Boy Wearing a Dress Puzzle

seemed to be fairly straightforward in terms of identification until we
noticed the dress? that the boy? is wearing and this then becomes a
question of "dress" in perhaps more than one sense of the word.

singhals...

Except I doubt any boy of that era, even F-Cs, would stand still for the
lace frill at the jacket collar or the necklace. There's also something
on the left wrist, which almost has to be a bracelet, which again a boy
this age wouldn't wear. And, the pattern on the collar doesn't seem to
be in vogue for boys in that era either ...

So, I'll stipulate the hair style and the trousers, but I think its a
girl, and she's related to him, not the lady (she's touching him, not
her) and the lady isn't touching him in any way.

FWIW.

Have a good Thanksgiving Day.

ALIDA SPRY...

If I might jump in here, I agree that this is a girl or young woman.. The
earrings, necklace, bracelet, ring, lace, dress (even if it is short) all
indicate a female. The hair looks to me like it is very curly and twisted
up in the back. You can see a small bump at the top of her head where the
bun or bulk of her hair is pinned up. Also, in my opinion, the girl's ears
look exactly like the older woman's and they both have very curly hair so
she is definitely related in some way.

I know that doesn't solve the mystery of who she is but I think it's safe to
say, it is a female.

melsonr...

Claude J...

Identification of the adults is certain and the time period and ethnic
setting in case that involves any customs and bears on this matter is as
follows. The husband is of French-Canadian descent. His parents moved to
New York state, where he was born, from Montreal, Quebec, and later
moved the family to Minnesota in 1854 when he was a child. His religious

Robert Heiling...

If it is a girl, I can't imagine who she might be or how she might have
been singled out for being in the photo. Being in that photo with the
married couple would normally imply a connection as a child. I have the
man in the 1880 census at age 30, single, living with parents, and there
is no child in that household.

Bob

affiliation is unknown. The wife was also born in Quebec of an
Anglo-Protestant mix of English, Irish, Scots, and possibly
Native-American. They also moved to Minnesota.

They were married in 1881 and their only children were two boys born
1882 and 1888. Both lived to ripe adulthood. So who is the child in the
photo? The 1882 boy and photo taken before second boy was born? Then why
is the boy? wearing a dress? and doesn't he look a little older than 5-6
years old? Could it be some type of uniform?

mjoann...

On behalf of all petite women, I would like to point out that short does
NOT equal young. The woman in the picture has an older face, and a
developed bust that a child would not have. Perhaps the woman is barely
5 foot tall, which is not at all impossible, especially in the past.

Christopher Jahn...

To me, this picture looks to be from around 1881, and perhaps a sister or
neice was staying with them.

I have a couple of "Sunday Gathering" shots from that period; our family
posed with neighbors and acquaintances we can't identify.

Lesley Robertson...

"He" seems to be wearing trousers as well - could it be a very long and
ornate coat - indeed, some sort of school uniform? The skirt looks too short
for a girl of that age, and the hair seems to be short.
Lesley Robertson

Any thoughts and insight appreciated.

Huntersglenn...

The child is definitely wearing a dress with a jacket over it -- you can
see the outer edges of the jacket and the buttons on the dress. From
the angle, it's too difficult to tell if the child is wearing trousers
or hosiery of some kind.

Lesley Robertson...

I don't agree with you - either the child is wearing trousers or it has
remarkable this ankles.
Lesley Robertson

Huntersglenn...

Bloomers perhaps? Given that the person is wearing earrings and a
necklace, I'm inclined to go with it being a female and not a male.

Robert Heiling...

There's something else that I had overlooked like a dummy and
that's that the child is wearing some sort of earrings! It doesn't show
up all that well in the other image I put up for the web, but this one

melsonr...

Devil's in the details, as ever.

1) look at the left ring-finger - shows what appears to be a wedding band.

Steven Gibbs...

I think the "child" is also wearing a wedding ring.

Robert Heiling...

Yes. There does appear to be a simple band there. It must be gold as it
blends in with the skin tone and doesn't show up all that clearly in
even my original scan.

Steven Gibbs
Bedford, England

Christopher Jahn...

On him or her? She's not wearing any rings.

Christopher Jahn...

I was, but that was before the hi-res.

melsonr...

On her. There's a ring clearly evident on her left ring finger in the hires
photo. There's also what appears to be a bracelet on her left arm/wrist.

Robert Heiling...

There certainly isn't a diamond showing though and, yes, my glasses are
clean today. So unless a stone is turned to the inside there, none
exists. What does that tell us?

Bob Melson

melsonr...

A wedding band, so far as I'm aware, is a plain gold or other precious metal
ring - no stone is involved. Now, an _engagement_ ring, contrariwise, _does_
have a stone. I saw no stone, either, so my not entirely unreasonable
supposition was/is that the ring might possibly be a wedding band, especially
given that it's on "Shorty's" left ring finger.

2) look at the way the garment fastens: left over right, as with the larger
female.
3) As you point out, earrings.
4) Bracelet on left wrist
5) Shape of visible hand; compare with what can be seen of man's
6) lace at collar.

Inescapable conclusion is that the person is female. Age appears to be early-
to mid-teens.

Can't say anything about relationship, of course; could be a daughter, a niece,
a cousin.

