I have begun an e petition to ask the government to ban the use of nazi insignia and the wearing of SS uniforms ,we have again had problems at Haworth 1940s weekend where the SS uniforms were deliberately flaunted despite repeated requests.
Many other EU countries have banned the use of Nazi symbols and insignia and I belive this sets a precedent for our government .I also feel that as many of the uniforms are the product of the holocaust and or war crimes or used to commite crimes the actual wearing of them is in itself offensive.(see footnotes)
The condoning of SS uniforms and insignia is passively supporting the view held by the Nazi party about Jewish people,the disabled ,homosexuals, those of Asian or African origin and the Roma.
I would suggest that items used by Nazi re enactors should be subject to the same controls as items made from rare species ,big cats ,ivory etc .
While I do not suggest that any of the sites below have neo nazi view the descriptions from their sites provide amplepProof of the criminal or morally offensive provinence of uniforms and insignia
Here is a very rare item from the Dachau concentration camp. This garden and bottling facility was connected to the camp complex and was a favorite project of SS-Reichsführer Himmler, himself. The SS and NSDAP were extremely health conscious; cigarettes were frowned upon and even forbidden in the Luftwaffe and Allgemeine-SS. The experimentation in herbal treatment and cures continued right up to the end of the Reich in 1945. Wholegrain breads and the soy bean were extolled. The SS legions drank gallons of sparkling Aqua Vita. Today, Fachingen Mineralwasser is the “aqua vita” from those times and is the most-sold health water in Germany. Our historical advisor is related to the von Johnston family that is the sole producers of this natural beverage. We believe this bottle offered here once held the “aqua vita” water so precious to the SS and we believe it is from the famous herb garden at Dachau. The garden, personally supervised by Himmler, was worked by Polish and Lithuanian persons; often monks and priests and other clergymen who, although often convicted of treasonous activity, were selected for these labors…..
The condition is perfect and the item is extremely rare being also a positive side of SS general activities; more rare than an SS officer’s chain-link dagger. What GIs would bring home a bottle of water??? But I’m sure when they see this they will wish they had, right?
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.
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.The 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.
As I have been working my way through the Tudor era I have been doing further research on the puzzling white band that appears in many early Tudor portraits.
The band can be seen here going around the shoulders and down the bodice front .There seems no reason for this band in this portrait or most others .
the exception is this Holbein sketch were it appears to be holding up the skirts
I do not however think that the white band in this case is necessarily holding up the skirts its seems to terminate a little above the garter but if it is indeed holding up the skirts I think it unlikely to be representative of its use in the portraits of upper class women All Tudor ladies seem to have usually let their gowns trail as theres several comments about trained gowns and also about the middle class womens gowns trailing in mud .Where gowns were lifted they seem to have been back pined
I know there are several theory’s ,perhaps it is part of the undergown /chemise showing through much as the chemises in Italian portraits do .
We have a portrait of Katherine of Aragon wearing a gown in what appears to be a similar style so it is possible
.It does explain its appearance and disappearance which can be accounted for by a change in lacing in the gowns.
Early Tudor gowns front usualy fastened such as the one Elizabeth of york is shown wearing in her famous portrait .
and in the Whitehall mural obviously front fasten and have no band
A further portrait also shows Catherine of Aragon wearing a gown that appears to fasten at the front,Though in Catherine’s case there is a panel pined across the front.On these gowns trim and neckline decoration is attached to the gown (This is the reason I usually attach trims to gowns which I design and sell as I feel there is some evidence to suggest that at least some less expensive trim was attached to the overgowns in the early Tudor age)
I do think it possible Tudor gowns went through a side lacing phase as Holbein’s famous sketch shows a gown that appears to neither front nor back laced and the lady has the mysterious white band
.Later Tudor gowns either back lace or front lace with a panel pined across over the lacing and the white band accordingly disappears .
I think this unlikely however as both the Holbein sketch of a young woman walking and other sketches show the band with front fastening gowns.
