RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: elvisthelurcher on Monday 13 April 20 10:51 BST (UK)
-
Hi, would anyone be so kind as to have a go at dating this photograph for me please?
My relative, Ann Ellen Clarke (Chilton) is front right of the photo. She had 3 daughters and 3 sons, I was wondering if these could be them all? The lady on the far right looks a bit old to be her daughter to me?
There were 3-4 years between each of the boys, and each of the girls.
Any help with approximate ages would be great too!
Many thanks in advance,
Matt
-
The 1st. thing to be gleaned from this is the soldier who is wearing
the 1908 pattern tunic so that's the start date.
Looking at the general dress styles not much later than that so
around 1910 +/- 2 years.
As regards to ages the youngest lad looks 11/12 the next lad 14/15 & the oldest 18/20.
The girls are a bit more difficult but the one on the right looks the oldest.
-
C1910
To me the lady on the right looks more like a younger sister of your relative.
-
I agree that the woman on the far right does look older and a similar age to Ann. They do look alike.
As you say Ann had three sons and three daughters perhaps this is the family group - maybe the daughter just had a mature look. :)
Do you know the dates of birth of Ann and the eldest daughter?
The son on the far left looks like Ann and the woman on the far right.
-
Hi and welcome to Rootschat, I agree with Jim so it looks like you have the right family.
Carol
-
Wow, thank you all for your replies, it's much appreciated.
In 1910 their ages would be;
Mother - 40
Father - 37
Sons - 3,6,10
Daughters - 9,12,14
Could it possibly be 5 years or so later C1915?
Ruskie - Ann Ellen was born in 1870, and the eldest daughter Grace in 1896.
Thanks again
-
Could it possibly be 5 years or so later C1915?
Afraid not.
In 1915 the eldest son would still only be 15 & too young to be in the Army.
Also he's wearing the pre 1916 tunic. After that men were given what was called the economy tunic
which was slightly but identifiably different to this.
-
Lovely photo, and they look quite an affluent family
I think it is the complete family, the Girls being the most difficult to age. My view is that the extreme right one tends to look older but because of her hair style and countenance. They all have the same nose profile, but I offer a different opinion of the eldest - Mother 50, Father about the same, youngest son 12,next son 16, Soldier 21, daughter to Soldiers left [ at photo],being the eldest aged 24, daughter extreme right 22, and final daughter 19. I think it could be a family photo to mark the safe return of the Soldier son prior to his discharge. However Jim1 expertise on the uniform makes the birth / photo dates important. As a relative with such a good photo, I would be seeking WW1 records to try and confirm entry etc.
-
I think some of the children in this photo look older than they were because of the lines in the photo. I’ve tried to clean up their faces without altering their features. I think that, cleaned up, almost all of the children look younger than in the original image.
I know I’m going to regret going against Jim’s suggestions, but once in a blue moon I foolishly stick my neck out. Here goes:
The youngest boy is two head-heights below his oldest brother. He’s no more than 4 feet tall and about 7 or 8 years old. (Trust me; I have 8 grandchildren between 3 and 12!) The next boy is about 11. The oldest boy is about 15. The youngest girl is a tall 14. The next girl is about 17. And the oldest girl is about 19/20.
I think the photo was taken at the start of the war. Apparently a blind eye was turned towards keen albeit underaged young men, so many thousands were able to enlist, as young as 14.
The mother’s clothing and hairstyle look late Edwardian, but the girls’ look post-Edwardian, perhaps into the early war years.
I’d go for 1915 and: (from front row, clockwise) mother 45; 8 years boy; father 42; 11 years boy; 14 years girl; 15 years boy; 17 years girl; 19 years girl. Note that the children are all in age order.
Peter
-
Boys did join underage but not with the complicity of their parents.
-
Children today are much taller that 100 years ago so don't go on today's sizes.
-
Thanks again for all of your help.
The screenshot is from a WW1 Military record for the eldest son in the photograph - Individuals entitled to the Victory medal/British War medal, the page is date stamped Hounslow 1920. Could it be that he was in a reserve battalion of the East Surrey Regiment, hence the uniform being in that style?
Thanks again for your skills in putting ages to these people, it's really helping me in trying to piece everything together!
-
1920 is when the medals were issued.
I'll take a look as this is getting curious.
If you have this photo can we see the back?
