« The Latchams and The Williams, 1860s »

It is often interesting what people think to write on the backs of CDVs, and what they omit. The couple above are identified, in the same hand, as the Latchams, his name is not given on either card, her name is Susan (nee. Williams), and the child's name is not given at all. There is no date for the left portrait (by Mr. Thredders Royal Photographic Institution at Weymouth, England), the right portrait, obviously taken not many months later, is dated London, Thursday, November 15, 1866 (by Winter Thompson, Photographer, 137 Edgeware Road, Opposite the Music Hall). We'll never know why Susan is not in the second image. The information was likely added for family records later in the 19th century judging by the penmanship, so it is possible that the child did not live to adulthood and so was either not known or not considered of genealogical interest.

Below are CDVs from the same period of Susan's father, Thomas Williams (by Angel Photographist, Exeter) and her older sister, Mrs. Ann Berry (by W. Haddy, Brixham). The writer adds that Mr. Williams lived in Broadhampston near Totnes and was 84 years old when he died; and Susan is Cousin (Coz.) Susan, so we may safely assume a greater interest in Williams family connections. Note Mr. Williams spats.

Albumen prints of the period often lacked detail in the highlights areas. 

Reader Comments (3)

I think I can give Susan's husband a name: a Susan Williams married a ROWLAND LATCHAM in Newton Abbot, Devon in the last quarter of 1860. Thank you for your articles... I am savouring them like (& with) a fine Australian wine. I may be able to find out a little more about these folks next week :)

November 14, 2009 | Registered CommenterElizabeth Miley

As the name Latcham is far less common than Williams, finding Rowland & Susan in the census records was quite fast, & I could be really very certain I had the right people! Before they were married, Rowland worked as an ‘Assistant Prison Warder’ at Portland Carich Prison, Dorset.

I couldn’t find him in 1861, but Susan was at home with her widowed mother Joan in Newton Abbot, where the couple married.

By 1871 they had, as a family moved to London, living and working at ‘James St. Marylebone ANGEL ARMS BEER SHOP’ & Rowland was listed as a ‘beer seller’!! ‘Angel’ echoes the name of the William’s cdv photographer back in Weymouth, which made me wonder if it was a relation taking the photos there… speculative but interesting.

Occupations of those living at nearby households can give an insight into the type of area it was, & we have in this case: a butcher a baker (no candlestick maker) a shoemaker, laundress, errand boy, boot maker & Hackney carriage driver!

They had two sons, both born in Portland: Rowland Bickford (b.1861) & Henry (b. 1863). It would seem that there may be a greater gap between the two cartes & that the first shows Rowland in Susan’s arms circa 1862, & the second Henry in 1866? Both survived childhood, however Papa Rowland was not long for the world. He is indexed as having died in 1872 in Marylebone age 48. Henry was found once more as a ‘grocer’s assistant’ in Greenwich 1881, then he disappears, perhaps overseas.

Rowland was a good Momma’s boy, living with the widowed Susan for two decades until marrying & apparently naming his own first-born Rowland… Rowland III! To earn a living, Susan worked as a ‘Book Folder’ at 11 Great Ormond Street St. Andrew Holborn Above The Bars. There is a famous children’s hospital on this street, (founded 1852 & still in existence) & I noticed several medically related occupations in the neighbouring properties.

Susan lasted to the age of 78, dying at Shoreditch London in 1910 age 78.

November 18, 2009 | Registered CommenterElizabeth Miley

Thank you so much for taking the time to find and add information on these family photos. As is so often the case, making generalizations based only on what you see, or interpreting what is written on photographs, is a risky endeavor at best; records, when they are available will always give a more complete picture. I made the assumption that the same child was pictured twice (not so) and so I got the timing and year wrong. Assuming that Susan would have been in the second photograph if she was living was another mistake since she lived to a considerable age. I did know enough not to assume that because a child is in skirts that it must be female (my father and his brothers are all photographed in skirts post 1910).

I am still amused that the person who wrote on the CDVs had virtually no interest in Mr. Latcham or his offspring by Susan - that she was a Williams was clearly all that mattered (but that is why the photos survived together)!

November 18, 2009 | Registered CommenterTimebinder

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>