• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

A Man Of Two Eras. 20th Century Victorians

This made my head swim the first time I read it, but now I understand it, it seems remarkable:


Here's another.

Ekb5zXhWAAE-3qu.jpeg.jpg
 
That one was a bit less exciting:D

As for the assertion that Dr Routh was the last man in Oxford to wear a wig... I think context may be missing!
 
I may go on too much about my relatives (did I mention I was related to Aleister Crowley's wife Rose? I did? Oh.) but my great great grandfather (b. 1767) knew Robert Burns, who died in 1796. This seems quite stretched out to me, although of course not as impressively so as some of the stories above.

Just as an illustration here's the birth dates of my ancestors, with a random family chosen completely at random for comparison.

My great great great grandfather (b. 1722)Queen Victoria (b. 1819)
My great great grandfather (b. 1767)King Edward VII (b. 1841)
My great grandfather (b. 1836)King George V (b. 1865)
My grandfather (b. 1888)King George VI (b. 1895)
My mum (b. 1924)Queen Elizabeth II (b. 1926)
Me (b. 1964)Prince Edward (b. 1964)
 
I may go on too much about my relatives (did I mention I was related to Aleister Crowley's wife Rose? I did? Oh.) but my great great grandfather (b. 1767) knew Robert Burns, who died in 1796. This seems quite stretched out to me, although of course not as impressively so as some of the stories above.

Just as an illustration here's the birth dates of my ancestors, with a random family chosen completely at random for comparison.

My great great great grandfather (b. 1722)Queen Victoria (b. 1819)
My great great grandfather (b. 1767)King Edward VII (b. 1841)
My great grandfather (b. 1836)King George V (b. 1865)
My grandfather (b. 1888)King George VI (b. 1895)
My mum (b. 1924)Queen Elizabeth II (b. 1926)
Me (b. 1964)Prince Edward (b. 1964)
Is that all down the same family line? In which case, did your GGGF had a son at age 69? We've had discussions elsewhere about much older men marrying younger women - I think in the context of American Civil War veterans. Was it a common occurrence in the 19th century?
 
Is that all down the same family line?
Yes, it's a direct line of descent.

In which case, did your GGGF had a son at age 69?
He did indeed, the old goat. He got married the first time in 1791 and they had a daughter in 1792 when he would have been a moderate 25ish. He was widowed in 1823 and remarried about 1826 or 1827, so he must have been around 60. My great grandfather was born in 1836.

It's hardly relevant, but the old guy had very definite tastes in names. Both his wives were called Margaret. He was Archibald. His first son by his second wife was called Archibald, and they called their daughter Margaret. Archibald jr died in childhood, so they had another son and called him Archibald. To me it displays a distinct lack of imagination.

Was it a common occurrence in the 19th century?
Good question. I think it may have been more common then than now. It seems to me that the plots of some well-known 19th century novels feature the marriage of a young woman to an older man (e.g. Jane Eyre, Emma, Little Women, Bleak House) and one is tempted to think of the much more pressing need to get married in order to secure some sort of economic stability making women in those days a lot less fussy about husbands. (And very likely having ageing husbands foisted on them by impecunious parents, as per certain of those 19th century novels!)
 
I was looking at old restored films recently and thought these two would fit this thread - Paris 1890's -
And Paris in 1927 -
30 years time span so some of the same people might even be in both films - but two very different era's - epsecially noticeable is the change from horse drawn to motorised transport.
By contrast if you were to have filmed outside my flat in Glasgow in 1990 and then again today you would be hard pushed to spot any major change.
 
It's hardly relevant, but the old guy had very definite tastes in names. Both his wives were called Margaret. He was Archibald. His first son by his second wife was called Archibald, and they called their daughter Margaret. Archibald jr died in childhood, so they had another son and called him Archibald. To me it displays a distinct lack of imagination.

Recycling parental and grandparental names was traditional in earlier times. Then you'd work your way through various sibling names to label your remaining offspring. It must have made for some confusion in small settlements.

For reference, from Charlotte Mary Yonge's "The Daisy Chain":

Dr Spencer was saying, with a smile between gratification and sadness, “I did not think my name would have been remembered here so long

“We had used up mine, and the grandfathers’, and the uncles’, and began to think we might look a little further a-field,” said Dr May.


[Dr May had a family of 11 children; he and his wife were Richard and Margaret, and their first two children were also Richard and Margaret. Second daughter was Flora after Mrs May's sister, second son was Norman after her father. Aubrey Spencer May was the 10th child, hence being named after his father's friend. You get the idea.]
 
According to Wikipedia [C Aubrey Smith] was also the partriarch of the British acting enclave in Hollywood at the time - the David Nivens and Ronald Colemans et al.
As soon as I read that, I thought of Sir Ambrose Ambercrombie from The Loved One. I checked out the IMDB, and discovered that, yes indeed, he was "the inspiration for the character Sir Ambrose Abercrombie in Evelyn Waugh's satire of Hollywood "The Loved One."
 
As soon as I read that, I thought of Sir Ambrose Ambercrombie from The Loved One. I checked out the IMDB, and discovered that, yes indeed, he was "the inspiration for the character Sir Ambrose Abercrombie in Evelyn Waugh's satire of Hollywood "The Loved One."
I just re-read "The Loved One." It's a very sour novel.
 
I was looking at old restored films recently and thought these two would fit this thread - Paris 1890's -
And Paris in 1927 -
30 years time span so some of the same people might even be in both films - but two very different era's - epsecially noticeable is the change from horse drawn to motorised transport.
By contrast if you were to have filmed outside my flat in Glasgow in 1990 and then again today you would be hard pushed to spot any major change.
That's an amazing record of Paris - strange to see the Eiffel Tower in that state. My GG and his family would have been there at the time and the colourisation and speed adjustment of the film makes them seem within touching distance
 
Back
Top