Author Topic: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?  (Read 764 times)

Offline Paulo Leeds

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« on: Tuesday 20 November 18 11:42 GMT (UK) »
Bride, Groom, Best Man, Bridesmaids...?

who else please? (generally speaking)

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline BumbleB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,474
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #1 on: Tuesday 20 November 18 11:45 GMT (UK) »
Parents.

Transcriptions and NBI are merely finding aids.  They are NOT a substitute for original record entries.
Remember - "They'll be found when they want to be found" !!!
Archbell - anywhere, any date
Kendall - WRY
Milner - WRY
Appleyard - WRY

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline macwil

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 245
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #2 on: Tuesday 20 November 18 11:52 GMT (UK) »
Children?  ;D :P
Active links are now (after 13/04/2018) indicated by bold red italics. Just click on them.
The only stupid question is the one not asked

WILSON; Lancs, Lanrks.
BERRY; Lancs.
BORASTON; Salop, Worcs,
TYLER; Salop, Herefords.

Offline Paulo Leeds

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #3 on: Tuesday 20 November 18 11:53 GMT (UK) »
what about brother of bride or groom?

Offline nanny jan

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 12,890
  • Russian John
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #4 on: Tuesday 20 November 18 11:58 GMT (UK) »
Grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins.....got all those on some 1930s wedding photos.
Howard , Viney , Kingsman, Pain/e, Rainer/ Rayner, Barham, George, Wakeling (Catherine), Vicary (Frederick)   all LDN area/suburbs  Ottley/ MDX,
Henman/ KNT   Gandy/LDN before 1830  Burgess/LDN
Barham/SFK   Rainer/CAN (Toronto) Gillians/CAN  Sturgeon/CAN (Vancouver)
Bailey/LDN Page/KNT   Paling/WA (var)



All census look-ups are crown copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Gillg

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,271
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #5 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. 
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

FAIREY/FAIRY/FAREY/FEARY, LAWSON, CHURCH, BENSON, HALSTEAD from Easton, Ellington, Eynesbury, Gt Catworth, Huntingdon, Spaldwick, Hunts;  Burnley, Lancs;  New Zealand, Australia & US.

HURST, BOLTON,  BUTTERWORTH, ADAMSON, WILD, MCIVOR from Milnrow, Newhey, Oldham & Rochdale, Lancs.

Offline Kiltpin

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 277
  • Stand and be Counted
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #6 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 
Whannell - Eaton - Jackson
India - Scotland - Australia

Offline Paulo Leeds

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #7 on: Tuesday 20 November 18 12:27 GMT (UK) »
Brother of bride or groom generally not then?

Offline nanny jan

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 12,890
  • Russian John
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #8 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.
Howard , Viney , Kingsman, Pain/e, Rainer/ Rayner, Barham, George, Wakeling (Catherine), Vicary (Frederick)   all LDN area/suburbs  Ottley/ MDX,
Henman/ KNT   Gandy/LDN before 1830  Burgess/LDN
Barham/SFK   Rainer/CAN (Toronto) Gillians/CAN  Sturgeon/CAN (Vancouver)
Bailey/LDN Page/KNT   Paling/WA (var)



All census look-ups are crown copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk