Figure 1.-- The photo is dated 1909, but as we say here, we we are not sure about the dates. Richard looks as though he was about 10 years old. He wears a white sailor-styled blouse (but without stripes, above-the-knee knickers, and long black stockings. He wears a small English-style peaked cap. Notice the fullness of Richard's sailor blouse. It was probably fastened at the waist by drawstrings and is not tucked into his rather close-fitting knickers.

Richard Crown (United States, 1902-1989)

Richard Crown was born in May 1902 and died January 1989. One portrait of Richard shows him as I would guess 6-7 years of age. He wears an elaborate white dress with his rather large girl doll. Several other images taken at 3 or 4 years of age show him in dresses, curls, and always with a hair bow, playing with his dolly. Judging by the number of photographs of him, I would guess he was his mother's favorite. The BHS suggests that this portrait was taken in 1914. There is, however, a descrepancy here between the birth date and the portrait estimate. If Richard was born in 1902 then the photo of him in the white dress would have probably been taken in 1908 or 09. We have another photo of Richard showing him a few tears later on an outing in the woods, perhaps looking for mushrooms. The photo is dated 1909. Richard looks as though he was about 10 years old. He wears a white sailor-styled blouse (but without stripes, above-the-knee knickers, and long black stockings. He wears a small English-style peaked cap. Notice the fullness of Richard's sailor blouse. It was probably fastened at the waist by drawstrings and is not tucked into his rather close-fitting knickers.

Chronology

Richard was born in May 1902 and died January 1989. We are fairly sure about these dates because they cime from the Social Security records. There is some uncertainty, however, about the dating of some of the images in the BHS family archive. The 1902 birth date does not correspond to the dating of the image on the main Crown family page. HBC had noted similar problems in various archives when the dates are estimates rather from actual dates written on the image or album. The HBC reader working on these images writes, "Yes, I agree that the dates for the various pictures must be incorrect in many cases because the dates do not add up properly. I'm not sure what we can do about this since we aren't sure which dates are the correct ones. You are right about the picture of Richard I sent showing him at about age 11. Is the date I gave wrong or is the other one of Richard in a dress wrong? I just don't know."

Clothing

We note a portrait of Richard at I would guess 6-7 years of age. He wears an elaborate white dress with his rather large girl doll. Several other images taken at 3 or 4 years of age show him in dresses, curls, and always with a hair bow, playing with his dolly. This image is on the main Crown family page. Judging by the number of photographs of him, I would guess he was his mother's favorite. According to the Brattleboro Historical Society that portrait was taken in 1914. Here there is a descrepancy here between the dates given and the portrait estimate. If Richard was born in 1902 then about 1908 or 09. We have another photo of Richard showing him a few tears later on an outing in the woods, perhaps looking for mushrooms (figure 1). The photo is dated 1909. Richard looks as though he was about 10 years old. He wears a white sailor-styled blouse (but without stripes, above-the-knee knickers, and long black stockings. He wears a small English-style peaked cap. Notice the fullness of Richard's sailor blouse. It was probably fastened at the waist by drawstrings and is not tucked into his rather close-fitting knickers. A reader writes, "This image is a good illustration of the closure of above-the-knee knickers during the 1910s. Here the band around the leg does not seem to be elasticized (as in the case of bloomer-style knickers). But we also do not see a buckle. Possibly the band was just closed with a button. The problem of the knickers falling down sloppily doesn't seem to apply in this case because the knickers are rather form-fitting and not very fully bloused."







HBC







[Return to the Main Crown family page]
[Return to the Main ordinary bio chronological 19th century page ]
[Return to the Main American family page]
[Bangs] [Long hair] [Hair bows] [Caps] [Collar bows] [Blouse] [Knickers] [Long stockings]


Navigate the Boys' Historical Clothing Web Site:
[Return to the Main knee hem closure page]
[Introduction] [Activities] [Biographies] [Chronology] [Clothing styles] [Countries] [Topics]
[Bibliographies] [Contributions] [FAQs] [Glossaries] [Images] [Links] [Registration] [Tools]
[Boys' Clothing Home]




Created: 5:27 PM 5/7/2005
Last edited: 7:35 PM 8/11/2007