Old portrait painting c.1817 - Please date J J Cumming and Wife

[jim1]

Let's hope the poster comes back & sees it.

[e_m]

Also...he's in the navy, not the army. Hence the blue coat.

http://www.rmg.co.uk/discover/researchers/research-guides/research-guide-u1-uniforms-national-maritime-museum-collection

[Regorian]

No, he's army. If you read all the correspondence, he was originally an officer of the 8th WIR. He was a military knight and died in Windsor in 1842 if I remember correctly. The uniform is not faded blue, or faded scarlet as I first thought. Several WIR's had grey jackets. Jim 1 drew our attention to that.

With his staff position, ie not regimental, I would have expected him to wear scarlet. He was not well off and perhaps authorised to wear his grey jacket with appropriate rank badges.

As an aside, some regiments like light dragoons, normally dark blue dolmans, when posted to hot weather climates, had a light bluey grey dolman.   

[e_m]

This type of portrait was not official, so he would have worn whatever he liked. The couple pictured are slightly prosperous, if painted accurately. The marble topped table, coupled with the lace and intricacies of the woman's clothing & her jewelry, all indicate so.

[Treetotal]

I wouldn't call them Mildy Prosperous compared to my lines 

He was a  lieutenant of the 8th West India regiment.

The painting is also shown here:

https://rowsellfamilyhistory.wordpress.com/tag/de-bretton/

Carol

[wurding]

Several things point to its authenticity. Not only the detail of the costume, but the interiors...everything is correct for the period from the carpet to the wall panelling to the furniture. Look at the small marble topped side table. Delightful. I think this is so charming. Oh, please try and get it restored. It is somewhat amateurish but surprisingly good nonetheless. Look at the baby--it looks like an actual child instead of an adult's face on a little body. The detail of the clothing is there, the jewelry, chair leg shadows, everything. I love it. Without knowing the date on the back, I'd say it was 1815 or so, so there you go. If you can locate the birth record of the child you could add one or two years and arrive at the exact date, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was 1817.

Wow so glad to hear all this and thanks very much to handypandy for the beautiful restoration.

Hard to date it or even identify the child since the couple had a daughter 24 FEB 1815 • St LUCIA, WEST INDIES and then another 13 DEC 1816. Strange then that only one child is depicted. It makes me suspect that the date is 1816? Not sure.

[e_m]

Hi Wurding,

I found on ancestry an old forum you posted on. Another poster uploaded pictures of Cummings' military record that he completed. Not sure where the mix-up occurred, but he enlisted in 1805 as an "Ensign," which is, to the best of my knowledge, a naval title.

In any event, I want to clarify that my opinion speaks only to the depiction. That is, I am assuming it is on period paper and so forth, and not a photocopy. And, my analysis of the people are also based on the depiction. That is, if you believe Cummings was living in poverty, then that portrait is not of him.

It is possible that one of the children you mentioned died, which is why there is only one in the painting. Do you have the provenance of the portrait? IE, can you connect the woman to whom it belongs to Cummings & his wife?

[jim1]

Wurding said in their opening post that the owner is a descendant of the Cummings'.
The Army also had the junior officer rank of Ensign.

[e_m]

There is a difference in knowing the exact line of descent and being a descendant of the original owners.