Engagement? Wedding? Advice please (+tidy and colour if anyone has time)

[maccalenny]

hello
I have these three photos of my great-grandparents, Charles and Edith, taken in Birmingham between about 1907 - 1914. I have a few questions related to them.
1) Great-granny Edith is dressed similarly in all three - blouse and skirt- I thought dresses were still popular then. They were not well off, so might this reflect lack of money, or personal preference, or was it the fashion?
2)The first photo - can't make out a ring on Edith's finger. Was it socially acceptable to have photos taken with male friends? Or might it be an engagement picture?
3) 2nd photo - might this be  a wedding photo? She seems to have a ring on. Also, the hair do....I have several pictures of Edith around this time and later, and this is the only one with  the hair so 'big'. Could this be fashion again or a special 'do' for a wedding? Also Charles has a pale coloured suit. They got married in 1909.
4) 3rd photo - the one with the little girl, my auntie Bess, who was born in Feb 1910. just wondered if there might be any significance to the buttonhole that Charles is wearing - not a normal flower - looks like a thistle? Charles and Edith lost a child around this time, so I wondered if it could be connected.

[Milliepede]

I don't have the answers to your questions but must say he looks very dapper in the second photo so could well be wedding attire 

[maccalenny]

Thanks for your reply Millipede - he does look lovely doesn't he? Auntie Bess had annotated the back of some of the photos, and had written on this one how handsome her Dad looked.

[Ruskie]

The hair in the second photo has me curious - in the other two photos her hair looks quite tame, but the second one is quite wild. I am no expert but haven't seen a hairdo quite like that. It looks like the 'set' went wrong somehow.

Agree - Charles is quite a looker. 

Regarding the skirt/blouse combination, I think it is just an alternative to the dress, but you might be right about this being cheaper than a dress.

I'm sure one of the experts will know for sure.

[jim1]

OK let's start with pic. 2.
The hairstyle with the centre parting was a short lived creation from around 1910-12.
She has her left hand in a more prominent position than in pic. 1 showing a wedding ring.
He has his hand on the back of her chair, ok nothing strange about that but in 1910 this would have been off-limits to anyone but a very close relative or spouse.
So I would say taken shortly after marriage.
You'll also notice he has a vertical top pocket which was considered very stylish at the time.
Pic. 1 is earlier around 1905-10. She still has hip-padding which faded in popularity late decade.
Quite close together but there's no physical connection so unmarried at this time but as you say may be an engagement photo.
Pic. 3 as you can see is a few years later.The girl looks about 4 which should give you a date.

jim

[Treetotal]

Hi...If you want your photos restoring and colouring..it is advisable to scan them at a resolution of 300dpi in colour mode and post each one separately on individual threads. You can post a file size of up to 500kbs on here and the ones you have posted are very small at 40+ kbs.
Carol

[Ruskie]

Excellent rundown Jim (I have learned a lot).

Do you have any thoughts about why she would wear skirt and blouse rather than dress? It may not have been the case in the 1900s but I would have thought that a dress would have a more formal look and would especially have been more apt in the middle photo as Charles is so snappily dressed. I would have thought she would 'match' him better wearing a dress.

I am pleased that the middle hairstyle was short lived - it's not a good look. 

[saddles]

Hi...My contribution.

Carolyn 

[saddles]

Hi again...Another for you.

Carolyn