New photo of Britta? Or of Mary Drusilla?

Who is this??????

My kind first cousin three times removed sent this photo to me. Dating the photo will help establish the identities of the subjects. 

Here's what I was told about the condition of the photo:

"The original is oval, 13" X 19"; and it is on paper, which is bowed out. It was in a frame with a bowed piece of glass over it. The original is very blurry and seems out of focus..."

"...{My cousin} said her mother said the picture was of her grandmother or great-grandmother, and that it was on the McGuire side.  But {her} memory of what her mother said seems pretty fuzzy, like the picture."

"Nothing written on the back."

If this is my cousin's mother's grandmother on the McGuire side, then it's Britta Ann Green and a male. If it's her great-grandmother, then it's either Margaret Kelley and male; or it's Britta's "brick wall" mother and a male. But considering the "fuzzy memory...of what her mother said," it could also be Mary Drucilla McGuire and a male. 

The short version:

Based on the research detailed below, I believe this is Mary Drucilla McGuire and her husband Simmin Aaron Eddins. 

Here's why I think so.

Following is an in-depth discussion of internal evidence from the photo. If this doesn't interest you, please skip to the pictures at the end. 

Overall description:

This is a portrait of a man and a woman, presumably a husband and wife or a mother and son. Mostly sepia tones. The faces have more detail than the clothing, but not much. Many areas look as though someone drew over the photo with chalk—part photo and part drawing. The woman is seated, and the man stands behind her left side. Her left hand rests on a stand with something on it. The man's right arm lies across and down her left shoulder. Neither person is wearing a wedding ring. 

Description of subjects:

The man...

... Is Caucasian. He seems to be 20 - 50. Slender, not  heavy build. He wears a mustache but is otherwise clean-shaven. His hair is dark, neatly combed or slicked back. Looks combed. It may be parted on the extreme left but is not a comb-over. His ears lie fairly close to his head. His features are regular with no distinguishing marks. 

He wears a white shirt with stiff, maybe starched, white collar and some sort of distinguishing item where one would wear a bowtie. The jacket has narrow shoulders (no padding) and narrow but sharply defined lapels. The jacket is single-breasted (not double), short, ending about his hips. The sleeves are comfortably but narrowly cut and end just above the cuffs, which extend from the jacket. There's just the hint of a cuff button or cuff link on his right arm, which would reinforce the idea of a fancy collar button or stud at his neck. His hands are arranged but comfortable, and he holds a bowler hat in his right hand. (Maybe he's fingering a watch fob in the left hand?) The top button of his jacket is buttoned, but the rest of the jacket falls away. Can't see shoes. 

The woman...

...Is Caucasian. She appears to be 20 - 50. Slim, not slender, not heavy build. Her hair is pulled back away from her face in a severe bun. There is a part in the middle of her hair. She may have lost some hair around the part, or the hair closest to the part may be gray or white. Her ears lie fairly close to her head. She has regular features and a wide jaw (at least in this picture). Her body seems to be sitting in a three-quarter position, while her head looks straight on. Can't see any shoes.

She's wearing some kind of white collar, maybe a bowtie-like ribbon, but the photo seems to be damaged there. The dress is dark with a distinctly narrow waist. The shoulders seem wide, maybe padded or mutton. The bodice is narrow-waisted but not pigeon-breasted. The dress fabric looks either paisley or shiny. There seem to be loops down the front of the dress. This could indicate either decoration or folds of shiny material. The distinctly shiny folds of the right sleeve indicate shiny material. The sleeves are voluminous, not skinny, ending in finished edges but not cuffs. The skirt is full, almost voluminous. The back of the dress seems to fall from her back, rather than her waist. Though made of shiny material, the dress is rather plain, e.g., no ruffles or frills or lace (other than the collar).

The paper:

Is old and damaged in places. Not small and in a frame like a tintype or daguerrotype. At high resolution you can see paper fibers. 

Conclusions from old photo research:

The picture is probably an enlargement of an earlier original. The copy has been altered as was often done pre-1900 to look part photo and part drawing. The style is called “crayon portrait.” That would explain why the hands look cartoonish and the faces lack fine detail. 

