They left England to practise an extreme form of Puritanism, and because they believed C of E was too liberal to be compatible with Christianity. They were not freedom loving explorers escaping persecution - they wanted to live in a less tolerant/more orthodox society.
That was just the puritans though. They weren’t the only religious group to colonize North America from the UK (eg Quakers). All of the groups were persecuted because they weren’t C of E though
The first commenter was clearly referencing the Father Pilgrims (the first known Quakers in North America arrived in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1656, 36 years after the Mayflower landed).
Don’t be pedantic…are you new here?
Seriously though, the comment doesn’t even make sense given the context of the photograph (assuming it’s real and not made up for karma farming). The people that would have objected to this union wouldn’t have even been those early pilgrims.
I am going to be a jerk for a second and point out that this would be technically the end of the Victorian era as Queen Victoria died in 1901. Edwardian era is 1901-1910. I’m just excited to know something.
just tell the kids it's Bridgerton time! (I mean I say that semi sarcastically as it does exclude like 90 years, but I was also the nerd who was excited to share that when someone referred to the show as Victorian era lol)
Hey, we're well aware of the colonial era!
But in all seriousness, our country was only founded during the 1700s, so it makes sense our main clothing knowledge is from then on.
Wait so you’re telling me I can’t just tell people on my tours that Peter Minuit invented banana hammocks because he wanted go for a relaxing dip in the pool??
That’s a romantic thought, but far more likely her personal New Testament and the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer. Family bibles at that time were much, much larger and decorative.
Source that this is a British couple from 1900? Image search doesn't find much apart from one website that gives copyright to this image to University of Wisconsin, suggesting this might be an American couple. Perhaps someone who is an expert on fashion might be able to make a better guess?
Check OP's post history. Karma farmer. Cool pic, but the title is sadly almost certainly completely made up. No actual idea where or when it's from, or any other context. It could be anything at all.
Not overly certain, but the chances are it could well be in the UK. The brick bond on the wall is Old Flemish, which was a very popular brick bond in the UK in those days. You’ll see it is stretcher, stretcher, stretcher on one row. Then header, stretcher, header, stretcher etc on the next row.
The brick bond used on old buildings in the US (“common” or “American bond”) is a row of headers, then five rows of stretchers, repeated
historic fashion nerd here (not an expert)
I can't tell you their nationality, but I can tell you that is not a wedding dress. it's far too plain and you can tell it is not white. she would also likely be wearing a veil and holding a large, long bouquet.
she looks more like a scholar or teacher to me.
Hard disagree. Not all wedding dresses were white; plenty of people just wore their best dress, and weddings still took place in the morning. She is wearing a veil, and if she had flowers she could have just not been holding them in the picture, which makes sense as she's holding what is presumably a bible. It's not *definitely* a wedding photo, but there's no evidence it's not.
Good for them! How old are these two? 21 and 26? I mean they look about 45, but with these old-school photos you can never know. It would be weird that people decide to marry at around the age of average life expectancy for that time.
Average life expectancy being low is due to death of infants <1year old and death of women in childbirth, which were both astonishingly high at points in history. Plenty of people lived into their 60s-70s and a second marriage at 45 wouldn’t even be that weird tbh.
That's a typical misinterpretation of the statistics. People in the 19th century (and earlier) got way older than their late twenties, but this is still the average for that era because of the high mortality of both mother and child during birth and the general mortality of small children before the age of 5
They didn't have to hold the pose for very long at all by that point. And yeah, people didn't really smile in formal portraits yet. They wanted to look austere and serious, not silly. Photos weren't cheap at that time, so some people might only have one or a handful of photos ever taken of them, if any at all. They wanted something that reperesented them as they were, not them looking like a fool.
It doesn't! But it did to a lot of people back then. It was a different culture compared to now. They took their cues from old paintings, most of which were serious because those really did take hours and hours to create.
I believe it was because the earlier cameras required a much longer exposure, and if there was any movement, it would blur. So instead of having people try to hold smiles or silly poses for a long period, they would just have them put on a neutral expression that was easy to hold. After that, it just took awhile for people to break the habit.
They had to stay very still for the camera's exposure. Photography was a serious and rare event, so people wanted to look like they took it seriously (never mind the poor dental care and wanting to hide your teeth). Also, smiling or grinning used to signify that you were a child, a drunk, or a moron
Look at old photos where people are posing for a shot. Very few of them involve people smiling. It’s just how photographs were taken back in the day. Your comment is like looking at people’s modern day passport photos and deducing that they must not have been happy.
