Wedding photo mystery solved... or is it?

 

When Jayne Shrimpton responded to my plea on Twitter as to a possible date for this wonderful wedding photograph, I was delighted. At last I could finally get an answer to a question which has always remained a mystery.

 

Those of you who have read this blog before might recall that in a previous post about the above picture, I reported that my aunt hadn't been sure if the bride and groom were my great-grandparents John Griffiths and Sarah Eliza "Lizzie" Baugh or John's younger brother Arthur and his bride Lily Clay.

 

The two weddings took place almost a decade apart, in 1894 and 1903 respectively, but my limited knowledge of late 19th century and early 20th century fashions left me floundering over which of the two this could be.

 

Jayne offered to analyse the photograph on Family Tree magazine's Q & A page and in the August issue, the picture duly appeared having been scrutinised by Jayne's expert eye.

 

This was her verdict...

 

She conceded that late-Victorian and early-Edwardian scenes can look similar at first glance. "They often convey an ornate effect, even an air of grandeur," she says, "mainly due to the elaborate female fashions of the 1890s and early 1900s." 

 

She continues, "We see the bride dressed in the white ensemble which was becoming fashionable throughout society by the early-1900s." 

 

 She goes on explain the subtle differences in more detail, pointing out that female fashions were more distinctive than men's and changed more rapidly. At the time of both weddings ladies wore one-piece dresses, or more usually a separate bodice and skirt, tailored to fit closely at the waist and then flaring out towards the hemline. "A soft feminine style," writes Jayne, "that expressed the prevailing art nouveau aesthetic lines of the whole era."

 

But it's the styling of the upper garments, particularly the sleeves, which help differentiate between the two dates. In the 1890s, the puffed, leg 'o mutton style of sleeve would have been in evidence but, as we can see from the bridesmaid (pictured above), they are narrow in the upper arm, widening below the elbow and flaring at the wrist where they are gathered with a tight cuff.

 

Hats too are a clue, as unlike during the 1890s when they would have been plate-like, sitting horizontally on the head, in the early 1900s they were worn on a slant, with upturned brims and decorated with flamboyant ostrich plumes, as they are here.
 

 

I'm extremely grateful to Jayne for her analysis and for the opportunity to learn a little of the fashion of the time.

 

However, there's one small fly in the ointment. As I mentioned on my previous blog, I have my doubts as to the groom being Arthur, having compared another photograph of him with that of the groom.

Arthur

Groom



 

Looking at the two pictures side-by-side, I'm not convinced they're the same man. It may be the angle at which the photograph was taken but it seems to me that Arthur's chin is longer that that of the groom's, and that his nose is shorter.

 

So if it's not Arthur, then who could it be?

 

John and Arthur weren't the only Griffiths brothers. There was also Thomas, Boaz, Jabez and Hillary. Who's to say that this wedding wasn't one of theirs?

 

A quick check through the records shows that Thomas never married, and that Boaz and Jabez married in 1898 and 1910 respectively. Hillary's wedding, on the other hand, when he married Alice Jane Lowndes, took place only one year after Arthur's, in 1904.

 

So using Jayne's assertion that the fashion features are closely dateable to c1901-1905, it seems Hillary could be a credible alternative candidate. Now all I need to do is to find a photograph of Hillary to compare to the groom pictured here to confirm my theory!

 

 

*****************************************************

 

To find out more about photo dating, you'll find lots of help in Jayne Shrimpton's book, Family Photographs and how to date them.

 

Or why not send in your own conundrums, photograph related or otherwise, to Family Tree? You can contact them via Facebook, email or Twitter or for a quick response, visit their forum at www.family-tree.co.uk/forum to ask the experts or readers of the magazine for their advice.



 

Unravelling who's who - the groom

OK, blog readers. You're going to work for your supper this time. I need some help here!

 

This year I set myself the challenge of working out who's who in this wonderful wedding photograph. The likelihood of identifying everyone pictured is extremely remote, of course, but it would be lovely to put some names to faces, at least. I have a few notes, albeit rather vague ones, plus a few other photographs, to get me started.

 

So... first off - the groom.

 

Underneath a photocopy of the picture, my late aunt had written,

"Groom and Bride 

Arthur & Lillian

or John & Lizzie. (It looks very much like John)"

The 'John' to whom she refers is her grandfather, my great-grandfather, John Griffiths, or Jack as he was more often known, born in 1861. Arthur, born 1872, was her great uncle, John's youngest
brother - sons of Jabez and Mary Ann Griffiths (nee Dukes).

Clue One: Comparing faces.

Here are Jack and Arthur photographed together (date unknown). Jack is seated.

Brothers John and Arthur Griffiths

The close-ups:

John (Jack), from photo above                                     - the groom -                                           Arthur, from photo above

 Mmmm. Looking at this evidence, the groom looks much more like John than Arthur.

Clue Two: The wedding date.

 

John married Sarah Eliza "Lizzie" Baugh in 1894. Arthur married Lillian Clay in 1903.

