New Year's Day Rose Parade Mystery

This year marks the first in which I've discovered, or more so, realized that the Pasadena Tournament of Roses Parade has a "never on Sunday" rule and will, therefore, be held on Monday, January 2nd of 2023. Yet, that's not the mystery I'm set on solving here, but merely a fun fact to kick off this puzzler.

The older woman on the right of the above photograph is my 2nd great-grandaunt, Mary Ann Wells (Miller) Webb, the sister to my 2nd great-grandmother, Margaret (Miller) Hinman, on my father's side of the family. The Miller siblings were born in New York in the mid-1850s, migrated down to Iowa, and eventually both came west to California.

The pretty young woman in the crown and gown on the left side of the photograph is Mary Ann's granddaughter, my 2nd cousin 2x removed, Mary Madeline Webb, who later became Mary Hendricksen. Here (above) she stands in a picture labeled with the year 1931. The description? 

Princess at Rose Bowl Parade

But herein lies the question. If the year is indeed accurate, then why do I not spot her in this photograph of the Rose Parade Queen and her Royal Court in 1931?

The lovely ladies featured here are 1931 Rose Queen, Mary Lou Waddell, seated in the center, and from left to right standing are Myrta Olmsted (who went on to be the queen the following year), Alice Ashley, Myrna Wilson, Fannie Arnold, and Florence Dunkerley. It would seem, if my cousin Mary were a princess in the 1931 court, she would be standing for this photograph as well.

But that raises another question. When examining the dresses of the queen and her princesses, my cousin's gown more closely resembles the dress of the queen's, right down to the shawl with the lacey, stiff portrait collar and embellishments on the bodice. 

This sent me on a hunt to be sure the photograph of my cousin wasn't mislabeled with an improper date. While being featured in the Rose Parade must have been a supreme honor in which one would likely not mistake the year, it's impossible to rule out the likely chance that someone jotted down the previous year without even thinking twice about it. Heck, just today (on January 1, 2023), I sent out text messages to friends and family with a "Happy New Year 2022" animated gif, not even in the slightest noticing it was outdated!

So I went about looking for photos of the 1932 Rose Queen Myrta Olmsted and her royal court. I did not have much luck in that endeavor, at least as far as confirming the maidens. I did find this photo below that was labeled as both 1930 and 1932. It's hard to say which year it truly belonged to, but of course none of these dresses appear similar in nature to Queen Mary Lou Waddell's gown or her princesses of 1931.

It may also just be from another photo shoot, as it is setup as if the queen has been given a giant key to the city. But to also be sure my cousin wasn't a part of the 1930 parade, I went down that rabbit hole as well, and here's what I came up with there.

Now, do these ladies somewhat resemble the hairstyles and dresses of the previous photo? In fact, I believe they do. I do think the former photo was mislabeled as 1932, when it was indeed of the 1930 court. 1930's queen was Holly Halsted, and she holds the honor of being the first queen named as a part of the yearly tradition. For the 25 years preceding, there had been gap years, where Rose Parade queens had not been named. This does leave me with the lingering question of what did the royal court look like in 1932? Could Queen Myrta Olmsted and her princesses in 1932 have actually worn dresses mimicking Queen Mary Lou Waddell's gown in 1931? 

These are not rhetorical questions! If you happen to find a definitive answer, please share! I have not found that hard evidence quite yet, though I am still inclined to think my cousin was a part of the 1931 court, as our ephemera would have us believe. And here's why!

I discovered this photo below in the Eyre Powell Chamber of Commerce Collection of Queen Mary Lou Waddell and her royal court during her coronation ceremony on December 15th at the Brookside Park natural amphitheater in Pasadena with C. Hal Reynolds, the president of the Tournament of Roses Parade, on her immediate right.

To further add to our ongoing mystery, this photograph was catalogued as being from 1931. However, in the description, it mentions Mary being the queen of the 1931 parade. So, how would that make sense that her coronation ceremony was happening in December 1931 (11 months after the parade she was to reign over in January 1931)? Clearly, the collection should have been catalogued under 1931's parade, but the photo should have been labeled 15 December 1930.

