Is this Søren Gregersen, born 1823 in Voer, Denmark?

I thought I'd take a departure from my regular post approach today to explain something you may have been curious about. Why do I write the blog address of Family Photo Reunion across the images I write about? 

First, let me tell you a little story. My 2nd great grandfather, Søren Gregersen, was born in Voer, Hjørring, Denmark. He converted from Lutheranism to the LDS church and immigrated, along with his wife and a few of their grown children, to Redmond, Utah in the 1880s. His other adult children, including my great grandmother, stayed in Denmark. Søren has many descendants in America and elsewhere, and as a result most of my matches on the DNA sites are from this line. 

Someone attached the above carte de visite photograph of a young man to Søren's profile on FamilySearch Family Tree. Søren Gregersen was born in 1823. I had a suspicion that this wasn't my 2nd great grandfather simply because the age of the person did not fit with the style of photograph. How old does he look to you? For this individual to be my 2nd great grandfather, I estimated the photograph would have had to be taken between 1843 and 1855 in Denmark. Cartes de visite did not come onto the photographic scene until around 1859, though they were by no means common and available to the regular person until the mid-1860s. The style of this cdv, with its square-cornered card stock, and ornate studio background, table and patterned carpet indicates a time frame of 1865 to 1875, but it might be later than that. It could not be earlier. The wide lapels of the man's coat would indicate a mid-1870s to 1880 date as well. Of course, many men held onto their clothing longer than fashion would dictate due to economic reasons as men's fashions did not experience the same pendulum swings that women's fashions did. There may be cultural differences in fashion styles, too. Cartes de visites were popular in Denmark until the early 1900s; while in North America, they started to decline in favour in the late 1880s. But both those tendencies point to an even later date. I am also curious about the hat. Is the sitter wearing a uniform of sorts? 

I am skeptical of the attribution on FamilySearch for a few reasons, but mostly because there is no source information provided. I contacted the person who uploaded the image to the FamilySearch Tree to learn more about it, thinking, perhaps that they might be able to provide a scan of the reverse of the photograph, which might include a photographer's imprint or perhaps an inscription with a name or date.

The FamilySearch poster replied and explained that they had copied it from someone else's online tree. They didn't remember when or whose tree it was. But they were fairly sure it was correct. As I mentioned earlier, there are many descendants of my ancestor. Quite a few of them are engaged in the genealogy hobby. Many have accepted this image into their family tree. At what point does this fellow become my 2nd great grandfather, even if he is not? Is it after it is found in 50 trees? 100? Or should we be skeptical of unsourced information and state that uncertainty when sharing? I'm all for the latter. At the very least, we should provide a bread crumb trail for those who would like cite the provenance of their images.

I have been contacting every family tree owner who has posted this image in their tree in hopes of finding one person with a physical copy of the photograph. All, so far, have been copied from another online tree. Several years ago, one of my distant cousins from Denmark helpfully pointed me in the direction of WikiTree, which seems to be where many of the people I've spoken with have found this image. I immediately contacted the poster of the photograph. They reported that they also found this photo on a relative's online tree and re-posted it. But they remembered seeing a similar photo in one of their family albums and assumed it was the same photograph. They had intended to compare it with the one in their family album, but had forgotten about it. They told me that when they locate the photograph from their album, currently in storage and (take note) not an original, but a copy, too, they will either provide any accompanying information if it's the same photo or remove the above photograph from Søren's record on WikiTree if it is not. In the meantime, they've posted a disclaimer under the photo entry in WikiTree about this uncertainty. If you have copied this photo of Søren Gregersen into your tree, you may want to add a disclaimer of your own to your files that states this photograph is currently in question. Or better yet, remove it from the tree until you know its provenance.

The earliest online appearance of this photo I can find dates to 2011. The WikiTree image was posted in 2018. The 2011 image was added to a family tree on Ancestry and attached to a person identified as "Soren Peter Gregersen." This Soren Peter Gregersen was born in 1849, Brovst, Denmark. His wife happens to have a similar name to my Søren's wife. Soren Peter Gregersen is clearly not my great great grandfather, Søren Gregersen, who was born 26 years earlier in Voer. The research provided on this tree appears correct, in that it matches the information I found for Soren Peter after a quick look in Danish parish records. Name confusion is a common problem in Danish research. Simply having the same surname is not an indication of relationship.

My hypothesis is that one of Søren Gregersen's (b. 1823) descendants thought Soren Peter's Ancestry tree pertained to their relative, when it did not. There are some questionable online tree entries for my 2nd great grandfather that, among other things, inexplicably include the middle name "Peter." Having researched my ancestor thoroughly in the original Danish church books and censuses, I have not found one document that records my 2nd great grandfather's  middle name as "Peter" or “Peder.” I suspect one person posted this image in error, and many re-posted the mistake.

I feel the 2011 attribution is the most plausible one, but even that, with our limited information isn't even close to a certainty. There is also a possibility that this is a portrait of one of Søren Gregersen's sons. Most genealogists are aware that family stories are just that, stories, unless verified by research. If the photo wasn't identified and labelled near the time it was produced, errors can occur. Individuals can be incorrectly identified. 