Here's a description from Page 70 of Judging the Authenticity of Photographs by David Rudd Cycleback, Lulu Press, 2011, ISBN 978-1257018963:

"Large, framed and often highly attractive ‘crayon portraits’ were made in the 1800s and early 1900s, typically as family portraits. These were artistic photographs that resemble a cross between photographs and charcoal or crayon sketches. They can be monochrome or with charcoal coloring. The photographer started with a light photograph and embellished it with chalk and crayons. This image was either the final product or rephotographed. Most common are albumen crayon portraits from the late 1800s with attractive and bright colors." 

Remember the "bowed" aspect of the picture and its frame? A similar frame is described in Cycleback, Page 70:

"Large oval photographs held in frames with bubble (concave) glass were popular in the late 1800s and early 1900s."

The photo is albumenous, which was thin paper backed by a stiffer paper. Also from Cycleback:

"Many albumen images have very fine web-like pattern of cracking. This is often seen up close with the naked eye. Sometimes a normal magnifying glass or loupe is needed. The cracking, which does not appear on all albumen prints, can be throughout the entire image or in sections.

One of the keys to authenticating albumen prints is examining the image area under a microscope, preferably of 50x or better power. Unlike with the later gelatin silver prints or common modern color photos, the paper fibers can be seen on the albumen print."

http://www.cycleback.com/photoguide/albumen.html

One last point about the photo itself:

There is no photographer's name or imprint on the back. This information is actually neutral; it doesn't help or hurt the dating process. The original image may have had an imprint which would help, but there's none on this one. Or the photo may have been taken by an itinerant photographer, who didn't sign his name. See:

http://mirrorofrace.org/about-early-photography/

 So now we have established some facts from the frame and technique: the photo was most likely enlarged from an earlier original and came from the late 1800s to early 1900s.

Moving on:

What clues can the man's clothing give us? Do the clues argue for or against late 1800s?

For. 

In fact, for around 1890.

First, he is wearing a "sack suit" and holding a bowler hat. The popularity of sack suits began in the 1850s, hit its heyday by 1890, and developed into today's three-piece suit. At first it was worn with top hats, but: 

"...By the 1870s, top hats were limited to frock suits, morning suits and evening wear, and sack suits were worn with bowler hats and pretty much every other sort of hat a 19th Century man could find."

http://walternelson.com/dr/node/198

From the same site:

"On frock or morning coats, the buttons were usually covered in silk or other fabric, while they were usually uncovered on sack suits...The most common colors were black or gray, and the pieces usually, but not always, matched...They could be almost any color though....

The coat usually had four buttons, the top one of which was generally buttoned--the rest left undone.

Fits our male subject to a "T."

But more importantly:

His portrait distinctly shows the wing tip-collar with narrow wing-tip lapels and (possibly) a stud, which were fashionable in the 1890s. See the website below for several similar examples:

http://www.photosmadeperfect.com/AA%20Mens%20Fashions%20By%20Decade.htm

So the male subject's clothing date the picture to around 1890. What about the female's clothing? 

Yup. Same here. Compare the 1886 and later dresses and clothing at these sites:

http://www.phototree.com/gallery.asp?cat=80s&f0=1880s

http://www.uvm.edu/landscape/dating/clothing_and_hair/1890s_clothing_women.php

In addition, we can note that these are not high end fashions of the time. They are the good clothes of working class people. More specifically, two farming class people who got dressed up for the special event of having their picture taken. 

We've dated the photo fashions and frame to roughly 1886 - 1910, plus or minus a few years. Now let's compare this to the lives of McGuire women. From 1886 - 1905:

• Margaret Kelley McGuire is not a good candidate, as she died in 1859.

• Britta Ann Green McGuire Flynn, born 1834, would be 52 to 71, maybe still married to Mike Flynn, who disappeared after 1897. The problem is, Mike was at least 10 years older than Britta. I REALLY don't think this can be Mike, who would have been 62 to 81. Maaaayyyybbbbeeeee, but unlikely.

Britta had only one son. If this is her, the son would be Stephen Arnold Douglas McGuire, born 1860, age 26 to 45 or so. 

