approx date please - Jobling Family of Jarrow

[Gadget]

The closest that I can get from my own family photos is this - dated 1902-4

(We have an acquaintance up here by the name of Jobling. It was quite a large family)

[Gadget]

and this from same group pic ~

[Tickettyboo]

The closest that I can get from my own family photos is this - dated 1902-4

(We have an acquaintance up here by the name of Jobling. It was quite a large family)

Thanks Gadget.
There were a couple of Jobling- Foster families having children in the Jarrow/Shields area at that time (which isn't making this any easier!)

I am veering towards the opinion that the wee one between his Mum and Dad was Joseph Jobling (version 3, as there were two earlier children of that name born and died too soon) born 1899, married 1923, died 1932.
(The paternal Granda of these children was called Joseph which may explain the repeated attempts at the name)

He was on both the 1901 and 1911 census with his family.

Discussing this in here has helped me enormously, sometimes I can't see the wood for the trees and the replies about the possible date of the photo have helped me to review the records I have with a bit more focus if that makes sense.

My sincere thanks to everyone who took the time to help.

Back to my list of Jobling births registered in South Shields 1878-1911 to follow through on any with a MMN of Foster to see if they can be discounted as being one of the missing three 'Baby Joblings' who were said to have been born and died too  soon.

Should keep me occupied for a good while :-)

Boo

[japeflakes]

You have got dates so just a quick tidy:

Oh how kind of you ! Thank you japeflakes, that's very much appreciated :-)

(errm, do you have some special x ray vision setting that will let you see if there's a date on the back? <g>)
I looked from the back of the monitor but no luck, sorry :-(


Boo

[Tickettyboo]

I looked from the back of the monitor but no luck, sorry :-(

:-) thanks for trying!
Boo

[Treetotal]

Not sure why I changed my mind from the first date that I gave  I will be glad to get moved and unpacked and have my dating books to hand. I do remember though that the two and half inch men's collar was popular for only a short time around 1907-1911 give or take a year, but the collar is a bit more closed than shown in this photo I thought.
Carol

[Maid of Kent]

their daughter Susannah Bell was getting married in 1900 - Is this the last Family portrait before she marries? just a thought. Therefore before 1900 or the last Family portrait before she and her husband go to Canada in 1904, pity you cant see her 'ring' finger.

[Tickettyboo]

their daughter Susannah Bell was getting married in 1900 - Is this the last Family portrait before she marries? just a thought. Therefore before 1900 or the last Family portrait before she and her husband go to Canada in 1904, pity you cant see her 'ring' finger.

Thanks Maid of Kent, yes we have wondered if that was the case . Its certainly possible that it was prior to her wedding in 1900, especially now that my mind has been more focussed and I think that wee one is likely to be Joseph who was born in 1899.
He does look to be aged between 1 and 2, I have an (unconfirmed) d.o.b. of 20 Dec 1898 for him and his birth was registered in Q1 1899 and Susannah married on 1st Jan 1900.


Boo

[Tickettyboo]

I was really grateful for the help I got with dates for this photo, still am, but I have a supplementary question if you don't mind.

I am currently trying to compile a series of pages for the direct line of this side of my Grandsons' family and making a folder to go with the tree with pages for each person in the direct line and I am struggling to reconcile the family info I was given about who was who in the photo.

I've always been told that the young man at the front who is lounging is Ernest Jobling (1895-1970) and I am not so sure about that.

The boy on the far right, at the front, is not wearing a stiff collar like the older boys. He seems to have some sort of lacy? thing instead - a bit like the wee one who is being kept in place bu his Mam and Dad :-)

So, does that mean the boy on the right is younger than the others?

Sorry to take so long to come up with this, but I find that if I leave things alone for a while and go back to write them up I look more carefully at what I have. When I first find them the excitement often means I miss something that later looks obvious - plus of course, I'm not the brightest penny in the purse :-)

Thanks

Boo