I will keep updating this post as I obtain new information. I'm determined to get to the bottom of this photograph yet!

So, back to my watermarks. I place them on photos to ensure that anyone who stumbles across the image can find the original and read about the process used to identify it. Sometimes I don't fully identify an image. If I have reservations (and I often do), I say so. Some people include this information when they post the image in their online trees. Some even include a direct link to my blog post. Others don't bother and, instead, crop the photo to avoid the watermark and attach it to their tree, even when the photograph in question is not 100 percent proven to be their ancestor. I love it when a photograph can be reunited with a descendant, even if it is just a digital reunion that I know nothing about. But I am expecting those who use these images to responsibly cite the source. 

As always, if you are a direct descendant of the photographic subject in one of my blog posts, feel free to contact me about obtaining the original photograph.

If you happen to have the original Søren Gregersen photograph in your possession or can provide more information about its provenance, I would dearly love to hear from you. While I would love this to be a picture of my great, great grandfather, everything about this portrait seems to indicate it is someone else. 

UPDATE:  October 12, 2025

A reader used MyHeritage's Photo Dater feature on the above photograph. The cdv was dated to 1879 with an estimate of 76% accuracy or 1880, with an 35% accuracy estimate. I don't use AI to date my photos here on the blog, because I think it will lead to a dulling of observational skills and eventually, the inability to analyze historical photographs critically, but I verified the estimate myself on the website to be sure. If MyHeritage is correct, Søren Gregersen would be 56-57 years old in this photograph. Does the fellow in the photo look that old? What are your thoughts?  

When First Names Might Be Enough: the Chadwicks of Cliviger, Lancashire, ENG, ca. 1916-17

 

 

While I’ve had this postcard photograph for many years since purchasing it at a Victoria, BC antique store, I have never attempted to research it. Admittedly, I had a defeatist attitude about it right from the get-go. These adorable children are only identified by first name on the reverse of the postcard. I thought, without a surname, I would never find out who they are. And the postcard has been sitting, ignored, in my little postcard archive ever since.

 

 

A few days ago, I pulled it out and considered writing a “What a Shame Wednesday” post to lament the absence of useful information on the reverse. Such posts are meant to serve as cautionary tales against the incomplete labelling of photos. Just to be thorough, I felt I should at least go through the motions of researching this photo. So, I looked into the photographer’s imprint, “Hargreaves, Photographer, Clitheroe.” Thomas Stephen Hargreaves operated his studio at 3 King Street in Clitheroe, Lancashire, England. According to the Historic Building Recording Report commissioned by the Ribble Valley Borough Council, the property was first developed into a photographic studio sometime around 1880 and continued to be used for that purpose until around the end of World War I. The photographer resided there from at least 1911 to 1922. The Historic Building Report contains photographs of the studio area today, and my imagination feels it knows exactly where this image was taken within the room. Have a look yourself and tell me your thoughts.

https://webportal.ribblevalley.gov.uk/planx_downloads/19_0406_Historic_Building_Record.pdf

But, back to the children. Before I started any research, I recorded my guesses as to the ages of each of the children as identified on the reverse:

Front   Bertha [2]  Beteras [Beatrice, 1]  Ruth [4-5]  Tom [4?].

Top  Frank [7]  Willie [10]  Jack [John? 8]

The second list on the photograph includes a few extra names:  Jim, Hilda, Harry, and May. Perhaps these were younger siblings.

We know that this postcard dates to after 1907 because of the divided back which allowed a side for the address and one for the correspondence. The image itself is a “full bleed,” that is, the photograph goes to the edge of the card stock. After 1910, more and more postcards began to include a white border, but it was by no means a hard change. I have real picture postcards from later in the decade that were also full bleed. Unfortunately, our postcard has a generic back, so we can't narrow down the date as one might with an AZO or VELOX postcard. But judging by the outfits, this one seems to be from the mid-1910s. Frank’s double-breasted “Russian” suit with sailor-style lapels was current at that time. I located similar suits in several department store catalogues from 1914 and 1916.

My strategy was simple. Type in all the sibling’s names in a UK census search to see if anything pops up. And something did. One hit matched perfectly: the family of Joseph Henry Chadwick (b. 1878) and his wife, Sarah Jane (b. 1879), living in Bacup, Lancashire in 1921. Their children Bertha, b. 1914; Willie, b. 1907, John, b. 1908, Frank, b. 1910; Ruth, b. 1911; Tom, b. 1913; Beatrice M., b. 1916; Hilda, b. 1918, and James, b. 1920. The dates are remarkably close to my estimates. If these are the same people, the image would date to approximately 1916-17. The only hiccup was the appearance of a Lilian Chadwick, now with the surname Maden, born 13 May 1916 in the 1939 England and Wales Register in her parent’s home. Both Beatrice M. and Lilian Chadwick appear in the April/May/June 1916 Birth Registrations Index. Both are from Clitheroe, and both have a mother whose surname was Blacka.

