|
1. Date of photo:
There were nine estimates that could be reduced to a specific year. They ranged from 1890 to 1915. Where a range was given I took its mid-point, so 1900-1908 became 1904. I then calculated the average of the nine estimates and it came to 1904.
2. The occasion.
One person commented that, "there are no children, so it is not a traditional group family portrait."
A variety of other suggestions were made:
- Sunday best
- a concert
- 50th wedding anniversary
- not a wedding perhaps a birthday?
- Silver/Golden wedding
- Church / Sunday School teachers photo
- Golden Wedding anniversary
- a family in mourning
- Funeral
- in "half-mourning"
So a funeral or a Golden Wedding are about equal favourites.
3. Social Class
As one person wrote, "Class is quite difficult - a lot depends on what is classified as working class and middle class." And so it proved.
Most people plumped for middle class, although someone pointed out that working class people could usually dress up for an occasion. Comments like "Certainly not working class" contrast with "They are hard-working people - look at Lady D's hands."
|
The problem is that affluence is relative. I think middle class in 1908 meant to many people, the professions, lawyers and doctors, people who would employ at least one or two house servants. Or is that Upper Middle?
One respondent wrote, "never ever prosperous but of clean indoor occupations" and another "possibly Methodist , fairly affluent working class family."
I think the phrases "respectable working class" and "lower middle class" might convey the range of what a majority of respondents thought on this aspect.
4. Ages
There were six to eight estimates of age for each person in the photo. Again I converted each to a definite figure, for example 55-65 became 60, 60s became 65, etc. then I calculated the average for each person in the photo. The results are:
A 45, B 62, C 50, D 44, E 47, F 72, G 63.
There was quite a large range for some of the people! For example estimates for lady A ranged from 28 to 65; for E from 24 to 60; F on the other hand was from 60s to 85. For the man (G) the range was 53 to 75.
5. (The $64,000 question) Do you recognise anyone. I was amazed to read this reply:
"I must admit that they do remind me of one or two Beighton residents but I cannot, at the moment, put a name to the face."
|
|
Opinions about the relationships were often quite specific but there was little consensus. The man's wife was variously said to be B ("obviously the wife of G") from their positions seated and facing each other; and C ("The man and the lady to his right are most likely married. She is touching his arm for goodness sake."). Two or three other people supported each of these possibilities. Other relationships were also suggested but there was no consistency. Facial resemblances were mentioned too but with no consensus emerging beyond a general family resemblance.
Many people mentioned that the photo was taken in a studio. Eagle-eyed detectives spotted that two of the ladies wore wedding rings, E and (less clearly) C. C's crucifix was mentioned and the whole group was cast as "churchy", Methodist or possibly Baptist, in a few answers. The folders held by two of the ladies were mentioned as significant with no real idea of what they were.
|
It was suggested that everyone had been given something to hold in order to keep their hands still. Photographers would arrange this because of the long exposures required.
Some people asked if a photographer's or studio name appeared on the reverse. This could help date the photo. Sending a copy to a good fashion school for an opinion was suggested.
It was pointed out that Beighton is now in Yorkshire. So the Sheffield List might help - also the Sheffield Star newspaper's family history question page. "There are a number of local historians working in this area of SE Sheffield which used to be Derbyshire."
Several web resources were suggested and these are listed here:
http://www.cartes.freeuk.com/index.htm
http://www.cartes.fsnet.co.uk/date/main.htm
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~brett/photos/dbyphotos.html
http://photo-sleuth.blogspot.com/
|
From the above estimate of the date of the photograph and the ages of the people in it, it seems highly likely that it depicts the surviving children of John and Eliza Cree of Beighton, then in Derbyshire. They had eight daughters and a son. One daughter, Eliza, died in 1866 and I believe another one, Emma, may have died in 1894 [Can you confirm this Lynne?]
|
|
So lets add to the mix the known details of this family and see where we get. In 1904, there are
6 daughters and a son survivng as far as I know, and this fits with the photo.
I go along with the suggestions that this is taken on the occasion of a funeral. By 1904 the six sisters have all married except one (Jane - not sure about her) and are living as far away as Manchester and Grimsby. So what else would bring them together but a wedding or a funeral. The dress suggests a funeral, although we don't know whose funeral might be important enough for all seven siblings to attend. (Their father and mother had died in 1885 and 1897. It could be one of their husbands - I don't have their dates of death.)
The social class responses may be relevant. The father of the family, John Cree, was a soldier with an interesting life-story that has been researched and written up by John North as The Cree Family of Beighton in Cree News in 1996. After his army career, John Cree was a railway shunt man aged 76 in the 1881 Census. His son, also John Cree, the man in the photo, was a miner as a young man in Derbyshire, but by age 29 he was a fireman at Grimsby, Lincolnshire. This all seems compatible with our detectives' views on social class.
The non-appearance of other family members and of children does not mean they were not at the occasion. This is a studio photo, perhaps one of several taken on the same occasion. It just means other people were not in this photo. Maybe someone said, "OK let's have a photo of the seven of us siblings - we don't get together very often." So neither B nor C is John's wife (as was suggested). C's hand on his arm is more a sisterly touch than that of a wife. And John and B may be seated facing each other, but not closely enough to be husband and wife in my view.
|
The dates of birth range from 1843 to 1859. So in 1904, the estimated date of the photo, they would have been aged from 45 to 61. This seems to be the general age range of the group. The averages from the estimates of our detectives range from 44 to 72.
We can now try to identify the individuals by name. I have listed them with the man first and then the women in order of age, oldest to youngest. In each line of the table that follows I have given the name, the known year of birth and the age in 1904.
I have then assumed that the order of the ages calculated from our detectives' replies is the same as the age order. This in effect puts a name to each person on the photo. Next I have given the age estimated from the photo, the difference between the known age and the estimated age, followed by the identification letter.
| Name | Birth | Age in
1904 | Est.
age | Diff. | ID |
| John | 1851 | 53 | 63 | +10 | G |
| Fanny | 1843 | 61 | 72 | +9 | F |
| Jane | 1846 | 58 | 62 | +4 | B |
| Mary | 1847 | 57 | 50 | -7 | C |
| Ann | 1849 | 55 | 47 | -8 | E |
| Ellen | 1853 | 51 | 45 | -6 | A |
| Gertrude | 1859 | 45 | 44 | -1 | D |
From the difference column we see that the man and the two oldest sisters look older than they are - in line with suggestions that at that time people aged more quickly than we do now. But the four younger women look younger than they are. Of course an error in dating the photo would alter this conclusion. If it was actually taken in, say, 1914 rather than in 1904, all the women would be younger than they look to us. As it stands however, the pluses and minuses of the difference column cancel out almost exactly. So 1904 looks spot on.
|
|
I think it's pretty certain that we have, with our team of detectives, identified the right family. The man will be John Cree of Grimsby. I think that F (furthest right) is probably Fanny. B (the other seated lady) is probably the next oldest, Jane. Seating would go to the oldest.
It's then a close call between the four ladies who are standing. Information from Lynne (whose photograph it is) is that C (with the pen mark above her head) is Lynne's great-grandmother Ellen. So perhaps E is Mary and A is Ann.
|
This leaves D as Gertrude, the youngest by six years. If these guesses are correct the two youngest are the only ones not starting to turn grey.
Many thanks again to all those members of the Derbyshire and Guild of One-Name Studies lists who took the trouble to respond to my call for family history detectives. I hope it was fun and I hope you feel it was useful. I certainly do. There is further work to be done on this...
Mike Spathaky
Sydney
15 January 2009
|
