• Welcome to this forum . We are a worldwide group with a common interest in Birmingham and its history. While here, please follow a few simple rules. We ask that you respect other members, thank those who have helped you and please keep your contributions on-topic with the thread.

    We do hope you enjoy your visit. BHF Admin Team

1892 Probate Inquiry

Astoness

TRUE BRUMMIE MODERATOR
Staff member
If the daughter Jane was born in 1887 and they moved to Burbury Street after 1891 census and by 1892 then Jane can only be 4 or 5 - how old do we think the girl in the photo was?
certainly not 4 or 5 jan...girl in the photo is a lot older than that...maybe between 10 and 13...not easy to judge...

lyn
 

sospiri

Ex-pat Brummie
Janice,

I would have though about 5 to 7 years old. She's quite tall, although standing two bricks above pavement level. Guessing the age of the adult is not so easy and she possibly looks older than she is. Working on the basis that a brick is 3 inch tall plus 0.5 inches of mortar and multiply that by 10.5 (scalled off the photo) that gives a height of at least 37 inches tall. Todays average child height figures say the child would be 4 years old for a girl. But that's average in 2020 and to me she looks older than 4. But I'm only a man and it's 45 years since my late daughter was about that age. Also the camera does lie and it depends how far the camera was away, bearing in mind that it was taking a picture of the whole front of the house.

Maurice :cool:
 

Astoness

TRUE BRUMMIE MODERATOR
Staff member
hi maurice yes i was also taking into account the girl is a couple of bricks above pavement level...she is also head and shoulders above the fence..not easy though to be sure of her age but i still think shes a lot older than 4 or 5

lyn
 

pjmburns

master brummie
I was going on the look more than her height as I know people are taller now. Just makes me wonder if it was somewhere other than Clifford Street.
 

sospiri

Ex-pat Brummie
Hi Lyn,

Yes, those bricks are in the same vertical plane and the same distance from the camera as the girl. If anything I've underestimated her height if there is more than half an inch of mortar between the bricks. But, when I first saw her, I must admit that I thought she could be 9 or 10 just due to her demeanour.

Jan,

Until Pedro pasted his black & white version of the pic, I hadn't read much of this thread as my attention has been involved in a musical project elsewhere all this week. I only know this area very vaguely and it was 60 years ago too. Referring to your map in post #28, if it is Clifford Street, I think it is the house to the left of the marker - that would allow for that single story extension which was added later as the mortar lines don't meet up. Pity the photograph doesn't show just that little bit more of the surrounding properties.

Maurice :cool:
 

pjmburns

master brummie
Just been checking on 1911 census. 87 Clifford St only had 5 rooms, 169 Burbury had 6 rooms - that house seems as if it would be larger.
 

evacar52

master brummie
1889 map - so based on survey earlier. The red marker is where 87 Clifford Street was. I think it would have been the house on the left.
View attachment 142638
Really appreciate this 1889 map and the Kelly's entries documenting occupation and residence of years other than the census years. Adds so much to my knowledge in researching my Birmingham roots.
 

evacar52

master brummie
Just been checking on 1911 census. 87 Clifford St only had 5 rooms, 169 Burbury had 6 rooms - that house seems as if it would be larger.
When I compare the picture with the google map 2020 version of 169 Burbury, the old photograph did not look at all like the current building unless if has been altered. When they lived at 87 Clifford St in the 1891 census 7 people lived there. Parents, William and Frances Heath, 4 children (ages 4-7) and a servant. Perhaps 87 Clifford could have been altered to create 2 dwellings in 1911? The house is empty in the 1901 census.
 

evacar52

master brummie
Janice,

I would have though about 5 to 7 years old. She's quite tall, although standing two bricks above pavement level. Guessing the age of the adult is not so easy and she possibly looks older than she is. Working on the basis that a brick is 3 inch tall plus 0.5 inches of mortar and multiply that by 10.5 (scalled off the photo) that gives a height of at least 37 inches tall. Todays average child height figures say the child would be 4 years old for a girl. But that's average in 2020 and to me she looks older than 4. But I'm only a man and it's 45 years since my late daughter was about that age. Also the camera does lie and it depends how far the camera was away, bearing in mind that it was taking a picture of the whole front of the house.

