View Full Version : How old is this man?
Link from Thomas Grout to this thread on BK6
http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m13/merry_monty_montgomery/Maynard%20Album%201/ThomasGrout.jpg (http://s100.photobucket.com/user/merry_monty_montgomery/media/Maynard%20Album%201/ThomasGrout.jpg.html)
The picture must have been taken 1864-1877 from the photographers details, unless it's a reprint, but I think it's very likely to have been taken during that time frame.
My problem is I know his name, but still am not sure who he is! lol
As you see, he is Thomas Grout.
I have a photo of James Grout and of James' wife, Margaret Grout, taken at the same studio. Margaret is sitting by the same table and in front of the same curtain as Thomas (above) but probably not on the same day as the table has moved and the curtain is draped differently. James Grout looks pretty similar to Thomas in age (though blessed with a full head of hair) and I have his dates - 1805 to 1878. My problem is, he had a brother called Thomas who was baptised in 1803, but I don't think he can of survived childhood as I can't find any other record of him.
I also have a photo of William Grout 1812 - 1879, a first cousin of the other two, who actually looks older (taken at the same studio), but that might be because he was thinner!
This problem is really holding up my photo-sorting! lol
Olde Crone
28-09-13, 10:40
I'd say late 50s, minimum, probably up to mid/late 60s. His general posture indicates some kind of rheumatism, look at his pudgy hands held at an awkward angle.
OC
ElizabethHerts
28-09-13, 10:48
I would say late 50s, too, Merry. I always have to think twice, especially with women, as people look so much younger these days.
I hope you manage to sort out this lot, Merry.
My aunt died a few weeks ago and my cousin from WA, Australia, sent 15 kg of photos back there, a lot from our shared family. He is going to scan them and send them to me - just a few arrived this morning as a taster.
I think he will send me a lot of those he can't identify. My Mum was the eldest sister, and my sister and I might be able to sort some of them out.
Can't wait!
Merry Where was the photo taken?
Exciting stuff, Libby!
I hadn't really looked at his hands before, OC! The majority of this family were harness makers, saddle makers or other types of leather workers. Some of them were hands on and some managed to get others working for them.
The clothing of Margaret Grout suggests her picture was taken during the earlier time the photographer was operating.
The pictures were taken at H Lenthall's studio at 222 Regent's Street, London, but the Grouts mainly lived in Enfield/Edmonton/Tottenham.
Late 50s is what I was thinking too!
tenterfieldjulie
28-09-13, 11:37
I would have thought he was in his late 60s by his receding hairline. Do you have any other members of the family with this feature? Julie
Really envious of everyone's photos
Hard to say when I'm not sure who he is!! lol
The one who should be his brother has a thick mop of hair. Here's a link to him on Photobucket:
http://s100.photobucket.com/user/merry_monty_montgomery/media/Maynard%20Album%201/JamesGrout.jpg.html?sort=6&o=13
I don't know if you can look around that album, but in the same set there's William Grout who is a cousin, but no Thomas in his family.
I can smell sausages burning!
As well as not appearing in marriage and burial records after his baptism in 1803, the Thomas I would have liked him to be does not appear in his father's will (1848), so I think he most likely died as a child or young adult.
I would say early late 40's - early 50's - men did tend to look older than their age then.
Hmmm, well if James and Margaret were photographed in 1864 (the first year the studio existed) then he would be 59. I think Thomas looks about the same age.
I don't have another Thomas born for 40+ years, so I'm at a bit of a loss!
kiterunner
28-09-13, 14:32
Could the Thomas born 1803 have emigrated, and had his photo taken when he was back in England for a visit?
I did wonder about that possibility, but felt I was straw clutching, because he's not in his father's will!
My gg-grandfather who came to NZ in the 1840s was not mentioned in his fathers will either, so don't let that put you off.
I just discovered a nephew of "missing" Thomas went to New Zealand!!
Trove pulls up a Thomas Grout in 1848 in Australia, it looks like he may be a convict! When did you loose yours?
I have tried to put in the link but it is doing silly things, here is the link to trove and search for Thomas Grout in 1848
http://trove.nla.gov.au
lol Thanks Chris!
Goodness knows! I only have a baptism for Thomas - nothing more.
Hmmmmm......this is probably the Thomas I'd lost. His parents were buried in Cheshunt in 1848 and so was his married sister in 1837. I thought I'd already checked the NBI for him, but clearly not!
