Catching the Past, The Changing Fashions

Last month, we talked about how the humble round gown became the Regency frock through a myriad of rapid tweaks here and there. But if you're anything like me, you might be thinking, "I'll change the cut and shape of my gown when society finally makes up its mind whether the sleeves are long, 3/4s, or short, etc...."

Although, that's not far off the truth. In fact, many tailors and seamstresses didn't bother cutting the gown's waist up at the new high line and merely raised it with the originally waistline still tucked inside. So, think of hiking up a pair of low riding pants/skirts and then pinning it there (although they did sew it in place). That way they could quickly lower it again if the fashion should change. Which was actually pretty smart since the fashions were changing like the winds. Which brings me back to my original point. Why did they follow the fashions so closely? I mean, what is even the point of trying to keep up!

Jane Austen's letters show how closely she followed the fashions. In fact, most of society did. But why would they? Were they afraid of looking weird, old fashioned, or just being snubbed by all the terrible judgy people? Well, that last one is actually correct, but possibly not for the reason you may be thinking.

Why was it important to pay attention to fashion in the 1790s?

More often than not, what you wore said something about you politically, socially, and patriotically. To explain, I'll give you the following example.

Cropped Hair versus Long Hair on men in the 1790s.

I will first clarify that "long hair" could mean both powdered and unpowdered but not wigs. By the 1790s, men powdered their natural hair rather than wear a wig. (Wigs fell out of fashion for men in the 1780s.)

And lastly, "cropped" hair (or short hair if you want to use the modern term) is most often associated with the Regency.

But how did we get there?

Like the humble round gown, it went through a few phases first, and if you weren't paying attention, you may end up in hot water over sporting the wrong hairstyle.

To start with, cropped, unpowdered hair was a French thing that English gentlemen slowly adopted. But when you decided to make this change said a good deal about you as a gentleman.

In the early stages of the French Revolution, most of England supported the French cause. So, cutting your hair short would show your support for France. Which was fine until the massacres of '92 and when France declared war on England. Then, cropped hair wasn't so good anymore because suddenly you were a possible traitor to England.

Added to that, in the early 1790s, several bad years of harvest and the French Revolution saw the poor in England on the brink of starvation. It became considered poor form to use powder on your hair because it came from barley and other grains better used to feed the poor. So, in 1793 and 94, powdering your hair meant you were an insensitive, horrible person.

Then in 1795, someone decided to tax people to powder their hair in order to discourage the waste of the poor man's food. Great idea in theory! It would cost them 1 guinea annually. That's close to 100 pounds today or over $100 for those of us using dollars. There were quite a lot of exclusions including royalty, certain persons in the army and navy, and clergyman who earned less than 100 pounds annually.

Only, the powers-that-be decided to use the tax money to fund the war. And the tax that was supposed to help the poor now meant that if you didn't powder your hair, you supported France. (Yeah, that idea backfired...) This occurred sometime after May 1795 when the tax was introduced and lasted for quite some time. The Act itself wasn't repealed until the 1860s.

So, pre-1792, totally fine to have cropped, unpowdered hair. People will just associate you with France, and that's okay right now.

By 1793, you better grow your hair out but still don't powder it (think of the poor!).

By the middle of 1795, you had better powder your long hair or else you aren't in support of England!

By 1799, it's still a little controversial to 'be a crop,' but it's gaining popularity again. Yay!

Now, if all of that wasn't enough on its own, cropped hair could also be considered rakish. I found that out after I published my book, so I couldn't use it as a source of tension between my hero and his strict Methodist father. But you can always imagine it for me. :)

So how did the Regency style come about?

With all that drama, you might be tempted to wonder how the Regency man came to be. Were they all French supporters and rakes? For some of them, possibly, but for others--the trendsetters--they just didn't care about the implications. They liked their style and stuck with it. We owe the Regency gentleman's look to those men (especially Beau Brummell, but I shan't write about him today).

When was the Regency gentleman's hairstyle firmly in place?

By the end of the 1790s, gentlemen were starting to crop and not powder their hair regardless of their political leanings (hitherto most "crops" were Whigs). Although Army and Navy men tended to favour long hair for longer because they'd spent so much time fighting the French (which totally makes sense they'd hold a bit of a grudge against the style).

However, in a twist, Jane Austen wrote a letter in January 1799 to Cassandra where she says their youngest brother (a Naval officer) was now 'a crop,' and she advised Cassandra to conceal this from their other brother (the one who got adopted by his aunt and uncle) because she feared it would upset him. This short line in Austen's letters indicates that cropping was still a 'new' and somewhat controversial style in 1799 after the 1795 setback.

I hope you can see from this just how perilous fashions could be in the 1790s. They weren't just obsessed with being fashionable, they were worried about their reputations (and with good cause).

Here are some other examples:

If someone died in the royal family, you needed to observe court mourning.

This usually meant half mourning (like black trimming), but it depended a good deal on what society deemed appropriate and who it was that died.

For example, after Princess Charlotte died in November 1817, the whole of England went into deep mourning for weeks because they were so upset. Even the poor and homeless were said to have observed her death with black bands on their arms (lower classes didn't typically observe mourning attire). This lasted right through the London season and into the next year.

Support of the Army and Navy

Some of the fashions which showed support of the Army or Navy were Egyptian inspired. This began after the British won the "Battle of the Nile" on August 3rd, 1798. Egyptian fashions included: Mamluk (spellings vary widely) caps or more accurately turbans, Mamluk cloaks, robes in Mamluk red, Nelson rose feathers for their hats, green Morocco slippers bound with yellow, and crocodile-coloured ribbons.

Braids like the ones on regimentals (a soldier's uniform) were another sign of support for the military.

Oak leaf and acorn patterns were for the Navy. That began in 1760, when the Royal Navy officially created the march "Heart of Oak", and it increased with the myriad oak tree memorabilia created for Admiral Nelson's funeral in 1806. The oak tree overall was a symbol for the Navy (FYI, this is the same Nelson who inspired the Egyptian rose feather fashion I mentioned above and who became the hero of the Battle of Trafalgar).

Sometimes, the colour of fabric one wore did the same thing. For example, in 1816 after the battle of Waterloo, a certain shade of blue called Waterloo Blue became all the rage to show your support and patriotism. And I already mentioned the Mamluk red.

Wives, mothers, and sisters of military and Navy men in particular favoured these types of fashion.

Wearing Flannel

This one is not political, but it is for fun. :) In Sense and Sensibility, Marianne scoffs at Col. Brandon for wearing flannel like an old man. But in fact, wearing flannel was a very military thing. They wore a lot of it, and even when they retired, many military men were known to continue wearing it. So, Col. Brandon wasn't being an 'old man' so much as being true to his soldier's heart--another point poor Marianne misjudged him on. I just thought that might be a fun bit of history to share. :)

Bath Fashions 1799

This is another partly for fun tidbit. In 1799 Bath, the fashion was to decorate a lady's hat with fake flowers and fruit of all kinds from berries to large fruits like apricots. These were often made by displaced French women and children who emigrated to England after the Revolution.

Buttons

Buttons were terribly expensive and therefore a sign of money, especially if you had a whole bunch of them!

Spencer Jacket

The Spencer jacket was created in 1795 and worn by men. But women quickly took up the fashion and by 1801 in Bath, most women wore them (although possibly without sleeves. I had a tiny note about that in my research notes, but I think it needs more research to be conclusive).

Print Cottons

Print Cottons were common in all levels of society but never for evening wear.

Striped or Checked Prints

Stripes and checks were an inexpensive print pattern and therefore most often worn by the poor. I thought this was interesting in light of the Scottish and Irish traditional patterns and how the Englishman often looked down upon them. I wonder if the prejudicial view of striped and checked fabric contributed to that?

In conclusion, with all the changing fashions, how did society keep up? How did anyone know what to wear?

I mean the styles and fashions could (and often did) spin on a dime. How did anyone keep up?

One could hope for a visit from an informative relative who lived in town like Mrs. Bennet in Pride and Prejudice who thanks Mrs. Gardiner for telling them all about the latest fashions for sleeve length.

Of course, going to town yourself would do it, if you liked town or could afford it. Observing what others wore, visiting a prominent dress maker. One could also consult society notes in the newspapers.

Another way were the monthly subscription publications. Monthly publications contained large-scale plates, expertly handmade and coloured in with metallic pigments.

This is from 1812

The Fashion Press

Did you know that fashion plates (or even fashion magazines if you will) started in England?

France is often thought of as the fashion kings, but the fashion press was an English innovation.

The publishing industry really took off under Queen Anne (1702-1714), and by the 1770s, specialized fashion presses had developed. The French ones came along a bit later.

The most famous and considered the finest of these was Nicolaus (spelling varies) von Heideloff's Gallery of Fashion which unfortunately lasted only 8 years from 1794-1802.

To help you picture this time period, Jane Austen would have referred to Heideloff's Gallery of Fashion from the ages of 18 until she reached 25 or 26 (depending on the dates of his last publication and her birthday in December).

Heideloff claimed he only portrayed fashions worn by fashionable ladies at routs, the opera, the theatre (playhouses), concerts, or as elegant morning dress in Hyde Park or Kensington Gardens. Meaning his plates are not concept art but actual fashions.

If you'd like to view Nicolaus's fashion plates from 1794 (the year my latest novel is set), you can do that here! Note that you can find his other years at this website too.

If you're particularly interested in earlier French designs, La Galerie des Modes et Costumes Francais is said to have portrayed accurate French fashions from 1778-1787. However, it's important to point out that England and France had very distinct differences in fashions (I mean just think about the "cropped" hair I talked about up above!)

Before fashion plates:

(AKA, this would have been when Jane Austen's mother was getting married in 1764.)

Fashion dolls were the vogue way of seeing the newest thing before the fashion plates. These dolls were sent out regularly from France to courts all over Europe to represent the latest fashions. They were called Pandoras, 'babies,' or poupees de mode.

Laura Frantz wrote about one such doll in her Seamstress of Arcadia novel, which BTW I loved! A wonderful, touching story.

These dolls could be "great" and therefore display the best fashions or "lesser" which displayed more relaxed fashions. They were used for both male and female.

And that concludes our chat today. Hope you found something useful or at least interesting. Leave a comment if you did!

---

Why am I writing about the fashions of the 1790s?

Firstly, because I found it interesting to research when the Regency fashions started, and secondly, my next series is set in the 1790s. Book 1 is out now.

The vicar’s son and the draper’s daughter have fought against all odds to be together, and with just days until their wedding, both are ignoring the cracks in their relationship. But a storm is coming. One that will shatter everything.

In this Broader/Pre-Regency, reverse rags-to-riches, interclass romance novella, you'll find faith, a clean and wholesome romance, and a happy ending.

Read more about "A Heart to Treasure" here