It more likely that the Band in its early stages is linked to sleeves style and attachment.Tudor gowns change shape in the early decades of the 16thc and it’s During this time the white band appears and perhaps may have covered not just the side lacing of the new style gowns but also have covered the attachment lacing for the sleeves or to cover pins and protect the gown from any pins etc used to attach the gowns sleeves.This function would hold good even for back lacing gowns as tie on sleeves would still need covering
Sleeves
Though I have to do further research I am also not convinced that all Tudor gowns acquired integral sleeves either during the White band era or later as I have so far found it impossible to create the later very wide necked and tight sleeves style with integral sleeves without the sleeves constantly falling off the shoulders.Its also very difficult to get any full sleeved chemise through these tight sleeves . I think its very possible some if not all Tudor gown sleeves stayed separate
Though I cant figure out if this was the case how the sleeves attached as theres clearly no lacing holes in the Jane seymour portrait and they could only have attached to the layer under billiment layer and so be hidden by the billiments as above and in later portraits such as the master John Portrait of Mary Tudor
Perhaps instead the tight top part of the sleeve was a laced closed sleeve that devloped from tie /pin on sleeves
If you added underlacing to the sleeves above you would have a gown very like the Princess Mary Tudor gown
Or perhaps the tight sleevs formed part of another gown with a sleevelss gown or bodice of the same fabric above
If the overgown was sleevelss or had tie on sleeves it also explains how the undersleeves in so many paintings such as the Jane Seymour portrait were attached and matched the visible part of the petticoat.Perhaps the expensive fabric lower under sleeves evolved from lace on sleeves and did in fact form part of the undergown ensemble
Its also possible the upper sleeve was not a full sleeve but was merely a piece of fabric pined around the shoulders like a more complex version of the shawl partlets If you contrast the dress below with the image showing a shawl partlet it is a possibility
Perhaps theres three gown sleeves showing in portraits . the tight sleevelss or very short sleeved over gown , a longer full sleeve from an under gown and a further sleeve from another undergown .As with the skirts of any undergown only the visible part of these sleeves needed to be made of expensive fabrics ,while slashing in the lower parts would allow the chemise to show through. Some images of earlier gowns suggest the undergown had eleborate and intergral sleeves covered by shorter overgown sleeves
However to return to the mystery of the Band and its possible impilcations for headress construction .It seems fairly sturdy lien perhaps even stiffened linen as it seems very similar to the linen that sticks out from the bottom of gable hood .As mentioned earlier I dont belive it can have usualy been a chemise as it also seems to appear in front lacing gowns were a chemise could not have been visible at the sides.(This can be seen in the second image at the top of this post where the woman has no a front fastening gown but still has the white band)The preliminary sketch for the portrait also shows this (the sketch below is a later copy but to identical to the original except in the use of colour ,where I have been unable to find suitable online images of ordinals I have used these later coloured copies but only having compared them to originals)
The white bands always lie above any Chemise or lien under partlet layer in both sketches and portraits such as this of Lady Moore.In this portrait there’s also a suggestion that the gable hood linen layer is a layer onto which is pined the fold of the lappets of gable hoods(This will be shown to be important later in the post)
The Alice Moore portrait also shows the band seems to curve around the arm hole and stops at waist level quite abruptly
In the Catherine of argon portrait it also curves under the arms slightly and in other sketches
I personally feel it was used not just to cover lacing fixtures but also to hold billiments or other expensive trims for the less wealthier such as beads or damask etc and to cover the of the expensive fabrics of the bodice in order to attach the multitude of chains popular at this time ,it seems to serve that function in the Alice More portrait and the one below
The white bands further use was perhaps to protect the bodice from Partlet fastenings or pins as some partlets seem to have been cape like and occasionally shawls were used.(I realise the portrait below doesnt show a white band ,however I could not find the portrait I wanted to use and did in any case merely want to show the cape /shawl like partlet as I doubt this style could have stayed in place without pins
.If the white band was also used during the side lacing phase then its continuation could be accounted for by covering ties or lacing on the sleeves on later gowns but not on others which may have been in the back lacing or the earlier front fastening styles.
Its also possible what we assume to be a full overgown may not be but rather a later tighter laced closed version of the early tudor late medieval gowns
If you lace the blue gown above closed enough for the skirts part to meet than add a panel to cover the lacing you have the typical Tudor gown
Thus combining the Front lacing and over panel design with the earlier short sleeved gown
Why is the white band often absent if it covered sleeve lacing holes on early Tudor gowns ?
I would suggest the reasons its puzzling compleat absence on some early portraits such as the famous National portrait gallery Anne Bolyn one below is also easily accounted for
These are later copies that removed what seems odd and unnecessary items or details ,perhaps also they were based on sketches that didn’t clearly show a band.The portrait above also simplifies the French hood and shows billiments attached to it .The 1530s seems also to be a transitional phase in the White band ,non white band phase ,perhaps as it’s the time front and ,back lacing gowns begin to be more popular
Developement of the band
The white band if it had an extra purpose as place to pin billiments ahs other implication.I do not belive that billiments where integral to under gowns once ,back and side lacing phases developed . it’s at this time it becomes popular to match billiments on hoods to those on gowns and occasionally even necklaces and girdles,the Billiments may have been attached to undergowns but this seems unlikes as it would make it harder to wear the billiments with different gowns .The more elaborate jeweled billiments I belive were always pined onto linen and this includes those on Gable hoods ,this seems to be the case in the existing portraits such as those above and can be seen more clearly on sketches
Or sketches of less aristocratic ladies where there is no distraction from Jewels.The one below also shows a brooch holding the lappets in place at the side further suggesting that Gable hoods were not complete whole but a headdress built up of mix and match layers over a base of stiff linen
This would explain their development as an early portrait shows a line linen gable hood prototype headdress
And also one with pined on veil over a white linen base
Though I have not had a chance to explore this using actual fabrics as yet it seems to me a likely explanation ,It’s also possible French hoods were layers of fabrics and trims rather than merely one complete headress.Early portraits of front fastening gowns with applied decoration show hoods in several parts often with matching applied decoration as below or with expensive fabric layers as ind in the Young Catherine portrait or the ones below
This of Isabelle of Hapsburg is very similar to Catherine’s hood and perhaps it was in fact Catherine of Aragon not Mary Tudor or Anne Boleyn who brought the hood over initially before discarding it like the spanish farthingale for more English fashions such as the gable hood
Later hood styles appear to carry forward these layers or have layers mounted over bases
While some sketches such as the one above suggest a vague link between the french hood and english intermediate hood
Later hoods seem a mix of white linen or silk with added billiments and with separate probably wired back billiments holding in place a veil as seen in this portrait of mary
The English intermediate hood while worn over a coif seems the only headdress which is actually composed in one piece ,all be it with applied layers of fabric .The shortened version of the intermediate hood appears to have been used for mounting billments to create a version of the french hood.I realise these are sometimes seen as coifs but several portraits such as the one below show the layer to be quite rigid
The frequent appearance of white in french hoods ,or red supports the separate billiments theory as they appear when hoods begin to appear with applied decoration that matches the bodices gold studs or embroidery but continue until late in the hoods history by which stage the trend to match bodice and hood billiments requires s=more complex and expensive billiments which would be too expensive to confine to one headdress or dress
Later also when the hood begins to gain height and acquire a steeper angle when the billiment is relativity simple such as gold work or pearls they appear to have become separate wired items used to hold the back veil in place
It’s still likely the lower billiment is mounted on a linen coif as there is evidence for this
If you remove the bonnet in this portrait and add a french hood panel the pearls will sit in the same place as front billiments on french hoods and a couple of early portraits support this idea such as the one below where there seems to be a layer of peals or beads above the pleated underlayer
This pleated underlayer is a continuous feature of french hoods and perhaps became pined back to become a coif for the hair to hold it up .
