The Visible Layers: The Dress, Part 2 - Practical plans

Cora Ginsburg & DAR Dresses

Analysis of the Dresses 

Bodice:

Both the Cora Ginsburg and the DAR Museum dresses appear to be back fastening (there is no obvious opening on either fronts). The DAR Museum dress has a centre front seam, which may be an opening, but that would seem unusual for the time period, leading me to believe it's either intentional construction (e.g. for maternity/postpartum) or an adjustment. The round neckline appears to be hemmed all the way up indicating a probable back fastening, as the bodice construction suggests that a front opening would not open wide enough to be put on with a fixed band at the high waist. The neckline is gently scooped and not completely square.

The decorations on the Ginsburg bodice would seem to preclude a front fastening, and the shoulders don't appear to have a bib front either. Unfortunately I've not got access to an unobscured back view of either dress to be sure exactly how either was fastened. I adore the "woven" appearance of the front decoration on the Ginsburg bodice, but I suspect that the DAR Museum dress bodice will be more sensible to make as a first attempt Regency dress. The woven effect, to me, seems to simulate the crossed over bodices that were also around at this time. This bodice's neckline is squared off, with straight lines across the breasts and over the shoulders, and with clearly defined corners to the line. 

Sleeves:

Both dresses have long sleeves, but with differences in the decoration at the shoulders and cuffs. The DAR dress has capped shoulders with the banded decoration to reflect the hems and cuffs, and then a long and fairly loose sleeve ending in a slight gathering before the cuff decorations. The Ginsburg dress has the more common puffed shoulder ending in a bad around the upper bicep, and then extends out into the long sleeve. The sleeves on this dress are not as straight at the DAR ones, but do appear to have more fabric in them. They are gathered into the top band, then remain reasonably loose until mod forearm at which point they are gathered in tight with a decorative band that is a couple of inches wide. The cuffs then puff back out and continue to approximately the middle joint of the thumb.

Due to the more conservative style preferred in the newly independent United States, the necklines are relatively high compared to European fashions for the same style of dress. Both dresses have a more defined bodice space than would have been seen a few years earlier, presaging the silhouette of the 1830s.

Skirts and hemline

Both dresses are placed on mannequins to show a hemline that is just short of trailing on the floor, and neither has any evidence of a train. Both dresses are straight down from the high waists, projecting gently outwards to a width a few inches wider than the natural shoulders. 

The decoration on the DAR dress continues about a foot up the dress from the hem, whereas that on the Ginsburg dress only covers about half that height. The Ginsburg decoration is more fancy, but the contrasting colouration 

Possible patterns

There are a number of excellent patterns out there for Regency dresses, as well as guides and diagrams for DIY or draped variants. I'm certainly not experienced enough to drape, and I prefer the comfort of having a pattern, even if I often only follow them broadly. A non exhaustive list of pattern companies (in no particular order) includes: Black Snail, Laughing Moon, Sense & Sensibility, Folkwear, and Nehelenia. I've not linked to any of these as the best value vendors for any may vary depending on where you are based and which currency you are using, however many use Etsy or have resellers on there, so that may be a good starting place to look.

My shortlist is based on patterns which appear to be close to the design of the two dresses I have been talking about in detail in this post and the previous one. I knew that finding an exact pattern for either dress was likely to be impossible, so I took what I decided were the key features of both, and focused on those when searching for the most appropriate pattern for me. The key features I decided on were:

• Back fastening
• A simple neckline, either squared off, or more rounded
• Not too high a waistline, and one that was in the cut of the pattern (not defined by a belt only)
• The plain flat front of the DAR Museum dress
• A (high) waist seam as part of the dress
• The puff-band shoulder on the Ginsburg dress
• Long sleeves that are not tight.

By looking for a back fastening dress, I had to rule out a number of earlier Regency patterns (logically), as the earlier period was better known for the bib fronts to dresses. Some earlier patterns were also ruled out because the bodice shaping was less defined by the cut and more by the belt/overdress. Relatively few patterns had long sleeves, instead going for the short sleeves more suited to hotter climates than an autumnal England! I also wanted that shoulder interest that is in both of my inspiration dresses, so no patterns where the sleeve falls straight from the armscye.

