Figure 1.--This English cabinet card portrait shows six unidentified children about 5-18 years of age. They are not identified. Four are are clearly two girls and two boys, the fifth at center backs looks to be a boy. The two girls wear white dresses. The whiteness obscures detail, but they are dresses with defined waists. Figuring out the rest of this lot is much more complicated and readers are welcomed to comment. The child in the center back we are not sure about but certainly looks like a boy. And if a girl would we think have worn a white dress like the other two girls who look to be close in age. The boys look to be dressed in skirted garments, but except for the youngest boy at the right, it is difficult to tell. The boys mostly wear ruff collars. One boy has a white ruff and a collar extending over his shoulders. This looks like a choir boy garment. The younger boy wearing the dark outfit and large white collar looks like a blouse with presumably pants, but is probanly wearing a kilt suit. The dealer describes the boys' outfits as smocks, presumavly because of the smocking and the lack of a defined waist. We are not sure about this. Given their ages, they may well be smocks, but they could be dresses. The mount style suggests the portrait was taken in the 1890s. It is impossible to tell. The studio was H. Montague Cooper in Taunton.

Family portraits were popular in the 18th and early-19th century well before photography was invented. Painted portraits, however, were expensive which significantly limited the number of images. Family portraits continued to be popular in England as photography became well established in the second half of the 19th century. Thus we have a wealth of family images for the first time. We see a wide range of skirted garments, including dresses, skirts, kilts, smocks, pinafores, tunics, and others. The prevalence of the various garmnts varied over time. We believes that dresses were most popular during the early-19th century, but this was before photography was developed or became widespread. Family photography was thus most common during the second hafl of the 19th century when photography was well established. Thus we see not only dresses, but the many other types of skirted garments. The convention of boys wearing dresses and other skirted garments varied significntly from family to family. This was in part differences in the fashion preferences of the mothers. And here the primary factor appears to be was social class. Mothers from affluent families who rarely had to work had the time and money to pursue their interest and fashion was aopular diversion. This included fshions for themselves and their children. They also more closely supervised their children than less affluent mothers. Money was a factor in making this possible. Wealthy children kept at home and not allowed to play freely or educated at home of course were more likely to be dressed strictly in accordance with mothers fashion preferences. While children playing in the street or going to school were more likely to be affected by general fashion trends. Once school photogrphy became widespread this is fairly easy to follow, but for much of the 19th century this source is not available. And because working class families were less likely to have studio portrits taken, one has to be careful in uing the photographic rcord to assess social class trends. This is more true of England than America where workers were generally better paid. Fashion trends of the affluent and comfortable are over represented in the English photographic record and the working-class under-represented. Thus while it is clear that the conventions for dressing boys in skirted garments varied from family to family, it is more difficult to assess working class than affluent families.

Chronology

Family portraits were popular in England as photography became well established in the second half of the 19th century. Thus for the first time, we have a wealth of family images for the first time to follow trends. The problen is, however, that so few of the images identify the children. We can can speculate, but with out the name there is no way to be sure, especially for the younger boys who might be wearing skirted garmets.

Garments

We see a wide range of skirted garments, including dresses, skirts, kilts, smocks, pinafores, tunics, and others. The prevalence of the various garmnts varied over time. We believes that dresses were most popular during the early-19th century, but this was before photography was developed or became widespread. Family photography was thus most common during the second hafl of the 19th century when photography was well established. Thus we see not only dresses, but the many other types of skirted garments. The skirted garments were much more varied. Here we see a range of different garments, but it is a little difficult to tell just who they were (figure 1).

Family Dfferences

The convention of boys wearing dresses and other skirted garments varied significantly from family to family. This was in part differences in the fashion preferences of the mothers. And here a major factor appears to be was social class, but we believe other factors were at play as well. This is more difficult to assess. We can generally assess familiy affluence by fshin, but other aspects of family life are undectavle.

Social Classes

Social class certainly affected fashion and fashion conventions. Mothers from affluent families who rarely had to work had the time and money to pursue their interest and fashion was aopular diversion. This included fshions for themselves and their children. They also more closely supervised their children than less affluent mothers. Money was a factor in making this possible. Wealthy children kept at home and not allowed to play freely or educated at home of course were more likely to be dressed strictly in accordance with mothers fashion preferences. While children playing in the street or going to school were more likely to be affected by general fashion trends. Once school photogrphy became widespread this is fairly easy to follow, but for much of the 19th century this source is not available. And because working class families were less likely to have studio portrits taken, one has to be careful in uing the photographic rcord to assess social class trends. This is more true of England than America where workers were generally better paid. Fashion trends of the affluent and comfortable are over represented in the English photographic record and the working-class under-represented. Thus while it is clear that the conventions for dressing boys in skirted garments varied from family to family, it is more difficult to assess working class than affluent families.

Created: 2:05 PM 4/13/2016
Last updated: 10:51 AM 7/26/2017