• Mary Drucilla McGuire, born 1858, would be 28 to 47. Her husband Simmin Aaron Edins/Eddins, born 1848, would be 38 to 57. Her oldest son Len Franklin, born 1875, would be 11 to 30. 

That pretty much narrows the candidates down to just two. Interestingly, we know that both Britta had a shiny dress around 1900 - 1910, because that's the approximate date range of the best picture we have of her. We know that Mary Drucilla had a shiny black dress, too, from pictures 1900 - 1919. So that piece of evidence supports either the BA or the MD theory. 

People of the time didn't always wear wedding rings. First, rings are expensive. Farmers couldn't always afford them. Second rings got in the way of work. You wouldn't want to lose a finger on farm equipment. I don't think lack of rings indicates lack of marriage.

The pose seems a little too intimate for a son to all the people I've asked. The 10 ± people I've asked think it's a husband and wife. So while probably not Douglas (as they called him) McGuire or Len Franklin, this line of questioning bears a little more research. 

If not a son, then that likely eliminates Britta and leaves Mary Drucilla and Simmin Aaron as the best candidates for the photo's subjects. They fit the criteria: if the photo was taken 1886 - 1910, they were both definitely alive (Simmin died in 1914); in the right age range (Mary Drucilla 28 - 47; Simmin 38 - 57); husband and wife; and Mary Drucilla had a black, shiny dress.

There are two kickers for me. The first is that the surname "McGuire" was distinctly mentioned in my cousin's memory. "Mary Drucilla McGuire" fits exactly. The second kicker for me is a photo that I believe is Mary Drucilla at an older age. The hair's similar (note the funny hair part), the eyes are similar, and the dress is similar. See?

 

To me, it's the same face. And if it's the same face, then it's Mary Drucilla McGuire, and thus the first picture I know of Simmin Aaron Eddins. 

Your constructive comments are welcome!

http://www.uvm.edu/landscape/dating/clothing_and_hair/1850s_clothing_men.php

http://www.corsetsandcrinolines.com/timeline.php?dt=1870

http://www.phototree.com/gallery.asp?cat=couples&f0=Couples

Oops! Maybe MD, not Britta

I collected all the photos of Britta and Mary Drucilla in one place, edited them to a similar size and shape, and compared them. The comparison leads me to believe that the woman my ggrandmother Lizzie gazes so lovingly at in the original is her own mother Mary Drucilla McGuire Edins. 

The pictures are below. What do you think?

Young Britta

Britta about 75

Older Britta--Label on photo is "Granny Flynn."

This has been identified as Mary Drucilla McGuire Eddins, age about 52

This photo is labeled "Mary Drucilla, Grandmother Edins."

Guess who???

A new picture of Britta. I think.

I just got back from my annual trip to AL. My aunt was kind enough to give me lots and lots of family pictures, many of which I plan to post here in the coming weeks. 

The most important thing she gave me was her mother—my grandmother's—photo album from the period 1918 - 1922. There are many pictures I'd never seen before. One in particular leapt out at me because I believe it is a picture that includes Britta Ann Green McGuire Flynn among the faces. Here's the picture:

The woman in the middle with her head turned is my great-grandmother Lizzie. I believe the next woman on the right (Lizzie's left) is Britta Ann Green McGuire Flynn. Britta was Lizzie's grandmother. 

The photo's position in the album seems to put it in 1919 or before. The next or so album page says "1919," and the pages are in their original position (i.e., not cut out or reattached).

The woman in question could not have been Mary Ann Jones, who at one time lived with Lizzie. Mary Ann died in 1914. The woman could be Mary Drucilla McGuire, Lizzie's mother, who was alive in 1919; Mary Drucilla died in 1928. But if you compare this person to the one picture we have of Mary D., it doesn't look like her. The face is too thin. 

However, it does look like Britta, who always wore her hair parted down the middle. Who wore a similar black dress in the best picture we have of her. Who was alive during the spring and summer of 1919. Who was thin like this woman. 

I'll continue to study the picture and album to see if it yields any more clues. I can't prove yet that this is Britta, but I sure think it is. 

