchildren out trying to compare and its hopeless - for starters there isn't a photo anywhere of any of of ours looking as sick and floppy as this baby - thank goodness. And doesn't his raise another point - WHY subject a sick child to a photographic session? Your point about it possibly being a first birthday portrait of one of the older children - they were a poor family, no cash to spare, and I wouldnt think they were in the habit of marking the kids birthdays by a photographs particularly with such a poorly looking one. I have no positively identified photographs at all of this branch of the family - that is if it IS this side of the family.
Isn't it intriguing? Its great to read all the different opinions - I wonder who gets the prize? ;D
-
Now then.......... ;D
Attached, hopefully, are the lady we all now know and love, and also a mystery woman.
Can anyone see any similarities between the two?
There MAY be a connection between the hatted lady - and I have little idea who she is - and my gt. grandfather's SECOND wife, whom he married 2 years after the death at of his first wife at 26 years. So far, we have been speculating that the lady with baby is his FIRST wife.
??? ???
-
you should be able to get a date for the hatted lady from the card, Brixton 54, the directories will have photographers in Brixton listed, is there anything on the back?
-
On the quite ornate reverse side is:-
Ward's
Studio of Art
54 Brixton Road
near Kennington Church
London
Artist in photography established 1851
I think I have it dated as 1870s - no info. in front of me right now so this is off the top of my head. The lady I think it COULD be died in 1877 aged 66.
Another interesting observation I have just made on looking at this photo of the hatted lady again is that there is a very good imprint of a baby's bite (teeth marks) at the top left hand corner - whether this was always there or whether one of our children got at it when they were very young I have no idea :D :D :D
-
Hi Maggie ;)
I can see no resemblance between the ladies ???
Can I throw my opinion into the ring?
Both mother and child alive - mother ill, child restless. However, your comment about why they had the photo was taken has set me thinking!! I wonder why her husband wasn't included in the group?
I am looking forward to those certificates!! Keep us posted!!
Judy ;)
-
Looking again at the photo - doesn't the mother's right hand look big!!
-
Hi Judy,
Thanks for your opinion - it is very welcome and ever bit helps :D
Yes - I wonder where Dad is ??? Unless it really WAS taken because they were both ill, as a memorial pic. so dad felt he didn't belong. Seems a bit heartless to my way of thinking but it was viewed rather differently back then I suppose.
You are right about the right hand, I think I have mentioned somewhere that my OH thought it looked like a bunch of bananas :-\. It looks swollen to me.
I've been doing a spot of googling tonight to see what medical condition might explain those black marks on her hand. A suggestion from JJ's OH that it might be gangrene got me going. Anyway, whilst no medical expert, I have discovered that severe secondary Raynaud's disease can cause tissue death in the extremities resulting in gangrene!! Raynaud's disease can also result from problems with the thyroid, amongst other things. I wonder what those death certificates will reveal ???
I am a bit intrigued with the Raynaud's disease possibility - could it explain the swollen right hand and the black marks on her left hand ???
Maggie
-
The two ladies have the same oblong face...but apart from that...don't really like to say one way or the other...
I've looked for the marks on the left hand and can't find them. I think the marks on there look just another part of the botching of the rejigging of the picture.
Myself I think she has her left elbow rested on something...the arm of the chair perhaps, and the fingers are relaxed, curled under and lightly resting on the child...
Good all these ideas, aren't they.
By the way, you could look and see if you have anyone on the census returns who only had one leg....
I still can't find the other one in the original photo. There are no lumps or bumps in the frock anywhere, and if it is under the child's hand...then the child is doing the splits.
-
Hi Maggie
My great great aunt died of syncope (which I read means a blackout, seizure or fainting fit - not much help) due to Raynauds Disease. She was 40 years old.
There is a bit about the disease here -
http://www.medicinenet.com/raynauds_phenomenon/article.htm
Sorry I mis-read your earlier comments about her hand. I thought you meant her left one, which looks as if it has been painted over!