First name(s): Thomas
Last name: GROUT
Date of burial 24 Dec 1832
Age at death: 29
Calculated year of birth: 1803
Place of burial Cheshunt
Dedication: St Mary the Virgin
County: Hertfordshire
So.....goodness knows who the man in the photo is!!!
I've been looking around my Grout tree to see if I have anyone else who might have had a son called Thomas that I'm currently unaware of. I thought I'd accounted for everyone, but I did find one possible line not yet tidied up:
George Grout is an uncle of the Thomas who I think died in 1832. So far this is all the information I have on him:
Baptised 1783 at Braughing, Herts
1841 living in Norwich, independent, 61, born out of county.
1851 living in Norwich, landed proprietor, widower, 69, no children at home.
Died 1860 in Norwich. Probate granted to apparently non-relatives.
So, who did he marry and did he have children?
I don't really want to buy his will as this is definitely a side branch which I'm only doing because of the photos I have.
Looks like he was in Norwich through the 1820s (Google books etc)
I don't see any Grouts born there on the census.
Looking again at the 1851 census:
George Grout 1851 (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/8860/NFKHO107_1812_1813-0657/5132735?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk %2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3fdb%3duki1851%26so%3d2%26pcat%3d35% 26MS_AdvCB%3d1%26rank%3d1%26new%3d1%26MSAV%3d2%26m sT%3d1%26gss%3dangs-c%26gsfn%3dgeorge%26gsfn_x%3d1%26gsln%3dgrout%26gs ln_x%3d1%26cpxt%3d1%26catBucket%3drstp%26uidh%3d67 2%26cp%3d11&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults)
I can't decide if it says Unmarried or Widower for George *sigh*
So George is the factory owner? Links with Yarmouth, property in Alburgh, presumably brother Joseph, uproar when he is elected Sherrif etc etc?
Looking again at the 1851 census:
George Grout 1851 (http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/8860/NFKHO107_1812_1813-0657/5132735?backurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ancestry.co.uk %2fcgi-bin%2fsse.dll%3fdb%3duki1851%26so%3d2%26pcat%3d35% 26MS_AdvCB%3d1%26rank%3d1%26new%3d1%26MSAV%3d2%26m sT%3d1%26gss%3dangs-c%26gsfn%3dgeorge%26gsfn_x%3d1%26gsln%3dgrout%26gs ln_x%3d1%26cpxt%3d1%26catBucket%3drstp%26uidh%3d67 2%26cp%3d11&ssrc=&backlabel=ReturnSearchResults)
I can't decide if it says Unmarried or Widower for George *sigh*
It's not helped by the ticks or lines but to me it reads U in the condition column for George. If you look at Susan Brownfield further up the page she is a widow, the W has a curl coming off it, whereas all the U's don't.
Sure you've already thought about it, but he may not be Thomas Grout?
Do you recognise the writing? Is it the same as any other photographs you have?
Yes, Phoenix, that's the one. Joseph was seriously rich. My connection is to a cousin branch where they stuck with the harness making :rolleyes:
Thanks for that Jay. I think I will stop looking for his marriage now!!
Tom, I'm beginning to think that's the likely conclusion :( I believe the handwriting is that if my great-great aunt, Harriet Maynard. She was a housekeeper for her second cousin and most of the people in the album are closer relations to her employer than to her (the families were quite intermarried though). Of course I take her word for it where the name on the photo and the age/date of the picture and where it was taken fit sensibly with what I have. Other than this one, the only other potential mistake I've identified is a named photo of a child aged about 12/14 where there are only two candidates in the tree (or anywhere) - father and son, but the photo has a date that makes no sense for either of these men, so I'm presuming she is mistaken on the subject or the date is ten years or so out which seems unlikely. I'm pretty sure the photos were labelled when she was an old lady, about 30 to 40 years after many of the pictures were taken. I'm trying not to think about how many of the others might be wrongly labelled!!
That's what you've got to balance isn't it? Whether they are sensible connections and then go with it. My Grandad's 95-year-old cousin went through some family photographs a couple of years ago and labelled them for me. Out of 100+ people she got 2 wrong (I recognised them from other photos) and it was just a case of her mixing up a couple of sisters.
Have a look at your other photos Merry and check he is not in another one at an older or younger age. I had a photo of a rather distinguished man in uniform. It was months before I realised it was Dad's Uncle George as an older man. I had a photo of him in his early 20s.
I've only got two photos from this family and, no, he's not in any other pictures. He may just be an acquaintance, but I thought that off many of the others who turned out to be relatives!
vBulletin® v3.8.7 PL3, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.