Looking like a REAL Regency lady?

[betty]

I hope I’ve put this in the right thread – mods please move it if I’ve got it wrong.

I’m interested in social history and the factors that make us what we are in the period in which we live. I am looking particularly at the period 1750 – 1930. I congratulate all the dressmaker, staymakers etc here, I really do not have sewing ability!

I’ve had some discussions (arguments!) with some reenactors of various periods, including the Regency. Frankly I don’t believe their claims that they look exactly like their ancestors of the period concerned. Of course, I accept that we are taller, heavier etc today, but that is probably more evolution science than social history.

Let me explain why I think we find it very difficult to recreate the total look of the Regency (or any other period)

1. Yes, corsets and stays are wearable today. But, we have not worn them from the age of 5 years ( or even earlier), so our minds and bodies are not really long term used to them. Can we move and walk in stays as our ancestors?

2. Posture – related to stays, of course. Girls in the 18 and 19 cent were forced to sit and stand in the fashionable manner, straight backs, shoulder s back etc. We have not been trained to have that posture as a natural form, so today it’s not real.

3. Looks. We smile today, showing our lovely white teeth. I’ve seen instructions to ladies not show their teeth, otherwise they will show black teeth, missing teeth etc.

4. Sitting still. Children, girls and ladies were expected to be able to sit still for a long time, without fidgeting or fiddling about, or showing signs that they were bored. We were not brought up like that, and certainly not today’s children! I’ve seen records of children being caned on the hand for fidgeting, so I guess you would learn to keep still pretty quickly?

5. Humility, obedience. These are not qualities that we value today. In the past there was a strict order of obedience. You did not argue or contradict your better. The young obeyed the older people, and OF COURSE men knew more about everything than women.

What do you think? I am interesting in your comments.

Betty.

[adarsell]

Whew, that's a broad range of periods that you are looking at!! 1750 and 1930 were very dissimilar, and so answers to your points would greatly differ depending on the period. Fashion has evolved perpetually, so nothing stays exactly the same for ten years at a time, but your time range could be broken up into general chunks of time where costume was more or less consistent. My favorite periods range from 1785-1815, and I will respond to you regarding costume post-Directoire (late 1790s) and early Regency (early 1810s).

1. Regarding corsets: BEFORE the French Revolution, corsets were often heavily boned, and created a slightly conical shape for the body. I think you have a valid point that bodies may have been trained to adapt to these slightly restrictive corsets from a young age, but be aware of the time period that these were used. However, there was a point, around the French Revolution, that this heavily boned style became very unpopular, and corsets changed rather dramatically to a very natural shape, with very little structure and very minimal effect on body shape (some women chucked them out of their wardrobe entirely, but that wasn't quite the norm.) These new corsets offered support similar to what a snug dress and push-up bra would feel like today. Actually, I think they were even <i>less</i> restrictive than that, more like a lightly-lined bra and a snug dress. I would posit that these corsets had no effect on the body except to lift the breasts and keep one's tummy from pooching out. These factors have little effect on the body long-term, especially if this sort of corset was only worn during the day (we have no reason to believe normal people slept in their corsets at this time). A couple examples below may help you get a good idea of what these corsets actually looked like:
- A great post by Lauren, the American Duchess, showcasing a couple of early (1790s) transitional stays. You can see that they are lightly boned, but (having worn this style before) they are not meant to alter the body shape much at all, only to grip the ribcage and support the breasts (they would not have been laced tightly enough to affect any significant change in body development.)
- Long corset, unboned, only stiffened under the bust with a few channels of cording. This example is approx. 1805-1810-ish.

2. Posture: this is very closely related to corsets. Posture has changed throughout all the major eras of costume history, so you have to look at the corset discussion first. While you are correct that women and girls (and men!) were instructed to carry themselves a little differently at the turn of the century, that is much less significant to your argument than the effect that corsets had on posture. Considering the lack of structure found in transitional and Regency stays (they weren't actually called corsets until early/mid-19th c.), it is very likely that a modern woman could affect a very period posture. Regarding your argument that we cannot adopt this posture because we have not been <i>trained</i> to do so - I think that's not very reasonable. Arms and legs and spines and bums are all located in the same places that they were two hundred years ago, and therefore can be taught, with a little effort, to maintain the same sort of posture. Consider the way a trained ballerina walks, stands, and sits. There are many young ladies who grew up being taught to sit up straight, hold their limbs gracefully, and walk smoothly and carefully. And even if one hasn't been taught that growing up, it just takes a little effort and muscle-training to learn how to imitate a very period (read: upright and graceful) posture. A lady standing straight and tall circa 1800 will look very similar to a lady standing straight and tall today.

There is ONE aspect of Regency clothing that affects posture, and that is the narrow back width on most garments. This feature compels the wearer to hold their shoulders a little farther back than they would today, but not so far back that their bodies would have to be trained from a young age to achieve this stance. So if you are wearing a properly made costume, you would automatically adopt a similar posture to an ordinary lady c. 1800.

3. Teeth: you are probably right that, as a rule, we've got nicer teeth today than folk had back at the turn of the century. Can't do much about that - not going to stop taking care of my teeth to be period-accurate! But, consider, some people have stronger teeth than others, by genetic happenstance. And people did take care of their teeth! They used toothpicks and even toothbrushes. Just probably not fluoride.
- This is a fun little article showcasing some tools that people used at the turn of the century to take care of their teeth!

4. Children today can definitely be taught to sit still, haha, I promise you that. They can actually be taught very easily, so I wouldn't bring that up when you take the position that living history isn't accurate. I know mothers who manage to make their children behave very well (therefore accurately) at living history events. Also, parents might take offense - every mother is probably a little harried if she is toting little ones around a reenactment, and probably wouldn't appreciate being told that mothers two hundred years ago did a much better job making their children mind. Might not go over well.

5. Humility, obedience... social mores. If you read a bit of Jane Austen (and period letters, books, etc.) you will realize that women had opinions and thoughts and often spoke them, although you are right that women were sometimes expected to be pretty, flighty, pieces of furniture. But a) that was more evident in the upper tiers of society, and b) women's rights have come a long way, and if you want to find authenticity in our (I'm a women, lol, I lump myself in here) seemingly audacious address of men and each other at living history events, just consider that there very well may have been communities back then where women were decently respected. And there most definitely were women back then who spoke their mind regardless.

You may find, though, that there are a lot of social mores that people demonstrate at living history events, without violating the societal "code" that was part of everyday life at the turn of the century. When I go places with my husband, I walk on his right side, I dance with many gentlemen and not just one, and I courtesey when I meet another lady or gentleman. There are some who will wait to be introduced (not a common concept today) before speaking to another. There are LOTS of little things that are just really fun to know about and incorporate in a living history impersonation, that don't factor in the negative, suppressive aspects of society back then.


So that is just a response to your questions as they relate to 1795-1810. Any other era in history would probably have a slightly different response (which would be super fun to expound upon, but as this is a Regency board, I'll stick to this era!) I hope those answers were helpful!

Also, if you are interested in how costume relates to social history, you might find it interesting to study the parallels between political upheaval and changes in fashion - that is one of the factors that originally made me so interested in Directoire->Regency costume! It is a really cool to see how something seemingly unrelated is so clearly affected by politics.

[adarsell]

Also would love to hear what anybody else on this board has to say, I've studied costume history for a while but am fairly new to Regency living history.