Judy ;)
-
By the way, you could look and see if you have anyone on the census returns who only had one leg....
All seem to be fully limbed Paula..... at least there is no mention of them NOT being :D
Thanks for the Raynaud's link Judy - I still think its a possibility ............................
I say good detective work all round ;D
-
Is it possible that the big hair and bushy eyebrows on the baby are due to it moving about whilst the photo was being taken? Then the blurring on the final photo makes the baby look a bit strange. Just a thought.
-
I don't think these two woman are the same. The second (and i know first looks ill) seems much wealthier and healthier than the first!
I also don't see much resemblance, although depending on how ill our lady is we might not!!! ???
I think second lady never experienced the hardship our lady did! (just an opinion based on her dress and expression - she looks to content!!)
JJ
-
Hi Eastend,
Interesting point and thank you for contributing. Not sure about the 'movement' theory - you would expect a bit of movement in a small child in that situation but I am not sure it can account for that hollow-eyed look.
Hi JJ
I agree that the hatted lady looks wealthier. I know they cannot be 2 photos of the same woman but I have wondered whether they were related to each other - hence me asking if anyone could see any similarities (sorry - I should have been clearer). These 2 photos I think were together when I was given them by my paternal grandmother 40 years ago, so I have assumed there is a connection - but of course there may be no connection at all. There is a persuasively strong possibility that the hatted lady is an older relative of my gt. grandfather's SECOND wife and about whom I know a great deal. If the photo is of this older relative, then she was a milliner, so that could account for the splendid hat. However, I am still inclined to think that the lady with the baby is my gt. grandfather' FIRST wife, therefore she has no connection with the hatted lady.
I am probably being very confusing and beginning to wonder whether I'm wandering off the Photograph Restoration & Dating topic and should be put somewhere else ::) ::)
Maggie
-
Another little thing that made me think of Thyroid related problems re mum, was the hair at the front has a fairly wide parting, her own hair looks thin, a problem suffered by some people with Thyroid related illness.
So what if the hair piece was worn out of necessity, rather than fashion, this combined with the lack of money, could that explain why the hair would indicate a slightly different period to the one expected, if you catch my drift ???
Also she has probably had to take her wedding ring off because her hands are swollen & sore.
When I first looked at the photo with my uneducated naive eyes (that is before I learned about PMs) I thought the baby was disabled, possibly blind.
"Untreated" Thyroid problems in pregnancy can impair full & normal development of the baby to some degree sometimes resulting in fetal abnormalities etc.
-
Yes - she HAS a wide parting has'nt she? Never noticed before. And the hair on top of her head is definitely false - well spotted monkeymagik :D
Good point about the effects of thyroid disorders on foetal development also.
Also - as JJ has pointed out to me in a PM - does this pic. look to have been taken in someone's front parlour rather than a photographic studio?
Maggie
-
I think it looks like a painted backdrop.
-
Evening all,
Now I have just had a look at the original picture, no improvements etc!
I see no abnormalities in the hands at all and if you look very carefully [remember that I can't see as well as you all do] she is wearing a ring on her left hand!
The problem with the baby from the original picture is that he is sitting sideways and probably has both legs over his/her Mum's knee. Having said that are you sure that is the baby's foot? That would make it a very long baby! Either that or the poor child has a very big head.
I think that that the black spots on the picture are caused by the age of the picture not a disease.
Rabbit B ;)
-
Thats one of the reasons why I think the photo is doctored, Rabbit. The length of the leg that we can see, yes, I think the foot has a boot on it, and the length of the left arm...the right arm is folded, but doesn't look as long.
I shortened both in my rejigged picture.
-
Talking about the hair...I've found this one on a photograph site, dated 1871-72...which could help to bring us back onto the restore and DATE theme.
The lady looks quite well of, but the hair piece is nowhere near as big.
Also the centre parting looks quite wide. I think it was because the hair was pulled down so tight.
That really is a 'heap' our lady is wearing.
