1 British Miniature Portraits

Unknown - portrait of Percey Shelley

2011-12-26T11:25:00.000-08:00

This is a rare miniature portrait of the poet Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822). He was one of the major English Romantic poets and is critically regarded as among the finest lyric poets in the English language. Shelley was famous for his association with John Keats and Lord Byron. The novelist Mary Shelley was his second wife.

The miniature is in a contemporary frame which is inscribed "Percy B Shelley 1792-1822". The writing style appears to be consistent with a date of around 1825.

The miniature was acquired via a dealer who had purchased it as part of a New York collection including quality miniatures by artists such as George Engleheart. The owner of the collection had previously contacted me about a possible sale of the collection, but I advised it was too large and valuable for me to be able to contemplate making an offer. I therefore recommended a dealer who could handle the total collection.

Following this the dealer split up and sold the collection, with this miniature offered on eBay, where it was acquired for this Artists and Ancestors collection. The previous owner advised that the miniature had been acquired from a New York dealer around 1970.

I concede that I am unable to categorically state it is an original portrait of Shelley. There are very few known portraits of Percy Shelley, with many examples based upon the oil portrait showing below. I have been unable to find another portrait of Shelley in the same pose as in this miniature.

That suggests it is either genuine, an artist's impression, or a portrait of another man housed in a case inscribed to Shelley. It seems unlikely that an artist would create an impression so different to the known portraits of Shelley. It also seems unlikely that a case such as this would be made and inscribed without including a portrait of Shelley. The artist is not recognisable as one of the more important artists of the early 19C, so there is little help from that aspect.

Adding to speculation is that Shelley was from a wealthy family and the commissioning of miniature portraits of family members by wealthy families was the norm in the early 19C. Hence, it is to be expected that there would have been at least one miniature portrait of Shelley as a young man.

The tousled hair fits with known portraits of Shelley, as does the nose and mouth. The sitter has blue or grey eyes, which fits with the oil portrait of Shelley when viewed closely. The age of the sitter in this portrait is to be that of a man aged 16 to 20, wearing clothes with high collars, which dates it to around 1810. It therefore appears to be a formal portrait of a young man, painted for family use, in the case of Shelley before he adopted an "open shirt" look.

Thus, the portrait is displayed as likely a genuine miniature of Percy Shelley, with comments welcomed from Shelley scholars. 1382

Other portraits in this collection connected to Percy Shelley include Helen Shelley View and Lord Byron View

The artist for this miniature is unknown, but the portrait is identified as being Helen Shelley who married a Mr Robert Parker (born 1754, wed 1782, buried at Bath 1837) of Bath. Helen Shelley (1755-1839) was the sister of Sir Timothy Shelley and he was the father of Percy Bysshe Shelley. This Helen Shelley was the aunt of the famous poet.

However, the clothes and hair seem too recent to be that Helen Shelley, as they date closer to 1820. Thus it is seems more likely to be Helen Shelley (1799-10 May 1885), the sister of Percy Bysshe Shelley. This Helen Shelley appears not to have married and would be aged about 20 in the portrait. It is not uncommon for later family members to get their family histories a bit mixed and pick the wrong generation when adding a written note to an earlier family portrait. Hence it appears later family members knew it was Helen Shelley, but picked the wrong Helen.

This miniature portrait is painted in enamels. On the reverse it is inscribed "Byron after T Phillips R.A. Aug 1849 Painted by Henry P Bone Enamel Painter to Her Majesty H.R.H Prince Albert & etc, & etc."

Unknown - portrait of Mrs Robert Owen and family

2011-06-23T21:48:00.000-07:00

Some basic research has revealed that this impressively framed miniature portrait had bounced around between various auction houses before ending up in this collection.

The most recent vendor described it on eBay as;
A CIRCA 1830 WATER COLOUR ON IVORY 7" X 5" ACTUAL PAINTING SIZE MOUNTED IN A BEAUTIFUL STYLISED GILT FRAME THIS IN TURN IS PROTECTED IN A GLAZED FRAME THE IVORY HAS WARPED SLIGHTLY AND MOVED A BIT IN THE FRAME A LOVELY ITEM

While the artist was very competent, it is admitted he/she was not of the top echelon, with its appeal for the Artists and Ancestors collection being as a representative of its extremely large size.

It is probably the largest miniature portrait on ivory in the collection, with a sight size of 180mm x 130mm. The warping referred to is inconsequential, given the size, but it may have put off other bidders for the portrait. It is very rare for miniatures to be as large as this, and even rarer for them to survive without stress fractures for so long.

There is no sign of a signature on the front, but has not been taken out of the frame. Normally, removal from the frame and cleaning of the glass is one of the first things done, and that very occasionally reveals a signature. However, the frame is nailed together and it does not warrant the risk of taking it apart.

Although the miniature is clearly inscribed at the base "Mrs Robert Owen (Anna Maria, Dau. of John Gaulter), Her Daughter, Sophia and Son, John Gaulter Owen" it has not been possible to find out a great deal about the family. The portrait clearly illustrates the 19C practice of young boys being clothed in dresses. The convention for portraiture being to depict girls with a doll or flowers, and a boy with a hoop or a whip.

The auction description described it as being 1830, but that is a little early. Based upon the apparent age of the boy and his birth in 1843, the miniature was more likely painted around 1838. It is therefore helpful to be able to date the costumes and fashions so precisely.

From the IGI, Ann seems likely to be the Ann Goulter christened on 8 July 1821 at Morden, Surrey, England, with her father being the Rev John Gaulter (1765-1839) who was born in Chester. He entered the "itinerancy" preaching circuit in 1785 and exercised an active circuit ministry until he was forced into superannuation by a stroke in 1835. He was probably the one referred to in;

Letter addressed to the Rev. John Gaulter, on the late occurrences at Leeds by Robert Eckett (Unknown Binding - 1828)

It may be that Ann's father joined the Methodist persuasion, and so the family is largely absent from parish records for the Church of England, which makes it more difficult to trace them. However, there is a record of John Gaulter Owen in the Sonning parish magazine for St Andrews, on 5 May 1869 where he was married to Ann Baylis, of Woodley. The death of John Gaulter Owen is recorded at St George Hanover Square, London in January, 1871, with his birth year given as 1843.

An apparent reference to the family is in Manchester.
Market Street at that time possessed four druggist's shops, their owners being Stocks and Dentith, Daniel Lynch, Robert Halstead Hargreaves, and Jewsbury and Whitlow. The most popular street with druggists was Piccadilly, which then contained six, two of the number being sons of Wesleyan ministers. The first shop which was so long occupied by Mr. Standring, and which has only just been pulled down to widen the entrance to Tib Street, was then occupied by Mr. John Williams Gaulter. His father was the Rev. John Gaulter, who in the early part of his career was a contemporary of Wesley, at which time his name used to be spelt Gaultier. In my early days he resided for a time in Manchester, and I remember his tall and handsome figure and venerable appearance, dressed in the costume of the day with knee breeches, black stockings, and silver knee-buckles. His son was a very gentlemanly man, and began business about the year 18 12. When I first knew him his assistant was Mr. L. Simpson, who afterwards began business in Princess Street, his shop being the first opened in that street. It was thought at the time to be rather a rash undertaking, but it succeeded. He retired many years ago, when he disposed of his business to Messrs. Ransome and Co.

Previous to this, Gaulter had two apprentices named Jewsbury and Whitlow, who ultimately went into partnership, beginning business about the year 1825, in the shop over the door of which the name of one of the partners is still retained It was one of three or four which had just been rebuilt, and were then called " Egyptian Buildings.'' Mr. Jewsbury's father was a yam agent, and also agent for the West of England Insurance Company, and was the father of the two authoresses. Miss Jewsbury (afterwards Mrs. Fletcher), who died in India, and Miss Geraldine Jewsbury, the novelist.

Prices of miniatures are infrequently quoted here, but are relevant here as part of the provenance. It was offered by Mellors and Kirk, at a Fine Art Sale on Thursday 1st / Friday 2nd July 2010 as;
Lot 884. ENGLISH SCHOOL, MID 19TH CENTURY - A LADY SAID TO BE ANNA MARIA MRS ROBERT OWEN NEE GAULTER, HER DAUGHTER SOPHIA AND SON JOHN GAULTER OWEN - landscape beyond, ivory, arched top, 18.5 x 13cm, ormolu frame, in velevet lined and glazed box-frame. The support very slightly warped as to be expected given the large size but not split or restored. The frame in the original gilding with some slight surface dirt, the box frame in good condition with small corner chip. Estimate was £400-600, but it remained unsold.

It was then sold at Bamfords 13 October 2010 for £360 plus buyer's commission, as below;
Lot 1943 English School, 19th century, portrait of Mrs Robert Owen (Anna Maria, Dau. of John Gaulter), Her Daughter Sophia and Son John Gaulter Owen, watercolour on ivory, 18cm x 13cm, ormolu slip, rosewood outer frame, 30.5cm x 26cm.

Next it was was originally offered on eBay for £850 closing on 5 Jun 2011, with a bid of £600 refused. Then re-offered as a Buy It Now for £500 and purchased for this collection.

Thus it has had a chequered sale history until acquired for this collection! Research is continuing and any further information about the family would be welcomed as a comment or as an email. 1423

Later, a kind visitor has sent me the following additional information;
Anna Maria Gaulter
Born - 1811 Manchester, Lancashire, England

Marriage - Robert Owen - December 21, 1839, Kensington, London, England

Her father was John Gaulter (1766-1839), but her mother is unknown. In 1861 she was listed as living at St. George Hanover Square, Middlesex, England.

There are a lot of Robert Owens, but if we have the correct one for her husband, he was Robert Owen born April 1, 1794 at Fachddeiliog, Llangower, Merionethshire and died May 9, 1853 - 95 New Bond Street, London, Middlesex. His parents were Owen Owen (1754-1834) and Ann Edwards (1763-1838), with their residence in 1841 at New Bond Street, London. Presumably the same residence in 1851, at the time of his death - 95 New Bond Street. His bequest to his wife was under 100 Pounds.

The daughter of Robert and Anna Maria Owen was Sophia Elizabeth Owen born December 1840 - St. George Hanover Square, London, and died December 31, 1869 at 9 Islip Street, Kentish Town, St. Pancras, London, England. Sophia appears not to have married. Her brother was John Gaulter Owen, born July 10, 1842 at 95 New Bond Street, London, Middlesex and died March 3, 1871 at St George Hanover Square. As noted above he married Ann Baylis (1843- ), but there is no indication of any children. It therefore appears that this branch of the Owen family has died out.

Later, a kind researcher has supplied the following extra information;
Anna Maria died 26th July 1865 and was buried on 31st July 1865 at Kensal Green, Kensington and Chelsea (I suppose with her husband who is also buried at that cemetery). Her probate date was 19th November 1866 and mentions her son John Gaulter Owen of 47 Burlington Road, Westbourne Park, Middlesex “Gentleman”. (He was a wine merchant’s clerk). She was described as a widow of 24 Clarendon Road, Notting Hill, Middlesex.

I have a copy of Robert Owen’s Will but it is very brief and doesn’t give very much information about the family. On the web I’ve seen (National Archives) mention of his insurance for 95 New Bond Street in 1831 (or for his East India Warehouse?).

Thus it seems that Robert Owen was a merchant.

William Essex and William Bishop Ford - Impudence

2011-06-23T20:53:00.000-07:00

Recently, A tiny enamel miniature by William Bishop Ford was added to the collection. But that has now been "exceeded" in miniature by a similar miniature of the same subject by William Essex (1784-1869). It is hard to give an impression of how small these miniature portraits are. The Essex one is smaller and is only 11mm in diameter, with the Ford example being 16mm in diameter, about the size of a little fingernail. They are shown in a single image to show the relative sizes.

The Essex miniature is signed on the reverse "W Essex 1862" and was painted in enamel, probably onto a copper base. It is set into a small hinged band, perhaps for a lady's scarf or man's cravat. The band is housed in the original red leather box, which is unmarked. As with the Ford miniature, the dog depicted is "Impudence" originally painted by Sir Edwin Landseer.

The Ford miniature is signed in the reverse "W B Ford 1866" and was painted in enamel directly on a gold base by William Bishop Ford (1832-1922). He was born in London 3 May, 1832, the son of Michael and Agnes Ford.

Ford was a student of William Essex who also painted miniatures of dogs and other animals. Many of the miniatures were worn set in tiepins or brooches, and they still exist in relatively large numbers.

The Ford example is a delightful portrait miniature of enamel over gold of "Impudence" after the famous Landseer painting "Dignity and Impudence" (see also the portrait of Dignity below). In the original, now in the Tate Collection, Landseer contrasts the large, dignified bloodhound with the small, mischievous terrier. These dogs, 'Grafton' and 'Scratch' were both owned by Landseer's friend, Jacob Bell, who commissioned the painting and bequeathed it to The Tate in 1859.

In 1839, William Essex was appointed Enamel Painter in Ordinary to Princess Augusta, Queen Victoria and HRH Prince Albert. Queen Victoria was said to be greatly enamored by the Landseer painting, hence her enamel painter copied the West Highland White Terrier in miniature. Essex served as master for several artists, including Ford, who would become famous in their own rights. Essex's miniatures of dogs are highly sought after and very scarce.

Although it is not of a person, I had wanted to have an example of one of these tiny miniatures in the collection, but the prices for such miniatures are so high, I could not begin to justify the expense for something so small.

For example, although it did not sell, there was recently a similar sized miniature of a fox by William Essex for sale on eBay for $1250.

One by WB Ford of a dog, for sale on the Internet for $999, is described as;
"A lovely 14k gold and enamel pin by William Bishop Ford. Ford was a specialist painter of miniature enamels, he was a pupil and assistant of William Essex who was famous for his dog enamels. In 1839, William Essex was appointed Enamel Painter in Ordinary to Princess Augusta, Queen Victoria and HRH Prince Albert. Pin is in good condition. Measures 1 3/8" in diameter. Minor scratching. Gold not hallmarked. Bezel tested as 14k. Pin on the back tested as 9k. Signed and dated 1884. The dog's eyes will melt your heart. Item #6059 - $999.00"

At that price it would also melt your wallet!

Another WB Ford miniature of a dog is on offer on the Internet for $1250, described as;
The Victorians believed that no house was a home without a dog or cat in residence and jewelry was often designed to include an image of a cherished pet. Here we have a classic example of a miniature enamel by William Bishop Ford. While not as well-known as contemporaries J. W. Bailey and William Essex, he was a specialist painter of miniature enamels and studied under Essex. He typically painted enamel onto porcelain, copper and gold and did work for the Minton porcelain company displayed at the 1885 Paris Exhibition. Against an enamel backdrop the color of dusty olive green, a carefully executed portrait of a Manchester terrier or Miniature Pinscher dog glows with rich shadings of mahogany-red enamel and black. Realistically rendered wedge-shaped head and v-shaped ears, the small oblong eyes clearly convey intelligence, a lively personality and undying loyalty. Even the texture of the sleek and shiny coat is apparent. The miniature has been set into a gold twisted wire mount. The pin is original and of gilded metal. Signed on the reverse “WB Ford 1873”.

Thus, it was pleasing to buy this unset example on eBay for £90. It was obviously set as a tiepin at sometime in the past, as it has glue residue on the reverse, but even though the setting is missing, it is a representative example of his work.

Additionally, it is the only miniature in the collection at this point which is painted on gold, which is the rarest ground for miniatures to be painted on. And with current gold prices, the purchase price may have only paid for the gold content! Ford exhibited at the RA and elsewhere between 1854-1895, so this item is right in the middle of that. He also painted on ivory and porcelain. 1421, 1444.

In 2010 Bonham's auctioned this enamel brooch depicting a Blood Hound by William Essex, set with a green and white enamel border signed on the reverse 'W.Essex, 1864' It sold for $915 including commission.

It is also taken from Landseer's 'Dignity and Impudence' painted in 1839 and now in the permanent collection at The Tate Gallery in London, so as Dignity it is the pair to Impudence.

William Essex (1784-1869) is widely regarded as the best enamellist of his generation. He first exhibited at the Royal Acdemy in London in 1818. He was appointed enameler to Queen Victoria in 1839 and wrote at treatise on the art of enamelling. Most of his work is based on copies of the Old Masters or works by famous contemporaries such as Landseer and Winterhalter.

Prices for the work by William Essex are all over the place. The vertical tiepin signed by Essex and dated 1863 has been for sale on the Internet for $2150.

The horizontal tiepin of Impudence, also signed by Essex and dated 1863, has been for sale on eBay with an asking price of $6500!!

At Philosophical magazine - Page 442 there is a detailed article by the brother of William Essex, Alfred Essex, who also painted in enamel, which gives considerable detail about the art of painting in enamel, titled, "Some Account of the Art of Painting in Enamel".

Scot, A - portrait of a minister and his wife

2011-05-16T19:00:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately the two sitters in this pair of miniature portraits are unidentified, so little can be said about them. The man is obviously a minister and by the quality of the miniatures and of the clothes his wife is wearing they were well-to-do.

They do indicate that one needs to be cautious about seller's descriptions, as they were described by the vendor as American. However, they were in oval red leather cases, which is rare for American miniatures.

Nevertheless, there does now seem to be an American connection, as has become apparent further below.

They are both clearly signed, one as "A Scot" and one as "Scot". The lady is slightly larger (80mmx 63mm) compared to the man (75mm x 60mm) and there are minor differences in the lettering of the signatures which leads one to believe they were painted at different dates.

Blattel's Dictionary does mention an artist named Scot, who is described as German and having exhibited at the Berlin Academy in 1804.

Foskett mentions no artist named Scot, but does record an artist named A Scott of London who exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1807-1808 from 29 Mortimer Street, Cavendish Square. I am of the opinion that both Blattel and Foskett probably refer to the same person. It is also possible that a Miss Scott who exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1802-1804 from 2 Lambeth Road was the same person.

Judging by the lady's clothing and hairstyle they date from around 1820-1825 and so either the artist was active for a number of years, or it is a different A Scot. The artist was obviously very talented and so it is a little surprising they are not better known, especially as these two miniatures are both clearly signed.

It has not been possible to reconcile these records using the information available to me here, but it is hoped that a London portrait expert may be willing to contact me to try and explain the apparent conflict, and perhaps cast more light on the artist who painted them. 1415, 1416

Later; A very kind visitor has pointed out a reference in Nathalie Lemoine-Bouchard's dictionary which I had not noticed. An approximate translation of the reference from the French seems to be;

Scot - (active between 1797 and 1801) -
An artist recorded as a student of J.B.J. Augustin, who foot-noted in his notebook in 1797: "Mr. Scot, Anglo-American commenced ......."; and then in 1801: "Mr. Scot of Rue Poissoniere, near to Rue Beauregard, No 175, commenced on 7 July [year X]".

The reference to year X, being year 10 in the Revolutionary calendar, otherwise 1801.

Jean-Baptiste-Jacques Augustin (1759-1832) was one the finest French miniature painters. His style changed over the years, but his influence on Scot can perhaps be seen in the pose of the above Scot portrait of a minister, which seems to be similar in pose to Augustin's "Portrait of a man" of c1790, illustrated as example "c" in Lemoine-Bouchard, and which Boris Wilnitsky offered for sale in 2007.

It would therefore appear from this entry that Scot was an American who had come to learn miniature painting, who then worked in Germany and England, there seeming to be no reference to him returning to America.

Rosse, Michael - portrait of King William III

2008-01-10T11:01:00.000-08:00

Although the artist is unconfirmed, this enamel miniature of King William III (1650-1702) would have been painted around 1700. Thus it is about 300 years old, and one of the oldest miniatures in the collection.

However, one kind visitor has offered the comment that the enamel is by an artist whose works usually depict William III and Mary in a quite crude and stiff manner, and with a “woolly” technique.

Apparently the owner of the “Dumas-Egerton Trust”, a large and respected private collection of portrait miniatures, attributes the William and Mary groups to Michael Rosse (1650-1735), the jeweller and enamellist husband of Susan Penelope Rosse (1652-1700). She was also a miniature painter who painted a number of miniatures each about 25mm high.

It is understood the owner of the Trust knows a work signed on the reverse “MR” which confirms his theory.

As mentioned below, the reverse of this enamel cannot be inspected, but in the absence of such an inspection, an attribution of this miniature of William III to Michael Rosse is felt to be a reasonable supposition.

An unattributed miniature in the British Royal Collection of William and Mary is shown here. It is only 25mm x 22mm and is on vellum, rather than enamel, but a likeness with the features on the miniature of William III is apparent.

