Alexander Roslin paints Princess Hedvig Elisabeth Charlotte (1774) in her wedding gown. OH WAIT this gown STILL EXISTS (click the link to help make your judgement)! Yay or Nay?
[Royal Armory]
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Yay or Nay? Princess Hedvig Elisabeth Charlotte
No dress-downers in this group! Last week Lovisa Ulrika's wedding gown earned her a Yay although many people plead to the queen to add some jewelery. The truth of the matter is, in other versions of the painting she wears a glitzy choker, sadly that version was of a yucky quality which is why I didn't feature it. Speaking of which, what is it with yucky qualities and wedding gowns? This week's selection is another wedding gown and you'll have to excuse the poor quality of image.
Alexander Roslin paints Princess Hedvig Elisabeth Charlotte (1774) in her wedding gown. OH WAIT this gown STILL EXISTS (click the link to help make your judgement)! Yay or Nay?
Alexander Roslin paints Princess Hedvig Elisabeth Charlotte (1774) in her wedding gown. OH WAIT this gown STILL EXISTS (click the link to help make your judgement)! Yay or Nay?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I forgot to yay last week, so can I double-yay now? Hedvig Elisabeth Charlotta is one of my favourites- she had a really wicked sense of humour. And as I have seen her wedding gown up close, what else can I say but yay!
ReplyDeleteBeautiful dress and I do like it so much better without the panniers. I notice in the actual picture that it's very tone on tone though and not the lovely golden color in the painting. Wonder if that's just because the oils darken over time, but I like the painting better.
ReplyDeleteThen again, artistic license...
I think the gold color is in large part due to the bad reproduction quality. This detail (from what I can tell)is probably more like the real thing http://bit.ly/f51Nd7
ReplyDeleteThe panniers on the photo are just way too much, but in the painting it looks natural and soft.
ReplyDeleteThe colors and the pattern are very elegant, both in the photo and the painting - though I must say I prefer the silvery shades on the photo, it looks "cleaner" somehow.
The extremely tiny wait (anyone has any measurments of that?) is fascinating. Its hard to understand how its possible to make a human body fit into that dress. Ouch! That stay/corset must have been soooo painful.
But still, even though I pity anyone who had to wear such uncomfortable clothings, it is a truly stunning dress and does indeed deserve a yay!
I think even the second picture is beautiful compared to the 'real thing'. I'm wondering if some kind of flash was involved and washed out the color of the original dress.
ReplyDeleteAs to the tiny waist, considering small children of any affluence were tied into corsets before the age of two, it's no wonder they could accomplish such a small thing. The natural waist never had a chance to grow properly. But what it did to their innards! No wonder women of that time had so many 'mysterious interior ailments'.
I really like the details of this dress, but the panniers are so very wide! There's an elegant air about it (the dress I mean), and I love it to bits, except for the unnaturally tiny waist and ridiculously wide panniers. So it gets a yay from me!
ReplyDeleteI like it otherwise, but those sleeves just... look... naah. I'll have to say NAY this time. :D
ReplyDeleteCan I but in a little, regarding the tiny waist? Apart from being used to stays from an early age, and that Hedvig Elisabeth was fifteen or so when she married, a robe the cour didn't have to be laced completely shut. In fact, to show the chemise through the back-lacing was a good thing, a remnant from the days where slashed clothes indicated wealth. So it is possible that our princess true waist wasn't quite as tiny as the bodice seem to indicate. :)
ReplyDeleteNationalmuseum in Stockholm has a painting where you can see the back of two robe de cours. The picture is a bit small, you just see a slash of white, but if you look at the original you can clearly see the lacing too.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v159/Isis33/1700-tal/grandcouv1734.jpg
Great post---love the link to the actual dress! A big Yay from me because she looks like fun and her dress is all sorts of fussy-ness.
ReplyDeleteOh yay! and there DOES seem to be a hint of decolletage. R
ReplyDeleteI noticed that too, anonymous! Not so pasty/flat/ceramic looking this time.
ReplyDeleteFirst thing that captures my attention is her waist. The painter makes her look BEYOND anorexic.
ReplyDeleteSecond...the colour is something i'd pair up with sickness. It's not a very flattering colour. and thirdlly...is it me or has he put a green tinge to her hair to try and make it match her gown? ...although i do agree with the way her hair is dressed.
but after seeing the original (I'm really curious as to why it has turned an ugly shade of green when it was originally silver/white I can imagine it the proper colour and will have to say yay :)
Very interesting! Her waist, it was said, measured 48 cm (19")
ReplyDeleteDespite the ensemble being extreme in real life (with the panniers especially. I'm 15 and cannot even begin to imagine what it was like to wear them for someone my age, especially with her tiny frame) but on the painting she looks just stunning! So I would have to go yay.
This is beautiful--a definite Yay (altho WITHOUT the panniers). Thank you Isis for that new, interesting detail. I wonder if the painter didn't exaggerate her waist to make her look very fashionable and feminine. The gown and underskirts must have made a lovely rustle.
ReplyDeleteP S Thank you for the link to Versailles--wonderful for daydreaming.
ReplyDelete