-
Regarding the 'splicing' issue.........I don't think it has been doctored but I can accept that there has been damage to the original in the area of the baby's 'foot' - possibly home-rectified with sellotape? As my copy is a photograph of a photograph in an album it is difficult to know, as this damage is not on my copy.
And talking of 'the foot'.......... and this is surreal and probably a result of too much staring, so don't think I am going crazy - but rather than a booted foot, I can see a face of an animal - a ferret like face. I am not suggesting that is what it is, but it would be silly for me not to throw this observation into the pot ;D ;D ;D
Maggie
-
Morning all,
I have just enlarged this picture together with the one of the mother and baby to show my OH.
He says that it is a wet plate, with a prolonged exposure and that Mum has blinked, hence the eyes looking swollen and that the baby has moved slightly, during the exposure of the plate! He also says that the baby's feet are under the Mother's hands, look carefully to see the bump on the left. Black spots are also the result of the age of the picture he says.
What looks like a foot is something on the skirting board, it has an eye! But I will tell you later what it looks like to me.
He has also confirmed the wedding ring that I suggested last night. We are both of the opinion that the baby is wearing a christening gown.
Now with regard to the other picture that you have put up Paula, I agree that the hair is pulled tight which would make the parting seem wider, but have you considered that some people go grey along the parting? While the rest of their hair stays the same! That would make it look wider.
My own hair has started to do that, otherwise it is the same colour it has always been!
Rabbit B ;D
-
Well, it certainly looks like a foot to me. There appears to be a clearly-defined buckle on the 'shoe'. Any comments? ???
-
Isn't it a big foot?
Re: black spots being result of age - my photo is not the original but a photograph of a picture in an album, so my image is recording the appearance and condition of the original at the time it was in the album, which could have been many years ago (I myself have had this copy photograph for over 40 years).
I have always thought the child's left leg was bent up under mum's left hand.
-
I know this is a bit off topic, but I dreamt about this picture last night!!! ;D ;D ;D
(And the dream was a bit scary!!) :o :o :o
-
Hi Oldtimer,
Careful, remember that 'Friday nights dream etc,' good job it is not Friday night if it was scary! ;)
Hi Maggie,
If you take a photo of a photograph, it will still show the marks that are on the original, which is confirmation of OH remarks the spots.
Now the black marks could have been either on the negative which shows up on the print, or the paper which could have had a blemished in the chemical they were using at that time.
Rabbit B ;D
-
No way of knowing if this will work, but I'll give it a shot to let you see the bits I am unhappy about...
Did all this, and then I thought....
What if they turned up, plain baby gown, no hair piece and asked the photograper to make them look a little better.
That hairpiece looks terrible to me, and the cut of lacey bit of the dress is just driving me crackers!
See what you mean about the leg being under Mum's hand, it jolly well could be, but where's the foot, long leg like the otherone it would show a foot....unless that went when the lace was added....
-
My poor ?perhaps? ancestor :'(
Hi Maggie,
If you take a photo of a photograph, it will still show the marks that are on the original, which is confirmation of OH remarks the spots.
Now the black marks could have been either on the negative which shows up on the print, or the paper which could have had a blemished in the chemical they were using at that time.
Rabbit B ;D
Isn't it difficult to convey what you mean sometimes in just words ;) ;) ;)
My point is that whilst appreciating that the marks reflect the marks that were on the original picture in the album, at the time my picture was taken of this album photo, the original would not have been as old, therefore less time for deterioration. In fact, given that I think the pic. came via my grandmother, who had a vague idea the baby might have been her husband, and her husband died in 1934 so we couldn't ask, my very rough estimate is that my pic could have been taken as early as 1910.
