Tag Archives: Women's History Month

The Artist that Didn’t Exist: Glamony, Flameng, and the Portrait of Ruth Livingston Mills

Staatsburgh State Historic Site (Staatsburgh) is the former country estate of Ogden and Ruth Mills, members of the wealthiest and most elite society in the Gilded Age (1870-1900.)  Located directly on the Hudson River in the mid-Hudson Valley, the site includes a 79-room mansion, designed gardens, and a farm with many outbuildings that was a major employer in the area. The Millses were in residence in the fall, when they would entertain high society guests each weekend, assisted by a staff of 24 servants within the house. Modern day visitors to Staatsburgh see the mansion furnished and decorated as it was for these lavish affairs.

One of the most notable objects in the collection is a very large oil portrait of Ruth Livingston Mills, painted in 1909, which formerly hung in the ballroom of her New York City mansion. During the Gilded Age, it was standard for elite society women to have a glamorous portrait made by a fashionable artist. For decades, the portrait of Mrs. Mills was believed to have been painted by an artist named “Glamony” – a conclusion that seems to be drawn from the hard-to-read artist signature. For a long time, no information was found about this artist.

Signature
At first glance, the signature on Mrs Mills’ portrait looks to read: François Glamony New York 1909, photo by State Parks

Recently, a State Parks staff member conducted online research and found a more promising lead on the portrait artist in a database of the Library of Congress, which attributed the portrait to François Flameng.  Googling Flameng immediately locates his biography along with countless examples of his paintings. Some of Flameng’s portraits have signatures very similar to the one at Staatsburgh. They also have clear stylistic similarities to Ruth’s portrait, including a soft and vague background with far more detailed attention to the trappings of wealth and status, including clothing, jewels and hairstyle. The brushwork of Flameng’s portraits also matches that of Ruth’s portrait.

One of Flameng’s most notable portraits was that of Queen Alexandra, wife of England’s King Edward VII.  Painted in 1908, the layers of chiffon and tulle surrounding the queen give her an ethereal quality.

Queen Alexandra_[Public domain], via Wikimedia
Queen Alexandra, Portrait by François Flameng, 1908, access via Wikicommons
Ruth Mills aspired to be the “queen” of American society, so it makes sense that she would have her portrait made by an artist who had just painted the Queen of England the year before.  Ruth’s sister Elizabeth and sister-in-law Elizabeth both had close connections to England’s royal family and the Millses had attended functions with the royal family. Connections to European royalty were highly prized by American elites aspiring to a quasi-aristocratic status. The Millses’ daughter, Beatrice, married the Earl of Granard in the same year that Flameng painted Ruth’s portrait – a social coup for the family.

Identifying the artist of Ruth’s portrait allowed further research, including where the painting had been exhibited. We discovered that in 1913, the painting was in an exhibition that raised money in support of women’s suffrage. This was a revelation, since Mills descendants had told us that Ruth did not support voting rights for women! Now, in the centennial year of suffrage in New York State, we are on the trail of other evidence that Ruth supported women’s right to vote. For more information about Flameng, and Ruth’s portrait and the suffrage connection, see Staatsburgh State Historic Site’s own blog.

Post by Maria Reynolds, State Parks

Voting NO on Women’s Suffrage

Women have not always had the legal right to vote in America.  On August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment was ratified granting women the right to vote. This milestone in women’s history was the result of decades of sustained action: protests, political organizing, direct confrontations and debates with people who felt women needed no further rights. Suffragists were ostracized, fired from jobs, beaten, arrested and imprisoned – all because they dared to strive for the right to vote.

For the supporters of women’s suffrage gaining the vote was a matter of life or death. Women were subject to the will and mistreatment of their husbands, both financially and physically within the home. Husbands had complete legal authority over their wives and could abuse them with no fear of consequences. Any woman attempting to leave a marriage faced the loss of custody of their children and destitution. The workplace was no better; women faced sexual harassment, abuse, terrible working conditions and lower wages than their male counterparts with little to no legal recourse. Women were also barred from many professions completely. The vote meant access to the political power needed to reshape laws and gain equal treatment and dignity as human beings.

When it came to the issue of women’s suffrage, New York was a state at war within itself.  Major activists on both sides of the issue held meetings, published articles, and attempted to sway public opinion.

The anti-suffragists claimed that giving women the vote would move them too far away from their primary duty of running the home. They fully agreed with the notion that a “woman’s place” was in the home, although they did concede that women should contribute their time and talents to educational, charitable, religious and moral organizations.  These endeavors did not require the vote, nor included politics.

Charles S. Fairchild, husband of Helen Lincklaen, was a politician and served under President Cleveland as the Secretary of the Treasury. Fairchild was the fourth owner of the estate which would later become Lorenzo State Historic Site in Cazenovia N.Y. and a staunch supporter of anti-suffrage. He was an active local leader in the effort to prevent women from gaining the vote. The collections of Lorenzo include many anti-suffrage items, such as, printed speeches, several issues of The Woman Patriot, a button which reads: “VOTE NO ON WOMAN SUFFRAGE”, anti-suffrage pennants, and books and handbills with titles like Anti-Suffrage: Ten Good Reasons and The Menace of Women’s Suffrage in New York State—some with hand written personal inscriptions by the authors.

Fairchild was not alone in his views within the town of Cazenovia. Many prominent individuals, both men and women, considered themselves avid supporters of the anti-suffrage cause. The Cazenovia Anti-Suffrage Society was very active and held regular meetings to support their cause and raise funds. Many anti-suffrage groups were organized by women; and the majority of these organizers were members of the upper class with husbands in prominent positions in business and politics.

From our modern day perspective it may be difficult to imagine why so many women supported the anti-suffrage cause. But the popular view of society in the early 1900s holds many of the answers. Life was cleanly divided into two halves, the domestic realm and the public world. Men were believed to be ideally suited by their nature to be masters of public life. Aggression and a competitive spirit were seen as traits best suited to politics, finance and war. Women were the converse, the peacemakers, the orchestrators of a happy family, the creators of cleanliness and order within the home. These views were not only popular but for many unquestionably true.  Suffragists challenged this world view directly with the assertion that women were equal citizens and deserved the right to vote.

The first organized effort to seek the vote for women in New York began in 1846 when a small group of women in Clayton NY petitioned the state government asking for “equal, and civil and political rights with men.” It took nearly 75 years to shift public opinion away from these historic, engrained views towards a more equitable society.

ant-womens-suffrage-campaigne-button-exam-003-detail-obverse1.jpg