27

Woman in uniform

The photo is dated 1920. Quality isn't brilliant, but we need the uniform information for the family tree. The lady would have been 22 in 1920. Birthplace was London. Nationality: British. Traveled extensively later so we thought she may have been in the forces. Settled in Australia.

The writing at the bottom is sending the photo from Grace (lady in photo) with best wishes to her sister Lizzie. 1920. Full name is GRACE HALL. Do not confuse with famous American woman pilot.

Photo taken in the Daniels Studio, 38 Tachbrook Street, Westminster.

Probably too early, 1920, for a lady pilot in the UK but likely to be for a motorcycle.

For the visually impaired or thing like search engines, I am going to try to describe what we visually see:

  • black and white photo, which has been identified by the querent as from the 1920 time frame
  • it is a portrait of a young lady, appearing to be late teens or early twenties in age, with short, dark, curly hair falling a few inches above the neckline in a 'bob' cut
  • the picture has been cropped to show the person from the upper abdomen/lower chest and up, at a slight left angle
  • the person is wearing what appears to be a wool overcoat, of a style reminiscent of English military (flight or motorcycle corps), collar is fur-lined, coat appears to button up in the female, or right hand over left fashion
  • person is wearing a brimmed hat, which appears to match the style worn by members of the British WAAF forces
  • the cap has an RFC, or Royal Flying Corp badge sewn to the peak
  • around the cap, the person has what appears to be a WWI-style fur-lined aviator's goggles
  • the person is wearing a white, or very light colored button-down shirt, with a black, or dark-colored tie, and a tie-tack, holding the collar closed under the tie's knot
  • finally, there is something in the over-coat's outer left breast pocket, but it is too blurry to make out any details
CGCampbell
  • 3,616
  • 2
  • 30
  • 55
Alan
  • 273
  • 3
  • 5
  • 1
    Good point. I have edited it with photo but seem to have a problem. – Alan Apr 05 '21 at 15:46
  • 1
    Do you have other biographical facts about the young lady? Birthplace? Nationality? Residence and locations known/suspected to be visited in or just prior to 1920? All of that helps to narrow the serach. – Pieter Geerkens Apr 05 '21 at 15:50
  • 2
    There appears to be some writing in the lower left, but it is cut off. Can you tell us what is says, or better, provide the full image? Also is there anything on the back? Watermark even? Lastly, lovely, a treasure! – AllInOne Apr 05 '21 at 15:57
  • 3
    @Alan - please don't reply in comments - update the question with all the information you know. The probability that a question will be answered drops if you have to read the question and all the comments. Edit the question, then flag the comment for deletion. I've moved both of your comments into the question and I'll delete the relevant comments. – MCW Apr 05 '21 at 16:02
  • 1
    speculation: BBS (on cap?) could be "Boys Brigade Scouts" or "British Boy Scouts". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boys'_Brigade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Boy_Scouts_and_British_Girl_Scouts_Association – AllInOne Apr 05 '21 at 16:15
  • 1
    The outfit, shows she needed to be warm and with the addition of the goggles it could be for a motorcycle or pilot. – EvanM Apr 05 '21 at 17:04
  • Probably a bit too early in the UK for a lady pilot but more likely to be a lady motorcyclist. – Alan Apr 05 '21 at 17:33
  • 1
    This is definitly a british military hat circa 1930's-1940's. They used the leaf with crown on top and 3 letters for everything. RAF, ATS, Etc.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.alamy.com%2Fstock-photo%2Fww2-uniform-women.html&psig=AOvVaw0uvfvrzIklZ1PzSJD1BO9t&ust=1617731416718000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=0CAIQjRxqFwoTCIih4anW5-8CFQAAAAAdAAAAABAD

