Author Topic: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?  (Read 771 times)

Offline Peter V Crabb

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #9 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.
Crabb from Laurencekirk / Fordoun and Scurry from mid Essex

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 Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 22,101
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #10 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.  :)


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 Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,882
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #11 on: Tuesday 20 November 18 13:47 GMT (UK) »
Children?  ;D :P

Yes if it was a second marriage. Probably an unostentatious event.

Offline IgorStrav

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,452
  • Arthur Pay 1915-2002 "handsome bu**er"
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #12 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"

Pay, Kent. 
Barham, Kent. 
Cork(e), Kent. 
Cooley, Kent.
Barwell, Rutland/Northants/Greenwich.
Cotterill, Derbys.
Van Steenhoven/Steenhoven/Hoven, Belgium/East London.
Burton, East London.
Barlow, East London
Wayling, East London
Wade, Greenwich/Brightlingsea, Essex.

Offline Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,882
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #13 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.

Offline Gillg

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,271
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #14 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. 
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.

Online Mart 'n' Al

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,048
  • Martin H. Watson Gedmatch DNA Kit H062246
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #15 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
Gedmatch DNA Kit H062246.
FT-DNA Kit B388093

Names: Loughborough and Loughbrough, (London, Hull, Pirton and Hartlepool);
Watson, (Bedlington, Jarrow & Hartlepool);
Ballard & Glassop (E. London); 
Leggett (Corton, Scarborough, Hartlepool); 
Young & Wilson, (Hartlepool). 

I use GRAMPS v5.0 software.

Offline Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,882
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #16 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.

Online Jebber

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,734
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Who would be on a wedding photo generally from 1936?
« Reply #17 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.
CHOULES All ,  COKER Harwich Essex & Rochester Kent 
COLE Gt. Oakley, & Lt. Oakley, Essex.
DUNCAN Kent
EVERITT Colchester,  Dovercourt & Harwich Essex
GULLIVER/GULLOFER Fifehead Magdalen Dorset
HORSCROFT Kent.
KING Sturminster Newton, Dorset. MONK Odiham Ham.
SCOTT Wrabness, Essex
WILKINS Stour Provost, Dorset.
WICKHAM All in North Essex.
WICKHAM Medway Towns, Kent from 1880
WICKHAM, Ipswich, Suffolk.