The women look very similar
hairline, ears, features in general ... the outfit on the right is fascinating and looks as if it's from an earlier era ... she's quite masculine looking
Think it could do with a bit of colour !
Is that a 'nursing chair' on the left ? ... upholstered in velvet ?
The child could be a boy ... and has 'mum's' nose.
She's wearing a wedding ring
I'd say they look like the same person but my only niggling doubt is that for the ampount she's aged in the second one there doesn't seem to be an equivalent progression in the dating of the outfits.
if anything the clothes in the younger photo appear more recent than those in teh older
Zoe in London
Cio che Dio vuole, io voglio ~ What God wills, I will
Ooooh, you are both saying exactly what I want you to say!!!
The first pic is my greatgrandmother, Eleanor Holden, nee Green, with my grandfather on her knee. He was born in November 1891 and I would say this photo must be 1892-3.
The second photo is supposed to be her, too, but I have lately been having doubts, for the same reasons as you. She died in 1919,(aged 52) so it cannot be LATER than that (if it is her).
They were a wealthy merchant family and there would have been no need for her to wear something unfashionable - my GGF was very dapper and I am sure he would have expected his wife to dress in the fashion of the day.
But if not her, then who is it? Her own mother died many years before at the age of 36, so not her. She had several sisters, but none of them would have looked this old in the 1910s.
The second photo looks as if it was taken in the dining room of their home - I very vaguely remember that huge picture on the wall and a highly decorated sideboard underneath it.
Do we definitely think it is the same woman in both photos?
She "died of a broken heart" when her son did not return from WW1.
In fact, she died of flu in the epidemic of 1919 and her son was present at her death.
I never heard that she was in any way unhealthy, but I have often wondered why there was only one child of this marriage - possibly she was "delicate". Her husband absolutely adored her and by all accounts indulged her every whim.
Hemlines were going up in WW1. The dress looks more like pre war to me, which means that she would only have been in her forties when the photo was taken and she looks older than that to me. Her hand looks particularly careworn!
I think it is definitely the same woman but am not sufficiently "up" on the clothing to date it.
I was trying to work out what makes her look older in the second one. Her face is unlined so I'm wondering if it is because her hair is apparently fading. I then wondered if that might simply be an illusion because the light is coming in from the left (our left).
She seems to have very long fingers in the first photo.
I'd say they look like the same person but my only niggling doubt is that for the ampount she's aged in the second one there doesn't seem to be an equivalent progression in the dating of the outfits.
if anything the clothes in the younger photo appear more recent than those in teh older
Unless there were problems updating wardrobes in wartime, and she was obliged to wear something she'd had stashed away for a while?
i have one of motheringlaw she was born 1909,and on the photo with that same hairstyle she was 20 so i would say 1929,my hubby,s grandmother also wore the same hairstyle so it could be from 1910 brenda xxx
What I was also thinking last night was that she's not showing her ankles (pic 2) and I had imagined that it was a studio photo because of what I thought was a wall hanging .... so she would have been dressed well.
But if they were wealthy and it was taken in their home, then maybe ? hmmm ... might she have been wearing a favourite outfit rather than the most fashionable ?
She does look incredibly thin ...
Wow that is a lovely dress must have cost a fortune, about 1910 I think, though her hairdo is a bit earlier, I'm sure it's the same lady look at the mouth and eyes.
Yes, incredibly thin and mannish too, a far cry from the pretty young woman she was.
There were four sisters, two who were stick thin and tall and two who were short and chubby.
You may be right, it may have been a favourite dress, it does look as if it would have been expensive, although all four of the sisters were exquisite needlewomen - one was a tailoress.
I don't think WW1 felt the shortage of clothes that there was in WW2 and my great grandfather was a very adept mover in the black market anyway!
I had been playing with the idea that the second photo might have been her husband's mother, as it looks older than the one of her taken in 1892, but you seem to agree with me that both photos are of the same woman, so I can throw that idea away!
Comment