A well-quoted proverb is that ‘clothes maketh the man’, which I would also like to extend to include women. The proverb’s origins are buried in the mists of time, but potentially go back as far as Homer. The proverb suggests that a person’s clothing can significantly influence how individuals are perceived and judged by others. It can even affect their own behaviour and the way they perceive themselves. This proverb came to mind recently when I took the opportunity to examine in more detail some of the photos in my own, very limited, collection. I was reviewing my photos to add some images to a recent presentation on researching female ancestors.  

Family history magazines often include pictures for analysis. The analysis can not only reveal who and what is happening in the picture, it can lead into further research about the individuals concerned. In particular, the clothes worn by individuals can reveal a great deal about their social status. Perceived social status and hierarchy has been, and continues to be, a feature in the lives of our English ancestors.  

The woman in this photo is my maternal great grandmother, Mary Paddock, née Hall. She was remembered fondly by my mother, who told me that the boy in the photo was Mary’s youngest surviving son, Alan, who was born in 1912. From this information, I estimate that the photo was taken around 1914/1915. The second photo pictures an older Mary and probably dates from the late 1920s.

I do not know where or why the photos were taken – the earlier one is a copy of a copy that came to me from my mother’s cousin via my mother. This does not look like a studio photo, more a family photo. Her clothes, especially the long shawl/scarf, suggest a woman from a reasonably comfortable life. However, there is a sadness in her face. Looking at Mary in later life, there is a sense of calm resignation in her face. Again, this is a copy of a copy and looks as if it was a studio photo; it was probably taken a few years before her death in 1931. Perhaps the photo was taken to celebrate a special time in her life.

From my research, and from stories told by my mother, it appears that Mary Hall did not have an easy life. Born in Liverpool, Lancashire, in 1874, she was the fifth child of George Hall and Jane Hesketh. George was a self-made man, who had eschewed the traditional roles the Hall family pursued in the cotton mill industry to establish his own business as a bricklayer and eventually as a builder in Liverpool and Cheshire. He was born in Osgathorpe near Ashby-de-la-Zouch in Leicestershire and steadily moved north to Liverpool as he learnt his trade. His wife Jane came from Stanney in Cheshire and was the eldest child of William Hesketh and Eliza Duckers. The Hesketh family experienced hard times and was discovered in the Chester House of Industry workhouse in the 1851 census, when William was unable to find work.  It’s possible that Jane moved to Liverpool from Cheshire to find work as a domestic servant, and this is where she met and married George Hall. Jane and George had eight children over a 20-year period between 1868 and 1888, before Jane died in her early 50s. George remarried widowed Ann Rylands twelve months later. As a self-made man with business interests in Cheshire, and with strong connections to Cheshire through both of his wives, it probably made sense for George to move from Liverpool firstly to Birkenhead, then the Wirral in Cheshire and finally to Flintshire in North Wales. A move across the River Mersey was frequently taken by upwardly mobile people from Liverpool. 

Mary Hall and George Paddock married on 31 December 1892 at St Nicholas Church, Copperas Hill, in the centre of Liverpool.  Mary’s family did not approve of the marriage according to my mother as they were said to be ‘well-to-do’ and able to travel in a horse and carriage, whereas George’s family were bootmakers or repairers. This would be difficult to verify, although the fact that some of my mother’s stories had come down to her from her mother and aunt suggests some element of truth. Certainly, travel across the River Mersey from Liverpool to Cheshire would have been onerous in the 1890s. Entries in decennial censuses and other records suggest that George and Mary had a greater connection with the Paddock and extended families, rather than with the Hall family.

I do not have a photo of George Paddock to try and gauge something of his status or social standing. So, who was he and why was he, potentially, not regarded as a suitable marriage partner? He was the third in my maternal line of George Paddock ancestors, who were all bootmakers. Born in 1872 in Liverpool to George Paddock and Elizabeth Jones, George senior was also a bootmaker; he had been born in Gloucester and subsequently made his way to Liverpool. Elizabeth Jones was the daughter of James Jones, a bootcloser, and Mary Ann Reynolds.  Many of the males in the extended Paddock and Jones families worked in the boot and shoe trade over several generations, usually residing in the centre of Liverpool.

George Paddock and Mary Hall were both living in the same street at the time of their marriage, which is probably how they met. George was 20 years old and Mary only 18. They had at least 14 children between my grandmother Elizabeth, born in 1894, and the youngest child born in 1918.  Mary was reported to have had several miscarriages and children who died young. Many years ago it was revealed that a Rhesus-negative factor in blood group has passed down through our female line and it is possible that this may have impacted on Mary’s ability to carry children to full-term or led to their death shortly after birth. 

By 1911 Mary and George had been married 18 years and, of their 11 children, 6 were still living, but 5 were deceased. Mary went on to have at least 4 more children until their final daughter was born in 1918. Electoral rolls reveal that their property at 6 Suffolk Street comprised a house and George had a shop at 10 Suffolk Street. This part of Liverpool was densely populated, but much of it was bombed and then redeveloped after WW2. The area was full of small independent businesses like George’s bootmaking/boot repairing business. They appear to have remained in Suffolk Street throughout WW1. George enlisted in the National Reserve Territorial Force in 1915 and his service records indicate he had previously served in the 2/5^th Battalion of the King’s Liverpool Regiment. Aged 43 years in 1915, George did not serve overseas. It is possible that there was a significant level of civil defence activity throughout the war years, especially in a busy port city such as Liverpool. 

By the time of the 1921 UK census, George and Mary had moved to Roscoe Street, which lay close by Suffolk Street. This street housed the family home and several of their children lived and worked in adjacent premises. For instance, my grandmother had two corner shops and Alan, the young boy in the first photo, married into a family that had a laundry business in the same street. It is more than likely that Mary would have spent much of her time helping her family, while George continued his boot repair work.  George and Mary were living in Roscoe Street when they died in their late 50s of heart-related diseases in 1930 and 1931 respectively.

My mother and grandparents had moved out of the centre of Liverpool to the suburbs in the early 1930s and the connection with the bootmaking/repair trade was diminished. However, my mother was always grateful that she knew and loved her grandmother and her many aunts and uncles. I am grateful that she shared many stories with me.