RIP, JRR

One of the reasons that I love genealogy is the connections made with distant relatives. Almost without exception the contacts have been enlightening and fun. JJR, my half second cousin twice removed (!), was one such person, and he just died. He went out of his way to be helpful to me in researching our common ancestor Britta Ann Green. 

Britta was my great-great-great grandmother with her first husband John L. McGuire. J was Britta's grandson with her second husband Mike Flynn/Flin. Britta was known as "Granny Flynn" till the day she died. 

Thanks for the help, JRR, and RIP.

Exciting DNA news!!!!

I'm posting this super news in both ALRoots and ALRoots3:

Maybe we've identified some of the DNA that comes from Britta Ann Green or John L. McGuire. Maybe. But we need more cousin samples to be sure.

My fragrant cousin showed me how to create a DNA map. It can be tedious to enter long lists of numbers, but the results can be verrrrrrrrry interesting. In essence, you create a database with chromosome start and end locations and compare matching centiMorgans and SNPS. Numbers that are similar to each other likely indicate that the chromosome is inherited from the MRCA (most recent common ancestor). The more distant cousins (3rd - 8th) who take part, the more you can triangulate and hone in on those pesky buggers.

The tools on GEDmatch.com are the easiest to use. I think it took me five minutes to upload my data from Ancestry and FtDNA.

We've uploaded at least a dozen kits from our branch of the family to GEDmatch. This is great, but what it tells us is that we're all closely related. Luckily a fourth cousin descended from Britta and John recently uploaded a kit.

Hooray!!!! Thank you!!!!

By comparing which chromosomes match with ours, we can start to find Britta and John's DNA. If we can find Britta's DNA, we may be able to find her mother using mitochondrial DNA. So exciting!!!!

I've found spots on two chromosomes that seem like a pretty close match. I will not go out on a limb and say that this is Britta or John's DNA. What I will say is that if we can get a few more distant cousins to upload to GEDmatch, we might be able to triangulate and prove in a statistically meaningful way that this is definitely Britta's/John's DNA.

This method allowed us to break through a brick wall and prove that Polly Pinson Peters was indeed born a Dennis.

When Britta died in 1919, she was survived by 104 living descendants. Any cousins out there got a DNA test—and a sledgehammer????

Latest discoveries in Bibb County

Nada, really.

But sometimes finding nothing can mean a lot.

I returned to Bibb County anxious to look at all their indexes and reverse indexes for land sales and probate issues. I was hoping ot find more information about Joseph Green and Nancy Smitherman Garner Green to either confirm that they were Britta's father and step-mother, or that they weren't. I found nothing definite on that score.

When her first husband died, Nancy Smitherman Garner was the executrix of husband Andrew's will and inherited everything with her son William. Andrew died in March 1837, and Nancy married a much younger Joseph Green in September 1837 (Cougar? Marry in haste, repent at leisure??). In the same year Nancy gave up her rights to a certain piece of Bibb County land, as did daughter-in-law Olef (Olive Latham Garner). Their husbands then sold this land to Chamblin Davis, who also happened to be married to a Smitherman woman.

Andrew's will is here:

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-23189-23237-76?cc=1978117

While the Smitherman connection is interesting, the more important point is that Nancy inherited a share  of Andrew's wealth.

Nancy Ann Elizabeth Garner married Harris Brantley Ray on March 28, 1855.

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/FQFM-YY9

Discoveries in Bibb County

If Nancy inherited some of Andrew's money in 1837, where was it? Did new husband Joseph blow it? He did sell off some of her land. And with son-in-law William Garner (who was about the same age,  heh, heh, heh, you go, Nancy girl) he borrowed money from Martha Ray and an unknown other person. We know this because Joseph and William were sued in court in 1840 and 1841.


Nancy's son William shows up in Bibb County in 1850, but Joseph disappears from the records after 1841, the last time he was sued. (What a way to be remembered). A Nancy Greene shows up in Shelby County in 1850 living in the household of John P. McKinnie (McKinney), who married  Mary Ann Green in Shelby in 1841. We don't know that this Nancy Greene is the same as Nancy Green who married Joseph, but her age as recorded in the 1850 U.S. Census (56) matches the age range of the younger woman in Joseph's 1840 household and Nancy Smitherman's likely birth year.

