Family Historian User Group

I have a photograph of a wedding, which if the identification of the happy couple is right should be in 1911.

But the women's dresses look a bit short to me (and the groom has a wacky hairstyle for 1911 - it doesn't really show on this photo, but on another photo of just the couple, he has an enormous quiff, that 40+ years later many a teddy boy would have been proud of!)



ID:2254

Depending on where in the country it was taken, my guess would be the 1930/40's. The brides headdress is really 'slapper' style from the 1920's, but the rest of the clothes look more 1930/40's.

I would presume this is not a 'society' wedding judging by the tin hut (could be a nissan hut, lots of villages gained them as halls) in the background.

Here is a 1913 marriage from my files.

This one is 1948

I'm no expert but I would say it is more likely to be 1920s or early 1930s, based on the general style but in particular the bride's headdress.

Irene B

My best guess would be early 1920s - see this family photo on my website which was taken in 1923.  Note the double-brimmed hat in both photos - a bizarre fashion, which one can only hope didn't last too long!
http://www.foxspivey.co.uk/famhist.html
Best, Diane

Thanks for the confirmation folks!

Very helpful.

Well ... sort of. Now I have to try to work out who on earth this lot could be and why we've got their wedding photos![grin]

More like 1921 than 1911 - definitely not the latter.

Don't forget that photos which turn up (unlabelled) in family collections could just be friends of your parents/relations!
I speak as one who has recently sent out a load of photos of my daughter's wedding to friends. Also I have just had to go through a huge drawer full of old photos as we cleared my Dad's house. Mostly we knew who they were but some we knew were just friends.
Anne

My parents married in 1926 and the ladies in their wedding picture are wearing the same style of hats as in your photograph, so I guess that c.1926 is the date of the wedding. I also note that the background looks like the typical 'Tin Mission' wall; these 'Tin Missions' were satellites of the main church, and as well as church usage they were often available for private hire - might it have been the venue for the wedding reception in view of the number of people in the photograph? [smile]
Don. Murray

Off subject really but...

Dis nobody notice that Jane's response (17/03/07) referred to the ladies look as 'slapper'... I think she means 'flapper'.

In the UK 'slapper' has a particularly bad connotation; I should know as I made the same mistake in telling someone I liked very much that she looked like a slapper. She did forgive me... eventually[oops]