The William III miniature is also very small at 28mm x 25mm and is contained within a later silver locket which is probably 200-250 years old. There must have been a different frame at an earlier stage as there are tiny holes on the sides and bottom of the case where the case would have fitted into a more elaborate fitting.

The rear of the case is engraved "MAB" which is probably the name of a later owner.

Unfortunately the miniature is wedged into the case and hence the counter enamel cannot be inspected to see if there is a signature on the reverse.

However, in several places on the extreme edge there appears to be signs of gold. Thus it is believed to be enamelled on a gold ground. Enamelled miniatures first appeared around the mid 17C and initially had a gold base, but it was later realised that it was a waste of gold, as the gold could not been seen. Hence copper substituted for gold during the 18C.

On can also speculate where the gold may have come from. No doubt in the 21C it would be possible to use a chemical process to determine the likely source from the impurities in the gold. However, until that happens I would like to think the gold reached England after have been "liberated" from a Spanish treasure galleon, taken as a prize when returning from the America's!

Having regard to the age, the condition is outstanding. If any reader shares my enthusiasm for watching archaeology programmes like "Time Team", you will know how excited the archaeologists get over small shards of broken pottery from around 1700! In my mind a miniature of similar same age is just as exciting.

Further confirmation of the identity of the sitter as William III can be had from a comparison with other contemporary images and in particular by his beaked nose.

The image on the right is an enamel miniature from the British Royal Collection. It is the same size at 28mm x 25mm. The image on the left is an English school enamel of around 1700 and is part of the Dutch Royal Collection. It is slightly smaller in size at 24mm x 16mm. Miniatures of this size were often given by the monarch as a gift of allegiance.

So far an identical pose has not been found, although within the National Portrait Gallery in London there is an engraved image which is the most similar image so far located. The engraving is shown on the right.

As an engraving is often a mirror image of the original portrait, a "flipped" version of the image is shown on the left for easier comparison.

As can be seen, the left frill on the white jabot around his neck is pointed or leaf-shaped, in the same way as the miniature. However, on the miniature the ruff on the jabot is leaf-shaped on the right side as well. Thus so far no other portrait of William III with two leaf-shaped ruffs has been found.

William III looks older in the miniature, than in all the other portraits, so it would seem the miniature relates to the end of his reign, as he died at age 52 in 1702. William died of pneumonia, a complication from a broken collarbone, resulting from a fall off his horse. It was believed by some that his horse had stumbled into a mole's burrow, and as a result many Jacobites toasted "the little gentleman in the black velvet waistcoat."

William III was born two weeks after his father's death, who had been William II of the Netherlands. When William was 27 years old he married (14th November, 1677) a 15-year-old – Henrietta Mary Stuart – known as Mary, the daughter of James II (the heir-apparent and brother to the ruling Charles II of England). The union proved to be very popular and also allied William with the English monarchy.

William III won the English, Scottish and Irish Crowns following the Glorious Revolution, during which his uncle and father-in-law, James II, was deposed. In England, Scotland and Ireland, William ruled jointly with his wife, Mary II, until her death of smallpox on 28 December 1694. He reigned as 'William II' in Scotland, but 'William III' in all his other realms. Often he is referred to as William of Orange, a name he shared with many other historical figures. In Northern Ireland and Scotland, he is often informally known as King Billy.

There are many Internet references to him. One that is of special interest to American citizens is at Colonial Virginia - Williamsburg Virginia Official Site - Guide ... as Williamsburg in Virginia is named for him. 1298

Princess Amelia - portrait of King George III

2007-10-02T12:49:00.001-07:00

This very interesting miniature of George III (1738-1820) is unsigned, but has been attributed to Princess Amelia (7 Aug 1783-3 Nov 1810) the youngest daughter of George III and reputedly his favourite daughter, whom he called Emily. Like many of the family she was quite a skilful artist.

At auction, the miniature was only described as Superb enamelled painting of a Georgian Gentleman dating from circa 1750. The only provenance the vendor was able to ascertain was that the miniature was part of a very small collection of miniatures sold by a deceased estate in Earlswood, Solihull, Warwickshire. The house was also sold at the same auction and is being knocked down for a new development, unfortunately it was an old Georgian house from the 18C which was falling down.

However, the sitter is obviously King George III. The Royal Collection contains a number of miniature portraits of George III. They are illustrated in the catalogue prepared by Richard Walker and titled "Miniatures in the Collection of Her Majesty The Queen - The Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries".

Of particular interest however, is the miniature illustrated as fig 143 on page 77 and shown here in a black and white image. It is 99 mm x 79 mm and is painted in enamel on copper. Of all the portraits of George III, no other portrait has been found with the same pose.

On the reverse of the frame the miniature in the Royal Collection is inscribed on a paper label: "George the 3rd. - painted on copper by the Princess Amelia - given by her to the surgeon Dr Arthur Hill Hassel's grandfather. Dr Arthur Hill Hassell married Mrs Howden's sister -."

For convenient reference, a portrait of Princess Amelia by Charlotte Jones, itself copied from another portrait by the artist Anne Mee, is shown here, with the original being in the Royal Collection.

To try and track down the possible recipient of the miniature in the Royal Collection, Arthur Hill Hassel(l) has been researched. He was probably the Dr Arthur Hill Hassall (1817-1894) shown here in a photograph, who in 1868 founded the Royal National Hospital for Consumption which continued for many years and was closed on its one hundredth anniversary in 1968.

Hassall was born in 1817, the son of Thomas and Ann Hassall in Teddington Middlesex. In the 1851 census, Arthur Hill Hassall was living in 67 Park St, Westminster with his wife Fanny (1825-?) who was born in Hackney. In the 1861 census he was recorded only as living at 74 Wimpole St with two servants, but in the 1871 census there is a Fanny Hassall recorded as residing in Harrow, apparently as a visitor. He was possibly married twice, as a Fanny Hassell, born c1820, is recorded as dying in JFM 1882 in Hendon and there is a marriage of Arthur Hill Hassall in JAS 1883 at Islington, possibly to Alice Margaret MacGill (1847-?) of Clapham.

Arthur Hill Hassall reportedly entered medicine as an apprentice to his uncle Sir James Murray (1788-1871 and shown here) and Hassall spent his early career in Dublin. Sir James Murray is referred to at Sir James Murray, physician and apothecary, 1788 - 1871 as the inventor of Milk of Magnesia.

To date, no closer link to Princess Amelia has been established for the recipient of a gift of a miniature, but it could be by the father of Sir James Murray. Another possibility is the doctor to the Princess, Sir Henry Halford, referred to below. Whether Sir Henry Halford was related to Sir James Murray or Dr Hassall is unknown at present.

The miniature acquired for this collection is almost exactly the same size as the one in the Royal Collection, at 101 mm x 80 mm, and the image is almost exactly the same, there being marginally more of the clothing in view, although these apparent differences may only be as a result of the frame concealing the extreme edge.

It therefore seems that Princess Amelia painted at least two versions of the miniature and gave them to her friends.

Although, Princess Amelia was an amateur artist, she has demonstrated considerable skill in tackling the most difficult miniature painting technique, enamel on copper. This is difficult as the raw pigments used change colour during firing in the kiln and hence it requires skill to know how to apply the pigments.

Princess Amelia had special drawing teachers, but it is not known which of them taught her to use enamels.

Richard Walker also observes "Princess Amelia may had had a sitting from her father, but she is more likely to have made use of Zoffany's portrait of 1771 in the Royal Collection." The Zoffany portrait can be seen at George III For convenient reference a small portion of it is shown here.

The Zoffany portrait was painted 12 years before Princess Amelia was born, so no doubt it was familiar to her as she grew up. However, it is interesting that the clothing worn in the miniature is so different to that of the Zoffany portrait.

Although Walker does not say so, a plausible reason may be that George III sat for Princess Amelia around 1800, so she was able to draw the pose and the clothing from life, but for the head she went to the Zoffany portrait and used this as the basis to complete her miniature. That would have enabled her to take more time and get a better likeness, as painting the king from life in enamels would have been very difficult.

The reverse of the miniature is covered by the normal enamel covering needed to avoid the miniature cracking during firing.

There are some numbers right in the centre of the rear which appear to read "53X" and "91N", but the significance of these is currently unknown. It is also unknown whether the miniature in the Royal Collection is inscribed in a similar manner.

Some sources say that in 1803 Princess Amelia fell in love with Sir Charles FitzRoy (1762-1831), an equerry 21 years older than herself, and a younger son of Charles FitzRoy, 1st Baron Southampton. After her death, he became heir to all her property.

According to most Internet sources, the liaison commenced earlier and they are said to have had one child, Hugh Huntly, born 6 Jan 1796 in Dublin and who died in 1829.

However, if conception is taken as say, nine months prior to this, on say, 6 Apr 1795, Amelia would have only been 11 years and 9 months old at the time of conception, and her pregnancy is highly unlikely. Nevertheless, one wonders what gave rise to the speculation.

Presumably the answer is that Hugh Huntly was an illegitimate son of Charles Fitzroy, but of a mother who died in childbirth, and Amelia becoming aware of the child, indicated to Fitzroy she was willing to recognise Huntly as her step-son, in the event she was able to later marry Fitzroy.

Although Hugh Huntly died in 1829, he had married and had one child, Charles Hugh Grafton Fitzroy Beachcroft Huntly, (19 Nov 1819 - 15 Aug 1889) who became Civil Commissioner of Albany, South Africa and whose obituary is included in The Illustrated London News for 7 Sep 1889. Charles himself had 10 children, so that even today there are people who may believe they are descended from Princess Amelia, although as outlined above, this is unlikely.

It is not clear whether Amelia was formally married to FitzRoy, but she considered herself married to him and signed her correspondence with the initials “AFR”, for Amelia FitzRoy. The Queen was told of the affair by a servant, but turned a blind eye. Amelia knew she could not legally marry FitzRoy due to the provisions of the Royal Marriages Act, but she hoped to gain Privy Council consent after she attained the age of 25. However, her poor health precluded that course of action and she died at the age of 27 in 1810.

Sir Charles Fitzroy later married Eliza Barlow on 21 Sep 1816, but they seem not to have had any children and he died in 1831. Although not certain, it seems as a widow Lady Eliza Fitzroy lived at the home of the Duke of Grafton for the 1841 census and she may have then died in 1850.

Contained within the collection are two other miniatures of George III which depict him more as he would have been at the time of Princess Amelia's death, one in wax by Catherine Andras (1775-1860) and the other by an unknown artist.

According to a New York Times report quoting an 1895 book entitled "The Life of Sir Henry Halford Bart", Sir Henry Halford (1766-1844 and shown here) was doctor to Princess Amelia and she disclosed to him the fact of her secret marriage, begging him to tell the King. Halford refused, but it did fall to him to communicate the fact of Amelia's death.

Sir Henry said to the King that he was going to "try his piety", alluding to the King's somewhat obscure notion that every death that took place in his family was meant to be a trial of his faith. The King immediately replied that he supposed Amelia was dead. Sir Henry assented and the King began talking to himself in a rambling way "Poor girl!" he exclaimed when he had become more composed. See NEW PUBLICATIONS; THE PHYSICIAN OF FOUR SOVEREIGNS

Even when Sir Henry Halford asked George III if he wished to know the provisions of Princess Amelia's will, the King did not realise the possibility of a secret marriage to Fitzroy. "Certainly, certainly, I want to know," the King said with great eagerness.

Sir Henry reminded the King that at the beginning of his illness he had appointed Fitzroy to ride with Princess Amelia; how the King had left Fitzroy with her at Weymouth; how it was natural and proper that she should leave Fitzroy some token for these services; that excepting jewels she had nothing to leave, and had bequeathed them all to Fitzroy. That the Prince of Wales, thinking jewels a very inappropriate bequest for a man, had instead given Fitzroy a pecuniary compensation for the jewels. The Prince then distributed slight tokens to all the attendants and friends of the Princess, giving the bulk of the jewels to Princess Mary, Princess Amelia's most constant and kindest of nurses. Upon this the poor King exclaimed, ' Quite right, just like the Prince of Wales;' and no more was said. (It is even possible the miniature of George III by Princess Amelia, was given as a token to an attendant or friend as part of that process.)

The following story is told about Sir Henry Halford, as the "Bone Collector"

"Charles I was beheaded [in 1649, after the English Civil War] then buried at Windsor Castle in the same vault as Henry VIII. For years, the coffins were lost, but in 1813 they were rediscovered and an autopsy performed by the royal surgeon, Sir Henry Halford. He secretly stole Charles I fourth cervical vertebra, which had been cleanly sliced by the axe. For the next 30 years, he loved to shock friends at dinner parties by using the vertebra as a salt holder." [The bone was later returned, at Queen Victoria's behest, to Charles I coffin.] Sir Henry was also involved in the exhumation of Charles II and from his account of this it has been determined that Charles II died from apoplexy.

For more about Halford, who was born Henry Vaugham, but changed his name after inheriting an ample fortune and was knighted on 27 Sep 1809, see Royal College of Physicians In the 1841 census, Sir Henry lived in Curzon St Westminster, with Henry Halford (c1796-?) and a daughter, or perhaps more likely a niece, Miss Vaughan (c1806-?), and nine servants. His city home was next door to the Earl of Hopetoun. Sir Henry did have a daughter Louisa Halford (?-1865) who married Frederick Coventry on 18 Oct 1819 but no link has been found between her and Arthur Hill Hassall. His country house was at Wistow.com | History of Wistow

His son, also Sir Henry, and a classical scholar like his father, was for many years member of Parliament for the Harborough Division of Leicestershire and his grandson the third and last Sir Henry, was the first Chairman of Leicestershire County Council and a very prominent Volunteer and marksman. So far no link has been found with Arthur Hill Hassall from any Sir Henry Halford.

Amelia had remained unable to achieve happiness as her health deteriorated. In 1808 she had a severe attack of measles and from then things became worse until her death in 1810 from tuberculosis, her father consulting with her doctors several times a day.

Near the end she had a special mourning ring made and one day when the King approached, she placed on his finger a ring containing a small lock of her hair, set beneath a crystal tablet, enclosed by a few sparks of diamonds, and uttered "Remember me!". The words and her death shortly thereafter, are believed to have reactivated the illness of King George, which led to the subsequent invocation of the Regency Act of 1811 and the era commonly called "The Regency Period".

Princess Amelia was the first member of the royal family to be buried in the Royal Vault in St George's Chapel, Windsor. Several portraits of Princess Amelia can be seen at Royal Collection - Princess Amelia and Princess Amelia (1783-1810), 6th daughter of George III

Although there is no specific reason to connect the miniature with a doctor, others who are possibly related to Dr Arthur Hill Hassall include doctors and attendants ministering to Princess Amelia, such as Dr Matthew Baillie (1761-1823), Sir David Dundas and Dr Pope, as well as a doctor ministering to George III, Dr William Heberden the Younger (1767-1845).

Thus although there is no provenance it seems likely Princess Amelia gave this miniature of her father, George III, to one of her friends, or one of her doctors, or even possibly to Sir Charles Fitzroy. Given all the above circumstances, it seems Sir Henry Halford would have been one of those most likely to be given a version by Princess Amelia. 1273

Carlyle, T- portrait of man, possibly Thomas Carlyle

2007-05-01T14:12:00.000-07:00

This miniature is possibly an early portrait of the fam0us Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881). For much more about him see Thomas Carlyle

Carlyle's books and articles are believed to have inspired social commentators like Charles Dickens and John Ruskin.

The portrait is apparently unsigned, although not removed from its frame. There is glass on the reverse, covering an inscription on the reverse reading "T Carlyle 1816" together with a Latin inscription. In 1816 Carlyle was a young teacher aged 21. The dress and hairstyle fit this date, as does the age of the sitter.

There was also an artist named T Carlyle active around 1816, so it could also be the artist's signature on the reverse.

Unfortunately I can only remember "hic, haec, hoc" from my Latin study, so I cannot translate it, but it appears to read "I.M. biges. Am. quartoque. mens. Atat. su." Any informed suggestions of the correct translation will be gratefully received.

The previous owner suggested that the miniature might possibly be painted by Adam Hope and stated there was a reference by Carlyle, saying his book in "Reminiscences" that he had had his portrait painted in 1816 by a friend, but to date that reference has not been located.

However, a search has been made for other comparable portraits of Carlyle in an effort to compare them with the sitter. Three have been found and there are certainly some similarities. The full face bust portrait of Carlyle at age 46 (in 1841) is the frontispiece in his 1903 book "New Letters and Memorials of Jane Welsh Carlyle". The portrait seems to have the same piercing eyes as the miniature.

The other two portraits are of Carlyle at a youngish age, although none seem to be as early as 1816, as they both appear to show sideburns. Sideburns were not fashionable for men in 1816 and it was really after 1820 that they became fashionable. White neck wear as in the miniature was fashionable up to around 1820, with black neck ties as shown in the other portraits, becoming the dominant colour by around 1830.

Thus to date, there is no confirmation of the sitter. 1222

Ballard, Thomas - portrait of Joseph Baylis

2006-05-14T16:37:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is in pen and ink, but is unsigned. The lower front right, on his sleeve, bears the inscription "AE 81" for 81 years. The sitter is named on the reverse as Joseph Baylis (1764-1853). These dates do not match a period of 81 years, but it probably means that the portrait was drawn in 1845 when he was aged 81.

He is most likely to be the Joseph Baylis recorded in both the 1841 and 1851 English census, living with his unmarried sister Maria, at 156 Homend(?) St, Ledbury, Hereford. In 1851 he was aged 87 and thus born in 1764, a retired carrier.

Since writing the above, a kind visitor called Patt, has left some very helpful comments and corrections. Including the name of the artist and that Joseph was the son of Stephen Baylis and Ann Brown. Also that Joseph was a retired currier, not a carrier (I had misread the census return).

A currier was one who prepared tanned hides for use. This is from the Latin word corium for leather, but also seems to be linked to the word cure, as in curing hides.

Apparently there were father and son artists both named Thomas Ballard in Herefordshire and Patt thinks this portrait is more likely by the elder of the two. I gather from Patt's comments that the elder Thomas Ballard was the nephew of Joseph Baylis. 606

Unknown - portrait of the Chevalier d'Eon

2006-05-14T16:33:00.000-07:00

Collecting miniature portraits is sometimes like a lucky dip as one never knows quite what will come up next. Although this portrait is a little larger than a miniature, 140mm x 110mm, and drawn in pencil, the sitter was a controversial historical figure.

The portrait is dated 1868 on the reverse, but the seller did not know the sitter, so it was sold as an unidentified sitter.

But I had recently been researching the famous surgeon, Sir Anthony Carlisle and, by chance, had seen the identical image in connection with Sir Anthony Carlisle, as he had performed an autopsy on the sitter's death, to settle major differences of public opinion as to whether the sitter was male or female.

Thus I recognised the sitter as the Chevalier d'Eon, a real historical character, who has given rise to an adult cartoon character of the same name who apparently even features in books and films, and on television, as shown below. Even a London play in 1999 by Mark Brownell.

Of all the ambassadors or diplomatists who ever served a sovereign, the most extraordinary, perhaps, was the Chevalier d'Eon, who occupied a large space in the public mind at certain periods; extraordinary, not for his political abilities or services, but for his personal history.

The story of Chevalier d'Eon commences on 5 October 1728, in a French town of Tonnerre, when Charles-Genevieve Louis-Auguste-Andre-Timothee was born. His father was an advocate in the high court of justice, Louis d'Eon de Beaumont and his mother was lady Francoise de Chavanson.

There was no doubt about his gender when he was born. The doctor, midwife, and other people present in the household when d'Eon was born confirmed he was male. He grew up in a normal schoolboy style, although his mother was said to sometimes dress him in his sister's clothes. This was not unusual in even in the 19C and early 20C ,as many young boys appear in miniatures dressed as girls. As a young man he reputedly had a slight, small body and delicate formed limbs, with a slender waist and small hands and feet. d'Eon completed his education in College Mazarin in Paris and became successively a doctor in civil law, a doctor in canon law, and an advocate before the tribunals of Paris. He wrote several books which attracted attention and became secretary to Monsieur de Sauvigny, the fiscal administrator in Paris.

