Honiton Lace Veil

In 1993 my fiancée’s mother invited me to use a lace veil – which had been used by members of her family since 1866 – as part of my wedding outfit. I had not planned to use a veil, but I realised wearing this veil linked me to my new family: I became part of the veil’s story. Below I examine the features and sub-texts of the lace veil.

Lace is “a decorative openwork fabric in which the pattern of spaces is as important as the solid areas,”[1] and has been made since at least the sixteenth century using thread. Until the development of lace making machinery in the late eighteenth century all lace was handmade. The family lace veil was created in the mid nineteenth century using handmade bobbin part lace from cotton thread appliqued to machine made net. The veil is unique: no other garment would have the part lace pieces made or appliqued in exactly the same way. The veil is 185cm by 175cm in size, the piecework is intricate, the colour has matured from white to ivory, and the veil is lightweight and soft to touch.

Photo of Family Veil

The veil has been used on at least sixteen occasions, over six generations from 1866 to 2015. The names of women who are known to have used the veil over 149 years are listed below.

List of women who are known to have worn the lace veil

Year	Gen	Name – the owner of the veil also indicated.	Direct (D)/ Marrying a Direct/ Friend
1866	1	Isabella Dixson (Owner)	D
1890	2	Isabella Hibberd	D
1893	2	Helen Hibberd  (Owner)	D
1916	3	Helen Barbour	D
1923	3	Eva Barbour	D
1926	3	Gwenyth Harry (owner)	D
1934	3	Freda Barbour	D
1952	4	Joy Crofts	D
1956	4	Ruth Crofts (Owner)	D
1979	5	Linda Taylor	Marrying
1983	5	Pamela Kinnear	Marrying
1985	5	Meryl Joyce (Owner)	D
1986?	5	Joanne Maples	Friend
1993	5	Rebecca Hilton	Marrying
2014	6	Rosemary Devereaux	D
2015	6	Amy Devereaux	D

Unfortunately this list is not conclusive. There may have been other occasions on which the veil was used, particularly by Isabella Dixson’s new sisters-in-law or others in the late nineteenth century. The veil has also travelled widely, being used in Sydney, Brisbane, Mymensingh in India, Perth and Canberra, plus being kept by Helen Harry (nee Hibberd) in New Zealand for many years.

Ownership of the veil is vested in the eldest daughter of the eldest daughter, connecting the past to the present, and also connecting the people who wear it. Thus it is unique not just in design, but also in its own story.

Family folklore is that the veil is a piece of Honiton Lace, but this would be difficult to categorically authenticate without analysis of the thread. Textile specialists can easily identify the technique used for lace making, but it is hard to determine the location or year in which lace was made. Lace makers at the Powerhouse Lace Study Centre confirmed that the technique for this lace was handmade bobbin part lace, which is a feature of Honiton Lace.[2]

Honiton Lace has been produced in East Devon in England since at least the late sixteenth century. It is probable Flemish refugees brought lace-making skills to the area, as there are similarities between Honiton Lace and other Flemish laces. By the seventeenth century lace was a major industry of East Devon. The lace is made by pieces that were either laced together or mounted onto net grounding (before lace-making machines the net grounding also was handmade). The pieces are made using bobbins: four bobbins create a simple edging, but an intricate spray of leaves requires up to 32 bobbins. Lacemaking is a complex and time-consuming process, even for people with years of experience.

The Honiton Lace trade was waning in the early nineteenth century, mainly because lace-making machines were introduced, making lace cheaper and faster to produce. The first lace-making factory in East Devon opened in 1810, and by 1822 employed 1500 people. Honiton Lace survived the introduction of machine lace because it was piecework and able to be mounted onto machine-made net: the value added to the grounding by handmade piecework was significant. Demand for Honiton Lace increased significantly from 1840 when Queen Victoria’s wedding outfit used Honiton Lace for the flounce and veil. Local materials were used with the aim of promoting English industry to the wider world. The revival in the lace industry lasted into the early twentieth century and while Honiton Lace can be purchased in the twenty-first century, it is predominantly made as a leisure activity.

Leora Auslander wrote that: “objects not only are the product of history, they are also active agents in history,”[3] and the veil has three important sub-texts besides being a lace veil valued by a family. The veil: is part of a wedding tradition; is a product made for women by women; and was imported into Australia from England.

