RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: Treetotal on Friday 27 May 16 15:14 BST (UK)
-
I would value opinions on whether the little girl on the right is deceased or blind...Her eyes look rather odd and her stance unnatural don't you think?
Thanks for looking.
Carol
-
I agree that she does look odd Carol.
It is also odd that the taller girl has her hand behind the smaller one's head. Her arm is not across her shoulders and I can't see her hand - it looks a bit unnatural.
I note though that the tall girl is holding the hand of the small girl and her thumb appears to be wrapped around the tall girl's hand. I would have thought if she was deceased that the thumb would not be wrapped around in this way, but I may be wrong, and she may have been posed like this.
Can you see any sign of a stand behind the small girl which might be supporting her? Is the tall girl holding onto the support? :-\
-
it looks to me that hand holding is moving, there seems to be a little blurring that suggests movement, so i wonder if the girl on the right has just blinked.
it was one pic and it had to be right in those days, we've all got pics of our kids pulling hideous faces, this might just be another
i agree the stance is odd, and the leg reminded me of calipers you used to see on kids with walking issues, i wonder if she was disabled in some way.
I'm wondering why you would consider she was dead. Under what circumstances would a child be asked to prop up and be photographed with another dead child?
Have you been able to see birth certificates? and depending where she lived census etc, they often record any disability. Just last week i found a census that records an ancestor as deaf.
-
I would have thought if she was deceased that the thumb would not be wrapped around in this way, but I may be wrong, and she may have been posed like this.
That was the bit I noticed as well.
I wonder how those children who were made to pose with their dead siblings felt, or perhaps they had a different view of death to that of today.
-
Under what circumstances would a child be asked to prop up and be photographed with another dead child?
I wondered why as well, but on looking at post mortem photos I see that it wasn't uncommon.
-
I would have thought if she was deceased that the thumb would not be wrapped around in this way, but I may be wrong, and she may have been posed like this.
That was the bit I noticed as well.
I wonder how those children who were made to pose with their dead siblings felt, or perhaps they had a different view of death to that of today.
sorry to barge into this thread but i've never ever heard of siblings being asked to pose with a dead child, is this an actually known thing? common ish? why!?
if anyone has links etc that explains, i'm (obviously!) pretty gobsmaked
-
Just google Victorian Post Mortem Photos and look at images, there are a lot on line. A very odd custom. :-X
-
Under what circumstances would a child be asked to prop up and be photographed with another dead child?
I wondered why as well, but on looking at post mortem photos I see that it wasn't uncommon.
Myth no 2 on this link might help answer http://dealer042.wix.com/post-mortem-photos#!myth/cee5
apparently it's not possible to stand up even a child...
This is really an education, i had utterly no idea!
-
Thanks everyone for your thoughts and your interest...I wasn't sure if this was a PM photo or whether the child had a sight problem...on close inspection...the eyes look really odd but I take Ruskie's point about the hand....I can't see a posing stand either.
Opinions differ on the subject:
Please note that this link takes you to a website on Victorian Post Mortem
http://www.viralnova.com/post-mortem-victorian-photographs/
Carol
-
I am fairly sure I have seen a photo here on rootschat where the stand was visible - I think it was a PM photo. :-\
I'm wondering why you would consider she was dead. Under what circumstances would a child be asked to prop up and be photographed with another dead child?
It was not unusual. We see the odd one on rootschat - they are very sought after.
I still think the placement of the girl's hand behind the neck of the small girl, is very odd, and I did wonder if she was holding something or supporting a stand.
-
I agree Ruskie and yes I remember something similar on her too I'm sure. Note the sunken eyes and slack jaw.
A close up.
Carol
-
For what it's worth, I believe that the child is blind.
This would account for the strange, blank eyes, and the elder child holding her sister's head at the correct angle for the camera, and to also keep it still. It may even be that the child was deaf, and therefore not able to hear instructions to keep still. :-\ :-\
-
I would value opinions on whether the little girl on the right is deceased or blind...Her eyes look rather odd and her stance unnatural don't you think?
Thanks for looking.
Carol
She doesnt look dead to me. I would say blinking as the camera shutter was active, or moving slightly at the same time.
Heres a strange thought, perhaps the other girl is dead! lol
-
Thanks for your thoughts Bumble and Turnips...I remain unconvinced but appreciate your thoughts and input.
Carol
-
I agree Ruskie and yes I remember something similar on her too I'm sure.
The one I think I can remember was a man (in a group photo with several others) - is that the one you recall too Carol (it was quite a long time ago .... several years).
The stand must have been strong enough to support him.
-
The problem with early photos is they didn't do blue/grey eyes very well.
Most child PM's have the child sitting or sleeping.
I think the problem with this one is keeping him/her still long enough.
-
To me this looks very much like a PM photo, and as morbid as we may think it was, it was commonplace and helped the families grieve. Aside from her eyes, her feet look "planted" and also the curtain does not have a natural drape as there is bulge behind the child which suggests to me that someone or something is supporting the child.
