Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - action49

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 6
1
I think you need to be careful here & not to try and hammer this in to someone you would like it to be.
What you've said contradicts what everyone is saying to you in that this is a girl around 15.
Women of all classes managed their hair into the fashionable style of the day without any problem.

Of course! You guys are the experts. It would have been lovely - I think I have very dim memories of my mum telling me it was Sarah but mum was renowned for scattering red herrings everywhere and I stopped taking her word as gospel a long time ago! Will go back to looking for a girl who was around 15 in the 70s (I thought I saw the choker there too) and who died young (perhaps - or it was just a favourite photograph)

Lots to think about! Thank you all for your insights!

2
Some excellent thoughts there. The locket is Jet (they lived close enough to Whitby and there was quite a bit of jet in my nannaís house - itís very shiny on the outside and stiff as can be to open up.  I canít get the picture out unfortunately and thereís nothing on the other side space.

I naturally thought she was sitting - my thought was it was a wedding pic and thatís what Iíve seen before with husbandís proprietorial hand on shoulder.  The hair kinda threw me because Ive not often see it down in pictures but it looks like she had an unmanageable amount of it so it may have been her pride and joy.  My other thought was that this would have been in a coal mining Durham village where maybe the niceties of style in society didnít apply but otoh it looks like she was well dolled up for the occasion, whatever it was.


3
Thanks Carol.  Back to the drawing board!

4
Good idea, Carol, but sadly I think araldite must have been used!

Just floating another possibility - would a 21 year old in 1882 be a better fit? Still not 15 but we all look young in our family (cough!!!)

5
Oh Pooh!  Back to the drawing board then I guess if you think it's after 1857. I suppose it didnt need to be a wedding photograph.

Thinking outside the box - would a better fit be a 17 year old being married in 1873?

When I was clearing out my mum's stuff I came across an in memoriam card in my grandmother's best handbag which had been in mum's drawer for over 40 years.  I knew the name on it - Tabitha Binks - but the date on the card was 1876, and my nanna wasnt born until 1897.  I did some sleuthing and found that the Tabitha Binks who was nanna's friend was named for her father's first wife Tabitha Rhodes who had died age  22.  Now, I wonder whether this may have been her instead.  Though why my nanna would have a mourning locket of someone who wasnt related is a bit of a conundrum - equally, I have no idea why she would have kept the in memoriam card of someone unrelated who had died more than 20 years before she was born.

Looks like I might never know!

6
Thanks guys!   Her maiden name was Sarah Bridge born 1834 in Hetton le Hole, Durham, married John Swinburn at 22/23 in 1857 and died in 1862 age 28 of scarlet fever.  I was thinking, given the arm across her shoulder that this would have been a wedding picture.  She does look very young but 23 could have been possible.  I cant see anyone else who would fit the bill in the family I have got on that side.  It's definitely a mourning locket because it's big and black.  I really had no idea whether people were having wedding photographs done in the late 1850s!

7
Yesterday I very excitedly found this very poor photo in a mourning locket.

Looking at all the possible ladies it could be, I have a lady who died in 1862 - she was very young when she died, do you think this could possibly have been her?  Sarah Bridge from Durham
I couldnt get a great picture of it because it is woefully small.

8
Durham / Re: William Hawkey 1841
« on: Sunday 23 December 18 19:02 GMT (UK)  »
Update : marriage certificate has arrived

William Hawkey (labourer) - Park House
Father is John Hawkey (labourer)

Mary Whitehead - Crook
Father is Robert Whitehead (mason)

(John and Robert I knew it ☺)

I've found John and wife Margaret 😉 in 1841, 1851, 1861 Slaley, Northumberland

William is my 3gt grandfather. I havenít found him on the 1841 census either!

Father John Hawkey, mother Margaret Cook. They married Tynemouth 1823 - he was a widower at that stage but I canít find first marriage. They are in 1841 census in Slaley where he was a hawker of wares. John was the posthumous son of Thomas Hawkey, a keelman, and Mary Foster.

Mary Whitehead is the daughter Of Robert Whitehead and Margaret Taylor.

My ancestor is William and Maryís daughter Mary who married Robert Wood producing my gt grandmother Margaret Ann Wood.

Sorry Iíve only just seen this I could have saved you the cost of the mc!

9
Northumberland / Re: Oh dear! A Smith conundrum (solved, thank you!)
« on: Tuesday 08 August 17 05:52 BST (UK)  »
Trini, you are an absolute star! Thank you so much!!! So, it was dad Thomas after all!

Cheers
Angela

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 6