In 1756 d'Éon joined the secret network of spies called Le Secret du Roi which worked for King Louis XV. Louis XV wanted to reconcile with Russia at that time. He sent two ambassadors to discuss the issue with Russia Empress Elisabeth but failed because the men were banned to the court. In order to penetrate into the court and successfully discuss the issue with Empress Elisabeth, he needed to send a woman, but a woman could not handle the dangerous mission. Louis XV, always liking a bit of spicy intrigue to brighten his day, and believing that a French woman (who were renowned everywhere for their charm, diplomacy and guile but not for their intelligence) might get through Elizabeth's door where a male diplomat could not; he hit on the idea of sending a 'lady' diplomat - an intelligent and gifted man in the guise of a woman - to Russia. His gaze fell on the fresh faced d'Eon who also had all the other qualities he needed - and Charles was 'persuaded' to go to Russia as "Lia de Beaumont'', his own "sister'', in robes of the latest Parisian fashion, with suitably forged documents proving "her" parentage and patronage.
The ruse worked brilliantly. "Lia" was able to spend many hours in the company of Empress Elizabeth and persuaded her to write to Louis and invite a new ambassador to Moscow,. "Lia" took a very strong liking to this highly pampered feminine lifestyle, but was soon back in Paris to report his success. Unbelievably he was re-despatched to Moscow by Louis XV in his male role - as an embassy secretary.

But d'Eon proceeded to be both Charles at the embassy and "'Lia" at the Russian Court, carving (for those few important people in the know in France) an enviable reputation as a spy in the process! After a few years - when it was believed in Paris his double life was about to be exposed - he was withdrawn.

d'Eon became known in England in 1761, the year after George III ascended the throne. England and France, after many years of war, were making overtures of conciliation and the Duke de Nivernois was sent by Louis XV as ambassador to negotiate the terms of peace. Chevalier d'Eon, who accompanied him as secretary, won general favour at court; he was of prepossessing appearance, managed the duties of his position with much ability, and displayed a wide range of accomplishments.

While in London, d'Eon continued his dual role as a top spy; both Charles and "Lia" became an accepted part of the English Court and of the social scene around London. They were, of course, never seen together! One strange manifestation of this - and one that was very popular as a diversion with the public - was that of "Lia" d'Eon, the lady fencer, challenging the best swordsmen in or visiting the City!

When the duke had completed the terms of peace, d'Eon had the honour of communicating the fact from the one sovereign to the other. The court-journal of 1763 announced:

"Monsieur d'Eon de Beaumont, secretary to the embassy from France, returned this day to London, and was received by the Duke de Nivernois as Knight of the Royal Military Order of St. Louis: his Most Christian Majesty having invested him with that order, when he presented to him the ratification of the definitive treaty of peace with England."

Madame de Pompadour, who held an influential position at the court of Versailles, wrote about the same time to the Duke de Nivernois, mentioning d'Eon in the following terms: 'This M. d'Eon is, I am told, a very good sort of man, who has served the king in more countries than one: and the English have been very polite in giving him the treaty to bring. This, I doubt not, will be of some advantage to him.'

When the Duke de Nivernois returned to France on completion of his mission, he strongly recommended d'Eon as the temporary representative of France in England, until a permanent ambassador could be appointed. So well had d'Eon conducted himself, that both monarchs assented to this and in 1763 d'Éon became plenipotentiary minister in London. Soon afterwards three distinguished Frenchmen, Lalande, La Condamine, and Camus, were introduced to George III by d'Eon. d'Eon used his position to spy for the king and collect information for a potential invasion. He formed connections with English nobility by sending them the produce of his vineyard. This was the only short brilliant period of d'Eon's life and was followed by disgrace.

Louis XV then appointed the Count de Guercy his permanent ambassador in England, and directed d'Eon to resume his former position as secretary of the embassy, with aome additional honours as a reward for his service.

When he was about to lose the post of plenipotentiary, he complained, and eventually decided to disobey orders to return to France. In his letter to the king, he claimed that the new ambassador had tried to drug him. In an effort to save his station in London, he published most of the secret diplomatic correspondence about his recall under the title "Lettres, mémoires, et négociations" in 1764, including an accusation against the Count de Guercy. The count brought an action against d'Eon in the Court of King's Bench for libel. d'Eon made neither an appearance nor a defence, and the verdict was given against him.

As a result, the French authorities were anxious to arrest him, and even sanctioned a forcible entry into a house in Scotland Yard, where he was supposed to be residing; but d'Eon eluded them. Towards the close of 1764, d'Eon charged the Count de Guercy of conspiracy to murder or injure him, In response, the count, instead of rebutting the charge, claimed his privileges as a foreign ambassador, thus the public formed the opinion that the conspiracy charge was perhaps justified.

To resolve the issue without further diplomatic incident, in 1766, Louis XV granted d'Eon a 12,000 livre annuity, provided be became a woman and continued to work as a spy, and lived in political exile in London.

After some speculation, in July 1777, an action was brought to the Courts seeking to determine the sex of d'Eon. Despite the fact that d'Éon wore his dragoon's uniform all the time, there were rumors that he was actually a woman and a betting pool was eventually started on the London Stock Exchange regarding the truth of his gender. The enormous sum of £70,000O was mentioned in connection with the pool. One man, on evidence which seemed to him convincing, had made a wager that d'Eon was a woman, and brought an action to recover the amount of the bet.

D'Eon was invited to give evidence to resolve the claim, but declined, saying that an examination would be dishonouring, whatever gender was discovered. After a year without progress, the wager was abandoned. From that time d'Eon became regarded as Madame d'Eon, and assumed female attire. In 1774, after the death of Louis XV, d'Éon tried to negotiate his return from exile. The French government's side of the negotiations were handled by the writer Pierre de Beaumarchais. D'Éon claimed that physically he was not a man, but a woman, and demanded that the government recognize him as a woman. King Louis XVI and his court complied but demanded that he dress appropriately and wear women's clothing. D'Éon agreed, especially when the king granted him funds for a new wardrobe. In 1777 d'Éon returned to France, and afterwards lived as a woman.

In 1779 d'Éon published his memoirs "La Vie Militaire, politique, et privée de Mademoiselle d'Eon". They were ghostwritten by a friend named La Fortelle, and are probably embellished. In them it was claimed d'Eon was born at Tonnerre, as female but, for the purpose of advancing his prospects in life was treated as a boy.

D'Éon returned to England in 1785, having lost his pension after the French Revolution. In 1792 he sent a letter to the French National Assembly, offering to lead a division of women soldiers against the Habsburgs, but the offer was rebuffed. He participated in fencing tournaments until he was seriously wounded in 1796. In 1805 he signed a contract for an autobiography, but the book was never published and he spent his last years with a widow, Mrs. Cole.

At length, on 22 May 1810, the news-papers announced that the 'celebrated Chevalier d'Eon' had died at the Millman Street Foundling Hospital. Sir Anthony Carlisle performed the autopsy. Thus it became decisively known that d'Eon was really a man but, for reasons known to himself, had passed himself off as a woman. 1364

Unknown - portrait of a naval officer

2006-05-14T16:30:00.000-07:00

Neither the artist or sitter are known. 199

Buck, Frederick - portrait of Hester Osborn

2006-05-11T16:12:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is unsigned, but is painted in the distinctive style of Frederick Buck (1771-1840), an Irish artist who was born in Cork and also worked in Dublin. He painted many portraits of emigrants and their families. It has been said that he kept a supply of miniatures, especially of soldiers, completed apart from the head and then when army regiments were due to sail, he thus was able to complete and sell many miniatures in the short time before a ship sailed.

The sitter in this portrait has a strong American connection. According to the inscription on the reverse, the portrait was painted around 1820, she is the mother of Ann Osborne and was born in Ireland. Ann Osborne is described as marrying Benjamin Trott, becoming the mother of James Payson Trott, and the grandmother of Clifford Clarence Trott. This information has enabled the identification of the sitter as Hester Osborn (1800-?).

Research has shown that Ann Osborn (1828-?) married Benjamin Payson Trott (1815-?) on 21 Sep 1848 in Springfield, Essex, NJ, and then became respectively the mother of James Payson Trott (1852-), and the grandmother of Clifford Clarence Trott (4 Nov 1883-Sep 1965). The Internet contains family trees containing all these names.

By looking at immigration records and knowing that Ann's mother was born in Ireland, it has been possible to determine the probable family group that arrived in the United States, and thus the first name of this sitter, as an Ann Osborn (also recorded as Anna Osborn) arrived in New York from Bristol at age 5 on Aug 7 1833 on the ship "Woodman". The family included; Ann aged 5, Hannah 9, Hester 33, James 12, Jenny (possibly Jeremy) 7, Joseph 1, and William 3. Hester Osborn's husband does not seem to have accompanied her on this voyage, but an Osborn of unknown first name did arrive in New York on Jul 3 1832 on the "Prince Leboo", and so her husband may have preceded her.

Some records which appear to relate to Hester's other children can be found, although it is difficult to be sure. In the 1870 census Joseph Osborn then aged 38 and born in Ireland was living in Philadelphia.

Smith, Joachim - portrait of John Smart

2006-05-11T15:47:00.000-07:00

These two identical bronze medals are of the miniature painter John Smart. The reverse is blank in both cases. In her book about John Smart, Daphne Foskett comments on the medal as follows.

"A medal bearing his portrait, modelled by Joachim Smith and cut by John Kirk, of which there are several versions, was struck in 1777, no doubt to celebrate the year he became Vice-President. At least two silver medals are known to exist, one engraved on the back "September 22, 1798". Several were struck in bronze, one in my own collection having "Sarah Neale" engraved on the reverse, and at least one has come to my attention made of a siver alloy." 681

Andras, Catherine - portrait of King George III

2006-04-10T23:49:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is in wax and is signed below the bust "C Andras A D 1820". Catherine Andras (1775-1860) was a wax modeller who worked in London. This wax model of George III is recorded in Pyke's Dictionary. On the rear of the frame there is a typed note recording "Inside the back of this frame is the origimal receipt made out as follows :- Portrait of / His Late Majesty George the Third/ Modelled by Catherine Andras / Modeller in Wax to His Late Majesty / Published (?) as his aide directed July 4th 1821 / No. 30 Pall Mall / 2 Guineas". 1093

Harding, George - portrait of John Maynard

2006-04-07T17:51:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is signed "G P Harding del 1811" for George Perfect Harding" (1780-1853). The portrait is inscribed "To John Maynard Kt". This appears to be a copy of the portrait of Sir John Maynard (1602-1690) by John Riley (1646-1691) that hangs in the NPG London. 175

Unknown - portrait of a man

2006-04-07T17:47:00.000-07:00

This unsigned miniature portrait is oil on copper. Although included under British, it may be European. 328

A kind visitor has since left a comment wondering if it is by Cornelius Troost (1697-1750). Troost has been called "the Hogarth Hollandais" and the Watteau Hollandais", and of him the following has been written;
Cornelis Troost, the son of a goldsmith, first chose a profession as an actor, performing at the Amsterdam Theatre, c. 1717-24. His wife's family were theatre people, while his own family were artists. One of Troost's earliest works was his infamous drawing of 'Prince Eugene of Savoy in the brothel of Madame Teresa on Prinsengracht.' The prince was Austrian governor of the The Netherlands at the time. (‘Prins Eugenius van Savoye in het etablissement van Madame Traese op de Prinsengracht te Amsterdam,' Cornelis Troost (ca. 1720) Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam.)

Beginning in 1723 Troost studied under the eminent portrait painter, Arnold Boonen (1669-1729) and was, himself, initially predominately a portraitist. Finding quick success, by 1724, he received a commission for a life-size group portrait of 'The Inspectors of Collegium Medicum,' now in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam. The success of this work led to many other large works, though few survive intact. (Ref. 'Dutch Painting, 1600-1800,' Prof. Seymour Slive, The Yale University Press)

Troost never abandoned his thespian connections. From 1732, he produced a number of acclaimed depictions of theatrical scenes, as well as painting a number of stage sets for his old theatre, though none of the latter are known to survive. (Ref. J.W. Niemeijer, Cornelis Troost 1696-1750, Assen, 1973.) His study for Molière's 'Le Malade Imaginaire' was auctioned by Christie's in 2004, bringing £43,020 ($78,985).

Troost was also lauded for his conversation pieces and genre scenes. His best known work, his 'NELRI' series (1739-40), exhibited at Mauritshuis, The Hague, portrays a group of young bachelors at a reunion, beginning with a quiet evening, eventually ending with a scene long after midnight, in which the young men are all very drunk: a humorous work skillfully showing the emotional and physiological stages of inebriation. Sometimes Troost is referred to as the Dutch Hogarth, though his work never moralizes, emphasizing instead the humor of situations.

Fuchs describes Troost as "by far the most original and versatile artist of his age" (Fuchs, RH, 'Dutch painting,' 1978, Thames and Hudson, London, p. 144). A luscious self portrait by Troost may be seen by Googling 'Troost Self Rijksmuseum.' While there, take a look at his other works at that museum. Others may be seen in The Royal Picture Gallery at the Mauritshuis in Den Haag.

Examples of miniatures by Troost appear to be uncommon, although he is listed in Blattel.

Donaldson, John - portrait of William Pitt the Younger

2006-04-06T17:10:00.000-07:00

Although unsigned, this miniature portrait has been attributed to John Donaldson (1737-1801), a Scottish artist who also worked in London.

One of the bracelet clips at the rear is engraved "Rt Hon'ble William Pitt" for William Pitt (28 May 1759 – 23 January 1806) the famous British Prime Minister of the late 18C. He was the son of William Pitt the Elder (1708-1778), who was Prime Minister of Great Britain (1766-1768).

William Pitt the Younger became the youngest ever Prime Minister of Great Britain between (1783-1801) and again between (1804-1806).

It appears from the clothing and wig style that Donaldson painted the portrait in the mid 1780's and has slightly emphasized Pitt's youth, as he has given him softer features than the 1787 Gainsborough portrait of Pitt.

Comparison can be made with three other large oil portraits of William Pitt the Younger, all painted around the period 1785-1790 which are illustrated here. The one on the right, painted by Thomas Gainsborough c1787, appears in William Hague's biography of William Pitt.

Thus the miniature was probably painted in 1784 or 1785, shortly after the time Pitt became Prime Minister in 1783.

Pitt never married and it seems possible that the miniature was painted at the request on his mother, who must have hoped he would marry.

In 1783 he was reputedly offered as a wife, the seventeen year old daughter of the fabulously rich French politician Jacques Necker, and much later in 1796 there was some expectation that he would marry Lady Eleanor Eden, the attractive daughter of Lord Eden.

The miniature is believed to be genuine, although it is difficult to be 100% sure. However, it should theoretically be possible to confirm or disprove the identity of William Pitt as the sitter, by taking a DNA sample from the lock of hair contained in the reverse of the locket.

The locket case with the hair back is similar to, but less elaborate than one of similar date on page 325 of Foskett. The engraved bracelet clips on this miniature appear to have been added slightly later. This was not uncommon and there are various miniatures in this collection that had bracelet clips or brooch pins added after the date of the original miniature.

For much more about William Pitt, see William Pitt the Younger - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For a second miniature of William Pitt in this collection see View 1135

Thomson, William J - portrait of John Gloag

2006-04-05T22:05:00.000-07:00

This miniature is signed and dated 1814 on the reverse. The artist is William John Thomson (1771-1845). He was born in Savannah in the United States, but for much of life he worked in Edinburgh, Scotland. The sitter is identified as John Gloag. 931

Unknown - portrait of Sir Walter Scott

2006-04-05T22:02:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is by an unknown artist, but the sitter is Sir Walter Scott, the famous Scottish author. 985

Stevenson, William - portrait of Seth William Stevenson

2006-04-04T20:37:00.000-07:00

The painter of this miniature portrait is not known for sure. However, if the sitter is aged 36 or less in the miniature, and with the help of a kind visitor as noted further below, it is most likely painted by his father, William Stevenson. Thus for the purpose of this description, he is considered to be aged 36!

It it is inscribed on the reverse "celebrated numismatologist. Stevenson, Norwich. Father of Adelaide who married John Deighton of Cambridge." Thus the sitter is identified as Seth William Stevenson (1785 – 1853) who wrote a 929 page book entitled "Dictionary of Roman Coins". This was published in 1889 after his death and remained in print for about another 100 years.

In the 1851 census, Seth William Stevenson was a widower, his wife being Mary (1801- <1851). He was then aged 63 and is recorded as the co-proprietor and editor of the Norfolk Chronicle weekly journal. In 1851 he lived at 173 Surrey Street Norwich, along with his daughter Adelaide, then aged 21 and his son Henry aged 18 who later assisted completion of the book after his father's death. 1061.

A kind visitor has provided the following extra information;
"Did you know that Seth William Stevenson’s father was a miniature painter ? Apparently he trained at the Royal Academy and was a pupil of Rubens. William Stevenson lived from 1749 to 1821 He was also a publisher and author and Sheriff of Norwich in 1799. He was Co-proprietor of the Norfolk Chronicle. There is a substantial monumental inscription to William and his wife in St Stephen’s church in Norwich.

His son Seth William Stevenson (1785 – 1853) succeeded his father as proprietor and virtual editor of the Chronicle. He also served in the office of Sheriff of Norwich in 1828, and as Mayor in 1832.

Upon Seth’s death his son Henry Stevenson (1832/3) succeeded him as Proprietor of the Chronicle and served as Sheriff of Norwich in 1875. He retired before his death in 1888 and died a chronic alcoholic. Henry Stevenson was widowed from his first wife and then married my great aunt, Ann Emilia Self.

In family documents there are references to the Stevenson family silver, much of which is owned by descendants within my family in New Zealand. By all accounts they were wealthy. My great grandmother also writes of ‘exquisite miniatures, & family portraits’ in the Stevenson estate."

Dixon, Annie - portrait of a youg girl

2006-04-04T20:27:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is inscribed on the reverse, "by Miss Dixon Horncastle and No. 5 Fitz Roy House(?), Fitz Roy Square". The name of the sitter is also shown, but unfortunately a previous owner has crossed this out so it is illegible. This probably happened when it was sold out of the family. 302

Dixon, Annie - portrait of young girl

2006-04-04T20:19:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is signed on the reverse, "Portrait painted by Miss A Dixon, Horncastle". This is for Annie Dixon (1817-1901). The sitter is unknown. 303

Macleay, Kenneth - portrait of a lady

2006-04-04T20:12:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is signed 'K MLeay 1834" for Kenneth Macleay (1802 -1878) . The sitter is unidentified. 301

Tayler, Charles Foot - portrait of old lady

2006-04-04T20:05:00.000-07:00

Both these miniature portraits are signed "C F Tayler 1820" for Charles Foot Tayler (1800 - 1853). He came from the Isle of Wight, but painted in Bath for many years. The portraits are interesting, as they would have been painted at the same time, but for different members of the sitter's family. One came from California and one from Kent, England, so it was nice to reunite them.

The sitter is unknown, but one of them has an inscription on the rear "Princess of Stacia. Painted by C F Taylor 1820". However, this name has not yet been traced. 1106, 1187

Tayler, Charles Foot - portrait of a young man

2006-04-04T19:58:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is signed "C F Tayler 1821" for Charles Foot Tayler (1800-1853). The sitter is unknown. 24

Durham, Cornelius Bevis - portrait of a young man

2006-04-04T19:50:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is signed by Cornelius Bevis Durham (7 Jun 1809-1884) and active (1825-1865). He was born in St Clements Dane, Middlesex and died in Christchurch, Hampshire in June 1884.

Durham can be tracked quite readily through the census records but a decline in his income due to competition from photography seems to become apparent. In 1841 he lives in Marylebone with his wife, Mary, three son, one also named Cornelius aged 4, the others being Edmund, 3 and Francis, 1 and there are also two female servants.

In 1851 he is an artist living in Marylebone with his first wife Mary, but only one son George aged 3 and one servant. However, he also seems to have various relatives or lodgers living with him, including a bazaar keeper and a newspaper seller.

In the 1861 and 1871 census records Durham describes himself as an artist and is now living near Brighton Pavilion in a large household, headed by his cousin Martha Phillips, who is a wealthy tea merchant. Mary his wife is there in 1861, but in 1871 he is a widower.

Durham can also be found in the 1881 census, but is now living in New Barnet with his son George and he gives his occupation as miniature painter. This is the only time he has used the occupation of miniature painter in the census records, all other times stating it as artist. He is then aged 71. His place of birth was St Clement Danes, Middlesex. He has remarried, this time to Mary Ann Upfill in 1872. He died in 1884.