I have seen many pics with the deceased propped up using posing stands.
Caz
-
Notice the "dead" little girls hand is clasped around her alive sister. Very difficult to do if she was dead, and suffering from Rigor Mortis. According to Wikipedia "Rigor mortis can occur as soon as thirty minutes after death"
So I would have to conclude she is still alive. Its just a strange photo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis
-
Rigor is not a permanent state:
"Contrary to common perception the process of Rigor Mortis actually does reverse and the body returns to a flaccid state; the muscles losing their tightness in the reverse of how they gained it: i.e.: those larger muscles that contracted last will lose their stiffness first and return to their pre-Rigor condition."
I'm quite convinced this is a PM photo. Apart from what I mentioned earlier, the deceased child is not being supported by the sister and positioned near the curtain for no reason.
Caz
-
WARNING looking at this link may be disturbing.
Here are some other examples of PM photos. Note how the deceased have been positioned (including curling of the hands). Also, particularly note photo No. 7.
http://www.viralnova.com/post-mortem-victorian-photographs/
Caz
-
Looking at Cazza's link I'm not convinced all of them are PM's. There are some standard uses of props & people used to hold children still. It doesn't mean they're dead.
-
Looking closely at the curtain, it does look like the shape of an arm.
-
I'm with Caz on this one...especially the curtain and the feet don't look right compared to the older girls...they are not in a natural, balanced stance...the child's jaw is slack too and the facial muscles are dropped and the child's face is expressionless...whilst the older child is smiling and in my view quite unnatural, even wary.
I suppose we can never be sure but over the last 9 years I have seen many photos on this site and this one disturbs me.
Thanks to everyone for your valued opinion...at the end of the day...we can never be sure, we can only trust our instincts and mine is telling me that this child isn't living.
Once again thank you all for your interesting comments and your valued input.
Carol
-
Looking at Cazza's link I'm not convinced all of them are PM's. There are some standard uses of props & people used to hold children still. It doesn't mean they're dead.
Me too. eg. I'm not sure the last infant is dead.
However I agree that the feet of the girl in Carol's photo are "set" oddly. If she were alive it almost looks as though she might topple over - she does not seem to be putting any weight on them and they are slightly offset from her body.
Good point about the strategically placed and slightly bulging curtain, which I did not notice before. I think that clinches it for me. :)
-
Myth no 2 on this link might help answer http://dealer042.wix.com/post-mortem-photos#!myth/cee5
apparently it's not possible to stand up even a child...
This is really an education, i had utterly no idea!
If you google victorian post mortem photography props there are several photographs of men, standing, supported by props. The props are visible, but still they are standing, so myth#2 is incorrect.
The bulge in the curtain is about the height of the girl's waist, so I am wondering if someone or something is supporting her waist, and the sister is helping to support her head?
-
There are plenty of examples on the net of standing PM photos. Not sure what credentials the author of that site has, but I think they should have researched more fully as it obviously is possible. I would never rely on one source anyway before I formed an opinion, and I've researched this issue many times over the years as it often comes up on the board (which is why I knew about the rigor not being permanent in case you're wondering ;D :-X). As Carol says, you can never be 100% certain, but to both of us, this looks to be a more obvious example.
That site even has an example of child standing being held by someone behind a curtain, albeit a lot more obvious than in Carol's photo.
The images of the "photoshopped" ::) ::) PM photos on that site are grotesque and an affront to genuine Victorian PM photos that were taken out of love and to provide solace to grieving families. I don't think any with an ounce of common sense would seriously consider these monstrous pics were used to for grief purposes.
There is also a shadow just below the deceased child's dress in Carol's photo which is intriguing and could be part of the stand.
Caz
-
Interesting piece about the time frame of rigor mortis here
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/rigor_mortis.aspx
-
I'm with Jim!
Have seen many photos described as post mortem, many are, others are less certain & some are very doubtful...I don't think this is a post mortem image at all.
I'd say this little poppet's appearance is due to any one of, or any combination of: pale eye colour, visual impairment, other physical/intellectual disability, propensity to bolt when anxious, simple non-compliance ;)
(It would be interesting to discover more about this child's fate!)
In this period, such a special event as having a photo taken, would, I think, see the parents wanting to present their children to best advantage, as they perceived it. Crouching behind a curtain to covertly direct/encourage/support/manage is quite common with unsettled littlies.
There is such a lovely tenderness in the older child's supportive pose, isn't there?
-
I think we will have to agree to disagree. As Carol said, when you've restored 1000s of photos, you get a feel for these things plus I think many people find it hard to accept that you could be looking at a dead child.
Anyway, we could debate this all day, but we'll never know for sure.
Caz
-
Am I right in thinking that this is an unknown family, so there is no way we can try and find them in a census, or find a death?
-
Yes Jan...you are right...it's a recently acquired addition to my collection so sadly there is no way of knowing if the child has a disability or if she died young.