Firstly, when Queen Victoria married in a white dress, she did more than revive the lace industry; she impacted the way weddings were conceived and conducted, and she popularised the white wedding. A white wedding had connotations regarding moral and social value of marriage, particularly for the woman, who was expected to be respectable and well behaved. There were other changes taking place during the nineteenth century. People were more likely to marry for mutual attraction and emotional bonds; marketing of the wedding ceremony started taking place – engagement rings went from an option to the norm, people gave gifts to the newlyweds – and the social aspects changed, the wedding service went from being a communal event held on Sunday, to a service held privately with the isolated family group. The clothing worn by the bride and groom also changed. Prior to the mid nineteenth century, brides and grooms wore their ‘best’ outfit. After Queen Victoria’s wedding most brides continued to wear their best dress, which was not necessarily white, but would wear a white veil. It was the veil that set the bride apart from the rest of the attendees, and so it became an important symbol. Only the wealthy could afford a white wedding, and so white weddings became an aspiration of the growing middle class. By the turn of the twentieth century, dresses also were white, and the white wedding was entrenched.

Secondly, the veil is a product made by women for women. Honiton Lace originated as a cottage industry, but quickly developed a manufacturing hierarchy, with merchants at the top, employing designers, lace makers and finishers. The wages were low – less than a farm labourer – and so lacemaking became a job for women working in their homes. In the early nineteenth century at least one merchant paid employees via tokens, which could only be used in the general stores owned by the merchant, further diminishing the value of the wage.[4] The lace was expensive, and so lace makers could not afford to wear the lace. Wealthy women exploited working class women in the name of fashion, a theme that runs through the history of the fashion industry.

Thirdly, the veil was made in England and imported to Australia in the mid nineteenth century. The veil may have been purchased in late 1865 at David Jones, a large draper's shop that would become an important department store, who were advertising wedding outfits which had been “imported ex mail steamer Strathdon and Walter Hood… [including] a beautiful collection of ... veils in Honiton.”[5] Notwithstanding the possibility of this being the place of purchase for this veil, the advertisement demonstrated how Australia followed European tradition and sought to replicate English values.

Unfortunately, the veil cannot tell its own story. It is not able to record details, so even its origins are not confirmed, although details of users can be constructed to a certain point. The fact that the veil has been kept for 150 years shows its importance to the family. There are other veils from the same period that have been retained, but this veil could never be replaced.

Endnotes

---

[1] Rosemary Shepherd, Lace Classification System (Sydney: Powerhouse Museum, 2003) 2.

[2] The Powerhouse Lace Study Centre was consulted about the lace on 17 January 2015. Volunteers staff the Centre and they are not textile specialists but have an interest in the historical pieces held by the Centre. While earlier newspaper articles described it as Brussels or Limerick Lace, it is assumed that the oral tradition about the veil is correct and the veil represents Honiton Lace.

[3] Leora Auslander, “Beyond Words,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 110, No.4 (October 2005) 1015-1045. DOI: 10.1086/ahr.110.4.1015.

[4] Pamela M. Inder, Honiton Lace (Exeter: Exeter Museums Publications, 1977) 8.

[5] "Advertising." The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954) 9 Dec 1865: 9. Web. 26 Sep 2015 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article13122954>.

Ruth Whingates / Dixson (1844 - 1924)

It is difficult to write about family conflict.  You want to present both sides and carefully put actions into perspective.  I found some very detailed information about Robert Dixson, the brother of Isabella Dixson, which painted him in a terrible light (in my view). I put the information together and decided I wouldn’t post the story onto the blog because I felt that I didn’t really know everything about him: for example, he may have had a brain tumour, or mental illness which dictated his actions. I decided to post the story: I wasn’t being wholly negative about Robert, and he wasn’t all bad, just as the rest of the family wasn’t all good!  So I posted and almost immediately took the story down. Not because it was terrible, but because I realized that the story I’d told would be much more positive if written from the point of view of his wife, Ruth. SHE survived!  And I like to think that she survived well (not that I really know!). So this is the story of Ruth Whingates / Dixson.

Ruth Whingates was born New South Wales, Australia in 1844. Her parents were Rosannah and James. Her childhood is quite difficult to determine. You would think that Whingates would be easy to trace, but there are quite a number of variations and not all events appear to be registered. It seems that potentially very soon after her birth, perhaps even just before, her father died, and her mother remarried James Gregg in 1846. Her mother then died in 1856 at the age of 32. 

On 2 February 1865 she married Robert Dixson in Parramatta, Sydney, after an engagement of two years. They married at James Gregg's house by Robert's brother-in-law. Robert was 21 and had known Ruth since he was about twelve years old.  Robert was the son of Helen and Hugh Dixson, a tobacco manufacturer, and he worked in the family business.  

