Can anyone suggest a date for this, please?

[Muggins in Sussex]

It looks to me a bit like a mish-mash of fashion styles :d If the tiny lady in the centre with the glasses and string of pearls is who I think she is, she was born in 1870. And if anyone could clean it up a bit, that would be lovely.
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o112/djangocrystal/EMILY20MARY20ISABEL20HANNAHARTHUR20.jpg

[Margaret in Burton]

I would say 1930's

[peppie]

That's interesting Margaret.....
Hubs was looking over and said 1930's without taking a breath! :confused:

[Muggins in Sussex]

Thank you Margaret and Peppie:)

That fits in with another photo I have of the tiny lady dated 1948, where she looks well into her 70's.

She is the subject of one of the greatest mysteries in my family tree! :d

[JessBow]

2nd from My left & 'sitting with pearls'' must be sisters, aren't they? They are very alike

Blimey -s she isnt sitting, she's standing up - she is a tiny lady indeed

[Muggins in Sussex]

Yes, she is really tiny - I have other photos of her.

What is confusing is that all the relatives I managed to make contact with, some of whom met her, are convinced that she is Maud, yet one of my parents, who knew her very well is certain that she is Maud's sister, Beatrice who was well built and dark!!! If she is Maud, as most people think, then she appears to have impersonated Beatrice at my parent's wedding :d

Either Beatrice or Maud was my "adoptive" grandmother, I am sure.

It's a bit confusing :d

[Merry]

2nd from My left & 'sitting with pearls'' must be sisters, aren't they? They are very alike

Blimey -s she isnt sitting, she's standing up - she is a tiny lady indeed

Jess, did you mean second from left or third? I think the one with the bow on her shoulder looks like a sister for the pearls lady.

I would go for 1930s too.

[Muggins in Sussex]

Thank Merry & Jess - actually I think all 3 on the left look like the tiny lady :d
(She had many sisters)

Does anyone think the tiny lady could be the same lady as in this photo? The little girl in the photo was born in 1909, so I guess the photo is about 1920?
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o112/djangocrystal/BeatriceandWinnie2.jpg

And a version beautifully restored by Rachel -
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o112/djangocrystal/JoanBeaWincolourweb.jpg

[Jill]

I'd say the child looks about 7, which would make the lady quite short, her age would be likely to make her even shorter in the frst picture. The lady's chin is also very distinctive in both pictures and the nose seems to be of the same proportions so I'm tempted to say "Snap!"

[Muggins in Sussex]

Thanks Jill :) - I hadn't noticed the nose!

If they are the same lady, could this also be her in 1938 ( there is a date on this one)
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o112/djangocrystal/winifred1938.jpg

[Rachel]

I think all five of the women look similar ~ unsure about the slightly larger one

Can't tell if 'tiny' is the child/woman with dog, although that kind of ? Labrador ? Retriever ? looks to be in proportion to the woman .... ie she is a normal sized woman


erm .... does that make sense ?

have sort of decided that the child is not your miniature lady, mainly because of the chin

[Phoenix]

If the woman in the third picture is represented in the first, she looks most like the woman standing next to the man. The one with the v neckline.

[Muggins in Sussex]

Thank you for your ideas, Rachel & Phoenix.

I'll try to explain the problem without identifying living people.

It all stems from this photo of my parent's wedding.
http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o112/djangocrystal/Wedding203-1.jpg

My parent identifies the tiny lady on the far left (and other photos of the tiny lady) as "mother" (although I now know that his mother would have been adopted) and says that his "mother's" name was Beatrice Winifred Rathbone.

The problem is that I have made contact with quite a few Rathbones, who all say that the tiny lady in the wedding photo is not Beatrice, but is Beatrice's sister, Maud/e Mary/Maria, and that the lady with the little girl and also with the dog is Beatrice.

The little girl in the second photo is the person who was once introduced to me as my father's sister, and who was Beatrice's daughter.

This is why I am confused!!:d

[Phoenix]

I know you don't have your parent's birth certificate, but do you have any early addresses for him? If you could find the family on an electoral roll, that should give the forenames of the woman who brought him up.

[Rachel]

The problem is that I have made contact with quite a few Rathbones, who all say that the tiny lady in the wedding photo is not Beatrice, but is Beatrice's sister, Maud/e Mary/Maria, and that the lady with the little girl and also with the dog is Beatrice.


This is why I am confused!!:d


The lady with the dog doesn't look like the 'Beatrice' in the pic with the little girl ~ nor the other one (not shown on this thread) with the baby

Here's a close-up of woman with dog


http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o228/rachelscand/winifredcropweb.jpg

[Muggins in Sussex]

I know you don't have your parent's birth certificate, but do you have any early addresses for him? If you could find the family on an electoral roll, that should give the forenames of the woman who brought him up.

Thanks for that Phoenix - but unfortunately, the earliest address I have is when my parent was 17

The lady with the dog doesn't look like the 'Beatrice' in the pic with the little girl ~ nor the other one (not shown on this thread) with the baby

Here's a close-up of woman with dog



Ooh thank you for that Rachel - now I can see now she that the lady with the dog doesn't look like that Beatrice - in which case I think she could quite possibly be the other Beatrice - Beatrice Winifred lived with her sister-in-law, also Beatrice - they were both called Beatrice Webb :d To make matters more confusing, Beatrice no 2 had a sister called Beattie! :d

[Phoenix]

What about school records? If they survive, they would show an address. Or street directories/telephone directories?

[Muggins in Sussex]

Thanks Phoenix :) - I think I will need to take a trip to Cheshire Records Office one day!