Who is this person?

[AussieMick]

Thanks, Rob. Some very useful comments in there. These 'trivia' questions can bring out real gems of which some of us would be forever unaware.

regards,
Mike.

[L Verge]

(10-04-2019 06:55 PM)AussieMick Wrote:  Thanks, Rob. Some very useful comments in there. These 'trivia' questions can bring out real gems of which some of us would be forever unaware.

regards,
Mike.

I agree with Mike regarding these extra pieces of history that we learn from that end up being meaningful trivia. And, I'm curious about what is obviously a veil trailing from a tiara on Miss Eddy's head.

Was this something required when presented in the Czar's court? An extra added attraction that Miss Eddy chose? Confusing for the average person because 99.9% of those looking at the photo would assume that it was the couple's wedding photo.

[Steve]

I definitely thought it was a wedding photo. Also, I guess I just saw Beveridge as the man in the photo based on Rob's research projects and forum posts. (Though the man's facial features aren't very distinct looking at the image on my phone.)

Are there any wedding photos of Beveridge and Eddy?

[Rob Wick]

I'm not sure if any wedding pictures exist or not. I'm getting ready to leave for work now, so I will do some more searching when I get home.

Best
Rob

[Rob Wick]

The only book (as far as I can find) ever published on Catherine Eddy Beveridge was put out by her grandson, Albert J. Beveridge III in 2005 and was called The Chronicle of Catherine Eddy Beveridge. It is based on a diary that she kept at the turn of the century. I have the book, but seem to have misplaced it on one of my shelves. Therefore I was able to borrow a copy from the Internet Archive.

One note. I made a mistake on the year the photo was taken. She was presented to Czar Nicholas II in 1902, not 1905. As for the tiara, she writes in the book about the Czarina, who was "wearing a tiara in the Russian manner," so I imagine it was a custom of that time there.

There is no wedding picture of Catherine and Albert. Even the newspaper announcement reprinted in the book shows them in individual portraits.

Best
Rob

[L Verge]

(10-05-2019 06:03 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  The only book (as far as I can find) ever published on Catherine Eddy Beveridge was put out by her grandson, Albert J. Beveridge III in 2005 and was called The Chronicle of Catherine Eddy Beveridge. It is based on a diary that she kept at the turn of the century. I have the book, but seem to have misplaced it on one of my shelves. Therefore I was able to borrow a copy from the Internet Archive.

One note. I made a mistake on the year the photo was taken. She was presented to Czar Nicholas II in 1902, not 1905. As for the tiara, she writes in the book about the Czarina, who was "wearing a tiara in the Russian manner," so I imagine it was a custom of that time there.

There is no wedding picture of Catherine and Albert. Even the newspaper announcement reprinted in the book shows them in individual portraits.

Best
Rob

Thanks for double-checking this, Rob. Tiaras have been the rage for women to wear at numerous periods throughout history.

In this photo, however, I am not questioning the tiara -- it's the veil that is trailing behind that has me baffled. I don't ever remember seeing a veil attached to non-wedding tiaras, except in the cases of First Communion veils on young girls.

Hold the presses! This will teach me to research before coming to conclusions. As soon as I posted the two paragraphs above, I turned to Miss Google for an answer as to whether or not veils were part of female attire for court presentations. The very first thing that popped up was my answer. Thank you to Downton Abbey and a historical romance novelist who did her homework, I got answers and photos -- and what I was seeing as a tiara is very likely feathers. Go here: http://carrieturansky.com/index.php/debu...sentation/

[Susan Higginbotham]

Is it possible that the photo has been misdated and mislabeled, and the man resembles Beveridge because he actually IS Beveridge? There is a photo of a woman I am currently researching that is generally identified as being taken in 1859, but I always had my doubts, because the woman's hairstyle, dress, and apparent age all pointed to a later date. One day I was browsing on Ancestry and saw the photo from which all of the published copies are taken, and my suspicions were confirmed--the woman was holding her two oldest children, which have been obscured in the published versions, which meant that it could not have been taken before the early 1870s.

[L Verge]

(10-05-2019 08:02 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Is it possible that the photo has been misdated and mislabeled, and the man resembles Beveridge because he actually IS Beveridge? There is a photo of a woman I am currently researching that is generally identified as being taken in 1859, but I always had my doubts, because the woman's hairstyle, dress, and apparent age all pointed to a later date. One day I was browsing on Ancestry and saw the photo from which all of the published copies are taken, and my suspicions were confirmed--the woman was holding her two oldest children, which have been obscured in the published versions, which meant that it could not have been taken before the early 1870s.

I think we both may have been posting at the same time, Susan. Did you get a chance to see my very last post about Miss Eddy's formal attire as a debutante being presented at a royal court? That seems to confirm the date of the photo at least.