I can see the likely deterioration spots and accept that a lot of the markings on the pic. are caused by this ...... but the marks I am talking about are what look to be ingrained black stuff in her cuticles....... and I am looking at a magnification of my original scanned image, not what is posted on here. It also looks like the areas between her fingers on this left hand have been darkened intentionally - but these markings look to me to be rather different from her cuticle markings. Could her left hand also have been puffy like the right one, and the marks between the fingers of her left hand added to try to reduced the swollen look? Also.... if these cuticle markings are deterioration marks ..... wouldn't they be random around the finger ends and not clearly following the line of the cuticle like they are?
I still cannot see a wedding ring either ???
I know this is a bit off topic, but I dreamt about this picture last night!!! ;D ;D ;D
(And the dream was a bit scary!!) :o :o :o
I know what you mean, Judy, - I 'saw' that 'ferret' just before I went to bed last night and couldn't sleep for thinking of it :o
It's great to get all these opinions and I really appreciate it. Everybody sees something slightly different and I am starting to view my old photograph in many different lights. But why oh why didn't they annotate it ??? uuummmmm perhaps writing was a bit of a challenge :-\
-
Paula - thanks for the annotation - certainly helps to explain your thoughts on the lace, legs etc.
I am getting that I don't know what to think anymore ;D ;D ;D
To me - I can go with there being a repaired tear in the pic below the ferret ;) which extends to below mum's left hand, and I would agree that the lace area below mum's hands looks too pronounced and in-focus when compared with the lace on the rest of the gown. But what's the point of all this doctoring-up? - unless the child was seriously deformed and they wanted him 'normalising'..... although he looks far from normal in this pic. :-\
Incidentally, my grandfather, who may or may not be the baby (and I personally no longer think it is him), and who died before I was born, I am told was perfectly normal, with the correct number of legs and indeed in his youth was a very handsome man as proved in photos I have :D :D ;D
-
:o Oldtimer I also had a dream about the photo last night, and not a not very nice dream either. One of those dreams that you keep remembering the day afterward with a bit of a shudder.
Looking forward to those certs arriving Maggie!
-
So am I, monkeymagik ;D
In fact I got 2 this morning but they merely confirm the marriage of my gt. grandfather to the lady who it might, and only might, be in the photo. They add nothing to this post and tell me little I didn't already know, just merely confirm the lady's maiden name and the birth of their 1st son who I know lived into aldulthood.
The really interesting ones could come any day now and they are the death certs and I am interested in the causes of deaths to see how they may fit in. Also the birth cert of the baby I knew nothing about - they moved towns so separate requests required.
I am aware that these certs are not really appropriate postings for this photo dating & restoration thread so I am wondering where to start a new one - where would be the best place to put the info? Common Room? Lancashire?
Maggie
-
Monkeymagic!! ;D How weird!! :o :o :o We should sue Maggie for giving us nightmares!! ;D ;D ;D My dream was reminiscent of the tv adaptation (many moons ago) of the Susan Hill novel, The Woman in Black!! :-X :-X :-X
Back to the photo :P
I don't think that there is a leg missing; he has them both together, swung over his mother's lap, in my opinion. Perhaps that was the most comfortable way for the mother to hold him, as he seems a large baby, and may have slid off her lap! ;D
I can see how the child's eyebrows seem to have been drawn on, also the lines drawn between mum's fingers. On the enlargement of her face that you posted, it even looks as though someone has drawn in those lines under her eyes, almost like eyeliner!I read a post by (I think it was) Prue recently about if the photographer wasn't very experienced and the photo turned out a bit duff, he would retouch it in the studio. However, I hardly think he would give her black fingernails, which can clearly be seen :-\ :-\ Tis a puzzlement!!!
I too think that she has a slight smile on her face! She certainly doesn't seem to be grieving! (In my opinion!)
If the child is wearing a christening gown as someone suggested, the photo may have been taken to enable the parents to send copies to distant relatives unable to attend the ceremony.
Just a few more idle thoughts ::) ::)
Judy ;)
-
Hi Maggie ;)
I think we posted at the same time!!
I think it will be ok to post your certificate info here -it is going to be relevant to this posting.
