New Video Detailing the Ritual of Dressing

The Lady Lever Gallery in Liverpool has commissioned a video detailing how well-to-do women dressed in the eighteenth century.  The seven-minute long video produced by Pauline Loven and made by Crow's Eye Productions leaves no one pondering why getting dressed (or undressed) required the help of another person.  To think, it only shows dressing, and not even other daily rituals such as styling hair or cosmetics; it makes me feel much better about how long it takes me to get ready in the morning!

I love this video for its portrayal of a rather mundane activity that is often forgotten about when we look at portraits, such as the Lady Lever Gallery's own Mrs Peter Beckford by Joshua Reynolds. My one critique is that as the narrator begins talking about pockets, the model is handed what looks like a giant popsicle stick and slips it down her stays between her breasts.  Quite a loud omission in my humble opinion!  The item in question is a busk, which added additional structure to the stays.  According to dress historian extraordinaire, Elisabeth Gernerd, they were often decorated with love poems due to being 'worn next to the heart' (I may or may not have questioned her anatomical accuracy was when she told me that).  Busks aside, this is a fantastic video to provide you with a better idea of just how intensive and time-consuming it was for privileged women to dress every day.

Skeleton Suits

Remember those silly articles of children's clothing that weren't very cute but since they were synonymous with childhood you were put in them constantly and ooed and ahhed over?  I spent my first years in many rompers (just like last summer!) and onesies would look ridiculous on anything other than an infant.  The long eighteenth century equivalent were skeleton suits, which well-to-do little boys were forced into.  These jumpsuits look similar to clown suits and I am sure more than one little boy gave his nurse a hard time about wearing them.  However, they present a sentimental portrait into the lifestyle of the time.  Take a look at the wide range of skeleton suits worn all over Europe.

French School, Count Strogonov and Family, ca. 1778

Johann Tischbein, Family Scene, 1778

Anne Rosalie Filleul, The Children of the Comte d'Artois, 1781

Thomas Gainsborough, The Baillie Family, 1784

Adolf Ulrik Wertmüller, Marie Antoinette and her Children, 1785

Francisco Goya, Portrait of Don Manuel Osorio Manrique de Zuniga, 1787

Jean-Laurent Mosnier, Anna Muravyova-Apostol and her Children, 1799

Gerard von Kugelgen, The Family of Paul I of Russia, 1800

William Berczy, The Woolsey Family, 1809

Francisco Goya, Porträt des Pepito Costa y Bonelis, 1813

Giuseppe Cammarano, The Family of Francis I of the Two Sicilies, 1820

Children's Clothing

George Romney, Charlotte Bosanquet and Her Five Elder Children, 1795

Harriet's sons' gowns
opened in front

Readers have noted and questioned more than once on this blog about portraits of mothers and their baby sons who are dressed in gowns.  Why were baby boys put in dresses? That is a good question and the answer probably has something to do with changing babies (think of how many onesies newborns go through) and the lack of evolution in children's clothing throughout history.  Boys would remain in their child's gowns until their parents determined them to be at the proper age for breeching, or, wearing big boy clothes.  Not only did this event have a name, it sometimes, in true 18th century fashion, had a celebration that went along with it.  There was always an excuse for a party, whether it be for someone waking up in the morning or for your son wearing pants.  So how does one tell if those painted babies are boys or girls?  Little girls' gowns would fasten in the back like women's gowns and little boys' fastened in the front like a man's jacket. 

8 year-old Isabella of Parma

Both sexes were put in child's stays in order to keep their back straight an encourage good posture.  Once children began walking they would be put in softly boned stays.  Unlike women's stays which could be quite tight, children's would be loosely laced.

In the early part of the century children were dressed as little adults.  Portraits of children had them in fashion that rivaled painted adults in terms of fabulousness.  By the end of the century the idea of little adults wasn't as appealing.  Girls tended to be dressed in simple white gowns and boys would be given skeleton suits, an example of which can be seen on Charlotte Bosanquet's eldest son above. 

Baby-proofing to keep the little ones safe was just as much of an issue in the Age of Reason as it is today.  Not only did children have leading strings to keep them in safe parameters but also pudding hats.  These soft helmets were worn by those crawling and learning to walk so that they wouldn't have pudding heads, that is, bump into something and permanently dent their soft little heads.  Our "toddlers" were the 18th century's "puddling heads," named after the hats they sported.   Sadly, pudding hats weren't stylish enough to make it into formal portraits!

Undergarments of the Age

Ever wonder what was under those breeches and gowns? Let's chat about unmentionables, an essential part of the wardrobe. These were known as "small clothes" and being seen in them, despite the many layers, was just as if we were caught in our modern day undies, a state of undress!

Gentlemen
Men would begin their clothing regiment by putting on their drawers. These were usually simple and made from thin linen. They resembled elongated boxers. Next, a gent might fancy to put his socks on which would be secured at the knee with a garter (a simple ribbon). A shirt that was about knee-length would be tucked into the breeches and between the legs. Voila! Now you are ready to put your clothes on!

Ladies
Of course undergarments for ladies were a more complicated matter. They served the essential function of shaping women in the fashionable mold that God failed to.
The core piece of ladies' small clothes was the chemise or shift. This was a simple white gown that looks like a night gown. Nothing would be worn underneath the shift. It was thought that the ladies' region needed to be aired out. This made that special time of the month a pretty sloppy event since women would just bleed into their layers. At the time of her death, Marie Antoinette had been wearing the same ragged clothing in prison and her uterus was hemorrhaging (poor thing!). In an effort to appear clean and decent, the doomed queen had saved a new, unworn chemise in her cell, specifically for the day she would be brought to the guillotine.
Petticoats would be put on over the chemise. These were skirts, usually two or more, that were meant to keep the lady warm and the gown flouncy.
Stays, or the corset, would be put on over the shift and tightened to give the torso a nice V shape.
A pocket would be tied around the waist. These could be embroidered with pretty designs even thought they were never seen once clothes were on. They were large enough to hold all the necessities and the modern purse is actually an evolved form of a pocket! But that's a whole 'nother post for later.
Panniers would sit over the pocket on the hips to give the appearance of a slender waist. These came in many shapes and sizes, from a cage-like structure to small pads to flair out the skirt slightly. At the end of the century, false bottom (or bustles) and even false stomachs (a fad Georgiana invented) would replace panniers.
As soon as stockings were put on and secured with garters (ribbons again) a woman was considered...undressed. Well, in a state of undress. She was now prepared to put on her gown!

For good visuals, Dangerous Liasons, Amadeus, and The Duchess show the undergarment portion of the clothing process.

A hat for every gown

I don't know where this site was when I was looking for 18th century straw hats to garnish in the appropriate manner. But here it is now, with every colonial style a gal could need. They even supply millinery wire.
All I did was a google image search...oh hindsight.