     – EvanM Apr 05 '21 at 17:55
  • @Alan, might not be hers; but I am pretty certain it's military from pre-WWII through the war. – EvanM Apr 05 '21 at 17:57
  • Amelia Earhart didn't even have her first flying lesson until 1921. If this young lady was flying officially for the UK in 1920, we should have heard of her. – T.E.D. Apr 05 '21 at 22:41
  • 2
    @T.E.D. Actually, the first female, licensed pilot in Britain was in on August 29th 1911. Her name was Hilda Hewlett. She also opened up a flight school and her son was the first military pilot to be taught to fly by his mother. – EvanM Apr 06 '21 at 12:20
  • @EvanM - Note that I said "should have" quite deliberately, and emphasized it. Your comment inspired me to do a bit more digging, and there's a good website cataloging a lot of female aviation pioneers at https://centennialofwomenpilots.com/ . Sadly, no "Grace" from England there. – T.E.D. Apr 06 '21 at 13:57
  • 1
    @T.E.D.Fair point. I missed what you were saying. I agree. If she was an pilot we would probably have a record of her publicly available. There is a chance that she worked in a machine shop or in the hangars requiring safety goggles. There are reports of female welders. – EvanM Apr 06 '21 at 14:20
  • 1
    For an ID question, this is already above average for this site (incl a nice scan, instead of a usually throw-away grainy, mobile-photo). Nice. For a really exemplary question, please include more of a description of the pure visuals you see here. Try to get the picture into words, so that 'word searches' as well as visually impaired users alike can profit from this rather nice Q&A. – LаngLаngС Apr 07 '21 at 21:51
  • 1
    Very good advice. Thanks. – Alan Apr 08 '21 at 07:01
  • 1
    everyone (and OP): I have gone ahead and added descriptions of everything I can make out in the photo... please edit for search clarity and/or add or remove anything you disagree with – CGCampbell Apr 08 '21 at 12:30

1 Answers1

34

Found it. This is an RFC or Royal Flying Corp cap badge. I thought the picture was showing BBS but it's not. The angle, the quality of the picture and the loop for securing it to the bonnet was throwing me off. The women of the WAAC were often given the RFC badge when attached to airbases. These women were given the opportunity to travel to air bases in France and Germany. I'd also suspect other parts of the world where war time operations were funneled from. These women preformed non-combatant tasks such as typing, and factory/mechanical work; they also had tasks in cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc.

enter image description here

This corps was formed in 1912.

Here is a woman from the WAAC. You will notice that while you can't read the cap badge that the undershirt and tie match the picture. So does the coat with the exception of the added fur lining. The second picture has the same coat.

enter image description here enter image description here

Here is a picture of a woman who has similar goggles on sitting on a motorcycle with Royal Flying Corps badge on her shoulder. This leads me to believe she either transported mail or lightweight goods around bases.

enter image description here

Here is some more information: On July 7, 1917, British Army Council Instruction Number 1069 formally establishes the British Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps (WAAC), authorizing female volunteers to serve alongside their male counterparts in France during World War I.

The Foundation of the RFC

This link shows that WAAC worked very closely with the RFC. They even traveled to Germany and France to assist on air bases Women of the RFC