[Susan Higginbotham]

(10-05-2019 08:15 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 08:02 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Is it possible that the photo has been misdated and mislabeled, and the man resembles Beveridge because he actually IS Beveridge? There is a photo of a woman I am currently researching that is generally identified as being taken in 1859, but I always had my doubts, because the woman's hairstyle, dress, and apparent age all pointed to a later date. One day I was browsing on Ancestry and saw the photo from which all of the published copies are taken, and my suspicions were confirmed--the woman was holding her two oldest children, which have been obscured in the published versions, which meant that it could not have been taken before the early 1870s.

I think we both may have been posting at the same time, Susan. Did you get a chance to see my very last post about Miss Eddy's formal attire as a debutante being presented at a royal court? That seems to confirm the date of the photo at least.

Yes, we did cross-post! The veil, etc. do seem consistent with the ones mentioned in the piece you linked to.

[L Verge]

(10-05-2019 08:27 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 08:15 PM)L Verge Wrote:  

(10-05-2019 08:02 PM)Susan Higginbotham Wrote:  Is it possible that the photo has been misdated and mislabeled, and the man resembles Beveridge because he actually IS Beveridge? There is a photo of a woman I am currently researching that is generally identified as being taken in 1859, but I always had my doubts, because the woman's hairstyle, dress, and apparent age all pointed to a later date. One day I was browsing on Ancestry and saw the photo from which all of the published copies are taken, and my suspicions were confirmed--the woman was holding her two oldest children, which have been obscured in the published versions, which meant that it could not have been taken before the early 1870s.

I think we both may have been posting at the same time, Susan. Did you get a chance to see my very last post about Miss Eddy's formal attire as a debutante being presented at a royal court? That seems to confirm the date of the photo at least.

Yes, we did cross-post! The veil, etc. do seem consistent with the ones mentioned in the piece you linked to.

Rob, you have created a whole new learning experience for me. Members, here's another link detailing court presentations under Victoria and later: http://www.edwardianpromenade.com/etique...sentation/

I got fascinated with the references to the headpiece being ostrich feathers and got a lesson on that. Those poor ostriches were being killed for their feathers for quite some time before farmers started raising them and plucking instead of killing. And, those feathers were used for fans and other adornments well into the 1900s -- remember those burlesque queens who hid certain parts behind those huge ostrich feathers?

AussieMick - how many ostriches still remain in Australia? During the 19th century, many of those birds and feathers came from your Land Down Under.

One more note: Many of us have heard of and seen photos and drawings of jewelry and other items fashioned as the "Prince of Wales Feathers." Later forms of hair jewelry were especially popular in that design -- one high feather in the center and two shorter ones flanking it; the hair jewelry has "plumes" of hair mocking the feather.

I am now onto checking about the "levee," a term that is kin to court presentations and one that is often used in reference to the Lincolns' White House. Did Mary mimic Victoria's courts?

[Steve]

Here's a link to the book mentioned by Rob:

https://www.amazon.com/Chronicle-Catheri...0761833358

If anybody's interested in getting their own copy, I'd recommend buying one of the used copies for a less expensive price.

[Rob Wick]

Another thing that makes me think it isn't Beveridge is the face of the man doesn't seem to have Beveridge's features. Most pictures of Beveridge show him to be a taciturn man.

This is a picture of Beveridge dated no later than 1901 when he was a senator from Indiana.



His jaw appears to me to be much more square than the man in the second picture, and his eyes seem different as well.

Catherine talks about her dresses in the book, but she really didn't seem to remember that much about them. I definitely don't remember ostrich feathers, but she very well might have left that out.



Best
Rob

[L Verge]

(10-05-2019 10:25 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Another thing that makes me think it isn't Beveridge is the face of the man doesn't seem to have Beveridge's features. Most pictures of Beveridge show him to be a taciturn man.

This is a picture of Beveridge dated no later than 1901 when he was a senator from Indiana.



His jaw appears to me to be much more square than the man in the second picture, and his eyes seem different as well.

Catherine talks about her dresses in the book, but she really didn't seem to remember that much about them. I definitely don't remember ostrich feathers, but she very well might have left that out.



Best
Rob

I agree that Mr. Beveridge does not resemble the man in the other photo. However, he could certainly pass for Christopher Reeves, one-time Superman and later advocate for the disabled.

[Rob Wick]

I never really thought about that, but you're right. Beveridge certainly thought of himself as Superman, given the outstretched size of his ego.

Best
Rob

[Gene C]

(10-06-2019 01:28 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  I never really thought about that, but you're right. Beveridge certainly thought of himself as Superman, given the outstretched size of his ego.

Best
Rob

And that reminds me of a song - It's Hard to Be Humble
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pq6hLda3zPk