Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
These are close relatives of my great-grandfather. The photo was taken between 1900-1910 in one of the largest cities in Central Europe in a photo studio. I was told they could've been related to lower or even mid-ranking nobility. What do you think? Can someone tell someone's social background based on photos alone?
Last edited by Marissa23; 02-23-2014 at 12:49 PM..
Reason: grammar
They are dressed well, but impossible to say if they were related to nobility. The person in the back looks almost like he was added to the photo and not present when it was taken...perhaps a deceased son whose picture was added for the family portrait?
That's a very nice coat with quality fabric on the woman and the suit on the man looks well made and custom tailored. His boots are clean and not clunky like work boots. I would say they are prosperous middle class.
They certainly aren't working class.
That almost looks like some sort of vacation place background behind them.
Yes, I forgot to mention that the person in the back was added to the photo. I know that at least a couple of men in that family served in the military. No, it's not a vacation place. The photo was definitely taken in a photo studio.
There was a time that the material of clothing immediately identified social class, as in being a gentle woman.
I can't tell enough to say one way or another but given that they are well dressed and that some were military that should indicate that they were of some level of prominence.
When I see my great grands they were clearly farmers/planters who had the photos done in place. That yours was in a studio also indicates some level of financial capability. Or could be that it is totally urban and it was no big deal to meet at the photographer's studio.
When I see my great grands they were clearly farmers/planters who had the photos done in place. That yours was in a studio also indicates some level of financial capability. Or could be that it is totally urban and it was no big deal to meet at the photographer's studio.
Half my ancestors were farmers but many of them had photos done in a studio, even before this time period (like the late 19th century) when photography was a more difficult process. So having it done in a studio is not necessarily an indication of social status.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest the clothing is not necessarily all that upper class. The two men on the right seem to be wearing military uniforms, which is not an indication of class and the woman is covering her dress with a full length cloak that doesn't necessarily tell us much. You'd think if she had a very fine dress on, she would want to show it off - perhaps she's hiding it because her hat and cloak are of better quality. She does appear to be deliberately covering up her dress, if you ask me. Keep in mind that even middle to lower class people would put on their best clothing to have a photo done so I always assume there's a possibility they appear to be a higher social than they really were. Additionally, the fact that one of the men is clearly superimposed suggests that he died and the only portrait of him was his military portrait and that the family did not have a family portrait before this point. By this point in history, photography was very affordable for most people and the wealthy often had dozens of portraits and family portraits done, especially the nobility. So you'd think a wealthy or noble family like this would not need to have someone superimposed into their only family portrait.
This is mostly speculation, of course, and I am no expert. Just some thoughts you might want to keep in mind.
But certainly, you can't tell whether someone was related to nobility just by their clothes - plenty of wealthy people had just as much, if not more money than the nobility. In fact, it was not unheard of for titled peerage to be cash poor - it was right around this time period that started happening a lot.
Totally can't tell for sure, especially from clothing. Being in a studio, photographers could lend out clothing, people borrow stuff from friends or family. Paying for a studio photographer was a special occasion and even "lower class" people who had saved up for that special photo could come up with some "Sunday Best".
I know the frustration of looking at old family photographs and not being able to tell much of anything.
All I can add is that they do look well dressed, complete with the woman's fancy hat and that maybe the reason she is wearing a cloak pertains to the fact that they have selected an outdoorsy motif for their photograph. The stones (real or fake) and the rustic birch fence suggest that they are portraying leisure time spent away from home, in other words, that they are well to do or are trying to look well to do. If that were an American photograph of someone from the Northeast, I would have to guess that they were owners of an Adirondack "camp"--and that would indicate great wealth. The social status of owning a second home somewhere in the mountains.
My English working class ancestors sometimes had studio portraits done but they were always posed sitting in a chair. If you could only afford one photograph, I think that would have been it--posed in a chair. If you had the means or desire to have additional photographs, you might have chosen different themes, like the one shown. So, no, I don't think you can tell social class but to me the photo indicates that they had plenty of money and were trying to show it.
Totally can't tell for sure, especially from clothing. Being in a studio, photographers could lend out clothing, people borrow stuff from friends or family. Paying for a studio photographer was a special occasion and even "lower class" people who had saved up for that special photo could come up with some "Sunday Best".
Agree completely. Photo studios of the time period had clothing for people to pose in, if they wished. The studiio would have different backgrounds to choose from, and even furniture in the studio. They might also supply jewelry, etc.
For a studio portrait like this it's impossible to even know if the clothing belonged to them or not.
Photo studios would also send out "mobile" photographers. One would set up in a small town that didn't have it's own studio, and work there for a short time period, and then move on to the next small town.
Do you know in which city your family lived? Do you know these peoples names?
You may be able to find old census & other records for more info on your family.
Let us know what city & we may be able to offer suggestions.
Did these people ever come to the U.S.?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