I guess we all have our own opinions on this one, but I appreciate the input from everyone and it's good to hear the varying points of view and it is a good talking point. The whole pose is unnatural and doesn't sit well with me and that's my reason for posting this one...I agree with Caz that it appears that someone is holding her arm behind the curtain.
Thanks everyone for your interest and your input. Who knows...one day someone just might come along and claim these two little darlings and put us out of our misery ;D
Carol
-
Just a couple of observations, there is a definate bulge in the curtain level with where the little ones left hand is that we cant see, there is also something solid under the elbow of the other girl, is there some sort of stand holding the little one up.
-
Thanks for your interest Starcat...I think what you can see under the bigger girl's elbow is just the wall behind her arm...I agree with your observation of the curtain but can't see any evidence of a posing stand.
Carol
-
Is the dark mark behind the younger child's right leg just a stain on the photo?
And FWIW....apart from the full skirt the younger child looks a bit like a boy to me... ???
-
Hi Josie...I think the mark is a tassel hanging from a cord on the dress....I never considered that it could be a boy :o...interesting point as the younger child is wearing boots and the older one is wearing shoes.
Carol
-
interesting point as the younger child is wearing boots and the older one is wearing shoes.
One reason that made me think that way too; could be the child [alive or dead] was easier to stand up in boots...
-
Yes Josie that is a very valid point for ankle support and stability.
Carol
-
Myth no 2 on this link might help answer http://dealer042.wix.com/post-mortem-photos#!myth/cee5
apparently it's not possible to stand up even a child...
This is really an education, i had utterly no idea!
Thank you for this, jcjc123. I've seen so much speculation online about this topic.
Best regards,
Josephine
-
Surely this thread should be locked now.
Does anyone else find some of the speculation and links posted as rather macarbre and unpleasant not to say unpleasant and offensive.
The thread title is offensive. It is quite wrong to make a comment that blind people could be confused with a deceased person.
And it is wrong and offensive to post links to other sites which have pictures of deceased children. Quite wrong and distasteful.
-
In your opinion!!!! :o :o
-
Yes definitely in my opinion.
Just think how offensive it is to parents or sisters of disabled people.
Surely I cannot be the only person who has reported this thread to the moderators?
-
I can't see anything offensive, I think people have dealt with a subject, which we as genealogists know happened, quite delicately. In fact, a warning was given before one link, so if people then chose to open it, they knew what to expect. It is also a topic that has been on here previously and not, to my knowledge, been locked or removed.
The only reason I can see for locking it, is if it now develops into an argument over whether or not it should be locked! ;D ;D
-
I can't see anything offensive, I think people have dealt with a subject, which we as genealogists know happened, quite delicately. In fact, a warning was given before one link, so if people then chose to open it, they knew what to expect. It is also a topic that has been on here previously and not, to my knowledge, been locked or removed.
The only reason I can see for locking it, is if it now develops into an argument over whether or not it should be locked! ;D ;D
Well said Jan...it certainty wasn't meant in bad taste...remember we are discussing a bygone era when photography was expensive and photographs were few and far between...if parents never had a photo of a living child...then after a tragic loss of life in a young child, their only way of remembering them was through a PM photo...this wasn't regarded as ghoulish or unnatural but almost expected in order that the deceased child could be fondly remembered. However unpalatable it may seem in todays society, back in Victorian times it was the norm.
Today, if parents lose a child soon after birth...they have the opportunity to spend valuable time to bond with their child and take photographs to ease the grieving process, and so they should...I wish I had been given that opportunity 40+ years ago ::)
I apologise If this has caused offence but non was intended and I am deeply distressed at the inference.
Carol
-
I've been following this thread with interest.
I can't see anything offensive, far from it.
Victorian post mortem photography happened. The Victorians didnt regard it as macabre or unpleasant but as a source of comfort.
Scouseboy, there have been many other threads on this topic and I don't recall you objecting to any of them?
-
It is offensive to blind people.
To ask the question which is posed in the thread title about the appearance of a person is inconsiderate of a persons disabilities.
At the very least I request that the thread title is now amended to delete the word "blind" please.
-
I've also been following this thread with interest and have found it informative. Not offensive.
My own thought is that it is not a PM photo. Rather, that there are two children, with one of them being profoundly physically disabled and requiring assistance for the pose.
sami
-
At the very least I request that the thread title is now amended to delete the word "blind" please.
It is open to you to request a moderator to do so by using the appropriate button. Having done so the best thing then would be to remain silent on the topic until action is, or is not, taken.
-
Yes definitely in my opinion.
Just think how offensive it is to parents or sisters of disabled people.
Surely I cannot be the only person who has reported this thread to the moderators?
If you find it offensive...then I suggest that you read posts and contribute to posts that don't offend your sensibilities....please remember that we are discussing ancient practice that was the norm for the period...just as "Imbecile" was a common term for the unfortunate used in census returns in the same period...but I don't remember you questioning this.
If you have nothing useful to add...then I suggest that you participate in threads that don't offend your delicate nature.
