Stuart Bates Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I was accosted in the street by Prue who said "Just the man I am looking for." When I recovered it transpired that she has an old painting of a long distant relative (perhaps) and thought that I could ID the uniform if not also the man. Well obviously not which is why I am posting. A photo of the painting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Bates Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 She had the photo of the painting "restored" and here it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Bates Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 Here is a closeup of the cross belt plate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Bates Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 And a closeup of the sword hilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Bates Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) The epaulette to the right shoulder only was specified for battalion company officers in 1768, and in 1811 was changed to have bullion. In 1829 the epaulette was worn on both shoulders. This would, prima facie, put the uniform 1811 - 1829, but by the look of the fellow I would say closer to the 1811 date. The rose ornament to the throat may indicate Yorkshire or Lancashire? Any help much appreciated and the winners get a free BBQ with the lovely Prue. Stuart Edited February 2, 2010 by Stuart Bates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leigh kitchen Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 I replied to this - but it's disappeared..... The restoration does'nt help I suppose but then neither does the flaking paint - the shoulder belt plate - one minute I think perhaps Britania facing left as viewed, the next an eagle with folded wings, head turned to right as viewed...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Saint Posted February 2, 2010 Share Posted February 2, 2010 Napoleonic battalion company officer (as told by the 1796 Pat. sword) for sure, but without the design on the crossbelt plate, it will be difficult to be more specific about the regiment. Stuart, the "rose ornament" you mention is just a elaborate knot to secure the gorget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Bates Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) Is that another rose fixing peeking out on the right had side as viewed? Must be - see my next post. Edited February 2, 2010 by Stuart Bates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Bates Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 (edited) Did not all infantry regiments of this era, with the exception of the foot guards, always have the regimental number on the breast plate? I checked Franklin's book on British Napoleonic Uniforms and he confirms that. I did not find a plate with Britannia nor an eagle either. Franklin also states that gorgets were worn with two rosettes - pity that I forgot I had this book. Does anyone know when gorgets were discontinued? Stuart Edited February 2, 2010 by Stuart Bates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Bates Posted February 2, 2010 Author Share Posted February 2, 2010 OK, Gorgets were abolished by decree of King William IV in 1830. However, they were permitted to be worn by officers in England up to Christmas 1831 and by those abroad until 1832. So not much help there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Stewart Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 Problem with this is that this particular form of dress was also extended to the Miltia and Volunteer Infantry of the period. However if she has a name then Army/Militia Lists(if they exist) for the period may could help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mervyn Mitton Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 The portrait - warts and all - bears a remarkable resemblence to that 'Toad' - King George 4th.. From 1812 to 1820 he was the Prince Regent whilst his Father George 111 was deemed insane. Could it be a possibility that he is wearing the uniform of one of his regiments ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Saint Posted February 3, 2010 Share Posted February 3, 2010 (edited) Did not all infantry regiments of this era, with the exception of the foot guards, always have the regimental number on the breast plate? I checked Franklin's book on British Napoleonic Uniforms and he confirms that. I did not find a plate with Britannia nor an eagle either. Stuart Some regiments carried 'Ancient Badges' on their beltplate as soon as the 18th Century (2nd Foot's Paschal Lamb, 3rd the Dragon, &c.). The 9th (Norfolk) Regt of Foot had the Britannia figure over IX during the Napoleonic period, but it would not fit in this case as its facing was yellow, not blue. Edited February 3, 2010 by The Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Bates Posted February 3, 2010 Author Share Posted February 3, 2010 (edited) Can't believe that I missed Britannia on the 9th so will go back through the book. I do have a name of "Hayes" and found 8 in the 1815 list, the earliest that I have. Two were with the Royal Marines so can be ignored. Prue says "Dad said that he was trading in the spice trade but may have been wrong. I think he would have been a 'Hayes'." I am waiting to see if she has a first name but it's all a bit iffy. The reference to the spice trade may be a clue with Col Thomas Hayes having the reference East Indies against his name in the 1815 list. However, the single epaulette would indicate he was a captain etc. when this portrait was done. Col. Thomas Hayes - promoted 1813 - East Indies. Lt Mark Hayes - promoted 1813 - 60th Regt. Breast plate to 1815 was rectangular. Capt. John Hayes - 11th Royal Veteran