“Thy master is bought and sold “.The Richard III reburial debate an overview with links

richard third

It was sad news for the North this week as it was officially declared that Leicester is to be the burial place of King Richard III bones.A judicial review found “There was no public law grounds for the court to interfere “in the plans for Richard III interment.
a legal summary is here

http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2014/05/23/richard-iii-reburial-judicial-review-application-fails/

Its possible for an appeal to be made and also for other private legal action to be taken.
There has been criticism of the case but this is founded on the mistaken idea that this is just about two cities wanting the bones of a dead king or a group of fanatics obsessed with Richard or that it was purely at the instigation of the Plantagenet alliance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-23929989

http://kingrichardcampaign.org.uk/r3wp/descendants-statement/

In reality support for burial in Yorkshire or elsewhere than Leicester was widespread, international and spanned all groups of people.A list of the famous who supported the cause shows exactly how wide ranging

http://kingrichardcampaign.org.uk/r3wp/about/

The list included numerous MPs, numerous eminent academics, sportsmen such as Geoff boycott and Olympic athletes, several sirs, including Sir Derek Jacobi, Sir Bernard Ingram, Dame Judi Dench,
Judi Dench
, Edward Fox, actors such as Brian Blessed and Steve Coogan
steve_coogan_a_p ,
and a wide ranging diverse groups of others, such as Mike Loads
mikeloads
and Julian Fellows
Julian-Fellowes-007
The Facebook group “petition to Bring Richard back to Yorkshire was responsible for gaining the attention and support of academics ,actors ,writers and many others and continues its campaign to achieve a lasting and honourable resting place for Richard III lord of the North ,it can be found here

https://www.facebook.com/PetitionToBringRichardIiiBackToYorkshire?fref=ts

Likewise support for a burial in York and strong feeling that Leicester was inappropriate was global

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/global-support-to-bring-king-richard-iii-back-home-to-yorkshire-1-6545355

The support for Leicester was by contrast quite localised or based on a finders keepers, why does it matter? attitude. Even Leicester itself seems to be aware that Richard’s home is in the North as they have recently (very graciously I felt) offered to use York stone for his Tomb.
The support base for reburial in York while significant is only part of the story and motivation for the appeals and campaigns. There are greater issues involved such as how human remains ought to be treated and how much time passes before the wishes of the deceased are ignored, what are the rights of relative and friends and when do those rights no longer matter.
The battle over the burial place of Richard the third is about more than two rival cities or the place that a single man’s bones will lie.
The issue is much wider and includes concerns about how it’s acceptable to treat human bones or remains.
riii photo bones
The campaign gained a great deal of support due to concern over how Richards bones will be treated and if they will be interred at all, these are human bones, this person was a living breathing person.
The university made a promise to those funding the dig that the bones would be treated with dignity and respect.
riii joe applyby
image source http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26790933
and kept in a respectful manner and interred promptly with due dignity. None of this occurred, the bones were at first displayed with a certain reserve

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/feb/04/richard-third-skeleton-confirmed-leicester?CMP=twt_fd

but then any attempt to respect the original undertaking was ignored, further tests were carried out and more work done on the bones.

http://www.johnashdownhill.com/johns-blog/2014/2/26/livescience-richard-iii-dna-test-sparks-controversy

The university made clear it wanted to keep them indefinitely for further study and place them on public display, for which there was some support in the town but mostly outrage, to the credit of its townsfolk, who were also instrumental in pushing for Richard to have a proper tomb.

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-bones-display-Leicester-Cathedral/story-18080711-detail/story.html

Due to this huge outcry and the plan was dropped at least publicly. It’s likely there has been some display of the bones to academics or specialists to produce some of the university’s recent research. This research which has only recently been completed and would even without the review had created the delay in burial.

http://www.itv.com/news/central/update/2014-02-11/experts-to-add-another-layer-of-info-on-richard-iii/

The university is still pushing for burial in an ossuary (box) so that they can be easily disinterred when the university wants to study them.
However the bones by the university’s own admission have been kept in very lax conditions even for archaeological specimens and in an appalling manner for human remains which seriously calls into doubt their fitness to have custody of them. The King’s remains have spent at least some of their time in a cardboard box under a broken kettle.
Lin Foxall
lin-foxhall-richardiii-team

stated on BBC radio
We had this problem of ‘what do you do with a dead king – you don’t find them every day’– and of course what he was was a nice long box, full of bones, that’s how you store a skeletons and where you put them, so for a while he lived in my office: under a dead kettle.” -Quote from Lin Foxhall, head of archaeology at Leicester university.
Interview given BBc radio 4pm 28/10/2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03f92q9 (for a BBC headline quote of the relevant comment check the page of petition to bring Richard back to Yorkshire for the same date).
The University recently denied this making the following statement
“Mr Buckley insisted the royal remains were being treated appropriately.
“Richard’s remains are in a secure location at the University of Leicester – this is a lot better than under a Victorian outhouse under council tarmac,” he said.

“We cannot rewrite history and give him some kind of medieval lying in state. He was killed in battle and the new king of England, Henry VII, decided where and how he should be buried.

“The intention is for the studying of the remains to be of a limited time and for the interment to be final. He will not be put on a tray to be pulled out whenever someone asks.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26790933

UOL-RichardIII-Jo-Appleby
It is hoped that the remains are indeed now being kept in more appropriate conditions. Being stored with broken kitchen appliances is poor treatment for any artefact let alone human bones, it does not create good conditions for preservation or prevent contamination, it’s poor practice and for supporters of York interment shows perfectly the university’s disrespectful attitude. A paragraph from a document which lays down museum’s guidlines shows the university at variance with proper practice
quote
2.5 De-accessioning
Claims for the return or reburial of human remains are considered in part 3. Any institution wishing to de-accession human remains in other circumstances must be pro-active in trying to establish whether any genealogical or cultural descendants exist who might wish to make a claim for return or reburial.
Many human remains, for example those disinterred as a result of rescue archaeology, are removed on the authority of a Department for Constitutional Affairs licence or Church of England faculty. The method of ultimate disposal, after study, should have been stated clearly on the licence or faculty, and burial (or, occasionally, cremation) or retention of the remains will be included as a condition of the licence or faculty.
Through consultation with the relevant statutory and religious authorities, reburial or respectful storage in designated, marked, sites may satisfy the requirements of the law and religious or civil tradition and need not remove the remains altogether from the purview of scientific study in the future.
Where no mode of disposal is specified, the remains must be disposed of safely and respectfully in a sealed container. The Human Tissue Act 2004 also deals with these matters. In the case of burials from Christian contexts in England the CofE/EH 2005 guidance should be used.
The full guidelines can be downloaded as a PDF here

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=12&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQFjABOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.culturalpropertyadvice.gov.uk%2Fassets%2Fuserfiles%2Findex.php%3Ffile%3D000212.pdf&ei=fnmEU7mVPMOsPIGkgYAL&usg=AFQjCNEKL3JHqG_U2BPcT_XefMW5P-tDxA

The document is called
Guidance for the care of Human Remains in Museums.
The university has never shown particular care over the bones, it damaged them significantly with a mattock while excavating. This was captured in the channel 4 documentary and readily admitted to and later confirmed by Dr Appleby in interviews.
richard iii skull

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-Finding-Royal-remains-million-chance/story-18050560-detail/story.html

Yet something else that has been ignored since, but increased support for a burial outside of Leicester, the clumsy excavation damage to leg bone, possibly by a JCB or mattock and more especially the Skull caused outrage online amongst many and not just so called Yorkists.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?p=64602298

This does not inspire people with confidence in a dignified burial if left in control of the city and university. As a human being and a King Richard deserves a burial and should not have his bones publicly displayed or interred in such a way as to facilitate disinterment whenever the university want to do more tests.
Also at variance with correct practice was the disregard for Richards wishes

http://historum.com/medieval-byzantine-history/72866-revealed-king-richard-iii-planned-buried-york-not-leicester-according-e.html

Despite earlier widespread claims that Richards wishes were unknown.
The letters content was made public just days after the judicial review result but it is inconceivable that the academic community did not know about its contents previously ,creating distrust of Leicester university
Another issue is King Richard’s right to a Roman Catholic burial in line with his beliefs and his right to be buried on Roman Catholic consecrated ground and in an manner that would honour his beliefs.
Middleham%20Jewel%20front%20detail
The Cathedral in Leicester is post reformation so the ground would not be considered sanctified and originally there was no intention of providing any Roman Catholic input, it has taken an e-petition for some backtracking on the issue but plans are still not inline with the correct manner of burial. Richard despite later being covered by a car park had been buried in Catholic sanctified ground, he has now been removed from that. Though this seems an abstract concept its something of importance to many.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/cristinaodone/100201761/richard-iii-was-a-catholic-and-should-be-buried-in-a-catholic-church/?fb

http://catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2013/02/05/catholic-state-funeral-for-king-richard-iii/

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/01/27/Bones-of-Contention-Catholic-Burials-for-the-Remains-of-Kings-Richard-III-and-Alfred

(I realise that its been suggested that Leicester cathedral is in fact pre reformation as there was originally a church on the site but the then St Martins suffered widespread destruction during the reformation ,the current church does not occupy the same space and claiming that one bit of ground is the same as the other would logically mean that Richard III bones were just as well interred under the nearby car park.
http://leicestercathedral.org/about-us/history-of-leicester-cathedral/ for the pro pre reformation case
The official Church of England guide which details the extensive restricting and expansion is here

http://www.cathedralsplus.org.uk/index.php/front_end/member/66/about.html

Likewise the cathedral has backtracked on its promise to provide a fitting tomb, it had promised a table tomb like many medieval tombs, so certain was this decision that money was raised by Richard’s supporters for the expenses of the tomb’s construction and its design had been discussed in enough detail for the media to provide images alongside their reports.
richard iii RS tomb
However the cathedral changed its mind and said there would only be a slab in the floor which would be more or less similar to the memorial slab present at the moment.
Claiming it wanted something modest
“The bones of Richard III should be reburied under a modest slab in the floor of Leicester Cathedral, “a place of dignified simplicity” rather than a grandiose modern reinvention of a medieval tomb, the cathedral authorities have decided – in a move that will do nothing to resolve the debate over where and how the king should finally be buried”
source Guardian newspaper march 2014)(
RIII current tomb
This plan was again changed to a more modern very plain raised tomb,
riii  new tomb
which it seems didn’t meet with the church buildings and fabrics authority’s approval and due to widespread criticism the Cathedral promised a different more fitting version .This new version is for the most part identical to the old version except for the removal of the Rose and addition of a black plinth
“Dean Monteith said: “This is a tomb which reflects the era in which it is designed, as well as the solemn purpose for which it is commissioned. “
The updated version which is an answer to those concerns is here
new tomb
Even the Cathedral itself agrees that this tomb is widely regarded as inappropriate
It’s been very interesting reading the reactions to this final design, with the earlier idea of the rose inscribed on the floor replaced by a plinth in dark marble with the royal coat of arms emblazoned on it in pieta dura (‘hard rock’!). Some – predictably – remain opposed, often forcibly, and there’s no shortage of disparaging descriptions coming from that quarter (‘cheese slicer’ is one of the more whimsical), including some well-organised lobbying from the four quarters of the globe (including Tasmania). But there’s also been some encouragingly positive discussion in other places, as people engage with how we’ve described what we’re doing, and found themselves coming to appreciate it more and more. I can recommend the Facebook group King Richard in Leicester – which describes itself as ‘a friendly place for interesting discussions’. It is – both of those things, that is. And nothing to do with us here at the Cathedral.

http://kingrichardinleicester.com/news-blog/petes-blog/

.A brief summary of the tomb issue as it unfolded can be found here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-21427369

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-24159531

.Thehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-26819086
Tomb issues raised concerns about later treatment of the gravesite. The cathedral hosts vintage fairs /flea markets in the actual sacred space ,the church is cleared for stalls.
leic 2

leic fair
photocredit (http://minimummouse.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/2011-festivals-fairs-and-fun.html)
The frequency and continuance of which was confirmed by the Cathedral staff as reported by a local newspaper.
“Claire Recorden, from Leicester Cathedral’s marketing team, said: “The LouLou Vintage Fair is held in Leicester Cathedral three times a year. The next one will take place on November 30.”

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/pictures/Leicester-Vintage-Fair-Brown-Brown-Photography/pictures-19767514-detail/pictures.html#6

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Visitors-bag-bargains-vintage-fair/story-19808459-detail/story.html#ixzz32lRhW7vf

Read more at http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Visitors-bag-bargains-vintage-fair/story-19808459-detail/story.html#FMO2ySqwtgTZ80JJ.99

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Visitors-bag-bargains-vintage-fair/story-19808459-detail/story.html

One writer commented
“I was disgusted to read of the UK’s biggest vintage fair being held in Leicester Cathedral”
Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Cathedral-market/story-18232955-detail/story.html#ixzz32lQVoR7j
and futher comment can be found here

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Inappropriate-use-cathedral/story-18286777-detail/story.html

Read more at http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Cathedral-market/story-18232955-detail/story.html#dYDToc74oP7Uwdqs.99
,http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Cathedral-market/story-18232955-detail/story.html

http://thevintagefair.blogspot.co.uk/2012_09_01_archive.html

Its possibly this and other events which made the cathedral reluctant to provide a proper tomb
again from their own publicly released statement
“According to the design brief: “They will be reluctant to site a large memorial in the cathedral which would assume disproportionate significance in a modest building and cannot easily be located in any position in which it would not restrict the capacity of the building on major occasions.”
leic fair
“It is unlikely that a large table top tomb or effigy would be acceptable to the chapter or the Cathedrals Fabric Commission for England (CFCE),” it says.”
There have been no fixed and approved designs made public for any further memorial except for ongoing discussions about a memorial window, the design for this window has been produced and made public but there is as yet no funding, the window features
“a battle scene and a man’s body on the back of a horse being led through the streets. They are said to be generic images suggestive of Richard’s story.”

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/King-Richard-III-commemorative-window-designs/story-20609405-detail/story.html#ixzz32lKxYZ7
Read more at http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/King-Richard-III-commemorative-window-designs/story-20609405-detail/story.html#LmhPblrArR5VZVx6.99 funding has not been found and permission from the buildingsd commission is still pending.

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/King-Richard-III-commemorative-window-designs/story-20609405-detail/story.html

and is unlikely to be as attractive as the window at Cardiff castle.
anne-neville-richard-iii
A further immediate concern was the clearly stated intention of the cathedral staff to focus on Richard’s sins and alleged sins in their funeral oration thus further blackening his name. A selection of quotes from Cathedral staff show at the very least ambivalence.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/13/row-richard-iii-burial-site

“What has this to do with Richard? He won’t have beloved artefacts in his ossuary. Well one thing he wasn’t was a saint!
richard3rd
or in defence of their approach to Richard’s burial
“The phrase we repeatedly use to describe our approach is Dignity and Honour. And that’s not because it’s a slogan. We really mean it. The Dignity we all owe each other as human beings, made in the image of God. And the Honour a nation ought to show to its former King – however divided we may be as to his personal qualities, or the nature of his reign”
.http://kingrichardinleicester.com/news-blog/petes-blog/
contrast that with their initial statement
“it should not be forgotten that Richard demonstrated both the honourable and dishonourable characteristics of human beings.

“Opportunities for prayer and reflection should focus on themes of sin and redemption, justice and peace, as reflected in our history and our present.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/mar/13/row-richard-iii-burial-site

The cathedral’s Richard related material is here

http://kingrichardinleicester.com/sos/david-monteith-dean-of-leicester/

http://kingrichardinleicester.com/category/king-richard/

Though in fairness to the cathedral they did publish an entire page on Richard’s many achievements

http://kingrichardinleicester.com/facts-fiction/richard-iii-as-king/

However its approach has often fallen short of the “dignity and honour” it claims to have as its guiding principle. Its also made little if any attempt to read Richards own words and contempory reports .It claims
“What are we wanting to do, when we reinter the remains of a long-dead monarch? Not mourn him, surely? No-one living knew him, and at this distance in time it seems to me no-one can possibly know who he ‘really’ was or what he was ‘really’ like. The best that we can manage is speculation.
Yes this is not true any Christian reading another Christians thoughts or seeing their public statements can see exactly what they are thinking and their motivation ad its very clear Richard was extremely devote.
Also logically if you can never know anything about people long dead,,how exactly do Authors and Historians and the University of Leicester’s staff make any kind of credible living and why are there’s thousands of reputable universities across the globe running History courses .
The cathedrals perceived monetary attitude has attracted the criticism of many not just those favouring York Burial but even the decidedly secular Private eye commented.
Nooks and Corners column in Private Eye, No.1351, 18-31 October
“it is odd that so much passion has been engendered about which Anglican church should house the body of a medieval Catholic monarch who was scarcely a national hero or founding father. As far as the Dean and Chapter was concerned, what mattered was ‘the possibility of the cathedral and its surroundings becoming a tourist attraction,’”
“for all their ideas about dragging the cathedral into the 21st century, the Dean and Chapter are behaving like their superstitious medieval forbears, for every pre-Reformation cathedral needed a prominent shrine to rake in money from the pilgrims”.
I am indebted to the site below for the Private Eye reference

http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2013/11/27/richard-iii-reburial-open-the-dressing-up-box/

(The site is not pro York and is an interesting read)
Yet despite being certain to benefit from the presence of Richard’s bones the cathedral has been unwilling to spend money on a fitting service and interment,the budget is small as admitted by the Cathedral on their Fb page
The aspirational budget for this is £2.5 million – a rather small sum in comparison to other major public occasions.
Aspirational means the amount is dependent almost entirely on donations
The word ‘aspirational’ means we can only do it all like this if we raise the money, of course. But then, we’ve never pretended otherwise. And we’re quietly confident that we will.

http://kingrichardinleicester.com/news-blog/petes-blog/

This is slightly disingenuous as just a few paragraphs below he makes the very public statement that
Monteith, the Dean of Leicester Cathedral, has explained the considerable efforts and expenditure invested by the Cathedral in order to create a lasting burial place “as befits an anointed King”. We agree that it is time for Richard III to be given a dignified reburial, and finally laid to rest

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Leicester-Cathedral/325613701733.

The one certain honour to be accorded Richard at his burial will be from Dr John Ashdown-Hill who has commissioned a magnificent crown.
(photo credit Dr John Ashedown-Hill
funeral crown Dr JA hill

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/CROWNING-GLORY/story-20443648-detail/story.html

Dr John Ashdown-Hill was responsible for much of the research and impetus behind discovering the body but has been largely ignored perhaps due to modesty but also due to the the policy of downplaying the key role of academics not connected to the university.
Likewise there are concerns for Richard’s long term reputation, the tourism industry now starting up around Richard will inevitably focus on the now academically discredited view of him as a murderer, usurper and monster as portrayed by Shakespeare. The illustrations to the Richard iii exhibition at Bosworth battlefield for instance are not particularly flattering to Richard.
bosworth riii
In York he has always been respected and remembered with affection, though tiny due to its funding by donations and legacy, York has always had a museum to his memory which presented a positive view of him.
Furthermore with regard to interment, it seems most likely Richard intended to be buried in Yorkshire, he founded chantry chapels and the largest was in York, these were usually created in places intended to be the site of burial.

http://kingrichardcampaign.org.uk/r3wp/did-king-richard-intend-to-be-buried-in-york-minster/

There is no record of one in Leicester. Richard was so attached to the North and York that he made an extended visit there shorty after becoming king and favoured the city and the north throughout his reign.

http://www.historyofyork.org.uk/themes/medieval/king-richard-iii-and-york

This was something that probably cost him valuable and essential support at court and was almost certainly a contributing factor to his death and defeat.
There is still strong deeply felt outrage in the north over Richard’s treatment in Leicester. His body was striped and abused,
quote
“The team found 10 wounds to his body in total, including a “humiliation” stab wound to his right buttock and several to his trunk that were likely inflicted after his death; there was also evidence that his hands had been bound.
humilation wound rib
(damage rib from a post mortem stab wound)

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-battle-over-richard-iiis-bonesand-his-reputation-14232878/?page=2

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-battle-over-richard-iiis-bonesand-his-reputation-14232878/#8T8rkGrqzSJDu0Qf.99

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2013/02/The-Lordly-Bones-Richard-IIIs-Remains-Discovered-in-Parking-Lot

buttock wound
This indignity probably occurred while his body was being taken back to Leicester as its recorded his body was strung naked, trussed over a horse. He was then laid out naked and dirty and bloodied to be viewed, while it was normal to put dead monarchs on display doing so naked and dishonoured was not.

http://www2.le.ac.uk/projects/greyfriars/R3timelineV12.pdf/

The friars obviously tried very hard to give him a decent burial as far as they were able, it is thought king Richard was probably buried with some rites and in hallowed ground but they had no way to give him a decent service, the grave used was too small and there was no shroud even which is almost unbelievable for a Christian burial even plague victims in mass graves are usually shown to have been in a shroud. Leicester made no effort to find his bones, the only major interest was from outside funded excavations, including the one which discovered his remains.
rich

The university’s own publicity pack shows the substantial financial contribution made towards the dig by sources
University of Leicester announce the costs of the Richard III project

The search was instigated by Philippa Langley of the Richard III Society. The University led the dig and the scientific analysis. The funding for the project is shown below and we thank all the funders.

Funder Excavation & Post Excavation Total % Contribution
Reinstatement
University
of Leicester* £19,935 £94,115 £114,050 80.0%

(My note,the university’s expenditure was for the most part post excavation, that is to say once the bones of Richard III had been found. Previous to that their expenditure was £19,000 only £1000 more than the contribution of the RIII society making their initial percentage closer to that of the Richard III society. Their actual contribution was in fact lower than the society as they have included in their contribution £1300 donated to them by the public to finance the excavation see the university’s own text at base of the figures)

Richard III
Society £18,083 £18,083 12.7%

12.7%
Leicester Shire
Promotions £5,000 £5,000 3.5%
3.5%
Leicester City
Council £5,000 £5,000 3.5%

3.5%
Leicester Adult
Schools £500 £500 0.4%

Total £48,518 £94,115 £142,633

*University funding includes £4,970 committed to under-write LCC which was later paid by LCC. The University’s funding includes £1,300 in public donations to finance the work.
http://www2.le.ac.uk/news/blog/2013/february/the-search-for-richard-iii-statement-of-costs-up-to-31.12.12
The money raised by Leicester’s citizens and donated to the university makes clear some of the citizens feel a genuine interest and affection for king Richard especially as this is a city that is not doing well during the current economic climate and provided by people who would reap no rewards. However the council and university showed very little interest in him their contributions being a mere £5000.
see footnote for further table)
While much has been made of Richard’s connection to Leicester there is no actual historical link beyond his night spent prior to the battle and the time his corpse was displayed there. The statue that has been a focus of the city’s efforts to show their affection for Richard was provided by donations from the Richard III society and has been vandalised repeatedly (hence the need for it to be restored).
richardiii

http://www.leicester.gov.uk/your-council-services/lc/growth-and-history/statuesandsculpture/kingrichardthird/

Statements from Leicester have been almost entirely focused on what Richard can do for the town.

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-bring-14-million-tourism-boost/story-18381439-detail/story.html

http://www.bigissue.com/features/1996/richard-iii-who-will-keep-king

https://www.facebook.com/kingrichardleicester?fref=ts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9866818/Hunt-for-Richard-III-now-Leicester-wants-to-find-Cardinal-Wolsey.html

City councillor Ross Willmott said: “The discovery of Richard III is wonderful news, yet there remains something of a mystery about what happened to Wolsey, who rivalled Henry VIII in wealth and power and was one of the most significant political figures of the era.

“Arguably, he is far more influential than Richard III. To discover his remains would help tell the story of another historic figure linked to the city.”
By contrast York has stressed that it wanted the return of its King, its campaign slogans being “Bring him Home, those campaigning using the plural of Richards motto Loyaultie me Lie, Loyalty Binds us. The talk was always of returning Richard to his home. To be fair York would not significantly benefit from Richard’s burial there and already have a thriving tourist industry. Leicester by contrast saw a huge influx of visitors and in the midst of a recession it must have been like manna from heaven for the town.
In contrast to Leicester the desire to have Richard returned to York for burial was from the bottom up. Local people were so insistent that Richard be buried in the area that the minister who had at first refused to consider burial there did a small u-turn

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10213806.Minster_does_not_want_remains_of_Richard_III/?ref=rc

The statement that York minister didn’t want Richard came from fairly recently arrived Dean, previously Dean of Leicester, and it was felt she had acted outside her authority in making the statement despite an attempt to backpedal.
<Dean Faull, who until her appointment at York last summer was the Dean of Leicester, has maintained a “neutral” stance over the issue. /
This was unfortunately the occasion of the only blot on the campaign for York burial, though condemned by all those campaigning for York burial and in no way indicative of the tone of the campaign it does seem the Dean received abusive mail. Not, however as was claimed, death threats. The official statement by the minister is here as is a link to the story
“York Minster Spokesman • 11 hours ago −”news emerging this week that death threats have been made to the Dean of York” is inaccurate. The official statement reads:
“York Minster has received a number of letters about Richard III, a small number of these have been abusive. These have been passed to the Minster Police, and they continue to monitor the situation closely.”
York Minster has declined to reveal any more details about either the content or the origin of the letters.’

