The original 1895 photograph was the sole evidence of the Passaic branch for many years. The suppressed knowledge that Martin Henry had had an earlier family, prior to his union with Mary Theresa, knowledge acquired by Juliette van Hovenberg in the course of her genealogical researches in the 1940's, led to no end of speculation. Eventually, rightly or wrongly, it was decided that the 1895 photograph contained other members of Martin Henry's extended family, on the premise that all of his surviving children were pictured (assuming Alfred took the photograph) along with their spouses and children.
|
The first presumption in this area is that the elderly lady on the left of the above photograph is the mother of Mary Theresa. That Mary's mother outlived her is a strong presumption, based on a letter from Juliette to Gertrude, which claimed that Mary's mother visited her frequently and lived into her 90's (or into the 90's, it is not exactly clear, but irrelevant for this case.) The backporch dinner photograph of some years earlier seems to picture the same elderly woman seated next to Juliet, and all we can say at this point is that the identification is possible, but unprovable.
|
The second presumption concerns the woman standing next to the elderly woman, who is somewhat blurred in the original photo. Since she was standing behind the young girl, it was assumed she was her mother, which would make her Jane Catherine (Martin had five children by his first wife, but two died in infancy and a son died in 1885, thus only Charlotte Elizabeth (1850-1928) and Jane Catherine (1848-1935) are possible candidates.) The alternative 1895 photograph provides a much clearer photograph of this woman, and we find the identification of her as Charlotte Elizabeth to be irresistable, based on the strong physical resemblance of her to her putative father and aunt. But again, since we have no other photographs to go on, we can say it is possible, but unprovable.
|
The third presumption concerns the other unidentified older woman. This would be, by exclusion, Jane Catherine van Hovenberg van Rensselaer, who would have been a widow for 16 years by this time. In this case, however, we have a photograph of Jane Catherine, taken when she would have been in her early 20's. So then the question is, do we see a resemblance among these three photographs? To some, it seems clear. To others, not so clear.
|
The identification of the young girl and the other dark-haired woman seems fraught with difficulties. The girl we would estimate is 10-12 years old. But Jane Catherine would not have had a child that age in 1895. Conversely, we might propose that the young girl is a grand-daughter of Jane Catherine, but that would require her eldest daughter, Julia Schuyler Phelps van Rensselaer, to have had her first child at the age of 13, which is impossible.
Finally, the dark haired woman, who we would estimate to be about 25-30 years old, bears no resemblance to Julia Schuyler, for whom we also have a photograph (left, above).
|
Even if we were successful in identifying all of these women as being related to the principles, Martin Henry, and Sarah Jane, who was again celebrating her 77th birthday on this date, there are still some imponderables to consider.
For example, Charlotte lived in the Bronx, so a trip to Paterson would have presented few difficulties. But Jane Catherine lived in Kingston, and for her to make this trip unaccompanied by an escort seems to us highly unlikely.
Moreover, we must face the delicate fact that Martin Henry left his first wife, and family. There may have been an agreement about this, there may have been provision for the children, but it is a fact that none of the Paterson records or obituaries for Martin's children ever make reference to the first marriage or first family and moreover none of the van Hovenbergs in or from the Kingston area -- where Jane Catherine lived, and where Charlotte lived before her death -- demonstrate the slightest knowledge of the fate of Martin Henry, until over 100 years later.
|
