Nicholas ([info]nhw) wrote,
@ 2006-06-11 11:10:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:pictures on the wall

More pictures
Thanks, everyone for helping to identify the ancestral portrait. The consensus is pretty clear that it is probably Charles Whyte (1714 - 1784) if it is anyone.

Which leads me to a problem. We were under the impression that the 18th century Charles Whyte was this gentleman:



who seems to be paired with this lady:



So, what period(s) do these two belong to? The choice for the men is between the following:

1) SIR NICHOLAS WHYTE, aged 16 in 1599, d. 1654,

2) CHARLES WHYTE, Col. in Spain, mentioned in a letter to CHARLES II from Emperor Leopold I 1683, afterwards Gov. of Co. Kildare 1689, M.P. for Naas,

3) JOHN WHYTE, m. 1704, and d. 1741,

4) CHARLES WHYTE, b. 1714, m. 24 Dec. 1751, and d. 29 Nov. 1784,

5) JOHN WHYTE, b. 1752, m. 15 Feb. 1776, d. 4 Jan. 1814.

Their wives were all about ten to twenty years younger.

Thanks in advance, and thanks again especially to [info]mizkit and [info]sammywol.


(Post a new comment)


[info]nmg
2006-06-11 08:39 am UTC (link)
My guess would be either 3) or 5) - I shall ask [info]ias, since she has better knowledge of historical fashions than I do.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]nmg
2006-06-11 08:45 am UTC (link)
Isobel reckons it's more likely to be 5), and guessed at 1770s-1780s for the clothes of both the man and his wife.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

[info]mizkit
2006-06-11 10:56 am UTC (link)
I'm inclined to agree with the above. My first impulse is that they might be wedding portraits, but unless you actually know Mrs. Whyte was about 15 when she married John Whyte, I'm hesitant about sticking with that impulse. (It's possible she was that young. There's a great deal of youthful roundness in her face, and while the blasted white wigs make it harder to judge ages, but his skin's good, he doesn't have the jowls or baggy eyes or age lines around his mouth that Charles did in the last painting. He could be twenty-five or so.)

If there's no evidence to the contrary (like actually knowing she was 15 or 16 when they got married), I'd say these were probably painted in the 1780s (assuming they're contemporary to one another). Her hair, being dark, is contrary to the powdered style, but she's quite young and that may account for it, and the height, which is a mark of the 70s, does go through to the end of the 80s to some degree. I think her decollatage combined with the coat (the elbow-length loose sleeves were apparently a fashion which had gone out by the 90s; they were worn tighter and longer by then) are probably also 80s fashion.

He's older and probably less likely to be fashionable, but neither the cut of his coat nor his hair are entirely out of fashion for the 1780s. I think you have John Whyte the latter & Wife here. :)

This is fun! Who's next? :)

(Reply to this)

[info]sammywol
2006-06-11 11:15 am UTC (link)
Did these people live in Ireland (rural or Dublin?) or England? It matters in terms of how quickly fashions were passed on.

It cannot be 1 or 2. No way!!

Is there any definite reason why number 4 couldn't be this man as well, just younger?

The period the portrait is taken is slightly earlier I would say. The bob wig was commonly used right up to the end of the century annoyingly but was esepcially popular with clergymen or tradesmen (is that a help?), in fact both Protestant and Catholic priests wore them although the Catholic style seems to have included a tiny tonsure on the top which is a hoot! The cut of the coat and the lack of a collar would put it in the 1760s or thereabouts I would say but it could be earlier (even quite a lot earlier)) as I cannot see cuffs or skirts and the coat is being pulled back by his hands which makes judging the line harder.

I cannot make much out of the woman's portrait. I am getting rusty obviously. I would set her mid century but asd the style of dress is fairly informal and you cannot see the skirt or back (best clues for women's dress) anything is possible.

It is just about possible that this man is number 3 right at the end of his life ... just. I would say that number 4 is still a good fit but if the portraits were painted as a pair then not - his wife is too young. They could have been painted on the marriage of number 5 but, unless they were provincials (or possibly tradespeople) no later and I still think that the line of his coat is too full (it would nearly fasten over the chest) for the 1770s although the face is certainyl not of a man any yonger than his 30s.

to summarize - not sure really. Sorry!

(Reply to this)

[info]bennmorland
2006-06-11 12:18 pm UTC (link)
I'm thinking 3 or 5, leaning toward 3; the attire seems mid-18th century to me.

(Reply to this)

(Anonymous)
2006-06-11 12:19 pm UTC (link)
Nick,

Compare the above portrait with the 1753 de la Tour of Rousseau - very similar indeed. This would suggest this is the earlier of the two male portrait, in other words No. 4: Charles Whyte.

You haven't mentioned the source of the portraits - private collection?

(Reply to this)(Thread)

[info]nhw
2006-06-11 08:36 pm UTC (link)
Crumbs, that is a frightening resemblance!

Who are you?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

(Anonymous)
2006-06-11 10:18 pm UTC (link)
Apologies for posting anonymously - I'm not a lj user. You may not remember me, but I'm a friend of Gerard Lynch's, Paul. I helped out with leafleting and canvassing on a couple of Alliance campaigns. Anyway, I'm now in London and a dix-huitiemiste by profession (for my sins).

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…