For a more in-depth discussion of why I think this two Nancys are the same person, see my earlier post.

So where did Joseph go? He's not in any neighboring counties or in any 1850 Census entry in the entire U.S. that I can find. I think it's likely that he died, but if he did, did he leave a will in Bibb County? No, he did not — at least not under the name of Joseph Green. And I've not been able to find any traces of a will in any surrounding county.

Maybe his will was burned at the courthouse. But wait —  Bibb County Courthouse wasn't burned, because I looked through all those documents myself. The originals, no less.

Or maybe he died intestate. Certainly possible.

And let's look at Nancy. Assuming that Nancy Green and Nancy Greene are the same person, why doesn't she have any money? Why is she living with John McKinnie un 185o instead of in her own household? Why isn't she living with son William Garner who so blithely sold off her land in 1850?

The Bibb County records hold no answers.

Maybe Nancy S. G. Green remarried? I found a Nancy Ray associated with William Garner in the records, but this Nancy was the daughter of William Garner who had married xoxoxoxoxox Ray. William Garner gave his daughter a slave.

There was a Nancy Garner who married Johnson Ferguson. But "this Nancy" was clearly a sister or relation to Andrew and not "our Nancy" because "this Nancy" married Samuel Smitherman in 1841 when "our Nancy" was still married to Joseph Green, who died after 1841.

Maybe "our Nancy" reverted to an earlier name like  Zilpha Emily Ellender Edins Pope Freeman, who was buried as Ellen Pope? I found another Nancy Garner, but was able to identify her as Nancy Latham who married William Garner, Sr. No other record in Bibb County seem to refer to "our Nancy."

If Nancy S.G. Green died, where's her will? Not in the Bibb County records.

Because of the lack of records, we may never be sure what happened. But we can make some guesses based on what we do know PLUS what the lack of records tells us:

Joseph Green probably died intestate between 1841 and 1850, leaving Nancy so impoverished that she had to live with another family of tenuous relationship. Was Polly Green McKinney sister to Joseph and thus sister-in-law to Nancy Green and aunt to Britta? It's a good theory and fits everything we know.

I wasn't able to get into the Miscellaneous Records. So that's first on the next trip. And the Brent-Centreville Library, which has a good selection of genealogy materials on local families was closed by the time I finished at the Judge of Probate office. At least one other researcher agrees that Nancy Garner Green ended up living with the McKinneys, so I'll be looking for a researched and published Smitherman family tree for confirmation.

And there you have it. Amazing what new discoveries you can make from a lack of records!

Dating the first Britta picture

Here is Britta Ann Green as a young woman. This photo was originally posted by HillSeeker on her Ancestry.com family tree. Thank you, HillSeeker.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/iron-and-steel-industry#ixzz36LoaQBSH
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/iron-and-steel-industry#ixzz36LoaQBSH

I believe this picture dates to around 1870. Not much before and possibly a little later, but not much later than 1880. I've based this conclusion on basic observations and on guidelines published at PhotoTree.com. Thanks, PT. 

First, how old does Britta look in this picture?

I dunno. To me she looks anywhere from twenty to forty-five.

She lacks the deep, toothless sockets of her later pictures, so young to middle-aged seems right. Her hair looks dark, not gray or white as in the other pictures. She looks relatively prosperous with a nice dress and fripperies around the collar. Not like a penniless widow; more like a middle-class housewife.

From 1854 - 1864, Britta was 20 - 30. From 1868 to 1880 she was 34 - 46. Though either range is possible, I'm inclined to think that the latter one is closer, and that this picture was taken after she married Mike Flynn, which would place it after 1868.

> > Point: Eh. Not enough information to pinpoint her age. 


