Susan/Miranda, here once
again and delighted to introduce Guest Wench Kalen Hughes for Part Two
of her blog on Regency Era (and any other time period that may strike
her fancy) fashion. Kalen is not only a specialist in historical dress,
a frequent speaker at conferences, and an accomplished historical
seamstress, but also the author of several acclaimed historical
romances. (Please check out her website at www.kalenhughes.com.)
Last week Kalen dressed and undressed a typical gentleman of the time.
In case you missed this wonderful blog and the fascinating discussion
that followed, here's the link: http://wordwenches.typepad.com/word_wenches/2007/09/undressing-your.html#comments
The links to the illustrations and photographs alone are worth bookmarking!
Now she's back to do the same for a lady. Questions are most welcome,
too, though for the sake of Kalen's sanity, please try to keep 'em
focussed.
Kalen, the wardrobe's yours....
I’m back this week to talk about women’s clothing. There are lots of layers to those reportedly scantily 
clad Regency heroines, and today we’re going to look at them all. *grin* To the left we have a fashion plate from 1812 (courtesy of Candice Hern's wonderful collection).
Let’s start from the skin out. The very first thing our heroine puts on is her chemise 
(which she might still call her shift). It’s going to be white. It’s going to be made of linen, and it’s going to be an extremely simple garment, perhaps with a drawstring at the neckline. It will most likely have short sleeves (though it might be sleeveless) and it will probably reach to about mid-calf (you don’t want it to show below her skirts!). In the picture to the right the shift on the left is c. 1810. This is the base layer as it's easy to wash (unlike the stays!).
Next she is laced into her stays, which she may call her “corset”. The term is in flux at t
his time, “stays” being on its way out. They are usually made of lightly boned cotton or linen, most are white, and the most common style has a busk down the front (picture a ruler running from just below the belly button to the middle of the bust).
The picture here is an extant example c. 1810-1820 that belongs to the Kyoto Costume Institute. Note how different this is from the flattened breast of the 18th century; for most of the Regency the desired look was up thrust and separated, rather like a push-up bra, or a “cross your heart”. Am I the only one who remembers those ads?
The next thing our heroine puts on is her petticoat. Unlike the “petticoats” of her
mother’s generation, this is an actual item of underwear (in the 18th century all of a women’s skirts were her “petticoats”). Throughout the era only a single petticoat was called for, and since the waistline was so high, most were made like jumpers or pinafores. It might tie in the back, or it might button.
Our lady’s stockings are most likely of cotton or silk. They are machine knit in the round (no back seam), and are probably a pale colour (most likely white), without the elaborate clocks at the ankle that were common in the 18th century. They are held in place by garters, which most likely have several rows of metal springs in them and close with a big metal hook and eye.
If she’s not off to a ball or the opera she may add a chemisette at this point. 
Basically it’s a white lawn dickey with a high collar that buttoned or tied up the back and had a drawstring at the bottom and tied just below the bust.
Now she has all her underwear on. *phew* Wait, wait!!! I hear you say. Where are her drawers? Well . . . the “fast” lady of the era wasn’t the one going “commando”, she was the one wearing drawers! They did exist, but our lady certainly isn’t wearing them.
The next layer is the gown itself. There are different styles of gowns, but essentially they are all “round gowns” of one kind or another (meaning that the one garment goes all the way around the lady, without requiring a petticoat/skirt to complete it). Our lady is donning a simply silk underdress with a red net overdress (this type net is machine made, and still available to this day from France; It’s used for very high-end wedding veils). 
Close up of the same red net dress over a white underdress. And yes, the two layers are made seperately so that they can be swapped out in this way.
Her shoes are likely to be simple pumps (rather like modern “ballet flats”). This is the most common shoe of our era. Some rather plain examples exist, but examples with fancy pleated frills, decorative appliqués, paint, rosettes on the toes, etc. are all relatively easy to find. I’ve even seen them with spangles (sequins). Some have a ribbon (again, much like a modern ballet slipper) that starts about mid-foot (in the middle of the arch) then wraps around the ankle and ties. Some have 
a drawstring like a modern ballet slipper. They were made of everything under the 
sun: kid (fine leather, like the gloves), silk, canvas, leather, jean (a heavy twilled cotton), etc.
Were our heroine to leave the house a whole slew of other clothing would be necessary, a spencer, pelisse or cloak, gloves, and a hat or bonnet. To the right we have a few pairs of lovely printed kid skin gloves from about 1810 (I'd pretty much kill to own a pair!). These are the kind that would have been worn with a long-sleeved dress or with a coat.
A LITTLE MORE ON STAYS/CORSETS
Because Mary Jo asked . . . 
Regency corsets came in many forms. There were short stays, which seem to have been most prevalent in the 1790s-1810 (see example to the left) and again in the early 1820s (see fashion plate to the right). There was also a longer corset (see the example in the section above), which 
came down over the hip, and was used to smooth the entire line, which appear to be the most common style worn throughout the era (and beyond). These stays were frequently constructed with little to no boning (they’re sort of like a fabric girdle), but most of the reenactors I know have found that if you’re bigger than a size 2, or have more than a B-Cup, you need at least light boning (or the whole thing wrinkles up and bunches around your waist). There were 
also rather flimsy, wrap around things, that are very close to a modern brassier once on (great example in the Kyoto Costume Institute, c. 1800). Almost all styles during this period had shoulder straps and laced up the back, and nearly all the examples I’ve seen are spiral laced (meaning that they lace up like they’re sewn shut, not in a cross-pattern like a tennis shoe; see the 
example to the right). If they were boned, it would have been with whalebone or reed. The longer ones would also usually have had a busk, which makes it impossible to bend at the waist. Another thing that’s important to note is that the shoulder straps make it nearly impossible to have a full range of arm motion (no climbing trees or getting books down off high shelves). For good examples of the period’s underwear see the A&E production of Pride and Prejudice (the Colin Firth version) and Wives and Daughters.
