RootsChat.Com

General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Paulo Leeds on Tuesday 20 November 18 11:42 GMT (UK)

Title: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Paulo Leeds on Tuesday 20 November 18 11:42 GMT (UK)
Bride, Groom, Best Man, Bridesmaids...?

who else please? (generally speaking)
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: BumbleB on Tuesday 20 November 18 11:45 GMT (UK)
Parents.

Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: macwil on Tuesday 20 November 18 11:52 GMT (UK)
Children?  ;D :P
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Paulo Leeds on Tuesday 20 November 18 11:53 GMT (UK)
what about brother of bride or groom?
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: nanny jan on Tuesday 20 November 18 11:58 GMT (UK)
Grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins...…..got all those on some 1930s wedding photos.
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Gillg on Tuesday 20 November 18 11:58 GMT (UK)
In those days weddings were organised by the bride's parents, so there would be plenty of their friends and relatives at the wedding.  (My children both organised their own weddings, so there were more young folk there than older ones.  I think that's the way it goes nowadays.) 
How big is your photograph?  Apart from the immediate bridal party I would think all close relatives would be included. 
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Kiltpin on Tuesday 20 November 18 12:09 GMT (UK)
I would have thought that it would have come down to how much they could afford. If there was to be only one picture then it was all in. But if there were to be half a dozen, or more, then progressively more people would have been added in each shot.

Regards

Chas 
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Paulo Leeds on Tuesday 20 November 18 12:27 GMT (UK)
Brother of bride or groom generally not then?
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: nanny jan on Tuesday 20 November 18 12:32 GMT (UK)
Brother of bride or groom generally not then?


I've got some brothers on my 1930s photos......and sisters.
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Chilternbirder on Tuesday 20 November 18 12:41 GMT (UK)
I have wedding photos from that era with varying sizes of group from bride and groom only to the whole extended family. If it was professionally photographed then the groupings would be pretty much as now with one of the bride and groom, one with parents, best man and bridesmaids (maybe with siblings too or that as an additional picture) and then various extended family and friend groups.
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Ruskie on Tuesday 20 November 18 12:43 GMT (UK)
Brother of bride or groom generally not then?
u

I would say that siblings would attend the wedding, assuming they did not have a prior engagement or were able to travel to the event if they lived further afield. :)

I don't think who attended a wedding in the 30s would be vastly different from who would have attended in other decades, though I agree with Gillg that it is different today. In the 30s it may depend on who is organizing and who is paying for the wedding, how wealthy the family were/ social standing, if they had a large or small family,whereabouts in the world they lived,  social and political influences (such as wars) etc etc.

Would you like to elaborate, and maybe post your photo here if you would like any help or opinions.  :)

Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Maiden Stone on Tuesday 20 November 18 13:47 GMT (UK)
Children?  ;D :P

Yes if it was a second marriage. Probably an unostentatious event.
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: IgorStrav on Tuesday 20 November 18 14:16 GMT (UK)
In previous times, I think family would take precedence at weddings, over friends of the bride and groom

So, for each family taking each generation:
grandparents, granduncles, grandaunts (and their husbands/wives),
parents, aunts, uncles (and their husbands/wives)
siblings, cousins (and their husbands/wives)
nephews, nieces

After that, honorary uncles and aunts, and friends of the family.

In my experience, it was an occasion for the entire family to get together, driven by the parents of the bride and groom

It's often said that you only catch up with your (slightly) remoter relatives at funerals and weddings.

Of course, if you invite someone to a wedding, you'll be more likely to get a present from them - and when people were generally poorer, that was a significant factor.

Only more recently is it for the bride/groom themselves to make more of the decisions.  Previously, it was the parents of the bride who'd say - "we MUST have Auntie Betty and Uncle Fred"

Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Maiden Stone on Tuesday 20 November 18 14:21 GMT (UK)
I agree with Peter #9 and Ruskie #10 and everyone else.
My 1930's photos are weddings of a large working-class family. There are some studio photos for each wedding. These are of the main wedding party - bride & groom, parents, bridesmaids & best man ; some include grandparents, siblings and groomsmen (who may have been brothers/brothers-in-law/cousins/nephews/ friends).

People were missing from some of my photographs because they died before their time - fathers or elder brothers in WW1, parents and siblings from illness and accidents.
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Gillg on Wednesday 21 November 18 10:43 GMT (UK)
Are you able to post the photograph in question?  If not, how many persons are on it?  If, as suggested, this could have been a second marriage, it would more likely be a smaller affair without the usual bridal outfits, especially if it followed a divorce or one or other of the couple had been widowed. 
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Mart 'n' Al on Wednesday 21 November 18 11:15 GMT (UK)
Last month on holiday we wanted to visit a particular church. On arrival we discovered that a wedding was taking place. We spent 45 minutes in the churchyard waiting for the wedding to finish, sneaked in while the photographs were being taken, hoping that we wouldn't feature in any of them. We got inside and the vicar said that we should have come in anyway as a wedding is a public event.