-
I thought the soldier looked to be around 18/20, when was he born?
Carol
-
The soldier looks to be around 18/20 years old, when was he born?
Sorry...1st message wouldn't post!
Carol
-
He was born in February 1900.
-
I may have to bite the bullet.
The photo is saying pre war but the info is saying post war.
If this is the right family it would have to be before 1921 as he doesn't have his
medal ribbons.
So in this he is either in reserve (1919) which doesn't gel with his uniform or
he's re-enlisted & issued with a new uniform (1920) but that would make mother
looking very out of date even for an older woman.
The back may tell more.
-
The boy in uniform only looks about 15.
Could he be wearing a cadet’s uniform?
What school was he at? And did it have army cadets?
-
There's a record here of an "Arthur Clarke" joining the East Surrey regiment in 1918. While the name doesn't fit, his number does (39008):
https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/36756/East-Surrey-Regiment-1st-Battalion-Rank-and-File-Index-1916-1919.pdf (https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/36756/East-Surrey-Regiment-1st-Battalion-Rank-and-File-Index-1916-1919.pdf)
Peter
-
Great find Peter, that would make him aged 18 which what has been suggested by both Jim and I.
Carol
-
Team Rootschat wins! ;D
The only thing that still bothers me a bit is the mother's dress and grooming which I think would have been right in fashion a decade earlier. Oh well...
Peter
-
Much improved with the clean up. The Soldier's Face is a very mature 18 year old, and 1918 puts the youngest girl at 17 [whichever one she is], with the two other lads at 11/14. I still think therefore the photo is later than 1918, but of course has to fit the Uniform/Medal criteria.
The sharp 'Cut' of the suits suggests the post war fashion trend change, with the dresses having subtle features as well. The Army record detail was a great find and it would cap it all off if there were a discharge record, however what's a couple of years in this field.
-
Very interesting thread!
I can't help with the discussion, but just want to add that the "father" has a wonderful moustache. :)
-
I found this in the newspaper "Weekly Casualty List (War Office & Air Ministry ) 05 November 1918".
WAR OFFICE DAILY LIST OF 30 OCT 1918 - WOUNDED.
East Surrey Regiment
Clarke 39008 A.E. (West Norwood, S.E.)
-
Good find Jool, and Wow that didn't take long to be trained, posted, and injured so close to the end. This obviously suggests the photo was taken just before shipping out, or after some hospital time and leave before discharge, subject to his injury's or staying in service for a while.
I agree a very interesting post !
-
Apologies for the long post......
Thank you all so much for your efforts with this picture! I've learned so much more about these people than I could have ever imagined.
I posted it originally to try to establish the age of the woman on the far right. I knew that the Mother in the picture was my 2nd great Aunt, and I knew that she had 3 sons and 3 daughters, but the woman on the right looked too old to me to be her daughter; shows what I know!! With you brilliant people having pretty much confirmed her age now, it brings me full circle to the reason for this post!
I was given a box of old photographs by my father a few years ago, and there were a few of people that he didn't know who they were; so I've made it my mission to try to find out for him.
I posted a picture on here for dating around 5 years ago, of who I thought at the time could possibly be my Great Great Grandmother, but the dating from people on here combined with her age at the time didn't fit together, and someone suggested did she have a daughter of the right age for the photograph date. Well, Ann Ellen (mother in this picture) was her daughter and fitted in with the dates/ages suggested. Looking now at the 2 pictures side by side there is (in my biased hopeful mind), a resemblance. But strangely more so between the daughter on the right and the original photograph!
Is it possible/acceptable on here to post a link back to the original photo thread to get an unbiased opinion from someone here?
Many thanks again
-
Here's a link to your old thread. I can see a likeness between the two ladies :)
ADDED: The lady in your old thread looks similar to both ladies front and back right on the group photo.
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=731551.msg5764846#msg5764846
-
Thanks Jool.
I was hoping that it wasn't just me trying to put square pegs in round holes!!
-
Great work Jools 8)
If Ann was born born in 1870 and she was unmarried and in her late teens in the portrait in Jool's link dated to 1880s, then the photo could well be her before she married, as I think the likeness between to two is striking. Just a thought.
Carol
-
Thanks Carol.
Ann was also the closet sibling in age to my dad's grandad as well, which may explain why he had the photograph. Possibly!!