The sitter is unknown. 87

Hamlet, T - portrait of a man

2006-04-04T19:08:00.000-07:00

This miniature profile portrait is by T Hamlet. On the reverse there is most of his trade label. It is headed by the Royal Coat of Arms and under that reads;
"Hamlet, Miniature and Profile Painter to Her Majesty and the Royal Family, No 2 Old Bond Streeet Bath, takes the most striking likenesses on glass, paper, or ivory. A sitting of only one minute required. Large Shades reduced to any size. Profiles in Black from 2s 6d to L 1. 1s. Coloured from 10s 6d to L3. 3s. Prepared ivories for miniature painting and miniature Frames for sale. Ladies and Gentlemen waited on. Wood & Co. City Printing Office Bath."
The sitter is unknown. 295

Hancock, Robert - portrait of a lady

2006-04-04T19:00:00.000-07:00

This miniature profile portrait is inscribed on the reverse, "Painted 28th Sept 1824 by R Hancock - very like". This is probably the Robert Hancock who lived in Bristol. It seems likely that the unidentified sitter is a sister or other close relative of the adjacent portrait. 552

Hancock, Robert - portrait of a lady

2006-04-04T18:50:00.000-07:00

This miniature profile portrait is inscribed on the reverse "Painted 29 Sept 1824. Very like". As the adjacent portrait is signed Robert Hancock in the same hand writing, this portrait must also be by him. The two sitters are most likely sisters, but their identities are unknown. 554

Unknown - portrait of a lady

2006-04-04T18:44:00.000-07:00

The artist and sitter are unknown, but this miniature portrait may be by Richard Crosse. 139

Various - portraits of Kingsley family

2006-04-04T18:36:00.000-07:00

This group of miniature portraits are contained within a single frame. The sitters are all identified by very old notes inside the frame. The sitters include two ancestors of the famous writer Charles Kingsley who wrote "The Water Babies" and other books. Depicted are his father (bottom right) and his grandmother (top left). The other three images are believed to be related by marriage.

The man in the centre is James Wills and the following notes about him and his descendants are included in case they are of any interest to genealogists.

"James Wills who died 1731 married Martha Curtis and left 2 sons. (1) Godfrey, his heir - Lt Col Roscommon Militia (2) Robert of Annalee Co Carlow, and two daughters of whom one married Mr Lennox (?) a banker.

(Col) Godfrey Wills married (first) Sarah Montgomery of Ballinlongious (?) Co Monaghan - their children were (sons); (1) Thomas, his heir (2) Robert married Miss Dowely (?) (3) Caspar married Mr Carter's daughter. Daughters (1) Elizabeth married Thomas Mitchell of Castle Strange (?) Co Roscommon (2) Martha married Charles Wood of Larkfield Co Sligo (3) Sarah married Sir Ralph Fetherstone of Ardagh (4) Catherine married Ralph Owens (?) of Longford. (5) Susan married William Fetherstone of Carrick.

Col (Godfrey) Wills married secondly Charlotte Elizabeth, daughter of Luke Stirling of Mount Dutton Co Meath & had by her (4) (ie a fourth son) James Wills of Plas Bellin, who married Miss Kingsley. (5) Charles (6) Ann married William Berry of Eglish (?) Castle Kings Co.

Col Wills was succeeded by his eldest son, Thomas Wills of Willsgrove (?) who married in 1765 Jane Talbot - their children were (1) William Robert born 1779. (2) Sarah married Rev William McLoughlin (2) Elizabeth died unmarried (3) Ann married W D Burleigh, their son afterwards married the daughter of James Wills of Plas Bellin. (4) Jane died unmarried.

Godfrey the second of William & Susan Fetherstone, married in 1824 Matilda daughter of Rev Stephen Radcliff & his (her?) youngest sister Elizabeth married as her second husband, Rev Stephen Ratcliffe. Painewick (?) 30th July 1914.

The rear of the frame has a note saying "For my nephew Cecil Burleigh in New Zealand". 18

Unknown - portrait of James Wills

2006-04-04T18:34:00.000-07:00

This unsigned miniature portrait is painted in enamel on copper. As it was painted around 1715-1725, the most likely artist was originally thought to be Christian Friederick Zincke (1683/4-1767), as there were very few painters in England painting enamel miniatures at this time. However, a kind and knowledgeable visitor to the website, advises it is not by Zincke, thus the artist is currently unknown.

The sitter is identified as "Jas Wills, grandfather of Jas Wills of Plas Bellin, died 1730". He is either the father or the grandfather of the James Wills in the portrait below which is signed Collins".

A marriage record has been found for him as James Wills (1675-1731) who married Martha Curtis of Dublin before 1723. In fact their marriage was probably closer to 1700, as their elder son Godfrey Wills married first, Sarah Montgomery on 6 Sep 1731. Godfrey Wills then married, second, Charlotte Elizabeth Stirling of Dublin on 6 Jun 1771. Godfrey and Sarah had a son called James Wills, who married Lucretia Ann Kingsley on 23 Nov 1801. Lucretia was the aunt of the author Charles Kinglsey.

There is a reference to a huge Elizabethan country house called Plas Bellin that is now a family refuge centre, see BBC - Beyond the Broadcast - Changing Places , but James Wills has not yet been confirmed as the owner in the 18C. 18a

Collins, Samuel - portrait of James Wills

2006-04-04T18:20:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is signed "Collins" for Samuel Collins (1735-1768). The sitter is identified on several notes within the overall frame, as James Wills. However, there are conflicts within the notes, as one describes him as the son of the James Wills who died in 1731 and another describes him as a grandson. Judging upon his age and costume, it would seem more likely he is a son of the earlier James Wills. The notes mentioning him read as follows.

"James Wills, son of above and father of Robert, Godfrey, Lucretia E (Burleigh) and Charlotte Wills. Died 1854 age 83."

"James Wills 2 married Lucretia Anne Kingsley, had issue Robert Wills, Godfrey Wills, Lucretia m W Burleigh, Charlotte. He died 1854 aged 83."

If he died on 1854 at age 83, he would have been born in 1771, but the artist Samuel Collins died in 1768 and the costume of the sitter is from around 1765. Thus it seems more likely that the sitter is a generation older than the notes suggest. It seems more likely that he is Godfrey Wills, the son of the James Wills who died in 1731 and the father of the younger James Wills. Godfrey Wills married second, Charlotte Elizabeth Stirling on 6 Jun 1771.

Another alternative that could fit the chronology associated with his age and costume, is that he is the Charles Kingsley (1743-1786) who married Elizabeth Ann Westney (1747-?), the sitter in the next portrait, on 24 Nov 1778. This would make him the grandfather of the author, Charles Kingsley. 18b

Crosse, Richard - portrait of Elizabeth Kingsley

2006-04-04T17:26:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is unsigned, but it has been attributed to Richard Crosse (1742-1810). The sitter is identified by several notes inside the rear of the group frame.

"Elizabeth Westney, wife of Charles Kingsley Esq of Lymington, Hants, mother of the Rev C Kingsley of Chelsea and of Lucretia A Wills, wife of James Wills of Plus Bellin, Wales."

"Elizabeth Kingsley nee Westney married Charles Kinglsey of Lymington, mother of Rev C Kinglsey of Chelsea & Lucretia Ann Wills, wife of James Wills."

Her marriage record has been located for 24 Nov 1778, at St Anne Soho. Lomdon. Her son Charles Kingsley (1781-1860) was born on 23 Oct 1781. He was the father of the author Charles Kingsley, thus Elizabeth was the author's grandmother. 18c

Unknown - portrait of Major Stirling

2006-04-04T17:20:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is unsigned. The sitter is idneitfied on notes inside the group frame as Major Stirling.

"Major Stirling, uncle of James Mills of Plas Bellin."

"Major Stirling, uncle of James Wills (2) of Plas Bellin Northop Wales."

It seems that he must have been a brother of the Charlotte Elizabeth Stirling who married Godfrey Wills on 6 Jun 1771.

There was a Major Stirling with the 42nd Highland Regiment, the Black Watch, who acted heroically in Egypt during the Nile Campaign, but it is not known if this is the same Major Stirling. 18d

Unknown - portrait of Rev Charles Kingsley

2006-04-04T17:14:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is unsigned. The sitter is identified by notes inside the group frame as Rev Charles Kingsley.

"Rev C Kingsley of Bottomsby (?) and Chelsea. Brother of Lucretia A Wills and father of Rev C Kingsley, of George and Henry and George Kingsley."

"Rev Charles Kingsley of Chelsea, father of Canon Charles Kingsley, rector of Eversley and brother of Lucretia A Wills (nee Kinglsey) - uncle of Robert, Godfrey, Lucretia and Charlotte Wills. Lucretia E Wills married William Burleigh of St Catherines Carrickfergus."

The Rev Charles Kingsley (1781-1860) married Mary Lucas (1782-1873) in 1808 at Christchurch Parish in Barbados. They had five sons and a daughter. The author Charles Kingsley (1819-1875) was the eldest of their sons. For more about him see Charles Kingsley 18e

Unknown - portrait of a lady

2006-04-04T17:06:00.000-07:00

Although neither the artist who painted this miniature portrait, nor the sitter are known, it is of very high quality for a profile portrait. On the reverse of the frame the date 1824 has been scratched and that seems a likely date. It is most probably British, but could possibly be American. 598

Uwins, Thomas - portrait of Lady Collins

2006-04-04T17:01:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is by Thomas Uwins (1782-1857). On the reverse is is inscribed "Lady Collins. Painted by Thos Uwins Oct 1816". 341

Thompson, Thomas - portrait of a man

2006-04-04T16:53:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is signed with the initials "T T ", and it has been attributed to Thomas Clement Thompson (1778-1857). The initials of the sitter "R A C" are on the reverse in gold filigree. 400

Buck, Frederick - portrait of a man

2006-04-04T16:47:00.000-07:00

Although this miniature is unsigned, it appears to be painted in the distinctive style of Frederick Buck (1771-1840) of, Cork, Ireland.

Daphne Foskett comments; "During the Peninuslar War, when Cork was a busy port of embarkation, his services were in great demand to paint portraits of officers. In order to keep pace with demand, he kept a supply of painted ivories to which he added the heads and regimental facings as required."

and "His work is not as good as his brother Adam Buck and the features are often badly drawn and modelled; he used a rather hot colouring which looks hard and reflects the haste with which he so often painted. He sometimes painted cloudy sky backgrounds on the reverse of the ivory which he left blank on the front."

The design of the reverse of the case, is often found on Irish miniatures and this form of case design made its way across the Atlantic with Irish artists who emigrated to the United States.

However, a kind visitor has also suggested that another potential artist for the miniature may instead be by Henry Kirchhoffer (1781-1860) who was also from Ireland and painted in a somewhat similar style, although he was a little more original than the "cookie-cutter" style of Frederick Buck.

In the meantime, both names are offered for any further comment.

The reverse has the initials of the sitter "E J" in filigree gold, but otherwise the sitter is unknown. 644

Watling, Thomas - portrait of a man

2006-04-04T16:39:00.000-07:00

Comparison of this miniature by Thomas Watling can be made with a recent record sale for a work by this artist, referred to below.

The Watling miniature in this collection is shown here in front and rear views. Also shown much enlarged is the signature "T W", which is faint as it was difficult to scan through the glass. The "T" and "W" are formed in the same manner as the example from the miniature of John White, and as if by an engraver, which was Watling's profession. However, it is conceded the initials may be meant to be "J W" or "I W".

In Foskett, there are no other obvious contenders with the initials "T W" and working around 1795-1805, which appears to be the date of this case. Foskett observes that Watling was working in Calcutta in 1803, and this was presumably after being released in Australia.

More recent research notes that he returned to Britain in 1804 and presumably continued painting there. Given the ornate frame, it seems possible this second miniature dates from after his return to Britain.

There is a small booklet about Thomas Watling which was produced to accompany a 1988 exhibition about him and his work in Dumfries, Scotland.

When acquired, this miniature was attributed to Thomas Watling and the sitter was said to be related to the Macquarie family who were early settlers in Australia. The rear does include initials which appear to read "M F". However, to date, no research has been undertaken to try and find an early Australian settler with the intitials "M F", but it seems a little unlikely that the sitter has an Australian connection.

However, if any researcher familiar with early Australian history, can suggest a suitable name, I would be very grateful. Of course, one obvious Australian explorer with the initials "M F", is the navigator and cartographer Matthew Flinders (1774-1814), but this sitter looks to be too old to be Flinders.

It can be compared with one interesting miniature sold in late 2007 by Gorringes. A big surprise, it was this unframed miniature by the Australian convict and artist Thomas Watling (1762->1806). It was signed and dated 1792, the year Watling finally reached the colony in Australia, after being sentenced to 14 years for forging banknotes in Dumfries.

The miniature depicts John White, the chief surgeon for the First Fleet, the 11 ships that sailed to Botany Bay in 1786 to establish a convict settlement in Australia.

After his arrival, Watling made many drawings which form the basis of the important studies of wildlife, landscapes, and the indigenous people of Australia known as the Watling Collection, now housed in the zoological library of the Natural History Museum in London. He was pardoned in April 1797, see Watling, Thomas (1762 - ) Biographical Entry - Australian ...

The miniature was offered for sale by Gorringes in Sussex, England on 6 December 2007, seeking an opening bid of GBP120 and with an estimate of GBP200/400. I was tempted to leave an absentee bid of GBP550, well over the estimate to have a good chance of winning, but in the event did not bid.

To the astonishment of everyone, me included, but excepting the two bidders concerned, there were 405 bids according to the eBay auction record, which took the hammer price to GBP90,000, say $210,000 including buyer's commission.

To the best of my knowledge, this is a record price for any miniature sold at a combined live/eBay auction.

In reporting on the sale Antiques Trade Gazette - News & Analysis comments; "On his arrival, he was very quickly assigned to John White. White had become Surgeon General of New South Wales and, as an ardent naturalist who was collecting and documenting specimens, he made use of Watling�s artistic talents. Over the next two years Watling made many drawings which form the basis of the important studies of wildlife, landscapes, and the indigenous people of Australia known as the Watling Collection, now housed in the zoological library of the Natural History Museum in London. Indeed, many of the drawings are annotated in John White's hand. John White does have a connection to East Sussex since, after he returned to England, he spent his last years living in Brighton and died at Worthing in 1832."

Also "Watling's only major known surviving work is Sydney in 1794, a large oil painting which hangs in the Dixson Gallery, Sydney. There are some sketches and finished drawings, a few of which have appeared on the market, but the discovery of this miniature appears to be something of a first."

However, as there are now two miniatures by Thomas Watling, it suggests there are more waiting to be found. 340

Fischer, Johann Georg Paul - portrait of a man

2006-04-04T16:33:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is signed "J P F" for Johann Georg Paul Fischer (1786 - 1875). He did sign in several different ways and the adjacent portrait by him is signed Paul Fischer. The sitter is unknown. 822

Fischer, Johann Georg Paul - portrait of a man

2006-04-04T16:26:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is signed on the reverse "Paul Fischer" for Johann Georg Paul Fischer (1786-1875). The sitter is unknown. 373

Bogle, John - portrait of a man

2006-04-04T16:22:00.000-07:00

Although this miniature portrait is unsigned, it has been attributed to John Bogle (1746-1803). The sitter is unknown. 640

Redmond, Thomas - portrait of Major French

2006-04-04T16:09:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is signed "I R (or T R) 176?). It has been attributed to Thomas Redmond (c 1745- 1785). It is inscribed on the reverse "Major French who married Mrs Donnellan. Drowned coming from Margate". It seems likely that he is either the same person, or perhaps more likely is closely related to the sitter in the adjacent portrait. At french1 there are references to two brothers, both called John French. They both seem to have died in 1775 and one of them married Frances Donellan in 1775. 305

Redmond, Thomas - portrait of John French

2006-04-04T15:55:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is signed either (I R (or T R) 1762". It has been attributed to Thomas Redmond (c1745-1785). The reverse of the portrait is inscribed "John French who was to have been Lord Dungar. Drowned coming from Margate". It seems likely he is either the same person, or perhaps more likely a close relative of the sitter in the adjacent portrait. At french1 there is a reference to two brothers, both of whom appear to have been called John French and both seem to have died in 1775. One of them married Frances Donellan in 1775. 306

Unknown - portrait of a Victorian soldier

2006-04-04T15:45:00.000-07:00

Although neither the artist nor the sitter are known, this miniature portrait of a Victorian soldier is extremely well painted. 128

Unknown - portrait of The Hon Augustus Henry Archibald Anson VC

2006-04-03T23:23:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait on ivory was acquired in 2001 and has sat since posted on this site in 2006, as unsigned, with the sitter unidentified.

It is rare to be able to identify a sitter, but now in late October 2007, almost exactly 150 years to the day since he earned the Victoria Cross, it has been possible to identity the sitter from his clothing, i.e. his uniform and two medals, the Victoria Cross and the Indian Mutiny Medal.

Research has determined that the sitter is the Hon. Augustus Henry Archibald Anson VC (5 Mar 1835-17 Dec 1877), a son of the Earl of Lichfield. In 1863 when he was aged 28, he married Amelia Maria Claughton (4 Jun 1843-4 Jan 1894). Amelia was the daughter of the future Bishop of St Albans, the Right Rev. Thomas Leigh Claughton. They seem not to have had any children.

It is likely the two colours of woven hair on the reverse side of the miniature are those of Anson and of Amelia. Possibly this hair could be used to confirm the sitter's identity using DNA analysis.

Anson's father the Earl of Lichfield was Postmaster-General from May 1835 to Sep 1841 and during his administration the universal penny-postage system was brought into operation. This featured the first ever postage stamp, the Penny Black, and was championed by Sir Rowland Hill. For more see Penny Black - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, when Augustus was only seven years old in 1842, the Earl of Lichfield fell into serious pecuniary difficulties. His magnificent mansion in St James Square was dismantled and its contents dispersed by the hammer of Mr George Robins, as were those also of his country seat at Shugborough where the same official held a sale for twelve days. The Earl had earlier been a "warm supporter of the turf" and in 1836 his horse Elis won the St Ledger.

The logic behind the attribution of the miniature is as follows. The sitter is an army officer wearing both the Victoria Cross and the Indian Mutiny medal. His rank badges appear to be those of a Lieutenant-Colonel. His age in the portrait could well be 28 and thus fit with this being a miniature painted at the time of his marriage in 1863.

The miniature must be one of the very early, if not the earliest, contemporary painted portrait of a winner of the Victoria Cross wearing his medal. As such it is of considerable rarity, although obviously not in the class of a Victoria Cross medal itself, as they usually sell for an average of around GBP150,000.

The Victoria Cross was created in 1856 and the first Victoria Cross investiture was carried out in June 1857, when 62 winners were invested. The Indian Mutiny medal is also shown here, with this example having the Lucknow clasp. A kind visitor has pointed out that Anson won three clasps, although only one is shown in the miniature. This was probably artistic licence, to enable the colour of the ribbon to still be seen. For much more about the Victoria Cross, see; The History of the Victoria Cross, The Victoria Cross Society for enthusiasts , and Victoria Cross Research - research@victoriacross.co.uk - Designed ...

A total of 182 Victoria Crosses were awarded during the Indian Mutiny and the recipients are recorded along with other Victoria Cross winners in the book "The Register of the Victoria Cross" published in 1997.

In almost all cases, pictures of the winners of the VC are included in the book. By a process of elimination, the 182 winners in the Indian Mutiny were reduced to about 50 recipients who had a VC won in the Indian Mutiny and who subsequently achieved an army rank of Lieutenant-Colonel or higher during their career. However, of the 50, there were only three or four whose highest rank achieved during their military career was Lieutenant-Colonel.

While this does not make it certain it was the highest rank this sitter achieved, it does make it more likely. Additionally, the book contains the photograph shown below of Hon Augustus Henry Archibald Anson, which is remarkably similar to the miniature, although he appears a little older. Anson died in France in 1877 when he was only 42. The cause of death is unknown, but being in France and at such an early age, one might suspect it was possibly at a tuberculosis sanatorium?

Anson seems to have entered the army as an ensign in 1853 in the 44th Foot via purchase of the rank. He served in the Crimea 1854-56 and also in China 1857-1860. Being from a wealthy family he would not have needed to pursue an army career for his whole life and when he retired, he had achieved the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel in the 84th Regiment (later the York and Lancaster Regiment). He appears to have resigned his commission around the time of his marriage, possibly due to ill health. He became MP for Bewdley from 1869-1874.

