|
|
-
-
Initial post
16 FEB 24 by
 jedmar
|
The painting is supposedly from 1910.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 1 posted
16 FEB 24 by
HubertG
|
Jedmar, good to know. It may not be our Irene Watts of course but there couldn't have been too many ladies with that name who were in a social position to have their own portrait painted and/or a rose named for them. It would help to know who the lady with the English surname and with a French-bred rose named after her really was. I can't find anything convincing.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
The style of that portrait is quite similar to this portrait done by CGA in 1901:
https://www.the-athenaeum.org/art/detail.php?ID=164426
This does not prove that the portrait was painted after the rose was introduced, but the similarity of dress and portait style does make it seem likely that they were done about the same time.
Do you happen to know who owns the Mrs. Irene Watts portrait?
Virginia
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#1 of 2 posted
31 MAY 20 by
HubertG
|
Sorry for the late reply, Virginia - I missed seeing your question. I don't know who owns the portrait, although it seems to have been sold last in 1990. I can't find out much about it. The artist lived 1865-1936 so perfectly contemporary with the rose's introduction, as is the style of the dress, I agree. I tried to discover who Mrs Irene Watts was but no success I'm afraid. Probably some English expat living in France to have a Guillot rose named in her honour.
|
REPLY
|
|
There was a Miss Irene Watts born in England in 1870, but if the portrait says she is a Mrs. Irene Watts, that would be someone else.
Miss Irene Watts was the daughter of Edward Hanslope-Watts of Hanslope Park, Stony Stratford, and in 1896 (about a year after the rose was introduced), it was noted that she received an honorable mention in a nature photography competition in The Studio. She would have been 26. In 1900, she married Mark Saurin Poore, according to Debrett's Peerage, and then had 4 children.
|
REPLY
|
|