The snood in this image must I think have had the hair dressed under it and possibly covered by a linen snood to protect the expensive fabrics from the hair.Hair was unlikely to be as clean as today as lacking our modern complex shampoos there was nothing to prevent grease and oils building up and some ladies do seem to have used oils to dress their hair perhaps perfumed .The image below also seems to show the bottom pearls |(or faux pearl glass beads )mounted on a coif .While the back white panel of peals seems to be mounted on linen or silk and the neckline Jewels mounted on white fabric.
I think this shows jewels were ordinarily sewn onto linen and not gowns ,headresses etc and confirms the use of the white band and white neckline trims for Jewels.I think the simple band that initaly covered sleeve lacings and prevented damage to delicate and expensive fabrics such as cloth of gold velvet but also began to be used to pin billiments onto .
I will add images of my own experiments with applied trims once I complete more Tudor gowns and also post separate explorations of both Gable hood and french hoods again when I experiment with the construction myself
I am indebted to the blog below for several images of French headdresses
We were 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 thee 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.
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
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 .
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
“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.
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.
.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.
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 .)
If we assume pockets became under gown items with the rise of the houppelande around the 1380s/90s
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
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)
,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.
I can find no record of the fashion spreading to the UK or lasting for any length of time .
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 purification preserved them.
Pocket contents list has been taken largely from information here
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.
or master John.
All provide excellent sources for both an overall look and more importantly for visual detailing.
However 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.
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
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
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.
It’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
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.
.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.
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
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
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
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
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 .
The clothing removed from the original are the usual source for detailed information on the stays worn under late Elizabethan gowns.
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
.
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
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
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
and also stockings
The 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.
.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.
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 .
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
The 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
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
Created using the little known phoenix portrait.
Or this equally impressive replica of a much more famous outfit based on the Ditchley portrait
This outfit perfectly illustrates the advantage of using reputable costume dramas is it recreates the back of the gown which is barely glimpsed on portrait.
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 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
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
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
Or without the prerequisite under layers
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)
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
Other 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.
A short post to illustrate the use of clothing to help alienate Kathy and Heathcliff in wuthering heights .In contrast to Charlotte who often describes clothing to delineate character or class or act as a contrast to the characters social positions ,Emily uses clothing in Wuthering heights as a tool within the story,The young Kathy is taken under the wing of the Lintons and effectively given a “Makeover” which is suited to her new planned life .Once happy to wander across the moors with heathcliff Kathy does not mind dirt and is something of a tomboy .Once she has been in the company of the Lintons and their friends and been bought fashionable clothing her priorities shift slightly and immediately cause friction between the friends while they eventually result in the rejection of Heathcliff for Linton.This is very largely because Kathys new expensive and restrictive clothing will not allow for the rigure of her previous lifestyle, eg Her kid gloves will be ruined forever by making contact with Heathcliffs dirty hands.The more fashionable silk and kid leather shoes have heels and are soft less hard wearing leather
These are obviously not suitable for muddy moors or even farm outbuildings ,they restrict Kathy to the proper domestic sphere of house and home .Even “outside” attire such as riding habits ,was not intended to be strong enough for heavy daily wear and tear . I have here posted a few images of Kathys before and after wardrobe
“Wild Kathy”
For the real life images I have used the excellent and very pretty images from this site
om/
This Kathy probably didn’t wear stays or full panniers both would be considered essential for any decent and fashionable young lady of that time .I assume kathy could not have had stays which were expensive and not widely worn by the lower classes . kathy would need a visit by a staymaker or to a town to visit one to have them made and there is no indication that either her brother or his wife take enough interest in her to arrange this and she certainly wouldn’t be able to clamber around the moors in stays and panniers.The most likely underwear worn by Kathy at this time would be a chemise petticoat and caraco style jacket or waistcoat and blouse,With perhaps padded “bum rolls) to make her skirt stick out slightly .
Jumps being worn instead of stays.Jumps are being worn by the mannequin in the image below.
Jumps vary but were a thick semi supportive bodice ,either stay shaped or waistcoat like,made from either quilted fabric or corded linen they give some support to the bust but was in no way restrictive, they were worn by young and old and perfectly acceptable wear while at home .The young lady below is obviously not wearing stays but Jumps
However for outside wear and certainly in company ladies would have worn both stays and panniers .I have assumed that while at the Grange Kathy was given smart semi formal clothing such as this Robe a la anglaise with a quilted satin petticoat
This would require stays and small pocket panniers
A more formal Robe a la francais may have been bought ,this was formal wear and slightly less fashionable by the late 1770s but usually worn for formal occasions ,Kathy was almost certainly married to Linton in one.This would require full panniers.Emily was aware of this style of gown and may have seen one at some point as Charlotte describes one in Villette where is used for amatur dramatics .It’s impossible to know how or where it was seen or if both sisters where present but it is extremely unlikely that the sisters would not have shared information on such an unsual item.