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/dean-of-york-minster-receives-abusive-letters-over-richard-iii-1-5491402

The nature of the abusive mail was never revealed and could have amounted to no more than the angry outbursts of people feeling they had been betrayed. There was never a suggestion that any threatened violence. It also makes clear that MOST letters merely expressed strong feelings
In the north Richard is remembered with love, respect and affection and especially in Yorkshire. For many he is remembered as Good King Richard, his short reign was the only brief time when the north was treated with favour. He was in his lifetime loved and respected deeply. He spent much of his life in the North and especially in Middleham
middleham_castle
(photo credite English Heritage)

http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/middleham-castle/

It’s clear Richard was in turn fond of York, calling his return there a homecoming. He favoured the North and York. He chose York for the investiture of his son as Prince of Wales in a ceremony and celebration so lavish that later historians have mistaken it for a second coronation. For the original accounts and a summary please check here. The writer’s interpretation of the request to provide rich cloth has been challenged by a wider study showing that Richard wanted to promote the North

http://richardiii-ipup.org.uk/riii/1

It is also now clear Richard would have wanted a York Burial

http://historum.com/medieval-byzantine-history/72866-revealed-king-richard-iii-planned-buried-york-not-leicester-according-e.html

An unfavourable but concise account of Richard reign recounts the story and events

http://www.heritage-history.com/?c=read&author=church&book=english2&story=bosworth

It has been claimed York let Richard down at Bosworth, in fact one of its great lords died at Richard’s side and this was despite being warned Richard had been betrayed (the header to the post is based on a note that is said to have been placed on the lord’s tent warning him the cause was already lost and not to fight. York often sent forces and funds to him and only delays outside their control caused their failure to send more troops to Bosworth. It made a brave statement of support for Richard when news of his defeat and death reached the city on the day after the Battle of Bosworth,
king Richard late mercifully reigning upon us was thrugh grete treason of the duc of Northfolk [sic] and many other that turned ayenst hyme, with many other lordes and nobilles of this north parties was piteously slane murdred to the grete hevynesse of this citie …'

York city archives, Minutes of the council of York,indeed a lord who was believed to have betrayed Richard at Bosworth was later publicly lynched.
Likewise the Legal proceedings have been blamed for the delay burying Richard and yet the University is primarily at fault as it has until recently insisted it keep the remains for study

http://www.johnashdownhill.com/johns-blog/2014/1/13/just-who-is-the-custodian-of-king-richard-iiis-bones

The University likewise is being challenged as to its right to be "custodian of the bones due to its refusal to honour an agreement with Ms Langley
philippa_langley

http://www.livescience.com/43659-richard-iii-dna-controversy.html

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-Leicester-face-legal-action/story-20806459-detail/story.html

As a footnote to this story
The university is also under fire for refusing to give due credit to the academics who did most of the research for the grave site and raised the funds for the dig

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-Historian-claims-airbrushed-king/story-19618285-detail/story.html

http://www.le.ac.uk/richardiii/team/johnashdownhill.html

This has never been a wars of the roses, many people have been balanced in their views on the opposing towns, many can see why it city's people would want Richard and accept they are interested in him, however there is certainly strong feeling about the way the authorities in Leicester and the University have behaved. There is also very strong feeling that Richard should not rest in the place of his defeat and humiliation, that Richard as lord of the north, is a fallen warrior king who deserves to rest with his own.
Supporters of York with a few exceptions bear no ill will to Leicester's towns people, argument focuses on not current residents but on history and a sense of loyalty to and desire for justice for King Richard
Middleham%20Jewel%20front%201

footnote the teams finding on the humiliation wounds
“The team from the University of Leicester said that the body displayed 10 wounds, 8 of them in the skull and some likely to have caused death, possibly by a blow from a halberd, a kind of medieval weapon with an ax-like head on a long pole. Other wounds seem to have been inflicted after his death to humiliate the monarch after his armor was stripped away and he was paraded naked over the back of a horse, the researchers said.”
Footnote
detailed account of the various legal challenges, on testing on the remains and other related issue can be found here

http://www.richardiii.net/whats_new.php

The universitys own excavation report is here

http://www.antiquity.ac.uk/ant/087/ant0870519.htm

The official review of March 2014 is printed in full here

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/richard-3rd-judgment-.pdf

Statements between the cathedral and university are here

http://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/for-journalists/richard-iii/re-interment

For a readily accessible viehttp://www.amazon.co.uk/Richard-III-Contemporary-Chronicles-Letters/dp/1781553130w of Richard by contemporary sources there is an excellent book
or an online collection ,though shorter can be viewed here

http://www.r3.org/richard-iii/the-battle-of-bosworth/bosworth-contemporary-tudor-accounts/

For Leicesters investigation on the mixed York support for Leicester.

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-people-York-think/story-19920587-detail/story.html

Interviews on reaction to the review results can be found here

http://www.pukaarnews.com/richard-iii-to-stay-in-leicester/10432/

Notes on treatment of human bones for comparison with the university practices ,This is an independent scholarly article. It also explains why there was opposition to further testing ,production of moulds for reconstruction etc as most of the process involved risks to the skeleton

http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=iMH3oOmzIOEC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=treatment+of+archaeological+human+remains&ots=FeBGh0Qw5z&sig=12cd54jbg5PRqL5qlcd6-JgWVa8#v=onepage&q=treatment%20of%20archaeological%20human%20remains&f=false

Re dean of York Ministers employment record

York Minster

November 2012 – Present (1 year 7 months)

Dean of Leicester

Leicester Cathedral

2000 – 2012 (12 years)

Also Chair of the Association of English Cathedrals
Dean of York from Dec 2012

Canon Pastor and Vice Provost

Coventry Cathedral
A good overview of opinion about Richard III in Leicester can be found here

http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Glad-Richard-s-staying-city/story-21146431-detail/story.html#CkcZYXMEP3ApVUdI.99

heres a brief selection that is fairly representative of the opinions most commonly expressed

The extensive works around Leicester Cathedral have been going on now for a considerable time and must already have cost millions, just to enhance a burial place for a king with an extremely dubious reputation.

I, for one, would like to know who is paying for all this?

The promised long-term pay-off in terms of tourist revenue can only be a guess at best – and my guess is that initial interest will dwindle quite quickly.

The cost to retail businesses in that area during this expensive revamp must be dire because of its continued inaccessibility to cars.

When it is finished, it will become yet another Soulsby-inspired pedestrianised area which will exclude the disabled from parking close by, as applies to much of the city centre already.

John Yates, Glenfield.

On the pro Richard side

“So glad that the High Court has upheld the licence, properly applied for and granted, allowing this tragic and much-maligned young king to be given a dignified reinterment in Leicester Cathedral.

As a Blue Badge Guide, I have been leading Richard III guided walks for 20 years.

He was always an important part of Leicester’s history. Now at last he can stay here, as he has, just yards away, for more than five centuries.

Colin Crosby, Leicester.

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Glad-Richard-s-staying-city/story-21146431-detail/story.html#CkcZYXMEP3ApVUdI.99#ixzz32y6mROk2

Read more at http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Glad-Richard-s-staying-city/story-21146431-detail/story.html#wHyj80Z9yiwusWHP.99

Read more: http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Glad-Richard-s-staying-city/story-21146431-detail/story.html#CkcZYXMEP3ApVUdI.99#ixzz32y5otUO4

Read more at http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Glad-Richard-s-staying-city/story-21146431-detail/story.html#wHyj80Z9yiwusWHP.99
excavation details
dig figuress

ricjard signature
leicester costs dig
acknowledgements
I am deeply indebted to the following for information and links which helped with creating this post
Kim Harding BAhons
Draj Hibbard,BA hons,MD
Patrica Rice Jones
David Atkin

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

A possible Bronte Photograph?

As I have occasionally been asked about the possible “new Bronte Photograph “,it has a fascinating history and is interesting in its own right .I do not however belive it’s a photograph of the sisters.

three.sisters.ambrotype.x400Photo from   http://www.brontesisters.co.uk/ please follow the link to find our more about its discovery and the case put forward by the owners for its authenticity.

I firmly belive the photo is from the early 1860s or late 1850s ,depending on where it was taken.This is primarily because of the hat the standing girl is wearing .This style of hat only became widely fashionable for women  in the very late 1850s and outside  of fashionable circles would have been common only in early 1860s.Hats were  extremely uncommon for formal wear in the 1840s .

I know this is a point the photographs owners have considered and their views and research are here

http://www.brontesisters.co.uk/Straw-Hats.html

I  would disagree with their  findings as they have not closely considered context, not considered that the word  hat might  be exchanged for bonnet in some accounts and not examined stylistic details  closely enough, small details that seem irrelevant can distinguish  styles separated by decades, fashion often revisits the past for inspiration ,consider the 1980s  and late 1990s when 1940s style fashions were popular with designers and the high street stores alike ,its easy to pass many of these clothes off as genuine 1940s clothes at 40s weekends and often an 1980s 40s revival jacket can be impossible to distinguish from an 90s jacket  unless you pay attention to the fabrics ,colours and small details like labels  buttons or pockets finishes

.Likewise  they have not fully included relevant details probably because they are not experts on the Bronte’s life and letters so  were not aware of them ,eg the comment on the site supporting the wearing of a hat by the Brontes includes an incident in London.

When Charlotte Bronte visited the studio of George Richmond in 1850 she was asked to remove her hat, not a bonnet. (,my note this is true but in this quote Richmond goes onto to mention that he mistook Charlotte’s very poor quality hair piece for a small cap or hat ,,)

An assortment of 1840s and early 1850s images

I have collected together a diverse group of images  from 1840s and 1850s  which show bonnets in assorted styles were the usual form of headwear for women of all classes, though I have focused primarily on the middle classes as the Bronte were from roughly this strata of society

Ford.madox.brown.last.emma.study 1853(Photo wiki commons from Wikipedia’s fashion page

this is a preliminary sketch for

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_fashion . I  use a lot of Wikipedia’s images as they are  non copyright but I don’t in any way endorse Wikipedia as a reliable source of information)

1840s-hatsThe photos above are from an excellent post which can be seen if you click the link below ,the post there also shows a later image of an almost identical hat to that in the photo of the three young lady’s

http://kbowenmysteries.com/posts/fashion-friday-ladies-hats/

Costume collections  don’t have any extant hats like that in the photo from 1840 they do however have lots of bonnets.

Below is an early 19thc bonnet

green and white silk bonnet

The bonnet below is from the Bronte parsonage museum collection

bronte-bonnet-parsThere are at least two possibly three bonnets in the museum collection and the sisters mention buying bonnets but never mention buying hats.(The only hat in the collection is a quite pretty  petite straw one worn by Ellen Nussey )

True small hats in a similar style were fashionable in earlier decades in the  1760s /1770s.These were Berger hats ,shallow crowned and usually flat rimmed ,there are only a very few 18thc hats have turned back rims.The hat below from the Met Museum (metropolitan museum of art )shows the common style and shape of the hat which varied only in size ,fabric and trims across classes.

Bergère-hat-18th-century-British-straw-Met-401x500(Theres a full description with images of the Berger hat  in all its forms here http://thedreamstress.com/tag/terminology/page/3/

Madame-Bergeret-c.1766-by-François-Boucher.

It’s true that  quite similar hats were worn from time to time in the early Victorian era. However  in Britain  they were not usually worn not for everyday wear and not often at other times .The fashion plates below show the difference in both shape and use .The fashion plate below is from Goodeys ladies magazine 1842 and indeed both women wear hats not bonnets

goodys 1842However one lady is riding and hats not bonnets were always worn for riding as bonnets would interfere with the riders vision and would also be quite hot and cumbersome ,the other lady is in summer  wear and does again wear a hat but  though its a wide-brimmed hat,it has a much deeper crown and  has ribbon ties and lace trims ,It’s probably showing the kind of clothing ladies would wear in their gardens etc as the woman is wearing neither gloves ,mittens or a shawl and no lady would leave the house without gloves and a shawl or mantle .

Where outdoor  public or formal wear is shown the women always  have on bonnets as can be seen from the fashion plate below which is from a few months later in 1843.Note the ladies are also either in mantles or in the case of the lady in blue carrying one

1843 fashion plateLater fashion plates  from around the time the photo was supposed to have been taken also show hats  but again  they are not everyday wear  and those on adults don’t resemble that in the photograph,one lady is in riding habit .The  plat does show one other hat which is on a young girl  and as  the photographs  owner show a photograph of a child in a hat ,I thought this worth commenting on ,young girls did wear straw hats  and often similar hats to that in the photo but they were not adult clothing  and would have been seen as such ,ladies wouldn’t dream of wearing a children’s  fashion  just as the ladies in the fashion plate would not dream of wearing knee length skirts .

journal des femmes 1847What is also noteworthy in this image is that despite the range of headwear  the woman in her everyday clothing has on a close-fitting bonnet .This fashion plate is from 1847 and is around the latest time the photo if genuine could have been taken .It’s also unlikely the Brontes would have followed fashion closely enough to have the new seasons clothing ,indeed we know they were usually considered if anything  old fashioned.In the two years 1846 and 1847 there is no major fashion magazine showing hats as everyday wear

354_1847_FashionPlate_002

376_1846_FashionPlate_03

The first time a hat of a vaguely similar style starts to appear is in the late 1850s .

450_1859_FashionPlateAThese hats  are still flat brimmed with fairly shallow crowns  and most importantly still have ties. It’s not until the early 1860s you see fashion plates regularly show hast of a style identical to the hat on the standing figure in the photo and minus their little ties.

godey's summer 1862(Goodys magazine summer 1862)

1862 hats

For a more in-depth collection of fashion plates try the page link below

http://bartoscollection.com/fashionplates/prewarvictorian.html

The girls cloaks

Another problem with the girls clothing is the mantles or cloaks they are wearing .They may be early Victorian  but one seems to be made of velvet .This is the one on the seated face on girl ,velvet was extremely expensive and a fabric outside the reach of the  Bronte sisters for everyday clothing .

Patrick does seem to have treated his children  to the odd luxury Anne wears a fine gauze overgrown for her  16th birthday portrait painted by Charlotte and  a fairly plain brown gown does exist at the parsonage which has a quite wide band of velvet added at  its hemline which was probably  to make the gown longer  so its possible they may have had  some velvet item of clothing  in the past but it seems unlikely that was something as mundane as a cape ,,it would also have been unseemly for a governess to wear something as luxurious as a velvet cape or mantle and it would have definitely been considered uppity in a middle class parsons daughter.

The mantles  could possibly be late 1840s are its hard to see but they seem much more like these below from 1859

1858 fashion plate

for descriptions of Victorian outer layers and more images please check out the excellent fashion era website which as lots of fashion plates and articles

http://www.fashion-era.com/Coats_history/mantelet_history_1.htm

The girls gowns

All the girls  in the photo are wearing full-skirted gowns these were becoming fashionable in the late 1840s but were not often this wide and  its unlikely that the three sisters would all have had such full skirts as you need a lot of  fabric .Fabric was  the main expense for any item of clothing ,the fabric  for a gown often cost more than a seamstresses wages for making a gown,we know from Bronte correspondence that even when Charlotte was becoming financialy comfortable she was thrifty about fabric costs and Emily and Ann would certainly not have enough disposable income for yards and yards of surplus fabric .

They are also wearing  a lot petticoats to create the dome shape in the photo.The standing figure in particular  is wearing a lot of petticoats ,you can see the curve of them under her mantle ,assuming  as is suggested that the standing figure is supposed to be Emily then this directly contradicts what little we know of Emily .She  did not wear a large number of petticoats and in fact objected to wearing even enough to look fashionable.She was described as refusing to wear extra petticoats in Brussels as she wished to be “as god made her” Mrs Gaskel comments on Emilys skirts being straight and Emily as the housekeeper would be unlikely to have worn bulky and hot surplus layers ,all of which would need laundering and starching and ironing.

A final note of costume

I belive the owners suggest a date shortly after Branwells death ,but if that were the case the girls would all be in full mourning this was always head to toe black and the girls in the photograph are not in mourning  ,sadly Emily and Anne both spent their final months waiting for their own deaths dressed in mourning for those who they had lost.

Purely subjective and personal thoughts on the photo

I don’t think Emily would have chosen a hat when she could wear a bonnet they wouldn’t stay put for more a few seconds once outside the parsonage without a hat pin and even then it would be difficult.They are cold and the wind would make your ears sting once outside on the moor they would get wet and ruined and they don’t properly shield your eyes from the sun in summer.

Composition

The background of brick is out-of-place for Yorkshire I can’t think of anywhere in Haworth with light coloured brick walls and there’s nowhere else that all three sisters would have been at the time possible for the photo.Its just possible the “bricks” are stone but even so they seem to me to be the wrong texture ,size and shape and colour for the locality, I include a photo of the parsonage front for comparison  ,while had the photo been taken at the Red house in Gomersal ,which was  charlotte’s friend the Taylors home, then the brickwork is too light .

Emily Bronte Parsonage

Its far too “staged” for a normal family portrait compared to most other similar photos of the time .It looks to me like girls “playing dress up “for a fun photo or perhaps its part of a posed photo for an event or play.I doubt however the girls in the 1860s were dressing up as the Bronte sisters as not  all  the three sisters were not popular then .I would buy the idea that it’s a photo to use as a  preliminary  “sketch ” for a line  drawing for a book perhaps Mrs Robinson’s “Emily Bronte” but not a photo of the sisters or a copy of a photo of the sisters.

Emily

If the  standing figure is Emily she’s quite plump and curvy ,not something anyone ever described Emily as being and  if this was after Branwells death Emily was already ill ,shes not reported as being seen outside the Parsonage again after Branwells funeral and though Charlottes letters talk about her own  and her family’s ill health in general just after Branwells death  which  also makes the photos dating seem unlikely and its not very long after Branwells funeral she begins to worry  more specifically about Emily’s health  in the final months of her life she  quite quickly became extremely thin and finally utterly emaciated.

Hair

all the girls have thick glossy hair.Emily does seem to have had thick and lovely hair which she wore up in a similar style to the  standing lady in the photo but Charlotte had very fine hair and Anne’s hair was never described as being thick or full.

 footnotes

Lastly the photo seems too clear to be an early photograph  from the 1840s most early photographs /daguerreotype ,tintype ambrotype etc all lack a certain clarity and the poses are more set it seems much more likely to be an 1860s photo.

Theres a great collection of Victorian portrait photos here for comparison

Or perhaps it a post-mortem photo of the girl seen side on these photos were occasionally quite staged looking more so than normal photos and post-mortem photos were very still very common in the 1860s .

I feel sure the owners genuinely  belive the photo genuine but I don’t belive it to be a Bronte photograph

Further reading

There is an excellent post on Victorian straw hats here

http://www.katetattersall.com/?p=2792

Posted in 19thc, brontes, costume research, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Haworth 1940s weekend a cheats guide to the 1940s look

As Haworth 1940s weekend is this Saturday ,heres brief cheats guide to looking authentic without buying vintage 40s clothing,which while  being without doubt the most desirable option is often not practical especially if like myself  you are curvy and big footed as most 1940s ladies clothing is very petite and shoes are often  small sizes and quite narrow fitting.Luckily there was a trend for 1940s clothing and shoes in the 1980s and many of these clothes look surprisingly like 40s originals .All the clothing below (except for the fur and hat )is vintage 1980s from charity shops ,though  given time is best to shop around vintage shops and on ebay or etsy it’s also possible to pick up bargains at local charity shops.
Good brands to look out for are Hobbs for jackets and skirts ,coast for jackets,skirts and stunning vintage look evening gowns. Older Laura Ashley dresses and jackets can be good,the blue jacket in the photos is a vintage Laura Ashely.Primark is often a good place to find vintage look faux furs and seamed stockings or tights

1940s_outfit_by_abigial709b-d3ku6ul

The ideal is to find a jacket and skirt that look close enough in colour to be a suit,while both the above and below ensembles are obviously not colour perfect matches this wont be too noticeable while the outfits being worn with accessories .
A straight or slightly Aline skirt is best as these are the easiest to find and match to jackets.skirts should not be split at the back unless the split is hidden in a kick pleat and not too short no more than an inch above knee height at most.Its also authentic to wear pleated skirts but these are often harder to match to jackets
Jackets need to be nicely tailored ,either with a little flounced peplum waist or cut in a fairly masculine way . For skirts and jackets wool or wool look synthetic fabrics work best.

1940s haworth 2

40s_outfit_by_abigial709b-d3ku5ao

I also often buy more recent vintage clothing ,from the Hitchcock blond fashion trend around 2004 as even the 1980s clothing can be a little bit too small on the bust and hips for me and is much more difficult to maintain as it often creases whereas modern fabrics are much more crease resistant .If you can afford it splash out on new clothing then a trip to Boundary Mill ,to a Hobbs, Coast ,Laura Ashley or Debenhams will probably yield results.

brown suit apothacvires

haworth 1940s 1

To go under your “suit” you need a 40s look blouse ,something in muted colours is best ,either with a wide collar or a peter pan style collar as these two styles have been popular recently so are quite easy to find online or in charity shops.I prefer either plain silk blouses or polka dot cotton blouses with peter pan collars.Muted very small print florals can also work but these are harder to match to skirts and jackets so if your only using the outfit once its best to keep to easy to match colours.

to give the outfit an authentic look its necessary to add  accessories .

The main essentials are a 40s style hat and a fur which can be a mink ,squirrel or fox cape or stole .
cindy 40s weekend
The most instantly recognisable 1940s fur is the  fox with its head and legs etc still attached (The reason so many 1940s furs have their heads and legs is that furs made into coats ,stoles capes etc without their legs and head were subject to rationing  and you would need to have the required number of ration tokens to buy it.whereas anything with limbs or its head was classed as a pelt and excluded from rationing .Furs are not always expensive while am artic fox can cost well over one hundred pounds a small mink can  usually be bought for single figures and if you willing to buy something slightly less than perfect its also possible to pick up stoles and foxes.

If you dont like to wear fur then its still possible to look the part but it requires much more work as other details will need to be much more precise.
last 40s talk

try to focus on a stunning hat and eye-catching bags or jewellery. Also to required if you will be outside are gloves  and a handbag .
To complete the look a pearl necklace and earings,perhaps a brooch. While there was a great variety of 1940s costume jewellery pearls are the best and easiest to find choice. Many supermarkets and stores will have simple pearl necklaces and though one were the pearls are graduated in size is more historically accurate any short necklace made of small pearls will look great. If you want something a bit different try an AB crystal necklace,these will need to be bought vintage but are often easier to find cheaply than genuine 1940s pearl necklaces which can be expensive as charity shops have begun to realise re enactors brose them and increased the price of things they consider “1940s y (sometimes to prices substantiality more expensive than an actual vintage shop) wereas AB necklaces are not popular and tend to still be in the cheap sections and can be picked up for a couple of pounds or less.AB or Aurora Borealis chrystals are the sparkling clear crystals that reflect different coloured light ,they are usualy cut with a lot of facets .
ab necklace
A gas mask is essential for complete accuracy as they had to be carried at all times when out ,though my friend gets around this by carrying an 1945 newspaper so she says its the end of the war.It is also possible to buy empty gas mask boxes to carry and as no one ever sees inside the box this is a cheap and easy solution, the empty box is also much lighter than a box and mask.

haworth 1940s 3A  bag of some kind is another essential ,unlike today no woman would go out without a handbag ,,at a pinch a  nw or preferably vintage shopping basket will do ,maybe you have one  left over from school cookery classes ?,even a modern new one is a great alternative to a genuine 1940s handbag which are usually very expensive

basket
40s-shot gloves

.If you prefer a bag or are going to an event such as a dance were a basket obviously isn’t an option finding bags that look like 1940s bags can be hard as far as handbags go but some 1980s clutch bags are quite convincing and there has recently been a trend towards retro style clutch bags so a visit to Primark or a similar store might bear fruit ,try to keep to muted colours as though some 1940s bags were quite bright most were fairly conservative colours and certainly darker colours give a more “vintage” impression. I would remove any clip on straps as they wouldn’t usually have been used.(often 1940s clutch bags have a loop at the back to loop through your hand ).If you do buy vintage make sure its a 1940s style not the similar 1950s style.Avoid patent leather as these are most likely to be later bags .Its also best to try to find single strap bags as while 1940s style did sometimes have two handles or even shoulder straps the iconic 1940s bag is the single handled clasp top bag.

re tea dances or evening events

If you can ,try to find short dress not a long  one as either a faux 40s or genuine 1940s dress such as the satin one below .A wrap dress style in silk or wool or a button front style in silk cotton or wool are the style that are easiest to wear ,bias cut dresses look beautiful but are hard to wear if your not tall and skinny and also hard to source underwear for as modern cut knickers may leave lines ,but so will the catches from suspenders .
cream fox cerise dress
If you buy a short dress can easily be teamed with a jacket if you need to go  to other outside events whereas a long evening gown is only useful for indoor night events.

me and tilly 40s

As can be seen in the full length shots  of my outfits I usually wear high heeled shoes ,1940s shoes were often quite high ,I tend to wear either brogues or peep toe shoes as these are the two most well-known 40s styles.Suede looks authentic for peep toe shoes while brogues are best in plain black or brown.
Due to war time shortages shoes were not infrequently made with fabric and wood or cork was also sometimes used often for wedge heels but these styles though authentic tend to look more modern Again Primark can be fruitful for peep toe shoes.Tesco also occasionally have quite authentic looking 40s styles .Ladies did wear flat shoes but its harder to find authentic looking replica flat shoes and 1940s ones are very hard to find in sizes above uk 4 or 5

1940s womenA mistake sometimes made is to wear pointed toe high heels  or narrow heels which were not in fashion until the 1950s,,I forgot to change my shoes before this photo below was taken and it does spoil the effect.

haworth 1940s 4

Seamed stockings or tights add a nice authentic detail but should be flesh coloured not grey or black,It is possible to draw lines on the backs of each others legs but much harder than you might imagine to get the lines straight and in the uk bare legs can be chilly .