Judy ;)
we are all waiting with bated breath for it!!!!!
-
I love this thread.... ::)
If you post the cert, cut a bit off, that way I think you will get round rules and reggies.
Can't wait, almost like waiting for one of my own!
-
Ooops, just realised that straight line down to the foot....it's the leg in a white sock, or perhaps some form of leggins... :-[ no wonder it's straight....
Still doesn't explain why that lacey bit is to crisp and clear when just about it is so foggy.
-
Ohhh dear Judy & Monkeymajik - so sorry about the nightmares - mind you, I think I nearly joined you in nightmare-land last night due to that awful ferret ;D ;D ;D ;D
Ok - I'll post the certs, but perhaps not the two I got today as they are only confirming-type certs. I'll type the relevant bits from these 2 certs though:-
The family is called ROSTHORN. My gt. grandfather was Edward Rosthorn, born 1844 in Blackburn, Lancs, son of Thomas Rosthorn. On 9th April 1866, at St Albans Chapel, Blackburn, according to the Rites & Ceremonies of the Catholic Church, Edward married his first wife Margaret MOORE, daughter of John Moor deceased. Both Edward and Margaret were residents of Blackburn when they married. Edward signed the marriage cert, and gave his occupation as Cotton Spinner, but Margaret - Power Loom Weaver - put her mark. A child Thomas was born to the couple on 7th April 1868, at 11 Shuttleworth St, Blackburn. On this birth cert. Edward gives his occupation as Cotton Piecer.
The only surprise here is that it was a Catholic marriage - I didn't know that. Nice to have some addresses as well.
I know there was a second child, Jane born 1870 in Accrington, Lancs - correct mother and father but I am awaiting her birth certificate. Both Thomas and Jane I have followed through the census records, as I have their father until his death in 1910 in the Workhouse Infirmary, Rawtenstall, Lancs, aged 66 years cause of death Hemiplegia, Softening of the Brain. Thomas, the son, died in 1894, at the family home aged 25, of Pneumonia 14 days.
Until a few days ago I thought Thomas and Jane were the only children of this couple but I have now found a birth in Accrington in 1871 of a John ROSTHORN with mother Margaret nee MOORE. I am waiting for this birth cert.
I couldn't find these next deaths in the freeBDM sites, but findmypast produced evidence of the death of a Margaret ROSTHORN in the March Qtr of 1872, district Haslingden (this is correct for an Accrington death). I know from Margaret's newspaper obituary that she died on January 1st 1872, so I am confindent I have the correct worman. Also, findmypast revealed the death in the June Qtr 1872 of a John ROSTHORN, Haslingden, aged 0 yrs (that's less than 12 months old). I am waiting for these certs also and I am VERY interested to know what these two died of. There is no mention of a John ROSTHORN living with the family in the census records.
A further complication as far as the photograph is concerned is that in 1874, 2 years after the death of Margaret, Edward married my gt. grandmother - Mary Jane GILL at the Church of St John the Evangelist, Accrington (not Catholic). Mary Jane had an illegitimate daughter who adopted the name ROSTHORN, and with Edward there were 2 more girls born abt. 1875 and 1877. My grandfather, Hargreaves ROSTHORN was born in 1882. There is a gap here which could indicate the birth and death of a child - relevant to the photo maybe ??? All the children from both marriages resided together at Robert Nuttall Street Accrington with Edward and Mary Jane until the death of Mary Jane of Bronchitis, aged 66 in 1895.
The next bit is not relevant to this thread but Edward married a 3rd time to an Ann LEAVER and acquired yet another step daughter.
Phew ::) I hope I haven't frightened you all off with boredom.... but actually it has been good to get it down like this......... and I cannot thank you enough for your help and interest.
Maggie
-
Hi everyone
I have been keeping up with this thread ... it's quite fascinating!
I don't really have much to add except that the 'mother' is holding her baby very casually. Her hand placement just seems to be odd, especially the clenched hand.