The Photograph below shows full though narrow panniers of the kind most usually worn under Robe a la francais
Kathy would also most likely have worn the more fashionable Polonaise style gowns ,these could be worn with quilted petticoats or with matching petticoats .Polonaise gowns did not require panniers but did require equally cumbersome boned and down filled or stuffed and padded false rumps and the essential heavily boned stays
All these outfits would be extreemly expensive and restrictive and most easily damaged and not easily cleaned,Kathy could wear fine new clothes or she could wander the moors and sit on the floor or next to the hearth with Heathcliff but she couldnt do both
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.(Iwill include images so that readers of this post can come to their own opinions so I would like to wanr 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 , documents and artifacts are extremely useful especially grave goods ,but 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 and though when dead I would be past caring I am fine with being dissected but 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 is to be allowed 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,there’s been substantial reported talk on how much money the city will be able to “”pull in from publicity and from visitors if they can create a “Richard themed visitor attraction” .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 also raises issues 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
Likewise 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 but it should be done quickly and the remains then kept out of sight . or 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 secualr 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 .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 the present UK to know what images of the dead are appropriate 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 country “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
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 of Eva Peron 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
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 ,,such as Mr Bell Nichols for destroying possessions and belongings of the dead loved ones.
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 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.
He decisions to save other items such as the portraits ,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 and 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.
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 .
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
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 and stupid frumpy ,Ann ,the 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
was enough to persuade Henry to send Holbein off to paint an expensive full length version 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 and the courts painter of choice.The mystery may be solved by a side view image
The features that look regular and dreamy front on do seem rather sharp and angular side on and its been suggested Anns nose was much longer and paintings 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 this portrait is nothing like almost every other portrait thats linked to Catherine or has in the past been said to be her .which 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 as she did not continue to wear Flemish clothing long after her arrival but soon adopted English fashions.
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 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 appeared to Ann on her arrival “in disguise “ ,Ann didn’t recognise him ,treated him rather coldly and when he tried to kiss her may it seems to have slapped him ,,not what Henry would have expected.
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 .
My work is rather hard to summarise but I usually describe myself as a costumed educator .I use historical costume and items of clothing to bring history to life .
Most of my work is involves recreating accurately a historical costume or era but we also have more loosely interpreted costumes for out seasonal talks.
Dressed in period costume I give talks and do an assortment of costume work for ,towns .
museums,
(Many thanks to Mark Davis photography for use of this image)
,the arts .
(Many thanks to Mark Davis photography for use of this image)
Talks include
The Tudors and Elizabethans
The Georgians
The Victorians
the 1940s
and two further talks
An interview with Charlotte Bronte and Tea with Miss Austen .
which use artifacts and costume to illustrate the life and times of each author.
The talks can be tailored to all ages and most situations.
museums
(Many thanks to Mark Davis photography for use of the above image)
Small groups WI and other groups
Conferences
Or childrens events
In addition to my talks we do much more informal presentations usually in old people’s homes and day centers though we have also provided them for school fun days,Cliff castle museums fundraising tea party.
, at Haworth 1940s weekend and for Bronte events in Haworth .
These presentations include a power point talk ,singing ,a chance to try on hats and other items of clothing and a chance to be photographed in them,Discs with the photos are then given to organisers free of charge.The main presentations are
Victorians
The 1940s
and two seasonal ones
Christmas and Easter ,as can be seen above an optional extra at these talks is Tilly our Cavalier King Charles who is always happy to be patted and treated by residents and will happily accompany staff to visit any residents who are room bound
While this covers our main areas of work we are also involved in the arts having worked closely with Bradford playhouse doing meet and great on several productions .Including Mandrakes magnificent machine
Bronte boy ,which we also worked on throughout its run In Halifax and Leeds
We have worked for the Bronte Parsonage giving readings from Jane Eyre in the rooms of the parsonage during their pre release screening for VIP including Hollywood director Cary Fukanuga
Many thanks to Mark Davis photography for use of these images.
This was followed up by further costume work for the parsonage BBC breakfast filming and complimented previous work done for Haworth and BBC big screen Bradford during filming its promotional video of Haworth
I also made the costumes used in this filming.Though I dont usually make costumes to order I have made limited numbers for re enactors at Kentwell Hall.
,Warwick and Tutbury castle and for re enactors attending events such as the San Fransisco Dickensian festival and for Bradford playhouses special Solstice event.My costumes are all handsewn and unique as I never use patterns.
We have often been used for promotional work and to provide a costumed presence that attracts media interest for events
We are comfortable with doing work with the media to promote events and happy to deal with the press or photographers
Hathaways has also though less frequently been involved in organising events ,we ran the succesful
Meet the Brontes day at West Lane Baptist church which featured day time activities for children ,costume exhibitions and a chance to handle genuine Victorian items ,followed by evening talks and lectures by various speakers.
We exhibited costumes for a costume trail at Moor Lodge and I also co wrote with Ian Howard a short work
(many thanks to Tom howard for use of this image)
” A Bronte Christmas carol”performed at Ferndean and which received very favorable reviews
Though I am not a professional or even amature author I have also been asked to write a couple of reviews of plays and books which feature online on various sites, the fullest can be found here,I usually write under the pen name of Abigail Bell.
Though I usualy work alone or with my Husband John we do occasionaly employ other younger ladies to help out
Finaly we do sometimes hire out costumes for filming and promo shoots etc
Prices average £50 per costume excluding any cloaks or furs.Some costumes are slightly more some slightly less as it depends on the complexity of the costume and amount of under layers etc needed.