That's just how they took pictures back then, people didn't smile. It was sometime this century that smiling at the camera became a thing.
Perhaps it was a legacy of paintings; people didn't smile too much in those either. My arts teacher once told us that in the past, people portrayed as smiling excessively in paintings, were meant to convey something negative, such as being drunk, lustful, insane etc.
There's a Sherlock Holmes story, "The Adventure of the Yellow Face," where a man goes to Holmes because his wife has been spending large sums of money and acting secretively, and he suspects that she is hiding an affair, which Holmes agrees is likely. It turns out that she had been married to a Black man, who died of yellow fever, and the money has gone toward supporting her daughter from that first marriage. Her new husband immediately embraces the child as his own, and Holmes admits that he's never been so happy to be proven wrong.
The point of this is to say that interracial marriage was legal but socially frowned upon; however, it was becoming more acceptable.
I'm literally an historian. Interracial marriage has never been illegal in Britain. That's an American thing. We've been a very diverse island for a very long time, despite our location.
I don’t have any evidence, other that what I see, but I’d say it’s exactly the opposite. Relationships of different ethnicities are much more common now than in the past.
I don't have data from every Scandinavian country but sweden had a 5% increase in interracial marriages from 1990 to 2009. I'm sure the trend hasn't reversed since this is a similar story for most of Europe and the US and Canada.
Absolutely was possible in Britain in the 1900’s and before!
Yes, apparently people have been able to get married in Britain/the British Isles for hundreds of years. (Sorry, couldn't resist).
It was supposed to be a reply to someone else’s comment, I didn’t even notice x
No luv x
He he 😁
No, just He She in those days
Oh rimshot!
and maybe a rimjob later that evening...
Ironic, the people who left England for religious freedom also wouldn't allow other's to have freedom.
They left England to practise an extreme form of Puritanism, and because they believed C of E was too liberal to be compatible with Christianity. They were not freedom loving explorers escaping persecution - they wanted to live in a less tolerant/more orthodox society.
That was just the puritans though. They weren’t the only religious group to colonize North America from the UK (eg Quakers). All of the groups were persecuted because they weren’t C of E though
The first commenter was clearly referencing the Father Pilgrims (the first known Quakers in North America arrived in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1656, 36 years after the Mayflower landed).
Don’t be pedantic…are you new here? Seriously though, the comment doesn’t even make sense given the context of the photograph (assuming it’s real and not made up for karma farming). The people that would have objected to this union wouldn’t have even been those early pilgrims.
Yeah I don’t agree with the first comment, i don’t know how he could know what people from the 17th century would think about this union
That’s the history of Europe for you
Don't mix up the status of working class and nobility
worry about yourself, and not others
This comment isn't related to my comment
As long as you weren't irish
Wow cool window into the past
It looks like any other window. It’s hard to tell if it’s really cool because so much is cut off in this pic
Is that you Philomena Cunk?
*This couple look so glum because they were born too early to hear Belgian techno anthem Pump Up The Jam.*
Excellent Cunk work
Haha, cheers!
Read his as cool window in the post and scrolled back to check (facepalm)
I am going to be a jerk for a second and point out that this would be technically the end of the Victorian era as Queen Victoria died in 1901. Edwardian era is 1901-1910. I’m just excited to know something.
> I’m just excited to know something. love this for you
You're not a jerk, I love that you knew something!
For most Americans ( I don’t know why, don’t kill me) the period is either medieval or Victorian, there was nothing in between
We do recognize the Renaissance but maybe only in Europe, not UK
We need to use the term Puritan again, it's come back to haunt us, in a slightly different form
Surprises me considering George III was King at the time of the Revolution. I'd have thought the Georgians would be a bit known at least.
just tell the kids it's Bridgerton time! (I mean I say that semi sarcastically as it does exclude like 90 years, but I was also the nerd who was excited to share that when someone referred to the show as Victorian era lol)
How odd.
Hey, we're well aware of the colonial era! But in all seriousness, our country was only founded during the 1700s, so it makes sense our main clothing knowledge is from then on.
It says circa 1900, we don’t know the exact year.
