More weirdness from those wacky Victorians – Mom with kids, without Mom.
Oh my…those babies look like they’re being held by the Angel of Death. Yikes!
Victorian Burkhas!
That was my reaction, too! It’s a bit creepy!
Number 4 can’t be Victorian. The child’s clothes look mid-20th century, and the mom is wearing pants!
We can’t see that it’s a mom – maybe that’s a dad.
I can sort of see this – They want a picture of the kid, not the parent.
Kind of see what? 
I like the Soviet Car Ads, particularly when I add my own captions:
I have car! I have horse!
and
You don’t drive car, girl don’t drive car.
Because of coruse we all know that in Soviet Russia everyone speaks broken English.
I also find it odd that in the snow covered picture the car was backed into place* and in the picture with the three hippy girls the car appears to have been air lifted into the shot.
*Now that I think about it, they probably just rolled it off a flat bed, took the picture and drove it right back on so they could all leave.
Thank you! I was just running out of fuel for my insomnia-inducing nightmares and crippling night terrors!
It’s weird how many of the Tips for Single Women still apply almost 75 years later.
“Man” looks a lot like Orson Welles and I have to admit, if the first time I went out with a girl she passed out in the restaurant booth after flirting with the guy at the next table, I’d probably not call her back either.
Wow, it is a small internet! I just saw one of these images (the three kids in doorway) on Pinterest, less than an hour ago!
In the “Don’t be familiar” one, what the hell is she doing to his ear?!
#11 is creepy, the one where you can see the outline of the mom’s head
I think she’s just supposed to be making him feel awkward for the sake of the picture. She’s supposed to be really drunk in that picture. After that she cries, flirts with the waiter, plays with some other guy’s hair and then passes out in the booth.
It wasn’t just the Victorians who did this. I had my son photographed at Sears when he was around six months old or so (about twelve years ago) and again six months later, and the official policy was that a parent had to be right there with a hand on the baby to keep him from falling off the platform. Now, I’m not visible in these pictures, but I definitely had a hand on him. (I was crouched next to or behind the platform, I forget which.)
And of course, it was necessary in Victorian times because the exposure time required for photography was so much longer.
That’s a neat website, Twicks.
I haven’t sucked up in a while.
OK, this picture is so eerily prescient I did a double-take.
I actually did that with Celtling just a couple of years ago. She was a bit fussy on picture day, so they draped a green rug over me and put her in my arms. It was much better done than those though, and nobody can tell I’m there until I let them in on the secret. Once they see it though it’s like Can’t.Un. See. . .