She seems to be 'removed' from the baby.
hope the certs reveal all...good luck!
deb :)
added ; Paula , I think the sleeves look different as she seems to have a bracelet/bangle thingy on her right (as you are looking at her) wrist.
-
I don't think that there is a leg missing; he has them both together, swung over his mother's lap, in my opinion. Perhaps that was the most comfortable way for the mother to hold him, as he seems a large baby, and may have slid off her lap!
Judy
I agree with Judy I also think his legs are together and swung over mother's lap. Great thread I keep coming back.
Terry
-
Thanks Terry ;D ;D ;D
Maggie, all your ferreting around for information seems to have paid off! As you say, none of them gives us an idea who the lady was as yet, but it has helped you find out more info about your tree.
You say you have some photos of your very handsome ::) ::) grandfather. Can you see any resemblance in the older man to this child, or to the lady??
Perhaps if you post one, one of "us experts" ;D ;D ;D can give our opinions!! (And we like looking at photos of handsome men ) :P :P :P :P
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
..... hang on....
-
Does this help -
I can see a similarity between the baby and the man (A very distinguished gentleman, by the way!!) ::) ::)
But that is perhaps because I want to :-\ :-\
-
Interesting isn't it :-\
Thank for this Judy - at least you have made it easier to compare............ ummmmm :-\
A pity we cannot ask him to remove his moustache ;D
Added later:- If this IS my grandfather it dates the photo at around 1883
-
Mothers needing to return to work in the mill after giving birth, in order to put bread on the table.
If "our" lady (sorry yours :D) worked in the Mills, Could the black on fingers be ingrained dye from the material?? (I know Ive had a few lucky escapes with black hair dye in my time but thats another story ;D)
Handsome Devil! Your Grandfather Maggie.
I wonder what our your lady would have made of all this, years & years later people looking at her photo & being so interested in her circumstances? ;D ;D ;D
-
Hi Monkeymagik,
Yes - the same thought has occurred to me, as whether our lady was Wife No 1 or Wife No 2, she was a mill worker and probably had rather care-worn and stained hands.
A handsome devil indeed ;D......... we are a handsome family, monkey-m ;) ;) ;)
I often wonder what the ancestors make of my endeavours - I imagine my lot chorlting away up there in great amusement when my researches sent me astray, then applauding me wholeheartedly when I get something right. I have also felt them directing me on occasions - a push in a certain direction that at the time makes no sense but then leads to a discovery................
I think my/our lady would be most pleased ........ and very honoured :D
-
Seeing the dates laid out like that, I am certain sure, that is Thomas, the first baby born in 1868...about 18months/2 years old, Mum well on the way with the one born later that year and feeling k nackered. This would fit in with the 1870 hairstyle.
Oooo that hansome chap looks just like the baby to me... the left eyebrow looks just exactly the same...and the lower lip,
if not him, then very close family tie.
Oh oh, revised that thought....
The lady I posted with the same (ish) hairstyle was in 1872...so that would be second baby...Jane....but the eyebrow and lower lip are still the same as the chappie....
well...to me....
Think I'll go and get a cup or tea.....
-
The handsome chap was not born 'till March 1882 though, Paula, and was half brother to Thomas and Jane - same father different mother.
-
Then it's Father they inherit the eyebrows and lower lip from....
-
Hi All,
Two more certificates arrived this morning:-
The first is the birth cert for the 2nd child Jane
I know there was a second child, Jane born 1870 in Accrington, Lancs - correct mother and father but I am awaiting her birth certificate.
Maggie
I can now confirm in all details by this birth cert. Jane was born on 20th April 1870 at 66 Frederick St, Old Accrington to the correct parents. The family must have made a move from Blackburn to Accrington sometime between April 1868 (birth of Thomas) and April 1870 (birth of Jane).
Until a few days ago I thought Thomas and Jane were the only children of this couple but I have now found a birth in Accrington in 1871 of a John ROSTHORN with mother Margaret nee MOORE. I am waiting for this birth cert.
