DISCOVER RESEARCH SOLUTIONS
The clue’s in the cloche
QI wonder if you can help me with this photograph of an unidentified couple. If I had an approximate date as to when it was taken, it would help in my research. The photo is imprinted with the studio name: J St Trotman Chippenham. It appears to depict a couple who have just been married or have attended a wedding in some capacity. The lack of the usual white wedding dress puzzles me, unless it was a second marriage or a civil wedding. What do think? The cloche hat gave me a small clue: in my research I discovered it was introduced in 1908 and became very popular between 1920 and 1933, which is a wide spread of time. If you could narrow the time-line it would help me greatly.
Charles Tyrie
AWe know from your description that this scene was taken by a professional photographer hired to come out to photograph your forebears in this outdoor setting. The Chippenham studio address is very helpful as this gives us an approximate geographical location, although the name looks a little odd: I found various brief references online to a photographer or photographers called Trotman, but no clear details worth pursuing. Studio dates, if available, are of some use, but often limited: see my eight-page photo-dating feature in FT August.
Most open-air photographs are best dated and interpreted from the picture clues, especially from the appearance of their subjects. Although the setting here appears to be an ordinary garden or public space (not a church, which rarely features in wedding pictures before the 1930s), this is indeed a regular marriage photograph. This is evident from the intimate pose of the couple, from their formal dress and, especially, the lady’s prominent bridal bouquet. Additionally, she wears a floral corsage on her shoulder and the groom sports a flower buttonhole or boutonnière (although on their own these modest floral accessories do not always denote marriage, but more broadly a special occasion).
Historically, formal weddings and special white bridal wear were a luxury enjoyed only by the wealthy, but from the early 20th century onwards white bridal gowns and veils became increasingly popular throughout society. Nonetheless, over the years some brides, as here, have chosen to wear smart day wear – fashionable afternoon-style clothes and accessories that can double-up as a going-away outfit and be worn again in the future. Sometimes this was/is prompted by the need to economise, or, as you suggest, by a second or civil marriage; some brides have also felt a little too mature to wear virginal white gown and veil. During the 1920s, when this photo was taken, both traditional bridal and modern day wear were popular.
Studying dress here in more detail, we can determine a close date range for this wedding.
Dress styles also aid dating and here is the loose, scoop-necked frock fashionable for several years around mid-decade, worn with the iconic bar shoes that were firmly established by c1922. The calf-length hemline is also significant, for this pre-dates the shorter, slimmer lines of the later 1920s.
Together the female fashion features suggest that this marriage occurred between about 1923 and 1926.
The groom is also attired according to working-class or lowermiddle class male wedding styles of these years: a narrow three-piece suit, special winged shirt collar and felt hat. Hopefully with this close time frame and a geographical location close to Chippenham, you can now work out who these newlyweds are likely to be. JS
Jayne agrees that reader Charles Tyrie is correct in linking ladies’ cloche hats very broadly to the late-Edwardian period to 1930s. However, they took diverse forms over the years, and this particular style – tall in the crown and with quite large brim pulled down low over the forehead – usually dates to the early to mid-1920s
Wondering about a widow’s will
QI am researching a widow who, when she died in 1933, left all her money – about £70 – to the eldest of her six children, Geraldine. Not long afterwards Geraldine died, in May 1940 in Bexhill, Sussex. The National Probate Calendar records her effects as £126 14s, but that this was resworn to £95 16s 6d. The details I have seen indicate that a large proportion of the estate was paid to the Inland Revenue and to add to the confusion the amount receipted to the Inland Revenue doesn’t add up to the gross value. My questions are: why might such a large proportion go to the Inland Revenue and why would the amounts that an estate has been valued at be resworn?
Rose Orr
AExpenses deducted from the gross estate to arrive at the net estate figure would not have included the amount paid to the Inland Revenue, but debts and funeral and testamentary expenses, which might have included items such as the cost of obtaining a grant, opening a grave or inscribing a memorial.
Duty payable to the Inland Revenue was calculated on the value of the net estate, though that is not the whole story.
You have said that Elizabeth Anne Orr left ‘all her money about £70’, to Geraldine, although the National Probate Index indicates that she left an estate valued at £575 14s 6d. If not already obtained, her will should be applied for to see whether it gives any details of the property comprised in her estate.
Between 1894 and 1949 estates were taxed by way of a combination of estate duty, legacy duty and succession duty (read about them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ History_of_inheritance_taxes_in_the_United_Kingdom) and while this meant that smaller estates were taxed disproportionately more heavily, it is difficult to see why in this case the Revenue was entitled to such a large slice of what seems to have been a small cake. However, Geraldine’s estate may have been more highly taxed if, for example, she had purchased an annuity, had an interest in a settlement or settled land, or had given away property.