 

According to Jayne Shrimpton's excellent book How to Get the Most from Family Pictures, a white tie or bow tie became the norm for men at weddings and other formal occasions during the 1890s, as can be seen in this photograph.

 

For women, elaborate lace and frills on bodices were becoming popular, as were increasingly decorative hats with flowers, ribbons and feathers, along with ever wider brims.

 

On the other hand, the trend for vast hats continued into the next decade and, to quote Jayne, "Bridal styles in fact varied widely during the early 1900s", and having studied the examples in her book and on the internet, it's clear that wedding fashions merge during this period, making it harder to differentiate. Even the clothes of the elder ladies give no real clue as they would be more suited to wearing styles from their own era and men's conventions continue much the same as before.

 

 

So if the fashions of the wedding guests can't help, I would have to return to the photographs and conclude that the marriage is of John Griffiths and Sarah Eliza Baugh.

 

 

However, there's one small fly in the ointment. Why did my aunt limit her suppositions to only two possibilities? All in all, Jabez and Mary Ann Griffiths had seven sons. For all I know, it could be any of them!

 

 

So, dear readers, what do you make of it? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

 

Meanwhile, I'd better get back on the case. Perhaps the other brothers never married...

 

 

 

 

 

Book of Mysteries

It was a special moment when deep in the (previously mentioned!) box-in-the-attic, we found a large photograph album.

Better still, the photographs were named and dated, even with the birth date of the sitter recorded on the back. Hardly able to believe our luck we scoured the photos, matching them up with the information we had from gleaned from the censuses. The opening page showed photographs of four adults, taken in 1875.

First the grandparents...

Richard Mott Viner and Catherine Banner Viner (nee Evans)

Then the parents...

Walter Banner Viner and Mary Ann Viner (nee Pagdin)

And over the page, the girls...

Catherine Louisa born 1864, Lilian Mary born 1867, Florence Amy born 1871 and... er.. who's this? According to the census records, the Viners only had 3 daughters. Perhaps she was a cousin who came along to the exciting occasion of a visit to the photographer. A mystery yet to be solved...

Sadly, having been so lucky with names and dates on the first two pages, the remainder of the album mirrored the common frustration of so many family historians. A tantalising collection of photographs - but no names and no dates!

A Brief history of Family Photographs

It was in the 1830s that a way to combine chemistry and optics resulted in image reproduction.

In France, Louis Daguerre created the first permanent photographic image in 1837, known as the Daguerreotype. These first entered the British portrait market in 1841. Images were made directly on to silvered copper plate. As one-off pictures, they were expensive to produce - around £1 in the 1840s, the equivalent of a week's wages for a general worker.

The Ambrotype came into usage in 1851 - a glass plate from which prints could be made.

But it was the invention of the Cartes de Visite by Andre Disden in 1854 when photography really took off, albeit after a slow start. Diseri created a new type of portrait photography by using several small negatives on one large photographic plate. The resulting picture cards, of which most family historians are familiar, became common after 1861 and photographic studios opened up all over London and the provinces. In our album alone, I counted 18 different photographers' names.

Dating your photographs

There are several websites which will help you date your mystery photos.

Roger Vaughn's site gives examples of photographs from different decades to compare with your own images.

The Family Search  website gives technical tips for dating your photographs.

Jayne Shrimpton is an internationally recognised 'photo detective' whose stand at the annual Who Do You Think You Are event is always popular. Her excellent book is a comprehensive guide to with family pictures of all kinds. You can find more about her book and how to buy a copy on the Society of Genealogist's website here.

There are also useful photography and genealogy links on Jayne's webpages, including photograph restoration and repair services.

Mystery Wedding

"...either Lizzie & Jack or Arthur & Lillian..." said the ambiguous note accompanying this family wedding photograph.

But as I knew the surname of the Jack and Arthur in question, the surname of Lizzie and an approximate date based on their ages, a browse through the free data base of births, marriages and deaths http://freebmd.org.uk gave me two possible dates, 9 years apart - 1894 for 'Lizzie & Jack' and 1903 for 'Arthur & Lilian'.

In the middle of the 19th century, wedding photographs were generally taken in studios, often with the bride and groom wearing smart every-day clothes rather than a specific outfit for the occasion. Only more affluent families could afford such indulgences as a special dress for the day. It wasn't
until the early 20th century that white weddings became customary throughout society.

By the 1880s brides were beginning to use ribbons and other accessories to decorate their wedding clothes, with flowers and a formal bouquet introduced towards the end of the decade.

This wedding photograph demonstrates the increasing popularity of outdoor photography from the late 1890s onwards, possibly outside the bride's parents' home.

As for whose wedding this is, I can't help being swayed by those wonderful wide-brimmed and feathered hats fashionable in the Edwardian era, which convince me that this is Arthur GRIFFITHS and Lily CLAY's big day in 1903.

In 'Ask the photo expert' on this month's blog of Find My Past, photo detective, Jayne Shrimpton, has dated a wedding photograph from the late Victorian period. There's also an invitation to submit your own photos for Jayne to date for you.