On 26th December 1871 a son John was born to Edward and Margaret (nee MOORE) ROSTHORN at 2 St Stephen's Court, Old Accrington. Margaret is described as 'deceased' so it would appear she died in or as a result of childbirth. The date of the registration is 1st January 1872, the same date as Mum was buried (I think - notes not to hand). What a terrible Christmas the family must have had !!
So.......... 2 more certs to come one for the death of Margaret and one for the death of a John ROSTHORN, who I presume is the baby (modified later....the baby born in 1871 - not necessarily the baby in the picture).
This is a bit rushed so hope it makes sense as I am trying to pack and sort for our holiday. Hope the other 2 certs arrive before we go. :-\
Maggie :)
-
Maggie, Just in-case I don't get back on line before you go away (couple of busy days coming up :-[) Just wanted to wish you a wonderful holiday . :D :D
Judy, Hope you got a better nights sleep last night & did not have a repeat of The Women In Black ;D
I daren't tell you what my dream was about, someone might send the men in white coats to take me away! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
NIC :)
-
Hi NIC - thanks so much for the nice wishes, we are looking forward to it as we are desperate for a break away - although how I will get on without my daily fix on RC I don't know ;)
And go on ............. tell us your dream ;D ;D ;D ;D
Maggie
-
Hve a good un, Maggie, and come back refreshed and ready to start sorting out the family again...
-
Thank-you muchly, Paula ;) ;) ;) :)
-
I haven't had much time today to muse on any implication from the latest 2 certs - but whilst walking the dog just now a point occurred to me which is worth a mention.
The baby, John ROSTHORN, was born on 26th December 1871. I am waiting for his death cert (if I have the correct child) and the death is registered in the June Qtr of 1872. Therefore as he was 3 to 6 months old at death, he is to young to be the child in the picture. Perhaps it is his sister Jane, who was born 20th April 1870 - as I think Paula has speculated.
:-\
Maggie
-
Yep, going by the hairstyle that would be just purrrrfect. 8)
Thinking about it...if that was the case, no wonder Mum was looking old and tired, am I right she was about to die with the next child...
-
So it would seem Paula.... deceased by the time the baby was registered.... :'(
-
Hi Maggie: I looked at the photo and I don't think the picture is PM. The mother doesn't seem to be grief-stricken.
Regards,
John :o :o :o
-
I agree it's not a PM picture...just a very tired child...or as someone suggested maybe medicated. Small children when they are tired blink a lot and that may be why the eyes seem weird because of the timing of the picture ???
mab :D
added: and the mum doesn't seem sad and she may have blinked at the wrong moment...she certainly had very light eyes....possibly very blue
-
brett payne nz
has lots of old portraits on his site
its good to browse when you are dating a photo
sylvia
photo approx 1890
description of baby dress
child's dress, trimmed with broderie anglaise, and black button up ankle boots worn by a little girl of about three
hope this covers this
8. Copyright
8.1 All images and text are copyright of their original owners, unless otherwise indicated. Duplication or sale of the materials contained within this web site is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for research or educational purposes in electronic or print form.
-
Thanks for the interesting photos and the link, Sylvia, and your observations, mab - all opinions most welcome :D
I can see that the child's dress and boots are similar to the attire of the child in the photo.
If my lady's hairstyle indicates 1890, and the child is around 3 years old, then it is unlikely that it is the 1st wife in the picture.
The 2nd wife had 3 children born to Edward ROSTHORN that I know about, born 1875, 1877 and 1882, which again makes these children too old to be the child in the picture. The second wife died in 1895 aged 55. The picture-lady looks younger that 50 to me. ??? ??? ???
Perhaps its a grandchild :-\ There are no small children with the family in the 1991 census but a child of Wife No 2, born in 1863 before her mother married Edward ROSTHORN and who took the surname of Rosthorn married in 1886 and had a daughter around 1889. :D
I think it is highly possible THIS is the picture-lady - (Elizabeth Rachel Harris GILL/ROSTHORN) - and the child her daughter Nellie HINDLE. If it IS Nellie HINDLE, then it is not PM as she lived into her 20s.