As this post has generated some interesting and intelligent responses...I will leave it up to the interested parties to determine its fate.
With respect...Carol
-
I've also been following this thread with interest and have found it informative. Not offensive.
My own thought is that it is not a PM photo. Rather, that there are two children, with one of them being profoundly physically disabled and requiring assistance for the pose.
sami
Thanks for your input Sami....it all adds to the overall opinion....I guess we will never know but it has proved interesting and informative.
With nearly 1000 views...I deduce from that, that the subject has been of interest to many.
Carol
-
It is offensive to blind people.
......
No. My mother was blind - not from birth, but through illness. I am not in the least offended by this thread. In fact it is very interesting.
-
We live in a different era now, where everything has to be politically correct.
However, mosr of us are researching an era where political correctness didn't exist. We have to look at what happened during that period
It is a fact that pictures of this type were taken and we had blind children on street corners selling matches. They were not known by todays wording of "visually impaired".
It happened - We should not try to rewrite the past It is for us to try and understand it
I have found this subject difficult, but also very eye opening and interesting. If we say we shouldn't discuss it, then what comes next - Should we not discuss the World Wars for fear of upsetting relatives of lost ones.
I feel that you are quite right in posting a difficult subject Carol
-
I can't see why anyone would regard this thread as offensive - we are genealogists and family historians and we deal not only with death but also sickness, disabilities, blindness, deafness and even the sad and fortunately long-past classification of 'imbecile'. If we are not allowed to discuss subjects such as this - however painful they might be - we might just as well pack up and stop searching. PM photos were popular at one time and this cannot be denied so we should be allowed to discuss them. People now are now classified as 'visually impaired' were then called blind. It's not the words used that are important but the spirit in which they are discussed. In this thread I feel - and I have been following quietly - that the subjects have been dealt with with the utmost respect and understanding and in no way has anyone said anything which might be regarded as offensive. Making such allegations is extremely hurtful and unnecessary, and inconsiderate of the feelings of the OP and other posters.
And in my opinion - for what it's worth - it's a PM photo.
-
It is only by researching the past and understanding the Victorian values and way of life that we can appreciate how far we have come and how privileged we are. Let's not forget the hardships, difficulties and deprivation that many of our ancestors endured and overcame. We are a product of their fortitude and resilience in the face of adversity.
I seek only to understand and learn from their experiences through a shared experience....otherwise why are we here doing what we do if not to gain a greater understanding of the lives of our ancestors.
Thanks Steve for the benefit of reasoning over a practice that belongs in the past but is useful for a greater understanding of a life lived in Victorian times.
Carol
-
I can't see why anyone would regard this thread as offensive - we are genealogists and family historians and we deal not only with death but also sickness, disabilities, blindness, deafness and even the sad and fortunately long-past classification of 'imbecile'. If we are not allowed to discuss subjects such as this - however painful they might be - we might just as well pack up and stop searching. PM photos were popular at one time and this cannot be denied so we should be allowed to discuss them. People now are now classified as 'visually impaired' were then called blind. It's not the words used that are important but the spirit in which they are discussed. In this thread I feel - and I have been following quietly - that the subjects have been dealt with with the utmost respect and understanding and in no way has anyone said anything which might be regarded as offensive. Making such allegations is extremely hurtful and unnecessary, and inconsiderate of the feelings of the OP and other posters.
And in my opinion - for what it's worth - it's a PM photo.
Very eloquently put GS....I couldn't agree with you more and refuse to sweep away and ignore the past purely because it is a sensitive and somewhat uncomfortable concept to deal with in the politically correct world in which we now live.
Carol
-
Myth no 2 on this link might help answer http://dealer042.wix.com/post-mortem-photos#!myth/cee5
apparently it's not possible to stand up even a child...
This is really an education, i had utterly no idea!
Thank you for this, jcjc123. I've seen so much speculation online about this topic.
Best regards,
Josephine
Josephine, this "myth" is untrue. As I mentioned at reply #24 googling will throw up numerous images of adults being supported by (visible) stands.
Although tempting, I think we should refrain from getting into a slanging match with Scouseboy as this has been an fascinating educational discussion with some interesting opinions and observations. I think ignoring his comments is the best approach.
There may be others who wish to contribute to the topic, so it would be a shame if it were locked due to one person stirring the pot.
PS. Well said Groom and GS and others - common sense and good reason prevails I think. :)
-
I seek only to understand and learn from their experiences through a shared experience....otherwise why are we here doing what we do if not to gain a greater understanding of the lives of our ancestors.
Carol
Exactly, if it wasn't for these forums and other websites, how else would we glean information of our ancestors. I am not offended about this thread, I didn't know anything about PM photos until I joined RC and followed the thread about them a few years ago.
Cheers
KHP
-
Ditto KHP!
-
The more I study this photo the more I see, I think the little ones mouth doesnt look right & is it a mark on the photo or does she have a very wide parting in her hair.