That left me with two patterns! Laughing Moon #138 & Sense & Sensibility "Regency Gown". Technically there is a third, from Fig Leaf, but I found that one after I had completed my purchases.

Laughing Moon #138

None of the views on this pattern have the very square neckline shown on the Ginsburg dress but are quite similar to the DAR Museum dress' neckline. The shape of the skirts on all views look appropriate to either of my inspiration dresses.The short-sleeve over long sleeved variant is very reminiscent of the Ginsburg shoulders and sleeves, although a bit too baggy. The way they are made, however indicates that adapting the pattern to have a smoother sleeve could work well.

Sense & Sensibility Regency Dress

This is the original source of one of the Simplicity patterns, which was licensed from the creator of this one. In my opinion, this is better than the mass market variant because it is more accurate. For my purposes, it is possibly slightly earlier in style that my aim (1801-1812), but a) the author then says "1810s", which would still encompass 1818, and b) US fashions were ever so slightly lagging compared to Europe due to the time for new ideas to travel.

So, the envelope designs didn't seem to be quite what I needed, but then I looked at the photographs of made-up versions, and the first image has almost exactly the neckline and sleeves of the Ginsburg dress. 

Fig Leaf 222

This pattern is specifically based on the DAR Museum dress, but I found it after I had bought another pattern. I would definitely like to buy and try this one later, should I find the need to make another Regency era dress!

~~

So what to do? 

Sizing: 

The Laughing Moon pattern cover sizes up to 56"/48"/58", whereas the S&S one only goes up to 48"/41"/50" AND requires a supplement to make the larger sizes.

Fig Leaf 222 goes up to 51"/42"/56".

Format: 

Laughing Moon is paper only for this pattern.

S&S has both paper and PDF options available.

Fig Leaf seems to be paper only

Cost: 

Laughing Moon is $18.00 plus postage or £23.99 (no postage) from Etsy

S&S in PDF is $9.95 for the base pattern, plus $2.95 for the large chest supplement, no postage, but printing out costs of course.

Fig Leaf is $23.00 plus postage.

In the end I bought the Laughing Moon pattern via Vena Cava on Etsy. Why? The bodice was closer to the later style ones I am hoping to recreate, even though the sleeves aren't quite right. I also figured that if I can't get the sleeves right, I can buy the PDF of the S&S one still, and Frankenstein them together...

Colours

The official descriptions of both dresses describe them as being Clarence Blue. But what is that, and where does its name come from?

With regards to the Queen herself, there are possible indications of the colour she liked. I wrote a separate post last week on Queen Adelaide and blue as this section was getting Rather Long!

Neither my Inspiration dresses nor the portraits of Queen Adelaide are categorical confirmation of precisely what was "Clarence blue". I feel that I have two possible directions I can take.

1. Follow the colour that is on the garment(s) now
2. Attempt to decide and re-create the garment in the shade I feel is closest to Clarence blue.

As I am intending to re-create an extant dress, I will be going in direction 1. The colour of the extant garments were what drew me to them initially, so in keeping with that, I plan to make my dress in a colouration similar to the shade they are now, 200 years after they were made. This may not be the original colour, nor may it be a true example of Clarence Blue, but I loved it from the start and that is what I will use. 

Modern fabrics in Petrol Blue, Teals, and dark Turquoises seem to be the best representations of the colour I initially saw.

Fabrics

Both original dresses were in silk, suggesting evening wear. I am not planning to wear either in that way, so I am considering either a heavy cotton or a light wool (or wool mix).

Links/images to dream fabrics

Links/images to more realistic fabrics

Clarence Blue & Queen Adelaide

This post includes sections originally from an upcoming post on plans to recreate the Ginsburg &/or DAR Museum dresses, both of which are described as being made of "Clarence blue" fabric.

