Blind or Deceased? Opinions Sought Please

[dawnsh]

Carol, interested as to why you think it wouldn't be acceptable today?

[majm]

I have been following this thread, and may I support the theory that this is a PM photo.   May I ask if others have thoughts as to if the boots of the little lass are actually 'on the carpet' .... I think her left ankle is in a different 'plane' from her right ankle ... I don't think her left boot is actually touching the carpet anywhere, and the 'gait' looks arranged rather than natural. 

May I also mention that although the photo is in b/w, the two dresses seem to be in different 'colours' from each other. 

May I also ask if there is perhaps a small thin object holding down the upper eyelid on each eye for the little lass?  Or has the lass been crying and crying and has 'swollen eyes' ?

My blind Uncle aged in his 90s strongly believes that 'blind' should NEVER EVER EVER have been 'downgraded' to 'visually impaired'      His wife feels the same about 'hearing impaired'.   She is wondering how old they have to be, to be allowed to say 'age impaired' 

JM

[groom]

Following on from Carol's post, I wonder if today we try and shield young children from the mention of death, whereas during earlier times it was more "a part of life." Not many children during the Victorian times grew up without experiencing the death of a sibling or close family member, and that death probably took place in the house rather than a hospital with the body remaining in the house until the funeral. Although this still happens today, it isn't the normal thing.

[Treetotal]

Following on from Carol's post, I wonder if today we try and shield young children from the mention of death, whereas during earlier times it was more "a part of life." Not many children during the Victorian times grew up without experiencing the death of a sibling or close family member, and that death probably took place in the house rather than a hospital with the body remaining in the house until the funeral. Although this still happens today, it isn't the normal thing.

Yes I think you're right Jan, hence my earlier comment...children's emotional welfare is given greater consideration today and it would be seen as too traumatic for small children in some sections of society today...I just remember my cousin looking like "A doll in a white box" and it stayed with me for a long time.

Carol

[cazza59]

For obvious reasons, I'm glad the moderators have seen fit to leave this thread open.  I'm sure I speak for all contributors when I say no offence or disrespect whatsoever was intended, but merely to inform and discuss a topic that while some may say is distasteful, was a part of history and cannot be denied.   I would also like to point out that I did warn people my link might be disturbing and the choice not to look was there.

Anyway, I think as everyone has said, this thread has been informative and we have even managed to bust a myth busting myth,     so thanks Carol for starting it in the first place.

Caroline

[groom]

I agree, Caz, I am also very pleased that the Moderators agreed with the majority that this topic was dealt with sympathetically and with respect. Because of the very nature of our hobby, we often come across subjects that are difficult for us to comprehend in this day and age - unmarried mothers being shut up in mental hospitals, the treatment of those returning from war with shell shock are just two that spring to mind. As long as each subject is treated carefully, I think that it is important that people become aware of how things were different in the past and that they are discussed.

[Treetotal]

Well said Caz and Jan...as researchers of Family history we are naturally curious about our ancestors and the society in which they lived and therefor have to deal with many aspects of their lives which, as Jan pointed out, frequently make uncomfortable reading, but at the same time, very interesting.

Aside from that, Josey pointed out that she thought the smaller child could be a boy, which could explain why the child is wearing boots...and as Malm pointed out, that child's dress is a darker shade.

Interesting comment from Caz too about Rigor Mortis relaxing at a later stage...that is something I wasn't aware of.

 I'm pleased that I posted it as so many people have added to the many aspects of infant death in the Victorian era which enhances our understanding.

Carol

[jaybelnz]

I agree with Cazza, it's been a very interesting thread!  And a new glimpse into history for some!

There were certainly more horrific and questionable things done in history, than the taking of post- mortem photographs!  To me it is a loving and respectful way to remember a loved family member, and still being done today, particularly with a stillborn child!

Not really too different than keeping someone's ashes in a prominent place in the home, as is done today!

A young seriously disabled child - that I used to teach - passed away aged about 14!  Her Mum has her ashes and her last photo on the mantlepiece in her home. That particular photo was taken just after she passed away, and her Mum is holding her! 

The ashes will eventually be buried with the Mum, who said she wants to hold her in her arms forever!!   So I certainly don't feel that taking photos of deceased people is horrific or even questionable for a family death.

[kiwihalfpint]

So I certainly don't feel that taking photos of deceased people is horrific or even questionable for a family death.

I agree JB, we have photos of family members kissing a deceased person good bye.


Cheers
KHP