-
I wondered about the part in her hair too starcat.
It is amazing how much more you notice each time you look at this.
Fascinating photograph ...
-
I have not joined in on this topic until now, but I believe by discussing these issues we get a much broader sense of what we now call injustices, but in Victorian times were accepted practices.
Should we not discuss children been sent up chimneys, or working in the mines crawling along on their hands and knees dragging wagons of coal behind them. Perhaps we should not read Charles Dickens books, because he wrote about things we find abhorrent now.
These things did happen, as did taking photos like the one we are discussing. If we talk about them we learn about our past as many people will have ancestors who had to suffer all this and more. At least one person at the beginning of this thread could not believe that post mortem photos were ever taken, but they were and I have one in my family album to prove it.
I think most people will agree that this particular photo is of siblings one of which is either dead or perhaps disabled. We take photos of disabled people today which we see all the time, but fortunately not too many post mortem photos are taken now. and they would never be publicly shown.
I do think these photos from Victorian times should be discussed, it is all part of our ancestry, part of the way of life as it was then. I wonder what people in one hundred years time will be discussing about our photos?
Just to add, I really think the poor child is deceased.
-
Thanks for all your very informative responses, support and for your interest. That is a very reasoned argument Pat and one that I wholeheartedly agree with. How can we appreciate the present without understanding of the past.
In today's society...Parents of an infant death can spend time in a prepared cold room with their baby and take precious photos, but we just don't call them PM photos today, but the principal is the same.
I don't think Parents should be deprived of their precious memories, it's just that time and changing attitudes have now acknowledged the value of the parent's need to have time with their baby before they are parted forever, this helps them through the grieving process in the same way that parents in Victorian times did.
I am so pleased that this post as enlightened people into this aspect of Victorian life.
For all the lost Babies and Children....RIP x
Carol
-
Catching up with this thread, I agree that the discussion has been respectful and is interesting in terms of the changes in attitude to death and bereavement generally since Victorian times.
I agree that the child on the right does look odd. It could indeed be that he/she is disabled in some way, but I am inclined - given the curtain positioning - to agree that it could be a post mortem picture.
I feel very sad for the little girl on the left, who is bidding farewell to her sibling - but with her smile is also perhaps reflecting happier times.
-
Hi Igor...thanks for your response, I'm pleased that you found it interesting and informative.
I remember when I was about four years old going to see my two year cousin laid out out in her coffin dressed in a white dress with a garland of flowers in her her....I was lifted up and told to kiss her and say goodbye. It seemed normal at the time but it wouldn't be acceptable today.
Carol
-
Carol, interested as to why you think it wouldn't be acceptable today?
-
I have been following this thread, and may I support the theory that this is a PM photo. May I ask if others have thoughts as to if the boots of the little lass are actually 'on the carpet' .... I think her left ankle is in a different 'plane' from her right ankle ... I don't think her left boot is actually touching the carpet anywhere, and the 'gait' looks arranged rather than natural.
May I also mention that although the photo is in b/w, the two dresses seem to be in different 'colours' from each other.
May I also ask if there is perhaps a small thin object holding down the upper eyelid on each eye for the little lass? Or has the lass been crying and crying and has 'swollen eyes' ?
My blind Uncle aged in his 90s strongly believes that 'blind' should NEVER EVER EVER have been 'downgraded' to 'visually impaired' :) His wife feels the same about 'hearing impaired'. She is wondering how old they have to be, to be allowed to say 'age impaired'
JM
-
Following on from Carol's post, I wonder if today we try and shield young children from the mention of death, whereas during earlier times it was more "a part of life." Not many children during the Victorian times grew up without experiencing the death of a sibling or close family member, and that death probably took place in the house rather than a hospital with the body remaining in the house until the funeral. Although this still happens today, it isn't the normal thing.
-
Following on from Carol's post, I wonder if today we try and shield young children from the mention of death, whereas during earlier times it was more "a part of life." Not many children during the Victorian times grew up without experiencing the death of a sibling or close family member, and that death probably took place in the house rather than a hospital with the body remaining in the house until the funeral. Although this still happens today, it isn't the normal thing.
Yes I think you're right Jan, hence my earlier comment...children's emotional welfare is given greater consideration today and it would be seen as too traumatic for small children in some sections of society today...I just remember my cousin looking like "A doll in a white box" and it stayed with me for a long time.
Carol
-
For obvious reasons, I'm glad the moderators have seen fit to leave this thread open. I'm sure I speak for all contributors when I say no offence or disrespect whatsoever was intended, but merely to inform and discuss a topic that while some may say is distasteful, was a part of history and cannot be denied. I would also like to point out that I did warn people my link might be disturbing and the choice not to look was there.
Anyway, I think as everyone has said, this thread has been informative and we have even managed to bust a myth busting myth, ;D so thanks Carol for starting it in the first place.
