Query on old family pic.

[Orlaith17]

Really hoping someone might be able to help here. Unfortunately I can't see a way to put the image here, as it's a Jpeg file, not a url. I have a copy of an old family photo of my grandparents taken around 1923. My grandmother was a widow with a son when she met granddad. He was a widower with 3 sons. The photo I have shows my grandparents with their first child they had together, and my granddad's 3 sons from his first marriage. There is also another child in the photo. The relative who owns the pic says that child is a girl, with same surname as my grandparents. I know my granddad didn't have a daughter before he married gran, just the three sons. He also didn't have a brother, so it is not a niece. I feel this apparent "girl" looks rather boyish. The clothing is like a smock rather than a dress. It also seems odd to me that though this is a clearly a proper family portrait, my gran's son from first marriage is missing. I have a theory that the "girl" might be him, and there has been some confusion somewhere over the name. I have hunted in Scotland's People for a female child of that surname born around the time I would estimate this child's birth to me, but no records. Anyone have any theories on what might be happening in this pic? If anyone could tell me how to put the image here, I'm happy to post it. I posted a pic here before but as an attachment. I can't see a way to do that now.

[StewL]

viewtopic.php?f=60&t=6496&p=47399&hilit ... res#p47399
I hope this helps you with posting a picture, just follow the link

[arthurk]

Hope you'll be able to upload the photo, as it sounds interesting.

Meanwhile, this Wikipedia article on breeching might be of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_%28boys%29

Boys used to be dressed in what we would now term girls' clothes until they reached a certain age, though the 1920s sounds possibly a little late for this. There are books and online guides to dating photos based on styles of clothing, as well as knowledgeable folk here. I don't class myself as an expert, but you've whetted my appetite...

Arthur

[Wee Ann]

I do believe I once saw a photograph of my father, (born in 1916), before he was 'breeched', and asked (as children do)" Why was Daddy wearing a frock?" His parents were older when he was born, (Granny was in her forties) so maybe it depended on how they felt about these things. I don't know what happened to that photo!

[Orlaith17]

Thanks all. I am just going to try to upload the photo.....sounds like a bit of a faff, but will try.

[Orlaith17]

All of the other children are definitely boys. The youngest child, one of my uncles, was born in July 1921, so I would think the pic may have been taken around 1922 as I would estimate him to be around a year old here. Any comments, observations or theories gratefully received.

[arthurk]

Thanks for uploading it - in some ways I'm even more intrigued now that I've seen it. Anyway, a couple of thoughts:

First, the boy who is third person from left appears to be younger than the child who is second right, yet he is clearly wearing boy's clothes. So if he had been breeched, why not the apparently older one? And the hair on the older one may be a bit long for a boy.

Second, I may be wrong, but are those "normal" girl's clothes that the one on the right is wearing? It looks to me a bit like a costume for some kind of pageant, though fashions changed, and make-do-and-mend might sometimes have led to slightly odd outfits.

You mentioned before that there was some confusion over names. Would you be happy to tell us who the family were, who the mother's older son was, and what is the nature of the confusion? Might the mother have had a daughter as well, perhaps registered under a different surname?

Arthur

[WilmaM]

That's a difficult one.

At first glance I would say girl - as the younger boy on the left is in a suit, while the 2 sitting on the left are not in trousers [yet?]
But then again, that collar could indicate a Sailor -type outfit on a boy, some sort of uniform perhaps
Another point is the hair-parting [ shed to a Scot] it's on the right - which is the girls side - the father's is on the left - male side.
But the hair looks as if it's either short [not usual for a girl in those times] or pinned up - indicating a more adult person.

I see what you mean about the features, they are quite heavy or masculine, in fact it looks more like an adult face on a child's body.
There is a distinct family resemblance between the other 3 children - which is missing in the 'mystery' one.

Sorry not an answer but maybe food for thought.

[Orlaith17]

Thanks for comments. Here are the details. The couple in the photo are my grandparents. Gran was married to her first husband in April 1914. She had a son, William, born in July 1915. She was widowed in 1918 when her husband died during the war. Grandad had married his first wife in January 1914. They had three children, Alex (October 1914) Thomas (September 1917) and Joseph (January 1920). Grandad's wife died in June 1920, when youngest child was just 5 months old. Gran and Grandad met when both were widowed, and they got married in December 1920, starting life together with four small boys. The first of their children together was the baby in this photo, born July 1921. So in the photo are granddad's 3 sons from first marriage, their first child together, and this mysterious "girl" according to a relative who had named the children in the photo. This girl was named as having granddad's surname, but I can find no birth records in Scotland for a girl of that name. Grandad wasn't married before he married his first wife. I checked that, in case this was a girl from an earlier marriage. He could have been, as he was 27 when he married his first wife. He also had no brothers so it's not a niece with same surname as him. And oddly, gran's son from her first marriage is apparently missing from this family portrait if it's not him named as the girl.

[arthurk]

Thanks - that's very helpful.

I would guess the photo would be from the first half of 1922, when Alex would have been 7+ and William approaching 7. The right hand child here looks to me older than that - maybe about 9? I certainly wouldn't have said he/she was younger than Alex, even allowing for them having different parents/backgrounds etc. Do you have any other photos of Alex and WIlliam to compare with this one?

Re earlier children: what I'd wondered was whether Gran (the mother here) had a daughter as well as William, possibly before her 1914 marriage. I don't know what the custom would have been in Scotland for stepchildren taking on a new surname, but I do know that formal legal adoption hadn't come in then. Is it possible that a daughter of your grandmother's could have been known by your grandfather's surname even though there was no suggestion that he was the father? (What name did William use?) Or could this be a child that they took in from an orphanage or similar?

Arthur