RootsChat.Com

Thank you again for this valuable information, Jim. I have attached the complete portrait as it hangs on our wall- not that his coat offers any clues, I imagine! Because it came from the house of Margaret Bourke, and she lost her eldest son, John, at the age of 19 in 1890, I always wondered if it was him. She lost six children in six years, aged between 19 and one week. I have photographs of the three children who survived to adulthood, and this young man is definitely not one of them. This identification caper really is a matter of gathering as many facts as possible, making an educated guess, and always starting your conversations about the portrait with "This is most likely..." rather than "This is...".  Many thanks for your assistance. Jen

Thank you so much for your brilliant help! I have for years been talking to her as 'Judith', and introducing her to people as Judith, but suddenly a nagging doubt hit me a few weeks ago that I had never actually verified that it was Judith and not Margaret. Many, many thanks!

Thank you all so very much for your input and sharing your knowledge. I have had this photo for many years, and had never even entertained the idea of it perhaps being taken after Hannah's death until a cousin recently made a comment about it having similar traits to momento mori photographs that she had seen. The more I have analysed it, the more unsure I became, which is why I came here for some expert advice.
  Hannah's daughters Jessie McCallum and Bertha Hughan left Melbourne for England in 1858 and did not return to Victoria until January 1861. Hannah, according to her death certificate, had been suffering from cancer for twelve months prior to her death on March 14, 1860. I have not located any other photographs of Hannah, which may explain how important it was to the family to take her to a photographic studio even though she was extremely ill.
  I had always hesitated to positively identify the subject in this photo as being Hannah, despite other factors suggesting that it was her, because of the photographer Davies & Co not being at the address on the back of the photo until just after Hannah's death. It was only when I realised that later copies of existing photos were readily made by these studios for distribution amongst family and friends that I was able to accept that it was Hannah Oakley Hughan. The album in which this photo was found has many photos taken by Davies & Co...there are photos of Hannah's McCallum grandchildren taken at Davies & Co just after they arrived back in Australia in 1861, with the same balustrade as seen in Hannah's photograph, but different carpet. Dr Dude....thank you so much for noticing the reversal of the photo and remedying the situation-I would never have noticed in a million years! Would this reversal indicate that the photo is a copy, or would an original also be in reverse?
  I thank you all for your wonderful assistance yet again-this is such a brilliant place to come when one is all researched-out!

This image was found with other photos in photographer Allan Hughan's collection. The ships are identified in the bottom right hand corner as being the Gazelle and Surcouf. Please let me know if you would like a copy of the image in a higher resolution. Cheers, Jen

I was wondering if anyone had any experience with missing people from Wapping Street, Wapping St John, in the 1841 census? I can't locate any of the families who lived in Wapping Street between Globe Street and Church Street, most particularly the Orton family who lived at 69 Wapping. I have gone through enumeration districts 10, 11 and 12 numerous times with no luck, and when the Ortons were impossible to locate I tried looking for their neighbours from the 1841 London Post Office Directory...no luck there either. If anyone could advise me whether this part of the census return is missing, I at least could stop this incessant wondering and searching! Many thanks, Jen