RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Free Photo Restoration & Date Old Photographs => Topic started by: heath on Tuesday 04 April 23 04:56 BST (UK)
-
I believe that this photo to have been taken in Scotland. Would it be a photo of two people taken after a wedding. The man holding marriage license. ie husband and wife? could you please give me a date - era
-
I would suggest this is Edwardian, it could be a wedding photo.
Carol
-
It could be a wedding photo. Do I see a possible pregnancy?
I agree with Carol about the date. (add -bow tie might suggest later - into the early 1910s)
Gadget
-
Queen Victoria popularised white as the colour to wear at weddings and that dress looks black, which I would associate with funerals. I'm not an horticulturalist, but if those flowers are lilies, that would also suggest a funeral.
-
The setting looks like a photographer's studio ... would that be a normal setting for a wedding or a funeral ?
Also, he's doesn't appear to be wearing a ring but has a bright button badge in his lapel.
-
It looks like a church doorway to me, a modest town church, but I think it is a scene against a wall to suggest a nicer setting so probably a studio.
Do I see a carpet up steps?
White was not always worn, , many could only afford their best clothes.
My paternal grandmother wore a tweed dress with leg of mutton sleeves ,back in 1896, and it was a Church wedding and no pregnancy.
The bride does not look very young so perhaps a second marriage , but my grandmother was 30 when she married,born 1866.
Not all men wore/wear rings , my O,H didn’t .
It could be after a funeral , but then why a photo?
Hope you get more info.Viktoria.
-
Also, he's doesn't appear to be wearing a ring but has a bright button badge in his lapel.
I wouldn't expect to see a man wearing a wedding ring until fairly recent times. It certainly isn't something men of my generation would be likely to do.
However, a random thought: I wonder if the roll of paper in his hand and the badge signify that he has taken the pledge.
-
Why would she be carrying a flower??
Add - and he a scroll??
-
Why would she be carrying a flower??
Add - and he a scroll??
It was only a random thought, but I wondered if the scroll might be the pledge he had signed. Whether or not white flowers might be a symbol of temperance I cannot say. There were lots of different temperance movements and they are poorly documented.
-
Agree late Edwardian-early teens.
I don't think a wedding photo as even in the absence
of wedding attire most couples marked the moment with
corsages at least also I would expect her to be showing her wedding ring.
The scroll might indicate some sort of celebratory event which
has prompted a photo.
-
In my Maternal Grandparents wedding photo taken in 1906, neither are wearing or holding flowers and my Grandma isn't displaying her wedding ring.
Carol
-
In contrast with Treetotal's grandparents' marriage photograph, here are my grandparents married in 1908.
-
That's a lovely photo BB, my Grandparents were working class.
Carol
-
And mine - Wilfrid was a Tailor, his father was a Silk Dresser, and Maria's father was a Boot and Shoemaker. 1901 census shows Maria as a Tailoress, so that might have something to do with the wedding outfits. 8)
-
In my grandparents’photo my grandmother is standing whilst grandad sits!
Emancipation had not yet arrived!
Viktoria.
-
Convinced it is a Studio ... there is no Depth to the background - I suggest a Screen, look at the black line behind his feet and her dress.
cheers, Ian
PS. not sure what difference that makes anyway ...
-
Taking your point, Ian, about a studio photograph, I'm now very dubious about the wonderful bouquet my grandmother was holding :-\ It might not have been hers :'(
-
What you are seeing is a photographer's backdrop, according to a book I have read, some photographers had more than one backdrop to suit the occasion. You can clearly see the fold at the bottom where it meets the ground.
BB, the bouquet would have been her own, her husbands buttonhole also. Although photographers often had props, I doubt that flowers would have been provided.
Carol
-
What you are seeing is a photographer's backdrop, according to a book I have read, some photographers had more than one backdrop to suit the occasion. You can clearly see the fold at the bottom where it meets the ground.
BB, the bouquet would have been her own, her husbands buttonhole also. Although photographers often had props, I doubt that flowers would have been provided.
Carol
Funnily enough, I was part of a conversation about this at a local museum event today. Someone said her grandparents married in the 1920s and had studio photos taken which included a bridal bouquet of wax flowers which were a photographer's prop and were re-used.
-
thanks to all. Were do I begin. Yes I would agree with a Studio photo. There was no name etc on the bottom, of the photo. I don't think the flowers are Lilies. We have a time frame of 1901-1910.
You can't see a ring as the lady is wearing gloves.
-
What you are seeing is a photographer's backdrop, according to a book I have read, some photographers had more than one backdrop to suit the occasion. You can clearly see the fold at the bottom where it meets the ground.
BB, the bouquet would have been her own, her husbands buttonhole also. Although photographers often had props, I doubt that flowers would have been provided.
Carol
That's interesting, Info about 1920s studio props, but this is an Edwardian image, but could still n
Be the case if the ocassion warranted flowers.
Carol
Carol
Funnily enough, I was part of a conversation about this at a local museum event today. Someone said her grandparents married in the 1920s and had studio photos taken which included a bridal bouquet of wax flowers which were a photographer's prop and were re-used.
-
would this be possibly for a wedding in 1897 . I have two in that year, one at the being and the other at the end. both would have been in the very early 20's. It's just before the Edwardian era, and the people do look a bit older that that.
-
Do you have any births - late Edwardian to 1912 ish?
I still think that she could be pregnant.
-
Yes I do have a couple that married in 1897 with children all being born in 1900-1910, so this could well be them. thanks so much :)