22 March 2013

Photo Friday: Ahead of Their Time

In 1826 the world's first photograph was taken.
You can see that photograph at this link.
Here we have some tree owners who either have no idea when photography was invented or don't care. These are from two different trees.

Uploaded to: Eliakim Wardwell (1634-1692)
Attached to: Same person on 5 more trees

Thanks to Margaret for the link to this photo. 

Uploaded to: Elizabeth Smith (1665-1766)
Attached to: Same person on 3 more trees
Thanks to Kristin for the link to this photo.


If you have a photo to suggest please send a link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com.


PREVIOUS POST: Mother or Father?
NEXT POST: Civil War Zombie Corps 3

12 comments:

  1. You said it, "they don't care". They just like to add stuff - sort of like hoarding...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's exactly what it's like! Every coat of arms icon, every clip art flag,... UGH!

      Delete
  2. I hope that people are tagging these with notes on the trees.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you scroll down on this post
      http://buwt.blogspot.com/2012/11/why-photo-edition.html
      you'll see a reaction from someone who has gotten comments on their inaccurate photo. It's not pretty :-P

      Delete
  3. Maybe they were time travelers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That has crossed my mind ;-)

      http://buwt.blogspot.com/2012/10/that-explains-everything.html

      Delete
  4. that's so funny. I wasn't aware that happened with photos - I've seen lots of parents on family trees that were younger than their offspring but a photo dating to the 1600's? that's just comical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you take a look at some of the other photo posts here you'll see it's not limited to actual photos. Images of paintings incorrectly attributed, photos of dolls attached to Plantagenets,...Is it any wonder that I need a drink to write about some of these ;-)

      Delete
  5. I wonder whether these may have been added to indicate that these folk were descendants of the person to whom they were attached? (Just trying to find a rational explanation when there probably isn't one).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would be ancestors of the person in the photo but no, I don't think being rational ever comes into the equation :-P

      Delete
  6. Thanks.... just another cautionary tale about the "stuff" posted on family trees. Can't be too careful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Do not mindlessly click" applies to every part of the tree ;-)

      Delete