T'other Bob (the Swell Ol' one)

If the man in the photo was single in 1880, then what about the woman?
Could it be a child of hers from a previous marriage (or just a child of
hers born before her marriage)? Or perhaps a relative of one or the

Robert Heiling...

The woman was also single and living with her parents and there was no
child like that in the household. That doesn't mean though that she
couldn't have been in an advanced stage of pregnancy on 7 Jun 1880 when
the enumerator came by.

other who was living with them at the time (younger sibling, neice)?
The child definitely looks to be older than 5 or 6.

Robert Heiling...

It seems such a formal picture with a formal statement though. Perhaps
I've been looking at too many of these old pictures of large & small
families and that one wouldn't fit unless the child was very very
special. They had 2 boys of their own, so why not they also, unless the
picture were taken before their own children were born.

Charani...

There was a discussion back along in soc.gen.brit about the way people
were posed. I can't remember exactly what it was. Maybe Lesley or
Sharon will. It was something to do with younger children not
touching their parents but older/eldest doing so.

Did either of the couple have a much younger sister whom they'd taken
in for some reason??

There's nothing very feminine about the face of the young adult.

Another "odd" thing is the child's hair -- it does look as if it's
cropped short, as a boy's would be. But, it's also possible that the
child, if a girl, was old enough to have her hair put up -- I have no
idea at what age girl's were allowed to do that (also possible that if
it's a girl, then she was a tomboy and had taken scissors to her own
hair...you never know ).

mjoann...

The short hair could be related to a past illness. I've read a lot of
"pioneer" era fiction and non fiction wherein girls would have their
hair cut when they were suffering from high fevers.

Robert Heiling...

Maybe that's the reason for the look on the father's face?

Hugh Watkins...

infant boys wore dresses and had long hair too

(formmemory to age 6 or so?)

Hugh W

L Covey...

Bob,

Claude J...

That also might be an older woman, perhaps the womans mother.

L Covey...

The individual to me appears to be female, perhaps with a dwarfed
condition. The face appears larger than one with that size body. Maybe
not.

I think she is wearing a dress with a semi-long jacket and dark
stockings (like the material in knee highs of today-only longer in
length held by garters or ?).

I definitely think the locale is a studio based on the "curtain" and
"plant" at our right.

Robert Heiling...

That was my fault and I was remiss in not pointing out up front that
this is a cabinet card and was taken in a photographer's studio. Some
people here may have been misled into thinking that this was a spur of
the moment type picture taken at home, but it would have involved making
a special trip into the city in a horse-drawn conveyance to a
photographic studio.

I also see that I was wrong about the arm going behind the chair. The
girl? seems to be holding some kind of folded white cloth over the man's
left shoulder with both hands. For what reason? to protect his suit? or
to symbolically not be violating a taboo against touching him? or?

Huntersglenn...

I've been looking at the enhanced image that you put up, and I'm not
seeing a cloth there. The girl/woman clasping her right hand with her
left hand, but I don't see a cloth.

Huntersglenn...

Nevermind . You picked up on that yourself.

I was trying to decide based on how the dress was buttoned, whether like
mens buttons or womens button orientation of today. I cannot determine
the child's button orientation, but the mother and father's buttons
appear to have the same orientation (like mens). There goes that
portion of my analysis.

Her hairstyle is that of a woman in my opinion, hair pulled back as
others have concurred.

Robert Heiling...

So far it's not who I was told it was and I don't have any viable
alternative candidate.

singhals...

Couple other things occur after reading all the other comments, Bob.

I don't _think_ the short one is holding anything but her own hands;
what looks to be the tips of her fingers is, I think, a "frill" on the
cuff under the coat (Remember, this would be the era when people used
separate cuffs to protect their sleeves?)

You need to talk to someone thoroughly familiar with F-C customs and
tabus; I know such a human -- several of 'em in fact -- and will be
happy to forward your question if you'd like? I'm thinking of a spcific
tabu that exists in some cultures that a WIFE and HUSBAND should NEVER
touch in public. That would explain why her arms are folded on the back
the chair, rather than her hands resting on his shoulder. A SISTER

Charani...

I'm with you there: the woman has her left arm resting on the chair
with her right arm on her left, almost lounging on the back of the
chair.

Robert Heiling...

Yes, you're right and I had corrected myself after noticing that. Now
that white folded cloth is a puzzle.

Bob

could touch her brother (even if brother is defined as a sibling or a
first cousin). Any chance the short one is the tall one's niece --
which would mean that the man's brother married the tall one's sister?

David J Grimshaw...

Hi Rob,
I would agree with Sharon in that the person concerned is a female.
Secondly I suspect this female is related to the man in the photo as
there appears to be a resemblance to him.
Could be a younger sister to him or a cousin.
Food for thought.

Being a Minnesotan, may I ask where in Minnesota they settled? Which
censuses were they identified in Minnesota?

Charani...

There was nothing unusual about Victorian era boys wearing what
appeared to be dresses.

In the picture though the young adult appears to be a lot older than
the normal age when little boys stopped being dressed like little
girls. The clothes seem to be a carbon copy of the mother's just
shorter in length which does seem strange.

There's an instance in my mother's family, about the same era, where
the couple wanted a dau but got a son. They dressed him as a girl and
called him by a girl's name, even though he was registered with a
boy's.

I wonder if your instance was similar to that in my mother's family.