Victorian dress of children--girls in trousers??

[Jack]

Hi Malcolm,
A fascinating family photo!
Yes, it does look like wee Hannah could be wearing troosers.
I also notice her jacket (and trousers?) button over from Left to Right - the male way of fastening.
She's no looking to pleased aboot it anyway!
Maybe she was just a tomboy who wouldn't wear anything else.
Jack

[paddyscar]

Hi Malcom:

I thought that the hair could be pulled back from the front into a ponytail, but I'm not seeing a hair clip, barrette or ribbon holding it.

It looks as if the hair at the back of the scalp is combed smoothly forward into a finger roll. The side hair has been pulled back behind the ears and cut about the same length as the father.

The jacket buttons from left to right, but also, there's a puff/hankie in the breast pocket, which wouldn't be likely if it were a girl (I don't think).

I think that the child is in trousers because the area between the waist and the top of the legs is too flat.

There's only 1 significant twist to the front fabric on the legs and that is pointing front ways from below the knees. There are no pulls of fabric across the front of the legs or an uneven hemline caused by tucking a skirt between the legs. The garment also is too narrow-cut to be a skirt for a child.

You'll be able to tell better on the original photo, but I think that the daughter on the right has a dress that seems to end alot higher up her leg than the garment on the other child. A younger girl would be more likely to have a skirt the same or shorter length.

But as Jack said, 'she' could just have been of one mind and her parents, another
Frances

[emanday]

Apart from the way the jacket is fastened, the male way, if you take a close look at the legs just below the knees there is what appears to be a gap with paler colour or light showing through.

If the father's legs are where I think they are, then it is probably light.

I think it's a boy.

[Guest]

I would reckon that the small, trousered individual is a boy.

The males are on the right, the females are on the left (with respect to the group in the photo.)

I don't think anyone bothers these days, but when I was a lad, which side was important! Something to do with swords, pavements, and being splashed by passing vehicles.

Dave

[StewL]

My thoughts on the picture are the child on the left side of picture is a boy and the girl is on the right side next to mum and the wain. My reason for thinking this is not so much the clothing they are wearing, but the facial features, they are both older and have more defined facial features unlike earlier aged children. The girl on the right has higher more prominent cheekbones that you would associate with a female, the child on the left has much flatter facial features and more male.

[malcatgala]

Thank you everyone..and Jack--very smart of you to have worked out the name "Hannah" from the minimal info on the photo!.
The 3 Hodge children in question are Jessie (Janet), Hannah and John. We now know the birth order of these 3 eldest children of the family was Jessie (1856),Hannah (1858) and John (1861). Jessie is my GG Grandmother.

Re the identity of the "trousered child",I'm now contributing the thoughts of my twin sister ------

"Have had a good think and have come to the
conclusion that the child in trousers is very probably
Hannah. I looked at the picture with a magnifying
glass and she's[?] got very fine features and also
something going on on the top of her head with her
hair. The one we think is Jessie also has some sort of
hair ornamentation. Looking at the age differences
between the siblings, I can't see any other
combinations that would work. Also, it seems probable
that all their children would be in the photo because
it looks a very formal pose so if they only have three
children, they have to be Jessie, Hannah and John.
The material of the top and trousers that Hannah[?]
is wearing looks very thick as if it's been cut down
from a man's suit and if this is the case, maybe
trousers were made because there wouldn't be enough
width of material for a skirt. Finally, I doubt if
Mum would have written the names on the back if she
hadn't been sure that these were the three children.
She probably wasn't sure what order they came in and,
looking at the photo just assumed that the one with
the trousers was John. Anyway, these are my thoughts,
not at all scientific....pure speculation in fact!!!! "

Aware of a strong consensus from the Forum that the "trousered child" is not Hannah, I'm very influenced by my twin's comments and intuition--Although not identical(!),we've been thinking in tandem for almost 61years + 9months!

Best wishes to all

Malcolm

[ninatoo]

I hate to throw a spanner in the works here, but are you certain of the date of the photo? I am not an expert by any means, but I would have thought that photo would be more in the 1870's or even 1880's, which may indicate that the people are not who you think they are. Even if your Mum did write who they were on the back - well she may have been passing on what she had been told, and it may have been inaccurate. It has happened a lot in my own family with photos from my dad's generation - he can't remember who they are so he takes guesses, and of course a guess can be wrong! In fact in later times he may tell me soneone completely different!

The reason I am speculating is that I have an old photo of family, and I could not make them fit who they were supposed to be (other family members told me who they were....). It turns out they were another branch of the family entirely.

If TalkingScot don't mind a plug....PLEASE go to Rootschat.com Photogrraph restoration board:

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?board=298

There are two people there in particular, Prue and Old Rowley, who are very VERY good at dating photos.

If you somehow can't get the photo posted there, I would be happy to do it for you.

Nina

[G.Love]

I also think it's later than 1860, going from the woman's clothes, it's almost certainly around 15 to 20 years later than that. The child on the left is a boy, and I know you'd really like it to be Hannah, but I just can't see how it is a girl. How people dressed was not as free and easy then as it is now, and I can not imagine any circumstances when a little girl would be allowed to dress as a boy to go and have a formal photograph taken. Even if she were allowed to dress that way at home - which I also very much doubt.
Just my tuppence worth!

[Russell]

Another tuppence worth.

I think the photo would be nearer the 1880's because it is not quite so rigid as the early, much slower photo process. There is a slight informality of pose and dress for the children. A full formal picture would have had the girl on the right in a lace jabot rather than a neckerchief and a more formal hairstyle rather than an Alice band.
She would probably be wearing high button boots while the other child has what seem to be lacing boots i.e.boys attire.
I agree with Dave's point that a son would be placed in front of the other male in the group for a formal photograph.

Russell

[DavidWW]

And a thruppence worth.

The major UK genmags all have a photographic identification service in terms of the era etc., - so why not try them?, - obviously they can't answer every query, but I'd have thought that the question regarding the wee wain on the left being a boy or a girl would have attracted attention

David