Howard Family of Guildford, Surrey, England - Date help please!

[HawkerFamily]

We have this photo, which we think was taken in the 1870s. The gentleman sitting on the far left is William Howard, born 1829 in Lawford, Essex, UK. His wife Harriet Howard is on the far right. She was born 1826 in Guildford, Surrey, UK. Guildford is where the family lived most of their lives.

They had numerous children:

Lucy Howard 1848–1889
Emma Howard 1850–1923
Thomas Howard 1854–1913
Eliza Howard 1856–1867
Harry Howard 1858–1929
Sarah Ann Howard 1860–1915
George Howard 1863–1881
Alfred William Howard 1865–1881
Mary Louisa Howard 1867–1945
Alice Howard 1870–1958

Emma had an illegitimate daughter Clara in 1871. Lucy had a child in 1872. No other grandchildren were born before 1876.

We think the photo is outside the family home in Guildford. But whichever way we look at it we can't seem to tie in the apparent ages of the children with the photo. Of course, some might not be there. Some might be partners of the children or Harriet's family, or unrelated. But most of them do look like siblings.

The photo itself is a scan of one from a distant cousin. Unfortunately I don't know whether the original had a backing or anything useful, or if that itself was a copy.

Any opinions on the date and guesses of ages/relation to William and Harriet are welcome!

[jim1]

Hello & welcome.
Your thought is correct it's 1870's. Can't pin it down to any particular part of the decade without seeing the cardstock. However it's unusual to see such a large outside gathering at the beginning of the decade so possibly more towards the end.
Starting with the children .The girl on the left looks about 7/8, the boy 11/12 & the girl on the right 6/7. Then there's the baby about 6 months I should think.
The 2 women at the extremities are daughters.
The chubby faced lady at the front bears a striking resemblance to the man to the left so possibly a daughter & she looks a lot older than the others.
I think the baby will give you the closest date. I would look 1875-1880 for a birth in the family.

[DrDude45]

The photo itself is a scan of one from a distant cousin. Unfortunately I don't know whether the original had a backing or anything useful, or if that itself was a copy.

Any opinions on the date and guesses of ages/relation to William and Harriet are welcome!

It seems this scan might be a copy of a copy as there was a tape mark that had yellowed in the original, but appears in black and white & artifacted in the scan you provide.

I removed the tape damage and tweaked the photo so it's easier to see. Hope it helps.

[HawkerFamily]

Very many thanks to both of you – and didn't expect the restore - that's great!

Jim - I agree the older lady does have a particularly strong family likeness. If she were a daughter, she would have to be either Lucy or Emma. If we say e.g. 1876 for the photo this would make her either 28 or 26. She looks older to me but it's hard to tell. Lucy does have a baby in 1876 which would at least fit with the scenario. Assuming this date and the other guesses you make, it would mean the setup is something like:

Back: Sarah Ann? (16), George? (13), ? (maybe Lucy’s husband), Harry? (18), ? (no idea, Mary is only nine which is the only other daughter (~14)
Front: William (47), Alice? (6), Lucy/Emma (28/26), Alfred? (11), Lucy/Emma (28/26), Clara? (5), Harriet (50)

Do you think the lady holding the baby is a daughter or an in-law? Another possibility is that she is Charlotte Cox, the wife of Thomas - they married in 1875 and had a baby in 1876. That baby and the other one mentioned above are the only grandchildren born between 1872 and 1878. And only Thomas and Lucy had gotten married by 1876.

If the older relation sitting isn't a daughter, it could be William's younger sister. In particular he did have a sister who was a lifelong spinster. She was born in 1839 so would have been about 37 in 1876.

Really wish these people had written their names on the photo...!

[jim1]

You can say for certain the 2 women at the back are daughters but the one behind the father looks older than 16. 18/19 perhaps.
The one in the front next to the father doesn't appear to have a wedding ring. Did the father have a younger unmarried sister?
You said Lucy had a child in 1872. Did she have another in 1876 which you mention?
When did she marry?
Were there any children born 1877-80?
Out of the 3 men at the back there can only be one of them who is possibly a son & that is the one on the right who looks early-mid 20's so could be Thomas.
The other 2 might be husbands depending on when the daughters married.

[HawkerFamily]

Thanks Jim. Yes the age does seem a bit out for that lady.

William (the father) did have a younger sister Mary Ann who was unmarried and about 37 in 1876. Well spotted with the wedding ring, wouldn't have noticed that in a million years.

Lucy had children in 1872, 1876, 1878 and every couple of years after into the mid-1880s.
Thomas married Charlotte Cox in 1875 and had children in 1876, 1878 and others in the 1880s. I attach a photo of Charlotte in later life which now I look at her doesn't look dissimilar from the lady holding the baby...

The only other child in the 1870s was Emma's in 1879 after she married in 1878. All the other children were unmarried in the 1870s.

Potentially the gentleman at the back in the middle could be Lucy's husband as to me he looks the least like the family as you suggest. I wasn't sure about the man on the left of him.

I do feel with your help the mystery is at least starting to unravel!

[jim1]

If this was c. 1876 this could be a possible lineup.

[HawkerFamily]

I agree with all of those as a potential setup. Except the daughter top left. Eliza died in 1867. I do think though it's likely that those are Thomas + Charlotte + one of their kids as a baby as you suggest, and that the lady bottom left is William's unmarried sister.

Whichever way I look at it I can't seem to think of a combination of remaining daughters that works with everyone in the photo. I think it's quite likely that Lucy and her family are absent entirely though, perhaps Emma and her family too. Assuming that, then that only leaves Sarah Ann aged about 16, Mary aged about 9 and Alice aged about 6.

If the photo is actually later, like 1881 say, then perhaps Sarah Ann at 21 (top left), Mary at 14 (top right) and Alice at 11 (bottom left) might work, but it seems a little out.

I did wonder if more of the younger children are Thomas and Charlotte's. But those children are Alice 1876, Ellen 1877 and Ralph 1882 so the male/female mix doesn't quite work again if the baby is one of their later children I don't think.

I do have one final photo that might help. This is of Mary Howard - the daughter - in 1885 when she was 18.

[jim1]

Hadn't spotted that Eliza had died.
So maybe 3-Lucy & 4-Emma.
What year did Lucy marry?
Was the child she had in 1872 a boy or girl?