I fell in love with the two dresses illustrated above due in a large part to their beautiful colour, which is described in their official entries as "probably" Clarence blue. Not knowing anything about this colour, I set off to figure out a) what it was, and b) whether I could buy fabric this colour from modern vendors.

According to both the Cora Ginsburg catalogue and the write-up at the DAR Museum, Clarence Blue was a fashionable colour from c1818. It was called Clarence blue because it was apparently the favourite colour of the new Duchess of Clarence, Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen (1792-1849). Adelaide had married the aging Prince William, Duke of Clarence in 1818, and both collections suggest that this marriage was the trigger for her favoured colour becoming fashionable. While this sequence of events is entirely logical, I wanted to verify this information before I spouted it off to anyone else. 

Evidence for Adelaide's personal preference in colours is somewhat scanty, or just poorly recorded because no one else has been interested in discussing a former Queen's favourite colour. While I found a number of portraits of Adelaide in shades of blue, neither the National Portrait Gallery nor the Royal Collection Trust (who own many) made mention of any significance of the colour blue to the lady herself. 

This lovely essay by Alden O'Brien of the DAR Museum talks about the fashions in 1818 introduced by or named after the Royal marriages of the Dukes of Clarence and Kent. His essay is a wonderful resource for me, not only for the work he's done on discussing the shade(s) of blue attributed to Adelaide, but also by sharing some fantastic close-ups of both my Inspiration dresses, which I've not seen elsewhere. He also shared the final destination of the Ginsburg dress, which he states is now held by the Met Museum.

Excellent!

O'Brien notes a great reference to "Clarence blue satin" from September 1818, and also states that William DeGregorio (who wrote the Ginsburg catalogue section) has found earlier references back to the February of 1817. I found another reference to "An Adelaide blue silk dress" in the June 1831 issue of The Magazine of the Beau Monde, although the journal unfortunately does not come with any illustrations, nor any further indication of the precise shade of blue. As so often happens, the assumption that the reader already knew what the author was talking about leads to a sad and unintended loss of knowledge. These entries definitely indicate a contemporary association between the broad colour "blue" and the person of Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen.

Shade?

But what shade of blue was Clarence Blue?

My first assumption would be to look at the two dresses and to assume that they exemplify the colour, but DeGregorio and O'Brien both make it clear that this is an assumption made through correlation, not a definitive proof of the shade. What do I mean by that? Here are the following things we know for sure:

• There was a shade of blue popular in c1818 which was referred to as Clarence Blue
• These dresses date from approximately 1818 based on other evidence (e.g. skirt style, provenance etc.)
• These dresses are in a shade of blue

What we don't know for certain from these dresses specifically is that these dresses are proven to be in the shade that was called Clarence Blue.

Sarah Walden wrote a blog post in 2011, where she tried to show swatches of all the colours popular during the Regency era. This is a really interesting post, and I find it really useful for seeing the broad categories of where a named shade fit, but I'm not sure whether all are accurate. Her list does include Clarence blue, but the colour is very different to that of the dresses. Sarah describes Clarence blue as being "another ... sky blue", and her swatch is very similar to the colour shown on the ColourLovers website as "Clarence blue" (hex: 79A3DD; RGB 121, 163, 221).

I feel that Walden's swatch for "Prussian blue" is a better match with the colour of dresses, or another ColourLovers swatch named "Clarence" (hex: 3A5470; RGB: 58, 84, 112). There appear to be a multitude of colours described as Clarence or Clarence blue, which vary incredibly. Add in the variations of fading over the 200+ years between 1818 and now, and I can understand why we are viewing such a wide variety of possible answers.

DeGregorio refers to her 1831 NPG portrait (see below) as an example of her wearing "the distinctive hue", and also describes it as a "deep sapphire colour". 

O'Brien refers to another 'new' colour that became fashionable after the accession to the throne of Adelaide's husband, now King William. This colour was called "bleu Adélaide" and was a light blue rather than the richer sapphire identified by DeGregorio. This suggests to me that sometime in the intervening centuries the two shades have become merged into the same name of "Clarence blue". 

