Could a kind soul please help with a date if possible?

[cazza59]

Forgot to say, I would love to go back in time and find out why the parents split.  I suspect that it was because the baby, although the father's name was put on the birth certificate, may have not been his and the truth came out, as 1911 has the baby/child listed with the mother's maiden name and later on so does her marriage certificate.  The baby, her husband and son were all killed in the blitz of London when their house in Fulham was bombed.   

As mentioned, the parents of the four children were also not married in the first place and the younger boy may also be from a different father!

What a carry on!

Caz

[cazza59]

Aw Jim, you've just broken my heart!   

Why didn't I pick up on the dates myself when I read the bio. 

Back to the drawing board!

Many thanks to Em, China, Josey and Jim for your time!  As always, very much appreciated!

Caz

[cazza59]

One last grasp at straws, could this have been a reprint obtained in 1905 but photo originally taken in 1901ish? 

You have to give me an "A" for effort! 

[josey]

Definitely A* for lateral thinking 

It does say 'negatives kept'.....

[cazza59]

Exactly my point!    Although would the penciled negative number on the back indicate it was an original which would again torpedo my theory!

[josey]

No I'm sure the negative number would have used for reference for first prints or reprints.

[cazza59]

Sorry Josey, I'm confused (doesn't take much!  )  Are you saying that it's possible my photo is a reprint?

[jim1]

Reprints were usually on plain back cards.

[cazza59]

Noooooo...Jim you're crushing me! 

Okay, I know when to throw in the towel! 

Once again, thanks everyone! 
Caz