dee_burris: (Default)
Dee Burris Blakley ([personal profile] dee_burris) wrote2012-06-10 20:50
Entry tags:

Another Burris family photo...

This one on the occasion of the 50th wedding anniversary of George W Burris, Sr., and Mary Mathilda Wharton - so that makes it on or around 7 Oct 1927.

This is another one where they left the spouses of their offspring out of the photo. (Did you have to pay by the person back then?)

Photobucket


Standing, left to right:
Richard Benjamin Burris, Ernest Arthur Burris, Dora Emma Burris Crites, William Homer Burris, George W Burris, Jr., and Ottis Gileston Burris.
Seated were the honored couple.

Missing was Walter Monroe Burris.

They were standing in birth order. Ott took his hat off, like a gentleman should.

Someone must have been very Type A - like me.

Now I know where I get it.

(Anonymous) 2012-06-11 04:16 (UTC)(link)
I think it's interesting to look at group photos because I believe they can tell you something about relationships among the individuals. For example, Richard, on the left, has his head inclined just slightly away from the group - not quite so connected. Two siblings have their hands on the shoulders of three others. They must have been close. And Dora, with her head included toward William, was probably closer to him than Ernest, on her right. Ottis, on the right, isn't connecting with anyone except because his head is inclined slightly. Do you have any anecdotal information about the relationships among the siblings. It would be interesting to compare the stories and the photo.

I like the fact that spouses were not included but I wonder if there's another photo in someone's possession that includes the spouses. Sometimes several photos were taken on the same roll of film and divided up (rather than having copies made).

I hope your wrist is improving. It's nice to see you blogging more regularly again.

Nancy from My Ancestors and Me

(Anonymous) 2012-06-11 04:19 (UTC)(link)
It should read, "Dora, with her head inclined...." (If I could type better, my lack of proof-reading skills wouldn't be so apparent!)
Nancy, again.