It also appears that there are two death registrations. One for Lilian Maden, who died in October of 2002. And, yes, one for Beatrice Margaret Maden, who died that same month and year. Their birth dates are identical. We are either dealing with twins who never appear on the same census, who married men with the same surname Maden, and died in the same month, in the same year, or we have a name change.

It appears that the other children listed but not featured in the photograph were siblings. Some of them can be found in the 1939 England and Wales Register as part of the household of Joseph Henry and Sarah Jane Chadwick at Dowell House Farm in Radcliffe, Lancashire.

Is this a photograph of Joseph Henry and Sarah Jane’s children? I think there’s a good chance it is. However, I would like to see other images of the family from other sources to be certain. And I would really like to know what was going on with Lilian aka Beatrice.

 

Sources:

"England and Wales, Census, 1911", FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:X4MG-B5D : Thu Feb 13 08:31:17 UTC 2025), Entry for Thomas Stephen Hargreaves and Clara Hardiker Hargreaves, 1911.

1921 census of England, Lancashire, Haslingden, Bacup, , [database on-line], Ancestry (www.ancestry.ca : accessed 04 Oct 2025); citing RG 15/20081 Sch 22, Book 20081. Entry for household of Joseph Henry Chadwick.

Ancestry.com. 1939 England and Wales Register [database on-line]. Lehi, UT, USA: Ancestry.com Operations, Inc., 2018. Lancashire. Burnley Rd, Nzcm. Entry for Household of Joseph Henry Chadwick.

"England and Wales, Birth Registration Index, 1837-2008," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2FTY-4M2 : 1 October 2014), Beatrice M Chadwick, 1916; from "England & Wales Births, 1837-2006," database, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : 2012); citing Birth Registration, Clitheroe, Lancashire, England, citing General Register Office, Southport, England.

"England and Wales, Birth Registration Index, 1837-2008," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:2FTY-4SZ : 1 October 2014), Lilian Chadwick, 1916; from "England & Wales Births, 1837-2006," database, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : 2012); citing Birth Registration, Clitheroe, Lancashire, England, citing General Register Office, Southport, England.

 "England and Wales, Marriage Registration Index, 1837-2005," database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QV8K-MQ5S : 8 October 2014), Lillian Chadwick and null, 1939; from "England & Wales Marriages, 1837-2005," database, findmypast (http://www.findmypast.com : 2012); citing 1939, quarter 4, vol. 8E, p. 427, Haslingden, Lancashire, England, General Register Office, Southport, England.

 "England and Wales, Death Registration Index 1837-2007", FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVZJ-MDQ3 : Sat Mar 01 02:08:54 UTC 2025), Entry for Lilian Maden, 2002.

 "England and Wales, Death Registration Index 1837-2007", FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QVZJ-MD3T : Sat Mar 01 02:08:54 UTC 2025), Entry for Beatrice Margaret Maden, 2002.

 

A Case of the Same Initials: Wilbur F. or William F. Kilborn Studio Portrait, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, 1880s

This unidentified young couple had their portrait taken  at the W. F. Kilborn studio in Cedar Rapids, Iowa in the 1880s. 

Ontario-born Wilbur F. Kilborn opened his photographic studio in Cedar Rapids in 1864 and operated there until 1886.  Though hard to see in the image above, this item has the WFK logo in the imprint.  The only difficulty with saying that Wilbur F. was the photographer is that Wilbur's nephew, William Franklin Kilborn apprenticed with Wilbur Kilborn around this time and eventually took over the studio from his uncle. It's difficult to say which W.F. Kilborn is the creator of this image.  More research would have to be done into the various photographers imprints used by these photographers, and there seems to be very few samples of their work online.

 

Work cited:

Palmquist, Peter E, Pioneer Photographers from the Mississippi to the Continental Divide:  A Biographical Dictionary.

Annie's from Wingham, but where's Eleanor from? 1890s, Port Arthur, Ontario

 

On the reverse, in pencil, "Annie McIntosh from Wingham, Eleanor Anne Sharpe."

 

I'd love to learn more about the costumes Annie and Eleanor are wearing. Unfortunately, there isn't information included on the photograph about the event or occasion that prompted this photograph.

We do know that the photograph was taken in Port Arthur, Ontario by William Barrie, who operated a photographic studio in that town from 1886 to 1896. I would date this one to sometime in the 1890s. I've researched William Barrie before concerning another photograph in my collection. For more information on William John Barrie, please see "Unidentified Orphan Photo: Arm Around Her Dolly."

I searched a little on Ancestry to see if I could locate a suitable Annie McIntosh in the Canadian censuses. I am guessing that Wingham is the town located in Huron County, Ontario but it could, of course, be any town named Wingham. And, there are quite a few in North America and abroad. I could not find her. As for Eleanor, I couldn't link to an exact match for her in Port Arthur. She could have lived in a nearby town, but I could not find one more likely than any another in the list of Eleanor Sharpes in the censuses.

Any ideas, readers?