COMPLETED WITH THANKS Matching photos to date and restore wedding please

[JudithS]

Hi mate 

Since you have a copy,  please tell Jim if this was an actual photo sent..........

I believe this was a photograph copied from a restored photograph. Yes?    Not a postcard..........

Cheers Jud

[jim1]

I think on balance the 1st. one is 1900-05 & the 2nd. a bit later at 1905-10.On this occasion the man offers the better dating clue.His dress style looks early Edwardian.If it was a 1912 wedding I'd expect to see him dressed differently to this.
In the 2nd. she's wearing hip-padding popular from the 1890's & into the 1900's but I wouldn't expect to see this after 1912 when this would have to be if it was the 2nd. marriage.In addition her skirt would be shorter post 1912 & the "look" was a high waistline which practically all young women had & she doesn't have that.
So both photo's look pre 1910 to me.

jim

[JudithS]

Ouch, I am in shock, have been proved wrong with what I thought 

I need to process and please come back tomorrow at this time.............West Aust time night time for me, an oldie..............

Actually.......I can see it making sense........but have a photo of Maria's 'first' wedding, which I and RC thought beliveed to be 1903ish.   Please bear with me. Its important for our family to recognise the people in the photo............

I will post the alternative marriage of Maria for your comparison. Wow! 

[eregli_gene]

I'd steer clear of using the word "proof" here.

I'm not doubting the opinions about the clothing,  but if you previously had good reason
to believe that this was the second husband,   but now it looks like the first husband,
well you would need to think carefully before you consider that as definitively "proved".

[JudithS]

Thank you for your comment. The jury is still out.

One trusts due consideration of their lot in life is given, of pioneer farmers in mid West Aust., that fashion (or funds for it) would not have been a high priority.   

However, this is why we post here, to clear our preconcieved notions. Since we have never actually seen these people alive... have images and at times fragments only of possible names to go with them, we are happy to request unemotive reasons for the dates. 

The proof will be in the pudding.......

Cheers

[JudithS]

Jim. Second photo, probably second wedding 1910. The clothing put me off. More 1899- 1903. It is also hard to see. Photocopy.

BUT... Maria is younger perhaps in Fremantle photo (18)  In 1906, studio photo was possibly a 21st birthday. Makes sense. 

1912 photo, perhaps this one - means that is not the bride's mother Margaret (Left)  ( reason for the emotion - our great gran).

Possibly her twin sister Elizabeth standing in, as Margaret died in 1910 and Thomas, the father of the bride was not remarried. Mother of the groom, possibly. Photo etiquette? 

A quiet country wedding, of a family still in mourning, Elizabeth mother of 10 by this time may have just pulled out some 'old thing' to wear.

Think you nailed it Jim. Love to hear what you see here in this photo.

Thank you

[jim1]

I wouldn't agree that the older lady has thrown on any old thing for a wedding,she would be in her best day clothes.
The hats look a late decade style,earlier hats were large & sat on top of the head.
I suppose the ages of the husbands would be a good indication as in the 1st. photo the groom looks older than this chap.

jim

[JudithS]

First husband was 30, the 2nd 39 at the marriages.  1st husband worked outdoors, 2nd husband lived most of his life with TB. Not a lot in it, Jim.

[JudithS]

Well...against all odds, a picture pulled out of a box of family ‘don’t know’ photo copies has been unearthed. 

This looks to be the same man in the Fremantle Studio photo, which must have been the second marriage in 1912. (That hairline, eyebrows...)

The younger darker man must be the first husband (30). He was killed 5 days after his third child was born in 1910, this can’t be him in this pic. Maria is also too old here. (doesn't even look like her, but she was very ill here) 

So this is the second husband James with their three children. The baby was born 1922. Maria died 1925 and James 1926.

I think this sounds reasonable?