Uncandid Camera Part I

Well I'm back with a vengance now and so it's time to get on with the blog. This little collection includes photos I have never, ever seen before (officer) so if they're new to you as well - cheer with me. : )



Ok, this photo was taken in 1854 by none other than the simply wonderful Roger Fenton, he of Crimean fame. Well I have actually seen this photo before, but never this clearly or the whole thing. Well, I know the Queen looks very grumpy (either that or hypnotised by Sir John Russel and a harpsichord) but it's quite a nice photo, despite the really creased sheet in the background (you'd have thought they'd be able to afford an iron, I mean honestly, O tempora, o mores* as Cicero would put it.) Yes, well, on to the actual never seen before ones.




Yes, now this one -eeeekkkk!!!!! I got so excited about this because not only had I never seen it before or even known of its existence, but also it's a companion to none other than the infamous White Top Hat Photo of earlier. Sorry it's so small, but I couldn't find a bigger version on tinternet, sozzles. Anyhoo, I think Victoria looks very young here, don't you? Mind you, as it's still 1854, she was only 35, but NO MATTER, my point still stands. Er...yes, well, I think I know what I'm talking about (hah!) so let's whizz forwards a bit to the next picccccy.



Yes, well this one's evidently from the set a couple of pictures ago, as that sheet's still not been ironed (even a Corby trouser press would do it... I live near Corby actually...oooh...) yes, well, this one's entitled: "Where's all the furniture gone?" as Albert does look rather scared (maybe the plants on the right are triffids and ate all the other furniture??) but I digress. This is 1854 AGAIN and also by Roger Fenton. I think the photographer may have taken this while running away from the triffids, which may explain the glare. Mind you, I thought that Albert looked a little less glarey in this photo than most of the others. Ach weeelll, on to one which made me chuckle.



I think he's just noticed the triffids. Not to mention the UNIRONED SHEET OF A DIFFERENT HUE!! That won't fool the professionals. Yes, well it's STILL 1854 (snore, bump, ouch) and Roger Fenton's still hanging around the place. A rather pointless comment is look at the ring. See it? Well done, have a Smartie. Well, in the truly amazing series Edward VII (Edward the King in America I think) Robert Hardy (who I always get muddled up with Thomas Hardy - yes, I am indeed a few sandwhiches short of a picnic basket, alas) plays Prince Albert and wears a ring just like that on his little finger. Yes, well, sorry to have wasted all your precious seconds of reading time, but it's something I thought the Nation should be aware of y'know. Yes, well, onwards mad dogs and Englishmen (and anyone else, provided it's not midday.)




Ok, I admit that I have seen this one before as well (I'm really not very good at this am I?) but I thought I'd put it up here, as some people have been led to believe that the lady on the far right is the Duchess of Kent. She's not. She is, in fact, Mary the Duchess of Gloucester and (at the time of this photo) the last living daughter (and possibly child) of George III. Well, from left to right, we have Bertie looking supremely bored; the Queen wearing a lampshade on her head; Alice doing her favourite pose with her hand on her chin (I've tried it myself...I just look like I'm trying to fix my head back on) and Mary, who looks just as bored as Bertie to be honest. On we go then.




Now I genuinely had never seen this photo before, except for once and that was in a newspaper, but it was stuck to a notice board with some woman standing in front of it, so I couldn't see it properly. It was about an exhibition of photographs, just like this one, which has started, but is IN ABERDEENN!!!! As that's about a million miles away from me, I was distraught that this photo was taunting me almost from behind the Woman, but then I stumbled across it on the Nation Portrait Gallery website and was joyful. I rather like this photo (ok, so I've never hated a photo yet, but you get my meaning) though she does look very, very scared about something (another clan of triffids perhaps?) and at least these curtains look in better shape than the sheets from earlier. It's not a particularly flattering photo (go to the aforementioned website to zoom in and you'll see what I mean) but that's one grooovy carpet. Oh yes, it's from 1860 by the way, as is the above one (I think - it could be 1859, but I'm not sure.) Yep, well, onto one that EVERYONE knows about.




So, here we are in about 1863 (I know John Brown didn't come south until 1864, but this looks suspiciously like bonnie porridge land to me) and I know it looks just like the one that everyone's seen before, but it's not. Observe (I love that word - it makes me feel so clever) the fact that Victoria's looking almost directly at the camera, whereas in the other one she's looking...somewhere else...yeah...I'm good at this. Well anyway, here it be and there it be and on we go.




Yes, it's one of the many, many, MANY photos taken of Victoria with Noble the collie (or this one could be Sharp actually...) but either way, it's a dog and about 1868. Ish. It could be a bit earlier come to think of it, but oh welldey well. Methinks le dog whose name I can't decide has spotted some more triffids and is about to Get Out Of There. Yes, well I'm pretty sure now that this dog is Sharp, as the next photo will show.




Yay! It's Noble the collie!! Yes, well, he was Queen Victoria's favourite collie and his fluffiness (ooh! It's a word!) does imply that the dog above isn't him, but Sharp, who looked very similar I think, but had a shorter coat. I thought I'd pop him in here, just because he's rather nice and even got his own inscription on his tombstone from the queen (when he died...obviously...) Yes, well, let's just go.




Getty Images says that this is from 1872, which is why the date of the one with Sharp is so late. I'm trying to work out whether that's the same dress in both pictures - I think it is, but the hem's changed a bit. Now I've got that bit out of the way, it's time to analyse. Yes, well there isn't really that much to say here, except that they've finally got round to ironing the curtains and er...it's inside? Yes, well I haven't got a vast amount to say off the top of my head, so let's toddle off to something a little less taxing on "Ma little grey cells."




"Gladstone slips on a real banana skin as his political enemies celebrate by performing the Can-can in mufti." That's the caption for this cartoon from Uncyclopedia, which is actually t'riffic if you have the time to take a gander, but it's still funny even if you don't. This is, of course, William Gladstone, our Prime Minister (or First Lord of the Treasury if you want to be really picky - technically the first 'Prime Minister' to be addressed thus was Stanley Baldwin in 1937, before that they were known as 'the First Lord of the Treasury' formally and Prime Minister was originally a name of insult) for simply AAAGES during the 19th century. So there you have it, all that pointless information crammed into one tiny head (and I do actually have a remarkably small head) now released upon the world.

So goodbye, take care and always carry a lightbulb. Adios, until the next time. : )


*"Oh these times! O this conduct!", In Catilinam I. Yay.