In every period, clothing will reflect national traditions and customs. In the 18th century it was particularly effective in expressing social rank and status. Wearing the right costumes was not only a sign of good manners but also a necessity. Dress codes were strictly observed and enforced using the threat of strong social disapproval and sometimes even physical force.
It was common for those discovered wearing clothes too grand for their rank to be attacked as ‘pretenders’. Servants who were fortunate enough to receive discarded clothes from their masters had to simplify the garments before they could wear them. Even those who had the means to buy expensive and luxurious clothes still needed to dress appropriately for their social position, or risk being shamed and ridiculed.
At court, dress codes were even stricter than in wider society, since these rules controlled who could attend court events. In the 18th century there was no formal system of invitation to court, and there was no need. Court dress was so expensive that only the wealthiest in the top tiers of society could afford it. As long as you were dressed according to the rules, you would be granted admission.
The amounts the nobility spent on clothing is staggering. In 1711 Anne, Countess of Strafford, paid £100 for her new court dress, roughly £8,000 in today’s money. Lady Mary Coke spent £70 (over £5,000 today) for the silk alone to make her a new court dress in 1767. The Duke of Bedford’s silk suit embroidered with silver thread, spangles and diamonds cost him £500 in 1790, the equivalent of £28,000 today. These were the prices for single garments, and a complete outfit also included many accessories and jewellery. Also, courtiers were expected to have a number of them, since wearing the same outfit too many times was considered disrespectful towards the monarch. Not surprisingly, Lady Louisa Stuart complained ‘fifteen or sixteen hundred a year would not do very much for two people who must live in London and appear in fine clothes at St. James’s twice a week’. However, for the aristocracy, this was considered an essential expense.
To attend a court event was not only a great honour, but also the opportunity to ascend the social ladder. Court was more than the place where the monarch and his family met the nobility, courtiers and political figures; it was the centre of power, influence and fashion. It was important for an individual to attend as often as possible, since it provided an opportunity to conduct political business and seek potential royal favour. There were many court events throughout the year, including Sunday church services, Levées, Drawing rooms and celebrations such as royal birthdays. Drawing rooms were attended by both men and women and were larger occasions often held several times a week at ten o’clock in the evening. Guests waited for the monarch or his consort to make an appearance. The royal birthday celebrations were particularly exciting. They involved grand balls with music, dancing, gambling and a display of fireworks.
Dressing well played an important political role at court; wearing exquisite silk or rich embroidery could attract the attention of the king or queen in the middle of a crowd of courtiers. Mrs Delany, an English artist, attended many court events in the 18th century and recalled in a letter to her sister in 1728/9:
‘On Saturday the first day of March, it being Queen Caroline’s birth-day, I dressed myself in all my best array, borrowed my Lady Sunderland’s jewels, and made a tearing show. I went with my Lady Carteret and her two daughters. There was a vast Court, and my Lady Carteret got with some difficulty to the circle, and after she had made her curtsey made me stand before her. The Queen came up to her, and thanked her for bringing me forward, and she told me she was obliged to me for my pretty clothes, and admired my Lady Carteret’s extremely; she told the Queen that they were my fancy, and that I drew the pattern. Her Majesty said she had heard that I could draw very well (I can’t think who could tell her such a story); she took notice of my jewels; I told her they were my Lady Sunderland’s; “Oh” says she, “you were afraid I should think my Lord Selkirk gave them to you, but I believe he only admires, for he will not be so free of his presents…”.’
So, getting noticed was important, as it could lead to a chat, or several chats, with the monarch. Other courtiers would look on enviously if the king or queen spoke to you more than once. It was considered a sign of favour and the higher you grew in royal favour, the more powerful you could become.
The 1700s was an era where men were the leaders of fashion, their elaborate wigs, gorgeous silks and complex embroideries threatening to outshine the ladies- the ticket to the Georgian court: a good suit.
This beautiful 1790s pale lavender gentleman’s suit with fine embroidery and delicate lace evolved from the men’s fashions but with the extra frills and details required to show one’s wealth in the cutthroat atmosphere of court life, where your clothes could quite literally cost you a small fortune.
The court jacket would have been worn for a drawing room, which is essentially a nightly event that was held at court after dinner, where courtiers would assemble to try and get the attention of the king and queen. And there was no such thing as a sort of formalised guest list. You just had to dress for the part. So the guards would let you in if you looked to be of a sufficient status, and that isn't quite as risky as it sounds. Because, of course, the amount of wealth and cost that would have gone into looking the part basically excluded most people from being able to bluff their way in. some people went out of their way to invest significant amounts of wealth, sometimes mortgaging their properties in order to look right, and, worse than having to mortgage your property in order to get a suit like this, would be the fact that if you wore it more than once or twice, it was commented upon. And so any favour that you might have won by looking smart was lost because they'd know you were a bluffer. Often the colours for court suits were quite pale, quite light, quite jolly, quite feminine colours with feminine decoration and embellishment. The jacket would have been worn with a matching waistcoat and matching breeches, and there would have been an abundance of lace and fine linen at the neck and at the cuff. This jacket would actually have been worn open so that the waistcoat and all of its embellishments and embroidery would be visible underneath. -a sort of visual feast. often with a sort of naturalistic embroidery motif coming down it, and on the pockets and the cuffs, beautiful flowers. Of course, this was all hand-embroidered. probably done to a pattern, because there are repeats. So they may have placed a sort of paper pattern and then pounced through with charcoal or chalk and then embroidered to that pattern. Every repeat is slightly different. no uniform repeats, always unique!
