Women's Court Dress
See also: History of Western fashionFor women (as for men) Court dress originally meant the best and most opulent style of clothing, as worn in fashionable and royal society. A distinctive style can be seen in the dresses and accoutrements worn by courtly ladies in the Elizabethan period, and likewise in subsequent reigns. The Commonwealth put a stop to Court activity - and to opulent display in general; but with the Restoration, the opportunities afforded by attendance at the royal Court was taken up all the more zealously by young women of status or aspiration (and their families).
Fashion (and wealth) continued to dictate what was worn on these occasions; but in the late eighteenth century, a degree of fossilisation began to set in, with the result that women in attendance at royal courts were still, in the early nineteenth century, to be seen in garments with side-hoops, redolent of forms of dress fashionable in the mid-1700s. In the 1820s, however, George IV made known his opinion that obsolete side-hooped dresses should no longer be worn; and thereafter fashion began to have more of an impact on the style of dress worn by women at court.
Courtly garments, then, can be seen reflecting something of the contemporary fashions of high society, from the expansive skirts and crinolines of the 1850-60s, through the posterior bustles of the 1870s & 80s, right through to the straight gowns of the 1920s.
Some details of Court dress, though, were more or less invariable (and these set Court dress apart from more ordinary forms of evening or day wear in any given period). Moreover from the late eighteenth century, what was worn at Court had been subject to a degree of regulation, and this helped standardise certain features. Most noticeably, court dresses (regardless of style) are expected to have a sizeable train attached (usually separate from the dress itself). Trains were required to be a minimum of three yards in length; in the late 1800s a length of fifteen yards was not unusual. The dress itself was expected to be long and low-cut (again, whatever the style). The prescribed headwear was also distinctive: ostrich feathers (usually three in number) were to be worn (to be 'mounted as a Prince of Wales plume', according to the instructions given in Dress worn at Court) - a style which had its origin in fashionable eighteenth-century daywear. In addition, a short veil was worn, and/or lace lappets (first seen in the 1660s, and still being worn by some ladies in the 1930s).
By the end of the nineteenth century, the main occasions at which Court dresses were worn were those at which debutantes were presented to the Queen. In the twentieth century (especially following the First World War), occasions for full Court dress diminished. It was still required wear for ladies attending the 1937 Coronation (albeit without trains and veils - and Peeresses were expected to wear tiaras rather than feathers); but in 1953, ladies attending the Coronation were directed to wear 'evening dresses or afternoon dresses, with a light veiling falling from the back of the head. Tiaras may be worn ... no hats'. Court presentations continued, except during wartime, but they gradually became less opulent. In the post-war 1940s evening Courts were replaced with afternoon presentations (for which afternoon dresses were worn); and with that, the donning of full Court dress ceased to be a rite of passage for young women taking their place in society.
Read more about this topic: Court Uniform And Dress In The United Kingdom
Famous quotes containing the words women, court and/or dress:
“The women of my mothers generation had, in the main, only one decision to make about their lives: who they would marry. From that, so much else followed: where they would live, in what sort of conditions, whether they would be happy or sad or, so often, a bit of both. There were roles and there were rules.”
—Anna Quindlen (20th century)
“If a walker is indeed an individualist there is nowhere he cant go at dawn and not many places he cant go at noon. But just as it demeans life to live alongside a great river you can no longer swim in or drink from, to be crowded into safer areas and hours takes much of the gloss off walkingone sport you shouldnt have to reserve a time and a court for.”
—Edward Hoagland (b. 1932)
“Iconic clothing has been secularized.... A guardsman in a dress uniform is ostensibly an icon of aggression; his coat is red as the blood he hopes to shed. Seen on a coat-hanger, with no man inside it, the uniform loses all its blustering significance and, to the innocent eye seduced by decorative colour and tactile braid, it is as abstract in symbolic information as a parasol to an Eskimo. It becomes simply magnificent.”
—Angela Carter (19401992)