Genealogy Chat

Rutland Belle - I think when we're saying "nurse" now, we're talking about household children's nurse. These were usually very young girls.

It would also provide a possible reason for the photo - for the kids to have something to remember her by, maybe if she was getting married or otherwise moving on.

Hospital nurses definitely had the big over-the-shoulder aprons, but I can see a domestic children's nurse having a fancy bib for more formal occasions, still being a uniform, as being out of uniform in the household would not be permissible.

Children's nurse or parlour/lady's maid in a relatively prosperous household, I'd still say.

Glad you like the refs, Andrew. That site does offer a little background.

Janey,
All posts are of interest, by default.

I have been to work today, and at work I am not paid to peruse your suggestions of maids, however now at home, I find them jolly interesting.
I too lean towards the maid rather than nurse. Though a maid later than 1886 changes who I think it could be, as would a nurse before 1910.

The material of her dress is quite fancy. I shouldn't say dress, as the skirt is seperate from the top.
I'm leaning more to governess or ladies maid, as I doubt nurses or cooks would be spared such grandeur with the material.

Whatever she did, she was "upstairs" rather than "downstairs"

Deb

Lovely photo. I don't think is a nurses uniform. The apron is not big enough, it would have been completely over the shoulders and over the back, also the sleeves would probably have been either removable or able to be rolled up. Even when I started nursing in the 60's aprons and caps were far more encompassing than that in the photo. The material of the dress is too fine to be a nurse's uniform as it would have to withstand laundering.

Also her hands are not red raw!!

A nurse/governess is possible - with that being her Sunday best nurse outfit, for being seen in public with the kids maybe.

I still tend to the lady's maid, possibly parlour maid view.

But I gather what I posted was of no interest.

Kinda demanding with little acknowledgement, here.

Has anyone noticed the small key attached to her waist?

I'm sure that the books and key hold "the key" to her occupation.

Head cook maybe? Cook books and a key to lock the food away.

Deb

Edit - I've changed my mind. She looks far too young for a head cook. Maybe a nurse as suggested, and the key is to the medicine cupboard.
To me she looks about 17ish.

Try posting the photo here, where I have received tremendous help, and it is easier for people to see the photo immediately -

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/board,298.0.html

Well going by that, I would date this photo to the late 1990s, not 89.
that's a different can of worms

I disagree about the hairstyle, Andrew. 'Respectable' women wore their hair up at the time. It was a sign of adulthood and they started to do it when in their late teens. Usually the one thing you can rely on in younger women is their hairstyle.

If you google domestic service/images you'll find that women had their hair drawn back in the 1880s, and softly piled up in the late 1890s/1900s.

Compare this 1897 photo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/manchester_city_galleries/3653793908/
with this of 1888: http://www.flickr.com/photos/manchester_city_galleries/3653793904/

As she was a working girl her fashion would be more subdued in her work dress. The sleeves would be less pronounced.

This is an excellent site to help date photos: http://www.cartes.fsnet.co.uk/date/main.htm

Ozi

A page about lady's maids with a picture that looks like quite similar dress:

http://ourwardfamily.com/victorian_servants.htm

Photos of maids:

http://ourwardfamily.com/1800s/Parlour_Maid_-_1.JPG

http://ourwardfamily.com/link_images/19th_Century_Maids_-_1.JPG

Lady's maid: http://ourwardfamily.com/1800s/Ladys_Maid_-_1.JPG


The pay scale for a lady's maid was considerably higher than for other household maids -- see that site.


Also - "lady's maid or governess".

http://flickr.com/photos/23572806@N08/3653008683

Again, similar.


As to whether she might have preferred to be in civvies - her own clothes might not have been nearly as grand as her work clothes.

I suspect the photo was taken for an occasion of some sort, promotion, new job, I prefer the qualification - hence the books.
I think the hair held up is not a style, but an acceptance that hair is best off our of the face and under the cap at work, and the sleeves don't look that puffy compared to those of the turn of the centuary.

The nuse of the family qualified in about 1910...
where as the domestic maid was working between 1880 and 1886... So the date clues could help us out.

The apron looks v fancy for a nurse. The photo I have of my grandmother has a much more 'wrap-around' style.

Is there a possibility she could be 'slumming it' and dressed as a maid/nurse for a fancy dress party

The hair does remind me of a toned-down Gibson Girl, although the sleeves aren't puffy like I'd expect a "Gibson Girl" to have. Then again, that could be because her dress (whether nurse maid or medical nurse - I'm leaning towards the second, purely because the top of her cap thing is a little bit peaked) is more of a working outfit than a fashion thing.

Is it possible it was taken - I think somebody mentioned it before - to commemorate her qualifying as a nurse etc?

Edit - just found this link re. the "Gibson Girl", but perhaps it's a bit late?
http://into-thefray.com/blog/2009/04/06/aesthetic-movement/

I have got a picture of my great-grandma online (web address below), and she was born in 1877 so we think it was taken c.1898.

http://katesfamilytree.wetpaint.com/page/Barnett+Family

Does anyone have any further views on a date?

going by the headdress alone I say definitely a nurse

Janet

Nurses are not skivvies in my eyes. In recent years of experience with my parents they are worth their weight in gold and deserve much better pay.

I wonder if Gordon Brown is reading this?

Love

Margaret

Well, I have pictures of women I know to be married wiithout rings on. And as I said above, there are few options for this date for single women. But if you say she must be unmarried, perhaps the date is wrong - in that case its back to the sleeves!

having taken all the info in, I have made some more distoveries.
In 1881 there is a 17 year old relative listed as "Assistant in house (Dom)",

She married in 1886, and it was suggested above that the sleeves are certainly after 1889. The girl in the image looks young to me, I am no expert on dress, and I'm still not sure that the absence of a ring is a sure sign she was single.

So the questions remain....

If the only photos people had were those paid for by an employer, no one would have any photos.

I have a portrait photo of my g.grandmother, who took in laundry and whose husband drove a brewery dray. Neither had an employer who would pay for the photo, therefore must have been able to pay for it themselves.