Though by no means comprehensive this does hopefully give a brief overview of our work .
We can be seen in the following media posts which are a small selection of those online
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.
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 .
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
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..
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 .
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
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
One is based on a portrait of Mary Tudor ,It’s an aubergine velvet typically English styled gown
There is a petticoat of the same fabric as the sleeves and the portrait ,I also made another set of sleeves and petticoat which were loosely based on other portraits of Mary.
There is a partlet but I forgot to wear it for the photos.I also have a later french hood that is the same style as the portait hoods but didnt get photos
This is the last of my Mary Tudor gowns as I have now made most of the ones in the portraits except the posthumous ones and the Brown gown which with the exception of colour is almost identical to the other gowns.
This was my previous Mary gown based on a portrait my Master John
The Earliest Mary gown was based on a hybrid of descriptions and portraits
The next gown I have completed is from a compleatly different source and is an Italian gown from the 1540s based on this portrait of Eleanor of Toledo ,who lived in Florence having married into the Medici family
This is my version ,I slightly altered the sleeves to make them easily removable as the gown is for sale and quite expensive so I wanted to ensure potential buyers could use it in as many ways as possible ,hence the sleeves and petticoat can both be mix and matched with other gowns.
I also made a gold partlet and gold and pearl trimmed snood as these are seen in other Eleanor portraits.
I am planning other Eleanor gowns next year possibly this one assuming I can find fabric
,my current project is the Elizabeth 1 phoenix gown which is now part made as I have finally found suitable fabric
I carefully consider all the clothing I wear both for my work as a re enactor and in everyday life and make decisions on both based on ethical and environmental research.I wear fur (real or fake)for work or in costumes when I feel it provides a valuable visual aid or imparts accuracy to a costume .
However I care very much about both humans and animals which is why I prefer to wear vintage fur rather than modern fake fur .I would recomend buying vintage furs for both everyday and re enactment use.I would not recomend in any way buying new faux /fake /fun fur items. This does not make me less of an animal lover ,I would never buy eggs or fowl that wasnt free range ,nor do I eat meat or buy new leather goods unless I know they are cruelty free and I dont in any way condone the wearing of modern new fur unless it is sheepskin or rabbit and came from an animal bred in cruelty free conditions for food.
However I am a re enactor and for most eras in our history furs have a relevance and are a valuable visual aid .Often its possible to use fake furs for Tudor or earlier costumes and if I can buy second-hand faux fur for those eras I do.
But I would prefer to recommend that people buy second-hand real fur rather than new fake fur as new faux fur (like new real fur)has a substantial cost to the environment and is also produced in conditions detrimental to human workers and in very many cases fake fur production causes damage to the immediate environment of the factory’s involved in producing them ,harming water supplies and affecting air quality.In addition the countries producing these faux furs often have lamentable human rights records .I also suspect that many of the clothing companies producing faux fur items do not provide a safe working enviroment.For instance there will be many, many fake fur shrugs and scarves in circulation made by Primark a company which has a lamentable record for providing unsafe and unhealthy working conditions and pittance wages.
Using vintage fake or real fur is my prefered alternative as this involves doing no harm to the living either human or animal or their environment .
I don’t have a problem with most vintage fur ,I personally wouldn’t wear Astrakhan or wolf but that’s an emotional rather than moral issue .I have no problem with vintage rabbit fur items or furs resulting from our war-time culls of carnivores.I inherited and wear without hesitation a vintage rabbit fur coat as I know it’s the ideal way to keep warm in a way that has caused no harm to any living human or animal and caused no impact whatsoever on the environment.
All the feathers in the hats above are from pheasants killed and eaten by my friends ,their friends or ourselves ,I belive the use of exotic bird feathers is an unexamined aspect of the modern fashion trade which is often responsible for a great deal of animal misery .
I try whenever possible to source feathers from friends who buy and eat game or collect it from road kill or I am occasionally given parrot and peacock feathers by friends who own exotic birds as pets.I buy vintage ostrich feathers or maribou feathers when at all possible though unfortunately that’s not always possible ,Cruelty free feathers are available but not always in speciality colours
,I do however try to buy directly from developed countries were the ostriches are raised for meat and where a code of practice exists such as Australia
Most vintage items do not make a modern human rights statement or have the immediate impact of furs yet for the he most part the amount of human degradation or suffering involved in creating all pre 19thc clothing is horrendous. To give one example it’s not unlikely that those pretty early Victorian cotton petticoats or camisols or nightdresses came from cotton produced by slaves and is trimmed with lace made by impoverished lace makers or in dreadful factory conditions ,I still wear vintage cotton items however as the production of much modern cotton or lace or garment made with them is not without a dark side .
I feel we have only two alternatives,we can ignore their past and if they are artifacts use them to educate our selves or others ,if clothing then when possible wear them in place of new clothing or we can burn or bury everything except items that we can be sure were made in a healthy place,by healthy people, in a healthy environment and thus destroy our heritage and plunder our planet while actively perpetuating slavery by wearing brand new items ,as almost no new item comes without having a legacy of either environmental or human suffering somewhere in its pedigree.
For detailed information on which companies have good (or bad ) records ,there are some suprises ,not all the naughty companines are in the bargin basement section of fashion eg Hobbs get zero our of five and Debenhams only get a one out of five ,,both come lower down the workers rights ladder than Primark
As Haworth 1940s weekend is this saturday ,heres brief cheats guide to looking authentic without buying vintage 40s clothing,which while 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 is vintage 1980s,though igven times is best to shop around vintage shops and on ebay or etsy its also pssible to pick up bargins at local charity shops
The ideal is to find a jacket and skirt that look close enough in colour to be a suit
I usually 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 .