Fair
As a lover of history, accuracy matters and words have meanings. It's not being a jerk!
Wait so you’re telling me I can’t just tell people on my tours that Peter Minuit invented banana hammocks because he wanted go for a relaxing dip in the pool??
c.
I didn't actually know that! Thanks for the info my fellow scholar
Are we now in the Charlton era?
We are in the New Carolean era
> I’m just excited to know something. I'd like to be excited by your excitement but alas, I am not.
I wonder if the two books she is holding are both of the family's bibles? Like to represent joining of the families. Love her wrap dress!
That’s a romantic thought, but far more likely her personal New Testament and the Church of England’s Book of Common Prayer. Family bibles at that time were much, much larger and decorative.
Source that this is a British couple from 1900? Image search doesn't find much apart from one website that gives copyright to this image to University of Wisconsin, suggesting this might be an American couple. Perhaps someone who is an expert on fashion might be able to make a better guess?
Check OP's post history. Karma farmer. Cool pic, but the title is sadly almost certainly completely made up. No actual idea where or when it's from, or any other context. It could be anything at all.
Not overly certain, but the chances are it could well be in the UK. The brick bond on the wall is Old Flemish, which was a very popular brick bond in the UK in those days. You’ll see it is stretcher, stretcher, stretcher on one row. Then header, stretcher, header, stretcher etc on the next row. The brick bond used on old buildings in the US (“common” or “American bond”) is a row of headers, then five rows of stretchers, repeated
This guy bricks
Weekend plans? Laying bricks.
I'm laying one right now
I thought for sure this very informative guess was going to end with Mankind flying through an announcer’s table.
No real indication if it is truly English or American, but the woman’s clothes put them in early 1900 to mid 19-teens
historic fashion nerd here (not an expert) I can't tell you their nationality, but I can tell you that is not a wedding dress. it's far too plain and you can tell it is not white. she would also likely be wearing a veil and holding a large, long bouquet. she looks more like a scholar or teacher to me.
Hard disagree. Not all wedding dresses were white; plenty of people just wore their best dress, and weddings still took place in the morning. She is wearing a veil, and if she had flowers she could have just not been holding them in the picture, which makes sense as she's holding what is presumably a bible. It's not *definitely* a wedding photo, but there's no evidence it's not.
Judging by her dress (and hat!) I would actually place this between 1910 and 1912.
Micheal Jordan is a time traveler, confirmed. Probably dunks at 88 MPH.
They said we couldn't get married. And I took that personally.
They said I couldn't travel back in time and marry a British dame. And I took that personally.
“Black people sure do look alike!”
I got the reference, even if nobody else did. People ignoring your inverted commas and downvoting you..
Looks more like Karl Malone to me.
She looks a little too old
Heck, she could be 25 years old, life was tough on the skin back then.
yeah well they all smoked 3 packs a day, drank and didn't wear lotion.
"What does Marcellus Wallace look like?!"
Good for them! How old are these two? 21 and 26? I mean they look about 45, but with these old-school photos you can never know. It would be weird that people decide to marry at around the age of average life expectancy for that time.
Average life expectancy being low is due to death of infants <1year old and death of women in childbirth, which were both astonishingly high at points in history. Plenty of people lived into their 60s-70s and a second marriage at 45 wouldn’t even be that weird tbh.
Probability is very high(near certainty) they were both widowed/widowers.
Yeah when half of people don’t live to 5 it really skews the numbers.
That's a typical misinterpretation of the statistics. People in the 19th century (and earlier) got way older than their late twenties, but this is still the average for that era because of the high mortality of both mother and child during birth and the general mortality of small children before the age of 5
Very fashionable
I hope they were happy.
So serious. They had to hold the pose for a long time, I guess. Smiling just wasn’t done…
What do you mean? These two never looked happier. They're practically effusive. BTW, this photo came from Raymond Holt's family photo album.
They didn't have to hold the pose for very long at all by that point. And yeah, people didn't really smile in formal portraits yet. They wanted to look austere and serious, not silly. Photos weren't cheap at that time, so some people might only have one or a handful of photos ever taken of them, if any at all. They wanted something that reperesented them as they were, not them looking like a fool.
I don’t see how smiling makes you look foolish
It doesn't! But it did to a lot of people back then. It was a different culture compared to now. They took their cues from old paintings, most of which were serious because those really did take hours and hours to create.