All the hats I have worn above are replica hats made specially for me however you can easily cheat and buy a 1980s wide-brimmed hat and modify it ,I had hoped to go a brief tutorial on how to do this but unfortunately I have not yet done so .Some 1980s wide-brimmed hats can be used as they are. Others if you remove the maribou or ostrich feathers and replace them with pheasant feathers look pretty good.If you do want to try restyling ,take a modern felt hat or even one of the posh school hats ,then cut two thirds of brim from the crown.Twist this free part of brim around to create an interesting shape,tack it in place and perhaps add a feather,any offcuts of the hat fabric can be cut into leaf shapes to decorate the hat .A google search for 1940s hats will give some ideas for styles.
school hat restyled

The hat above is made from an old school hat the brim was cut almost completely off leaving a narrow strip of fabric it was then twist slightly and stitched at an angle to the crown, I also cut the crown slightly to curve to the head, smaller hats will need a hat pin to keep them in place and indeed most hats feel easier to wear if you put a hat pin in them .To use a hat pin push it into the hat so its not sticking out then put the hat on and push the hat pin through your hair style and out of the hat the other side,this is safer than trying to just push the hat pin straight in while your wearing the hat .If yopu cant buy a hat you can wear a headscarf twisted or folded into a narrow strip and tied at the top of your head but this is not particularly authentic unless your in an informal environment or dressing as a worker
For gloves
any neatly cut plain leather or faux leather pair work well and you may already have some or be able to pick them up easily and cheaply from stores.If you prefer vintage a pair of little crochet gloves such as those seen in the photo of me with the shopping basket are the prettiest and cheapest option ,nylon gloves are often later 1950s or 60s and are also really hot to wear. Vintage gloves can be tiny or narrow fitting ,I have fairly small hands and need a sz 7 which I would imagine is the smallest size likely to fit modern ladies hands though perhaps for crochet gloves you may just get away with a sz 6.5 .

Lastly make up

The make up for the 1940s is fairly pale compared to modern tanned look foundations though not as pale as in earlier decades.The key thing is pale foundation ,flesh coloured or very pale eyeshadow and a red lipstick ,pillar box red or something similar as though not all lipstick was red it was very popular  is the look most associated with the 1940s .
For hair if you have short hair or don’t want to put your hair up ,buy a wide brimmed hat and you don’t need to worry about styling it ,if your hair is long enough then you can wear it looped up at the front in two v shapes but to do this you need something under your hair to get the height ,little hair cushions on combs can be bought but if you don’t have any roll up a couple of pieces of faux fur or velvet and roll your hair over these. You will need lots and ,lots of very stiff hairspray ,maximum hold ,spray it as you go along with your make up ,spray it again when your finished and again before you leave and if you have space take the hairspray with you as Haworth’s often breezy ,my hair will usually still stay up even without the hairpins.
I hope these are helpful hints
Have a lovely time at your event .

related posts
hair styles on youtube

footnote .
some ladies needed to kit out their menfolk so heres a little added bit.
I am not overly experienced at searching out mens clothing how ever I do have to kit out my husband and have friends who had helpful hints
John wears a wide lapel jacket which I think is actual vintage 40s but a vintage 80s jacket would work too and plain trousers (without turn ups as turn ups were not allowed under the clothing restrictions) He makes it look more 40s like with a civil defence arm band.Under the jacket he wears a modern shirt and either a bow tie or narrow tie and fedora hat.If you can pick up a waistcoat that would make a nice addition . He also has a back up James Herriot style outfit ,tweed jacket ,corduroy trousers brogues.A friend has a fairly easy outfit ,he wears a long old fashioned mens overall ,like the shopkeeper from open all hours ,he wears a normal shirt ,bow tie and flat cap .
for easy to find mens hats you can get flat caps ,tweed caps or Indianana Jones style hats ,Bowlers hats are also fairly easy to find but expensive.
Flat caps and tweed caps are usually available in charity shops ,The Souke Haworth also has them usually as well as a lot of great mens jackets and hats ,John also got his civil defence armband from there and they are fairly cheap .
I don’t advise uniforms for men who are not regular re enactors as they are hard to get entirely right and often expensive .You might be able to create a faux navel outfit with a roll neck jumper and captains cap from a fancy dress shop ,,think captain birds eye ,,or you could just wear a Breton style cap and say your one of the seamen who manned the small crafts for Dunkirk.
It should be noted that wearing a none allied forces uniform may mean that your movements are limited,Pickering doesn’t allowed Gemrans on trains and you have to stay in Le vishem which is levishem but for the war weekend acts as enemy occupied France .
German uniforms are not accurate for homefront 1940s weekends and are often unwelcome .In many places “enemy forces ” are not allowed on trains or other transport and genuine vintage German uniforms can have extremely unpleasant provenances .Herr flick might seem a fun choice and fairly easy if you already have a long leather coat but SS officers were never the nice guys and were never seen on mainland Britain in uniform.
see below

http://hathawaysofhaworth.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/1940s-re-enactment-and-the-hidden-horrors-of-those-smart-german-uniforms/

Posted in Hathaways of Haworth, Haworth and Oxenhope, Uncategorized, work | Tagged , | 4 Comments

1480 to 1600 ,When women ruled the world part one

While I know it is common to bemoan the fate of women in the late medieval /early renaissance period I would suggest that it was in fact a time when women shaped Europe’s history and made changes that are still felt in our modern world.In this first of a series of posts I will give a very  brief introduction .

griselda

The  period between 1480 and 1600 was a time when either officially or unofficially women ruled much of Europe for most of the time ,either in their own names or by controlling husbands  or sons who ruled .Many of these women were in many respects powerless victims,Margret Beaufort was married as a child and had her first and last child Henry Tudor  at the age of  13 ,Katherine of Aragon was discarded by her husband and died in poverty ,Anne Boleyn was executed once Henry VIII tired of her ,Mary Tudor was wife to a younger husband who though she was devoted to him  had little love for her ,Mary Stuart through unwise marriages ended her days as a prisoner of Elizabeth I (who perhaps learning from the mistakes of both Marys remained unmarried).Yet despite the overwhelming odds stacked against women in  the 15th and 16th centuries these women made a huge impact on their world and ours.While not everything these women achieved was necessarily positive it did have lasting influence.

In separate posts I will cover ,,

Ferdinand-and-Isabelle-1469-51246288a

Isabella of Castile

Isabella drove the Moors from Spain ,she spent much of her adult life on military campaigns though she married and  worked with her husband to create a united  Spain her husband Ferdinand did not control her lands she remained queen of them her self.If Isabella  and Ferdinand had not removed the moors from spain its possible Spain would have remained Muslim up until the present day .Had Isabella not acted as sponsor to Christopher Columbus Spain would not have had any holdings in the USA nor would the conquistadors have troubled the latin American countries.She also expelled the Jews from Spain and thus facilitated  the advance of science in other countries .She was succeeded by her daughter Juana ,,though only briefly.

Margret Beaufort

220px-Lady_Margaret_Beaufort_from_NPG

Mother of Henry Tudor later to be Henry VII  it was primarily by her plotting and support Henry managed to invade England and win at  Bosworth ,Without Margaret there would be no Tudor dynasty

Katherine of Aragon

white band-Catherine_aragon

While often seen as Henry VIII boring first wife ,it was Katherine who shaped much of Henry’s early policy and it was under Katherine’s command that England won the battle of  Flodden against the  Scots ,the battle saw the death of not just the king but also much of the nobility of Scotland

Anne Boleyn

457px-Anne_boleyn

The determination of Henry VIII to cast off  Katherine for Anne  and the way both women dealt with the situation shaped the culture and society of the united kingdom up to its present day .It’s clear it was from Ann that the idea of incorporating protestant religious concepts into England came,while her Chaplin Thomas Crammer was responsible for the Prayer Book of Edwards reign .Anne was a determined supporter of the reformers and her copy of Tyndale’s New testament still survives.

Queen Mary 1

mary tudor

Always in the shadow of herhalf-sister Elizabeth Mary Tudor is yet an interesting figure in her own right ,sadly responsible for the creating of a anti catholic bias in the English mind ,she was also the first woman ever to rule England in her own right and by popular consent.

Elizabeth 1

385px-Queen_Elizabeth_I_('The_Ditchley_portrait')_by_Marcus_Gheeraerts_the_Younger

The influence of Elizabeth’s reign impacted on almost every aspect of modern life in the UK ,our culture ,our trade ,our prejudices and our belief in what it is to be English .

Catherine de Medici

Catharina Medici

Not  queen in her own right ,she ruled through her sons  and played a key role in the politics  of Europe,The years during which her sons reigned if often called the age of Catherine de Medici .She made real changed in Fracnes policy while unfortunate events such as the St Bartholomew’s day massacre created such a powerful full memory that it had lasting repercussions for Roman Catholics .

Mary Stuart the Queen of Scots

black dress mary

While Mary was rather a tragic and ineffective ruler ,she ruled as queen in Scotland briefly .Yet the rule of Mary and Elizabeth made  mainland Britain for a while at least a place entirely under the governance of queens.

Other women to receive honorable mentions for their impact on their countries or cities will be

Eleanore of Toledo

 eleanorElizabeth Woodville

eliz woodvilElizabeth Bathory

Elizabeth_Bathory_Portrait

Posted in 15thc, 16thc/17thc, history, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Princes in the Tower, the murder mystery that never was

As  Richard III is currently in the news  I thought it a good time to finish my post on the Princes.The alleged “murder of the princes in the tower” is a frequent reason for suggesting that Richard III was both a bad person and a usurper .Richard cannot escape the slur of child murder and comments about placing his actions in a historical context don’t really wash.Yet there is absolutely nothing about Richards character and behavior prior to becoming King which suggests he is capable of murdering not just  children but his brothers  children .It is certain Richard took power from these children  with planned and somewhat ruthless efficiency and placed them under increasingly close keeping  in the Tower of London.They then disappear from  the tower and from history presumably murdered.

princes-in-Tower

I know it is popular to “defend “Richard by suggesting other potential suspects but I don’t think it is actually necessary to assume foul play .The princes could  quite easily have died of natural causes, or perhaps  the  older prince  or more precisely the young king  Edward V died and the younger prince was sent away,(I can’t personally  imagine it likely that one prince was sent into exile overseas but there is considerable academic support to favour it and  unless this occurred or was at least suspected  I cannot otherwise explain the  behavior of  key players later in case of Perkin Warbeck).

True Richard placed first Edward V and then is Brother Richard in the Tower of London but  the moving of the Princes to the Tower was not as ominous as it seems to us now, the Tower was the key royal lodging in London and  had a large and comfortable set of Royal apartments and monarchs stayed there prior to their coronation.It is only later under the Tudors and Stuarts it acquires a reputation that is entirely unpleasant  .Even had the boys not been kept in Royal apartments its not necessarily the case that because they were placed in the towers other rooms their death needed to follow.The Tower had a number of long-term prisoners and several kings and queens spent years imprisoned in the Tower before being released or moved elsewhere.Over the centuries Kings of France ,England and Scotland spent years in imprisonment .Richard may have planned a similar fate for his nephews,he certainly had nothing to gain from having them murdered as they had been declared illegitimate ,their power base curtailed and  he had been crowned king.

Keeping the children in his custody made much more sense than murdering them as while they were in his close keeping they were in effect hostages for the good behavior of their mother and her supporters and many of those supporters were the unpopular Woodville’s or Woodville allies.Though plots could be instigated to free them, as long as they were kept safe and perhaps in secret locations it was far safer to leave them alive. The next claimants  to Richards throne were all adults who were out of Richards control and capable of acting for themselves .

It is not therefore fanciful or illogical  to assume Richard did not murder the Princes and there is no evidence against him .Though there were random rumors in 1483 and 1484 and the odd vague remark by later chroniclers  there is no evidence that he murdered the children except that they disappeared and their disappearance may equally have been because as other rumors claimed that they had been sent overseas.Likewise despite it being in his obvious best interests Henry VII could not find reputable accounts  of any murder or produce the princes bodies and was never able to clearly accuse Richard of their murder.Further more  HenryVIIs behavior in the Perkin Warbeck case tends to suggest he did not know for an absolute fact that the princes had been murdered .

There is also the behavior of  their mother and their sisters Despite a few rumours that the princes had been murdered in late 1483 In March 1884 their mother Elizabeth Woodville and their sisters came out of sanctuary in Westminster Abbey and Richard gave sworn assurances of their safety and good treatment and he made good his promises.To allow the sisters of the Princes liberty was fairly safe while their brothers were still alive if however Richard had killed them ,it meant he was allowing freedom to potential heirs of Edward IV and  also placing in positions of power women whose brothers he had murdered .This doesn’t seem the wisest of moves.If however we assume the princes were moved and hidden away there is no reason not to treat their sisters well . If as I suggest may be the case that the princes  or at least the  elder  King Edward died of natural causes and this was known to be a fact by their mother then there would be no danger from allowing the women liberty as long as they would be persuaded to see their best interests lay with Richard and it made political sense to  marry them into the families of his supporters or perhaps  as his wife was sickening he planned  to marry  one of them himself to strengthen his claim to the throne,,just as Henry VII does later when he marries Elizabeth of York.eli yorkThe case for natural death grows if  evidence from the bones long believed to be the Princes in the tower is considered.(though I am not utterly convinced these are in fact the princes bones  ,the arguments for illness could equaly apply )The bones of the largest /eldest child showed evidence of extensive  osteomyelitis, a chronic and in medieval times, incurable bone  disease ,it causes not just severe pain and sores but also bone necrosis and even today dead bone often needs to be removed and treatment with antibiotics is essential .None of these options were available at the time .If the skeleton is that of  Edward V he was doomed even without being murdered The pain from this infection  would be more than enough to account for Edward Vs apparent depression and  its severity accounts for his reported belief  that he would soon die .If this was the prince the disease was of long standing so  it is also clear he had been  alive for longer than reports of his death in 1483 suggested.

The progress of this or any similare disease would also explain why the princes began to be seen less frequently and may also  explain the death or disappearance  of the second prince .Perhaps when it became clear how ill Edward was Richard was moved to keep him healthy or more likely he contracted a related disease and died .Osteomyelitis can be a complication of other diseases  caused by a number of bacteria all of which would easily be passed from child to child by direct contact ,by sharing the same environment,,same bed ,same increasingly confined space.Two of the bacteria Staphylococcus and salmonella are environmental and the princes probably shared the same spaces  infected by the bacteria and may  have been independently infected .Its also possible it was a complication of Tuberculosis ,which may have been the actual cause of death and would have very easily been transmitted from prince to prince ..Though the second skeleton does not appear to have any disease  evident it was incomplete and already damaged when examined and in addition death from for example Typhus  would leave no marks nor would flu type diseases  ,it was only months after Bosworth that the “sweating Sickness” officially appears in England perhaps the princes were among the earliest victims.
Death by natural causes would explain the burial of the bodies either those found under the stair or those found elsewhere earlier,,if your going to murder two children then why not just throw them in the river but if they die of natural causes after being cared for then it’s entirely logical they may have been secretly and hurriedly  buried in a makeshift coffin to prevent the spread of disease from their corpses but perhaps also with the hope they could be reburied with  more dignity later.

If they had died in 1483 it  doesn’t of course explain why Richard didn’t make the deaths public and produce bodies,Edwards disease would be so visible that it would be impossible to attribute his death to murder .I would suggest that it’s possible that at the time the first rumors  of their murder were circulating  the princes were extremely ill and couldn’t be produced but Richard was biding his time and intended to produce them once they recovered or produce their corpses once they succumbed and died.Perhaps Elizabeth emerged from the closely watched sanctuary of the Abby in 1484 so she could visit one or both sons before their deaths it would explain what otherwise seems to be a strange about turn.

There were regular outbreaks of disease in London and especially during the hotter months ,infant mortality in medieval England was high and  the Woodville children of Edward IV seem to have been particularly susceptible to ravages of  infant mortality .In addition precautions against spreading disease where for the  most part ineffective .In the light of the lack of evidence it would seem far more likely that the Princes died while kept in less than ideal conditions rather than that they were murdered by persons unknown in a manner unknown and disposed of in a place unknown.

The possibility that the younger child survived in exile will be dealt with at some point in the future as the case of Perkin Warbeck is of enough interest to merit its own post

Footnote

Richards religious beliefs

As it’s a subjective opinion I have not included the following in the main article however I think it a valid and very important  argument and it is therefore included below.

As a christian I do not feel that Richard who shows obvious signs of  being  genuinely devout would have committed murder .While Richard was obviously used to killing ,he had fought in many battles ,this does not make him capable of child murder .Premeditated  Murder is a mortal sin.Had Richard committed such a sin he would have shown signs of a troubled conscience and an excessive  worry about the state of his soul after death ,this isn’t the case .True he arranged  the execution of enemies but those were adults who were  his enemies not defenseless children ,Richard seems to have had an empathy for the under dog and a passion for justice for the voiceless its I think impossible that such a man could kill children in his care.

Posted in history, Tudors, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

What the Bible says about Women part two. Ezer Kenegdo .

Adam-and-Eve-Garden

As mentioned in my first post on what the Bibles says about Women ,this is a response to the number of sites promoting the submissive wife and  Titus 2 woman.Titus is a New testament letter and gives instructions on  conduct appropriate to various groups.The relevant section states

Titus 2

Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

I will choose here to be the older woman of Titus two and offer good counsel to younger women .There is an increasing number of sites promoting  the  erroneous doctrine of  Women as inferiors to men or wives as servants to husbands .Young Christian women are encouraged to be  “stay at home” women,both wives and mums and even daughters .While it is  certainly ideal for young Children to have a “stay at home” parent ,I find it worrying that women are encouraged to be “stay at home ” daughters to the exclusion of acquiring an education and stay at home wives to the exclusion of any  education or ambitions other than those focused on being the helpmate of a man .

titus woman

I am in no way denigrating stay at home mums or wives at various times I have been both ,neither is my argument based on undermining the Bible or the Christian faith ,I hold a high conservative view of scripture and I am a Christian.(I have provided a fuller  outline of my spiritual, personal and educational background in the previous post here)

http://hathawaysofhaworth.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/titus-2-and-what-the-bible-really-says-about-women-introduction/

I will  now explore and consider the premises for believing the bible  teaches the inferiority of women and  condones or even encourages “stay at home women”I have started  this series of posts by considering the account of  creation and the fall ,as it is the foundation on which every other belief rests. I have also argued more or less entirely from within the text as it is the Bible which is used to justify these heresies.

Genesis not only tells us about the past acts of our  creator God but  explains our present  world and its tells us of  events that  are still being enacted ,it lays down fundamental  concepts about ourselves and our world  and about what is means to be a man and what it means to be a woman.Its also the foundation of the only God-given covenant between humans Marriage.Misreading and mistranslation have created an entirely false idea of the roles of women.

woman-servant

Below are listed some Commonly held views which are assumed to have irrefutable foundations in the Word of God ,most are out-and-out untrue some are only half-true

1/ The bible says women  are inferior to men ,they mens helpers and God ordained different roles in life for men and woman

2/that Man as “the priest of the house” is effectively responsible for being almost an intermediary between his wife and God .

3/ The bible says women are inherently more likely to sin than men and were responsible for the “fall”

4/The bible says wives must  be the submissive servants of their husbands

To begin with premise one

The bible says  women are inherently inferior to men ,the weaker vessel.

It is fairly obvious without any reference to scripture that women are in general physically frailer than men ,we lack the same muscle strength ,we have finer more delicate bones and finer skin  ,we are for the most part are less resilient to harsh environments or excessive hard labour .Being physically weaker however does not mean we are weak in every respect.Many male biblical characters are not physically remarkable and indeed several  handsome or  physically  strong male figures are poor spiritual  role models eg ,Absalom,Samson,

absalom_2
The bible  therefore clearly does not teach that the  body is  in any way a mirror to the mind or soul nor is it of any eternal  importance .Womens bodies are weaker but their  intellect and women’s immortal souls are equal to mens because god created us that way and Genesis tells us so.

Beata_Beatrix,_1864-1870

The Bible tells is  man was most certainly created first and woman second.To use this to support an argument that Man is therefore a better, higher or prefered being to woman  is erroneous . Before man was created God created the plants and animals,,does that therefore mean they are superior to Mankind ? Creation of living things in the Genesis account is shown as a progression from the simple plants to more complex animals then to man .Man is not greater than woman because he was created first ,if you carry any form of  precedence by creation time argument forward it would maintain Woman not man was the peak of Gods creation .Which is obviously not an acceptable premise .What is clear  is Woman is not an afterthought to stop Adam being lonely ,Woman  completes Gods  creation ,without woman the work of creation is incomplete and Adams life would be forever lonely.

king-rene-s-honeymoon-1867

Secondly the frequent argument of mans superiority because he is in effect Gods first-born .This is also flawed as throughout the bible the first-born are often superseded by later children,,Jacob was born second,,David was the youngest son.The term  first-born  cannot be used of  the Adam /God  relationship God did not give birth to Adam he created him.

Point one continued

Woman is created  according to our English bibles to be mans ” help mate ” in his tasks ,however  the word has lost some of its meaning over time ,,the original was help meet,, ie helper fit for man ,,and even in its original form the phrase  loses a great deal in translation.

puritans

.The english versions leads us  to assume that woman being a helper for man  is therefore inferior.This is not is a concept borne out by later biblical events and teaching or by actual reading of the Hebrew phrase, Ezer  cenegdo/kenegdo

The english translation  of the phrase as Helper suggests a position of inferiority,taking commands and helping out ,however the actual Hebrew has a wider fuller  meaning .

Ezer  the first part of the phrase  is exclusively  used elsewhere in the Bible to refer to God or to a king or ruler or someone powerful providing indispensable help ,its always used to describe someone with power ,it ,means not a servant helper but someone who comes to your aid with their ,power  or strength and or as a military allies.

“I lift up my eyes to the hills–where does my help come from? My help comes from the Lord, the Maker of heaven and earth” (Psalm 121:1-2).

The base root of Ezer is  Azar  which means to succor ,to surround,to encourage .

Hence  woman is mans  helper in power and strength as well as emotionally and spiritually.If we seek her model in art or literature she isn’t the long-suffering,downtrodden and  submissive yet ever faithful Griselda ,

griselda

she is more like the gentle but brave and powerful Arwyn

lotr_arwen_chase_dress_2

There are plenty of Hebrew words which do mean servant or someone able but under authority but these are not used.

The second part of the phrase Cenegdo or  kenegdo means facing ,like or corresponding to  or opposite to and implies being face to face ,equal  but different.It can also mean an opposer but thats not its usual context.That this is how woman is seen is again obvious by close reading of the text .

Adam acknowledges Eves likeness to himself my calling Eve ,wo-man ,not because she is from him and therefore inferior to him but because unlike the animals etc she is like him ,flesh of his flesh bone of his bone ,,another being like himself.

Significantly and symbolically Eve is created from Adams side and from close to his heart.The bible re enforces this by adding that Man will leave his father and mother to be with his wife.The revolutionary nature of that verse is perhaps lost on the modern mind  ,at the time of Gensis conception is elsewhere in the world it was  always the case that women are taken from their homes  to the mans household and become part of his family’s household as almost a posession.

Kenegdos other meaning as opposite  also suggests that  Eve is different to Adam which is clearly the case the Bible ,experience and science all show us that men and women are not just the same creatures in different bodies but have clear differences in outlook and in their strengths and weaknesses.

Hence  God says I will create for Adam a partner to be his aid ,Woman is not created as a meek helpmate but a powerful ,strong partner for Adam to add her strength to his and with him to rule the earth.

Ferdinand-and-Isabelle-1469-51246288a(Ferdinand and Isabella ,the Catholic monarchs of spain

The Biblical texts examined more closely

Gen 2 v8

 The Lord God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed. Out of the ground the Lord God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

10 Now a river [g]flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four [h]rivers. 11 The name of the first is Pishon; it [i]flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there. 13 The name of the second river is Gihon; it [j]flows around the whole land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is [k]Tigris; it [l]flows east of Assyria. And the fourth river is the [m]Euphrates.

15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [n]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”

18 Then the Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper [o]suitable for him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the [p]sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the [q]sky, and to every beast of the field, but for [r]Adam there was not found a helper [s]suitable for him. 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God [t]fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. 23 The man said,

“This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
[u]She shall be called [v]Woman,
Because [w]she was taken out of [x]Man.”