The citation for his VC is as follows; "On 28 September, 1857 at Bolandshahr, India, the 9th Light Dragoons had charged through the town and were reforming on the Serai, when the enemy tried to close the entrance by drawing their carts across it. Captain Anson, taking a lance, dashed out of the gateway and knocked the drivers off their carts. Owing to a wound in his left hand, he could not stop his horse and rode into the middle of the enemy who fired upon him. At Lucknow, on 16 November 1857 he again showed great gallantry when he entered with a storming party on the gates being burst open; his horse was killed and he was slightly wounded."

The date of 16 November, 1857 is significant as this is the day when the most ever awards of the Victoria Cross were made on one day, with 24 recipients. Thus Anson was one of these 24. His Victoria Cross is located at Shugborough estate, Milford, see Location of Augustus Anson's Victoria Cross

Contained within the National Portrait Gallery in London there is a large oil painting titled "The Relief of Lucknow, 1857" painted by Thomas Jones Barker in 1859. Purely for convenience, the central part of it is shown here, with more information being on the MOD website at www.army.mod.uk/.../the_indian_mutiny.htm

A number of those involved in the Relief of Lucknow and shown in the painting, are identified in the record of the painting as held by the NPG, including Major Hon A H Anson who by then had been promoted from Captain, see Major Hon. A. H. Anson

However, as the NPG does not show birth/death dates for Major Anson, nor does it refer to his award of the VC, it appears their research department has not yet made the connection. Two other VC winners in the painting also seem not to have not yet been identified by the NPG; Major Probyn (Sir Dighton MacNaughton Probyn (1833-1924) and Captain Watson (Sir John Watson (1829-1919) , see below.

Interestingly, a comparison of the names of the 29 men depicted in the painting, against the names of winners in the Register of the Victoria Cross, shows that only five of those depicted won the Victoria Cross during the campaign, despite 182 being awarded. Thus, the qualification for inclusion in the painting appears to be mainly birth, rather than gallantry.

The VC winners depicted in the painting and their affiliation are believed to be;

Hon Augustus Henry Archibald Anson (1835-1877) of the 84th Regiment
Thomas Henry Cavanagh (1821-1882) of the Bengal Civil Service
Sir William Peel (1824-1858), of the Royal Navy, although he won his VC in 1854 during the Crimean War
Sir Dighton MacNaughton Probyn (1833-1924) of the 2nd Punjab Cavalry
Frederick Sleigh Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts (1832-1914) of the Bengal Artillery
Sir John Watson (1829-1919) of the 1st Punjab Cavalry

One other VC winner not in the painting, but who may cause confusion is Sir Henry Marsham Havelock VC. The painting is said to include Sir Henry Havelock Bt (1795-1857) who died of dysentery at Lucknow on 24 November, a week after the Relief. However Sir Henry Marsham Havelock (1830-1897) won a VC at the Relief of Lucknow. Closer inspection of the painting should confirm it is the elder of the two who is actually depicted.

From the above analysis, it appears that Anson was the only infantry officer to both win a Victoria Cross, and be depicted in the painting, "The Relief of Lucknow".

For more about Anson, see Augustus Anson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia He is buried in France, see Augustus Henry Archibald Anson (1835 - 1877) - Find A Grave Memorial

Later - A very kind visitor has shared this miniature portrait and comment about; "Amelia Maria Claughton who married Anson in 1863 and, following his death, remarried in 1881 becoming the Duchess of Argyll. The attached image is a scan from a photograph of a miniature portrait of her. I can confirm that she did not have any children from either this or her subsequent marriage. The wedding veil she is wearing in the minature is Honiton lace."

How wonderful is the Internet, in enabling the reuniting of the portraits of husband and wife! The wedding seems more likely to be her first marriage. Thus it is possible some of Amelia's hair is inside the miniature. After the death of her husband in 1877, Amelia became on 13 Aug 1881, the second wife of the 8th Duke of Argyll. She died on 4 Jan 1894. 444

Later - A kind visitor has provided me with this newspaper reference:
"The Times - 22 Nov 1877

THE LATE COLONEL ANSON, V.C.

Our obituary contained yesterday the notice of the death, at Cannes [on the 17th], of Col. the Hon. A. Anson, V. C., formerly member for Lichfield and for Bewdley, aged 42. It is now five years since, in the full swing of his active, energetic, useful public life, he was struck down by that complaint from which few, if any, recover, and which in his case first showed itself in a rupture of a vessel in the lungs, the consequence of a long-neglected cold. But, though thus compelled to retire from Parliament and to lead the life of an invalid, spending each winter in the South of France, his active interest in current politics, especially in Army questions, never flagged, as his frequent letters in our columns showed; nor did he relax in his endeavours to obtain better terms for his brother officers, whose claims as regards compensation and promotion he had so perseveringly advocated in the House of Commons in the course of the debates on the abolition of Army purchase. It was when already seriously ill that he originated and drew up the form of the petition to Her Majesty in which the grievances and claims of the officers in the matter of purchase were set forth. This petition, after being extensively signed alike by purchase and non-purchase officers, was in due form submitted for presentation through the Field-Marshall Commanding-in-Chief. The result was the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into their complaints. It is, indeed, mainly due to the ability and determination shown by Colonel Anson in his conduct of this question that the claims of the officers have been recognized and dealt with in a liberal spirit. But it was not only in matters connected with the Army, but in many others, that he took an active part while a member of the House of Commons. He was one of the leading spirits of the "cave" which led to the fall of the Russell-Gladstone Administration. It is not, however, to Colonel Anson's career in Parliament, nor even to his successful conduct of the case of his brother officers, that we would chiefly call attention, but to his singularly gallant career in the profession of which, though so young in years when he retired from active service, he was so distinguished a member. He entered the Army shortly before the outbreak of the Crimean War, and from the time when, as a mere boy, he found himself in command of a party told off to occupy some rifle-pits before Sebastopol, on which occasion nearly every man under him was killed or wounded, until he returned to England after the capture of Peking and the burning of the Summer Palace, he was on all occasions, whether in the Crimea, in India, or in China, distinguished by his coolness, judgment, and gallantry in the field. After the Crimean War he was appointed aide-de-camp to his uncle, General Anson, commanding-in-chief in India, on whose death, at the outbreak of the Indian Mutiny, he was attached to the 9th Lancers and to the Staff of Sir Hope Grant, serving as his aide-de-camp with great distinction through the whole of the Indian campaign, from the siege and storming of Delhi to the last shot on the borders of Nepaul. For these services he received a Brevet Majority. For acts of personal valour he received the Victoria Cross. It was accorded to him on the 24th of December, 1858, and his conduct was thus recorded in the Gazette:---
"Dates of acts of bravery --- 28th of September, and 16th of November, 1857. For conspicuous bravery at Bolundehaher, on the 28th of September, 1857. The 9th Light Dragoons had charged through the town and were reforming in the Serai. The enemy attempted to close the entrance by drawing their carts across it, so as to shut in the Cavalry and form a cover from which to fire upon them. Captain Anson, taking a lance, dashed out of the gateway and knocked the drivers off their carts. Owing to a wound in his left hand, received at Delhi, he could not stop his horse, and rode into the middle of the enemy, who fired a volley at him, one ball passing through his coat. At Lucknow, at the assault of the Secundra Bagh, on the 16th of November, 1857, he entered with the storming party on the gates being burst open. He had his horse killed, and was himself slightly wounded. He has shown the greatest gallantry on every occasion, and has slain many enemies in fight." (Despatch from Major-General Sir Grant Hope, K.C.B., dated the 12th of August, 1858.)
India, however, was not to be the close of his distinguished career in the field. When the China Expedition was organized under Sir Hope Grant he again accompanied his old chief as aide-de-camp, and was among the first, if not the very first, to force his way, sword in hand, into the Taku fort. On the taking of Pekin he was sent home with the despatches, and was offered, as a reward for his services, the choice of a Brevet Lieutenany-Colonelcy or an unattached substantive Majority. Unluckily for himself he chose the latter, the result being that he found himself shelved and shut out from further service, having failed to obtain permission to change back into a regiment after repeated application. Thus it was that he took to Parliamentary life; otherwise there is little doubt his name would have again been heard of, as he would eagerly have sought fresh distinctions in future campaigns. Especially would he have been anxious to offer his services to his old friend and fellow campaigner, Sir Garnet Wolseley. But although the services in the field of a most efficient and gallant soldier were thus practically lost to the country, his brother officers, as we have shown, have had no cause to regret the decision of the military authorities which put an end to his military career and led him into Parliament. It only remains to note that he was from the first a warm supporter of the Volunteer Force. Of this he became an active member, accepting a Majority in the London Scottish, of which Sir Hope Grant was at that time the Honorary Colonel, and he continued to serve in this regiment until he was stricken down by illness.
We have thus drawn attention to the prominent incidents of Colonel Anson's military and public life, in the belief that many of our readers, besides his personal friends and fellow officers, take a deep interest in the distinguished career of this gallant soldier, whose true heart, noble spirit, patient courage in sickness, and well-earned hounour have left to others a bright example and added fresh lustre to a well-known name."

Nash, Edward - portrait of an officer

2006-04-03T23:19:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is unsigned, but has been attributed to Edward Nash (1778-1821). The sitter is unknown. 752

Cosway, Richard (copy) - Anne Damer

2006-04-03T23:13:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is believed to be an early 19C copy of a portrait by Richard Cosway. The sitter is Anne Seymour Damer (1749-1828), a noted English sculptor. She inherited most of the estate of Horace Walpole. 831

Plimer, Andrew - portrait of Lady Langham

2006-04-03T23:10:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is unsigned, but has been attributed to Andrew Plimer. The sitter is described on the reverse as "Lady Langham". 250

Gibson, David - portrait of a lady

2006-04-03T23:03:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is signed "Gibson 1800", probably for David Gibson (active 1788-1800), a Scottish artist. The sitter is unknown. 564

Shirreff, Charles - portrait of Robert Spottiswoode

2006-04-03T22:56:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is attributed to Charles Shirreff (1750-1831). The frame is inscribed with the name of the sitter "Robert Spottiswoode 1788(?)". 442

Unknown - portrait of Elizabeth Barrett Browning

2006-04-03T22:53:00.000-07:00

The artist of this miniature portrait is unknown, but the sitter is Elizabeth Barrett Browning, the English poet. 242

Unknown - portrait of Robert Browning

2006-04-03T22:49:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is by an unknown artist, but is of Robert Browning the English poet. 241

Unknown - portrait of Queen Victoria

2006-04-03T22:11:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait appears to be of Queen Victoria before she was crowned. She is wearing the blue sash of the roylty and is sitting on a throne with the Royal Cypher "G R" above her head. The artist is unknown. Another similar portrait of her is located at the following address - academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/virtual/portrait/victoria.jpg 1002

Unknown - portrait of a man

2006-04-03T22:03:00.000-07:00

Artist and sitter are unknown. 682

Unknown - portrait of a man

2006-04-03T21:57:00.000-07:00

The artist and sitter are unknown. 355

Unknown - portrait of Christopher Wren

2006-04-03T21:49:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is by an unknown artist. It is attached to a human hair bracelet. It is housed in its original red leather horse-hoof shaped box. This is engraved with red gilt lettering which appears to read "C. W. & J. C. K.". The box also has a jewellers' gilt stamp of "Cook & Burchett 150 Oxford Street London W". The portrait is believed to be of a descendant of Sir Christopher Wren, possibly also called Christopher Wren. The initials would be of the sitter and his bride, but to date it has not been possible to make any closer identification. 19

Meyer, Jeremiah (?) - portrait of a man

2006-04-03T19:10:00.000-07:00

This unsigned miniature portrait is similar in style to Jeremiah Meyer (1735-1789).

However, it may possibly be by a Scottish artist, perhaps John Donaldson (1737-1801) or John Bogle (1746-1894). Another possibility may be the Irish artist, Richard Bull (1755-?), signed examples by him are scarce. The sitter is unknown. 1046

Meyer, Jeremiah - portrait of a man

2006-04-03T19:04:00.001-07:00

This miniature portrait has been attributed to Jeremiah Meyer (1735-1789). It is unusual for him to paint hands, but there is a portrait in the Royal Collection by him, which shows hands painted in a similar manner. The sitter is unknown. 296

Meyer, Jeremiah - portrait of a lady

2006-04-03T19:04:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is unsigned, but has been attributed to Jeremiah Meyer (1735-1789). The sitter is unknown.

Unknown - portrait of lady in hair bracelet

2006-04-03T18:56:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is by an unknown 18C British artist. It is set in a low carat gold case attached to a woven human hair bracelet. The sitter is unknown. 115

Cooper, Samuel (copy) - portrait of Oliver Cromwell

2006-04-03T18:53:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait appears to be a 19C or 20C copy on copper of a famous portrait of Oliver Cromwell by Samuel Cooper. 654

Oliver, Isaac (copy) - portrait of a man

2006-04-03T18:46:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is a 19C copy of an early miniature portrait by Isaac Oliver. The original is in the Orange-Nassau Collection. 186

Unknown - portrait of Lord Byron

2006-04-03T18:43:00.000-07:00

The painter of this miniature portrait is unknown. The sitter is Lord Byron and as he is shown above dark clouds, it would most likely have been painted after his death. 609

Unknown - portrait of Lord Byron

2006-04-03T18:40:00.000-07:00

The painter of this miniature portrait is unknown. The sitter is Lord Byron. 769

Robertson, Andrew - portrait of Lord Byron

2006-04-03T18:36:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait has been attributed to Andrew Robertson (1777-1845). It is believed to be a portrait of Lord Byron. 360

Lens, Bernard - portrait of a lady

2006-04-03T18:31:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait has been attributed to Bernard Lens (1682-1740), but it may be by another artist from that era. It is in an early fruitwood frame. The sitter is unknown. 97

Beale, Charles (?) - portrait of a man

2006-04-03T18:27:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait had been attributed to Charles Beale the Elder (1631-1705), but more recent scholarship suggests that may not be the case.

The technique looks more European than English and Beale is perhaps optimistic as an attribution, as the drawing of the face is a bit heavy handed for him and the costume a bit weak.It appears to be painted on vellum or card.

The sitter is unknown. 758

Chalon, John James - portrait of Queen Boadicea

2006-04-03T18:22:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is inscribed on the reverse "Boadicea J J Chalon, purchased from the Grego(?) collection 1824". John James Chalon (1778-1854) was the brother of Edward Albert Chalon. 1105

Crosse, Richard (???) - portrait of a man

2006-04-03T18:17:00.000-07:00

Although unsigned, this portrait has tentatively been attributed to Richard Crosse. The sitter is unknown. 1086

Miles, Edward - portrait of a man

2006-04-03T18:14:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is unsigned, but has been attributed to Edward Miles (1752-1828). Although born in England, he moved to America and painted many portraits there. The sitter is unknown. 550

O'Keeffe, Daniel - portrait of a lady

2006-04-03T18:09:00.000-07:00

This miniature is signed "D K 177?". It is probably by the Irish artist Daniel O'Keeffe, who was born Daniel Keeffe, but changed his name to O'Keeffe. The sitter is unknown. 542

Smith, Sophia - portrait of a child

2006-04-03T18:05:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait of a child is signed "S S 176?", probably for Sophia Smith who was active from 1760 to 1767. The sitter is unknown. 544

Vispre, Francois - portrait of a lady

2006-04-03T18:00:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is signed "Vispre 1761", probably for Francois Vispre (1730-1794). The sitter is unknown. 838

Dixon, Charles - portrait of a man

2006-04-03T17:56:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is painted by the artist Charles Dixon (1748?-1798?). The sitter is unknown.

Unknown - portrait of Frederick Duke of York

2006-04-03T17:53:00.000-07:00

The painter of this miniature portrait is unknown. The sitter is Prince Frederick, Duke of York. 286

Unknown - portrait of King George III

2006-04-03T17:49:00.000-07:00

The painter of this miniature portrait is unknown. The sitter is king George III. 287

Unknown - portrait of a man

2006-04-03T17:44:00.000-07:00

The artist and sitter are unknown, but they are probably Irish. 123

Unknown - portrait of Queen Anne

2006-04-03T17:41:00.000-07:00

The painter of this miniature portrait is unknown. The sitter is Queen Anne. It is a copy of a larger portrait and was probably painted in the mid to late 18C. 307

Stevenson, J - portrait of Jno Stevenson

2006-04-03T17:37:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is signed on a slip of paper behind the portrait. It appears to read "Taken A D 1825 For Jno. Stevenson (Stevens?) aged at that time eighteen years. J(T?) Stevenson (Stevens?)".
The artist is believed to be J H Stevenson (1750-1833) of London. 365

Stevenson, J - portrait of a man

2006-04-03T17:30:00.000-07:00

The framing of this miniature portrait is identical to the adjacent portrait and the style is very similar. Thus it has been attributed to J H Stevenson of London. 579

Kean, Michael - portrait of Mrs Samuel Keys

2006-04-03T17:22:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is attributed to Michael Kean (1761-1823). It is inscribed on the reverse "Mrs Samuel Keys by Michael Kean"". It is unusual in that it is painted on porcelain. Michael Kean became a junior partner, and later married the widow of the owner, of the famous Derby Porcelain Factory and so became the owner of the factory until 1811. Nothing more is known about Mrs Samuel Keys. 586

Carrick, Thomas Heathfield - portrait of a man

2006-04-03T17:18:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is by Thomas Heathfield Carrick (18112-1874). It is unusual in that it is painted on marble. The sitter is unknown. Carrick was awarded a medal in 1845 by Prince Albert for inventing a method of painting on marble. 484b

Carrick, Thomas Heathfield - portrait of a lady

2006-04-03T17:12:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is by Thomas Heathfield Carrick (1802-1874). The sitter is unknown. It is unusual in that it is painted on marble. Carrick was awarded a medal from Prince Albert in 1845 for inventing the method of painting on marble. 484a

Ridley, Henrietta Agnes - portrait of Henrietta Araminta Monck Browne

2006-04-03T16:07:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is by Henrietta Agnes Schenley (1847- ) who married Charles Nicholas Ridley in 1884 and thus became Henrietta Agnes Ridley. This miniature portrait is signed H Agnes Ridley. Several other miniature portraits by her are known to exist.
In the 1901 census, she was living in The Lodge, South Warnborough, Hants with her husband Charles N Ridley, who was of independent means. They had a daughter Alberta M Ridley aged 15 , a governess and six servants. In the 1891 census, what must be the same family is living at the Grange, Groudhurst, Kent with Alberta aged 5 and five servants. Although the birth date is inconsistent, their daughter Alberta Mary Ridley appears to have been a god daughter of King Edward VII see List of godchildren of members of the British Royal Family ... Alberta Mary Ridley of South Warnboro' England, was married at Jubbulpore, India, on 22 April 1924 to a Colonel McLean.

It is currently thought that Henrietta Agnes Ridley was a daughter-in-law of the sitter, with her husband Charles Nicholas Ridley (1852-?) being a younger brother of the Henry C W Ridley (1848-?) referred to below.

Henrietta Agnes Schenley came from a very wealthy family. Although born in England in 1847, she was living with her parents and siblings in Collins, Pennsylvania, USA during the 1860 census, where her mother at age 34, disclosed real estate and other assets in her own right totalling $1,700,000. By 1871 the family was back in England.

There is a photographic portrait of Henrietta Agnes Schenley herself, taken about 1855 at http://www.lifeinwesternpa.org/viewDetail.asp?ID=315

Research has revealed that Henrietta's mother was Mary Elizabeth Croghan, who eloped at age 15 from a boarding school in New York, with Captain Edward Schenley. The boarding school was in fact run by Edward Schenley's sister in law Mrs McLeod. This caused an international scandel and is well documented on the Internet, see Oakland: People: Mary Croghan Schenley and her portrait here.

However, Mary and Edward they seem to have lived happily in England and had a large family. When Mary Elizabeth Croghan Schenley died in 1903, the Chicago Tribune reported her estate was worth about $40,000,000 to $50,000,000 and she was one of the richest women in the world.

On the reverse the miniature is inscribed "The Hon'ble Henrietta Araminta Monck Browne, wife of Maj Gen Charles Ridley C.B. b. 1816 d. 1869 - Painted by H. Agnes Ridley 1922". Their marriage took place in 1845 and Major General Charles William Ridley CB (1812-1867) served during the Crimean War. In 1865-67 he was Colonel of the 53rd Regiment of Foot, which in1865-68 was mainly serving in Ireland, and Canada.