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.
The main essentials are a 40s style hat and a fur which can be a mink ,squirrel or fox cape or stole .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 .
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.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.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
A vintage shopping basket,,maybe left over from school cookery classes is a great alternative to a genuine 1940s handbag,though some 1980s clutch bags are also quite convincing
If you can find a 2940s dress such as the satin one below it can easily be teamed with a modern jacket if you need to go outside
As can be seen in the full length shots ,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 .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
A mistake sometimes made is to wear pointed toe high heels which were not in fashion until the 1950s,,I forgot to change my shoes beforew this photo below was taken and it does spoil the effect
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.
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 had flu and not been able to go shopping for vintage hats to use as a base.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
The make up for the 1940s is fairly pale compared to modern tanned look foundations though not as pale as in earlier decades.The essentail is 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 .
We had a photograph taking day yesterday and took several on Pennistone so there may be some that are of interest to bloggers needing Bronte inspired images .
This is the path up to the small crag near the top car park at Pennistone ,for photographers wanting a wilderness looking photo but only a few minutes from a road or cap park this is a perfect setting
I finally managed to make a properly pouffy sleeved gigot sleeved dress ,though by accident rather than design,I bought the fabric online hoping it might be a good match for Charlotte Brontes going away gown fabric but its much too dark and the stripes too widely spaced so I resued it for this gown.The past image is of the gown with a correct shaped collar which I made myself out of vintage Victorian lace as early collars from the 1830s are too expensive for everyday work wear so I thought I would share the shots of the collar these are taken at the St Ives estate nr Bingley ,the bluebells are just starting to come out there so its a nice trio if your staying in Haworth as it’s not far from Haworth .
Any blogger and self publishing author is welcome to use the images but please give photo credit to John Cunliffe and Hathaways of Haworth
There is a growing anti dog campaign being waged in Oxenhope and for those who have not been informed about proposed changes I felt a post on this blog was the only way forward.I will straight away confess I am a dog owner ,we have almost always had dogs and many of my friends also own dogs.We all however take responsibility for them.
The proposed action to be taken against dog owners are
1/ Dogs to always be kept on leads in public spaces in the village eg not just the park as the case at present but any space “open to the air”,Penistone,this is mostly certainly on the agenda of those who are pushing for dogs only being allowed out on a lead via the anti dog fouling agenda as links have been posted to a council that already imposed this ban.
I do not feel that using a major towns actions for our own small village is appropriate,dog owners in Oxenhope are a frequent sight in all weathers and not pit bull toting larger louts.
further actions which are on the agenda include
2/Dogs to be banned from the Millennium green.I am seeking clarification on how far this plan has advanced but it is certainly on the agenda.
3/Compulsory courses for dog owners who dogs are considered or have been reported as “misbehaving”( I am pretty sure this in not a measure which is capable of implementation but does show the degree of arrogance displayed by those concerned who feel they have the right to set standards for and exert control over dog owners .
4/Residents are being encouraged to anonymously inform against dog owners whose dogs foul pavements, I know this as a fact from a comment made to myself encouraging me to do just that .It appears the said anonymous informant does not need to provide any proof other than their (anonymous )word that the dog owner has in fact committed an offence for action to be taken.
quote
(f you would like to report anyone not cleaning up after their dog you can ring our non emergency number 101, if possible give a description of the dog and owner and an address, alternatively PCSO Hussain will do some monitoring and leaflet dropping in your area.)http://www.haworth-village.org.uk/local/go.asp?group=20
5/Dogs to be kept on leads in Worth way and other footpaths regardless of how remote the footpath from livestock
6/Farmers have been urged to ban dogs from footpaths going across their land. summarized in this post .(I have removed names to prevent this post appearing to be in any way aimed at individuals)
“everyone remember one small fact. Public rights of way through farmland can be closed by both local or central government if verifiable proof can be provided that them remaining open is becoming a health risk to the animals on the farm. If ignorant, arrogant people choose not to clean up after their dogs they can end up being responsible for the access rights being removed.”
7/Dog wardens which is fair enough but also plain clothes officers ! for dog fouling in a rural village ,this seems a bit extreme ,it would make far more sense to provide us with plain clothes officers to target the many motorists who break the speed limits and drive at alarming and dangerous speeds though the village ,yet there has been no success in achieving that.Our dogs are much more of a danger it seems
The assorted penalties for dog owners who break the rules include
Fines for dog fouling (quite rightly) however if the said fines are to be levied purely on the say so of anonymous informants this seems rather draconian.
Dog owners should also be aware that its possible to complain that their pets are a nuisance and have them removed from their owners .
I realise this may seem like idle gossip or an overreaction on my part it is however merely in response to information received ,concerns expressed and an acquaintance with the current mood on social networking sites.
Here is a short selection of posts on the subject from social networking sites
The example of Golding council is being cited as a template for further action in Oxenhope.Golding councils proposals included
“The initial proposals to introduce more stringent regulations came about in response to consultation with parish councils which said they wanted to see tougher measures around dogs off leads to prevent issues such as dog fouling.
Further consultation was then held with the public to capture wider views.
To introduce a blanket ban meaning dogs must be kept on leads in all defined areas under the Clean Neighbourhood and Environment Act.
some of those pushing this changes do not live in the village .However there is a small minority who do some who are genuinly upset do not realise the anti dog agenda being pushed by the minority for whom the recent loutish dog fouling signs were merely the begining of the campaign.They had until recently the support of all responsible dog owners in their aim to ensure the small minority of dog owners who dont clean up are encouraged to do so,but it has become increasingly clear that the support for this measure had enouraged them to belive wider controls can be achieved.