24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife

This is the most often quoted account of the creation of mankind and is of course the reason we know man was created first .However what is rarely asked is why did God create man first  and allow man to look for companions elsewhere before he created woman?A close reading of the text shows this is not as it is usually suggested merely because man is thus shown to Gods first choice and worker alongside God in naming the animals .Nor is it  that Man is  Gods true image or even because it shows man can exist without woman while women are entirely dependent on men for their existence ,rather the opposite.Man cannot live without Woman ,she is essential to him ,this creation account is surely given to us by God so that men will understand they need women,that women are essential to them and bring to creation something unique and special .Its also clear that Man is given a close relationship with his wife so much so they are one

roman-de-la-rose-1864

This first longer version of  mankind’s creation is also usually stressed to the exclusion of the much shorter earlier version

Gen 1 .27

So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” .

Man /the husband is the spiritual intermediary between Woman and God .his wife and God

In this shorter  creation account  we see the  introductory comments on the hebrew phrase translated helpmate as an equal partner are accurate .Man is not the only true image of God and woman an echo made only to be mans servant ,in this earlier verse we see Women and Man on equal  spiritual footing both rulers of the earth. God blessed THEM  ie both Adam and Eve  and told Them ie ,Adam and Eve, man and woman that they should subdue and role over creation  .Later verses support this  readings I will use two NT texts one from Peter and one from   Pauls teachings on men and women as  Peter and Paul are the only real source for christian views of women as mens servants

First Peter

Peter 3:7 Husbands, in the same way live with your wives with understanding, showing respect as to a weaker vessel, the female, as also to a fellow-heir of the grace of life, so your prayers may not be hindered.

Secondly Paul

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise. (NIV, Galatians 3:26-29)

(I will answer Peter and Pauls other teaching on Women in later posts)

Women responsible for the Fall

If it is accepted Women and Men were initially spiritual equals ,its claimed Women or at least Eve sinned first  causing the Fall and the advent of sin and death.

It is very certain that the first woman,Eve was the first human to disobey God ,the Bible tells us so and we see many echos of the Fall narrative in other cultures Myths such as that of Pandora  and her box or Jar  ( Pandora is the created first woman in Greek Mythology)

It is true that had Adam not also disobeyed Evas plight and that of Women would be like Pandora the source of all the worlds woes ,However Adam did sin.

adam-and-eve-in-the-garden-of-eden-the-elder-lucas-cranach

Genesis three the Fall

Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the Lord God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, “Where are you?”

10 He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

11 And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

13 Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

The Story ends with Adam and Eves expulsion from Eden.

The Expulsion from Eden

It is sometimes claimed Adam was always the intermediary between Eve and God ,,hence Man should remain so in the modern world (,this is however not borne out by a close reading of the Bible, true God and Adam are close and it is Adam not Eve who God calls for in the garden but nowhere does it say that God only spoke to Eve via Adam,God does in fact  speak to her in a second creation account and in this account later during the curses  ,you have to rely on the argument from silence  to imply G0d didn’t speak to Eve)

But if we assume for the time being that Adam was Gods intermediary  with Eve ,then if was the case  Eves sin was to disobey Adam her husband thus causing all the woes of the world.However what is ignored in this scenario is that if this is indeed the case Eves sin is surely more understandable than Adams.Eve disobeyed her fellow-creature who she spent her time helping because a spiritual being, the serpent told her something different.Adam on the other hand disobeyed God ,a God who he had been close to and who he knew from personal experience was the creator of  all the living things and who had given him everything he had .At this point its is proper to highlight that any disobedience is Sin and all sin is equal Eves is not a lesser sinner for just disobeying Adam , but likewise Eve is no greater sinner for sinning first ,her sin is no greater than Adams.Likewise the actual act of committing the first sin is committed by both Eve and Adam individually and independently and both must equally take the responsibility for their sin and its consequences.

If we now read the account more closely we see that though the text is unclear  its likely only Eve held a conversation with the serpent .It is however utterly illogical to argue that this is a prelude to sin. Eve was not told not to talk to the serpent just not to eat from the tree .Its also suggested Eve should not have  had the conversation where she explains the prohibition to the serpent as that implies Eves willingness to be tempted  but ignores the obvious alternative that Eve was explaining to the serpent that it was wrong in what it believed and was trying to helpfully correct it ,she has after all been given joint  stewardship of the animals by God .While it is occasionally suggested both Adam and Eve were involved in the serpents conversation this seems unlikely ,The serpent is cursed for deceiving Eve not both Adam and Eve so it’s fairly likely the serpent /Eve conversation isn’t witnessed by Adam .It can be argued that Eve is seen as an easy target by the serpent  or that she intends to sin because she goes close to the tree but that isn’t explicitly stated and can’t be supported by the Genesis narrative .God doesn’t say ,don’t go near the tree ,don’t talk to the serpent so there can be no implied disobedience from Eves actions.

What is important is that Eve does not sin then wander to another part of Eden to tempt Adam , Adam is present at the point at which Eve eats ,he sees her eat then eats himself ,she doesn’t tempt Adam she is just the one who passes the fruit to Adam and who eats .Adam doesn’t say Eve told me to eat it ,Eve  persuaded me or Eve deceived me just that she gave it to him  the fruit .God doesn’t curse Eve for deceiving Adam in the way he curses the serpent for deceiving Eve ,nor does he curse  Eve as a temptress ,he curses her for her disobedience in eating the fruit

The consequences of  Adams sin is also much more wide-ranging than Eves ,Eves sin merely effects women

Gen 3 cont

I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;

rIn pain you shall bring forth children;

sYour desire shall be 5for your husband,

And he shall trule over you.”

whereas Adams affects all creation and the lot of humankind.

Gen 3

Then to Adam He said, u“Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree vof which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’:

w“Cursed is the ground for your sake;

xIn toil you shall eat of it

All the days of your life.

18 Both thorns and thistles it shall 6bring forth for you,

And yyou shall eat the herb of the field.

19 zIn the sweat of your face you shall eat bread

Till you return to the ground,

For out of it you were taken;

aFor dust you are,

And bto dust you shall return.”

graves4

Lastly here is the earliest source of the belief that  God ordained women should be submissive in all respects to their husbands ,its is the phrase that Eves husband will “Rule over her, yet the context here is always forgotten ,,it’s a curse .God is not giving out instructions for a godly marriage but rather explaining the sad results of sin.Likewise it would be impossible for the ruling over of Eve to have been an original part of the Adam /Eve ,husband wife ideal relationship  then be included in a curse for sin .The unregenerate Husband wife may still be included in this curse but there is certainly no scope for a Christian husband and wife to use this text for marriage guidance.

It should  also be noticed that the trend to “pass the buck to women for mans sin first appears here but Adams defence by blaming Eve is not condoned by God  and he shows clearly that every being is accountable for their sins and can’t use excuses to pass the blame to anyone or anything else.Blaming Eve for initiating the Fall and using it to denigrate women is not acceptable to God.

Men and women are equal but different .

Footnote

I have here listed  several texts using Ezer Kenegd

 Exodus 18:4, And the name of the other was Eliezer; for the God of my father, said he, was mine help, and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh.  -

 Deuteronomy 33:26, There is none like unto God of Jeshurun, who rides upon the heaven in thy help, and his excellency on the sky. 

Deuteronomy 33:29, Happy art thou, O Israel: who is like unto thee, O people saved by the Lord, the shield of thy help, and who is the sword of thy excellency!.. 

5) Psalm 20:1-2, The Lord hear thee in the day of trouble; the name of the God of Jacob defend thee; Send thee help from the sanctuary, and strengthen thee out of Zion.

6) Psalm 33:20, Our soul waiteth for the Lord; He is our help and our shield.

7) Psalm 70:5, But I am poor and needy: make haste unto me, O God: thou art my help and my deliverer; O Lord, make no tarrying.

8) Psalm 89:19, Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one, and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have exalted one chosen out of the people.

9) Psalm 115:9, O Israel, trust in the Lord: he is their help and their shield.

10) Psalm 115:10, O house of Aaron, trust in the Lord: he is their help and their shield.

11) Psalm 115:11, Ye that fear the Lord, trust in the Lord: he is their help and their shield.

12) Psalm 121:1, I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help.

13) Psalm 121:2, My help cometh from the Lord, which made heaven and earth.

14) Psalm 124:8, Our help is in the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth.

15) Psalm 146:5, Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help

 If we apply Ezer to imply a position of submission and servant like service these texts become nonsense.

Exodus 18:4, And the name of the other was Eliezer; for the God of my father, said he, was mine servant  and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh.  -

Deuteronomy 33:26, There is none like unto God of Jeshurun, who rideth upon the heaven in thy service  and his excellency on the sky.

Psalm 121:2, My service  cometh from the Lord, which made heaven and earth.

Lord, the voice of Judah be thou a servant to him from his enemies.

Psalm 115:11, Ye that fear the Lord, trust in the Lord: he is their servant .

Psalm 146:5, Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his servant.

I thought it would be enlightening to substitute  the word woman for  helper in one of the  texts.

Psalm 146 ,v 5 Happy is the man who has woman for his helper

,,, Woman is considered in much this way in  Proverbs

Proverbs 18:22 Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.

Proverbs 19:14 House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the LORD.

(The proverb backs up and builds on the narrative of Genesis were Adam is given Eve.)

Proverbs 31:11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil

christians are therefore equals but different ,they compliment each other and by being partners help make up for each others weaknesses.

.

me john work

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Blake Morrison ,Three sisters a review

We_Are_Three_Sisters_main
I was asked to review Blake Morrisons” we are three sisters”  .I went to the play with mixed feelings, while normally eager to see new Bronte inspired work, I had avoided “We are three sisters” as I hate Chekhov, I find him needlessly depressing and I sympathise entirely with the view of one long dead reviewer of Chekhov’s three sisters who pointed out “that if someone had just bought three tickets to Moscow the play would have ended”,, and probably it would have been for the best.That said I should not have felt so gloomy, if anything could make me love Chekhov ,it would be “We are three sisters” though in truth I struggled to find anything much of Chekhov’s three sisters in Blake Morrison’s (vastly improved) three sisters. While I could not watch more than a few minutes of Chekhov’s  play  without wishing the sisters would just buck up their ideas and get on with life ,aided by solid performances from Barry Rutters Northern Broadside  theatre company  Blake Morrison’s ”we are three  sisters” could not be more  different ,lively intelligent and determined, they are victims of their circumstances, intelligent enough to realise this yet refusing to lie down and give up ,throwing off their victim status with a power and determination one could imagine the Bronte’s themselves possesing.Morrison  has created several of those  rarities, intelligent well written and witty characters who are also Northerners. Though Lydia did at times descend to an ecky thump, flat cap and whippet level of Northernhood   the other characters deftly avoided the trap and made me proud of this innovative and native company.Broadside is the child of and run by among others Barry Rutter, based in Halifax and composed of primarily northern cast and crew, it is fiercely loyal to its northern roots and determined to highlight the talent and creativity of  the area propelled  by the vision  and drive of  its founder  Barry Rutter.wearethreesisters_1998069b
I was delighted to discover on entering the theatre that the parsonage dining room had been recreated in its main elements. The table ,chairs etc where set on a red carpet, the chairs being identical to the parsonages far from common style of chair and on table  sat the sisters writing slopes even the sofa (though on set translated in a chaise long) was the correct colour and set in roughly the same spot. The dining room is so central to Bronte myth and to their actual lives that its only fitting most of the plays action takes place in this space and while I am aware Black Morrison did not want to photographically recreate the Brontes spaces yet even the tiny kitchen set, almost off stage and set lower reminded one instantly of the warm and welcoming parsonage kitchen.I was intrigued by the presence of a gravestone propped almost unnoticed on the “chimney breast which separated the Main dining space from the kitchen and I had assumed it was designed to indict Charlotte’s conviction that the parsonage was itself, built on graves, an idea seized on by some Bronte biographers to imply the Brontes felt surrounded by death, a feeling that grew in my mind when Emily recites in the first scene the stanzas as she paces the main set.
see around me tombstones grey,
I see around me Tombstones grey
stretching their shadows far away
beneath the turf my footsteps tread
Lie low and lone the silent dead
graves3
I was later told the gravestone was a mere accident  which seemed unlikely but if so it was lucky accident and if the gravestone  was  intentional it was a nice and thoughtful idea it was, like the equally thoughtfully added chip, chip, chip of the stone mason as he unseen, carves out new gravestones for those silent dead ,another  great idea. It was also a delight to see the sisters dressed accurately and with obvious thought and attention to detail, Ann in a grey 1840s gown ,charlotte  in a drab 1840s gown, both in multiple  petticoats which though invisible yet made the gowns move right despite being much more high maintenance than adding the usual inaccurate hoops  and even more impressive  Emily was dressed in a 1830s gown with straight skirts, that seemed inspired by the Gun Group, it was a nice touch that probably went unnoticed by most theatre goers and therefore all the more impressive.Moving to the performances of the actors themselvesI may perhaps start with my most negative comments and get them out of the way as I feel somehow a traitor to the cause to mention them. It was the performance of Barry Rutter as the school teacher, I entered the theatre eager to love Mr Rutter, I really did, the man is a talented Northerner proud of his roots and has helped create an excellent company in Northern  Broadside. Unfortunately he had not long been on stage before enthusiasm gave way to despair.Mr Rutters performance reminded me of fireworks, bright and dazzling, it exploded onto the stage with bangs and bright lights only to almost instantly fizzle out and plummet to earth, leaving only a lump of cardboard  that gets in everyone’s way .He was the weak link in an otherwise strong chain. He walks around in one scene in a cardboard mask and one couldn’t help but feel that his performance might have been improved had he left it on throughout the play, as compared to the restraint and sensitivity shown by the other actors, his forever mobile eyebrows and very mobile features created the impression of a great plastic chrysanthemum stuck inside a bouquet of snowdrops. I have heard and also read in other reviews that Mr Rutter has been excellent in past performances and perhaps this was just a bad day for him. I am only sure that Mr Rutter couldn’t enter a scene without leaving you wishing you where elsewhere and left you sympathizing with a talented cast trying to act round the manic elephant in the room.The cast was otherwise truly exceptional and on a Saturday afternoon with another long and emotionally demanding performance ahead of them, to what would no doubt be a bigger audience they gave their all to the performance. They made the two thirds full theatre resound with clear and passionately spoken yet restrained performances.The play opens with the sisters, Mr Bronte and Branwell singing one of Ann’s hymns to her melody that has been thoughtfully reset, I am no musician  so unfortunately cannot do justice to its sensitivity  to the characters later roles  but the actress playing Ann  later explained in our interview that it was a five-part harmony. To my uneducated ears the hymn was simply, perfectly sung. The male voices kept subtle enough  not to drown the ladies yet clear  and strong while  the actresses sounded very sweet .

From the very first  the script show that the playwright is very familiar with the Bronte’s letters and other primary sources, It harks back briefly to Chekhov ,it is Anns birthday (name day) and she mentions the contents of her diary paper, a nice deft way to set the scene. I suspect that Blake Morrison read widely and perhaps made notes of the biographical elements of several of Charlotte’s novels such as Shirley and has taken inspiration for some parts of Charlotte’s early dialogue about curates from it. Throughout the play he shows an intimate acquaintance with facts and wide-ranging exploration of primary and secondary sources as well as Bronte novels and poetry so that when he later bends the facts you are absolutely certain it is an artistic and creative decision not ignorance. The research lies gently within the script and often hidden but I believe it helps breath life into the characters. Perhaps  also ought to  mention  here another  major difference between the Blake Morrison and Chekhov plays, especially as it was yet another reason I had avoided the play ,while Chekhov’s sisters seem to me at least to constantly long for  civilisation and culture of Moscow ,thinking very little of their present backwater existence among what they perhaps consider red necks ,In the Blake Morrison play there is none of this denigration of the Brontes surroundings and  while this unavoidably means the play drifts  further from its Chekhovian roots, good for him !

To review each character in more detail I will start with the sisters and with Emily  who was perfectly played  by Sophia di Martino and  while I personally felt the character  as written was at times  too morose she was most people’s perception of Emily  and aside from the odd gloomy comments which are, as parts of the script outside her control the actress absolutely perfectly portrays Emily’s force of character (the actress called her” a force of nature “in our interview ) She recited Emily’s poetry when the script provided her with the opportunity not as mere lines but as something that spoke to her own soul.
There is interwoven into all  her actions and delivery the impression of Emily as something  at once both ordinary yet elemental, yet thrillingly this wasn’t the clichéd Emily but a living breathing funny and sometimes fragile Emily, rooted in her love of the moors yet not enslaved  by the script into a stereotypical hybrid of Kathy and Heathcliff ( the Kathy- like moor wandering cliché was something the actress later mentioned they had been very keen to avoid). I was delighted to see the domestic homemaker and witty Emily brought to life here .I often felt “yes! this is how Emily looked and  moved and spoke” It was almost as if I were  a fly on the wall at the parsonage back in the 1840s. It was a delight
Charlotte was equally well-played, I didn’t get chance to talk to the actress about her  intentions and inspirations as she wasn’t with us later so I will have to go with my own impressions, I felt she was possibly the most Chekhovian of the characters, also I got a very deep impression that this was Juliette Barker’s Charlotte ,rather than Mrs Gaskells  and Juliette Barker doesn’t seem to be much of a Charlotte fan .Its seemed the actress had done her research and she was extremely good in her scenes with Branwell and Tabby. She made  Charlotte a warmer, brighter being .Blake Morrison has obviously thought long and in-depth about Charlotte and it shows .He takes Barker’s solid scholarship but, Pygmalion like breathes life into her chilly marble .
Tabby was brilliant, a character pivotal to the Brontes yet usually ignored it was a real joy to see her brought to life. It may have been merely to provide a  nod to Chekhov and a victim to Lydia as it’s a small part with few lines and  she could have been an almost non entity ,the butt of Lydia’s insults and object of  the girls sympathy but it is a great tribute to the actress that she’s one of my favourite characters from the play ,Her Tabby is blunt, vivacious, funny, yet occasionally heartbreakingly frail. Blake Morrison yet again has breathed the spirit of the real person into the old familiar mould.
Branwell was perfectly portrayed physically .

lydia

When he walks on he reminds me of the Leyland bust and his own sketches. I am not sure what I thought of his emotional  portrayal ,I didn’t like this Branwell and not because of his actions. In another play, Bronte Boy, Branwell was just as badly behaved yet still lovable and worthy of sympathy. Blake Morrisons  Branwell seems unsympathetic and I am not sure if that’s due to the original Chekhov play or the choice of the playwright, The scenes where he bully’s and denigrates  his sisters vividly brought to life how life must have actually been in those dark days final days  but as this is unsoftened by earlier scenes of affection you are left with a distinctly unflattering portrait, I am no fan of Branwell yet he was a loving brother and a talented and witty man but I felt little of this in Blake Morrison’s Branwell .
I also found Lydia two-dimensional but that was how she was written and the actress playing her seemed to do her best with, in parts not very good material, though she has some excellent one liners, among my favourites was

“I thought Haworth would be more like Harrogate”

I would imagine she’s supposed to be a monster, but I remember one reviewer described her as one step away from Hyacinth Bucket and that was the idea that stuck in my mind.
To return to the sisters, Ann played by Rebecca Hutchinson  is perfect, she’s often left in the shadows in Bronte biographies and plays so  it was utterly delightful to see another  play that centres so much of the action on her and an actress that brings her so fully to life, the actress playing her was indignant  that a recent poll mentioned Charlotte and Emily but completely  missed Ann off  the famous Yorkshire authors list. That passion for her character and her right to a voice seemed to me to inform and impassion the performance. Ann was the gentle quiet Ann of myth but not the lifeless cardboard cut out of so many portrayals.
Of the male characters  The father  Patrick was also excellent, touching  and intelligent but  funny and  kind and though he obviously has his eccentricities and  has a somewhat fiery nature  he  is not dominated by either  but they merely add another endearing layer to the character.
The minor  characters are a curate “William ” who is so well written and played I believe he has every woman in the audience half in love with him before he finishes his first scene and kicking herself by the end of his second .William is, I assume based on Willy Weightman and has much of what seems to have been Weightmans charisma and sex appeal ,yet also his  compassionate sweet nature  and dedication to improving the lot of his parishioners, all be it intermixed in the Curate character with a superficiality on other  levels and what amounts to an addiction to insincere flirtation.
The doctor is also a revelation, initially a frequently superficial and occasionally brutish character he is also tender ,sad and intelligent, his final scene as he prepares to leave Haworth  reminded me somehow of the legend of a mute swan singing before its death, his lines where simple but moving and perfectly  delivered, the audience was hushed .
It’s strange that though the men seem to dominate the first acts yet they seem somehow disposable, the sisters silent and often unremarked on seemed to me to dominate the play even when  silent or in the shadows

I left feeling that you didn’t need to know the original Three sisters to enjoy Blake Morrison’s  version, Though it’s obviously hung onto a rough three sisters outline,, it had gloom enough to go around but was also bright and witty  ( though I know initially Chekhov wrote “the three sisters “as a comedy. I don’t think you can actually say you wrote a comedy when you have to explain to people it’s a comedy, which apparently Chekhov had to do ).This play however was genuinely laugh out loud funny, in the places intended to be funny and the lines were expertly delivered with perfect comic timing.

Later  we were joined by two cast members the young actresses who had played Ann and the equally talented Emily The interviews were a joy. I asked the actress playing Ann if she had read Agnes Grey as it seemed to show in her character and she said yes she had read all Annes work and esp. her poetry which she loved and that she had read a great deal of Juliette barkers biography which she is still studying. I asked her  if she liked Ann ,she said yes she loved Ann for “her optimism ,for daring to be an unashamed romantic ,for always searching for the good in people and despite adversity daring to dream big and see beauty in everyday, which is a real gift.”
I then asked “Emily if having so little of Emilys own words outside of her novel and poetry was liberating or restrictive. She said it was both “it was a challenge getting to know Emily as she didn’t want to be known” which I thought was an excellent and intuitive summary .Of the character of Emily in the play as elsewhere she felt “a lot is imaginary and other people’s ideas “. She has also read widely and is very familiar with Juliette Barker’s work and Emily poetry .She named reciting the poetry as one of the highlights of the play for herself. Both of the actresses where charming and very happy to talk.

I should like to thank the young ladies for their patience and time which no doubt left them, little time for leisure and food between their interview with us and the later performance. All in all I was glad we had seen the play and sorry I had left it so late, perhaps the play should have focused less on its Chekhovian origins and been keener to stress its strengths which to me seemed to be non Chekhovian elements which to me at least seemed to be the larger part of the play. Blake Morrison seems to have made the wise choice of ignoring what was a perhaps ill-advised brief and imposed a better brighter vision onto it.


Abigail Bell is the pseudonym of  Lyn Marie Cunliffe

Posted in brontes, Uncategorized, work | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lucy Locket lost her Pocket,,A short look at a forgotton treasure

pocket boston(http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/pocket-112116)

The almost forgotten rhyme

“Lucy locket lost her pocket ,Kitty fisher found it ,not a penny was there in it but the binding round it “

Is the only remaining record in popular culture of a little known yet long treasured item of women’s clothing and its meaning is like pockets themselves becoming lost to history.

met pocket

(http://www.mfa.org/collections/object/pocket-112116)

Pockets  were an essential item of dress for many centuries and were once the most emotionally valuable  item a woman could posses as can be seen by amount of work often put in to making and decorating these  never seen items.

pair of pockets

.In our modern homes ,We can probably never appreciate the value of these items to women in past centuries.Until the early years of the 20th c it was not unusual for  adults to share beds with siblings and certainly most would have shared rooms .If you were a servant or governess of lived away from home in a boarding school  as either a pupil or teacher , your personal possessions could be searched  if a theft had occurred,or examined to ensure you were” forming habits of orderliness ” or merely by the curious (there is an incident recorded in Charlotte Brontes Villette of the  owner of a school rifling through her new teachers clothing and possessions while the teacher is assumed to be asleep)even your underwear was not private ,,there are many records of laundry fees being charged to governess ,pupils etc,I have seen many items of Victorian clothing with names written or embroidered into them and though I can find no confirmation of it I suspect this is because the items would be washed in common with other clothing in big houses ,schools etc as there is no other logical reason for it,,why write your name on underwear you will be either wearing ,storing in your chest of drawers or washing yoursefl..There was therefore very little privacy, richer women may have had writing boxes or work boxes but even these were not entirely secure,  they were often left open or could be easily picked or forced  ope.The pocket was for many years a womans only secure place for items she wanted to keep private or secure.Pockets could be single or a matching pair.

yellow pockets 1785

they were usually lined and fastened with tape ties,though size varies Most are  a similar shape to those above and around 10 to 12 ins deep and are accessed by front openings.Some are larger ,very few are smaller ,I personally find pockets around 12 ins deep by 6 wide at their base the best size as they are large enough for bulky items but not too cumbersome

Pockets were also a common gift from women to other women perhaps on birthdays ,weddings etc .Pockets could also be bought ready-made but this is less common than making your own.(simple  un embroidered Pockets are fairly quick to make,I can make a pair in a day and if I use embroidered fabrics or damask they can still look surprisingly effective )

perhaps letters from loved ones, mementoes ,keys to her writing box or trunk.Alongside its value as a private space ,it was invaluable on a practical level ,it acted very much like the modern workmans tool belt,containing things needed regularly such as watches,scissors, pins ,handkerchiefs ). They  also acted much like our modern handbags containing mirrors,combs ,money ,perhaps perfume ,smelling salts , a frequent item is a long pin ,,used for securing hats or neck kerchiefs,etc ,this must have been not just useful for securing clothing but seems to have been seen as a defensive item from time to time,we have one story from Samuel Pepys diary were a lady he is flirting with  in church threatens him with a long hat pin . Larger pockets seemed to have also been used to tuck away snacks .I have complied a list of possible pocket contents through the ages( my source is primarily the V and A excellent article http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/history-of-pockets/ but includes some extra items from newspapers ,inquests etc and some items mentioned as ladies possessions in the 16thc)

Almost always mentioned are

Money

food/sweets

Keys

Items of jewelery

scissors

hankchercheif

pins of assorted kinds

combs

small knives (needed  for an assortment of things  ,to sharpen pencils ,pen nibs,to open letters, cut open the pages of books as these often came uncut par fruit)

Very frequently mentioned and most often recommended by ladies advice columns ,magazines or letters

small Pins/pin cushion

needles /needlecase

thimble

(I also assume in instances where these are being carried outside the home the contents included small amounts of thread,,or the thimble and needles are somewhat useless but as most external pocket contents are based on instances of theft which only require items of value thread would go unrecorded)

pencils

seal

note book.

