Hidden details in a family photograph

[Richard in Perth]

Also, I just realised that you have Lillie Bridge's birth date wrong too - she was registered in 1921, not 1918.

[Gardengirl]

Thank you for all your suggestions, everyone. I'll try and respond to them each in turn without getting myself (and you) too confused.

GardenGirl are you sure that the seated gent in the middle is the father of the Johnston family? He looks a bit old to have such a young family, and I would have thought that the father is more likely to be the chap standing behind him to the left. Perhaps the older chap is a grandfather?

Unfortunately I don't think you'll ever get a definitive answer as to who's who in the photo. Do you have any other photos of any of them with which you could compare (even if taken a few years later)?

Richard

Yes, I am pretty sure about the parents. The Johnston parents (in the middle) didn't get married until they were 26 and 28 so they were in their mid to late thirties when this was taken. I can't help thinking that he looks like Basil Fawlty! The man standing behind them is the brother of the two wives and wasn't yet married when this was taken. The woman on the left is the mother of the two wives, grandmother of the children.

Unfortunately I haven't yet found any later photos with definite IDs that I can compare with.

[Gardengirl]

I assume from the following FreeBMD data that Jeanette & Florence were sisters? However, it seems that you have Donald's birth date wrong as his birth wasn't registered until 1923. Therefore, it's possible that the photo was taken before he was born, or maybe he is in the pram and it is the three girls in the photo (5th, 6th, & 7th from left)?

Thanks again, Richard. You are right, I think I must have guessed a date because it didn't show up on Ancestry. I haven't got the hang of looking in multiple places - Lesson for today - Check more that one website!

I think that makes more sense of who's who - although I will still have to wait until my 10 days probation are up before I can see your original annotations.

[Gardengirl]

try just clicking on this link, it might work.

https://www.familytreeforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20380&d=1576738099

I think 10 days membership is the magic time.

No, still not allowed to see it. I'll just have to be patient.

[Gardengirl]

My only comment is the ones marked Donald and Lillie appear to be wearing the same clothes - although maybe only in black and white! so could be related.

How are the adults related? Sisters?

If we assume that Donald b1923 is in the pram, then the three youngest children are Kathleen J b1920, Lillie J b1922 and Lillie B b1921. The little pinafore dresses with white under shirts were obviously the fashion of the day.

Yes, the two wives are sisters and their brother is standing in the middle behind. They had another brother but he was killed in action in France in 1917. The woman on the left is the mother of those 4 siblings.

[cbcarolyn]

I have added to my website until you can see on here

www.familytree.chatandthat.co.uk/random/Johnston-family1.jpg

I would also James and George seem to have identical shirts, but like you say could be just the fashion.

[Gardengirl]

Lesson for today - Check more that one website!

And go back and check again on the one you think you have already checked!

[Gardengirl]

I have added to my website until you can see on here

www.familytree.chatandthat.co.uk/random/Johnston-family1.jpg

I would also James and George seem to have identical shirts, but like you say could be just the fashion.

Thank you, Carolyn, that's a great help. I have saved a copy of it if you want to delete it now.

[Janet in Yorkshire]

If they were having a family photo taken, then I don't think they would have omitted a child from the group by leaving it in the pram and out of sight. Prams were often used for transporting toddlers and also other paraphernalia - picnic, rugs, towels, buckets & spades etc. The picture could have been taken before the youngest child in the family had been born.

Jay

[Gardengirl]

That is a very good point, Janet. I wondered if Jeanette, the woman in the middle, was wearing that rather baggy, stripey dress because she had recently had a baby but maybe she is still pregnant? What did maternity clothes look like in those days? She can't have been too far gone because she would never have been able to get out of that deckchair!

[Gardengirl]

Oh no. Ignore that, it was the woman on the right, Florence, who was mother of Donald the youngest child.

[Olde Crone Holden]

I agree with Jay, they would not have left the baby out of the photo. I can still see a small child between the man and woman but I cannot see a child in a pram no matter how hard I try!

OC

[Gardengirl]

Can you see the pram? There is a little bit of white peeping up near the hood - but I'm not convinced that it's in the right position to be a baby's head.
I think the white area (behind the third child from the right) is part of some kind of cloth or shawl that Florence Bridge has across her lap. I don't think there could be a child tucked in there.

[Olde Crone Holden]

Yes I can see what might be a pram although I am not convinced, and certainly not convinced there is baby in it.

They all look a bit fed up and I wonder how long they had been posing and whether the baby wouldn't sit still and mum put him ?) down in exasperation. The white blob may indeed be a hair bow although it's a funny angle and the baby is peeping out underneath that.

OC

[kylejustin]

You are right, I think I must have guessed a date because it didn't show up on Ancestry. I haven't got the hang of looking in multiple places - Lesson for today - Check more that one website!

Ancestry and findmypast (FMP) have the full bmd indexes, but i find freebmd is best as it's simple and transcriptions are very accurate. Fmp is very good for transcription as well, but ancestry usually mangles them.

Post 1911, all birth indexes contain the mother's maiden names. Pre 1911, the general register office (GRO) index includes them now, on their own site. I think the others are adding them? But the GRO site is free, just register an account. And have a play. If you end up ordering any birth, death or marriage certificates (post 1837), get them from the GRO or the local register office. Else you'll pay a fortune!

[Gardengirl]

Thank you for the hints. I must get better at using multiple sources.

[cbcarolyn]

FMP you can also search with mothers maiden name even if not subscriber - and use larger date ranges, then use GRO to find it.

[Richard in Perth]

There is definitely no child hiding behind the 6th child from the left - if you don't believe me, then download the high-res image to your computer and zoom right in - you will see it's just a bunch of material (probably a bow in the 6th child's hair), with part of the deckchair frame visible below it.

I agree you can't see a child in the pram - that doesn't mean there isn't one sleeping in there, but agree it's unlikely as they would surely have wanted to include the baby in the family photo.

Therefore, as there are only 8 children in the photo it was probably taken between the births of Lillie Johnston (Jul-Aug-Sep 1922) and Donald Bridge (Apr-May-Jun 1923). Presumably then the pram was for Lillie Johnston, who would have been less than 1 year old - she is probably the 5th child from the left in the photo rather than in her pram. The 6th child along, who is dressed the same as the 5th, is probably Lillie's older sister Kathleen. That means the other girl (7th child along) must be Lillie Bridge.

For the boys, the three dressed the same could be the Johnston brothers (James, Alexander and Albert), which leaves the two darker-haired boys as the Bridge brothers Frederick & George.

So, with the benefit of the revised dates of birth, my revised guess is (from left to right, with their approx ages at the time):

Alexander Johnston (5), James Johnston (7), Fred Bridge (8), George Bridge (6), Lillie Johnston (0), Kathleen Johnston (2), Lillie Bridge (1), Albert Johnston (4).


The other possibility is that they are all maybe a year older than this, Donald has been born but is an infant, asleep in his pram.

cheers
Richard

[Anne in Carlisle]

Great deduction Richard. That seems a very likely reading of the photo.
Anne

[Gardengirl]

Thank you once again, Richard. I really appreciate the time that you have spent on making that so clear. I think that for now, that's as good a solution as we're going to get so I'm very happy with that ;D

I still have a big box of unidentified family photos so maybe I will find some more eveidence at a later date.

Thanks again and Happy Christmas to you