Victorian dress of children--girls in trousers??

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:01 am

Hi Malcolm & all
It is a wonderful photograph - thank you for sharing it with us.

Something puzzles me about the situation - if the older child had been a boy and they were very hard-up I could understand the younger child perhaps appearing in trousers if that was all there was as "Sunday best" but as there is an older sister you would have thought that there would have been at least one hand-me-down dress, even if nothing else, for a younger girl to wear. I agree there appears to be something "going on " with the hair, but what, I'm not sure.

As regards the order you think the children were born in, is there a possibility that there was another child who died (the wee boy/girl?), and Hannah is perhaps the baby, with the third not yet born?

Best wishes
Lesley

malcatgala · Post by **malcatgala** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:57 am

Thanks Lesley -- but I don't think there's a solution there I'm afraid. There are only 2 years between Janet(Jessie) and Hannah's births.

Probabably time for closure on this one.

Thanks everyone for your excellent comments and insights --including helpful spanners !

We're now persuaded from all the expertise that the photo is not as we thought, is not of the early Hodge family and not from the early 1860s.
Disappointing for us (and now leaves a possibly irresolvable mystery as to the identities of the photographed family)

However, have learned a lot about photographic dating, about maintaining a healthy degree of scepticism on family legends and about not being too vigorous with attempts to make things "fit"

A first class educational experience for novice genealogists!

Best wishes to all

Malcolm

ninatoo · Post by **ninatoo** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 11:17 am

Hi Malcolm,

Well not closure really, just put it on the backburner for now. But I do again encourage you to ask for someone to date it for you at Rootschat. They are remarkable accurate over there (compared to our guesses of about ten/fifteen years later than 1860). They can often tell you within five years of the date. And that may be very useful in the future for identification.
This estimate is very often backed up with comments about the fashions of the day (IE: Sleeves are very important clues to a date).
All the best,

Nina

PS: I know it can be disappointing finding out the photo isn't who you thought it was - it happened to me. But I got the photo dated at Rootschat and I am now quite confident about who is in the photo.

malcatgala · Post by **malcatgala** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 6:09 pm

Thanks Nina
Took your advice---Old Rowley on Rootschat thinks "My first thoughts on this study of a family group was that it was taken in the late 1860's perhaps 68/69 to before 1875, and the more that I look at it, the more I feel that this date would be about right" ...following which he gives a detailed and fascinating analysis.
Will now do some further census and other research on keeping this likely dating in mind.
Best wishes
Malcolm

ninatoo · Post by **ninatoo** » Mon Mar 12, 2007 8:47 pm

Hi Malcolm,

It was a pleasure.

Nina

Davie · Post by **Davie** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:55 pm

Hi
I have seen a photie similar to this one, taken in Motherwell c 1873.
When a photographer got a few of the mining families from Logan’s Row, to pose for him.
I know diddley aboot photography and other pics taken in the early 1900s look just the same to me.
However in Malcolm's pic, the Faither is sporting an interesting beard, and the two children standing are most certainly lassies (even if Hannah is wearing breeks) and the wean in Mother’s arms is a boay.
I think it may have been depending on the skill of the punter ahint the camera regarding the quality.
Well, that’s me pittin’ ma neb in.
Davie