Author Topic: victorian mourning photo? Louisa Ada Simkiss (Read 4040 times)

bradelkington · « **on:** Thursday 10 April 14 11:05 BST (UK) »

this is my second great grandmother 1873-1916 she seems to be holding a tissue maybe indicating its a mourning photo? she lost her father in tragic railway accident in 1889 does that seem to be too young for her as she would be 16 years old in that year?

Trishanne · « **Reply #1 on:** Thursday 10 April 14 11:29 BST (UK) »

I have done a quick clean up for you. I would say this lady is older than 16 years.
Pat

bradelkington · « **Reply #2 on:** Thursday 10 April 14 11:43 BST (UK) »

Wow thanks looks wonderful thanks for that. She had 18 children throughout her life and lost a few in 1890s I wonder if it's for one of her children

Wiggy · « **Reply #3 on:** Thursday 10 April 14 11:52 BST (UK) »

Doesn't look like a mourning photo to me! Also think it may be early 1900s - I think she has her hair up and in a net/restraint.

She is wearing an apron. $:-\$ Or does the apron have a similar piece at the back and is part of the dress.

The dress is very simple

She died at 43 having had 18 children $:-\$ - - - Wow - she was busy - it hardly seems possible!!

Wiggy

jim1 · « **Reply #4 on:** Thursday 10 April 14 12:19 BST (UK) »

They didn't have tissues in the 1870's when this was taken. It's an embroidered handkerchief.

jim

Gadget · « **Reply #5 on:** Thursday 10 April 14 12:19 BST (UK) »

I may be very wrong but the apron effect suggests 1870s to me. Like Wiggy, I don't think it's mourning.

Snap, Jim - I was right then

jess5athome · « **Reply #6 on:** Thursday 10 April 14 12:21 BST (UK) »

Hi, I remember seeing a similar photograph on another thread but I think it was a much older lady, it was mentioned about a possible connection with the empty chair she was standing beside and if it was in respect of someone who had died and the chair had some kind of significance to them.
So it may well be a mourning photograph $:-\$

I'm rambling on again...................

Regards.
Frank.

Wiggy · « **Reply #7 on:** Thursday 10 April 14 12:25 BST (UK) »

Ah well - way out with dates - but right about not being mourning!

- and also right about feeling it may not be the lady you think it is Bradelkington.

bradelkington · « **Reply #8 on:** Thursday 10 April 14 13:01 BST (UK) »

It's defiantly my second great nan born 1873 so it can't be 1870s? She looks at least 18 so 1890s onwards. Her dad was run over and killed my a train in 1889 she married the same year and had 18 children and died in 1916, hard to date it through as it's difficult to guess her age

RootsChat.Com