As mentioned some campaigners by their own admission to do live in the village
I have worked for many years in and around YOUR village, and i have an interest in it`s affairs. What gives you the right to say who is allowed to comment on village matters? Just cheap shots to try to disguise your own ignorance. Your inability to realise that this is a national problem reported in a local source and as such is a matter for anyone concerned r
However some do I have removed names as I dont want to target individuals however any dog owner wanting to follow the conversation on FB can check this link
Resident one(only recently moved into the village)
ou’ve just preempted me Giles. I’m reasonably sure i’m not the only one who would be willing, nay keen, to follow that course of action. (reposted because it moved my comment to the wrong place on the timeline when i edited it)
everyone remember one small fact. Public rights of way through farmland can be closed by both local or central government if verifiable proof can be provided that them remaining open is becoming a health risk to the animals on the farm. If ignorant, arrogant people choose not to clean up after their dogs they can end up being responsible for the access rights being removed.
Following a number of complaints received recently from local residents who are concerned about the dog mess left behind on the streets of Haworth and Oxenhope, PCSO Hussain and Bev, Worth Neighbourhood Warden, went on patrol to monitor the problem for themselves. They also delivered 100 + letters to households along the main areas of concern which were Sun Street, Haworth, Marsh Lane, Moorhouse Lane, Station Road and Best Lane, Oxenhope asking dog owners to clean up after their animal. Both PCSO and Bev can issue tickets to dog owners seen allowing their dog to foul on the pavement and not clean it up afterwards. Monitoring will continue.
I think we can all support the work of our Excellent community officers and support them in their initiative however the idea of prosecutions being possible on mere here say by residents is disturbing
A post makes clear that mere the mere word of an information is enough to produce a prosecution (From Silsdens mesage boardshttp://www.silsden.net/forum/philboard_read.asp?id=4969&recordnum=50)
i have recieved a reply from the police regarding dog mess,they say that it was a PCSO and bradford council warden that were on patrol in haworth and oxenhope looking at local issues including dog mess, PCSO’s can issue tickets for dog fouling but only if they catch someone in the act but council wardens have powers to investigate and issue tickets on the evidence of witnesses.They say that in silsden they are currently arranging a joint day of action with keighley council wardens to look at this and other issues, in the mean time local neighbourhood policing team patrols have been increased as well as the deployment ofplain cothed officers.
I would suggest that Silsden Glusburn and Crosshils are to be used as examples
These groups used postive measures that worked with responsible dog owners and were aimed at helping
make it easier for owners to clear up and less acceptable not too .They have been effective without the draconian measures proposed by those who dislike dogs
are a local community group ‘The Glusburn/Crosshills and Sutton Dog Fouling Focus Group’, the group was established to minimise dog fouling within these three villages which is a well known and much complained about issue. We work alongside the two local Parish Councils with minimal funds but tremendous energy, the groups action tracker is attached in appendix L.
The focus of this project is to encourage a change of behaviour and promote the pickup of dog mess by providing free poop bags in robust dispensers located at convenient locations and high traffic areas. The Group has already targeted problem areas during a trial period with some clear successes detailed later in the bid and we are hoping to continue with a full roll out of a more robust and permanent solution across all three villages
We aim to much improve the appearance, charm and quality of our local neighbourhood and public open spaces, the benefits have already been proven through the concept trial and a further reduction of dog fouling in these and other areas will prove the project is a success.
We can demonstrate we have a community led plan, working with local council knowledge and that we have a sustainable funding plan, we would love to make ours the to be the first villages in the Craven district with a zero dog fouling reputation, by providing positive reinforcement to help make dog fouling more socially unacceptable
Dog owners need to act soon to preserve their rights to have and walk their pets
However I would like to also voice the real concerns of farmers ,many dog lovers who see dogs fouling on theuir land and share the following post so that dog owners both local and visisotrs to the area may be aware of the dangers to livestock
May I please
make people aware of the danger to cattle of letting dogs foul footpaths through fields (or in fields, where dogs are let run free). Many dogs in this area carry the Protozoan Pathogen, Neospora. Although harmless to dogs it is passed to cattle through dog faeces. Once infected the cow remains infected for life and is in many cases unable to carry a full term pregnancy, most miscarry at three months. The only option is to cull the cow at a cost of up to two thousand pounds. Many herds can show up to 50% infection rates. Neospora cannot pass between cows and needs the dog as a host. Please clean up after your dog !
Thanks everyone!
Alongside this farmers request I would also personally urge visitors with dogs to keep them on leads anywhere near livestock ,even if its on footpaths alongside fields as dogs can wriggle through gates or jump walls and even small dogs can upset animals or cause harm ,Our farmers deserve our support and respect and their livestock deserve to be allowed to graze in peace.
I was kindly asked to be involved in reading some poetry at St JamesThornton.The church is now the site of the font from the old bell chapel ,it is the font at which all the Brontes children were christianed.It also houses Patrick Brontes reading desk.The churches members have been the driving force in restoring the Brontes old Bell chapel ruins and in clearing and maintaining the graveyard
I also read in the bell chapel ruins.A group of locals and church members also came to support the groups work
The remaining parts of the Bell chapel are the end window and Mr Brontes vestry which are behind me .The surviving parts of the chapel date from the reign of James the first when the chapels name was changed to st James from ST Leonard More about the chapel and the Action groups work can be found on their homepage
The main element of yesterdays event was some filming at the Bronte Bell Chapel by the BBC ,the program is about the work done to restore the chapel and the graveyard and also about the theft and destruction wrought on it a few months past when thieves stole several gravestones and caused damage.