Although it was painted in 1922, this miniature was acquired with the associated portrait of Napoleon presented to Lady Elizabeth Monck, and thus forms part of its provenance. The portrait of Napoleon is engraved as being a gift from Marshal Ney to Henrietta's Araminata Monck Browne's grandmother, Lady Elizabeth Monck.

In the 1851 census, Charles Ridley (then a Lt Colonel) and Henrietta were living at 78 Chester Square, Belgavia, London with their daughter Louisa Katherine Ridley (1846-1920), their son Henry C W Ridley (1848-?), and also five servants. Louisa married Marcus Talbot Delapoer-Beresford in 1895. 829

The family was involved in a major court case in 1835 which needed to be resolved by the House of Lords;

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CHANCERY IN IRELAND The Rev Marcus Monck Clerk Appellant Charles Henry Paget Esq Sir Charles Paget and Dame Elizabeth his Wife Dominick Browne Esq and Catherine his Wife and Henry Geo Monck Browne an Infant by his next Friend Respondents Practice GP Monck's estates in Ireland being charged with a jointure for Lady Araminta his wife by their marriage settlement whereby also he covenanted for payment to her of the sum of 300 I by his heirs executors or administrators out of his real or personal estate immediately after his decease were in the year 1777 settled to his own use for life with remainder to Henry Monck his eldest son in fee subject to a trust term for raising a sum to be applied as by deed or will he should appoint He died in 1804 having by his will bequeathed among other things all rents and arrears of rent due to him to Lady A her executors and administrators and he appointed her sole executrix Lady A declined to prove the will Henry Monck obtained letters of administration with the will annexed received the rents &c and died in 1815 having by his will devised all his real estates to trustees for the use of his two daughters their husbands and issue respectively in strict settlement subject to a trust term for raising a fund to pay his debts legacies and annuities and he thereby directed payment of 200 I a year to Lady A and her assigns for her life in addition to her jointure and gave her a legacy of 500 payable in twelve months after his decease and he gave an annuity of 400 a year to Ann Monck his sister in case she survived Lady A and upon condition of her releasing his real estates from all claims and he appointed Lady Elizabeth his wife his executrix She proved the will and filed a bill in Chancery against Lady A and Ann Monck against the testamentary trustees of the last mentioned term and of the inheritance of the devised estates and against the persons beneficially interested therein praying that the trusts of the will might be carried into execution and that accounts might be taken of the debts and legacies of the testator and of the charges affecting the real estates &c Lady Araminta in her answer claimed to be entitled to receive out of the real estates in addition to her jointure the said sum of 300 L with interest from her husband's death and the said annuity of 200 I and legacy of 500 I together with all the rents and arrears that were due to GP Monck at his death and a proportionate value of the timber planted by him on the devised estates The usual decree for an account &c having been made in 1818 and Lady A having died before any further steps were taken in the cause Ann Monck her residuary legatee and sole executrix proved her will and earned in a charge before the Master in pursuance of the decree and thereby claimed as such executrix the annuity of 200 and the legacy of 600 omitting the other claims made in Lady A s answer and in her own right she claimed the annuity of 400 offering to release the estates of Henry Monck from all other claims A final decree was made in that cause in 1821 and enrolled in 1822 In 1831 a second suit was instituted for sale of part of the devised estates and a decree to that effect was made and enrolled in 1832 In 1834 Marcus Monck the second son of GP and Lady A Monck having in 1832 obtained administration de bonis non to their respective estates and also to the estate of his sister Ann Monck who died in 1830 moved the Master of the Rolls for leave to prove before the Master in the first cause the unproved demands of Lady A or to file a supplemental bill which motion being refused he then moved the Lord Chancellor for leave to file a supplemental bill or such other bill as he might be advised That motion also was refused Upon appeal from his Lordship's order the Appellant sought to make a case for leave to prove before the Master under the decree of 1821 the unproved demands of Lady A or for a bill of review Held by the Lords without giving any judgment on the merits that the Lord Chancellor properly refused the motion for leave to file a supplemental bill and that the appeal was irregular in point of form in asking for relief which was not asked of the Court below the order of the Master of the Rolls refusing that relief not being appealed from PREVIOUS to the marriage of George Paul Monck esq with the Lady Araminta his wife the father and mother of the Appellant a marriage settlement was executed dated the 22d of April 1755 whereby the estates of the said GP Monck situated in the county of Westmeath in Ireland were settled on him and the issue male of the marriage in strict settlement charged with a jointure of 800 a year for the Lady Araminta payable half yearly and GP Monck thereby covenanted that in case she should survive him his heirs executors or administrators should out of his real or personal estate pay her 300 immediately after his decease In the year 1777 GP Monck and Henry Monck the eldest son of the marriage suffered a recovery of the settled estates and by deed declaring the uses of the recovery dated the 3d of December 1777 they were limited to the use of trustees for a term of one thousand years and subject thereto to the use of GP Monck for life with remainder to the use of the said H Monck in fee The trusts of the term were by sale or mortgage of the estates to raise such sums of money not exceeding 1 5,000 and to pay and apply the same in such manner and for such purposes as GP Monck by any writing under seal or by his last will should direct and appoint George Paul Monck died in October 1804 leaving Lady Araminta his widow and H Monck his eldest son and other children having by his will dated the 24th of May 1790 bequeathed all his ready moneyi rents and arrears of rent due and owing to him at his decease household goods and furniture with the lease of his house in Bath and all his personal estate to Lady Araminta her executors and administrators subject to the payment of his funeral and testamentary expenses and simple contract debts only declaring it to be his intention that the property so given to her should as far as in his power be exonerated from payment of his bond debts judgments mortgages and other incumbrances which he directed should be charged on his real estates only and he appointed her sole executrix of his will He afterwards by a codicil dated the 25th of May 1792 restricted the bequest of his household goods and furniture with the lease of his house at Bath to the natural life of Lady Araminta bequeathing it over after her decease to his daughter Ann Monck her executors and administrators but confirmed his will in all other respects Lady Araminta declining to act as executrix Henry Monck took out letters of administration with the will annexed and possessed himself of the personal estate and received the rents and arrears of rent of the real estate owing to GP Monck at his death but never as the Appellant alleged accounted for them to Lady Araminta Monck Henry Monck died in 1815 having by his will devised all his towns castles lands and other hereditaments to the use of trustees therein named for a term of four thousand years and subject thereto he devised one moiety of the said hereditaments to other trustees in the will named during the life of his daughterthe Respondent Catherine wife of the Respondent Dominick Browne upon trust to pay the rents and profits of the said moiety to her separate use during her life and after her decease to the use of the said Dominick Browne for life with remainder to the use of their second son in tail male with divers remainders over and he devised the other moiety of the said hereditaments subject to the said term to the use of the last mentioned trustees during the life of his daughter the Respondent Elizabeth wife of the Respondent Sir Charles Paget upon similar trusts for her separate use and after her decease to the use of Sir C Paget for life with remainder to their eldest son in tail male with remainders over The trusts of the term were declared to be by sale or mortgage to raise such sums as should be sufficient to pay the testator's debts funeral and testamentary expenses legacies and annuities The testator among other bequests directed the payment of 200 I a year to his mother Lady Araminta and her assigns during her life in addition to her jointure of 800 I under the above recited settlement and 400 a year to his sister Ann Monck in case she should survive Lady Araminta but upon the express condition that she released his estates from any claim that she might have on them He also gave a legacy of 500 to his mother to be paid at the expiration of twelve months after his decease and he gave all his personal estates and effects to his wife Lady Elizabeth Monck absolutely and directed that if any of his debts should be paid out of his personal estate Lady Elizabeth should in that case be entitled to be reimbursed out of the premises comprised in the term of four thousand years and he appointed her sole executrix of his will At the testator's death the Respondents CatherineBrowne and Dame Elizabeth Paget were his only children and co heiresses at law Lady Elizabeth Monck proved the will and in March 1816 filed her bill in Chancery in Ireland against Lady Araminta Monck Anne Monck Dominick Browne and Catherine his wife Charles Paget and Elizabeth his wife and Charles Henry Paget their eldest son making also the testamentary trustees of the term of four thousand years the trustees of the fee of the estates the incumbrancers thereon and several others interested under the will of Henry Monck parties defendants The bill after setting forth the said will and stating among other things that the testator was indebted at the time of his death to a number of persons and that several of them had applied to the plaintiff for payment of their demands prayed among other things that the defendants might set forth an account of the said real estates so devised as before stated and the right title interest &c they respectively had in them &c that Ann Monck might elect whether she would accept the said annuity of 400 I releasing all other claims which she might have to the said estates or insist upon her other claims and that she might set forth the same respectively that an account might also be taken of the debts legacies and funeral and testamentary expenses of the testator and also of any charges affecting the said lands and hereditaments and that the several creditors and legatees of the testator might be at liberty to come in before the Master and make proof of their several demands and that the trusts of the will might be carried into execution and a competent part of the lands comprised in the term of four thousand years might be sold for the purposes in the will mentioned The different defendants appeared and put in theiranswers to the bill Lady Araminta Monck by her answer admitted the will of Henry Monck particularly the bequests to her of the annuity of 200 and the sum of 500 and with reference to the estates devised she said that she believed they were the same estates that were comprised in the settlement of April 1755 whereby the jointure of 800 I and the sum of 300 were secured to her as above mentioned but which sum of 300 she alleged had never been paid to her She in her said answer set forth the will of GP Monck his death and administration to him by the said Henry Monck and she claimed to be entitled to receive out of the said real estates the two annuities of 800 and 200 and the two sums of 300 and 500 with interest on these two sums from the periods when the same respectively became payable together with all rents and arrears of rents that were due to GP Monck at the time of his decease and she also claimed such proportion of the value of the timber planted by GP Monck on the said estates as he was entitled to under the Irish statutes in that behalf she also claimed all the residue of his personal property after payment of his simple contract debts &c Ann Monck also by her answer admitted the will of Henry Monck especially the bequest to her of the annual sum of 400 and she claimed that annuity and brought forward several other claims against the said estates and declined to elect as prayed by the bill until her rights and claims were ascertained These answers were replied to but no evidence was gone into and the cause coming on to be heard on bill and answer in Nov 1818 a decree was made whereby it was ordered among other things that the Master should take an account of the debts legacies and funeral expenses of the testator Henry Monck andalso an account of the debts charges and incumbrances affecting his real estates and of the rents and profits thereof &c And it was declared that Ann Monck was bound to make her election between the reversionary annuity bequeathed to her by his will and her other claims in the pleadings mentioned affecting the estates before she was permitted to file any charge in the Master's office under the decree and it was further ordered that all creditors and legatees of Henry Monck and all persons having debts charges and incumbrances affecting his estates should have liberty to come in before the Master to prove the same Lady Araminta Monck died in 1818 soon after the pronouncing of the decree and before any further proceedings were had in the cause having by her will appointed her daughter the said Ann Monck her sole executrix who accordingly proved the will but no bill of revivor was filed in the said cause for the purpose of bringing her as the personal representative of Lady Araminta Monck before the Court Ann Monck in July 1819 carried into the Master's office her charge under the said decree and thereby claimed to be entitled as the executrix of Lady Araminta Monck to the arrears of the annuities of 800 I and of 200 and also to the legacy of 500 with the interest due thereon She also elected to take the annuity of 400 bequeathed to her by Henry Monck and offered to release his estate from any other claim that she might have thereon But she did not either by her said charge or otherwise in her lifetime bring forward the several other claims set forth by Lady Araminta Monck in her answer The Master by his report dated January 1821 found that Ann Monck was entitled as executrix ot Lady Araminta to an arrear of 500 on foot of the said annuity of 200 and also to the legacy of 500 L bequeathed to her by Henry Monck with interest on both sums and that she was also entitled under Henry Monck's will to her annuity of 400 No exceptions were taken to the report the cause came on for further directions in March 1 821 when by a decree then pronounced and which was enrolled in Nov 1822 it was amongst other things ordered and decreed that the Respondents Dominick Browne and Catherine his wife Sir Charles Paget and Elizabeth his wife or some one of them should pay to the plaintiff and the several defendants and creditors their respective demands with interest and also the costs of the defendants or in default thereof that the Master should within six months sell the several towns and lands comprised in the said term of four thousand years for the residue of the term for the purpose of paying the incumbrances No sale took place under that decree In November 1 831 the Respondents filed their bill against Lady Elizabeth Monck and the trustees of the feeof the real estates under Henry Monck's will The bill set forth the will of Hanry Monck his death and the probate of his will by Lady Elizabeth Monck the original bill filed by her the said order of November 1818 the Master's report and the said final decree of March 1821 and it stated that the Respondent Henry George Monck Browne was born after the date of the decree and that under the limitations of the said will he was entitled to an estate tail in a moiety of the said estates upon the decease of the survivor of Catherine and Dominick Browne and that no sale had been had of the estates comprised in the said term and that it would be greatly for the benefit of all parties interested in the said estates that a sale of the fee and inheritance of acompetent part thereof should take place with the said trust term instead of the said trust term only and J that the money arising from such sale should be applied in payment and discharge of the debts charges and incumbrances affecting the said estates The bill accordingly prayed that the fee and inheritance of the hereditaments and premises in the said trust term contained might be decreed to be sold and that the proceeds might be applied to discharge all debts and incumbrances affecting the same The defendants to that bill having put in their answers the cause came on to be heard upon bill and answer in May 1832 when it was ordered and decreed as prayed That decree was enrolled in the November of the same year Ann Monck died in September 1 830 The Appellant obtained letters of administration debonis noii to the estate of Lady AramintaMonck and administration to the estate of Ann Monck in February 1832 and he also obtained letters of administration de bonis non with the will annexed of his father GP Monck On the 20th of January 1834 the Appellant as administrator of Lady Araminta Monck moved the Master of the Rolls in Ireland in pursuance of notice entitled in both causes of Monck v Browne and Paget v Monck that he might be at liberty to go before the Master in the said first cause and file a charge and proceed thereunder to prove the several unproved demands made by the Lady Araminta Monck in her said answer viz first her claim of 300 with interest under the settlement of 1755 secondly her claim on foot of rents and arrears of rents of the lands and premises in the said settlement and pleadings mentioned which were due to GP Monck at the time of his decease and by him bequeathed to Lady Araminta subject only to his simple contract debts andfuneral and testamentary expenses and which to the amount of 7084 I Is 11 d were received and retained by Henry Monck as his personal representative and thirdly her claim to GP Monck's proportion of the value of the timber trees planted by him on the said estates as tenant for life thereof pursuant to statute in such case made and provided and which said several claims were by inadvertence omitted to be proved by Ann Monck the former personal representative of Lady Araminta in the cause of Monck v Browne and which she was entitled to prove against the outstanding estates of H Monck or otherwise that the Appellant as such personal representative of Lady Araminta Monck might he at liberty to file a supplemental hill or such other bill as he might be advised for the purpose of establishing such demands &c The Master of the Rolls declined to make any order on that motion On the 31st January 1834 the Appellant pursuant to notice entitled in both causes and served on the Respondents moved the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for liberty to file a supplemental bill in the first mentioned cause or such other bill as he might be advised for the purpose of establishing the several unproved and unadjudicated claims made by Lady Araminta Monck in her answer in that cause and as specified in the Appellant's affidavit filed in that cause on the 11th of January instant or for such other order as to his Lordship should seem meet &c Two affidavits were read in support of this motion one of them being the affidavit of the Appellant and entitled in the first cause and which was also used in support of the motion before the Master of the Rolls was to this effect It stated the bill in the first mentioned cause the answer of Lady Araminta Monckthereto and the decree of November 1818 therein pronounced and that Lady Araminta died before any further proceeding was taken therein having appointed the said Ann Monck her executrix It then stated that Ann Monck filed her charge in the said cause as hereinbefore mentioned but omitted the several other claims made by Lady Araminta in her answer that is to say the said claim of 300 with interest from the death of GP Monck all or any claim on foot of the rents and arrears of rents of the said settled and devised estates due to him at the time of his decease and amounting to 7084 Is lid and also the claim of the value of the timber trees planted by GP Monck on the said settled and devised estates as tenant for life thereof and which amounted to the sum of 5000 the affidavit then stated the Master's report of January 1821 the said decree of March 1821 and the proceedings in the second cause it then stated the death of Ann Monck in 1830 and that she had ever since the death of Lady Araminta her mother resided in England and was wholly unacquainted with the facts relating to the said unproved claims of Lady Araminta and that she was during her life time quite incompetent to have instructed her solicitor as to the facts and proofs incidental to those claims the affidavit then stated that letters of administration with the will annexed of Lady Araminta were granted to the Appellant in February 1832 and that thereupon he caused application to be made to the solicitor employed by Ann Monck as such executrix as aforesaid for the papers which had belonged to her in such right and that considerable delay took place therein before the Appellant's solicitor received the same and that thereupon very tedious searches and inquiries became necessary and were entered into on the part of theAppellant in order to ascertain the grounds on whick those unproved claims were founded and that the Appellant's solicitor used the utmost diligence to investigate the same The other affidavit read in support of the motion before the Lord Chancellor was the affidavit of Mr Henry Murphy the Appellant's solicitor It stated among other things that in November 1830 the said Henry Murphy received instructions from the Appellant to procure letters of administration to Lady Araminta Monck and Ann Monck and that he was not able to obtain the same until the month of February 1832 that upon obtaining such administrations he was instructed to apply for and after much delay succeeded in obtaining from their solicitor the papers and documents in the first mentioned cause belonging to them and that upon inspecting such papers it appeared that certain claims made by Lady Araminta in her answer and specified in the affidavit of the Appellant had never been put forward by her said executrix The affidavit then stated that the reason why such claims were not put forward was that Ann Monck and her solicitor had not in their power any evidence to prove the same and that it appeared by a case submitted to counsel by her said solicitor for the purpose of preparing proofe in the first mentioned cause that Lady Araminta Monck and Ann Monck were not prepared with evidence as to the planting of timber nor as to the arrears of rents from want of certain accounts referred to in the said case nor as to the claim under the said marriage settlement from want of the original deeds of April 1755 and of December 1777 The affidavit then stated that due diligence was used at the time to obtain the said deeds and that a notice in writing had been served on theplaintiff in the first cause requiring the production of the said deeds and that no answer had been returned thereto and that a fruitless application and search had been made for the original accounts on which the claim to the arrears of rents was founded The affidavit further stated that in the months of July and October last Henry Murphy and the Appellant had made two visits to the lands in the pleadings mentioned and that on such occasion Henry Murphy had discovered sufficient evidence to sustain Lady Araminta's claim for the planting and value of the timber mentioned in her answer and he had also discovered the name of the gentleman who had been conducting clerk and assistant to the land and law agent of Henry Monck and by his means obtained access to the papers which had belonged to the said testator's agent amongst which the original accounts were found and were then in the deponent's possession The Respondents opposed the motion and grounded their opposition on the reasons appearing in the affidavit of Mr Dobbin their solicitor which was read by their counsel and which stated among other things that the final decrees in the two causes were enrolled in November 1832 that Ann Monck in her answer in the first cause relied on her claims under the marriage settlement of GP Monck that Henry Monck bequeathed the annual sum of 200 to Lady Araminta during her life and also a legacy of 500 and to Ann Monck an annuity of 400 during her life upon condition of her releasing his estates from any charge claim or demand that she might have thereon The affidavit then stated that about the 1st day of July 1819 Ann Monck filed her charge under the first decree in her own right and as executrix of Lady Araminta claiming as above mentioned that the saidcharge was duly proved and the amount thereof and of l e annmty of 400 l had been paid from time to time out of the funds in the cause partly to Ann Monck and partly to the Appellant since her decease that Lady Araminta Monck by her last will bequeathed to Ann Monck 3000 to the Appellant 1000 and the residue of her estate and effects to Ann Monck and appointed her executrix The affidavit further stated that the deponent was altogether unacquainted with the demands stated in the Appellant's affidavit that all the persons who must have been acquainted with the facts relating to the said demands weer dead The Lord Chancellor by an order bearing date the said 31st day of January 1834 refused the motion with costs The petition of appeal prayed that that order be reversed or that the Appellant might have such other relief in the premises as to this House should seem meet Mr Wigram and Mr Lancelot Shadwell for the Appellant The unproved claims of Lady Araminta Monck which her personal representative seeks to establish against the real estates of Henry Monck consist first of the sum of 300 with interest from the death of GP Monck in 1804 secondly of the rents and arrears of rent that were due to him from those estates at the time of his death which exceeded 7000 as appears from the agent's accounts and thirdly of such proportion of the value of the timber planted by him on the estates as he himself was entitled to as tenant for life under the Irish statutes for encouraging the planting of timber trees To the first of these claims she was entitled under the covenant in her marriagesettlement by which her husband bound his heirs and executors to pay that sum out of his real and personal estate immediately after his death By his will he exonerated his personal estate from specialty debts and directed them to be paid out of the real estates which had been demised for a term in trust to raise money for such payments Henry Monck was both heir and executor and in either character bound by the covenant but he never paid that debt The rent and arrears of rent were expressly bequeathed to Lady Araminta and the general bequest to her of the personal estate carried her husband's proportion of the value of the timber planted by him These were all subsisting charges on the estates at the time of the decease of Henry Monck Those who represent him and his estates cannot object that Lady Araminta's representatives have not made these claims in due time for as he was both heir and acting executor of his father and received the rents and possessed himself of the personal estate he ought to have discharged those liabilities On his death in 1815 in answer to the bill then filed Lady Araminta distinctly set forth her claims Lord Brougham This appears to be an appeal motion I do not remember such an appeal in this House but I do not deny our jurisdiction The form is as your Lordship has stated an appeal motion was made to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland for leave to file a supplemental bill to establish those claims the Master of the Rolls having refused to make any order on a former motion made before him partly for the same purpose There was unquestionably a valid charge in respect of those claims on the estates of Henry Monck capable of being enforced at thetime of his death He devised the estates to trustees subject to a term also in trust and seventeen years have elapsed since Lady Araminta's death but a lapse of twenty years even will not bar equitable claims in circumstances not affording presumption of satisfaction Pickering v Lord Stamford a Lord Brougham Why limit yourselves to twenty years There is no fixed limitation of time In one case a lapse of thirty eight years was held to be no bar under the circumstances in another thirty five years did not bar equitable claims yet in a case in this House nineteen years were held to bar a claim under a bond though twenty years constitute the limitation in case of a bond No objection can therefore be made to these claims on the ground of delay The period of twenty years was mentioned because the lapse of that period was set up as a bar by the Respondents Another objection made to these claims is that Ann Monck in the charge filed by her in the Master's office released the estates of Henry Monck from any other charge claim or demand whatsoever that she may have thereon save and except the several claims thereinbefore set forth But Ann Monck's charge whereby she elected to take her annuity of 400 in preference to the various claims which she had set forth in her answer to the first bill against the estates of Henry Monck related only to what she so claimed in her own right by virtue of her father's marriage settlement and alleged dealings between him and H Monck and not to what she claimed as representative of Lady Araminta and the claims released by her were those which Henry Monck directed by his will to be released which were her own and could not a 2 Ves jun 272 & 581refer to these of Lady Araminta If the lapse of time and the enrolment of the decrees be put out of the case that release cannot prevent Lady Araminta's 7 ii representative from proceeding to prove these claims As to the enrolment the terms of the decree were of so specific a nature as not to prevent any one who had a debt to prove from coming in afterwards It is not unusual to let creditors go before the Master to substantiate claims after a long lapse of time while any part of the fund remains in court Gillespie v Alexander b Greig v Somerville c Lashley v Hogg d We ask no more than was granted in those cases we had a valid claim at the death of Henry Monck These claims are not barred by time which is to be computed from the death of Henry Monck who by his will must be taken to have recognised every debt due from him or affecting his estates The time that elapsed before his death cannot be taken to run against debts which he charged on his real estates It may be asked why did we not take out letters of administration sooner It is not necessary for us to account for the delay it is enough that we are creditors whose claims are not barred by lapse of time or presumption of satisfaction and we have a right to proceed to establish them But the delay is easily accounted for Lady Araminta made the claim by her answer in 1818 Ann Monck her executrix in order to prove the claim should have this evidence first the settlement containing GP Monck's covenant in respect of the 300 J secondly his will and thirdly proof that timber trees had been planted by him on the estates their value &c She having resided in Bath where Lady Araminta herself had resided and died 6 3 Russ 130 c 1 Russ & Myl 338 f 11 Ves 602 VOL III GGwas not in a situation to collect all this evidence although she used all due diligence to procure it Lord Lyndhurst The claims here made were as against an executor A new solicitor after a lapse of years came in and he claimed for the representative when the cause was wound up A recognition of such claims would lead to new claims on every change of solicitors in suits after all the proceedings in theui were brought to a close The House should look to the merits of this case It cannot be inferred from the fact of Ann Monck making some claims and omitting to make others for want of proof of them that she intended to abandon those which she omitted The Appellant has only recently obtained possession of the evidence necessary to support the unproved claims of Lady Araminta and is ready to establish them if permitted The estates of Henry Monck are still unsold and are amply sufficient to satisfy all the claims on them and the Appellant does not seek to disturb in any manner the existing proceedings in the causes We hope therefore that your Lordships will make an order giving him leave to go before the Master or to take such proceedings as he may be advised to take in pursuance of the proceedings under the decree Mr Pemberton and Mr Lowndes for the Respondents The Appellant now asks what he did not ask by his motion in the Court from whose order he appeals He does not now ask for leave to file a supplemental bill but for leave to go in and prove his claims before the Master under the decree which leave was refused by the Master of the Rolls and which the Appellant as appears by his notice ofmotion did not ask at all from the Lord Chancellor from whom he asked leave only to file a supplemental bill The Master of the Rolls refused the motion because the person whom the Appellant represents was a party to the original cause and ought before the hearing of the cause to have produced evidence of the claims alleged in her answer No one ever heard of a party in a cause applying for leave to go before the Master under the decree The Appellant now asks leave to file a supplemental bill not for the purpose of reviewing or disturbing the decree but to establish his claims It is not necessary to obtain leave of the Court to file a supplemental bill Lord Lyndhurst to Mr Wigram Why did you not file your supplemental bill without coming to the Court for leave claiming the benefit of the decree and that the Court would stay proceedings on it and the appropriation of the funds Mr Wigram We could not venture to do so without leave of the Court The Counsel for the Respondents The claims of the Appellant are as groundless in substance as his appeal is irregular in form Lady Araminta Monck possessed herself of her husband's personal estate out of which the 300 and the price of the timber also whatever it was were payable Both these claims were therefore annulled They were in fact claims against herself and were founded on a misapprehension The arrears of her jointure and of the annuity of 200 and the legacy of 500 were claimed by her executrix with interest the Master reported that she was entitled to them and these sums have been paid to Ann Monck as such executrix or to the Appellant Ann Monck in the charge filed by her in the Master's Office expressly released the estate of Henry Monck from any other charge claim or demand whatsoever that she might have thereon save and except the several claims hereinbefore set forth But it is suggested that the present claims were not released that she did not know of them at the time When Ann Monck carried in her claims on her own account and as representative of her mother under the decree in the first cause she and her solicitor were perfectly aware of the various demands which had been set up by her mother Counsel had been consulted as to the possibility of maintaining them It could not therefore have been from inadvertence that they were abandoned nor is it so pretended by Mr Murphy's affidavit it is of no importance whether they were abandoned on the ground that they were unfounded or that the party interested did not think fit to be at the trouble or expense of seeking for evidence to support them or that she chose voluntarily to release her brother's estate from them it is sufficient that having the sole legal and the sole beneficial interest in the subject she did in fact abandon those claims in the same manner as she abandoned all claims in her own right beyond those arising under the will of Henry Monck On the motion of the Appellant no order could be made that would have given him any right which he has not without order and the order which by his motion he sought to have pronounced would if it operated at all have the effect of altering a decree pronounced thirteen years ago and enrolled upwards of eleven years ago and not capable of being reversed or altered and no reason is given for the delay that has taken place in making the present claims Mr Wigram in reply It is a rule that though the prayer of a bill asks only for general relief you may afterwards ask for any specific relief but your Lord ships seem to be of opinion that on a notice of motion a a party must ask specifically for the relief he wants lest the other be taken by surprise As there was a clear understanding on the other side of what the Appellant meant to ask I apprehend your Lordships will observe that there is no fear of surprise Lord Brougham Whatever doubts I may have of the merits of this case on the lapse of time I have none on the form of the proceedings the course of which is very manifest There was first a motion before the Master of the Rolls for leave to go before the Master and take the benefit of the decree in the first suit or in the alternative to file a supplemental bill or for such other relief as the Court may direct which last words I consider as nothing or at most as mere surplusage The Master of the Rolls refused that motion he did not grant leave to go before the Master or to file a supplemental bill nor did he give the Appellant any other relief The next thing the Appellant did was to go before the Lord Chancellor not with an appeal motion which he might have made to discharge the order of the Master of the Rolls which would be opening the two alternatives of the former motion it would be a complaint that the Master of the Rolls had not given leave to go in to prove the claims before the Master in ordinary or to file a supplemental bill but instead of that the Appellant made another and different application to the Lord Chancellor It was only for leave to file a supplemental bill or for such other relief as the Court may direct That motion therefore was con fined to an application for leave to file a supplemental bill because I hold it to be perfectly clear that in case of a prayer for relief appended to a specific motion or intended to be made part of the case the notice of motion which is intended to apprise the opposite party of what is to be asked must convey to him something more specific than the general alternative such other relief as the Court may direct and that under that prayer nothing can be given by the Court except what is incidental to the particularity which precedes and is something short of the whole of that particularity or at all events something cjusdem generis I hold it therefore to be clear that under the notice of motion in this case before the Lord Chancellor it was not competent to his Lordship to have given leave to go in and prove the claims that not having been asked for but only leave to file a supplemental bill unless which sometimes happened before myself in the Court of Chancery the other party consents which would be consenting to the amendment of the motion in Court and would have been in effect consenting to the order asked for without notice at all It would have amounted to a waiving of the objection that might be taken for want of notice That is not however pretended to have been done in this case That is my opinion on this notice which is only for leave to file a supplemental bill taking it as if nothing had passed previously to this notice and as if no reference had been made to what passed previously But the case appears still stronger from the reference which is made in the notice to what passed at the Rolls Coupled with the confining of the notice given before the Lord Chancellor to one of the alternatives it was exceedingly calculated to mislead and to makeit be believed that upon further consideration the Appellant had advisedly refrained from asking both of the alternatives which had been refused at the Rolls and therefore had confined his application before the Lord Chancellor to one of the alternatives From the order of the Lord Chancellor refusing that relief namely leave to file a supplemental bill this appeal has arisen an appeal against what Not an appeal against the order refusing leave to go in and prove but to file a supplemental bill that is the shape of the case as it would first seem to come before us but observing that the case in that shape was not likely to be successful and finding that it might be held that the Court of Chancery had been right in refusing leave to file a supplemental bill as contrary to the course of proceeding and that the decision of your Lordships might be in affirmance of that refusal of leave to file the supplemental bill the Appellant applies now for what That he may have the benefit of the suit and file a bill of review or institute a new suit after the decree has been made which is a common case when a bill is dismissed because if you do not get leave to file another you are met by the plea of that decree and therefore the Appellant wishes to avoid the difficulty by having a bill of review He feels that he has no claim with respect to the supplemental bill that the Court below was right in having refused to give that unnecessary leave so unnecessary that if this order was to be affirmed or if it had never been appealed from the Appellant might just as well file such a bill and have made an application for any benefit under the suit incidental to the supplemental bill which he might have filed as if the Court had given him leave In this instance that being the case the Appellant seems to have mended his handand to have been minded to retrace the steps which e ad ta en ma wrong direction in Ireland and instead of making the application here for leave to ea supplemental bill he was minded to make an application such as that which he had made before the Master of the Rolls but not before the Lord Chancellor namely for leave to go in and prove the claims That appears to have been the course which the Appellant has adopted here but that is not a course in which we can carry him through because the question before us is Has or has not the Lord Chancellor in Ireland well decided in refusing leave to file a supplemental bill And we are of opinion that his Lordship rightly refused that leave in the case before us I do not wish to be understood in what I have said as by any means encouraging the Appellant to file a supplemental bill for aught I know it is the worst thing he can do I should rather hope that the parties may settle their differences without a suit After a lapse of seventeen years from the death of Lady Araminta Monck it will not serve the purpose of the Appellant to say that the delay was caused by want of a personal representative But who is the personal representative The Rev Henry Monck the Appellant he took out letters of administration in 1832 he was of age and might have administered many years ago the eldest son was of age in 1777 it is very likely that at that time the Appellant also was of mature age Then why was there no representative It will hardly do for him to explain the lapse of time by saying there was no personal representative for he might have been personal representative during any one of those periods and he did not choose to make himself so On all these grounds I have no hesitation in recommending your Lordships to affirmthe decision of the Court below and to affirm it with costs to be taxed Lord Lyndhurst I agree with the noble and learned Lord's opinion of the irregularity of this appeal in point of form and I recollect that Mr Wigram in his opening address was extremely desirous of getting rid of the idea that the decision of the Lord Chancellor was a confirmation of the decision of the Master of the Rolls because he thought that that might have some effect upon your Lordships decision and he therefore took occasion to state that the motions stood in different circumstances but the whole scope of his subsequent argument was to show that they were the same motions whereas they were quite different With respect to the merits of the case these claims are claims in a general account In the year 1802 the original testator died and Henry Monck did not die until the year 1815 There were thirteen years therefore in which Lady Araminta Monck might have filed a bill for a general account she never thought proper to do so and therefore it is not improbable that the result of that general account would not have been advantageous to her I think therefore upon the whole that the decision of your Lordships should be to affirm the decision of the Court below and to affirm it with costs of the appeal The order of the Court below was accordingly affirmed with costs.