Caroline
-
I agree, Caz, I am also very pleased that the Moderators agreed with the majority that this topic was dealt with sympathetically and with respect. Because of the very nature of our hobby, we often come across subjects that are difficult for us to comprehend in this day and age - unmarried mothers being shut up in mental hospitals, the treatment of those returning from war with shell shock are just two that spring to mind. As long as each subject is treated carefully, I think that it is important that people become aware of how things were different in the past and that they are discussed.
-
Well said Caz and Jan...as researchers of Family history we are naturally curious about our ancestors and the society in which they lived and therefor have to deal with many aspects of their lives which, as Jan pointed out, frequently make uncomfortable reading, but at the same time, very interesting.
Aside from that, Josey pointed out that she thought the smaller child could be a boy, which could explain why the child is wearing boots...and as Malm pointed out, that child's dress is a darker shade.
Interesting comment from Caz too about Rigor Mortis relaxing at a later stage...that is something I wasn't aware of.
I'm pleased that I posted it as so many people have added to the many aspects of infant death in the Victorian era which enhances our understanding.
Carol
-
I agree with Cazza, it's been a very interesting thread! And a new glimpse into history for some!
There were certainly more horrific and questionable things done in history, than the taking of post- mortem photographs! To me it is a loving and respectful way to remember a loved family member, and still being done today, particularly with a stillborn child!
Not really too different than keeping someone's ashes in a prominent place in the home, as is done today!
A young seriously disabled child - that I used to teach - passed away aged about 14! Her Mum has her ashes and her last photo on the mantlepiece in her home. That particular photo was taken just after she passed away, and her Mum is holding her!
The ashes will eventually be buried with the Mum, who said she wants to hold her in her arms forever!! So I certainly don't feel that taking photos of deceased people is horrific or even questionable for a family death.
-
So I certainly don't feel that taking photos of deceased people is horrific or even questionable for a family death.
I agree JB, we have photos of family members kissing a deceased person good bye.
Cheers
KHP
-
Here in Canada, in recent times, I met a family for whom PM photos are a customary practice when a relative passes away. The photos are part of the current family photo album. At first I was quite surprised, as it's not something that was done in our family and I'd not heard of it before. This thread has given me more understanding of what it brings to the family. I appreciate the learning opportunity very much and thank all who've posted.
-
Coming in late on this, after looking on the internet at PM photographs, I think the little girl is deceased bless her.
And just to add, I have been following the thread with interest and have to say I have found it a fascinating subject and believe you have to discuss these things in order to understand them and have taken absolutely no offence with the subject matter.
Regards always
Frank.
-
Here in Canada, in recent times, I met a family for whom PM photos are a customary practice when a relative passes away. The photos are part of the current family photo album. At first I was quite surprised, as it's not something that was done in our family and I'd not heard of it before. This thread has given me more understanding of what it brings to the family. I appreciate the learning opportunity very much and thank all who've posted.
Hi Marion and welcome to RootsChat, thanks for your response....I'm pleased that you have learned something from posts here.
Carol
-
Coming in late on this, after looking on the internet at PM photographs, I think the little girl is deceased bless her.
And just to add, I have been following the thread with interest and have to say I have found it a fascinating subject and believe you have to discuss these things in order to understand them and have taken absolutely no offence with the subject matter.
Regards always
Frank.
Thanks your input Frank.....it has proved to be a very interesting and informative thread.
Carol
-
I think blind or otherwise disabled. Certainly alive. Not a farewell photo though period is right for that
-
I, like many others, have found this an interesting and informative thread.
I guess, though, that will never know if the little girl in the photo is :
a) sadly deceased
b) blind and / or disabled
c) Terrified by the photography equipment, and thus not co-operating
d) Just had a tantrum as refusing to co-operate, thus standing stiffly, eyes closed etc! (Havent all parents seen that!)
I don't think any can be ruled out for sure, nor any proved to be the case beyond all doubt.
-
I think blind or otherwise disabled. Certainly alive. Not a farewell photo though period is right for that
What makes you so sure Roger?
Carol
-
Because Carol I have seen a blind person admitted a young adult at the time who lived near me who had that bearing. If still living he will be in his late 80s.
-
I wouldn't say that was reason to state that the child was "Certainty alive" though Roger ::)
Carol
-
My phrasing Carol. But the chilld seems to be to be standing not sitting or propped up. All the farwell photos i have seen the deceased is lying down carefully arranged.
-
......................................................... the chilld seems to be to be standing not sitting or propped up. All the farwell photos i have seen the deceased is lying down carefully arranged......................
That's what I thought while following the thread from the opening post, then I did a search for Post Mortem photographs :o :o :o I've never seen anything like it before.
Frank.
-
What an eye opener isn't it Frank...when you see the lengths that the Victorians went to, to make the photos look "Normal"
I believe it was to compensate for the lack of photos whilst the child was still living...although the older child is smiling..rare in Victorian times, she doesn't look comfortable.
We all have differing opinions and I respect that.