Secondly, in 1854 at age 20 Britta married John L. McGuire, son of a landowning farmer. John L. was also a farmer, and they had $50 in the 1860 Census. Not poor, but not rich, either. John L. died in 1864, leaving Britta widowed with three or four mouths to feed. Britta moved to Shelby County by the 1866 AL State Census. At that point she probably had little income; likely too poor to have a dress that "nice." In 1868 Bibb County aged 34 she married Mike Flynn, 50, who was a puddler, a highly skilled and relatively well-paid job in the iron industry. 

According to Answers.com:

"Puddling required many judgment calls based on experience. Therefore, it could take up to two years of training to become a skilled puddler. Many puddlers in the mid-nineteenth century were successful enough to later move into the ranks of owners."


Britta's dress has lots of fripperies, which indicates some money, so most likely from right after she married John L. or after she married Mike Flynn. 

> > Point: hard to say. 


Third, the shape of the photo:

It's hard to tell the exact shape of the page itself because this is only a copy of a picture. However, the image of the left side of the picture "frame" or mat is quite straight and sharp, suggesting square corners. Square corners are typical of pre-1870 pictures. Truthfully, though, it's hard to tell if the left side is part of the original matting, or part of a frame.

According to PhotoTree:

"This is one of the easiest and most dependable dating techniques. Square corners dominated the cards until 1870."

>> Point: before 1870 to around 1870

Fourth:

According to PhotoTree.com, the mat's oval shape was typical of cartes de visite in the 1870s. See this case study: 

http://www.phototree.com/case_021312.htm

> > Point to 1870s.


Fifth,  the background:

If you look closely or even enlarge the image, you can see a pattern in the background. After so many generations of the picture, it's hard to tell exactly what the pattern is. Most likely a decorative column of some sort. According to PhotoTree:

"Until the late 1860s the background was either void or consisted of only a chair, small table, or other object which the subject used to steady themselves. Around 1870 decorative backdrops and props were used, sometimes to the point of absurdity. Too many fences, rocks, and other decorations detracted from the phototgraph's subject."

> > Point to the 1870s.

Sixth, Britta's hairstyle:

Looking closely, we can describe it as center part, uncovered ears, flat-lying, curls or bow on top near the crown, possibly covered by a snood. (Check out the Bing Crosby ears.) If you look at Phototree.com's "Snood" collection, you can see that typical 1860's hairstyles indeed featured a center part, hair flat-lying or close to the head, and uncovered ears. However on closer examination, none of the 1860's hair samples has the bow or curls on top near the crown of the head. On the sides, yes, but not on the top.

Then look at the collection of 1860's cartes de visite for hairstyles. Of more than 50 samples, only three have curls on the top near the crown; the vast majority do not. Curls on top didn't really become fashionable until the 1870s. Hair fashions in the 1880s had lots of curly curls in front, not at the crown, so the picture is less likely to be from the late 1880s.

Knowing that Britta lived her entire life in Alabama, not exactly the fashion capital of the U.S., it's probable that her hairstyle reflected a trend AFTER it hit the mainstream, and not before. So there's one strike each against the 1860s and 1880.

Compare 1860 - 1880 hairdos on these three sites:

1860s: http://www.phototree.com/gallery.asp?cat=60s&f0=1860s

1870s: http://www.phototree.com/gallery.asp?cat=70s&f0=1870s

1880s: http://www.phototree.com/gallery.asp?cat=80s&f0=1880s

 > > Point to the 1870s.


Lastly, her collar area, which is really the most telling clue. Look at how many things are going on in the collar area: a scarf, a flower, an outlined collar; maybe more. According to PhotoTree.com:

"{The} collar and necklace was part of the 'busy' look of the 1870s. Her type of stylish hair came into vogue in this time period, with the plain, pulled back look of the 60s disappearing."

"Busy collar and necklaces the rage in the 1870s..."

http://www.phototree.com/case_021312.htm

> > Point: 1870's.


So there you have it. My best guess without more information than the image supplied by HillSeeker (thank you) is that the photo was taken about 1870, plus or minus a few years. Assuming so, Britta would be between 36 and 46, probably married to Mike Flynn, and living in Bibb County, where she lived from 1870 - 1880. 

Not bad for a 40 plus or minus year old. I myself have turned 42 many times. I wonder how many times Britta turned 42????