Henrietta was descended from General O'Hara as outlined below in the
HISTORY OF PITTSBURGH

THE O'HARA FAMILY— The O'Hara family,
from which the O'Haras of Westem Pennsylvania are de-
scended, is of old and distinguished lineage, tracing its
descent to the ancient Celtic kings of Ulster. In 1409
there is a note of Bishop Bryan O'Hara and in 1485
of Archbishop O'Hara. In 1607, when an intended up-
rising in the North of Ireland was due, the O'Haras
hastened to enter the Spanish service.

Teige Buihde O'Hara, the last lord of Lcyney, was
killed by an O'Connor. His son was Teige Oge O'Hara,
who left two sons, John and Cormac, John the elder, for-
feiting his estate under the Cromwellian settlement of
Ireland. Cormac's son, Charles, was the father of Der-
mod, and Dermod had a brother. Sir Charles, Baron
Tyrawley. The baron's son, James, wa? the second Lord
Tyrawley. Felix, the son of Dermod, was a major in
Dillon's regiment of the Irish Brigade, in the service of
France. John, son of Felix, born in France, was also a
major in the same regiment. General James O'Hara,
the subject of this sketch, was the son of John. Sir
Charles O'Hara was created a baron in 1706, taking his
title from the castle and desmesne of Tyrawley in
County Mayo. His son. Sir James O'Hara, received his
first title in recognition of military services rendered
Queen Anne of England.

General James O'Hara was the first Napoleon of in-
dustry in Pittsburgh. He was the pioneer of the glass
industry, ship-builder and merchant, founder of the
Schenley and Denny estates in Pittsburgh, and the first
quartermaster-general of the United States army.

General O'Hara was born in Ireland, in 1752, received a
good education in France, and was commissioned in the
celebrated Cold Stream Guards. He emigrated to America
in 1772 and landing in Philadelphia, entered the service
of a firm in that city as Indian trader, an occupation
which took him to Westem Virginia. Afterwards, from
December, 1773, until March, 1774, he was employed by
Devereux Smith and Ephraim Douglas, of Pittsburgh, in
the same capacity. In 1774 he was appointed a govern-
ment agent among the Indians, and so continued until
the outbreak of the War of the Revolution. While thus
employed, he made many friends among the Indians and
acquired a knowledge of the wily Indian character as
well as a knowledge of many of their dialects, which,
added to his fluency in French, was of great value to
him in after years. His many hair-breadth escapes from
Indians and other dangers are more thrilling than those
of many a romance. Upon one occasion, having been
sent to the upper Moravian town on the Muskingtmi
river, he was apprised by a friendly Indian runner that
a party of hostiles were on their way to capture or kill
him. Heckvelder, the celebrated Moravian missionary,
immediately procured for him a conductor, and with
this Indian for a guide he set out for Fort Pitt They
were successful in throwing the hostile Indians off the
trail and reached Fort Pitt in safety. This Indian, with

his father, mother and entire family, was massacred by
the whites at Gnadenhutten a few years afterwards.

At the breaking out of the War of the Revolution,
James O'Hara enlisted in the Virginia regiment as a
private, but was almost immediately promoted to a cap-
taincy, and raised and equipped his own company. He was
stationed at Fort Kanawha, to hold the Indians in check
and prevent tiiem from aiding the British forces and
was with the famous expedition of General George
Rogers Garke against Vincennes and other border towns,
in pursuit of the Indians. The hardships of the march
were severe, but the success of the expedition insured
the safety of the western frontier from the savage in-
cursions of the Indians. After the successful completion
of that campaign, O'Hara's company was so reduced
(numbering only twenty-nine men) that it was annexed
to the Ninth Virginia Regiment, and Captain O'Hara
being relieved, was sent to Pittsburgh with dispatches.

In 1780, Captain O'Hara was appointed commissary of
the general hospital at Carlisle, Pa. In 1781 he was made
assistant quartermaster-general and attached to General
Green's command during the campaign against Com-
wallis in the Carolinas. From a brief diary kept by him
during that campaign,* it appears that he was present at
Cowpens, Guilford Court House, and Eutaw Springs.
Little is known of his participation in Greene's campaign
in the South, except that he was with "Mad Anthony"
Wayne's army and, as quartermaster, provided for the
same.

At the close of the war. Captain O'Hara returned with
General Wa3me to Philadelphia, where he married Mary
Carson, daughter of William Otrson of that city. From
there he took his newly-wedded wife to Pittsburgh, over
the mountains in a wagon, the only means of transporta-
tion except on foot or horseback. His residence then
consisted of a log house, but in it were all the comforts
and many luxuries of the age, including carpets, then
almost unknown in the western coimty. In 1789, Cap-
tain O'Hara, as presidential elector, cast his vote for
General George Washington to be first President of the
United States.

After the close of the War of the Revolution, Captain
O'Hara took the contract to furnish supplies to General
Harmar's army during the campaign against the western
Indians, and was appointed to act as quartermaster and
paymaster. In 1792 he was commissioned quartermaster-
general of the United States army and served as such
until 1796. In that capacity he accompanied General
Wayne, in 1794, in the campaign which brought the
Indians to terms. All the duties pertaining to these
various offices were performed with ability and fidelity.
His tours of inspection and supervision led him not only
through Western Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Ohio, but
to New York and Michigan, and through Illinois down
to Kentucky and Tennessee. These journeys were mainly
made on horseback by a trail or bridle path through an
otherwise trackless wilderness, or, if by water, in a skiff
or canoe, or, at best, a barge; but, whether by land or
water, encountering dangers from savage Indians and
savage beasts.

After his services in the Revolution and in the wars
with the Indians which followed. General O'Hara re-
turned to Pittsburgh and devoted his energies to mer-

cantile and industrial pursuits. He was the pioneer in
all the industries which have mad« Pittsburgh great. He
established a glass works in 1795 9nd the difficulties he
surmounted in accomplishing that undertaking can
scarcely be realized in this day. The pots were made
in Pittsburgh, but the clay for making them was brought
from Germany and Philadelphia, being transported from
the latter place across the mountains on the backs of
pack horses or mules. The expense was enormous, but
at last heroic endeavor was rewarded and the first bottle
of green glass was turned out at a cost of thirty thousand
dollars, quite a litde fortune in those days.

A project of more imposing and daring proportions,
so far as transportation was concerned, was General
O'Hara's original scheme to bring salt from New York
State to Fort Pitt. During the period when he was sup-
plying the northwestern army he found that salt from the
Onondago works could be furnished more cheaply than
salt brought from Baltimore. But great difficulty lay in
transporting it, as there were no good roads, no vessels on
the lakes, and no efficient means of water carriage down
the Allegheny river. All these had to be provided. General
O'Hara, however, quailed at nothing. He created die
entire line of transportation vessels on Lake Erie, buying
wagons and securing boats for the river carriage. The
road to French Creek from Erie was improved also.
Flour and provisions, packed in barrels suitable for salt,
were sent from Pittsburgh, General O'Hara reserving the
barrels in his contract The undertaking was a com-
plete success, the salt was set down in Pittsbtu-gh at
four dollars per bushel, and the salt-carrying trade over
the All^heny Mountains was done away with. Later
the price was brought to two dollars and forty cents per
bushel.