(There will be a certain RootsChatter who will be smiling broadly whilst reading this ;) ;) ;) ;))
Maggie
-
Hi folks,
Maggie, I'm pretty sure you meant that the three children of Edward Rosthorn were born 1875, 1877 and 1882 ;D
I personally would put this photo in the mid-1870s, which would fit the hairstyle (which is probably false hair) and the dress (very full skirt), and the pose and appearance of the photograph.
And this is definitely NOT a post mortem photograph! There's nothing about it to suggest that. As far as I'm aware, eyes were never painted on the eyelids of the deceased - they could be painted onto the finished print, though.
Hope that helps :)
Prue
-
Ooops - that's rushing and tiredness for you...... Thanks Pru - will modify ::)
So... to recap -
Photo date of mid 1870 give child likely to be Jane Rosthorn, daughter of Wife No. 1
Photo date of 1890 give child likely to be Eliz. Rachel Harris Gill/Rosthorn, illegitimate daughter of Wife No. 2
:-\
Maggie
-
Hairstyle 1872....
-
Hi Maggie
Just had to look at the photo after hearing about the story!!
Theres a lot of pages here so the topic might have moved on but going back to the original photo, I think both the lady and child are alive and are as well as could be expected for that day and age. It can be forgotten that people had to sit still/ pose for quite long periods before some photographers deemed the picture could be taken. For a child that may be tired or may be not 100% it must have been difficult.
So my verdict - I give it a thumbs up for a happy event (again given what it was like back then) and I hope it is still on your wall :) :) :)
Fue
-
Hi Everybody,
'Fue' -- Thanks for your comments and good to have them.
At last I have a bit of time to resurrect this after my week away. So the feeling seems to be that mother and child are both alive but not necessarily fighting fit in the photo. There seems to be a division of opinion in the date, with I think more people going with the mid 1870s option. If this is so and assuming it is mum holding her own child and not another family member, then the lady is probably the first wife of Edward Rosthron and the child either Thomas born 1868 or Jane born 1870.
There were two further certificates waiting for me when I got home and they tell a sad story, as I thought they might. Edward Rosthorn's 1st wife (and possibly the lady in the photo) died on 1st January 1872, cause of death given as Child Bed 6 days, Peritonitis 4 days. Her baby, John, was born on 26th December 1871 and Edward registered the birth of his son and the death of his wife on the same day - 1st Jan, which was the day his wife was buried (according to newspaper obit.).
On 25th May 1872, the baby John died aged 5 months - cause of death, Debility. The informant was not the father, but an Esther Dawson, present at death. From the address of this Esther, and after a quick census search, it looks like the baby was 'farmed out' - I suppose Dad had to work with 2 small children to support. Initially I wondered whether the photo could be of this Esther Dawson and the baby, who died of Debility, could be John. But the child in the pic. is obviously much older than 5 months so it is cannot be them.
I don't think there is much more I can find out about the 1st wife, but I am glad through this thread to have found out about the baby who was born and died between the censuses and whom I never knew existed. It is good to have him named and his short story noted now.
I must now repeat a similar excercise with the 2nd wife, and as there is a gap between the children there is perhaps also another missing child.
Thanks for all your help and contributions everybody - its been fascinating.
Maggie
-
oh Maggie that is a very sad story, perhaps the baby wasnt farmed out but perhaps she was a wet nurse or the like?
-
Maybe, toni - the 1871 census shows Esther Dawson living with her husband and 2 children of ages abt. 3 yrs and 2 yrs :-\
An interesting point to come out of these certificates is that Dad moved about a bit. At some point after the birth of the baby and death of mum, he moved into the same street as Esther Dawson and family, as this street is given as his residence on his marriage cert. to wife No 2.