Carol
-
I honestly had never seen anything like it Carol, I expected to see children, adults etc "Laid out" (if that's not too insensitive a word) in a coffin or on a bed, but to see children obviously deceased, sat on chairs with brothers and sisters and adults sat with sons and daughters was something totally unexpected, and some of the deceased were even in, shall we say, a state of early decay :o :o :o.
Strange times indeed in the society of the day.
Frank.
-
My phrasing Carol. But the chilld seems to be to be standing not sitting or propped up. All the farwell photos i have seen the deceased is lying down carefully arranged.
You will find many examples of standing and other poses if you google a few appropriate words. :)
-
My phrasing Carol. But the chilld seems to be to be standing not sitting or propped up. All the farwell photos i have seen the deceased is lying down carefully arranged.
You will find many examples of standing and other poses if you google a few appropriate words. :)
I thought we had already proven standing PM photos are possible and as we have said, there are examples on the net and even on the um, link :o :o I posted. ;D
Caz
-
OK. I am convinced that the child was in fact dead. I think that at the bottom of things this situation just shows that judging one time period by the standards of our own, or by the standards of another historic period, or for that matter by those of another ethnicity or civilisation is not really feasible.
-
I know it is hard to image so here is a diagram to show how it is done and to further our understanding.
Carol
-
Strange times indeed in the society of the day.
But surely the point is that although it seems almost unbelievable to us, it wasn't at all strange in Victorian society?
-
Do we know when the practice stopped?
-
Exactly Jen, from what I have read, it was a source of great comfort. About 18 years ago, a friend of mine had two separate full term stillbirths. On each occasion they held the child and took photos, the hospital encouraged and recommended that they do this as part of the grieving process. Both the mother and father say it helped them enormously and they are so happy to have those photos today.
I'm not sure I would feel the same, but everyone is different. I really don't think the practice is macabre at all, it's just whatever works for the person concerned.
-
I agree Jen
Today photographs are two a penny, we take them and delete them at a whim. Those of us who are "older" remember when photography involved buying a film, taking the pictures, then waiting to get the film developed, only to find you had cut off half of Uncle Harry on the right and Auntie Maud on the left had blinked and had her eyes closed and little Johnnie was picking his nose. Even then it was commonplace - most families had an "instamatic" or before that a Brownie box.
But, going back a bit further, photos were a rarity and a luxury. I am often bemused on here when people ask generally "I was hoping someone would have a photo of my xxxg-grandparent". The chances are there was never a photo taken of him/her, or if there was it would have been a one-off for a special occasion and thus if it survived would likely be with the family anyway.
So, for a family for whom having a photograph taken WAS a possibility (cost-wise), how easy it must have been to either have thought "we will get round to it sometime" but never quite get round to it, or alternatively it was never quite a priority cost-wise and so got put off.
Then, one of your children dies. You are faced with that awful knowledge that you will never ever see them again.
I can see that the idea of a PM photo could be something that would be considered , so you have a picture of them, which otherwise you would never have.
The idea of it seems awful to us now, but I am sure any family facing the trauma of losing a child nowadays will already have a picture of them, probably a whole lot of pictures throughout their short life.
Likewise for someone losing a husband or a brother or adult rellie.
And has just been said by Cazza, in circumstances nowadays when the baby dies at birth before there has been any chance to take photos, then photos of the deceased baby can be a great comfort and memory.
-
Strange times indeed in the society of the day.
But surely the point is that although it seems almost unbelievable to us, it wasn't at all strange in Victorian society?
Yes, absolutely, I totally agree.
Frank.
-
Death masks were popular for 'famous' people and they have never been regarded as morbid :(. That was a way of keeping a likeness before photographs.
-
Scouseboy If you read all the comments on this thread, it is obvious that these are photographs taken to help grieving families, not to entertain the mass media. If you introduce laws prohibiting these images, where do you draw the line? I really can't understand why you have such a problem with these images and this thread. Surely the answer is, if you don't like the subject, either here or elsewhere, you don't read it?
-
I'd much rather look at a PM photo of a beloved deceased relative, than some of the promiscuous, violent photos and posts that are open pages on Facebook and other social media. Some people that I have never heard of manage to tag others into their posts randomly somehow! Makes me wonder if these type of people have any moral values at all!
Also don't like seeing images of all the family violence and racist hatred that is currently always in ithe world and local news.
And totally sick of looking at the clown with aspirations of grandeur in the USA!
-
So, is there a date after which we don't get posed photos such as these, or did they just gradually stop being taken as photography became cheaper and more available? I have a photo of my grandparents and their two young daughters. I know that the youngest one must have died shortly after the photo was taken, it never crossed my mind that it could be a PM photo, would 1912 be too late?
-
Just had a look at that Facebook site, very interesting, I can't find a date for when PM photo's stopped being taken, I think it still goes on in certain places :-\
Frank.
-
According to Wiki it was the late 1900th century Jan.. but continued for some time after that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-mortem_photography
Carol
-
I would imagine it faded out as photography became more widely available.