Battalion- retired 1807. Lt Charles Augustus Hayes - promoted 1811 - Nova Scotia Fencibles Infantry. Disbanded at Halifax in July, 1816 Capt. Henry Hayes - promoted 1811 - 84th (York and Lancaster) Regt. Yellow facings. Capt. Samuel Hayes - promoted 1796 - 8th West India Regt. Grey facings and Regiments.org says disbanded in 1803??? On Half pay. Any way of determining his rank? Stuart Edited February 3, 2010 by Stuart Bates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Bates Posted February 3, 2010 Author Share Posted February 3, 2010 Some regiments carried 'Ancient Badges' on their beltplate as soon as the 18th Century (2nd Foot's Paschal Lamb, 3rd the Dragon, &c.). The 9th (Norfolk) Regt of Foot had the Britannia figure over IX during the Napoleonic period, but it would not fit in this case as its facing was yellow, not blue. I have an illustration of the 2nd's breast plate circa 1808 and it has the garter topped with a crown and the numeral 2 within. The 3rd has the same but with the dragon instead of the crown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Bates Posted February 3, 2010 Author Share Posted February 3, 2010 The epaulette - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Bates Posted February 4, 2010 Author Share Posted February 4, 2010 Given the 1796 sword I guess we could say that the period is 1811 to 1822. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter monahan Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 (edited) Stuart wrote "Franklin also states that gorgets were worn with two rosettes... Does anyone know when gorgets were discontinued?" The gorgets were worn on duty only by the Officer of the Day by 1800 [and up to 1830] but seem to have been popular, as they show up with some regularity in portraits. The 'roses' are the ends of the ribbon on which the gorget hangs and, as the name suggests, were rosettes made by gathering the ribbon [stiched into shape], both attaching the gorget and adding a nice touch to the effect. Nothing useful to add as to regiment - the breastplate emblem looks like the infamous 'regimental blob' to me - but I believe the experts are spot on with the date range! Edited February 5, 2010 by peter monahan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bear Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Hello, What about double breasted uniforms? The one pictured above seems to have only one set of buttons. Would that tell the age. thanks, barry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Bates Posted February 6, 2010 Author Share Posted February 6, 2010 I have tried to avoid the issue of the single-breasted jacket as my reference information is confusing to say the least, and I need more time to digest it all. However, "in October 1797 the lapels were abolished and the lace and buttons sewn to the front of the now single breasted coat." This is a description of ORs jackets and Colonels determined whether lace was used on the buttonholes or not. If lace was not used then officers used a silk twist edging to the buttonhole. The jacket replaced the tailcoat from 1790 for regiments serving in the East Indies! I got this from Franklin's book on Napoleonic Uniforms. I don't suppose that he is in undress? BTW: Prue mentioned "Thomas" without my suggesting any of names I found in the 1815 list. Stuart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leigh kitchen Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Aaaaggh another one of those SBPs - is that a two turret castle? This one's still nagging me: http://gmic.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=34414&st=0&gopid=390894&#entry390894 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Bates Posted February 7, 2010 Author Share Posted February 7, 2010 The 2nd had sea green facings in 1751 even though they were The Queen's Own Royal Regiment of Foot and should have had blue which they obtained in 1768. There was a Clothing Warrant in 1768 so maybe this had something to do with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leigh kitchen Posted February 7, 2010 Share Posted February 7, 2010 What I imagned to be Brittania's shield may be part of the "R" of a royal cypher? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Bates Posted February 8, 2010 Author Share Posted February 8, 2010 I have ordered a few earlier Army Lists (i.e. pre 1815) and hope to get more info. on Thomas Hayes. Back in a few days. Stuart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Bates Posted February 15, 2010 Author Share Posted February 15, 2010 I do not think it can be the Thomas Hayes previously mentioned as he was promoted to Major in 1802, and had the rank of Lt Colonel in 1809 and Colonel in 1813. But I found another Thomas Hayes - London Gazette 11th May 1811 102d Ditto, Second Lieutenant Thomas Hayes, from the 2d Ceylon Regiment, to be Enfign, vice Wharton, who exchanges. 2nd Ceylon Regiment Uniform: scarlet; facings: light green (later dark green, 1801-1818), yellow (1818-1822); London Gazette 11th July 1812 102d Ditto, Ensign Edmund Champion, from the 4th Garrison Battalion, to be Ensign, vice Hayes, who exchanges 102nd Regiment Uniform: scarlet: facings yellow. 1814 Army List Does not appear Could the facings in the painting be green? The 2nd Ceylon is in keeping with the spice trade mentioned before and it was not uncommon for officers to take leave in NSW at this time. The 102nd was stationed in NSW until 1810 and this might explain why he exchanged into that regiment. Since he does not appear in the 1814 Army List we could assume that, having retired, he went to NSW or the East Indies and traded in spices. All of this hangs on the facings and I am colour blind. Stuart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now