More info on the WAAC

EvanM
  • 2,333
  • 13
  • 32
  • 5
    Predecessor to the RAF! But judging from the size of both headgear and coat - everything would seem a little on the large side for her. Could the whole kit be that of her boyfriend? – WS2 Apr 05 '21 at 18:43
  • 3
    More than likely. I can't find a single reference to a woman pilot in the RFC. In fact, it wasn't until 1939, after Poland was invaded that the British allowed female pilots in any branch. At that time though they were only allowed to fly 'non-combat' missions. Delivering equipment, mail, etc. It seems, based off my research that the first combat, female pilot for the Brits wasn't until 1991. – EvanM Apr 05 '21 at 19:36
  • Thank you for all the comments. I a man aware she would not have been a pilot as it was only 1920 but she was well travelled going to China, Japan etc. Unlikely she would have been able to afford that in the 20's. We thought she must have been in a branch of the forces. – Alan Apr 06 '21 at 05:31
  • Probably a young socialite wearing parts of the uniform as a fashion statement and possibly to show her rebellious streak. – rs.29 Apr 06 '21 at 07:19
  • 2
    The badge says 'BBS', not 'RFC'. – Michael Harvey Apr 06 '21 at 09:14
  • 8
    @MichaelHarvey No. – pipe Apr 06 '21 at 09:20
  • The original badge in the picture in the question says 'BBS', not 'RFC'. – Michael Harvey Apr 06 '21 at 11:16
  • 1
    Definitely an RFC badge. During WW1 women in the WAAC and WRNS were attached to RFC air stations, and wore their insignia; this thread has more photos: https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/190783-women-serving-in-the-royal-flying-corps-and-womens-royal-air-forc/ (including one that's a direct match for the jacket, cap and insignia here). They formed the WRAF in 1918-1920. So, Grace was likely a member of either the WAAC or WRNS, and then possibly the WRAF. – Showsni Apr 06 '21 at 11:37
  • If she was in the WRAF, you can search for her records here: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/help-with-your-research/research-guides/womens-royal-air-force-service-records-1918-1920/ There are 289 results with the first name Grace. – Showsni Apr 06 '21 at 11:41
  • 3
    @MichaelHarvey I grant you that it looks like BBS but it's not. What's throwing you off is the angle, the quality of the photo and the loop behind the emblem to secure it. This is definitely a RFC badge. I was doing more research last night and like Showsni said, she was probably WAAC. This could account for some travel too. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/british-womens-auxiliary-army-corps-is-officially-established – EvanM Apr 06 '21 at 12:15
  • 1
    There is quite some more valuable conetxt emerging in comments. Like this ;) Could you expand your answer a bit with it, so that the comment thred may be cleaned up, pruned etc? – LаngLаngС Apr 06 '21 at 12:27
  • 2
    Oh my. That is detective work worthy of a bounty, which I will do when available. Well done. – CGCampbell Apr 06 '21 at 15:35
  • 6
    Contrary to my earlier comment that it might have been her boyfriend's kit, I notice that her coat is buttoned right over left, the conventional feminine way of dress. Men buttoned left over right - in the same way that men wore a buttonhole in the left lapel, women in the right. It doesn't mean it was not her boyfriend's. The coat may have been buttonable both ways - and she automatically did it the girl's way. But the figures in the other pictures also seem to be wearing excessively large-fitting coats. – WS2 Apr 06 '21 at 18:00
  • 1
    Enthusiastic +1 for digging up the war record. I will say that it looks like the "Grace" in question was discharged in mid 1919, but I suppose she could have just had the picture lying around for half a year or more before mailing it to her sister. The eyes in the OQ look very light (like blue or light hazel), and the service record reports blue eyes. – T.E.D. Apr 06 '21 at 18:14
  • 3
    @WS2 - Have been thinking the same about that angle. For one thing, I think those are meant to be overcoats (coats that can be worn over other coats). For another, if its military issue, its possible they had trouble finding an overcoat in her size, and she just had to make do with the smallest they had in a larger size. The "Grace" service record dug up for this answer is for a 5'0" woman, which is well below average height for women even then. – T.E.D. Apr 06 '21 at 18:19
  • 1
    I would assume that these coats were mass produced and since women at that time had not been in military service before, the coats would have been produced to male sizes and not had any female cut to them. This could have also been intentional to reduce the "attractiveness" of the woman so she didn't "distract" the service men from their duties. (Tip-toing to not sound misogynistic but trying to keep historical context). And like you said @T.E.D. 5' even is a small stature. We also have to keep in context that the 20's were filled with baggy clothing as style. Flappers come to mind. – EvanM Apr 06 '21 at 19:05
  • 3
    I cannot believe how helpful everyone has been on this site and your comments have certainly given me food for thought. May I add that the full name of this lady is GRACE HALL. Please do not confuse her with the famous American woman pilot. – Alan Apr 06 '21 at 22:19
  • 1
    @EvanM The "equipment" they delivered of course included the aircraft themselves. No safety concerns about aircraft type training, etc - they just took the next plane off the production line and flew it to wherever. The "pilot's operating handbook" for an unfamiliar aircraft type was often just a card stating the takeoff speed and stall speed, and nothing else! – alephzero Apr 07 '21 at 01:07
  • Re. clothing sizes - the military were (perhaps still are?) notorious for 'standardising' various items, trying for 'one size fits all' as far as possible. Hence the standard Army response to the question "What size boots do you take?" ... "Nine, same as everybody else." – Eight-Bit Guru Apr 07 '21 at 14:55
  • @T.E.D. At least they seem to have produced coats which buttoned the female way. In the other pictures there are no buttons on the other side. I suppose they could have employed someone to move buttons and create buttonholes on the alternative side. – WS2 Apr 08 '21 at 08:07
  • @WS2 - Cynical bastard that I am, when I saw your comment, I immediately went to check that the seams weren't on the outside of the jackets. – T.E.D. Apr 08 '21 at 12:55
  • @T.E.D. Interesting that the coat in the main picture has a buttonhole in both lapels. That strikes me as unusual, perhaps not. But it adds to any theory that it is a man's coat, converted to female use. – WS2 Apr 08 '21 at 16:20