The talented local artist Ashley Jackson was also present and he is pictured next to his painting of Top Withins painted prior to the buildings collapes .He has also painted the chapel.
The painting is being used to help raise money for restoration work as its been used on limited edition plates which are sold to raise money for restoration and conservation work.
More photos ,video of the readings and more information can be found on the groups FB page here.Thank you Steven Stanworth and the Bell Chapel action group for inviting me to be part of the special event,it was a privilege
Lastly a thank you to my lovely husband John for coming to support me and the group and for taking these photos and also local author and photographer Mark Davis who gave up his time to take photographs to record the day
The Bronte Parsonage museum celebrated Charlotte Brontes birthday on Sunday .I was there to give short talks about Charlotte and her life and there was also a table full of items that illustrated aspects of Charlotte’s life
The Parsonage is still appealing for anyone local who has photos of the Parsonage to share them at the museum
A very quick post to explain the layers and terms used in Tudor clothing.
Layer one a chemise
This is a thin full length undergarment ,much like a modern nightdress.To be accurate it should be linen or possibly silk but usually the modern ones are made with the much cheaper cotton .It’s best to have one with full sleeves as they will show under the gown
Next is an optional layer a corset or stays
Very few Tudor ladies would have worn these unless they were at court but gowns do look better with them
The next layer is also optiontional but makes the gown look better ,its an under petticoat which is a skirt that’s ,either a hoop if you want a late Tudor look or stiffened petticoat or a petticoat in a fabric such as taffeta .If you are wearing a hoop however you may need to buy a much longer gown to cover it .Below is a plain cotton under petticoat though this has a frill at the bottom and Tudor ones would be plain
You next put on a visible petticoat or the smart petticoat ,this is seen in open skirted gowns and glimpsed in closed skirted ones when you lift up your skirt to walk.
Its also waist length
Sometimes this is the same fabric as the dress ,
sometimes its a different colour to contrast
Also part of the outoper layers are the long oversleeves which I make as a seperate item asd I belives thats how the Tudors often wore them so they wcould wear different ones with different gowns.the ones below are orange
but they can also be fur
To go under the full long sleeves are undersleeves which pin on with brooches or safety pins and the cuff of the chemise sticks out of them the sleeves ,sometimes matched the visible petticoat panel
sometimes they matched the dress itself
sometimes they were very jeweled
It is possible on my Etsy site to but faux chemise sleeves to go under these oversleeves incase you dont want to wear a long-sleeved chemise but I have no proof Tudors did this
The other layers are optional
one goes under the dress and is a modesty panel or fill in, partlet or under partlet in cotton
In the photo below you can see the partlet under the gown ,you can also see the plain back of the damask petticoat
You also find very elaborate jeweled ones
There is also a partlet that goes over clothes its more or less the same but fastens at the front
Sometimes is a different colour but sometimes it matches the dress
The other items are a headdress and or a coif the coif goes under a headdress but if you dont need to be authentic its not essential
sometimes coifs could be jeweled or be velvet
also you can wear a French hood
Theres are several styles this is a later more complicated one
Or a gable hood in different styles
Or an Intermediate hood,this photo below also shows a black over partlet
Sometimes these were fur to keep you warm
The only other items were jewels and sometimes a cloak or mantle but these were not often worn
In Elizabethan times some people wore a top and skirt separately
They also wores ruffs
Big and small
it was sometimes fashionable to carry Prayer books or bibles either in your hand or at your waist on a girdle
and also fashionable were little faux animals or furs with their heads
Newfoundland dogs are one of the larger breeds of dog and are therefore unfortunately often in need fo new homes when their owners having bought a cute bear cub looking puppy start to find that it is growing bigger than they expected or perhaps the owners circumstances change and they have to move to a smaller house or a flat.Tragicaly there are also literal rescue dogs which have been kept in appalling conditions,yet such is the nature of these gentle giants that once restored to health they are loving and loyal pets.
Newfoundlands became popular in the late Regency and the victorian age ,Byron or possibly his friend wrote a poem as an epitaph to his Newfoundland dog called Boatswain .
Near this Spot
are deposited the Remains of one
who possessed Beauty without Vanity,
Strength without Insolence,
Courage without Ferosity,
and all the virtues of Man without his Vices.
This praise, which would be unmeaning Flattery
if inscribed over human Ashes,
is but a just tribute to the Memory of
BOATSWAIN, a DOG,
who was born in Newfoundland May 1803
and died at Newstead Nov. 18, 1808.
Victorian novelist Charlotte Bronte proably inspired by Byrons dog gave her byronic hero Mr Rochester a Newfoundland dog as his companion.It is Pilot who first alerts the blind Rochester to Janes arrival at Ferndean as he runs up to her .There is an excellent post on the role of Pilot as an illunimator of character and plot in Jane Eyre here http://www.houndhead.com/2012/04/fictional-dog-of-week-14-pilot.html.
and the breed was further popularised by the paintings of Landseer who painted some many populare portraits of one kind of Newfoundland the black and white that they became known as Landseers and are still a recognised breed.
If you wish to foster or adopt a Newfoundland and are in the Yorkshire area here’s the site of the excellent Second chance 4 Newfoundlands
http://hathawaysofhaworth.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=2039&action=edit&message=10
