RootsChat.Com

I should add to the above that Lucy was living in London whereas Thomas was down the road in Guildford so I do think you are probably right that the baby is Thomas’s.

Another thought... Emma married in 1877 so I guess it’s possible that one of the identified men could be her husband or fiancé. They married in Sussex and lived there though, so as with Lucy distance may be a factor.

Finally, do you think it’s possible that the daughter top left could be ten years older than the daughter top right? If so Emma and Sarah could finish the puzzle with all the others as per your numbered photo.

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.

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...!