Can someone please date this lady and baby for me? COMPLETED - THANKS EVERYBODY

[forthefamily]

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 

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

[maidmarianoops]

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. 

[Maggie.]

Thanks for the interesting photos and the link, Sylvia, and your observations, mab - all opinions most welcome 

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. 

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

[PrueM]

Hi folks,

Maggie, I'm pretty sure you meant that the three children of Edward Rosthorn were born 1875, 1877 and 1882   

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

[Maggie.]

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

[PaulaToo]

Hairstyle 1872....

[Fue]

 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

[Maggie.]

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

[toni*]

oh Maggie that is a very sad story, perhaps the baby wasnt farmed out but perhaps she was a wet nurse or the like?