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.
Location: West of the Catalinas East of the Tortolitas
4,922 posts, read 8,595,399 times
Reputation: 8045
Advertisements
I have seen pictures of Billy the Kid or other infamous people of that era photographed after death, and I always thought it was more for proof of the death than as a picture to remember them by. But, having read this thread and noting the many mentions of Victorian era death photos, I do remember knowing that it was something families did as a fond rememberance of their loved one. Today, with all the millions of photos one can take in a lifetime on phones or with cameras, it would seem that a post-mortem photo wouldn't be necessary, or even desired. Too many "live" photos to remember someone by.
I have seen pictures of Billy the Kid or other infamous people of that era photographed after death, and I always thought it was more for proof of the death than as a picture to remember them by. But, having read this thread and noting the many mentions of Victorian era death photos, I do remember knowing that it was something families did as a fond rememberance of their loved one. Today, with all the millions of photos one can take in a lifetime on phones or with cameras, it would seem that a post-mortem photo wouldn't be necessary, or even desired. Too many "live" photos to remember someone by.
I agree, Marcy. OLD pics of dead people I don't find creepy. Pictures weren't available to the average person but nowadays there is no need.
At that time, it was also common to snip a curl of hair from the deceased's head and put it in a special piece of jewelry, a locket, a trinket box, etc.
So in that context, the photos would make sense.
Like others, I can see how that would be a "memorial" of sorts in an era when photos were not that common. The camera wasn't even invented til mid 1800s, I think. (Not sure of exact date - but I think it was maybe 1840 or so).
I had a stillborn baby and would have never done that. It was sad enough. My husband was in the Army and away so my parents took care of everything. Quietly...that was the best way to go during that tragic time.
Please accept my sympathy for your loss. I can understand your choice, but others may handle grief in a different way. There are actually organizations that do exactly this, such as:
The photographers are volunteers and they help capture and create a lasting memory despite only having moments with the deceased child. The website lists their mission statement: “To introduce remembrance photography to parents suffering the loss of a baby with the free gift of professional portraiture. We believe these images serve as an important step in the family’s healing process by honoring their child’s legacy.â€
At that time, it was also common to snip a curl of hair from the deceased's head and put it in a special piece of jewelry, a locket, a trinket box, etc.
The photography might be macabre, but I wouldn't freak out over it.
I'm on the other side of youth; closer to old age and death; so my attitude is one of becoming reconciled to the end. I just don't see the rites of putting away the dead - even the taking of pictures - as something to get all fuzzed about. If it's a means of bringing comfort to the living, then have at it. I sure as heck won't be around to holler at anyone
The photography might be macabre, but I wouldn't freak out over it.
I'm on the other side of youth; closer to old age and death; so my attitude is one of becoming reconciled to the end. I just don't see the rites of putting away the dead - even the taking of pictures - as something to get all fuzzed about. If it's a means of bringing comfort to the living, then have at it. I sure as heck won't be around to holler at anyone
Me too but that won't stop me from having my opinions and expressing them.
A close family member of mine died just a few weeks ago. She was just in her early 50's and had fought a brave battle with cancer.
At her request, once she took her last breath, her sisters bathed her, fixed her hair, and applied a little bit of make-up and nail polish before her mother saw her for the last time, and before the funeral home came to get her.
This sounds odd. But this is how they honored those who had passed away generations ago.
This had to be hard for her sisters to do, but they did it out of love.
We are so afraid of the inevitable in the country, aren't we?
This was a not uncommon custom in the 19th century, but as far as I know it was largely defunct in the 20th century, except among older members of some ethnic groups.
When my neighbor's husband collapsed and died (1950's) with no previous history of heart problems his wife was in her late thirties with a young grade school son. Her in-laws-laws were on the whole ten or more years older. She had his picture taken, and she had a framed copy in her living room along with other family pictures.
As far as other people suggesting it to me in this era, it seems so over-the-top that I am afraid I might laugh at the person, but I cannot imagine having the hostile feelings that some people seem to have had. If this was the dumbest or the worst thing that people did it would be a paradise of a world....be grateful that some folks are just wonky, and not psycho.
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.