Possible Examples

There are numerous portraits of Adelaide surviving, where she is wearing shades of blue, although I am not able to tell whether these are likely to all be attempting to depict the same original shade. Below are a few that I can share which are a) reproduced online in colour, and b) reliably identified as being of Adelaide as either the Duchess of Clarence (1818-1830) or Queen Adelaide (1830-1849).

RCIN 420216. Royal Collection Trust. c.1818?

Portrait of Queen Adelaide, when Duchess of Clarence, c.1818
(c) RCT

This dress in this image is a light and bright blue, without any obvious green or red undertones, except to the rear of her right shoulder (left as you look at her). 

NPG 1533. National Portrait Gallery, London. c.1831

Queen Adelaide (Princess Adelaide of Saxe-Meiningen) by Sir William Beechey, circa 1831.
CC BYNCND

The image here is quite dark, but does show a beautiful blue velvet with a slight hint of green to it. It is definitely not a "sky blue" shade.

RCIN 420239. Royal Collection Trust. 1844

Miniature of Queen Adelaide, 1844
(c) RCT

This is a miniature image of the Queen Adelaide, which is dated 1844 on the reverse. The dowager Queen is again wearing a vivid shade of deep blue.

RCIN 405389. Royal Collection Trust. 1849

Queen Adelaide, 1849, by Winterhalter
(c) RCT

This portrait of the Queen was one she sat for shortly before her death in the same year. The RCT describes her as "wearing a black lace cap", but the trim on her lace cap appears quite blue in the website image. This blue looks to me to be a more green based one, compared to all the earlier portraits.

The exact shades of items in portraits cannot always be assumed to be completely accurate. Princess Charlotte wore a blue sarafan-style dress (known as "Princess Charlotte's Russian Dress") shortly before her death in November 1817. The Royal Collection Trust holds both the original dress and a portrait of her wearing it, and a second variant of the portrait is in the National Portrait Gallery. None of which have precisely the same shade of blue. 

Conclusion

The dresses as they are now, show a green base to the blue, which isn't really reflected in the portraits. The fashion plates shown by O'Brien also show a deeper blue akin to the shade in the portraits. My current opinion, based on the information I have to date, is that the deep rich blue of the portraits is the shade originally referred to as Clarence blue; and that the lighter sky-blue shade was the shade described in 1830 as "Bleu Adélaide".

The Visible Layers: Part 1 - Questions, &, Inspiration for the Dress

My big initial questions

Day vs Evening dresses. Walking dresses. Practicalities based on Promenade dress vs dancing dress.

So, continuing on from my general musing on what "I" would have been most likely to wear, I also started to consider practicalities. These practicalities are twofold: 

1. Where will I be, what will I be doing, and what time of year?
2. What is my realistic budget (financial & chronological)?

The answers to this are:

Question 1:

• Bath, so England, and more to the point, outside in the Promenade
• Walking and "showing off"
• Late summer into Autumn

Question 2:

• Financially
• If I spread financial costs, then I can afford a nice-but-not-elite dress. So good quality fabric, but probably not 100% natural fibres unless there's a nice sale on with what I need.
• I might be able to make a cheap polycotton test run dress, but otherwise I will only be able to afford the fabric for the main dress. Fabric, followed by notions, will probably take the largest portion of my budget.
• New era: Also, this is one event, so it's not reasonable to invest that much into a new era which I may not regularly return to.
• Chronologically
• I am a slow sewer, and as I currently do not own a sewing machine - the one I use is locked down at the opposite end of the country from me right now - I will be hand-sewing everything to begin with, so I feel that it would be more realistic to make one versatile dress, rather than separate day, walking or evening dresses. 
• I will need to make/obtain a shift, stays, and a petticoat (or two) at a minimum, and will have to make the appropriate financial or chronological adjustments to own them. This affects the dress in that time spent on those layers takes away from time available to make another dress.
• Time also means that a very decorated or fancy dress would be less practical. One with clean lines, and relatively simple decoration will be easier to complete well within the time constraints.