Maurice :cool:
I appreciate the mathematical brick knowledge Maurice. At most if this picture was taken in late 1892, then my grandmother (Jane Heath) would have been 5 1/2. Does the way she is dressed in a short dress give any indication of her age. I know English boys where shorts until a certain age. Does this exist for girls, graduating to long skirts in 1892?

Carol
 

evacar52

master brummie
Directory entry for 87 Clifford Street in 1892 - already cycle works.
View attachment 142639
Two years earlier the entry read
View attachment 142640
Is there Kelly directories prior to 1892. William and Frances Heath and their two sons lived at Berner St. 16 Court 4 house in the 1881 census and I am curious if there is a Kelly directory around 1881, what occupation is listed? I did see a thread about Berner St on the forum and it looks like this house may have been a back to back and likely demolished some time ago. Curious about the listed occupation.

Carol
 

Astoness

TRUE BRUMMIE MODERATOR
Staff member
hi carol i can answer a couple of your questions...firstly 169 burbury st has had no exterior alterations at all apart from the modernisation inside...

secondly i am not sure yet that the property where william heath and family lived at court 16 house no 4 berners st was a back to back...could have been a house within a small courtyard...hoping to post a map of that for you later on which will tell us more and yes all of the courts on that side of berners st were demolished in the 1960s

lyn
 
Last edited:

sospiri

Ex-pat Brummie
Carol,

I'm far from being knowledgeable on Victorian/Edwardian dress, but somewhere in this room - a minefield full of stacked boxes, records & photographs - is a picture of my mother with her family in 1913, when she was six years old. She does not look unlike the girl in your photograph taken a few years earlier. That's the best comparison I can make.

Maurice :cool:
 

Astoness

TRUE BRUMMIE MODERATOR
Staff member
as promised carol a map showing court 16 house no 4 marked in pink...not a back to back and had a garden...and just round the corner from 79 clifford st just out of shot on the map...lozells senior school to the left is the school i attended

lyn

berners st court 16 house no 4.jpg
 

pjmburns

master brummie
Carol
1883 Kelly's directory lists Joseph's house as Finch Road but the commercial section has the following entry and I am not sure if this is your Joseph or I think he had a son called Joseph so it could be him.
1583675469466.png
a bit further down the page is - I am not sure which is your William. There is no house entry for William but if the house was rented there would not be. None of the courts are listed in the residential section.
1583675549766.png
 

pjmburns

master brummie
Intriguingly the 1879 Post Office Directory lists a Joseph Heath as a fishing reel maker at the Hospital Street address.
1583676259156.png

In the same directory Joseph Heath is listed in the residentail section as shown
1583676462698.png
 

Astoness

TRUE BRUMMIE MODERATOR
Staff member
and on the 1871 cenus as i am sure carol knows joseph is at 126 hospital st pawnbroker ...widowed living with children..jane..william..joseph..thomas..harriet..90 year old mother in law and a servant...seems as though joseph could turn his hand to many trades..
 

evacar52

master brummie
hi carol i can answer a couple of your questions...firstly 169 burbury st has had no exterior alterations at all apart from the modernisation inside...

secondly i am not sure yet that the property where william heath and family lived at court 16 house no 4 berners st was a back to back...could have been a house within a small courtyard...hoping to post a map of that for you later on which will tell us more and yes all of the courts on that side of berners st were demolished in the 1960s

lyn
If the 169 Burbury Street had not undergone any alternations then that means that the photograph was not taken in front of the Burbury St address at least as the house in the picture is very different from the Burbury St house.
 

evacar52

master brummie
Carol,

I'm far from being knowledgeable on Victorian/Edwardian dress, but somewhere in this room - a minefield full of stacked boxes, records & photographs - is a picture of my mother with her family in 1913, when she was six years old. She does not look unlike the girl in your photograph taken a few years earlier. That's the best comparison I can make.

Maurice :cool:
Thanks Maurice. I have been studying the little girl and trying to imagine her as 5 1/2 as that makes sense if I have the Clifford St house as the one in the photograph. Appreciate your input.

Carol
 
Top