side effects of this pressure of looking magnificent at court and not being seen wearing the same thing twice is there was a sort of very secretive little black market, or not black market but sort of secondary market of these suits. So there would be a little bit of swapping and kind of onward selling and kind of refashioning and repurposing - altering.
The evolution of the mantua
For centuries there had been an understanding that clothes worn at court should be special and expensive. As we have seen already, the high costs for dressing according to the strict codes served as an entry ticket to court in the 18th century. Only the wealthy elite could afford the elaborate silk garments decorated with exquisite embroidery, delicate lace and precious jewellery.
Courtiers also needed to have a number of these garments so as not to offend the monarch, and to keep up with the rest of the glittering circle. Other courtiers, equally intent on attracting royal attention, could be viciously critical of their competition at court.
The court dress worn by women originated in the 1670s, at the court of Louis XIV in Versailles. Known as grand habit or ‘stiff-bodied gown’, it comprised a heavily boned, pointed bodice with off-the-shoulder neckline and short sleeves, a hooped skirt and a train.
In England, this heavy and uncomfortable costume was only worn at the most special occasions, such as royal weddings. By the early 18th century, the grand habit evolved into the mantua and petticoat, which continued to be worn at court right up until Queen Charlotte’s death in 1818 ‒ long after it became unfashionable in wider society.
The formal mantua started as a loose gown, opened at the front with a decorated stomacher that covered the centre front of the bodice. At the back, the train was draped to show the petticoat (underskirt). As the century progressed, the bodice became more fitted and the train narrower and less visible. Everything was made of heavy silks such as brocades and damasks and was further decorated with rich embroidery.
From the 1750s, the mantua became increasingly outdated and so another style of ‘full dress’ was also accepted for informal court occasions. This was the sacque or robe à la Française, an opened gown with double pleats falling from the shoulders at the back and a wide petticoat exposed at the front, although the latter not as wide as the mantua. Like the mantua, the robe à la Française was also highly decorated with ribbons, bows, lace and other trimmings.
The petticoat was supported by a structure called a hoop, which was stiffened with whalebone. This piece of underwear was also worn in fashionable wear (outside court) until about the 1780s, when the simpler, neo-classical style, with its raised waistline started to emerge.
Throughout the century, the hoop changed into different forms – squared (‘English hoop’) fan-shaped (‘French hoop’) and bell-shaped. At court, it was quite narrow at the sides but extremely wide at the front, sometimes reaching two metres. This presented the wearer with many challenges: doorways, for example. Women had to turn sideways to enter or leave a room. Also, to keep a perfect deportment while wearing this exhausting garment, the wearer usually took lessons by a dance master, who taught them not only how to dance but also how to curtsy, walk backwards, make elegant gestures with arms and hands and even how to move a fan gracefully.
Another issue with the hoop was its weight, which could add a couple of kilos to the whole ensemble. In 1787 Jane Austen’s sister-in-law, Eliza, complained ‘how such a meagre creature as I am, can support so much fatigue… for I only stood from two to four in the Drawing Room, and of course loaded with a great hoop of no inconsiderable weight.’ Sitting down was out of the question, of course, as it was forbidden in the presence of the monarch.
The exaggerated dimensions of the court mantua provided a perfect flat canvas on which the wearer would display her wealth and good taste. In the 18th century, textiles and their decorations were the most valuable elements of a gown, and wearing fine silk or rich embroidery was highly praised. The best silks came from Lyon in France and Spitalfields in East London. At court guests were encouraged to wear British materials and both Queen Caroline and Queen Charlotte often used fabrics produced nationally. This promotion was not always successful; matters of taste seemed to be more important than patriotism, and many courtiers purchased French textiles without hesitation.
An exquisite example of court dress is the Rockingham mantua from c1760‒65. It comprises a fitted bodice, stomacher, narrow train draped at the waist and wide, matching petticoat. It is made of French silk satin brocaded in silver thread with a design of narrow stripes and a vertical undulating ribbon of leaves and floral sprays. It is further trimmed with a delicate silver lace, also used on the stomacher. In total it consumed 14 metres of fabric, which would have cost over £10,000 in today’s money. It was probably worn by Mary, Marchioness of Rockingham, wife of British Prime Minister Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham.
Court dress was a skilful blend of splendid decoration, formality, tradition and fashion. Although impractical and old-fashioned, it provided one of the most effective means of displaying wealth, status and taste – three vital qualities for those attending court in the 18th century.
No comments:
Post a Comment