COMPLETED WITH THANKS Matching photos to date and restore wedding please

[jim1]

This is from the same period as the others,certainly not 1920's.

jim

[JudithS]

OH, Jim, this is so confusing........could that baby in the last pic be a few days old? Thought I had it sorted. 

I understand what you are saying. It is obviously the same people as one of the photos but not the one I think. Appreciate your skills and patience.   

Ok the facts of the first husband. Marriage 1903. Children: Norman Thomas 1904: Elizabeth Kathleen 1908: Maria Jo 11 May 1910.

Father William  killed  15 May 1910 ( Have Inquest )

Maria's 2nd Marriage 1912. James: Children: John James 1913: Daisy Sophia 1915: Mary Ellen 1922.

Those arent the clothes of children of the later date, are they? Even in non fashionable mid WA in hard times.

We are here to learn.

Cheers
Jud

[jim1]

Could her husband have been married before?

jim

[JudithS]

Jim, not that we have found. Will re check the records. Have a tree on ancesty.com, and interested family on other sites.......but can see already something isnt right here...

This is like a family film saga, ( Days of our Lives...) only better.............

Dont go anywhere.....

PLEASE...............

[miagre1]

Hi Jud, 

Best regards George

[miagre1]

Must have missed this one,

[JudithS]

George,  these are wonderful. Very clear and truthful.

Love them! Thank you so much.     

Jud

[JudithS]

1909 or 1895

Jim, no previous marriages, but Ah Ha! ...between 1904 and 1908 there was a female child born in May 1906 of the first marriage; records of which had escaped me until today.    Thanks for that.

Photo 1909: Children Male 1904 (5), Female 1906 (3), Female 1908 (1).

Problem: Another researcher says the 3 x children photo is possibly another female member a generation back. The males are unrelated husbands. 

Photo: 1895: Parents born 1863. Children:  Male 1889 (6), Female 1891 (4), Female 1894 (1).

Sorry the picture is so bad to pick up detail, but the boy’s suit might help. Or a hand me down....

Enclosed outdoor snap of Maria (with Aussie sun tan) 1916 to compare age wise with lady in children photo. Very similar...

Thank you Jim - do appreciate your help 
Jud   

[jim1]

If the family photo was 1895 would mean the wedding photo would have to be mid-late 1880's which it isnt,not dressed like this & not on this cardstock.Unfortunately it's impossible to tell whether the youngest 2 are boys or girls,however the oldest is a boy aged 5/6 I would say & is dressed in a typical Edwardian style as demonstrated by the large lace mantle.The man has a 1 1/2" starched collar most popular from the 2nd. of the period.1908 looks about right in my view.

jim