Smelling salts

pocket watch ( perhaps rarely in earlier centuries pocket sundials which were carried by the rich)

spectacles (if worn)

perfume

mirror

snuff box

personal medicines/pills

objects of sentimental value ,lockets, locks of hair,miniature portraits ,love letters,

Less frequently and probably for outside use

Gloves (though mittens seem to have been stashed in pockets when at home)

caps

letters,passports, tickets etc

The words pocket  knife,pocket watch ,pocket handcheif ,pocket-book all show the original home of such items .

The word Pocket  is I am told an old english word (12th to 15th c ) however .I feel it likely they were then a visible external items as they could not have been worn under the fitted Kirtles of the early middle ages.Nor can I find any reference to them discovered in medieval graves, eg the Smithfeild plague pits (though later pockets are fabrics which are unlikely to survive the early 16th examples have wirework decorations and this may have survived,however  I have been unable to gain access to original excavation reports so its possible there are fragments which may have been pockets .)

kirtle

If we assume pockets became under gown items with the rise of the houppelande around the 1380s/90s

374px-Les_Très_Riches_Heures_du_duc_de_Berry_avrilhttp://hathawaysofhaworth.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=2039&action=edit&message=10

That still leaves at least 450 years of  widespread use and another 50 years when they became rarer but were still worn though they seem to die out in widespread under gown use around 1840 .There are many 184os pockets surviving though they tend to be plainer than earlier examples ,,these come from the Kay Shuttleworth collection

gawthorpe_4433_1

http://www.vads.ac.uk/large.php?uid=115566&sos=1

The use of pockets dies out later for children and they continue in use amongst the  elderly and the lower classes.

There is a mention of them in a few novels such as  David Copperfield, 1850,:

‘Releasing one of her arms, she put it down in her pocket to the elbow, and brought out some paper bags of cakes which she crammed into my pockets, and a purse which she put in my hand, but not one word did she say.’

.I suspect in the 1850s  the pockets demise among younger women  as a common item of  underwear was influenced by  the degree to which a woman could afford the fashionable cage crinolines as,though crinolines have a gap at the front it would be very difficult to access pockets via it and I have never seen an 1850s gown which had either pocket slits or was fastened in a way that would allow easy access to pockets.I personaly find it easy and very useful to wear pockets under gowns from the Tudor era up until the late 1830s after which it becomes harder to accommodate a pocket.(ironically the most common use for pockets amongst re enactors is for mobile phones ! as while professional re enactments require absolute authenticity down to the lack of undergarments,,pockets are a great place to stash “forbidden modern comforts)

There are miscellaneous later references in stories but ,,the last official records I can find of tie on pockets is in the inquest notes of  the Rippers victims  one  is described as having had” A large pocket worn under the skirt and tied about the waist with strings (empty when found) another was wearing a pair of pockets and another single pocket also tie on (footnote 1)Another ripper victim Elizabeth stride  (d 1888) has a petticoat with a large pocket,,I own a mid-Victorian petticoat with such a pocket and in shape and size it mirrors the original tie on pockets  .One ripper victims (Elizabeth strides)had  contained or at least still had in it at the time she was found..

  • A key (as of a padlock)
  • A small piece of lead pencil
  • Six large and one small button
  • A comb
  • A broken piece of comb
  • A metal spoon
  • A hook (as from a dress)
  • A piece of muslin
  • One or two small pieces of paper
  • (Mancheser platt hall has several lower middle class /upper lower class basic pockets which were probably of the kind worn by the victims)

cotton pocket

(This image and several more of pockets can be found in this excellent online resource for the visual arts VAD  http://www.vads.ac.uk/large.php?uid=94098&sos=12)m

,I personally suspect pockets did not go out of use but merely changed use and were transferred to petticoats .I am not sure how long they survive in petticoats .

There is no other item of  hidden clothing for which we have such an enduring record and which changes so little in design over so long a period.

The majority of surviving pockets  up to the 1800s are almost without exception beautifully made often  they are embroidered or  use expensive fabrics gleaned from scraps of expensive gowns ,later in the 1800 to 1820 when straight regency gowns become fashionable pockets become less ornate and often white,,so as not to show under the gowns ,,a further proof I feel that pockets contuined in very general use throughout the regency era of straight often light coloured gowns , The pockets seem to have continued to be less ornate up until their eventual demise but even simple pockets are still beautifully stitched .The obvious time lavished on them and the use of decoration on unseen items  is enough to tell us something of their importance to women ,pocket decoration is purely for the woman herself ,not to show off her husband’s status or her own accomplishments .

Pockets for most of their history and in most countries were very rarely worn outside of clothing or designed to be objects of display.The pockets of the lower classes in the 16th to early 19th c might peep from beneath aprons or hitched over skirts but no lady wishing to appear genteel would wish hers to be on display  and  while  in 16thc Italy there was briefly  fashionable for ladies to wear a lavishly made pocket at their waist , one was found tied to the body of Eleanor of Toledo beneath her satin  gown and they can be seen on numerous Italian paintings.

birth of the virgin alleri http://aneafiles.webs.com/saccoccia.html, footnote 2)

I can find no record of the fashion spreading to the UK or lasting for any length of time .

pocket 16thc

footnote 1

http://www.casebook.org/victims/chapman.html  ,The ripper victims provide a tragic but invaluable source of costume information ,unlike fashion magazines or novels these poor lower class ladies are shown in their everyday clothing The pockets found on the victims were the kind now completely lost to us ,made from rough fabrics and  purely functional those of a kind used by the poorest and lowest classes eg  Catherine eddows owned a pair made of unbleached calico and a further single one made of bed ticking .I use this website as it is the most accurate and “user friendly”online source.

Footnote 2

The source given for detailed treatment of pockets is excellent and the website is recommended for study of 16th Italian clothing ,I do however disagree with Anea who considers the Duchess Eleanor of Toledo was buried in a gown with an integral pocket,I feel the pocket description as being tied on was accurate ,its likely she was buried with a few private possessions which may have perished .The items which survived best in Eleanor’s grave were those in very close contact with the body such as stays or stockings or those under the body ,this is because fluids escaping during putrification preserved them.

Pocket contents list has  been taken largely from information here

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/a/history-of-pockets/

Posted in 15thc, 16thc/17thc, 18thc, 19thc, brontes, costume research, Georgians, Hathaways of Haworth, history, Tudors, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Tudor and Elizabethan clothing research sources

I have been planning my new years wardrobes ,I always like to have some central theme or historical figure in mind as  it then makes it easier to focus detailed research on the gowns ,head dresses  etc.My usual choice is assorted queens from the Tudor era as the portraits of artists such as Holbein.

Holbein_Jane_Seymour_c1536

or master John.

Mary_I_by_Master_John

All provide excellent sources for both an overall look and more importantly for visual detailing.

princess mary tudor neckline

jane-seymour-portraitHowever when using portraits for such details its a good idea to hunt around for other versions of  them and with Holbein to see if its possible to find his preliminary sketches.

janesketch

For instance the famous and contemporary  portrait of Jane Seymour by Holbein  has two different versions largely identical  in pose, clothing and style though they  differ in several details eg   in one Jane wears more elaborate sleeves than in the other and there is less embroidery on the blackwork cuffs

hague-jane

The portrait earlier in the post if Holbein’s own “official” portrait while the other version while roughly contemporary is from the studio of Holbein and while obviously based on his original sketches differs slightly.It’s handy to play spot the difference on various portraits.

I find it helpful to examine each portrait  however famous or universally accepted as carefully as lawyer  would some important legal contract they was required to sign.

The portraits will be the foundation of any costume  and on their accuracy and reliability the authenticity of  your finished outfit and your reputation depends.However carefuly made or recreated an outfit based on a flawed source is effectively useless .I use the outfits as visual aids ,I consider them as  I would a thesis or academic paper .While it’s obviously outside my pocket to make 16thc gowns  of cloth of gold ,venetian silk damask etc  or trim hood with genuine gemstones I can do everything possible to recreate the shape ,look and layers as accurately as  possible . I always strive to have them as near to historically perfect as possible and always point out any aspects of costumes which I have been forced to compromise on

purple tudor gown

After choosing a portrait or painting I usually do the following checks

1/

Is it actually a confirmed portrait of the person it claims to be .I do use disputed portraits but never use them for any outfit that forms the core of a teaching wardrobe ,if you’re replicating a  Tudor or Elizabethan costume for historical purposes ,knowing its function when being worn is essential and unknown sitters are useless for this .

2/ Is the portrait completely contemporary? ,later portraits ,copies etc while useful are flawed ,its unlikely later painters saw the clothing worn with their own eyes  or saw the fashions being worn .Even if the painter is copying an original lost portrait the new version will have been created with a different purpose in mind to the original ,For example consider this famous portrait of Anne Boleyn.

457px-Anne_boleynIt’s in the National portrait gallery labeled as Anne Boleyn and always used in biographies of her .It’s widely believed by the public that this is Anne’s contemporary portrait however that is not the case it is a much  later copy and only one of several versions of the same image.The one below is from Hever castle the Boleyn’s home

Annebhever

In all later portraits there is a hidden agenda , items may have been added to  highlight the prestige of the sitter  or details showing links to them by the person commissioning the portrait.

For example

I always have misgivings about the famous B necklace worn by Anne  in her most famous portraits .The portraits in which she is wearing it are later copies ,there is never any record of her wearing a necklace like it in verbal accounts  and it doesn’t show up on other contemporary portraits of her . There seems no reason for her to have chosen to habitually wear such a necklace.While loyal to and proud of her family ,Once in the public eye she was always very keen to stress her royal and aristocratic ties rather than her less exalted family ties .Perhaps she had a B necklace when she first went to court but wearing a B necklace for an official portrait rather than  one showing symbol of rank or some necklace with her and Henry’s arms or initial intertwined seems odd .It’s doubly suspicious to me because the source of the portraits in which she is wearing the necklace seem to be  the Hever castle painting ,Hever was the Boleyn’s seat and her family home.It seems much more likely that in later years the opportunist Boleyn family commissioned portraits of the now  famous rather than infamous Anne ,mother of the reigning queen and were keen to highlight unequivocably her origins in their family .The image bears no relation  to  most other possible images of Anne which all seem like each other but unlike the portrait.

anne_boleyn_detail

anne  b

.I personally feel it likely the Holbein sketches are Anne and are preliminary to the lost full length portrait and the  more formally posed sketch is the basis for the medal below.

AnneBoleyn4

Which is our only contemporary image and  was stuck in her brief reign.To enter a detailed assessment of these portraits is beyond the scope of this post but the Anne Boleyn files contains and excellent and as always very well researched treatment of the subject here

http://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/6276/anne-boleyn-portraits-which-is-the-true-face-of-anne-boleyn/

The second  point follows on and is an extension of the above comments, do some parts  of the painting look less reliable than others ? as its possible details have been added later or mistakes made in restoring the painting.An excellent  example is the Leonardo da Vinci Lady with an Ermine

Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Portrait_of_Cecilia_Gallerani_(Lady_with_an_Ermine)_-_WGA12698

The lady is wearing a unsual hair style which is more or less impossible to recreate and a strange double heandband.The painting was heavily retouched and the veil which ran under the lady’s chin painted the same colour as her hair to match it ,Thus not only can the painting provide a misleading hairstyle but also give the impression the lady’s head is uncovered.The actual hair should look something like this ,another Leonardo portrait ,usually called La Belle Ferronnierre

Portrait-Of-A-Lady-Called-La-Belle-Ferronniere-1490-95

It’s also handy to do a “character check” on the painting to make sure it has a satisfactory provenance.

3 /Try to always use a second and preferably  written source. For the Tudor court  the accounts of the great wardrobe  provide much detailed information on fabrics trims etc and accounts from ambassadors ,courtiers etc give details on when and where the gowns were worn ,how suitable they seemed ,the impression they created etc.I think the Medici version is called  the gardrobbe but Medici letters and documents are availible online here

http://documents.medici.org/document_search_results.cfm

4  Moving on from portraiture try to find  extant similar items  For later Elizabethan outfits we have the items and information gained from the Elizabeth 1 funeral  effigy .

effigy-corset on

The clothing removed from the original are the usual source for detailed information on the stays worn under late Elizabethan gowns.

westminster-corset

and  are backed up not just by Elizabeth’s wardrobe accounts but also  the famous  portrait of Elizabeth Veron in a state of less than formal dress showing how they were worn .though there are minor difference in the stays in essential details they are the same

Elizabeth_Vernon_big

.

Getting the under layers correct is the basic foundation needed to have the costume look perfect and is the main problem for this era ,very few extant undergarments exist and are mostly  either from overseas and often from funeral effigy or clothing taken from re interred bodies.

For extant over gowns we have no actual  complete early  UK Tudor gowns ,we some shifts or shirts such as those below now in the museum of costume in Bath

Drea bath smocks

It is only for the later period we have extant clothing.This is largely from tombs ,effigies or religious statues .The most reliable gown we have has been restored from fragments taken from the body of Eleanor of Toledo and is not entire ,though the surving fragments allow it to be compelty recreated…the orginal gown fragments are dark the added fabric used to recreate the gown is white

extant elenaore

elenaro extant

whatever may be the moral implications of disturbing a body and removing its clothing ,the information gained from clothing taken from the Medic tombs is invaluable.The Eleanor  gown provided details of lacing ,under layers ,fabrics and trims ,a pair of stays worn with the gown were also recovered and restored

elenoras-stays

and also stockings

HOSEExEleanoraMCM2The wealth of information gained from clothing from the Medici tombs was my main reason for choosing Eleanor of Toledo as my choice for late 16th outfits this year,it would be possible to recreate an entire outfit at actual size if desired ,Sources used here include an excellent but expensive book on the  subject  Moda alla Corte dei Medici.

16thc gown

.The tomb clothes are backed up by portraits  of both Eleanore and other ladies.I will be using the gown for my Elizabethan talks and though italian it is a useful source as we have written evidence Elizabeth 1 dressed in italian style gowns and we also have contemporary portraits of Elizabeth shown directly below and other ladies  such as Mary queen of Scotts seen under the Elizabeth portrait in similar gowns.

220px-Elizabeth_I_Steven_Van_Der_Meulen

black dress mary

The Eleanore funeral gown is backed up by other extant items such as the Pisa gown ,cut in exactly the same way as the Eleanor gown and with similar decoration .

pisa gown

The uk is represented by some very late Elizabethan /early  Stuart overgowns and jackets most of which are in the V and A museum and can be viewed online

vam overgownThe most useful  Uk item for teaching purposes is this jacket dated by the portrait in which it appears to 1620s but in basic design  the same  that is seen in earlier late Elizabethan portraits such as the Elizabeth Veron one

2006AL6827

Once I have a firm idea of the underlying look and shape of accurate gowns I usually turn to costume dramas which have gained a respected reputation for accuracy for example Elizabeth R which created details  replica gowns from many of Elizabeth’s portraits including this excellent  incredibly detailed replica

elizabth r gown

Created using the little known phoenix portrait.

Elizabeth20 phoennix

Or this equally impressive replica of a much more famous outfit based on the Ditchley portrait

mitchley side

385px-Queen_Elizabeth_I_('The_Ditchley_portrait')_by_Marcus_Gheeraerts_the_YoungerThis outfit perfectly illustrates the advantage of using reputable costume dramas is it recreates the back of the gown which is barely glimpsed on portrait.

ditchley back

It also highlight a problem in creating costumes for use in public ,Most people assumed that the series had taken liberties with the back of the gown however a close look at the portrait shows that the back is indeed made from a more or less identical  fabric.Its occasionaly better if creating gowns for  non academic events to alter them slightly ,for instance make the back of this gown white as is assumed is the case as opposed to them more accurate version above.

The final use of costume drama is to see how comfortable or uncomfortable a gown is likely to be and how it moves, how much it limits movement and how much space it takes up .

Having used Elizabeth R as an example of good costume dramas which used respected costumers,original extant sources and sound research I would like to add a cautionary word about popular and well known though much less reliable costume dramas,some were nominated or won costume Oscars or awards which can give the impression of reliability however awards are judged by many criteria and visual impact is much more important than accuracy

The other Boleyn  girl is infamous in costuming circles for the liberties taken with Tudor costumes ,from the slightly less noticeable flaws such as the weird  far too short french hoods ,with coloured rather than black veils in Marys case and none at all in Annes ..

The Other Boleyn Girl

The hoods are  also shown with gowns of a much later style but most infamous are the “dressing gowns /Overgowns which seem based on mens 18thc dressing gowns

The-Other-Boleyn-Girl-the-other-boleyn-girl-20734185-600-608

Yes even badly costumed films do occasionally provide helpful inspiration for instance the Other Boleyn girls contains two excellent and surprisingly accurate versions of the rarely used English intermediate hood ,,all be it worn far to back on the head in Marys case

The-Other-Boleyn-Girl-the-other-boleyn-girl-17169828-750-500

Another popular misconception gained from movies and series such as ,La rein Margot,The other Boleyn girl and the Tudors is that 16th women habitually wore gowns slipping off their shoulders

la_reine_margot_1993_diaporama_portraitOr without the prerequisite  under layers

936full-the-tudors-screenshot

Though I love this red gown ,none of the ladies have on chemises or the correct petticoats.The drastic effects of poor layering can be seen in the two contrasting images of a stunning Elizabeth R gown .(images from costume movies and screen stills can be seen here ( http://periodmoviecaps.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/elizabeths-green-surcoat-gown.html)

eliz green gown

which can been seen 1 hour 4 mins into the episode the marriage game

and again worn in a much less impressive manner and with poor attention to detail and without the correct layers in The acclaimed saga of England’s virgin queen here

tudorelizabethan055.2Other examples of reused gowns can be seen here,the results often show the necessity for correct underlayers and accessories,though in some instances they are useful for seeing  how a gown can be changed to look different once its been used.

http://www.recycledmoviecostumes.com/tudorelizabethan006.html

I hope this has been a helpful post both in providing sources of extant items and in giving general tips for costume research

There is an extreemly exhaustive list of historical costume sources to be found

http://www.earlymoderndressandtextiles.ac.uk/bibliography/Court.html

Posted in 15thc, 16thc/17thc, costume research, Hathaways of Haworth, history, Tudors, work | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Artifacts,privacy and Morality ponderings on King Richard III ,the Brontes and Eva Peron

I  always feel that historians ,anthropologists and archeologists can have a slightly schizophrenic attitude to the dead wanting to study their lives in detail yet mindful these were real people.They are also  forced to make decisions of what is and isn’t morally acceptable to share with the online community or display in museum.Posting images online of human bones such as the ancient  child below is essential so that other researchers can use the images to compare with similar finds,but on the other hand this was once a loved child of some long dead mother who must have grieved its loss.It doesnt therefore seem right to put it on display in a public space.Should it be buried ? if it was a modern child there would be no debate it would of course get a “decent burial” but its possible if it was buried we would lose the chance to learn more of the age it lived in and for this era in particular there are religious and historical debates ,technology constantly advances and just as we now feel exasperated at lost chances to examine bones such as those of the possible lost princes or Anne Boleyn other future historians might well curse us.

(The skull of “Lucys Child” an ancient skull of a child from the same era as the early hominid skeleton fragments named by its finders Lucy.The skeleton and that of the child is the subject of a massive debate about evolution )

I have been considering for some time what is and isn’t appropriate for historians and archaeologists to study and display and how far researchers can legitimately pry into the private lives of the dead ,Partly because of the Bronte clothing I examined  and past work on Digs or work submitted on the ancient past but mostly because  of my research on Eva Peron and the recent controversy on where King Richard III should be buried.(I will include images so that readers of this post can come to their own opinions so I would like to warn readers they will be images that they may find upsetting .)

I came to a few conclusions I thought I would share for feedback.

I am always thrilled to know that human remains such as “Lucy”and “Lucys child”have been found on a dig ,,they can tell us so much about the past ,,the  life lived ,the diet  and diseases of a population .The interest and excitement felt by archaeologists and anthropologists when remains are found is not ghoulish but because they realise the wealth of information now available before them .While documents and artifacts are extremely useful especially grave goods they have limitations too ,writings have usually been written with a function in mind rather than for historical accuracy and can lie.Grave good are more informative but their usefulness limited to the quantity found ,,whereas ,bones can’t lie and even tiny fragments can tell us of a long lost past .The dead can talk and tell us movingly of the times they lived through ,their lives ,their hardships and often their deaths.For example it’s almost certain the individual below was considered to be a possible “revenant” or vampire and buried with the stone to prevent their return from the grave .The posting online of such photos helps other people who may stumble across such deviant burials to understand what they may have discovered and how widespread such beliefs where across time and countries (A case of a supposed “vampire” occurred in modern-day Romania a few year back )

I should not care too much what happened to my own body and considered donating it to be used by medical students but I know this can be traumatic for relatives.While I am fine with being dissected Iam not sure how happy I am while living to think of bits of me stashed in freezers and jars for months or years and passed around in classes and  I shouldnt like to think of such a fate awaiting my husband or loved one.

I feel very strongly  that human remains for the documented past should be treated with the respect that would have been expected of the people when alive and treated as people and any remains however distant in time and however tiny should be kept off public display.I have never had problems with graves and gravesites as they are just stone memorials and anyone who wants to is welcome to sit lie ,have a picnic or drink on mine ,though I know for many in Whitby or who attend the goth weekend this has become a big issue recently.However I think we owe the actual bones of the dead more sensitivty.I was somewhat disgusted to find Leicester was given permission to bury the bones of Richard III in their cathedral ,I can see logically he has  been there for this long and they did run the dig that found him .However the decision seems to be based mostly on profit and the interests of the city .York was barely even given space to put its case  and  yet the north and especially the area of Yorkshire surrounding  York  has always been fiercely loyal to the memory of Good King Richard,it has campaigned  to promote respect for his memory and to defend his character ,when it discovered Richard had lost at Bosworth and the Tudor Henry was now king it still defended Richards reputation  .Richard lived around here ,was raised here and goverend here for many many years

governed here for much of his life  and asked to be buried here so he should  lie here in peace  ,there’s been talk of him “coming home to York ” to give him a “Kings burial “and to” honour his memory” ,,not so we can create visitor attractions.

The choice of the Anglican cathedral in Leicester also highlight another issue with regard to human bones ,the method of interment. Richard was a Roman Catholic and even today Roman Catholics do not take communion with Anglicans or vice versa so burying a Catholic in an Anglican Church with Anglican rites is plainly wrong ,we would not consider it appropriate to  bury a muslim in a church with an Anglican  funeral service

While I think examining the bones of the dead when they have been exhumed for legitimate  reasons or discovered on digs is valid and extremely useful tool for understanding the past and warrants extensive study and publication of findings.I also feel it should be done quickly and the remains then be stored carefully and out of sight if they are not reburied.Exhuming disputed bones such as the children said to be the “princes in the Tower is another moral problem

In such cases exhumation  seems valid as it bears directly on historical reputations and also on whether we still need to find bodies or whether the search can be ended .I do however find it disturbing that the Medici graves have been excavated purely to gain information on the Individuals and while on one level I find the information gained invaluable ,the striping of the Medici bodies of their clothing seems very wrong .

I personally  cant find any valid reason for publicly displaying any human remains however old but most especially when the identity of the person is known  .I am always slightly puzzled that Egypt with its passion for the honour of its Pharaohs should display their bodies in glass cases for the masses to gawk at rather than keeping them somewhere safe but out of sight .

I also find it ghoulish the amount of attention devoted to the  relics of saints or on a secular level the mummy of Eva Peron and extremely sad how much the body suffered .Though the need to violate the corpse shows in itself that for many the bodies of the dead are deeply important.