General O'Hara also built ships at Pittsburgh. They
cleared from this inland port and made voyages to Liv-
erpool, or South America, or West Indies, taking a
cargo of fur and peltries for the English port, and flour
for South America and the West Indies. In 1805 he
built the "General Butler," which sailed for Liverpool,
taking a cargo of glass for river ports and taking on a
shipment of cotton at New Orleans. A return cargo
was also taken on. Captain Samuel Lake was the cap-
tain, and W. C. O'Hara, the general's eldest son, was
supercargo. In May, 1807, the good ship again sailed
down the Ohio, but was captured by a Spanish schooner
in the Caribbean Sea and was taken to Vera Cruz. The
"Betsy," another vessel built by him, plied between Bal-
timore and the West Indies.

General O'Hara's hospitality was famous. His house
was always open to rich and poor alike. When Louis
Philippe, heir to the throne of France, came to Pitts-
burgh, together with General Moreau and other French
officers, the general entertained them. Prince Louis was
then in exile on account of the French Revolution. When
the Branch Bank of Pennsylvania was established in
Pittsburgh in 1804, General O'Hara was chosen one of
the directors and succeeded General John Wilkms, who
was the first president. This was the first bank estab-
lished west of the Allegheny Mountains.

General O'Hara died, in the sixty-seventh year of his
age, on Dec 21, 1819, at his home on Water street,
Pittsburgh, and the entire town mourned. It is said

that at his coffin the tears of the rich and poor were
commingled, for he had been the firm friend of both,
treating all with justice. His wife, Mary Carson O'Hara,
survived him several years. She died April 8, i834«
aged seventy-three. Issue: i. William Carson O'Hara,
who marri^ his cousin, Mary Carson; no issue, a.
James O'Hara, married Elizabeth Neville, no issue. 3.
Charles O'Hara, died young. 4. Richard Butler O'Hara,
of whom bdow. 5. Elizabeth Febiger O'Hara, married
Harmar Denny. (See Denny Family). 6. Mary Car-
son O'Hara, of whom below.

Richard Butler O'Hara, son of James and Mary (Car-
son) O'Hara, married Mary Fitzsimmons. Issue: i. Mary
Carson O'Hara, married William McCullough Darlington.
Issue : i. O'Hara Darlington ; ii. Mary O'Hara Darling-
ton; iii Hilbom Darlington, died young; iv. Edith
Darlington, married Samuel Augustus Ammon. Mrs.
Ammon died in 1920. 2. James O'Hara, married Eliza
Winston Pride. Issue: i. Anne Price O'Hara, married
the Rev. George Beecher and had, I. Lyman Beecher, who
married May Steele, and had Mariana Beecher and
George B. Beecher; II. Norman Buckingham Beecher;
IIL Katherine Beecher (died); IV. (korge Beecher
(died) ; V. Georgiana Buckingham Beecher. iL John
Price O'Hara, died young; iii. Mary O'Hara, married
Dr. Louis de Cazanovo and had James O'Hara de Caz-
anovo and Louis de Cazanovo; iv. Lucy O'Hara, mar-
ried (first) David Morrison and (second) Samuel
Balkan Schoyer; v. Richard Winston O'Hara (died) ; vL
Jane McDowell O'Hara, married Frederic G. Kay, and
had Alfred (joddard Kay and Lucy Starling Kay; vii.
John Price O'Hara (died). 3. Elizabeth Denny O'Hara.

Mary Carson O'Hara married William Croghan, of
Louisville, Ky. Issue: i. William Croghan, d^ed
young. 2. Mary Elizabeth Croghan, married Captain
Wyndham Harrington SchenlQr, of the British army
(both deceased). Issue: i. Elizabeth Pole Schenley,
married the Hon. Ralph Harbord. Issue : Edward Har-
bord, who married Evelyn, daughter of Riley Smith, and
had: L Bridget Harbord; II. Horatio Harbord, killed
in action in South Africa; IIL Florence Mary Har-
bord ; IV. Georgiana Agnes Harbord ; V. Emily Francis
Hart>ord, married Captain Des Barres, and had Augustus
Des Barres; VI. Ida Harbord. ii. Jane Inglis Schenley,
married the Rev. H. W. Crofton. Issue: I. Jeoffrey
Hugh Schenley CroftcMi; II. Mary Crofton, married
Henry Farquharson, of Eastbury, and had Richard Far-
quharson and Ronald Farquharson; III. Edrica Crofton,
married Captain Forester; IV. Hermione Crofton; V.
Millicina Crofton; VI. Violet Crofton. iii. William
Croghan Schenley, died young, iv. Henrietta Agnes
Schenley, married Charles Ridley, issue: Alberta Mary
Ridley, v. Edward Clarence Paget Schenley, died
young, vi. Richmond Emmeline Mary Schenley, married
Captain Charles J. Randoli^. viL Millicina Alice Isabel
Schenley, married (Colonel Frederic Gore. viii. Octavia
Hermione Courtney Schenley, married Commander Lord
Ellenborough, Royal Navy. ix. George Alfred Cx)urt-
enay Schenley, married Grace Aikinson Hughes, and had
Mary Una (jardner Schenley.

From "American Families of Hlstorio Lineage/' The
Americana Society, New York.

Alberta Mary Ridley was one of King Edward VII godchildren, as in the following list;

King Edward VII

Albert Edward John Henniker-Major, Esq. (1865–1901)
Albert Edward Bingham, Esq. (1866–1941)
Hon. Albert Edward George Henry Cadogan, later styled Viscount Chelsea (1866–1878)
Hon. Albert Edward Philip Henry Yorke, later 6th Earl Hardwicke (1867–1904)
James Albert Edward Hamilton, Viscount Strabane, later 3rd Duke of Abercorn (1869–1953)
Charles Victor Albert Aubrey de Vere Beauclerk, Earl of Burford, later 11th Duke of St Albans (1870–1934)
Albert Edward Sydney Louis Paget (1879–1917)
Princess Alice Mary Victoria Augusta Pauline of Albany (1883–1981)
Edward Robert Francis Compton, Esq. (1891–1977)
Albert Edward John Spencer, Viscount Althorp, later 7th Earl Spencer (1892–1975)
Prince Edward Albert Christian George Andrew Patrick David of York, later Edward VIII (1894–1972)
Hon. Albert Edward Charles Robert Carington, later styled Viscount Wendover (1895–1915)
Anthony Edward Lowther, Esq., later styled Viscount Lowther (1896–1949)
Alberta Mary Ridley (1897–1963)
Princess Victoria Alexandra Alice Mary Lascelles of York (1897–1965)
Hon. Albert Edward George Arnold Keppel (1898–1917)
Edwina Cynthia Annette Ashley, later Countess Mountbatten of Burma (1901–1960)
Edward St John Edmonstone of Duntreath, Esq. (1901–1983)
Edward James Reid, Esq., later 2nd Baronet (1901–1972)
Edward Charles Stewart Vane-Tempest-Stewart, later 8th Marquess of Londonderry (1902–1955)
Prince George Edward Alexander Edmund of Wales, later Duke of Kent (1902–1942)
Hon. Edward Gaspard Ponsonby, later 2nd Baron Sysonby (1903–1956)
Edward George John Humphrey Cadogan, later styled Viscount Chelsea (1903–1910)
(Edward) Antony James Bulwer-Lytton, Viscount Knebworth (1903–1933)
Edward George Hugh Grosvenor, Earl Grosvenor (1904–1909)
James Edward Hamilton, Viscount Strabane, later 4th Duke of Abercorn (1904–1979)
Hon. Edward William George Hardinge (1905–1906)
Lord Edward Eugene Fernando Montagu (1906–1954)
Hereditary Grand Duke Georg-Donatus Wilhelm Nikolaus Eduard Heinrich Karl of Hesse (1906–1937)
Hon. Edward Frederick Ward (1907–1987)
Edward David Murray, Viscount Fincastle (1908–1940)
Hon. Edward Richard Assheton Penn Curzon, later 6th Earl Howe (1908–1984)
Hon. Thomas William Edward Coke, later 5th Earl of Leicester (1908–1976)
William Edward Harcourt, Esq., later 2nd Viscount Harcourt (1908–1979)
Hon. Albert Edward George Arnold Keppel (1908–1917)
(Edward) John Sutton Ward, Esq. (1909–1990)
Edward John Sidney Christian Welbore Ellis Agar, Viscount Somerton, later 5th Earl of Normanton (1910–1967)

Duchesne - portrait of Napoleon

2006-04-03T15:47:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait has been attributed to Jean Baptiste Duchsene (1770-1856). The sitter is Napoleon. There is an engraved inscription around the bottom of the frame which reads "Given by the Emperor Napoleon to Marshal Ney who gave it to Lady Elizabeth Monck".

Research has identified Lady Elizabeth Monck as Elizabeth Araminta Gore (1770-1845), a daughter of Sir Arthur Saunders Gore, 2nd Earl of Arran. Although in 1783 Elizabeth married a commoner, barrister Henry Monck, she retained her courtesy title of Lady Elizabeth.

Lady Elizabeth was evidently a beauty of her day, as evidenced by the following quotation from a letter of August 1818, written by Sydney, Lady Morgan to Lady Clarke; "We only wanted the Hon. Mrs. Browne, who was married about the same time, when, lo! she entered with her mother, the beautiful Lady Elizabeth Monck, another of the charming clan of Arran, who for grace and beauty, when they were in their prime, could not have been matched in Europe. Lord Arran ought to have had some prize for the specimens of physical perfection he gave to the world in his daughters."

Lady Elizabeth had two daughters, the elder daughter, Elizabeth Araminta Monck married Vice Admiral Sir Charles Paget (1778-1839). They had a number of children including a son, Henry Horatius Paget who died in Malta in 1828.

Sir Charles Paget was one of several famous brothers, the eldest of whom was Henry Paget, Earl of Uxbridge and one of the Duke of Wellington's commanders at the Battle of Waterloo. Another Paget brother was Ambassador to Russia.

It therefore appears quite reasonable to expect that Lady Elizabeth Monck did meet Marshal Ney during Ney's trial after Waterloo, and could have asked him for a souvenir of Napoleon. For more on this portrait see a more detailed entry in the European 1 section of the collection, but also note the oil version by Duchesne here.

The second daughter of Lady Elizabeth Monck, was Catherine Anne Isabella Monck who married Dominick Brown 1st Lord Oranmore. Their daughter was Henrietta Araminta Monck Browne, see associated miniature portrait of her.

Lady Elizabeth Monck had a Grace and Favour apartment at Hampton Court Palace from 1829 to 1845. As an interesting aside, there is a reference to Lady Elizabeth Monck as a widow, at The Proceedings of the Old Bailey, London 1674 to 1834 in 1826 when a young man called William Andrews, was found guilty of stealing a bundle of laundry worth two pounds, from Lady Elizabeth. He was sentenced to be transported for seven years, probably to a penal colony in Australia. 830

Unknown - portrait of Captain Fitzroy

2006-04-03T15:43:00.000-07:00

The painter of this miniature portrait is unknown. The sitter is Captain Fitzroy, who was ADC to the Duke of Wellington at the Battle of Waterloo. Captain Fitzroy later became Lord Raglan and commanded the British forces during the Crimean War. 308

Paduani - portrait of a lady

2006-04-03T15:40:00.000-07:00

A previous owner attributed this miniature portrait to Paduani, but this has not been confirmed. 467

Unknown - portrait of Henry Ingles

2006-04-03T15:30:00.000-07:00

The artist of this miniature portrait is unknown. On the reverse is written "The Reverend Henry Ingles D.D. Rector of Eastree, nr Winchester England. Formerly Head Master of Rugby School". During his time at the school a famous (infamous??) incident was The Great Rebellion" See Great Rebellion 766

Unknown - portrait of Mr Newenham

2006-04-03T15:14:00.000-07:00

The artist is unknown. The frame is not original. 14

Unknown - portrait of Frederick Prince of Wales

2006-04-03T15:04:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is a puzzle at present. There is an engraved inscription on the reverse which describes it as "H.R.H. Prince Frederick Louis of Wales eldest son of George 2nd by N Lagilliere". The Prince pre-deceased his father, George I, and thus never became king. The reference to Lagilliere is puzzling as Lagilliere only painted large portraits. It may refer to a copy of a portrait by Lagilliere, but he may not still have been alive when the Prince was the age in the portrait. It is also difficult to decide whether the portrait was painted in the 18C or 19C. However, it is well painted. 1067

Unknown - portrait of a lady

2006-04-03T14:50:00.000-07:00

The artist and siter are unknown. The frame does not appear to be original. 112

Unknown - portrait of John Milton

2006-04-03T14:47:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is by an unknown 19C artist. It is a portrait of John Milton (1608-1674), author of Paradise Lost. 839

Stroehling, Peter - portrait of unknown man

2006-04-03T14:41:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is by Peter Stroehling, also called Peter Stroely. It is signed on the right "Stroehling 1805". The sitter is unknown. He is wearing Roman clothing. It is possible he was an actor, but it was also fashionable at the time for some people to dress in Roman clothing for portraits. 95

Plimer, Andrew - portrait of Viscount Andover

2006-04-03T14:33:00.000-07:00

The reverse of this miniature portrait is engraved "Jane Elizabeth Viscountess Andover - Andrew Plimer". Thus although the attribution has not been confirmed, this portrait may be by Andrew Plimer.

Research indicates that Charles Nevison Howard, Lord Andover was born 13 May 1775 and died from an accidental discharge of his fowling piece on 11 January 1800. He had married Jane Elizabeth Coke on 21 June 1796.

However, it is possible that the case has been reused, as the style of dress appears to date after 1800. 869

Unknown - portrait of Helen Shelley

2006-04-03T14:28:00.000-07:00

This artist is unknown, but the portrait is inscribed as being Helen Shelley who married a Mr Robert Parker (born 1754, wed 1782, buried at Bath 1837) of Bath. Helen Shelley (1755-1839) was the sister of Sir Timothy Shelley and he was the father of Percy Bysshe Shelley. This Helen Shelley was the aunt of the famous poet.

However, the clothes and hair seem too recent to be that Helen Shelley, as they date closer to 1820. Thus it is seems more likely to be Helen Shelley (1799-10 May 1885), the sister of Percy Bysshe Shelley. This Helen Shelley appears not to have married.

There is an interesting reference in the Memoirs of the Life and Correspondence of Henry Reeve, C.B., D.C.L., by John Knox Laughton, to a letter to a Mr. E. Cheney dated January 23rd 1879.

"I saw Lady Shelley to-day, and, as I told her you could not call on her, she very obligingly said she would be happy to call on you and bring you the enlarged photograph of the poet to look at. These photographs are done on porcelain. There are only three copies of them, which Lady S. has got. The negative is destroyed. ... She says the drawing is the image of Shelley's sister, Helen Shelley." See In Two Volumes. Volume II. / Laughton, John Knox, 1830-1915

Comparison with one of these images, if any of them still exist, could help the identification.

The husband of Helen Shelley Parker was a wealthy man, as indicated by his will. From the will, they seem not to have had any children, so the sitter cannot be a daughter of Robert Parker, named Helen.

The will is recorded at 1837 Will of Robert Parker - nephew of ELIZABETH MORTON who was ... - but it can be summarised as;

* £60,000 of three pounds per centum Consols to wife Helen
* £10,000 of three pounds per centum Consols to E1izabeth the widow of Charles Bedford Young
* £5,000 of three pounds per centum Consols to Mary Ann Young
* £500 to Arriana wife of Aitkin Esquire formerly Arriana Shelley
* £100 to Godson John Shelley
* £50 to Godson Charles Parker Cally
* £50 to to Goddaughter Mary Day
* £50 to Goddaughter Louisa Scudamore
* £200 to Frances Jeffery, now North, who lived with his late mother and received an annuity which was to cease after Robert’s death
* £200 to her son Robert Jeffery
* the residual ready money to brother in law Sir Timothy Shelley Bart and Sir John Shelley Sidney Bart to invest on behalf of Robert’s wife during her lifetime and afterwards to be divided amongst cousins Thomas Marchant, John Marchant and the children of Robert‘s late cousin Mary Knight viz one equal share to Thomas Marchant one equal share to John Marchant one equal share amongst the children of WILLIAM MARCHANT and the remaining share amongst the children of Mary
* all third part shares in lands in Ifield and Charlswood (Westfield) and lands and castle at Otford in Kent plus farm and lands in Chevington in Suffolk, in Hargrove and Isfield and house in Catherine Place, Bath to Sir Timothy Shelley and Sir John Shelley Sidney
* all residual property for the use of wife Helen and after her decease to Thomas and John Marchant and the children of the said WILLIAM MARCHANT and Mary Knight in equal shares
* all jewels plate linen china carriage wines and other goods chattels to his wife
* £1,000 to Mrs Down
* £1,000 to Martha Isgrove
* £500 to each of the other servants

The will seems to have later been the subject of a Court Case:
HELEN PARKER v MARCHANT and Others
By order of Vice Chancellor Knight Bruce bearing date the 8th of March 1842 the following case was submitted for the opinion of the Judges of this Court. Robert Parker Esq was at the date of his will herein after set forth seised and possessed respectively of the following real and leasehold properties and of no other real or leasehold property that is to say Real property A freehold messuage or tenement and farm called The Great Lodge of Otford Park together with the barns stables lodges edifices buildings yards gardens orchards and appurtenances thereto belonging 1 and twenty one several closes or pieces or parcels of land thereto belonging containing by admeasurement 210 acres. A freehold messuage or tenement and farm called The Place Farm together with the granary barns stables oast houses lodges outhouses edifices and buildings and the ruins of the ancient castle and palace of Otford yards gardens orchards and appurtenances thereunto belonging and twenty seven closes pieces or parcels of land thereto belonging containing together by admeasurement 229 acres all which several messuages tenements lauds hereditaments and premises with the appurtenances are situate lying and being in the several parishes villages or hamlets of Otford and Kemsing or one of them in the county of Kent. A freehold plot piece or parcel of ground together with the messuage tenement or dwelling house thereon or on some part thereof erected and built being No 18 in Catherine Place in that part of the parish of Walcot in the county of Somerset which lies without the jurisdiction of the city of Bath. A freehold messuage tenement or farm barns stables buildings orchards gardens lands meadows pastures feedings coppices shaws and wood grounds thereto belonging with the appurtenances situate lying and being in the parish of Ifield in the county of Sussex and containing together by estimation in the whole 55 acres A freehold messuage tenement or farm barn stables buildings orchards gardens backsides lands meadows pastures feedings woods underwoods coppices shaws and appurtenances whatsoever thereunto belonging containing by estimation 45 acres situate lying and being in the said parish of Ifield in the said county of Sussex. A freehold messuage tenement or farm and barns stables outhouses and buildings thereunto belonging and several pieces or parcels of laud arable meadow pasture and woodland situate lying and being in the parish of Charlewood in the county of Surrey One etc. etc.......

The judgement was; The testator, after several pecuniary bequests and a bequest of the residue of his "ready money" securities for money, and money in the funds, to trustees proceeded thus; "As to to my messuages, lands, tenements, and real estate, I do dispose thereof as follows and then he specifically devised to the same trustees, certain freehold estates and all other my messuages, lands, tenements, and hereditaments which may not be herein particuiarly described or mentioned, upon certain trusts. The testator possessed no other real estates besides those mentioned but he possessed certain leasehold property at Bath and elsewhere. Held that the leaseholds did not pass to the trustees. Scott's New Reports in the Court of Common Pleas and Exchequer ... - Google Books Result- 916

Bingham, Margaret - portrait of Robert Dudley

2006-04-03T14:23:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait was painted by Margaret Bingham, also known as Countess Lucan. It is inscribed "Robert Dudley - Earl of Leicester". 657

Bingham, Margaret - portrait of Earl of Somerset

2006-04-03T14:20:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait was painted by Margaret Bingham, also known as Countess Lucan. It is titled at the foot "Carr, Earle of Somerset". 655

Bone, Henry Pierce - portrait of Earl of Salisbury

2006-04-03T14:13:00.000-07:00

This miniature portrait is painted in enamel. On the reverse it is inscribed "Sir Robt Cecil E of Salisbury Painted by Henry Pierce Bone Enamel Painter to Her Majesty H.R.H. Prince Albert & etc. & etc. Orig by Zucchero London Jan'y 1847". 642