Decision:

A walking dress would be ideal, but a day dress would be more versatile and could even potentially be an evening dress with appropriate accessories. 

Inspiration

These two dresses are the two I feel completely in love with. Initially the colour caught my attention, but each has elements which I really like, and which also fit with the "me" I want to portray.

The dress on the left is listed in the 2016 Cora Ginsburg catalogue (PDF). It is described as being from the USA and of "Clarence-blue silk twill" or of "levantine", and is dated to c1818. The deep blue shawl Kashmiri shawl isn't original to the outfit, but would be appropriate to the period. I adore the details at the cuffs, the shoulders, and across the chest, but I suspect that my skills aren't quite there yet.

The second dress is in the DAR Museum, and is dated to c1818-1820. This dress is also described as being in "Clarence-blue" silk, and I freely admit to having fallen in love with the colour of both these dresses. The dress does not appear to be made of a "shiny" silk, but rather a crepe.

The decoration on this dress is in the form of bands of shiny bias-cut satin silk that has been sewn on around the shoulder caps, on the cuffs, and at the hem; three bands in each location. There is also another band of the same contrasting fabric around the high waist. The triple bands sewn at the edges of the shoulder caps and those at the cuffs are all of narrow equal widths; probably a few cms at most. In contrast the bands at the hem are graduated in width towards the hem, and are significantly wider.

The sleeves appear to have an extra frill at the edges of what looks like lace. The neckline is simple and the Museum has chosen to fill it in with a file almost transparent ruffed chemisette, and it is not clear whether this is also at the cuffs, or if that is a separate piece of decoration.

It is interesting that both these dresses are believed to have been made and worn in the USA, but are in a colour that because famous and fashionable specifically due to Princess Adelaide, who married the British Duke of Clarence in 1818 (hence the name). It is believed to have been her favourite colour.

Unfortunately I've not been able to find any fabrics being sold specifically as "Clarence blue", but I have found some modern shades which seem to approach this blue-with-a-greenish-hint. More on that in a later practicalities post.

Other dresses I liked 

...but ultimately haven't gone with (this time?)

1. Princess Charlotte's Russian Dress 

(That's it's actual name!)

I saw this one in an exhibition at the Queen's Gallery a little while back, and I still love it. It's definitely on my list of dresses I'd like to recreate one day.

2. Tat'yana Borisovna Potemkina, by Vigée-Lebrun, 1820

I love the colour and the cross-over style front. The long sleeves with the lace are also quietly beautiful.

3. Jane Johnstone's Mourning Dress

This dress in the V&A is marginally later than I was originally looking at, but I love the simplicity and shape of the bodice decoration. I'm also a big fan of both black and of velvet, although I've not sewed it in decades. My other half likes the decoration on the bottom, as well, so we both like different elements of it. I think this one is on one side for if I ever need a regency or even early Victorian evening/ball dress.

 © Victoria and Albert Museum, London

http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1191391/dress-unknown/

Formal mourning dress of black velvet and grey silk satin decorated with satin piping and appliqué. The dress is full length and has a wide, shallow neckline outlined with grey satin piping. It is lined with cream silk in the bodice and black silk grosgrain in the skirt. The short puff sleeves are decorated with an appliquéd satin motif stemming from the shoulder seams and are finished with the same satin piping. The waist is high but falls a good 5-10cm under the bust. Decorative lines of satin appliqué stem from the waistline to the neck and shoulder seams on the front of the dress and two lines of piping form a V shape from the waist to the shoulder seams on the back of the dress. The dress fastens at the back from the waist to the neck with seven hooks and eyes and a drawstring at the neck. The skirt is gored with a circumference of 220cm around the hem and is gathered slightly at the waist. The hem of the skirt is appliquéd with a wide band of an overlapping, simplified floral motif in grey silk satin, underlined with a band of satin piping.