I have been posting on Eva perons life and legacy and having reached the end I am  unsure how much of the bodies travels to cover and what images to post ,I think it’s historically valid to cover her death and show the glass coffin as that was public and she had agreed to it prior to her death .Likewise though I admit with some typically modern reservations.  I feel it legitimate to show the lying in state or the photographs taken at Perons request of Evas body.It’s difficult as someone living in any particular place to know what images of the dead are appropriate to people living in other places and how much they should be public,I lived for a while in a remote area of Scotland where older residents would expect visitors to visit to view the dead and pay their respects and in many countries “open coffin” funerals are common.

Likewise it’s not uncommon  in many part of the world today for post-mortem photographs of the recent dead to be taken and certainly these were a common feature of  Victorian life and designed to be publically seen

http://www.thehorrorzine.com/Morbid/VictorianPostMortemPhotography.html

This is usualy from affection and a wish to have some way to remember a dead loved one,Posting images of the dead for news or for profit seems to me essentaily much less acceptable.

I also think it valid to cover findings discovered by study of the body thats been found or disinterred .In the case of Eva Peron that means the notes made when it was rediscovered as it bears directly on her legacy and emotions evoked by her even so many years after her death  .The body was displayed publicly  when rediscovered which I think was probably necessary to show it was actually Eva about to be buried .(I am not entirely sure it was wise of the USA not to show photos if the dead Osama Bin Laden for this reason) but I cant find any  real justification for showing later close up images of her corpse  being repaired or of the damage done to it by anit Peronists

I lastly  I considered our attitude to those relatives of the famous dead,I always feel sorry that Princess Diana’s death can still be turned over in the news without any consideration for the feelings of her ex husband and more especially her children.I also can never understand the fury directed at relatives of the dead for destroying their letters,, In many cases it blackens their names to future biographers ,consider the negative coverage of Mr Arthur Bell Nichols, Charlotte Bronte’s husband or Cassandra Austen Jane Austen’s sister and closest friend.

It is surely entirely within their rights to want to keep private ,their loved ones private lives.Its nice for historians when they dont of course.I also find it very odd that it’s often those who are most indiscrete about their past friends or loved ones past lives who we most approve of and like and who gain the best reputations,I again think of the Brontes and the contrasting “press” given to people such as Ellen Nussey and Arthur Bell Nicholls.It seems to be an appalling lack of fidelity to a friend’s memory to hand over their private correspondence.

.Its  almost understandable if you were only a close acquaintance such as Charlotte publishers or her later famous friends as she was probably more guarded in what information or views she expressed but it is entirely different when you have known someone since their youth and know that their views and the information relayed would not have been publically shared and often contains information about still living people who can be hurt or at the very least have their own private lives raked over (I know Ellen Nusey removed some names and some lines but there was still adequate  information to recognise individuals and a lot of very private details ,,such as Charlotte’s marriage proposals) It’s doubly unpleasant to think Ellen Nussey knew that Mr Nicholls had been worried enough about the letters becoming public to discuss it with Charlotte and also that she only had them because she broke her promise to Charlotte  burn them .I can entirely sympathise with Mr Nichols decision to destroy some items especially to ask the wedding dress be destroyed ,it shows again an insight into the likely fate of private items that survived.Which while tastefully displayed at the Parsonage ,lovingly preserved  and an invaluable resource for Bronte students ,it cannot have been something he would have liked.

His decision to save other items such as the portrait,the tiny diary papers etc shows he was sensitive to the Bronte legacy but equally sensitive to his wife and her family’s right to privacy.

Which is the more intrusive,to examine and display clothes which will mostly likely have been waving on washing lines or sent to the laundry maid in the big houses or schools  where the Brontes worked as ,students Governesses or teachers or publically display private correspondence and does it matter so long after someones death and that of everyone concerned.I personaly  wouldn’t care if my undies were in a glass case but I would care about any private correspondence that might hurt others being public.

However I can never feel it’s morally right for loved ones to destroy the work of the deceased if it was written for publication or public performance.I think mostly of the fate of Emily Brontes lost second novel which was most likely burned by Charlotte ,probably because she felt it inappropriate andl ikely to be misunderstood.But there are numerous other cases, the many lost MSS of composers or poets ,it seems to me wrong to destroy the outpourings of the human soul and also to deny history work that had been prepared for it.

(previously;y lost Mss of Beethoven

I am curious on the views of others on this issues.

Posted in 15thc, 16thc/17thc, 19thc, brontes, Eva Peron, Hathaways of Haworth, history, Tudors, Uncategorized, work | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 20 Comments

Eva Peron Becoming Evita

As I covered the time before she met Peron in my last post ,I thought I would  pick up a little further along and start from Perons time as President .I realise there are  incidents during the time before they marry that many consider pivotal but  most of the events don’t have reliable historical records and often Evas own words contradict the suppositions of historians and biographers even where it would be in her best interest to let them seem correct .

For these reasons I feel its best to pick up the story once Evas life becomes easy to document.This post is a brief introduction to Evas life as first lady and an examination of her relationship with Peron ,more detailed posts on her work in politics ,charitable work and “rainbow tour “will follow

When Eva left the civil marriage ceremony and later official church ceremony (seen below)

she had  now managed the almost impossible ,she had made the huge leap from acknowledged mistress to wife.Whatever the political benefits the photographs of the couple suggest that they were also very fond of each other ,,non posed photos often show them looking at each other with genuine affection and full eye smiles.

Peron is almost always looking at eva in informal shots and they always seem genuinly happy ,there are none of the slightly stiff smiles often seen in PR shots of presidents and their wives

Even towards the end of Evas life photos of Eva during her last appearacnes show the couple seemingly very close

It was during their early years of married life they  also acquired the first of their  pets

Eva seems to have been especillay fond of her dogs

There are few informal photographs of the couple either at this time or in the years that follow  where they don’t have their pets close by

this is taken on their farm ,though Eva looks slightly nervouse of the horse

Theres even photos Eva having her make up done with her pet dog on her lap

Tragically Eva had also probably signed her death warrant alongside the marriage certificate,Perons first wife had died from cervical cancer ,the cancer that would finally cost Eva her own life and its known that HPV or the male  gentile warts virus is a main cause of cervical cancer,Peron probably infected both his first wife and Eva.Later gossip would claim the cause of Evas  cancer was promiscuity but in reality the only bearing promiscuity has on the risk of cervical cancer is that the more partners you have the more likely you are to have  slept with one with the virus .As Perons first wife died from the same form of cancer it seems likely he was the carrier who infected Eva.Peron may have been the only man Eva slept with and is certainly the only one we can be certain she slept with despite rumours there has never been any one willing to speak out and say clearly she was their lover.It seems that in the early months of their marriage they enjoyed a happy almost normal if somewhat busy married life.

To marry your mistress and that mistress a lower class ex actress was unprecedented ,in the uk today its unlikely that any member of the royal family would have married  an actress let alone some one with Eva’s past of who had also featured in photographs in their swimwear so there must have been something remarkable in Eva’s character that made Peron take the gamble .Its true Eva had used her popularity and media access to promote Perons cause and been very prominent by his side in his campaigning .

however Peron must have allowed this because he had already decided to marry Eva and did so despite the possibility of it damaging his chances to win the battle for the presidency.He was extremely careful about his career and seems to have been planning his path to power for years,he wouldn’t have gambled it all on Eva if she hadn’t been remarkable.

Evas future life as first lady would be different to all past first lady’s,,that much was clear when Peron  encouraged her to represent him at events and invited her not just onto the Balcony of the Casa Rosada

but encouraged her to speak to the crowds both at the Casa Rosada  and elsewhere even today this would be unusual ,,its unlikely any modern UK prime minister or US president  would ask his wife to speak at events while he stood back and listened.The people and the crowds  may have been at events just for Peron at this time but in the not too distant future they would be there to see Eva and shouts of Peron would become shouts for Evita (little Eva),Evas face  usually looks cheerful and her eyes happy and smiling ,she hasn’t yet acquired the  earnest slightly drawn look of her later years as first lady or the weary determined look of her final year.

Evas early life as first lady  seems to have been a happy though busy time,she had not yet acquired the habit of extreme long hours .She moved into an office in the Central post and telecommunications office and began  her first work (Which I will deal with in a later post)She  also bought clothes in large quantities, which has since been criticised but was essential as many first lady’s or newly made princess ,have  discovered,, however smart a womans clothing  its unlikely they will be sufficient.Eva did have attractive clothes but not in the style required

Eva was criticised for appearing on her first official function in a one shoulder gown ,which once she was seated at table meant she had a clergyman next to her bare shoulder ,,today it would be less than ideal but at that time it was something of a scandal,,most people considered it deliberate but its much more likely it was a mistake,,one shoulder  or completely  strapless gowns were extremely fashionable so as an actress they would be am must for Eva and she may have not had a wide range of  evening clothes to wear that were modest enough yet glamorous and eva at this point does seem to have loved exuberant outfits and jewels

She also seems to have had a fondness for very high heels ,,probably to gain a little height as she wasnt particularly tall .Though after the European tours these also seem to get lower .

,few people will have a wardrobe extensive enough to cope with  at least  three changes a day ,private casual wardrobe , work /public visits wardrobe ,,including clothing suitable for meeting religious leaders ,visiting places of worship  and both would be needed in larger quantity than anyone is likely to have as there is a daily need.

.Finaliy there is the need for numerous evening gowns ,from the smart for dinner parties to the extremely smart for balls ,opera visits, official banquets etc.

In addition its very likely that Eva and Peron were beginning to consider how to forge links with allies in Europe and may have been planning her tour .Eva a seems to have loved clothes and loved picking the initaly very glamorous wrap style  or gathered  figure hugging dresses and suits

and elaborate ball gowns ,jewels

bags ,shoes and furs and hats which are usually quite large and worn far back on her head .

,In these early years she appears in a wide range of spectacular outfits in public .

though apparently still preferring trousers and casual shirts for private wear.

At this point she still wore her long thick  hair

the elaborate high styles  she had worn in her days as an actress

Later as she begins to become more and more involved in politics and her charitable work and more especially after she returns from Europe her hair changes from its bright blond to a more subtle blond .

the style gradually evolved  to the classic pulled back styles that is now her trademark.

Eva seems to have decided very early on not to be just the pretty face next to the president that did some charitable work in some of her free hours.Eva wanted to be different.

She wrote in her autobiography

This is a foundational circumstance and is related directly to my decision to be a President’s wife who does not follow the old model. I could have followed those models. I want to make this clear because sometimes people have tried to explain my “incomprehensible sacrifice” by arguing that the salons of the oligarchy would have been closed to me in any case. Nothing is further from the truth nor from common sense. I could have been a President’s wife in the same way that others were. It is a simple and agreeable role: appear on holidays, receive honors, “dress up” and follow protocol which is almost what I did before, and I believe more or less well, in the theater and the cinema. As far as the hostility of the oligarchs goes, I can’t help but smile. And I ask: why would the oligarchs reject me? Because of my humble origins? Because of my career as an actress? But has that class of persons ever taken those reasons into account, here or in any part of the world, when it is the case of the wife of the President? The oligarchy was never hostile to anyone who could be useful. Power and money are never bad advantages for a genuine oligarch… . But I was not just the spouse of the President of the Republic, I was also the wife of the leader of the Argentine people.

“Peron had a double personality and I would need to have one also: I am Eva Peron, the wife of the President, whose work is simple and agreeable … and I am also Evita, the wife of the leader of a people who have deposited in him all

“A few days of the year I represent Eva Perón … “

“Most of the time, however, I am Evita … “

We do not need to speak of Eva Perón. What she does appears profusely in newspapers and magazines everywhere.

their faith and love

Eva as Eva Peron still had strong family bonds and often had family member close to her ,no doubt partially because they could be trusted but also from genuine bonds of affection

It has been suggested Evas work was the result of being “snubbed ” by the “establishment” however its a simplification as Eva says ,she was the wife of the president ,some form of social acceptance would have to be forthcoming and she had Perons backing and support.

Eva had shown even as an actress that she had a “social conscience” and now seems to have seen an opportunity to do something to help the poor.It also seems that Peron had been training Eva to be his second in command ,In his biography he claims he choose and educated her to be his second in command ,someone he could trust absolutely to act in his best interest and make decisions that would help him and forward his agenda.Eva seems to have been utterly devoted to Peron and have gladly taken on the alloted role as unofficial “vice president” a role she never achieved officially and which at this time was probably not even suspected by Perons other advisors but which was slowly but surely being claimed for her.Eva immediatly began showing herself  working.

and tried to combat her lightweight “actress”  image

and throughout her heavy involvement in politics she made a point of showing herself as still a “traditional “wife.

She was mocked at first  for trying to appear  in a more serious light but eventually time would show she was a consummate professional at moulding her image.

I am indebted to the following  sites for several rare images

http://balladofjohn.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/evita-evita-peron-eva-peron-argentina.html

http://evita3.marianobayona.com/evi4abr.html

http://www.topfoto.co.uk/gallery/evaperon/index.html

Posted in Hathaways of Haworth, history, Uncategorized, work | Tagged , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Charlotte Brontes wardrobe unlocked The going away Gown

This was a dress I had been hoping to examine closely as its one of the gowns which can be assigned to Charlotte with absolute certainty and one I had tried to replicate (unsuccessfully) from memory .It was the first gown that I caught sight of on my arrival at the library ,the hem just peeking out from its layers of careful wraping.The dress is made from good quality very crisp silk and the hem further stiffened with corded fabric edging so the skirt of the gown  stood out in stiff but graceful folds that for some reason brought to mind those statutes of ladies that recline on Tudor and Elizabethan graves their petticoats and gowns all falling in stiffly folded curves around their feet.

With so much to see I was unsure which of the gowns to examine first but as the mysterious Brown gown lay closest to me I decided to start there and leave the Iconic and well-known  going away /Honeymoon gown for later.

It’s a strange and moving item ,the stiffness of the fabric  and the gowns construction  almost creates an impression of an occupant and  its strange to imagine what is now laid out with such care  on a table was once hung neatly upstairs with similar care waiting Charlotte’s arrival from her wedding at the nearby church and just a few hours later would have been clothing Charlotte as she walked happily out of the Parsonage door to start her Honeymoon tour .I suspect it arrived at its destination hours later rather less crisp and pristine than it now looks but  such is the case with all natural fabrics  and the gown was an eminently sensible choice for traveling .

It’s beautifuly tailored with a  comfortably cut double bodice giving an extra layer of warmth  .The loose sleeves and front fastening bodice making it comfortable in heat  of the day or cold  of the evening and easy for tired travel weary figners to remove.The dark but elegant colours are  less likely to show mud spatters or spills.Smart and very fashionable but not overly showy,The collar shows signs  of the same (now)  gold silk fringing as the waistline and when new this probably shone attractively in the sunlight making  the gown look less dark than it seems laid out flat .

I  know some gowns can change colour over time and I am not sure how  or if this fabric has changed colour with age,I know is widely considered to have been mauve ,,though mauve was an exepnsive colour to buy in the first half of the victorian age,, ,it’s always been carefully stored so there’s no sunlight fading  or fading from washing ,discolouration from coal or woodsmoke fires etc and its doesnt look markedly different inside so  the colour change must have been within the fabric itself and I dont know enough about fabric conservation to know how early victorian dyes age,certainly later analine dyes can fade but this would have been pre analine .There does seem to be possible signs of shattering at the neck ,which is  no reflection on its conseravtion ,its tragicaly an unavoidable result of reactions within some silks to  metals used in the dying process so may be thats also caused discolouration. I think as its trimmed with the gold look fringing and the mid brown corded velvet fabric  it was probably always fairly dark ,though perhaps with more colour evident.

Sadly the dress shows very little sign of use ,the lining along the hemlines is pristine,There is areas of damage at the neckline but they may be fabric aging or from a brooch or caused by its outing on a model in the early days or the 20th c.Theres also some odd pin marks along the hemline which look like a previouse hem line but that seems odd as theres less than an inch difference .Despite these I dont think the gown saw major ,its impossible to remove hemline staining from mud or general pavement dust and debris (as anyone trying to resell a modern wedding or prom gown knows) and this gown has none of those which I am pretty certain it would have had it been worn around Haworth,for country walks or in a victorian town.

It’s possible it only saw one outing on the day Charlotte left for her honeymoon.

I did not however examine this as closely as the other items as while I was extremely careful will all the clothing I confess to being so nervous of damaging this gown that I had to will myself to move any part of it and the fabric does seem to be rather fragile in some places on the bodice .I am used to examining artifacts and usually  focus on the item before me to the exclusion  of other thoughts but in the case of this gown I  felt an almost unbearable sadness that this tiny  gown had seen such high hopes and happiness yet months later was probably hidden away in a trunk  it’s very sight a source of pain and sorrow .

The gown is  very full skirted like most of Charlotte’s later gowns  but is not in fact an actual gown but a two-part outfit ,as was becoming fashionable at the time ,this allowed for an extra bodice to be made to convert gowns to a secondary use without requiring a complete change of clothing ,,perhaps this gown also had a second bodice now lost,It is beautifully and I would guess professionayl made and much more detailed on a closer inspection that it seems when viewed in the small postcard images.

It has a very complex construction compared to the other gowns ,the pleated bodice being built on a more tailored underbodice.The bodice had a  detailed  waist trimmed with silk fringe.It is trimmed at the hem ,cuff and neck with mid brown corded possible velvet fabric .Its fastens  with hooks and eyes .It’s a telling contrast to the earlier Brown gown laid next to it which  while it was carefully and neatly cut and sewn  was almost certainly homemade with several signs of wear,the brown  gown seemed to me at  to shout governess or at least teacher as do some of the other earlier gowns in the parsonage online collection  .This outfit was that of a  reasonable wealthy fashionable middle class lady .

Posted in 19thc, brontes, Hathaways of Haworth, work | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bronte clothing ,The pink Wrapper gown/dressing gown

This is  an unusual  garment far from  typical  of the Bronte clothing being a rather bright pink and very frilly .The dress,rather faded at the front but still fairly bright at the back though as can be seen there are far worse and more widespread faded segments on the  cape

It is a delightful outfit consisting of a pink full flowing open front  slip on dress and a little cape or bed cape.Its a pretty,very feminine and quite bright pink! .It’s quite long 52 ins and very full,I am not certain it can have been Charlotte’s as if you add an average head length of around 8 ins or even reduce that to a small head of 7 then add  3 ins or even 2 for the neck you still get a height of over 4.11 which was Charlotte’s and that’s  assuming  the dress skimmed the floor which seems unlikely in a wrapper or dressing gown,its possible its been let down in some way there did seem to be a few possible indications  I will need to have a close look at the photos on a much larger screen than my little laptop provides ,, It is extreeemly unlikely to be Annes as governess would have no occasion to wear wrappers but maybe it was Emilys ?

The gown  was  a house gown or wrapper dress, these  not the same as our dressing gowns but were an informal dress and were worn after rising but before getting properly dressed  ,,,a bit like throwing on some leggings and baggy t shirt.The gowns were designed to be easy to move around in and were worn without corsets and complicated  layers or petticoats.The gowns were worn to eat breakfast,do housework or just to wear for comfort or during pregnancy but had to be changed for proper day gowns before any company was expected.  Most of the extant gowns are very similar to the example at the parsonage ,though the parsonage gown seems unique in having its own separate little shoulder cape..This is  a similare dress and shows how  the gown would look when worn

There also a dark brown slightly more tailored version

The wrapper dresses typically go over your head then can be pulled to shape with some inner drawstring ,the front fastens usually with buttons at the neck.

The parsonage gown has in addition a nicely stitched belt to further pull the dress to shape and keep the front closed more neatly.The gown is very neatly sewn but probably home made.The fabric is not as good quality as the fabric of the other gowns which would be expected as the dresses main purpose was for wearing during the morning chores so it had to be hard-wearing and over and above using pretty fabrics there was little point in major expenditure as it was NEVER expected to be seen by anyone other than the family and servants  .Its quite pleasant to imagine the sisters wandering around doing the sweeping and cleaning or perhaps doing  a spot of writing in these pretty frilly gowns while locals moving around in the village yards  away thought of them as seriouse and plain and frumpy

Posted in 19thc, brontes | Tagged | Leave a comment

Anne of Cleves ,not as bad as shes painted

The Lady seems to have had a bad press ,Henry’s wives tend to be used to embody almost every female stereotype that exists ,The faithful ,longsuffering wife,, Catherine of Aragon ,,the adventuress and other woman ,,Ann Bolyne, the  chaste ,gentle and quiet loved and tragically  lost young mother ,Jane Seymour ,the ugly ,stupid frumpy ,Ann ,the young silly strumpet,Catherine Howard ,the good  wise  older woman /stepmother Katherine Parr. The labels are usually wrong based on Victorian writers or hearsay and when  occasionally accurate tell nothing like the whole story ,,For example Henry VIII is supposed to have loved  the  virtuouos  and shy  Jane Seymour , yet Jane was quite old by Tudor standards,, well over 25  and a woman that’s very probably jane is caught sat on Henry’s  knee while hes still married to Ann ,which doesnt seem very maiden like behavior. Likewise Henry is supposed to have  been devoted to Jane ,yet when  he saw Janes newly arrived Ladies in waiting he was heard to say that had he seen them before he would never have married Jane ,within months of their marriage he had taken a mistress and though he was certainly extremely upset by her death  and actually wore mourning for several months ,the letters sent out to inform ambassadors of Jane’s death also mentioned he was inline for another wife .

In this light we should therefore reassess Ann.The first portrait we always see of Ann is the longer version of a miniature painted by Hans Holbein

The smaller miniature in its pretty ivory box seen here was part of a number of mail order bride portraits Henry commissioned so asses the merits of potential brides.

The miniature was enough to persuade Henry to send Holbein off to paint an expensive full length portrait of Ann and the full length version sold Henry on Ann as his next bride.Interestingly no one even Henry complained the portrait was inaccurate and Holbein remained Henry VIII and the courts painter of choice.The mystery may be partly solved by a side view image of Ann.

The features that look regular and attractive front on do seem rather sharp and angular side on and its been suggested Anns nose was much longer and the painting may have been retouched.Even so to me at least she still doesn’t seem that bad,She seems to be prettier than her predessor Jane Seymour.

and not unlike her successor the pretty Katherine Howard as far as facial features go.

In fact to me this portrait above seems more likely to be Anne than Catherine ,the attribution of the portrait as one of Catherine is based mostly on the fact the lady is wearing royal jewels and yet this portrait is nothing like almost every other portrait thats linked to Catherine or has in the past been said to be her.Other potential portraits of Catherine are always in the same basic style and shes always wearing the same style of clothing

I think it not impossible therefore that the minture portrait of the lady with a rich jewelled hood and the queens jewels  is  one of Ann .We think of Anne as always dressed in the highwaisted Flemish style but she quickly adjusted to English court life and did not continue to wear Flemish clothing long after her arrival but soon adopted English fashions.The lady in the miniature portrait is quite curvey as is Ann and has a similar stance and facial features ,she also seems older than the very young Catherine Howard who was almost certainly a teenager when Henry met her and may have been in her late teens as queen .

Its uncertain why Henry found Ann unattractive , when Henry remarried there were a number of occasions when both Ann and hes new wife Catherine were together at events,sometimes dancing together and Several ambassadors remarked that Catherine was not as pretty as Ann who Henry thought ugly.(when she took to wearing English dress for the first time after the wedding, one contemporary remarked that the fashion ‘set forth her beauty and good visage that every creature rejoyced to behold her’)( quote compliments of Ms sunydale)The problem Henry had with Ann appears to be less black and white than the Flanders Mare comments suggests.

Its likely that one thing Henry really disliked was her figure ,he singles it out for complaint in his comments to courtiers and she is far more buxom than his other wives ,Henry seems to have liked small breasted petite built ladies and Ann is always shown as curvy.Likewise her succesor Katherine was extreemly petite

It’s also  likely it was her lack of English ,social skills and “elegant accomplishments” that most soured the relationship.They certainly got off to a bad start as Henry who liked to play games of courtly love appeared to Ann on her arrival “in disguise “,Ann didn’t recognise him ,treated him rather coldly and when he tried to kiss her ,its possible she may have slapped him ,,not what Henry would have expected.Ann was probably never likely to make up ground from this first meeting .

Unknown woman at the court of Henry VIII suggested as either Ann or her sister Amelia

Despite being discarded I can’t help feeling of all Henrys wives Anne was the most fortunate ,,She spent very little time living with him,He was so nice to her while they were together she thought everything was fine more or less up to the point where she was “dumped”She got along ok with Henry but doesnt seem to have been in love with him unlike his unforunate first wives and she got a very handsome settlement during Henry life, a high position when at court and enjoyed a great deal of liberty not given to most women at that time and certainly more than she would have had in cleves.She also seems to have avoided Henrys amorous attentions which considering his vast build ,stinking leg ulcer and bad breadth was probably not a bad thing .While her fortunes were less good under his successors ,she survived both Henry and his other wives and apart from a slight run in with Henrys secret service was usualy left in peace .

Posted in 16thc/17thc, Hathaways of Haworth, history, Tudors, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The red queen a review and Richard III a re assesment

I have just finished the Red Queen, I have read several Phillipa Gregory books and as always I am torn between enjoyment and irritation.

