Author Topic: great grandmother and great great grandmother Rangeley circa 1900?  (Read 2819 times)

Offline Isabel H

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,455
    • View Profile
Re: great grandmother and great great grandmother Rangeley circa 1900?
« Reply #18 on: Friday 17 November 17 09:53 GMT (UK) »
 The child's clothing is similar to samples sewn by my mother at Domestic Science College in the 1930s, making it likely that the child is your grandmother.

Bear in mind that even although the album is dated 1901, the photos in it might not all be from that date. I have old albums where photos that are clearly older/newer have been inserted; maybe to fill a gap or replace a picture the current owner didn't like, or as a safe place to keep a valued photo.  Can you remove it to see the back, or is it pasted in?

GRAY - Inveresk; Lanarkshire
LINDSAY - Lanarkshire
PURDIE - Lanarkshire; W. Lothian
POZZI - Elgin; Lancashire
MACKENZIE, MORISON - Isle of Lewis
ARCHIBALD, HAY, HUNTER, SNADDON - Clackmannanshire
COXON, HALL, JACKSON, SHOTTON - Northumberland

Offline Lookingbacktofront

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 41
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: great grandmother and great great grandmother Rangeley circa 1900?
« Reply #19 on: Friday 17 November 17 14:25 GMT (UK) »
Unfortunately this time they have got it wrong

Offline Gadget

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 57,131
    • View Profile
Census &  BMD information Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk and GROS - www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk

***Restorers - Please do not use my restores without my permission. Thanks***

Offline Treetotal

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 28,445
    • View Profile
Re: great grandmother and great great grandmother Rangeley circa 1900?
« Reply #21 on: Friday 17 November 17 18:36 GMT (UK) »
I know that it must be hard for you to accept that the date doesn't match who you think are in the photo but the facts do not support your theory. We are not ganging up on you but want to steer you in the right direction.
I believe your photo is a postcard photo and the "White Border" era covers the years 1915-1930 or so.
Take a look at my photo dated c.1904....look at the shoes and the overall look and tone of the photo is typical of the Edwardian period and very different in style and look to yours.

Carol
CAPES Hull. KIRK  Leeds, Hull. JONES  Wales,  Lancashire. CARROLL Ireland, Lancashire, U.S.A. BROUGHTON Leicester, Goole, Hull BORRILL  Lincolnshire, Durham, Hull. GROOM  Wishbech, Hull. ANTHONY St. John's Nfld. BUCKNALL Lincolnshire, Hull. BUTT Harbour Grace, Newfoundland. PARSONS  Western Bay, Newfoundland. MONAGHAN  Ireland, U.S.A. PERRY Cheshire, Liverpool.
 
RESTORERS:PLEASE DO NOT USE MY RESTORES WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION - THANK YOU


Offline Trishanne

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,247
    • View Profile
Re: great grandmother and great great grandmother Rangeley circa 1900?
« Reply #22 on: Friday 17 November 17 20:41 GMT (UK) »
I have to agree with the majority on here and we realise it is not what you want to hear, but the photo is totally wrong for 1900. That date is in the Victorian era, closely followed by the Edwardian era. If you search Google images putting Victorian and Edwardian fashion into the search places, you will see many examples of the fashion of the period. If you then search for the 1920s period you will see how the hairstyles and fashion have dramatically changed and are more like your photo.
Can I ask how you think this is a photo of your gt gt grandmother and gt grandmother, did somebody tell you?  If so I think you will find they are very much mistaken.
My mother was born in 1901 and when she married in 1929 she wore the type of clothes and hairstyle as shown in your photo.
Pat
Bownass - Lancashire & Westmorland
Hoggarth - Lancashire & Westmorland
Jackson- Lancaster
Waller - Dent, Yorkshire dales
Omerod - Lancashire
Redburn - Lancashire
Evans - Hereford

RESTORERS please do not use my restores without my permission THANK YOU

Offline McGroger

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,724
  • Convicts, Commoners and Outlaws
    • View Profile
Re: great grandmother and great great grandmother Rangeley circa 1900?
« Reply #23 on: Saturday 18 November 17 02:23 GMT (UK) »
Hi, Luke,

I wonder if the original of the image I’ve reproduced below was the very one your ancestor might have looked at before choosing her outfit. They were called “Garconne” (i.e. “boyish”) and I think the idea must have been for a woman’s silhouette to resemble a test tube instead of an hour glass ;D.

I thought I’d have a go at restoring your lovely picture as well, but after working on it for a couple of hours I found that in addition to the work by restorers this week there were also all the restores done when you originally posted it last year. Here: http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=745393.msg5925228#msg5925228

I thought I wouldn't send mine because it couldn't add much to all the great jobs already done. Then I thought, "bugger it, for something different, I'll send it as a painting".

One thing I did notice while working on it (probably a red herring but I thought I’d mention it just in case): My first impression was that the child was a boy, about 2 year-old (believe me, I have 7 grandchildren under 10 ;)). While little boys back then weren’t put into shorts until toilet trained, there were often other clues to their gender, like slightly shorter hair, with no ribbons, and toy trains instead of dolls. One other small thing that some families did was to part boys’ hair on the left and girls' on the right. This isn’t really much of a clue except that in this picture it stands out because the mother’s hair is parted on the right and the child’s on the left.

Anyway, as I said, lovely photo, and I hope it all gets sorted out.

Cheers, Peter.
Convicts: COSIER (1791); LEADBEATER (1791); SINGLETON (& PARKINSON) (1792); STROUD (1793); BARNES (aka SYDNEY) (1800); DAVIS (1804); CLARK (1806); TYLER (1810); COWEN (1818); ADAMS[ON] (1821); SMITH (1827); WHYBURN (1827); HARBORNE (1828).
Commoners: DOUGAN (1844); FORD (1849); JOHNSTON (1850); BEATTIE (& LONG) (1856); BRICKLEY (1883).
Outlaws: MCGREGOR (1883) & ass. clans, Glasgow, Glenquaich, Glenalmond and Glengyle.

Offline Handypandy

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,581
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: great grandmother and great great grandmother Rangeley circa 1900?
« Reply #24 on: Saturday 18 November 17 06:10 GMT (UK) »


One thing I did notice while working on it (probably a red herring but I thought I’d mention it just in case): My first impression was that the child was a boy, about 2 year-old (believe me, I have 7 grandchildren under 10 ;)). While little boys back then weren’t put into shorts until toilet trained, there were often other clues to their gender, like slightly shorter hair, with no ribbons, and toy trains instead of dolls. One other small thing that some families did was to part boys’ hair on the left and girls' on the right. This isn’t really much of a clue except that in this picture it stands out because the mother’s hair is parted on the right and the child’s on the left.

Cheers, Peter.

Interesting, as this possibility occurred to me too.