The Base Layer

This post is about my plans for making/buying Regency era underthings for my 2021 Regency Project.

The Layers

There are three main undergarment layers in the Regency period. I own nothing suitable at present, so I will need to buy/make everything here.

1. A shift - This will be a basic, square necked garment. The purpose of this garment is to protect my outer garments from me, as in my sweat etc. The shift is easier to change and to wash, so was very important for keeping outer garments less smelly or dirty. They didn't wick everything away, but less sweat on your fine dress is still better. In the Regency era there seems to have been some variation on whether your shift had sleeves depending on what you were wearing. When worn with a long sleeve dress, it could have had short sleeves like the V&A example below, but with the very short sleeves, it may have just had a slim shoulder strap. Unlike a medieval shift (the ones I have currently!), a Regency shift has a much more open and square neckline to fit under the dress necklines of the era. Although women were still rarely showing actual cleavage at this point, the area between the neck and breastbone was more likely to be partially or completely uncovered in comparison with earlier eras. That necessitated the change in necklines.

http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O327719/shift-unknown/

1a. Long drawers or pantalettes. In the later Regency era, this layer sometimes also included leg coverings (see the below the stays in the next image). These could even be visible below the skirts for some women. These were two single legs gathered to a band as clothing approaching modern knickers wasn't worn by "nice" women at this point.

2. Long stays (image from the same page as the V&A shift above). Along with the change in necklines and shift patterns, this era also saw a change in undergarments. Others have done far more research than I on the changes of support garment during this era, but in summary, the main changes were a distinct "cup" area which caused/was caused by a change in how the breast tissue was shaped and supported. Prior to the introduction of the Regency silhouette, women's breast area was supported by being bound against the body, usually either with a specific boned undergarment or via the cut of their underdress or kirtle. The flimsiness of early Regency dresses seems to have triggered a need for a new type of support, which went through various iterations. In the c1818 period I am looking at, this would have been long stays. Long stays could be boned or corded, and gently contoured the body from armpit to around the hips, and seem to have included dome kind of breast cupping or pocket.

Regarding the stays I will make or buy, I read this rather interesting study, which seems to suggest that by the time I'm looking at, cording was beginning to be dominant over boning as the method of support. Depending on patterns and cost of materials, I will seriously consider whether "Harriet" would have worn an older set of stays that from 10+ years earlier, or whether she might have updated to the newest style... 

3. A petticoat which goes over the stays and protects the dress while creating an appropriate shape. Like the shift, the petticoat had been forced to change shape from earlier eras. Some Regency petticoats were hung on thin straps from a high underbust waistband, and others were entirely without straps. I am practically minded, so thin straps seem logical to reduce the risk of it slipping!

The image below also includes artificial arm puffs to boost the shape and stability of early Regency sleeves. That's not in my plan so I won't need them at least!

http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O354431/petticoat-unknown/

I'll skip (making) other underwear and wear normal tights instead of stockings.

To do list for an underwear layer:

• Buy a basic suitable shift from a vendor, possibly at the next TORM that runs
• Make a set of long stays. Long ones because I'm "squishy", and need more control to achieve that silhouette.
• Buy a kit and pattern - 
• I'm looking at getting this RedThreaded kit if the postage isn't too punitive and I choose the boned variant
• If I go for corded, then maybe the Laughing Moon pattern #115 . This pattern also includes instructions for a simple chemise. I found an online class that follows the LM pattern as well. These instructions may help if I go it alone. 
• Buy fabric.
  This layer will be next to my skin, so it needs to be breathable. Going by museum pieces and the Foundations Revealed article (linked above), I will probably buy cotton instead of linen, as cotton seems to be beginning to dominate for underwear by the later Regency period.
  
  A middle class lady may well have had contacts with the owners of the burgeoning local cotton mills by blood, marriage, or friendship, so wearing cotton would have been a practical choice.

Next post, next layer! The Dress.