The wedding of my parents was obviously a quiet affair judged by the few people in the photographs outside the church, but I have spent many years wondering who one of them is.

Martin
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Maiden Stone on Thursday 22 November 18 15:16 GMT (UK)
Last month on holiday we wanted to visit a particular church. On arrival we discovered that a wedding was taking place. We spent 45 minutes in the churchyard waiting for the wedding to finish, sneaked in while the photographs were being taken, hoping that we wouldn't feature in any of them. We got inside and the vicar said that we should have come in anyway as a wedding is a public event.

There were always extra people, mostly female parishioners, at our family weddings. They sat in the back or side pews.
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Jebber on Thursday 22 November 18 15:31 GMT (UK)
A wedding has to be open to the public, otherwise there would be no point in the part of the ceremony where objections can be made. The couple are hardly likely to invite possible objectors as guest.
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Claire64 on Saturday 24 November 18 13:38 GMT (UK)
This one of the Booker/Coleman marriage was taken in 1933.  It's different from all the others I have from the same time period - and I have hundreds! - which show bride/groom and parents only, and maybe bridesmaid/best man.  This one is really informal, and I have never seen a photograph with the vicar on it!  There is no formal order either, as in bride's parents on one side, groom's on the other.
The bride was a very distant relation by marriage, my nannan and her mum are on here but not my great grandad, which is where the connection comes in.  I can also recognise the bride's parents, and her brother. 
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Maiden Stone on Saturday 24 November 18 16:08 GMT (UK)
Are the 2 women either side of bride & groom the bridesmaids/matrons of honour?
I notice that a guest has brought a box camera  - on the ground at end of front row.
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Claire64 on Saturday 24 November 18 16:16 GMT (UK)
Are the 2 women either side of bride & groom the bridesmaids/matrons of honour?

Quite possibly - they do have the same dress on don't they

I notice that a guest has brought a box camera  - on the ground at end of front row.

Well spotted!!
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: jaybelnz on Saturday 24 November 18 23:42 GMT (UK)
Maybe it's just an informal photo, showing the wedding party, the vicar, and other guests or family??

I had photos taken with all my guests, the wedding party,  and the Miinister was also in the photo, as well as doing the deed, and has also attended the reception,!  Just a thought!  (The Vicar could have been a relative)!
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: mckha489 on Saturday 24 November 18 23:56 GMT (UK)
I have at least  five, possibly more, of this type of photograph from mostly the 1920s, but it’s become a tradition so we have later ones too when we confine them to family. Depending on numbers it might be bride and groom plus brides family, then b & g with grooms family in a separate photo.

Of the older ones Some are family only plus attendants and the vicar.
Some are everyone who was there.

And I’ve got one where I know who many of the guests are but have had to make an educated guess at who the bride and groom are.

In yours where was it taken and Do you know the name of the man extreme right back row?
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: suey on Sunday 25 November 18 09:20 GMT (UK)

Have you looked for a newspaper report of the marriage.  I’ve found some gems for some of mine. They list everyone who attended, what the bride and bridesmaids wore. The brides going away outfit and very often a list of the wedding presents.

I have to agree though that they are nearly all family, the odd close friend of the bride or groom.
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Gillg on Sunday 25 November 18 11:14 GMT (UK)
It's certainly an informal photo.  Only the "matrons of honour" are wearing hats.  My mother's bridesmaids in 1931 wore similar hats with long floral dresses. Very pretty.
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Ruskie on Sunday 25 November 18 11:24 GMT (UK)
Wonderful photo!

I wonder if the vicar is a relative - he looks a bit like the groom, as does the chap standing back left.
I don't think I'd like to be sitting on a bus or train next to the manspreading chap front left.  ;D
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Gadget on Sunday 25 November 18 11:40 GMT (UK)
I have a photo of my parents' wedding in the 1930s that includes all the guests - including the vicar.
This was part of a set.

The majority of the guests were family members, with the exception of a bridesmaid.

Gadget
Title: Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
Post by: Claire64 on Sunday 25 November 18 12:02 GMT (UK)
Paulo Leeds, I seem to have hijacked your thread with my own photo. Why not post the one you were asking about and we'll see if we can analyse it. My granddad's brother was on his wedding photo in the 30s, but I think because he was his best man.