Phillipa Gregory’s books are well written and the plots interwoven into the bare bones of historical fact clever and imaginative. The books backgrounds are obviously impeccably researched and their page turning brilliance often hides what is an impressive amount of background detail. Her novels are well grounded in detailed and wide-ranging research of what I assume is Primary as well as secondary sources. The background details are so carefully interwoven with the narrative they do not, as often happens in historical fiction   scream out “look, look I did my homework I know all this stuff about how they lived and I am sticking it in here because I really, really need to show off”

Her books are, en mass a wonderful exploration of the many varied ways that women could influence history and those around them. It explores their limited choices and how they react to them, without ever imposing modern views on her heroines. It’s often forgotten that the Tudor age was the Age of Queens rather than Kings .Women are the key characters behind most of the pivotal events of Tudor history.

Unfortunately what always spoils her books for me is the sneaking suspicion that her impeccable research is used by books publicists and her fans and made to create ad Vinci code confusion about exactly how factual her books are.

This is most obvious in her most famous book the Other Boleyn girl made famous by a movie whose costumes where as inaccurate as the interpretation of the story  itself, all the Phillipa Gregory books I have read this was the one which most frequently ignored the facts to create a good read. It has sadly spawned a completely  false view of Ann Boleyn a woman who Gregory could have been more sympathetic to  as she is one of the very few women to radically alter English history by sheer force of personality

The factual accuracy of the Red Queen with regard to the time period I have to confess I cannot comment on in any detail as the Wars of the Roses are not a period I studied in any great detail. What I found very interesting was the sympathetic treatment of Margret Beaufort, a lady I have tried hard to like but find I mostly loathe. Margret Beaufort is  usually seen  as a  Saint ,she was devote and clever ,she never strayed from a life of strict piety, she was charitable and also sponsored learning .However  she was also fiercely  ambitious and  I suspect arrogant and cold Her darker side is seen most clearly by her treatment of other royal women once her Son is crowned king .She is most aptly described as “the mother in law from hell” .She  lords it over both his wife and  the ladies of his court ,insisting on walking barely  one pace behind his wife and taking precedence over his mother in law Elizabeth Woodville who had ,once been queen of England .She  had a high profile role at court and styled herself Margret R which seems to have been universally seen as being Margret Regina ,though she could claim it merely stood for Margret Richmond. Phillipa Gregory perfectly recreates the inner life of Margret and while presenting characters through the biased eyes of Margret still manages to convey that she is not entirely correct in her opinions of them. The reactions of Margret to events are perfectly at ease with the mindset of a late medieval lady. The book is well written and certainly a page turner, I read it through the night until I saw dawn and picked it up again early the next day. Phillipa Gregory puts forward the interesting idea that Margret is partly responsible for the death of the Princes in the tower through influencing Buckingham to arrange the murders and I find this an interesting and plausible idea.

Possible portrait of a young Margret Beaufort.

The supposed murder of the Princes in the Tower by Richard the third is often seen a proven fact .The truth is not quite so clear cut. There is no real proof the Princes, the uncrowned King Edward and his brother Richard where in fact murdered in the Tower of London and even less evidence to suggest Richard III was the one responsible. Even assuming the unlikely scenario that his character was as black as Shakespeare paints it there was no good reason for him to have killed the princes, He had declared them bastards, he was in reasonable control of much of the country and most preferred a strong adult king to a boy king controlled by his very unpopular mother however well-loved the children may have been by the populace.

In addition nothing in Richards character suggests him capable of such a crime ,he seems to have been devoted to his brother their father ,He was pious and  he was highly intelligent and would have realised having the two children in his control was much more useful than having two children  murdered a fact which would be sure to become public and cause an outcry and would move his  other adult rivals especially  Henry Tudor closer to the line of succession .The other convincing proof of Richards innocence is that Elizabeth Woodville the boy’s mother long after rumours of the princes  death are circulating comes to Richards court and seems to be on good terms  with him even to the extent that he considers marrying her Daughter ,Elizabeth of York .It seems unlikely that she would have been so complaisant if she suspected he was capable of  the secret murder of her children

It’s just possible that one or both princes died of the plague or sweat or similar disease rampant in the city and where buried inside the tower as so many other prisoners have been in the past. Richard may have been worried about rumours of his murdering  them and  would be unlikely to be able to convince people of his innocence, however perhaps their mother was informed ,saw the bodies or heard the report from a trusted friend,  so this may be the simplest explanation for their disappearance and their mothers later actions. It is also very possible that the Princes were murdered by other claimants during Richards’s absence on Progress which is the time at which rumours start. It has always seemed much more likely to me that it was Tudor supporters who killed the Princes either in the tower or elsewhere. Killing the princes would remove the two major obstacles to Henry Tudor’s succession and also blacken the name of Richard III; their supporters would flock to Henry.

It’s been suggested that the princes escaped ,perhaps there was an attempt to rescue them which partially succeeded one prince escaping while the other was killed or perhaps both escaped .To me it does seem very likely that  the children are dead or have escaped at the point the rumours of their death are circulating or Richard would just have produced the children to disprove the rumours ,It’s also unlikely that Elizabeth Woodville would have promised her daughter in Marriage to the princes rival Henry Tudor unless she had believed her sons dead. Likewise Henry Tudor passes an act which delegitimizes the children of Elizabeth Woodville in order to reinforce his future wife Elizabeth of York’s royal credentials and its effects would also mean the princes if living would be the rightful monarchs not himself so it’s unlikely we would have done that unless he was certain they were dead and not likely to be able to claim his crown. On the other hand it does appear that Henry VII was not personally responsible for the children’s fate, he did not know where the Princes were buried nor is he even certain that both are in fact dead, He seems ambivalent during the long years of the Perkin Warbeck threat and the widespread royal support afforded Warbeck suggests that those in the know did believe one child at least had escaped.

Henry Tudor when he recounted Richard the thirds crimes never mentioned the murder of the two princes and it was not universally belived at the time.

Richard the Third has always had a loyal following the North and even at the time of his death when to voice support for him was dangerous the citizens of York recorded

… king Richard late mercifully reigning upon us was through great treason of the duc of Northfolk [sic] and many other that turned ayenst hyme, with many other lordes and nobilles of this north parties was piteously slane and murdred to the grete hevynesse of this citie

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

A scary story of vintage clothing and its hidden horrors

I am sorry for some reason all the images from this post have disapeared I will try to find the orginal files but in the meantime I have left it up incase the text  and links are useful

I thought it would be interesting to examine the hidden issues connected to buying vintage items ,while furs tend to attract the most negative attention there are other issues less obvious in buying many vintage items.

victorian 1860s gown

The most worrying  are those connected to health hazards and especially substances such as arsenic and mercury used in vintage items production,though not common there were cases of poisoning connected to Victorian gowns even during the 19thc ,several dye works were closed because unsafe amounts of arsenic were found in clothing .Pre  1890s  green clothing may well have had arsenic used in the creation of the dye .

1880s green dress

(painting seen here http://fannycornforth.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/passion-for-paxton.html)

Tales of clothing used to poison ladies was not limited to myths of the Medici court

http://www.dressaday.com/2010/01/dont-wear-green-tarletan-dresses.html(masachutists board of health 1883)

Attention has very frequently been called to the presence of large amounts of arsenic in green tarlatan, which has given rise so many times to dangerous symptoms of poisoning when made into dresses and worn, so that it is very rare now to see a green tarlatan dress. This fabric is still used, however, to a very dangerous extent, chiefly for the purposes of ornamentation, and may often be seen embellishing the walls and tables at church and society fairs, and in confectionery, toy and dry-goods stores. The writer has repeatedly seen this poisonous fabric used at church fairs and picnics as a covering for confectionery and food, to protect the latter from flies. As is well known, the arsenical pigment is so loosely applied to the cloth that a portion of it easily separates upon the slightest motion. Prof. Hoffmann after examining 11 large number of specimens estimated that twenty or thirty grains of the pigment would separate from a dress per hour, when worn in a ball-room….

.

But green tarlatan is not the only fabric which contains arsenic. We find arsenic sometimes in other substances used in making articles of wearing apparel, usually in the form of arsenical pigments. The writer detected a large amount of arsenic in a specimen of cloth known as “Foulard cambric,” which had been made into a dress; after wearing the dress a short time severe conjunctivitis was produced, together with nasal catarrh, pharyngitis, and symptoms of gastric irritation. The pattern of the dress consisted of alternate stripes of light-blue and navy-blue, and contained 0.291 grm. per square meter. Conjunctivitis has also been recorded from wearing of “tulle” dresses. A pustular eruption upon the neck and arms was caused by “a splendid dark-green dress, trimmed with light-green leaves,” obtained “from a well-known Parisian atelier;” the dress was found to contain “a large percentage of arsenic.”

Excessive irritation of the skin has frequently been caused by wearing stockings colored with an arsenical pigment. The writer has detected arsenic most frequently in light-red, magenta-colored and brown stockings;…..

There is what appears to be an excellent study of the subject here

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Medicine/PublicHealth/?view=usa&ci=9780199574704

While it seems unlikely to me that any vintage gown would be worn frequently enough for any modern poisoning to be severe ,the use of chemicals in the dye process should be an issue anyone wearing Victorian items is aware of .While most of us are unlikely to wear Victorian gowns ,I have worn Victorian stockings on one occasion when absolute accuracy was required and use Victorian lace and despite concerns about damage I always throughly soak and then wash under running water vintage items ,,Stockings ,gloves ,bonnets shawls may all have traces of arsenic .

report from Victorian newspaper

‘The evil effects of socks are well-known,’ said one newspaper, reporting that an MP was among many who had found themselves disabled after wearing arsenical stockings.

It’s should not be assumed this was a health scare that like many modern ones is based on hype and odd incidents of susceptible individuals,the amounts of arsenic found were extremely high and well recorded

1848 lancet,,,,

Examining the ball gown worn by one London society hostess, a doctor found 60 grains of Scheele’s Green per square yard – enough to kill 12 people. More alarmingly still, it was so loosely bound into the fabric that even the gentlest waltz could send it billowing out in a cloud of poisonous dust.

While not many people may buy or wear vintage Victorian clothing Lovers of vintage Victorian or pre Victorian  decorative items should also be aware it was used in curtains table runners ,paint on toys and other domestic items ,stuffed animals and wallpapers.Its considered a possibility that Napoleon was poisoned not by his captors but by the green wallpaper in his rooms .The ubiquity of arsenic in victorian wall coverings should not be underestimated and care taken when removing old paper from walls,,

extract ,,,

a revealing letter of 1885 from Morris to his dyer Thomas Wardle suggested that he might have used arsenic greens in his famous and desirable designs. The letter piqued my interest, and early samples of Morris &Co. wallpapers were tracked down to the William Morris Gallery, Walthamstow, in the UK, once the childhood home of Morris. The Gallery had a scrap,10 cm by 10 cm, of Trellis, Morris’ first wallpaper design, and the third to be printed. It came from the home of Morris’ general foreman George Campfield, and for this reason was thought to be of early origin. The scrap I received was a red rose on a green branch. The Museum allowed me to remove tiny flakes of pigments from Trellis for microanalysis. The results were immediate and impressive. The green branch was an arsenic-copper salt, the red rose vermilion. A highly toxic piece of art! This research was published in Nature..

http://www.popularscience.co.uk/features/feat17.htm

modern cases

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)73189-5/fulltext

scarlett O haras green  curtain dress was probably a major health hazard!

scarlett o hara ,velvet curtian dress

Moving on from the well documented use of arsenic ,there is the issue of Mercury

http://www.nwf.org/News-and-Magazines/National-Wildlife/Green-Living/Archives/2003/Avoiding-Toxic-Mercury.aspx

What makes this dangerous is mercury’s extreme neurotoxicity. That is, its devastating effects on the brain and nervous system. The “mad hatters” of Victorian times suffered from mercury poisoning when they rubbed the metal into felt cloth to preserve it. Mental confusion, trembling and eventually death can result from inhaling the vapors of this liquid metal, Anyone buying a Victorian or earlier  hat should be aware of the human cost which was involved in its creation and be aware that its possible enough mercury remain it the fibres to make wearing it hazardous and it is wise to be aware that mercury was used in the process of gilding mirrors ,furniture and jewelry. I have come out in unpleasant welts when I wore a moleskin cape and was told it may well have been a reaction to  vestiges  of mercury used to cure the moleskin.

there are other less well known problems such as lead ,this is likely to be present in old paint /varnish on vintage furniture or woodwork ,while hair ornaments may contain it  in quantities unlikely to harm adults it would be wise to keep vintage hair ornaments ,jewelry ,vanity sets etc away from toddlers who might be tempted to put them in their mouths..

It is also unwise to use Victorian cages for keeping pet birds  .

Its is easy to identify old lead painted items as the paint forms a distinctive “alligator ” effect  often mimicked (minus the lead) in distressed furniture .

http://www.health.state.mn.us/divs/eh/lead/vintage/index.html

There is also  the ethical issue of the hidden  human cost associated with the creation of vintage clothing ,the factory conditions which may mean that a child was maimed or killed producing the very cloth your  victorian gown is made from  or the curtains your hanging,Most certainly any hat wil have been produced at the expense of the hat makers health and of course Victorian and Edwardian hats frequently contain preserved birds ,,or beetles a trend that contributed to the destruction of many species of colourful birds and beetles and the destruction of eco systems .I personally do not have problems with vintage clothing on moral grounds for the same reason I dont have issues with vintage furs any harm was done in the past and not to use items  already created is wasteful though buying and funding any modern industrys run on Victorian lines is obviously morally untenable.

It should be remembered that there are however restrictions on the buying and selling of certain items

image source http://barbaraanneshaircombblog.com/2009/10/11/some-lovely-things-on-ebay-15/

The sale of   ivory is of course strictly controlled,its possible to sell vintage ivory items such as combs or fans but its essential to be able to prove the item was made prior to the ban and purchased legally .

Finaly when considering wearing period costume it is wise to consider the health risks ,if you will be wearing corsets regularly for  long term work as a re enactor etc I would suggest it is unwise to buy steel boned ones and that more flexible plastic boned ones would be more sensible as these are less restrictive but will still give the basic shape needed, all be it without the perfectly accurate rigidity.It is also wise to buy the best quality hoops possible at least cotton and if possible have thicker fabric ones made ,I know  that the USA has  reports of experiments to establish the safety of hoops and news reports of cases  where a hoop  petticoat  caught fire causing serious burns.I have perosnaly heard of one case in the past few months of a re enactors being bruned from a hoop that caught light.

I hope this post will not have deterred buyers and re enactors  but proved interesting and useful.

Extended treatment of victorian experiments and cases can be found here

http://archive.org/stream/arsenicinpapersf00haywrich/arsenicinpapersf00haywrich_djvu.txt

This post is based on resreach done for my talk

Arsenic and Old Lace ,or fashion to die for ,the story of victorian costume

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Katherine Howard ,a Tudor mystery

.I  have more or less finished a Catherine Howard outfit so I thought it would be nice to explore both Catherine’s life and character as well as the controversy surrounding alleged portraits of her .I also discovred a portrait that I had never seen before and which I dont think has entered the possible portraits list before and would love feedback on the image  (.I mention it halfway done the page )

First the portraits

I have had problems with a look for  Katherine Howard as there’s no reliable image of her that all historians agree on.I opted for a hybrid of two possible  images.

This miniature which I am not entirely convinced by ,as though it’s definitely a queen that doesn’t necessarily mean it has to be Catherine

200px-HowardCatherine02

 

and this sketch

howard

The dress in the sketch seems to have straight sleeves but there’s a very similar portrait which has recently emerged and is claimed to be Catherine /Katherine Howard.

kath howard

There are so many similar portraits to both this and the sketch  that I feel the dismissal of the longer full size portrait of a woman as that of  Catherine may be premature

NPG 1119; Unknown woman, formerly known as Catherine Howard after Hans Holbein the Younger

this gown shows a similar dress with an identical hood even to the chin strap which is very rare in french hood representations .It also shows a woman of similar looks to all the other portraits and the sketch.

There is in addition a  19thc miniature in the royal collections  labeled as Mary Tudor (Henry’s sister ) that looks very like these paintings right down to the hood and jewellery while the lady seems to look much younger and more Catherine’s age which was either late  or mid teens .This miniature doesn’t show sleeves but does have a similar  outfit to the Holbein sketch ,Its supposed to be copied from the Ohio portrait yet doesnt have the same face .

mary kat miniture

To me it seems unlikely that so many discredited portraits  of  supposedly different women should all look similar ,most have been considered to be Catherine at one time or another.It seems to me more likely that they show a woman who looked and dressed like Catherine and where therefore rightly or  wrongly  claimed as portraits of her.The only exception is the miniature above which I don’t think anyone else has mentioned.

The main objection to the images being Catherine is that the lady looks too old,looks ugly  and is dressed as a widow.We do know however Catherine owned at least one black velvet gown which must have been a favourite as she wore it to travel from Sion house during her imprisonment which had been rapid enough for her ladies not to have been able to take any great pains over choosing her wardrobe .As to the looking old ,I don’t think that we can firmly judge ,,No one knows exactly how old Catherine was as she was not important enough to have her birth recorded though she was certainly very young  but  Tudor portraits tend to age sitters consider the teenage Duchess of Milan.

220px-Christina_of_Denmark,_Ducchess_of_Milan

In addition if you are painting the queen it makes sense to instill the image with dignity and a more formal older looking queen may well be the result.Cahterine was also described as imperiouse and wilful by one ambassador so the haughtiness in the portraits may show that side of Catherine

As to looking ugly ,I don’t think the lady in question looks ugly and if she does seem ugly to us she may not have seemed so to Henry ,Some described her beauty as moderate or middling  then she was also considered attractive ,graceful and  delightful so it would appear that she was attractive from temperament rather than purely beautiful,Her  demeanour and face  were described as gentle and earnest  ,which to me seems to fit the little minature perfectly,In addition Henry seems to have had unorthodox tastes in female beauty Jane Seymour was not exactly beautiful

jane-seymour-portrait

.It should also be remembered that the portraits show women unsmiling and full face,the passport photo look and most people dont look that good on passport photos!

The only portrait I am not convinced  of  is the little minature  .Its different to every other possible  portrait of catherine ,In fact the person in the portrait  looks so similar to the Ann of cleaves portrait that captivated Henry that I would suggest they were the same person .The attribution of the portrait as Catherine Howard is based on the woman wearing the royal jewels as seen in other portraits of Henry’s wives yet not looking like any of them.If however you discard the idea that Ann of cleaves permanently wore the clothes seen below (which she did not she adopted English fashions a few months  after her arrival)Then I think it very possible its Ann.She seems to have a similare build and bearing

anne c

200px-HowardCatherine02

I   decided  therefore to compromise and use the style of dress with puffy sleeves and the style hood that’s in the sketch and disputed portrait but make the dress dark Brown as I had some handy .Its  simlare shade  to some images of the other very different gown in the miniature.

It also allows for both style of sleeves as the sleeves in the larger version of the portrait seem to be tied on at the shoulders.I made it closed fronted as the portrait that is full length tends  to suggest that .As there was no specific source to disagree I therefore  made a closed front gown with the skirts fuller ,this meant I could share the Victorian skirt.

Her personality

Finaly a quick did you know section on Katherine Howard ,She is always seen as the thick Tudor bimbo,a  trophy wife  for an old rich man .Shes also seen as something of a loose woman,she certainly had premarital “affairs but these where when she was extremely young ,,maybe as young at 12/13 when her music teacher seems to have persuaded her to let him  take  sexual liberties ,,in this modern age she would probably have been considered a victim in this particular relationship .The second when she was certainly no older than 15/16,was one  she felt at the time had involved a form of marriage,Denham and Catherine called themselves husband and wife when with each other and in front of close friends  ,she was given his money to look after and they had slept together ,Catherine could also have produced witnesses to their vows to marry and the consummation for the marriage  ,this in the days before church marriages where the norm would very well have been enough in law to make them husband and wife in any unbiased church court .Despite accusations she never tried to keep this relationship secret until she became queen and may well have thought Henry  knew of it when he initially showed interest in her

She certainly did have some kind of  affair  after she married Henry

Shes often considred to have been something of a spolit brat and no doubbt this was a side of her character ,Henry showered her with gifts of silks ,furs jewels and even estates,For someone who grew up having to share a room  with half a dozen other girls and who had very few personal possesions to suddenly have jewel chests full of pearls and gold and gemstones and dozens up on dozens of gowns must have been like a teenagers dream come true ,added to which instead of being bossed around by everyone and looked down on as a poor relation now everyone ran around for her and had to do as she told them.

She was  certainly described by an ambassador as imperious  and willful ,of modest beauty ,but delightful

There is also a hidden side to Catherine ,she does not appear ,like Henry’s  other wives to have tried to bribe Henry  into marriage by withholding her sexual favours as there were rumours she was pregnant well before their actual marriage so its possible she would have been happy to remain a mistress,She had at this time met Thomas Culpeper who she seems to have been genuinely fond of having fallen out with Derham to begin a serious relationship with Culpeper .If the king had not suddenly noticed Katherine she would probably have married Culpeper .As it was she married Henry but later resumed  her relationship with Culpeper.During her time as Henry’s wife she does seem to have taken a great deal of time in trying to amuse Henry and keep him cheerful and looked after him with affection.The begining of her possibly  adulterous affair with Culpeper  dated from the  time when she was exiled from Henry’s presence for several weeks because Henry was ill with a presumed infectious disease.Cupeper may well have been using Catherine to gain power and possibly even greater power as Henry’s health was declining and there were regular rumours that  Catherine  was pregnant ,,being the lover of a possible future queen regent was a pleasant prospect.

(Culpeper was not a pleasant character,he had raped a peasant woman getting friends to hold her down ,he had murdered some one else who tried to help her ,.The king knew and pardoned him so he may well have felt above the law.)

Its true she couldn’t read or write particularly well but she could do both which considering that no great pains were taken over her education does show some intelligence .Denham  her first actual lover trusted her with his savings  of one hundred pounds a huge amount by Tudor standards when he went on a journey when she was still a young teenager so she must have been fairly competent and trustworthy.She was also extremely kind to both Henry’s  daughters  especially Elizabeth who was something of an outcast as both bastard and daughter of a disgraced and hated past wife ,Catherine called her kinswoman ,which was brave as they were indeed kin ,,Ann bolyen and Catherine where cousins

She also seems to have been quite free of  resentment , there is an amusing incident after Catherine becomes queen ,the past discarded Queen Ann of Cleves visited court where Catherine received her so pleasantly the two women spent the night dancing together rwhile Henry went to bed early .