But there is another curiosity about this photograph above, and it's why I'm led to believe my cousin was a 1931 princess! Have you spotted the inconsistency? Suddenly, we have proof that Mary Lou Waddell's court included SIX princesses rather than the five named girls in the first picture we have of the court! Is this our smoking gun that my cousin, Mary Webb, was a 1931 princess? Unfortunately, not quite. These ladies were labeled as nothing more than 'beauty contestants.' However, it sure opens the door to the possibility. And if I were to make a wild guess as to which one she could be, it would be the middle princess on the right hand-side of the photograph. Here's another look at my cousin, below. Her puffed sleeve appears to hit around the same spot on her arm as that middle princess, and her hair length matches as well.

It's certainly not definitive. But here's one additional photo below from the Eyre Powell collection of the 1931 royal court in the lower right cell. There are at least six ladies putting leis around the men's necks, possibly a seventh even, in the back. One could certainly be my cousin. The one on the far right in all white is Queen Mary Lou Waddell. The other girls were not labelled.

Now, for the ruler of all conspiracy theories, play along with me now....UCLA Library has a digital archive which includes The Los Angeles Times Photographic Collection. Within this series, lives photos of various parade floats in action throughout the 1930s, including the 1931 "Dreams of Pasadena" float, in which Queen Mary Lou Waddell was seated.

You might be wondering where her royal court is seated? Enter, my conspiracy theory. I have not yet found any photos of the float from different angles, including from behind. I am inclined to think her princesses sat facing backwards on the tail end of the float. And, if we zoom in, we can notice two things. For one, Queen Mary Lou's fuzzy shawl with the feather-like embellishments appears to be missing. Instead, she is wearing what looks like a tight, long-sleeved white number to cover her arms. And two, a white piece of fabric is peeking out from behind the float and looks as if it could be a sleeve from one of the princesses' gowns.

Finally, for my last piece of circumstantial evidence to prove (just to myself) that cousin Mary was a princess of the 1931 parade and not some other year, I think it's entirely possible that the photos in my family's possession of her wearing the fuzzy shawl and crown may have been taken of her while she was merely borrowing Queen Mary Lou Waddell's accoutrements and posing in her gown. If we take another look at the crown she is wearing, it looks identical, or nearly so, to Queen Mary Lou Waddell's crown and a tad oversized for the crowns of the princesses. Perhaps she was jesting that next year she'd be the true queen. Woops! Her fellow princess, Myrta Olmsted, snagged that honor!

Regardless of the riddle that these photos have spun up for me, it's so very exciting to be able to hold this connection to the Tournament of Roses Parade, a recurring tradition that Californians hold so dear at the turn of every new year! Plus, it's the closest thing to a fairytale in my family tree...a true princess in the branches!

Before I wrap up, interested in two other mysteries surrounding cousin Mary Webb? Just for fun, here they are. She went on to marry a Washington-born man named Kai Hendricksen (whose parents were from Denmark). The house they lived in together was located in Culver City at 4132 Mildred Avenue, Los Angeles, CA. The oddest thing happens when you Google the residence using Streetview. Here's what you see--from all directions!

Yes, that giant blur is what used to be their home! It's so bizarre. Now, I did also check out the house on the real estate site Redfin and it's pretty adorable and not as classified as this screenshot would make it seem. But this did raise a red flag for me. This, mixed with the seemingly clandestine nature of the next record I discovered for Mary and her husband Kai!

Check out this New York State immigration document I recovered, showing the couple returning to the United States from London after residing in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia...in the 1960s! How long had they been there? What were they doing there? Inquisitive minds would like to know!

As you can see, when I put this little nugget together with the fact that Google doesn't want me to see their digs, things start looking just a little too suspicious!

Okay, now for a little dose of reality. Further research did show that Kai was, at least at one point, an electrical engineer and a lineman, and had also done some sort of work for the U.S. Navy on Johnston Island, in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, likely during World War II. So, it's not terribly hard to believe their stint in Saudi Arabia was tied, in some way, to a government job. Oil reserves were first drilled in Dhahran in 1931, and in 1935, the American company, Standard Oil, drilled the first commercially viable oil well there.

But then again, who likes the boring truth, anyway? Isn't it more fun to dream up wild stories of this couple's potentially secret, double life as undercover agents? I think so.

Update July 2023: The photograph above of the Rose Parade princesses with the giant padlock was captured at the Pasadena City Hall's inside courtyard near its fountain. It is the viewpoint from the patio looking west into the vestibule. Below is a wider image from the same time period.