Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20
  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pejay View Post
    I think about 1880. The style of dress,neck ruff and hair all seem to point to approx within that time frame.
    Hi pejay

    Many thanks for your response.

    I think you may be right there I've had a another look online and have finally found a dress with similar embellishment on the front, along with the neck ruff I'm not so sure about the hair-style though, as it seems to be a bit severe for that decade. That said, it could well be influenced by her Methodist upbringing and the harsh environment of Alston Moor (the northern end of the Pennines) where she was the wife of a farmer.

  2. #12

    Default

    Have a look at THIS photo on my website. It was taken by a photographer known to be in business over the 1871-1881 censuses in Berwickshire, so not far over the Border from your lady. The women with children clutching at their skirts (and thus likely a similar young married age group) are mostly wearing their hair tight to their heads and at least 2 of them have some ornamentation on their dresses (which might, of course, have been dark colours, not necessarily black). Of course they'd have dressed in their best for the photographer.
    They were a little lower down the social scale than your farm bailiff's wife, but not much.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesley Robertson View Post
    Have a look at THIS photo on my website. It was taken by a photographer known to be in business over the 1871-1881 censuses in Berwickshire, so not far over the Border from your lady. The women with children clutching at their skirts (and thus likely a similar young married age group) are mostly wearing their hair tight to their heads and at least 2 of them have some ornamentation on their dresses (which might, of course, have been dark colours, not necessarily black). Of course they'd have dressed in their best for the photographer.
    They were a little lower down the social scale than your farm bailiff's wife, but not much.
    Thanks for taking the time with this Lesley and for the additional information very helpful. I think that the early 1880s is probably the best fit for the available evidence.

  4. #14
    Reputation beyond repute
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    16,649

    Default

    She married in 1873 and her first child was born in 1874.
    I'm sticking with what I said before. If the photo was taken after the first child had been born, the child would have surely have been included in the photo. Therefore it was taken in 1873 or 1874.

  5. #15

    Default

    Which fits the timeframe outlined in my post. I agree with you.

  6. #16

    Default

    Thanks Peter and Lesley

    I'll mark it down to 1874 the early months of her marriage.

  7. #17

    Default

    Don't forget the magic word "about"!

    I have wondered (but it's just speculation) about that dress. In those days, in agricultural communities and Scotland and the Borders, the dress that would serve a newly married woman as her Sunday best for years to come would frequently start life as her wedding dress.... you haven't got a similar picture of a well-scrubbed young man, have you?

    Enough of speculation, it's fun but it's also one of those dangerous irregular verbs - I'm speculating, you're believing and he's noted it as a fact!

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lesley Robertson View Post
    Don't forget the magic word "about"!

    I have wondered (but it's just speculation) about that dress. In those days, in agricultural communities and Scotland and the Borders, the dress that would serve a newly married woman as her Sunday best for years to come would frequently start life as her wedding dress.... you haven't got a similar picture of a well-scrubbed young man, have you?

    Enough of speculation, it's fun but it's also one of those dangerous irregular verbs - I'm speculating, you're believing and he's noted it as a fact!

    Hi Lesley

    Good point about the re-use of wedding dresses not one that I'd considered. The only photograph I have of her husband is one taken several decades later bearded and certainly not looking well-scrubbed!

    I made a mistake in my last post and I'm going for exactly 1873 (not 1874), the year she married, because ... in the photo showing her upper body only, she's making a contrived display of her wedding ring her left arm isn't folded naturally behind or onto her right arm, but is positioned to ensure that the ring is very visible so something to be celebrated and permanently recorded. In the three-quarter length photograph, again it's her wedding hand and ring that are on display, with her right hand tucked behind her. Of course, she could've had a disfigured right hand and was hiding it in both photos! Her face doesn't show any of the lines of age or stress despite the limitations of displaying such fine detail in the photographs which ties-in with her age when she married 21 years 10 months although it could be (well, probably is) my desire to fix a year exactly.

  9. #19
    A fountain of knowledge
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Essendon, Victoria, Australia
    Posts
    407

    Default

    You should go back to an earlier prediction of early 1880s. In the 1870s women's hair was very elaborate and even women in the provinces could copy pictures from newspapers. They tended to wear it high on the head. In the 1880s the hair was worn at the nape of the neck, and plain in front. By the 1890s they were starting to frizz their hair at the front. You must not forget that women wore corsets back in the day, so a flat stomach could be achieved. The ruff around the neck was worn in the 1880s, and that shirring, or gathering of the decorative fabric was generally popular in 1881-82. I don't think it was compulsory for women with children to have their children in the photo. There may well have been other photos of the children taken at the time.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lenore View Post
    You should go back to an earlier prediction of early 1880s. In the 1870s women's hair was very elaborate and even women in the provinces could copy pictures from newspapers. They tended to wear it high on the head. In the 1880s the hair was worn at the nape of the neck, and plain in front. By the 1890s they were starting to frizz their hair at the front. You must not forget that women wore corsets back in the day, so a flat stomach could be achieved. The ruff around the neck was worn in the 1880s, and that shirring, or gathering of the decorative fabric was generally popular in 1881-82. I don't think it was compulsory for women with children to have their children in the photo. There may well have been other photos of the children taken at the time.
    Hi Lenore

    Thank-you for your thoughts your comments about the fashion of the early-1880s for shirring and hair-styles was helpful. Apologies for the lateness of my acknowledgement.

    Russell

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: