I believe that is my great great great grandmother.

Photograph is dated:January 1920 Johannesburg
Lucky I got my looks and my charm from elsewhere on the family tree. I mean best I could have got is 1/16th of those genes.
I believe that is my great great great grandmother.

Photograph is dated:January 1920 Johannesburg
Lucky I got my looks and my charm from elsewhere on the family tree. I mean best I could have got is 1/16th of those genes.
1. Calista
The photograph was taken in 1920? And she’s your great great great grandmother? Shouldn’t she have been born in the early 19th century? If not, she definitely aged well!
2. Adrian
Well at an average of 20 years between generations she would have been 33.
At an average of 30 years between generations she would have been 53.
Both are plausible.
3. annie
Aw. Bless her. Bet she had a lovely smile…
4. Calista
That is true. People got married and had kids a lot younger back then anyway.
5. The B
Ok I’m going to be a pedant.
She’s your great great grandmother (cos your mum’s grandfather is your great grandfather. Which might help explain it.
But bless. I agree about the smile.
6. Hilary
Your great grandfather (Nat’s Father) was born in 1884 died 1974 in his 90th year Your great uncle Dudley (Nat’s brother) is 93
Your grandfather Neville is now in his 90th year Your great aunt Irma, his sister turns 94 in April.
Long genes
7. grumpyoldman
I think your comment on 1/16 of the genes is incorrect. Ignoring your Y chromosome you could potentially have 50% of her genes. That is assumming the 50% passed from parent to child were always the same 50%.
8. nick
I would.
9. Marl
I dont think she would have approved of some of the material on sevitz.com somehow…
10. Witty Woman
Can’t decide whether she’s puzzled as hell about something or casting a spell on the photographer. I think maybe she’s what they used to euphemistically call a “handsome woman”.