January 9th, 2012

Millionaires - Black And White

Even sounding like you have money can’t buy you love.

(submitted by Keith)


32 Responses to “Millionaires”

  1. Madeline says:

    I at first thought those were stacks of money underneath his foot.

  2. Wainscott says:


    But i don’t want to be a pirate!

  3. says:

    Is this the family from American Horror Story?

  4. ln says:

    What beauties!! It’s amazing there are any photos of kids from that time – what kid that age can stay still for 1-2 minutes (isn’t that how long it took?)?? Amazing that their precious bored faces are not blurred.

  5. Carol says:

    Aw, poor boy in the middle has to wear a skirt and a lacy collar.

    • Donna says:

      Back then all children wore dresses/skirts until they started school at around age 6 or 7. Then the boys started wearing short pants (as they called them). Boys started wearing long pants at about 10-12. When I was a kid, my paternal grandmother showed us a picture of my father at around age 5-6 in which he was wearing a knee length white smock dress with long black stockings & high button shoes. It was taken in 1923. He had a Buster Brown hair cut. We all loved that picture. My youngest sister (a toddler) would ask to see the picture of “daddy when he was a little girl”.

  6. Hopkins says:

    This is kind of Dickensian!

    Oh wait, Dickens died in 1870….*hangs head in shame*
    Never mind. 🙁

  7. Scout C says:

    People were actually instructed NOT to smile because it’s difficult to hold a smile for as long as it took to take the picture. I’m sure they were sternly instructed to hold still and not wiggle. Also, the photographers sometimes clamped people’s heads in U-shaped metal brackets to keep them still which must have been delightful. It doesn’t look as if they used those here, although there is a stand for something behind the chair where the baby is perched. Cute kids!

    • Anne says:

      I think the toddler is sitting on some sort of seat that’s attached to the chair, and the curly thingy is part of what braces it against the arm of the bigger chair. Maybe the straight leg is propping the kid up. What’s with the smoke? Special effect? Maybe that’s why they’re so miserable.

  8. It’s one thing not to smile; it’s another to pull an unmistakable frown.

  9. Jose M. says:

    So the name of the kid in the middle is Hilliard Million?

    • Mhs_111 says:

      Just did some googling…
      I think Hilliard is one of the boys because it is said:

      “Ada Irene married Hilliard Millions and had 4 children. She passed away on 7 Apr 1979 in Nokomis, Saskatchewan, Canada.”

      “Hilliard Millions, 1 SmartMatches. Birth: 1898. Death: Wft Est. 1938-1989. Sex: M. Father: James Millions b. 26 Dec 1862 in Almonte, Lanark County, Ontario, …”

    • just sayin' says:

      I think it says “Hilliaro” which is kinda cool!

  10. Snowrider says:

    Could be worse….They could be wearing pink bunny suits made by Aunt Clara.

  11. Kristen says:

    I wonder if their last name was Millions?

  12. Noodengr says:

    Wow the bright red hair got all black and white and quite a bit younger. Must be all those millions they have to throw around money can buy new looks, if not love.

  13. MissKaryn says:

    In this portraits defense, it was taken in 1900. I believe back then it took so long for the camera to actually capture the picture that you had to stay still for a while, so no one smiled in pictures because it was tiring as hell.

    or I’m wrong and they were just totally joyless children. Or maybe a little from column A, and a little from column B?

    • rdub says:

      I think at the time, it was also considered undignified and unseemly to smile in photos. You were supposed to appear solemn.

  14. Cindy says:

    It was such a long process to take a picture back then I’m sure these kids were miserable by the time it was ready.

  15. Sarah says:

    The expression on those kids faces can be summed up with one word, “bored.”

    With how long it took to actually take a photo back in 1900, you can almost hear the, “Mommy, can I get up yet?”

  16. Lucy says:

    Yeah, I’m kinda left scratching my head with this one….

  17. arp says:

    okay… A picture of three children from 1900 (a time when, generally, people were told to NOT smile for pictures)… I don’t see what’s so awkward about it.

    • Sam says:

      I agree, it’s not an awkward photo, but one of it’s time.

    • fancynancy says:

      I also agree, plus my Mom had told me that during war times was another reason they were told not to smile, she has a bunch of old photos just like this.

    • Emily says:

      Most photos from that time are a bit awkward by modern standards, especially ones of children. Keep in mind all three children are boys. Of course, at the time, it was standard to put little boys in skirts/dresses until they started school (I can think of a number of reasons this would have been more practical, particularly before they were toilet trained, and while now it would be humiliating for them as soon as they were old enough to understand, at the time, it was normal), but looking at it over 100 years later, it still seems a bit awkward… kind of like how clothes and hair styles from the ’80s are generally awkward — yes it was the style at the time, but it’s still awkward. And yes, people were instructed not to smile for photos, and were required to stay still for a pretty long time… but the boy on the right’s expression is pretty great even for the era. I think that really he just had his head tilted slightly downwards, and was trying to look straight at the camera, but the result goes beyond the standard solemn photo of the time, and looks like he resented having the picture taken, even though I think that having a portrait taken was a pretty big deal at the time, and I suspect that as the oldest child he would have been the most likely to understand what was probably fairly excited about the whole thing.

Leave a Reply

View Mobile Site
spread the awkwardness