At first the marriage was happy and around 1869 Ruth, Robert and their two young sons, Hugh Robert, born 1865 and Robert Frederick, born 1867, moved to Melbourne.  It was Robert’s intention to build up the family company in Victoria.  Apparently, once in Melbourne, Robert started drinking alcohol heavily and his behavior changed.  He particularly argued with his father and brother about progress of the company in Victoria and a decision was made to split the company; with Robert working alone in Victoria.  The split was exceedingly bitter. Robert believed that his father had treated him unfairly and told the Sydney based family that they were not welcome to visit his house.  During this time Ruth and Robert had a further three children; Lillian Helen born 1870; Walter Herbert born 1871; and Frank Ernest born 1873 – Frank died in 1874. In around 1875 Robert started being violent towards Ruth – including threatening her with a carving knife, hitting her and verbally abusing her.

By 1878 he was a physical and mental wreck from excessive use of alcohol, including suffering from hallucinations.  He sought medical help because he was worried about his mental state.  Ruth would try to ensure there was no alcohol in the house! The family moved to Adelaide in about 1880 and in 1881 Robert was a member of the South Australian Parliament. 

In January 1882 Ruth went to England to look after the education of their sons Hugh Robert and Walter. Walter was blind and the family though there would be more options for him in England. When she returned, Robert met her at the dock drunk.  On the way to their house, Ruth discovered that Robert had been living with a woman named Alice.  After a argument, Robert paid for Alice to go to England and then wrote a letter to her saying that she couldn’t impersonate as his wife any longer and that he had ensured that his Will would assist his true wife (this letter was not sent to Alice, but found in Robert’s possessions later).  Robert’s behavior continued to be erratic and he was known as “Old Mad Dixson”.  On Hugh Robert’s return to Australia, Robert became aggressive towards him, for reasons that were not clear. Robert’s brother, Hugh Dixson, gave support to his nephew and this also made Robert very angry.  As a result Hugh Robert went to work for his uncle’s tobacco company in Perth, Western Australia.

On 29 March 1889 Ruth’s second son, Robert Frederick, was found dead at the Palace Hotel, Bourke Street, Melbourne.  He had a gunshot wound to the head; with an inquest determining that he had committed suicide.  The family argued for a finding of ‘death by misadventure’ – saying he had accidentally shot himself in the head while attempting to put his revolver under his pillow.  It is not known what they really felt; perhaps they wanted to avoid the stigma of suicide.

Soon after this Robert left Australia for England.  On his death on 27 November 1891, at the age of 48, in Hull England, his family was surprised to discover that he had recently changed his will and bequeathed all his assets, worth between £30,000 and £40,000 to the University of Melbourne for scholarships. 

Ruth and three surviving children made a decision to contest the will on the basis that he was not fully in control of his mind.  This must have been a difficult decision, because in effect the family was exposing all of Robert’s erratic behavior in the years leading to his death.  A number of newspapers included reports of the case, as the family were well known in NSW, Victoria and South Australia.  Indeed, most of the above information was taken from an article in the South Australian Register on Saturday 26 November 1892 that reported on Ruth’s testimony.  It should be noted that even reports sympathetic to Robert include many of the same ‘facts’ but with statements that these activities did not indicate madness!

The case was brought to the courts in Melbourne in November 1892.  On 21 November, the solicitor who drew up the Will for Robert was on the witness stand to say that Robert was of sound mind – notwithstanding that he could be drunk and cruel (what a charming solicitor).  Ruth provided letters that had been sent to her from Robert.  The Adelaide Advertiser reported on the contents of the letters on 22 November 1892.  He wrote that his two older sons Hugh and Robert were ‘disgraceful’; that Hugh ‘was a sneak and a cur’ (not sure if this was a reference to his son or his brother); and that Ruth had: ‘disjointed my life in your vain attempt to lead me to your ways;’ treated him as a machine for making money and that he regarded her ‘not as a woman but as a devil.’  The Horsham Times reported on 22 November 1892 the view that Robert had a wit and was a cynic, and that if he was mad it was ‘conditioned by considerable method’. It was also reported that Robert was fined in England for not completing his Census paper correctly and had greeted his brother-in-law, a Baptist Minister, wearing just a dressing gown! These examples were given to show that Robert was not mad, but simply a very cynical person!  The case concluded on Monday 28 November when the University and the family reached a compromise position.  Ruth received £9000; the University received half of the remainder and the family received the other half. 

Hugh Robert legally changed his surname to Denison on the basis that it was confusing to work with his uncle when they had the same name.  One could hardly fault Hugh for this decision, whatever the reason!

Ruth and her two other children, Lillian and Walter, moved to England permanently: although she returned to visit on a number of occasions.  Lillian married John Terry Little on 15 August 1896 in Chelsea, England, and had five children. Walter, despite his blindness, earned a Masters Degree from Oxford and worked tirelessly for the blind, in translations of books into Braille, speaking engagements and establishing education units. Walter married Lorna Lucinda Adams on 27 December 1823 at the age of 52.

Ruth died on 19 March 1924, age 80.  She did not remarry!

Relationship to SNR = sister in law of great-great-great grandmother