Catherine was instrumental in having several prisoners pardoned and when she  leaned an old lady ,the countess of Salisbury had been imprisoned in the  tower for many years she sent warm clothing and a warm hat though  she  had never met the old lady and she could have been in a great deal of trouble if Henry had been informed when he was in one of his less pleasant moods .She loved expensive cloths ,furs and jewels but she was generous to her ladies in waiting .She was vivacious and loved dancing but she does not appear to have been entirely vacant headed.Sadly we have almost nothing of Catherine ,she did not have any chidlren who might have wished to preserve  her memory ,she does nor seem to have had tutors or governesses , she had no close relations ,no  rich influential friends  who cared enough about her to keep her possesions or writings or portrait.Its probable she never had her portrait painted until she caught the kings eye .

her only remaining legacy is a letter to her lover Thomas Culpeper

Letter to Thomas Culpepper

Master Culpeper, I heartily recommend me unto you, praying you to send me word how that you do. It was showed me that you was sick, the which thing troubled me very much till such time that I hear from you praying you to send me word how that you do, for I never longed so much for a thing as I do to see you and to speak with you, the which I trust shall be shortly now. The which doth comfortly me very much when I think of it, and when I think again that you shall depart from me again it makes my heart to die to think what fortune I have that I cannot be always in your company. …you have promised me to be so good unto that poor fellow my man which is one of the griefs that I do feel to depart from him for then I do know no one that I dare trust to send to you, and therefore I pray you take him to be with you that I may sometime hear from you one thing. I pray you to give me a horse for my man for I had much ado to get one and therefore pray send me one by him and in so doing I am as I said afor, and thus I take my leave of you, trusting to see you shortly again and I would you was with me now that you might see what pain I take in writing to you. Yours as long as life endures,

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

medieval clothing on Etsy

A very short post to give an update on our Etsy shop
crespin
coif
cap

red bogria gown gal
abg gal

https://www.etsy.com/uk/shop/Ionianswansongs

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

How to make a Jane Austen era,18thc ,Regency gown ,a cheats guide ,for people who dont like sewing

Heres a very quick cheats guide to making a Regency era gown ,its the easiest way and needs nothing but a needle and thread ,some ribbon or cord and an hour or so .
There’s also some very brief background on Regency fashion and brief instructions for making some cheats versiosn of the under layers ,also at the foot of the page are some tips on Jewellery and hair.
 emma regency bonnet
You will need
1/ A sari sometimes spelled as Saree ,this will make the dresses skirt
2/A sari blouse,this will make the dresses bodice
3/ Cotton in the colour closest to the sari
4/ A needle
5/Something to use to lace up the back around 2 metres maximum less if your narrow chested .This can be very narrow curtain tie back cord or piping cord, narrow ribbon ,narrow jewellery making cord or at a pinch though not ideal string,This should be as close as possible to the sari fabrics colour.
6/ Cellotape ,gaffer tape or similar ,, Any sticky tape ,Elastoplast may work on some fabrics ,
7/Something pointy and sharp to make holes, a skewer that you use to test meat or cakes or for threading kebabs on ,a bradel or similar.
Time needed
between one and three hours
Method
1/buy a Sari, these are very long Asian “dresses” though they are not actually a dress but a long piece of fabric with hemmed or otherwise finished edges ,these are wrapped around the body to give the distinctive Indian Sari outfit.Saris come in all style and qualities ,from plain cotton to jewelled silks.These were probably the source of many regency gown fabrics and there is likely to be a sari in the fabric you want
sari green
sari wedding
sari cotton
If you look at actual Regency gowns its easy to spot militaries in fabrics
regency traiend gown
regency ball gown

They usually around 5 metres. They often have a decorative front panel and the rest is either plain or a less elaborate pattern with an embroidered or otherwise detailed edge either side, this eliminates any need to hem your gown.
sari red 1
2/Buy a sari blouse,these come in all shapes and sizes some square necked ,some scoop necked ,some with puffed sleeves ,some with no sleeves so finding a neckline to suit your gown shouldn’t be too hard.Any sleeveless one will be good for an under gown but will need sleeves sewing in for use as a ballgown or day gown.Its also occasionally possible to find long sleeved ones but they are unusual

sair blouse  1
sari blouse 5
sair blouse puffed sleevs
sometimes blouses come with the saris and have matching trim on the sleeves as above ,this is the best choice as the colours will be identical which they might not be otherwise unless you buy plain white or black
sair white back lacing

Saris can be bought on ebay and some online Asian retailers ,or if you like in the UK from your nearest Asian store, Bombay Stores in Bradford is excellent.
OR you can buy a plain white sari blouse and a plain white sari or some white fabric or a white flat sheet ,a sheet means you wont need to hem anything .This plain white one could also be used as an underdress
3/ Note some sari blouses are closed at the front and have a small back lacing panel ,these are perfect as you will not even need to buy something to lace up the dress or do any sewing at the back.
4/If your blouse front fastens
sari front blouse
,sew up the front
sari blouse sewn
,cut the back up the middle
sari blouse cut
and turn over the edge ideally as narrow as possible and if possible twice to make it stronger at the lacing points, you could also turn it over a small length of cord to make it stronger
5/.you need to add some small holes to this with a barbecue skewer or cake/meat tester something long,narrow and pointed .
Its possible you may decide to leave adding cord or ribbon until you have sewn the skirt part onto the bodice,this makes it easier to sew the skirt on ,but harder to check what the whole dress will look like when finished before joining the skirt and bodice )
6/Use , around a meter or two metres of cord or ribbon ,,one metre if your very petite or more if your very busty.You can use narrow ribbon ,though ideally narrow cord ,curtain cord or jewellery making cord is best
7/.cellotape the edges of the cord and thread it through the holes ,you may need to poke it through the holes with the end of a pencil or blunt pointy object.
7.Tie knots in the end of the cord
The skirt part
1/ Unrole the sari and put it as flat as possible ,if it has a front decorative panel either cut this off
sari 2
or use it as a front panel on your gown.
green sari
(this also shows how your dress will look hwne the blouse/bodice and skirt are attached)
The easiest way if your a non sewer or cant view the dress on a mannequin or friend is to just remove it as it avoids the need to match the front pleats perfectly.(You could hem this panel and use it as a shawl if you leave a reasonable sized piece but don’t leave yourself short for the dress)
1A/If your under 5.4 and need the dress to touch the floor in flat shoes your lucky and don’t need to do any further cutting or much sewing.If your over 5/4 and only 5/5 /5.6 don’t mind having the dress skim your ankles you can likewise get by ,If your over that height ou will either need to cut the sari into strips long enough to touch the floor and sew each strip together to make a long strip then hem them or use the sari as it is add a trim or lace around the bottom of the finished dress to make it floor length.
2/ cut a narrow strip ,,only 4 inches wide is needed though 6 inches is best of the sari fabric ,this will go under the lacing panel on your blouse to avoid showing a gap when the dress is laced, ideally this should be stitched on and hemmed all around the edges but you could just hem the top or iron the top over and push it under the bodice when its on and not bother edging it as it wont be seen.
Bennet-Daughters-pride-and-prejudice-1995-6151620-600-349
3/ gather or pleat the sari fabric so it looks as close as possible to a regency shape skirt,For non sewers the easiest is gathers ,you can just tie a know in the end of the cotton then do big long stitches and pull them together to make gathers,try to make the gathers mostly at the sides and back and keep the front fairly flat .This finished gathered part needs to fit around your chest just below your bust.You can check this by trying it against your bra ,crop top etc leave a few inches leeway and cut a straight opening around 6 inches long at the center of the back ,the shorter this is the better as its only to let you pull the dress over your head and is not going to fasten closed .If wanted hem this gap or iron the rough edges over so they don’t show.
3a/ For anyone wanting an accurately pleated skirt to their gown regency gowns are usually flat at the front then pleated and full at the back .
beents again
4/Arrange the gathers or pleats so they are very full near the gap and go slightly over it to hide the opening then try it actually on you.
5/Sew this “skirt” onto the bottom of the sari blouse either by turning the blouse inside out and sewing both insides /wrong sides together ,this is the neatest way .Or if you really don’t like to sew you can just sew it to the blouse ,as neatly as possible and hide the join with a big sash or piece of trim ,,this wont look good enough to wear without a sash or belt though.
6/turn the dress right side out and try it on .
7/if its a bit too loose you can just over over the lacing panel more and re add the tape.if its too short you can buy trim or lace and sew it around the hem.
8/you have your Jane Austen gown.

regency golden gown
Underlayers
you can make a regency “bra” by using Sari blouse and cutting out the sleeves and making a bigger neck leaving a very wide arm hole and narrow strips around the neck ,hem these edges or buying a sleeveless low back sari blouse
.Alternatively to give the impression of Regency stays being worn under your gown or to get the Pride and Prejudice Eliza Bennet look you can wear a balconette bra or underwired non padded bra,Balconettes give the closest shape to a Regency pair of boned stays.
bennet 1
.A non wired unpadded bra or cropped internal support vest top will give a softer look.
beent keira
2/Regency underskirt ,again use a sari blouse cut out the sleeves sew a narrower panel of fabric around the bottom in the same way as for the actual dress but it needs to not be gathered at the front and not as full ,either plain white sari fabric, sheeting or white cotton curtain voile .If you don’t have much fabric you can make it very narrow and put a split up the back or sides.
If you cant get a sari blouse cut a long strip of sheeting or cotton voile curtain make sure this is long enough to be ankle length.
sew the edges together making a long tube of fabric and gather this to a width that fits over your bust and directly under your arms,,as though it was a bath towel wrapped around you .
Sew ribbons or similar onto this strip of fabric ,ideally this needs to be one piece to make a strap either side ,but if this is likely to be difficult to get right you can just sew toe pieces of ribbon each side ,the put it on ,tie the ribbons tighter at your shoulders and either leave them tied or sew the ends together.
Shawls
sometimes Saris have matching shawls called dupattas.
duppatta paisly
Dupatta-Style-2
If not these dupattas can be bought fairly cheaply at Asian stores or online, they are long rectangular shawls and probably what where the original regency shawls were.You can also buy a large plain or paisley pashmina as these are also a good shape ,Regency shawls were very long rather than square.
regency shawl
regency shawl 1
outerwear ,spencers
Directions for making a Spencer in half an hour can be found on another post .though a contrasting blouse could again be used,ora retailerd and cut short cropped jacket, instructions in my next post
 regency gown
Hats ,headdresses and Bonnets
I will also do a post soon on how to make a regency bonnet from a sun hat or modern hat in an hour
Alternatively you can buy a Turban and add feathers and trims or just feathers
tiara and feather
,these can be bought from Asian Stores. Another option is to buy a velvet Beret and again add feathers. Tiaras came into fashion at this time so a simple Tiara in an appropriate style of jewelled headband can work for balls.
tiara
Jewlelry
a plain pearl or coral necklace
regn necklace
A delicate diamanté necklace for balls or double sign of coral ,pearls etc
regenc necklace

or for day time a very simple cross with stones set into it or nothing at all.
reg necklace

Hair
This will be difficult to do accurately unless your good with curling tongs and have at least shoulder length hair.
For a simple style you can just pull it back to the back of your head and make a bun.For daytime you can cover the join between your own hair and hairpiece with a strip of fabric folded and tiedhair
I have a hairpiece that has ringlets attached ,pull my hair into a bun and pin this over it ,you could also use a clip on short curly ponytail hairpiece.Use lots of hairspray

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Homegroup, Where Women have no voice

Last Autumn,we left our home of over 17 years forced out by Homegroups callous disregard for its tenants ,its refusal to do even the most essential of repairs and its discriminatory attitude towards Women ,the disabled and the disadvantaged.
solds bridal
This post deals with what was the most appalling aspect of my treatment by an appalling company ,I use the word company as while home group claims to be a social housing organisation it is nothing less than a disreputable ,disorganised slum landlord operating standards that would make the most hardened of Victorian slum tenement owners blush ,yet none of this has stopped our council from offering home group contracts for major work.

http://www.keighleynews.co.uk/news/10612661.Plans_for_130_affordable_houses_in_Bradford_are_drawn_up/?ref=rc

Why ?cant our council use FB or the internet, does it not keep abreast of local news or listen to the voice of its constituents

http://www.keighleynews.co.uk/news/news_keighley/10483129.Denholme_family_say_it_s_like_living_in_a_cave/

I had numerous conversations with an assortment of home group staff members, rarely if ever the same one, and each conversation was preceded by a demand that I get my husbands permission before they would speak to me, this despite that fact we were joint tenants ,we had been married over 30 years and had always been equally responsible for the rent payments.H0megroup admitted that we were both liable for paying the rent and that rent invoices came in our joint names, yet insisted that any important conversations about repairs or other housing concerns must first be approved by my husband. It made no difference when on numerous occasions my husband made clear that not only was it ok to speak to me but I had every right to be treated as his equal. I was told that if my Husband would send in an official letter giving them permission to speak to me that would solve the problem ,,though surely the days when a woman needed a written note from her husband to be taken seriously should have been long past.I also felt that giving in and getting consent would set a dangerous precedent ,why as a joint tenant and equal to my husband should I require a mans consent to discuss with my landlord ,problems with my home.It required the intervention of my MP and a formal complaint to the Equality and Human Rights Commission before the situation was remedied.
I made inquiries and discovered I was not the only woman to have been subject to the Victorian misogynistic practices of Home group .I was told one young woman moving into a house with her husband and new child was all but refused a joint tenancy until she insisted as homegroup claimed it would make life hard for company if she and her husband divorced.
Here is the relevant FB post comment
Emz Wells
before we moved in i had a women come to me and she tried telling me we wasn’t alloud a joint tenency as home group wouldn’t get in the middle when we broke up. i had just had a baby and was emotional enough and to be told me and my husband was going to break up realy angered me but that lady has since left
This was a very happily married couple who had just had their first child for homegroup to make such upsetting comments beggars belief. How can a housing association promote the idea that women should automatically allow their partners to deal with business such as tenancy’s and therefore be left without any right to a say in how their home is maintained and without any firm right to live in the property ,imagine a situation were a wife with young children is suffering spousal abuse ,yet has nowhere to go and no right even to her own home.
Why is our council still dealing with this company?
We are now taking legal action ,our solicitor asked who should be the named person taking that action we agreed it should be me ,Homegroup denied me a say in how my home was run ,denied my a voice and my rights ,it therefore seems fitting that it is I who they are now faced with action from.
Here is a brief representative sample of their tenants voices from FB

https://www.facebook.com/HomeGrouphousing

Home Group’s ‘human library’ hailed for improving equality and diversity

http://www.homegroup.org.

Top Comments

7 people like this.
..

Never before have I encountered such incompetence. You are not fit to be a social housing provider!

Like30 · about 6 months ago ·

Monica Jessica Piatek

Cant believe you are even legally allowed to operate!!! I have never witnessed such disgusting laziness and incompetence. Custer service is a joke! No heating for two months because someone is too lazy and pathetic to come around and open the meter room door for an engineer!!!!

Like12 · about 3 months ago

Dan Page
Well what can I say…..incompetent, undermining, contradicting, unorganised, lying bunch of harassing people.
Home group you should hang your heads in shame.
There’s a distinct lack of communication between your rental department employees.
I can’t believe that it has taken nearly 2 months to close my rent account,

Like13 · about 6 months ago ·

Matthew Berger

We have windows that don’t close, windows that won’t open. Mold treatment was laughable, leaking roof/ceiling for at least 2 years…. no resolution there.

Currently without Central Heating/Hot water, blocked drainage (that was highlighted to the surveyor) as a result of a new perfect horizontal waste pipe. They expect us to heat our home using 2KW electric heaters that cost £1.50 PER HOUR TO RUN!!

The drainage engineer hasn’t arrived today despite numerous calls to Home Group repair team.

Andrew Tetley

Utter shambles of a company 5 missed appointments 5 days holiday lost from work i am now witholding part of my rent and have employed a local contractor to carry out my repairs if you dont like it homegroup take me to court i will gladly stand up in court and expose you for what you are. You should be charged under the trades description act your not a caring social housing provider your a lying incompetent company who seem to be quick to act if your tennants owe you money EVERYONE STAND UP TO THIS COMPANY USE YOUR RENT MONEY TO EMPLOY YOUR OWN CONTRACTORS TO CARRY OUT REPAIRS YOU ARE WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS

Amanda Lindsey
Never known a company so poor. Call centre is appalling. No one talks to each other, snobs on the phone, takes 30 mins to get hold of someone on the emergency helpline. I never know when I have appointments for repairs. They just turn up unannounced as well. No gas for 5 days with a 1 n 3 year old in the house and asthmatic. House was wrongly inspected. So many faults with it only been in a month. Housing advisor never in either When I ring.

As a footnote while rechecking homegroups page I discovered this awful story
dog homegroup
home group subcontractor does this to a poor dog through incompetence
(Andy Macleod)
I have no personal experience of Homegroupd attitude to animals so I cant add anything other than that seen on FB

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

The Evita Project ,or why is Eva Peron still relevant?

220px-Eva&Juan

eva young

Continue reading

Posted in history, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Ever after Regency gown

My costuming swan song ,this is probably the last dress ever to be hand sewn by me

https://www.etsy.com/uk/listing/182342373/wonderful-regency-ever-after-gown-neo?ref=listing-shop-header-0

,I have long-planned an “Ever After ” Breath gown”

breathe gownI eventually found a vintage Lengha ,which is an Asian wedding gown or outfit consisting of Lengha ,Dupata and blouse .This was hand beaded and embroidered in much the same way as the Breathe gown.

regency gown  full length

I made an under layer and cut up the shawl and skirt part of the Lengha to make a trained over gown ,I used gold jaquared ivory brocade for the under gown  backed with white silk for the train part ,,,,the bodice I hand worked with panels from the lengha over silk  ,genuine antique ivory satin ,strings of seed pearls and antique gold modern lace. unusually for my gowns the back of the bodice is boned while the front isn’t ,I wanted a soft front but the weight of the beaded fabric required support at the back to stop the back of the bodice sagging

regency gtown bodice I added Regency sleeves rather than create an exact replica Breathe gown but the bodice is in the medieval style ,Medieval costumes influenced some Regency gowns .

The fabric is slightly textured silk organza or silk tissue shot with old silver,the crinkle effect is identical to that of the movie gown but the colour is brighter ,My Lengha fabric is a delicate aqua shot with silver and shimmers beautifully in the light. It’s completely decorated along its lengths  ,, the beadwork is thousands of gold-plated bugle beads ,gold-plated wirework embroidery and ,claw set Austrian crystals ,this fabric would have been entirely hand stitched and the stitching is visible on the back of the gown.The translucent silk fabric is backed with fine cotton muslin .

regency gown back1

regency gown sleeve

Posted in 18thc | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Christian domestic discipline an affront to the body of christ

Adam-and-Eve-Garden

I  have recently noticed the multiplicity of sites extolling the virtues of Christian domestic discipline.I feel it such a pernicious doctrine and so harmful to women ,to christian marriages and to the body of christ that some in-depth refutation of its doctrines is necessary before the cancer spreads as the movement is gaining publicity and growing presumably because inexperienced men fall for the teaching through ignorance or because its speaks to some inner darkness .The men extolling Christian domestic discipline relay on badly constructed arguments based on scriptures lifted for the most part out of their original context and applied to marriage ,the only real link being that created by these false teachers arguments .

For those who have not yet heard of Christian domestic displine ,here is a brief introduction in their own words from a leading site

“Think wife spanking went out with the horse-drawn carriage, straight razors or unsliced bread?Think again.
Domestic Discipline has been practised throughout history and continues to be practised today by an ever-growing community who see the wisdom in our ancestors’ methods of maintaining marital bliss.”

http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/whatiscdd.html

An indepth explanation of what this discipline entails is also given

“Not all domestic discipline relationships use spanking as the only consequence or even as a consequence at all. Some couples prefer other punishments; such as, writing lines, corner time, or the temporary forfeiture of some favourite past time. Many couples pair these other punishments with spanking.

Most domestic discipline couples practise some form of spanking, which seems to come in three categories: play spanking, maintenance spanking, and punishment spanking.

Though play spanking seems to be just that… play… it is often much more. Couples point out that play spanking reinforces the roles in the relationship, reminds the submissive partner of harsher consequences should they misbehave, and allows the feelings of dominance and submissiveness without the emotional upset of a “real” spanking.

Maintenance spanking is a bit more serious. It is usually administered at regular intervals in the relationship and its purpose might be to punish small infractions over a period of time, remind the submissive to behave, reinforce roles in the relationship, remind the submissive of harsher consequences should they misbehave, and allow the feelings of dominance and submissiveness in the relationship. It is a real spanking, though not usually as harsh as a punishment spanking. It may or may not leave the submissive partner in tears, and it may or may not cause a great deal of pain. It usually begins with a “warm-up”, meaning the partner giving the spanking will begin slowly and build up intensity, which decreases the pain involved. It is also referred to by some as a “good girl spanking.”

Punishment spankings (or discipline spankings) are the most dreaded of the three. Given for an infraction or misbehavior by the submissive, they are usually severe and cause a substantial amount of pain. A specific type of punishment spanking that is considered the most severe of all is often called the AAAC, or “Avoid At All Costs” spanking. This is a spanking that is severe in nature, causes great distress and most usually tears for the recipient, and is crafted to be memorable and cause deep regret in the heart of the submissive”

http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/introdd.html

(The site continues but I will deal with other sections at a later date).While it may seem to some that this is merely another slightly kinky sex fetish ,this is unfortunately nothing of the kind ,in this case the discipline which may be a spanking but may also be a beating with a belt or whip also involves telling the partner the beating is due to their sin  and disobedience.That it is not just the husband beating the wife but also God.The beating is administered with the aim of creating outside of the bedroom a feeling of submission and fear .There is as spiritual and psychological aspect that is as emotionally damaging or more so than the beating is physically damaging.

The  arguments put forth  to support dominating and beating their wives by these so-called men of faith are nothing but heresy and the fruit of  a misreading ,misinterpretations and misapplication of the word of  God .I find it an affront to my faith  and my dignity as a human being and as a woman and wif of over 30 years that these so-called loving husbands can use scripture to oppress and debase their wives .It is an abomination in the site of a loving God .They should hang their heads in shame and put out penitent hands towards heaven praying for mercy to the god who protects the powerless and hates the strong who oppress the weak .The God who demands from men the highest possible standard of love for their wives ,that they love them as christ loved his church ,laying down his life for her .Christ showed his love for a lost world bearing pain and rejection and untold sorrow for love of those who loved him not.How then with such a sacrifice before them can they claim that wives by merely misbehaving or answering back should be beaten ,God loved us while we were yet sinners and his enemies ,we deserved judgement not love and redemption
.We have one occasiona when a disobedient wife is brought before Jesus having been caught in the act of adultery,,a crime which would have demanded the death penalty at that time ,Jesus response was an example that should be considered by husbands planning on folowing the teaching of CDD sites

John 8:4-9 ESV / 15 helpful votes

They said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground.

When the accusers heard this, they slipped away one by one, beginning with the oldest, until only Jesus was left in the middle of the crowd with the woman. 10 Then Jesus stood up again and said to the woman, “Where are your accusers? Didn’t even one of them condemn you?”

11 “No, Lord,” she said.

And Jesus said, “Neither do I. Go and sin no more.

I have a number of points to deal with and it is likely this post will be the first of several on this subject .

Firstly ,I will address the arguments,,if such they can be called given by the leading site

http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/

I think it interesting that this site misuses on its home page a verse from Hebrews .An epistle quite possibly written by a woman Priscilla ,,though most traditionally attributed to Paul ,Hebrews is unsigned and while having Pauline aspects is also different in some key aspects .It seems unlikely such an important epistle would be unsigned if it had been written by one of the apostles including the apostle to the gentiles Paul and therefore it has been suggested that its author was a woman contemporary with Paul ,we know with certainty that one woman Priscilla taught ,indeed she taught another church  leader Apollus who had until then had a poor grasp of the faith .Due to Priscillas prominence it has therefore been suggested that she is in fact the author ,,or possibly co author either with her husband Aquilla or  as scribe and co author with Paul as we  also know that by the later part of his life Paul required a scribe to write his letters merely writing a few short words at the end .Joint authorship would explain the scatterings of we and I in the epistal.

To return to  this site dedicated to  justifying and promoting wife-beating it opens with Hebrews 12 v 11

Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.

I belive this is the KJV ,it is a never-ending source of wonder to me that so many poor arguments are based on this version of the bible ,while excellent for its time and suprisingingly accurate for its time  ,is not without mistranslations, inaccuracies and obsolete language ,though perhaps its apt as the arguments put forward for christian domestic discipline are themselves based on ,mistranslation ,misapplication and an obsolete and misogynistic moral code.

The verse from Hebrews is from a larger very famous passage which comes directly after the  listing in Hebrew 11 of the men of faith who had trails or sorrows and who suffered for their faith sometimes giving their lives.The beging of Hebrews 12 opens with a passage urging belivers to remember their predessors and christ.It is encouraging belivers who are currently facing persection to endure it as others did and

“Endure trails for the sake of disipline ,,for god is treating you as children and which parent does not disipline its child,it goes on to say that parents disipline children they love and that God “disiplines us for our good in order that we might share his holiness ,,then the quote misused on the site

2now disipline always seemspainful rather than pleasant at the time but later it yeilds the peaceful fruit of righthousness to those who have been trained by it

(NRSV New Revised Standard Version)

the chapter ends

therefore lift your drooping hands and stregthen your weak knees and make straight paths for your feet so that what is lanme may not be put out of joint but rather be healed.

So the site uses a verse out of context to warp what should be an exhortation to perserver in hardship and turns it into a verse that suggests the Lord condones beating wives.

The sites extolling the beating of wives claim that if wives sin or are submissive wives which also a sin in their eyes then beating is required. Women are given impossible criteria to meet to be the biblical ideal wife and punished for falling short of the ideal.

Jesus says of such men

Matthew 23

10 Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.[d] 15 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel across sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell[e] as yourselves.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides.

Matthew 15:7-9 ESV

You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: “‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”You leave the commandments of God and hold to the traditon of men”

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+23&version=ESV(English standard version)
Part two
An examination of Hosea ,God ,man and the faithless wife to follow shortly

Footnotes and links

for the case for Priscillas authorship of Hebrews

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11471/what-was-von-harnacs-case-that-priscilla-wrote-hebrews

http://biblethumpingliberal.com/2012/08/27/the-author-of-a-major-n-t-epistle-was-a-woman/

there is also a discussion on the subject here ,which reassses the possibilty it is Pauline and explores reasons against Priscilla as author .

http://paulandco-workers.blogspot.com.es/2011/06/new-evidence-that-hebrews-was-written.html

Posted in Biblical studies | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Please Mr Darcy

We have been privileged to have one of our photos used by Author Susan Mason- Milks for  the cover of her forthcoming book.

 emma regency bonnet

a sneak preview  of both the work and cover can be seen here,,

http://austenauthors.net/please-mr-darcy-cover-reveal-susan-mason-milks/smm-pmd-postcard-cover-240w

Posted in 18thc, Hathaways of Haworth, work | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

The Bronte Boy comes to Haworth

The brilliant Bronte boy is coming to Haworth this Friday 7.30 pm West Lane Baptist Church.

Bronte Boy 2

I have seen the play in the past and its my favourite Bronte play .Michal Yates has brought the brilliant yet flawed Branwell to life .

I am also looking Forward to seeing Haworths Prodigal son as portrayed  by Warwick St John ,,though I have seen other Branwells I havent seen him more sympathetically played.I actualy like his Branwell and feel genuine sadness for his failours   and decline.

Its Haworths Bronte Society weekend so there’s lots of Bronte events and they can be found here

http://bronteparsonage.blogspot.co.uk/

webshot purple victorian dress SHAWL

Posted in brontes, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment