--- On Sat, 10/11/08, Maggie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now the question is, what is the 'bodice" bit,
> really? It always looks like
> elastic to me, which of course it isn't.
Looking at it, I am wondering if it is some sort of metal thread embroidery,
done on the diagonal, and just done at
Costume
Subject: Re: [h-cost] 16th century maternity clothes
Maggie wrote:
> The More women hadn't slit their dresses. It's just the early/mid-century
> style.They were made to lace that way. What the picture shows is the
lacing
> without the stomacher or (over) gown. For a pre
I wonder what were the 16thC attitudes regarding pregnancy? The
Victorians were all for hiding it away, and earlier attitudes are
sometimes filtered through this. Also I've heard plenty of modern
pregnant women complain of looking and feeling fat. But was that the
case for 16thC women?
That must be it.
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Lavolta Press <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>
> Maggie wrote:
>
>> Here's an Elizabethan noblewoman (1595) in maternity. (Why would you have
>> your picture painted at this stage!?)
>>
>
> To record that you were fulfilling one of your most import
Maggie wrote:
The More women hadn't slit their dresses. It's just the early/mid-century
style.They were made to lace that way. What the picture shows is the lacing
without the stomacher or (over) gown. For a pregnant woman at home, it must
have been much more comfortable.
Here's an Elizabethan
The More women hadn't slit their dresses. It's just the early/mid-century
style.They were made to lace that way. What the picture shows is the lacing
without the stomacher or (over) gown. For a pregnant woman at home, it must
have been much more comfortable.
Here's an Elizabethan noblewoman (1595)
Yes, two women but the More painting is earlier then her painting. The style
of the dresses are different.
De
-Original Message-
I beliebe there is a Hans holbein portrait of Thomas Moore?and his
family?mostly women ...and at least one if not two of the wome if I amnot
mistaken , are obvi
me dance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HMtOoXtMs0
--- On Sat, 10/11/08, Rebecca Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Rebecca Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [h-cost] 16th century maternity clothes
To: "'Historical Costume'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This appears to be a kirtle and loose gown. Perhaps the material was
embroidered and then cut on the bias.
De
-Original Message-
At least, for a noble lady. This is Mildred, Lady Burghley about 1566.
http://foto.rambler.ru/public/grebnelim/7/003/003-webbig.jpg
Now the question is, what
om: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Maggie
> Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 6:55 PM
> To: Historical Costume
> Subject: [h-cost] 16th century maternity clothes
>
> At least, for a noble lady. This is Mildred, Lady Burghley
> about 1566.
> http:
It looks like netting to me.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Maggie
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 4:55 PM
To: Historical Costume
Subject: [h-cost] 16th century maternity clothes
At least, for a noble lady. This is Mildred, Lady
At least, for a noble lady. This is Mildred, Lady Burghley about 1566.
http://foto.rambler.ru/public/grebnelim/7/003/003-webbig.jpg
Now the question is, what is the 'bodice" bit, really? It always looks like
elastic to me, which of course it isn't. Is it part of a kirtle of some
kind? Does anyone
12 matches
Mail list logo