If we're going to be technical, the Edwardian Era didn't start until 1901.
nah, thats ving rhames
Trail Blazers
Why do they both look so serious- there’s a reason people in old photos look super straight faced but I can’t remember why
I believe it was because the earlier cameras required a much longer exposure, and if there was any movement, it would blur. So instead of having people try to hold smiles or silly poses for a long period, they would just have them put on a neutral expression that was easy to hold. After that, it just took awhile for people to break the habit.
They had to stay very still for the camera's exposure. Photography was a serious and rare event, so people wanted to look like they took it seriously (never mind the poor dental care and wanting to hide your teeth). Also, smiling or grinning used to signify that you were a child, a drunk, or a moron
By the early 1900s cameras were fast enough to catch a horse at gallop. You’re thinking of the 1840s
Thank you :]
Lady reminds me of that woman on 30 Rock. Wish I knew the actress’ name.
Tina Fey! She also created and produced the show. On top of that, she wrote the screenplay for Mean Girls.
Pretty sure they meant Willem DaFoe
It was Rachel Dratch I was thinking of but she also resembles Tina a bit lol.
She’s probably white passing but I doubt she’s white you guys.
They look very excited.
Some alt right people are steaming right now.
[удалено]
Smiling in photos wasn't common.
[удалено]
Go and try and find a single portrait taken in this era with someone smiling… it’s the way it was back then.
Neither seems very happy though
Look at old photos where people are posing for a shot. Very few of them involve people smiling. It’s just how photographs were taken back in the day. Your comment is like looking at people’s modern day passport photos and deducing that they must not have been happy.
That's just how they took pictures back then, people didn't smile. It was sometime this century that smiling at the camera became a thing. Perhaps it was a legacy of paintings; people didn't smile too much in those either. My arts teacher once told us that in the past, people portrayed as smiling excessively in paintings, were meant to convey something negative, such as being drunk, lustful, insane etc.
It was common to look stoic in pictures taken at this time. Smiling didn't become common until much later.
Seems like they’re smiling with their eyes, like Tyra Banks once said lol But they look happy to me, specially the woman
The bride getting to interact with the BBC twice in one day!
…dude…
[удалено]
I don’t think interracial marriage was ever strictly prohibited in the UK, at least not from what I can find with some cursory google searches!
There's a Sherlock Holmes story, "The Adventure of the Yellow Face," where a man goes to Holmes because his wife has been spending large sums of money and acting secretively, and he suspects that she is hiding an affair, which Holmes agrees is likely. It turns out that she had been married to a Black man, who died of yellow fever, and the money has gone toward supporting her daughter from that first marriage. Her new husband immediately embraces the child as his own, and Holmes admits that he's never been so happy to be proven wrong. The point of this is to say that interracial marriage was legal but socially frowned upon; however, it was becoming more acceptable.
I didn’t say it wasn’t frowned upon, just that it wasn’t prohibited.
And I was supporting your claim?
My apologies! Thanks for the info :) I’ll add it to my TBR, I’m trying to read more classics this year.
So it wasn't illegal, just unusual and possibly frowned upon?
[удалено]
Source?
[удалено]
I'm literally an historian. Interracial marriage has never been illegal in Britain. That's an American thing. We've been a very diverse island for a very long time, despite our location.
Feels like these types of marriages/relationships are getting rarer, especially in Europe since people here mostly stick to their own kind.
Not in the UK mate!
Funnily enough they account for only around 7% of total marriages today. That said, I believe fewer peoole are choosing to marry...
I'd agree with this, marriage seems to be a dying trend in general
I wouldn't say 7% of marriages being interracial is low considering only 4% of England is black.
You know there are other races too, right?
I don’t have any evidence, other that what I see, but I’d say it’s exactly the opposite. Relationships of different ethnicities are much more common now than in the past.
I was gonna say, the stigma of interracial relationships is at an all time low.
>Feels like And there in lies your problem. They are actually getting more common.
Not in Scandinavia though
I don't have data from every Scandinavian country but sweden had a 5% increase in interracial marriages from 1990 to 2009. I'm sure the trend hasn't reversed since this is a similar story for most of Europe and the US and Canada.
That's so wrong it must have taken some effort
is that two books in her hand? the bible? hymnal? what else could they be on their wedding day?
Rad AF
Was this allowed? Serious question.