TOPIC:

One of the things I notice more and more is simply that so many people assume that a particular man in a photograph must be wearing his own medals, the very real possibility that he might not be actually doing so is never mentioned, certainly in my own time it was usual to borrow those of a fellow who you had served with on the same operations, when it was expedient to do, for whatsoever the reason might have been.

Frank,

I had not thought of that happening before but it does make sense and may explain the conundrum here.

The simpler explanation as David suggests is that this image is not 90322 J. BURTON
The roll states a 4 clasp QSA - he wears 3 clasps.
I can find no KSA to a J.Burton in Artillery
I find it curious that a man described as a labourer in 1902 is wearing military uniform for a photograph in 1904.

It would be useful for us to have the information from which the other research groups made their identification.

Peter

Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion.

The original photograph (attached) belonged to my wife’s grandmother Adeline (Dolly) Parker, whose single name was Burton. On the back is written “Dolly’s parents”, so I’m as certain as I can be that this is Jesse and Jennie Burton, who were married in September 1902. The female does bear a strong resemblance to Dolly. Also on the back is the photographer’s negative number, which dates it to some time in 1904. I have not seen the actual catalogue details (the photographer’s records are preserved in Eastbourne); maybe it lists the name/address of the subjects which would confirm their identity. But still, I’m happy to accept that this is the Burtons.

It is possible, of course, that Jesse is not wearing his own medals or, indeed, jacket. They may well be his and he has mislaid one of the clasps; or he may have purchased/borrowed someone else's for the photo. However, apart from the one missing clasp everything else appears to be correct. One possibility is that this is a retrospective wedding portrait taken two years after the event, when they could afford it.

Jesse was born in 1867 and appears on the 1871 census. His father, Joseph, died in 1877 and Jesse is absent from the next three census returns. We now know where he was in 1901, but the previous twenty-odd years is a mystery.