Diosa De Cancion Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Okay. Good question, Lilith. I should add this to the article. I should have said when women are depicted in a public setting with their hair down, they are meant to show a state of distress.Mary of Modena (James II's second wife, right?) and Nell Gwyn (Charles II's mistress) are shown with their hair down in those portraits because they are "bedroom shots". In other words, the portraits were painted either as minatures for their lovers to carry around with them or as full-sized portraits for private enjoyment in their chambers. They are pinups. Their hair is down provocatively, to be sexy. If you look at their clothing in the portraits, they probably are wearing a loose and flowing wrap or something that looks like it's from ancient Greece or Rome -- definitely not clothing they would wear in public. It's a costume for the portrait. Think of them as the "naughty polaroids" of the time. :) In other words, neither Mary nor Nell were walking down the street or going to court or attending a ball looking like that. No more than you would do so in your lingerie. Hey Kass, Any thoughts on what 'up-do's would be best??? for those of us skipping on the caps :) Diosa De Cancion aka Mary Read www.iammaryread.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kass Posted January 9, 2007 Author Share Posted January 9, 2007 Depends on the year, Diosa, but most up-dos in this period are based on a general shape of lots of tight curls around the head with just a few long curls hanging down the back. Earlier (1670s-1680s) the curls were evenly distributed around the head. Around the turn of the century (1690s-1700s) the curls started to get higher on the top of the head and flatter at the sides, giving a vertical appearance that matched the overall verticalness of the fashions. I don't have anything specific on hair on my site yet, but some of the illustrations of upper class women show what I mean. Building an Empire... one prickety stitch at a time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salty Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Lady Kass yer articles and information be greatly welcome and a hearty thanks to ye. As to teh differnce between common women an wenches are the costumes interchangable or is it the way they are worn that makes the differnce? Trying to sort out what i need fer kit an such. Salty Mud Slinging Pyromanic , Errrrrr Ship's Potter at ye service Vagabond's Rogue Potter Wench First Mate of the Fairge Iolaire Me weapons o choice be lots o mud, sharp pointy sticks, an string Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kass Posted January 9, 2007 Author Share Posted January 9, 2007 Well, if by wenches, you mean serving girls in a tavern, there isn't a whole lot of difference between them and other common women. I don't think I've ever seen a period picture labelled "wench", so I don't quite know how to answer. Building an Empire... one prickety stitch at a time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salty Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 sorry kass what i meant really to ask was what actully consistutes an outfit under dress, bodice etc and was there a differnce in social status of the working class dont mind me my fingers type before my mind throughly thinks Mud Slinging Pyromanic , Errrrrr Ship's Potter at ye service Vagabond's Rogue Potter Wench First Mate of the Fairge Iolaire Me weapons o choice be lots o mud, sharp pointy sticks, an string Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kass Posted January 9, 2007 Author Share Posted January 9, 2007 Oh that's okay, Salty. I'd rather understand you than give you the wrong answer. Thanks for the clarification. Have you read the article they're talking about in this thread? It can be found here. The article gives you the complete outfit for common women. That means the working class. So unless you are portraying an upper class woman, this is what you should wear. Building an Empire... one prickety stitch at a time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lady Alyx Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 seems i get a No accesss response ~~~~Sailing Westward Bound~~~~ Lady Alyx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kass Posted January 10, 2007 Author Share Posted January 10, 2007 We just fixed an access problem today. Alyx, can you try again tomorrow? Building an Empire... one prickety stitch at a time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salty Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 got it kass, thanks Mud Slinging Pyromanic , Errrrrr Ship's Potter at ye service Vagabond's Rogue Potter Wench First Mate of the Fairge Iolaire Me weapons o choice be lots o mud, sharp pointy sticks, an string Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathyrn Ramsey Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 http://www.marquise.de/en/1600/howto/petticoat.shtml At the beginning of this thread there was a statement made that women that were painted without a cover on thier heads were "bedroom" portraits. I have in my recent research found these and they are most definately not "bedroom " portraits in the restoration period. The articles are very interesting and quite a bit of useful information to be had. Kathryn Ramsey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kass Posted January 13, 2007 Author Share Posted January 13, 2007 Kathryn, The link you posted is about 17th century petticotes. Did you post the wrong one perhaps? If you posted it for the pictures of ladies with their heads uncovered, thank you! This reinforces my point. These ladies all have their hair dressed. It is pulled back on top with short bangs and the side pieces elborately curled as was typical of the upper classes in the 1660s. A woman would indeed go out dressed in this fashion. She would not, however, go out with her hair hanging down as we see in boudoir portraits and minatures. Kass Building an Empire... one prickety stitch at a time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllByMeOnesies Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Kass: If I'm writing [historial fiction] about a woman's attire, it would be rather cumbersome (and perhaps confusing to the modern reader) to describe "her petticoat and stays". Is using the word "dress" when describing the entire picture too inaccurate? (Can you tell I'm concerned with readers such as yourself sending poison pen emails after the book is published? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kass Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 Well, her petticote and stays aren't her whole outfit. They are actually underwear -- the layer under her dress. But if you say "underwear", it brings up even different items in the modern mind. If we're talking about the word "dress" meaning her outfit entire, there is certainly no reason you couldn't use the word "dress" or any other synonym but "clothing" might get you fewer poison pen letters. Building an Empire... one prickety stitch at a time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllByMeOnesies Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 If we're talking about the word "dress" meaning her outfit entire, there is certainly no reason you couldn't use the word "dress" or any other synonym but "clothing" might get you fewer poison pen letters. Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for the response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now