More people losing a loved one would already have a photo of them, and thus the idea of a pm photo would not have entered their head, it had no place, was unnecessary, and then in time became a strange idea as we see it today.
-
After a very careful look of the original photo I can now see that there is a type of support behind the smaller child. Fully convinced as already said,but it is obvious standards have moved on from that time.
-
Can you Roger...I had a real good look but I can't see any evidence of a support as such :-\
Carol
-
Underneath, looks like a square block or shadow bigger than the other girl's shadow.
-
Ah....That's a tassel hanging from a cord around the child's waist Roger which I thought might be helping to secure her to some kind of support at the back.
Carol
-
I'm not seeing it!
There is the tassle, which when you home in on it seems to be from a tie around her dress.
I thought for a moment maybe it was actually the tie back from the curtain that had been tied around her to stabilise her. But is it only loosely around her, so would not have that effect. If it isn't a pm photo, merely an unco-operative child with her eyes closed, then maybe the curtain cord was tied loosely around her to stop her running off!
(red writing - posts crossed)
-
The curtain looks like there is a shoe coming out from under it... Just where the material goes inward!
I can't look at that photo anymore. She doesn't even look like she's got eyes...
-
I keep coming back to this and noticing different things ... I see what you mean about a 'shoe' on the floor where the curtain folds in, but it may just be another fold of the curtain.
I did notice a pale area just below the elbow of the older chld (the arm which goes behind the young child's neck) - it is probably just the wall peeking through, but the shape looks a little different to me. (I'm probably just seeing things ::)) I only notice it when I zoom in, but it looks a bit curved at the bottom and doesn't seem to fit the line of the girl's skirt.
I wonder if that could be part of a support. :-\
-
Interesting article on this subject - from today - here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-36389581
-
It's already been posted here Deirdre:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=749473.msg5976255#msg5976255
Carol
-
Sorry Carol, this was the topic I'd been following and I checked to see if it had been added here before posting. Didn't realise there was a similar topic ...
-
Never mind...no need to apologise but thought the other post was worth a look too :D
Carol
-
I only opened the first link and that was enough for me!! :o
I've heard of these before of course and I know times were different but they are just so freaky and MORBID!! :'(
-
I do apologise...I should have added a warning but failed to do so...sorry if you were upset by it.. :-\
Carol
-
I do apologise...I should have added a warning but failed to do so...sorry if you were upset by it.. :-\
Carol
No worries Carol I'll survive lol :D, but they were just sooo creepy, I might have another look at more links now I know what to expect.
-
I know it's a bit of a shock if you have never seen them before but...that was the norm Victorian Times.
Carol
-
I know it's a bit of a shock if you have never seen them before but...that was the norm Victorian Times.
Carol
Yes we certainly live in different times and what to us is morbid or creepy was normal to them, just as poor people in workhouses on a treadmill or children who stole were whipped or sent to prison was normal to them.
Thank God we live in more enlightened times though I do think the world has gone a bit too soft and PC.
I will work up the nerve to look at more photo's because it really is very interesting.
-
I know it's a bit of a shock if you have never seen them before but...that was the norm Victorian Times.
Carol
which only proves the inadvisabikity of judging past ages by current standards
-
I've almost gotten up the nerve to go back in :o
Was this a worldwide thing or just in the UK?
-
If my memory serves me well... I think this was common practice across Europe and America as well as the UK.
Carol
-
If my memory serves me well... I think this was common practice across Europe and America as well as the UK.
Carol
There are most definitely lots of American examples on the web.
I wouldn't be surprised if it happened anywhere there were cameras. :)
-
As a matter of interest, on the photo restoration board, there is an old photo of a deceased person laid out on a coffin surrounded by what looks to be his huge family at his funeral!
I think it must be a much loved and very special photo!
-
If my memory serves me well... I think this was common practice across Europe and America as well as the UK.
Carol
There are most definitely lots of American examples on the web.
I wouldn't be surprised if it happened anywhere there were cameras. :)
I thought it was primarily USA and UK
-
Info here Roger:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-mortem_photography
Carol
-
Thanks Carol; I have come across the phenomenon fairly recently with the last 20 years more than once. The situation I specifically remember is the son of a friend of my wife's who lost their first baby shortly after birth. A photograph was taken and is displayed on the mantelpiece along with (live) pictures of their later children.
Personally, although I have seen a lot of things I would have preferred not to have seen specially when I was incolved as a councillor, I find the practice somewhat macabre to say the least.
-
But this is 1860s Roger and times have changed...that's what brought comfort to the bereaved when photography was an expensive commodity.
Best not to look if it upsets you :-\
Carol
-
Carol, It certainly doesn't upset me. I have seen and dealt with far more distressing things. After all a body, or a photo of it is part of life.
To me it simply reinforces the inadvisability of juding one time frame by the ethics of another.
-
There must be a lot of interest in old pm photos, there are a suprising amount for sale on ebay & the prices of some are unbelievable.
-
There does seem to be a morbid fascination for this type of photo and they are much sought after.
Carol