A Regency Outfit?

So, my first sewing project for 2020 is looking like it might be a complete Regency outfit...

It's not an era I have a particular interest in, as far as costume is concerned, but it is an era I love for fiction settings. The Discord group I am a part of has suggested going to Bath and either joining with, or meeting up with those who are formally part of the 2021 Jane Austen meet-up. So, that needs Regency appropriate attire.

Now my first thoughts for the Regency era are based on ball dresses and outfits worn during the Season - both from museum collections and in novels. They don't appeal at all. I'm neither young nor sylph-like, and I feel that I'd just feel so self-conscious in a flimsy muslin dress, let alone a White dress. My disabilities affect co-ordination, so white as a colour is deeply Out for me - I will be wearing something on it by the time I get there, if not before I leave the house. 

So, no flimsy, white muslin for me. Does that mean no Regency clothes at all?

I'm older, married, and also not rich. If I was living then, I would have no need to wear the "pretty" clothes of a debutante or other husband-hunting Society lady. What if I dress as a middle class lady, and one of middle age? Oh, and it's winter, would an older lady really have worn muslins in November? What about white? Wasn't that for young virginal women who were showing off their purity for potential husbands? I don't need that, I can "wear colours", so I shall. I don't have a lot of money, so I can see it would be reasonable to wear something less fussy than a young, and/or wealthy woman.

On "It's winter!", what about a coat, or headwear?

Oh, and underwear. Oh hell, I'll need underwear - you can't get an authentic outline without the right underwear!

So, as it's very much early days, and nothing is decided, but below are the beginnings of my thoughts, inspiration, and tentative plans.

I've fallen in love with two dresses from c1818, so I'm looking at narrowing my clothing to broadly that year. 

I've realised that my way of approaching the concept of a dress from a specific period is to create myself a rough character. That "character" is mostly a meditation on who would I have been if today was 1818? 

My "character"

As an "older woman", I can get away with have clothing items that are a few years out of date as don't feel I'd have been in the first stare of fashion). I'm giving 'her' the name/reference of Harriet or Henrietta.

So who is this person I feel I would be?

Middle class - I have never been wealthy, but having grown up solidly middle class, I feel that that is a background I feel confident in portraying. It's also more realistically achievable for me - while I couldn't afford fine silks even now, I can afford to buy decent quality fabrics if I budget sensibly.

Older - I have no desire to pretend to be younger than I am, and I am not ashamed of my real age, so I'm content to portray a woman in her 40s

Married - hopefully my other half will be coming to Bath with me, and may even be willing to dress up too. A married woman would be more likely to wear the darker and richer colours I prefer, and wouldn't be looking for a marital partner. A single woman in her 40s would have been reliant on her relatives in a way that a married woman was not, and I feel that I am pragmatic enough to have married for "job security" when I was younger. 

Comfortable - By this I am referring to her preferences in fashion. She's neither first stare of fashion nor totally out of date. She's comfortably within the range of normal for her era, without being at all obvious.

Quiet - not physically quite, but in line with the "comfortable" above, she is not overly visible or noticeable. As someone who is not always seeking the most up-to-date fashions, she's therefore less obvious and more likely to blend in with the background scenery. This fits with an older middle class lady who is not seeking to raise her station or marry off children. She has no need to be noticed, so she dresses "quietly" so as not to draw excessive amounts of attention. I'm an introvert, so I am more comfortable and confident when I am not the centre of attention, and Regency Me is going to be the same...

Neither poor nor wealthy - this is different to class, which was somewhat less easily changeable. Because my creations have to live within my real life budget, I choose not to portray someone who is vastly more wealthy than I am. I choose to portray a woman who is comfortably off, but not rolling in money. She can afford nice fabric, but she won't have multiple changes of clothing nor a vast wardrobe of clothes to pick from. She prefers to buy/make one to two good quality items and vary how they look with accessories. Her clothes will be well made and made for/fitted to her, rather than second-hand and made over ones. They aren't high fashion, because that lasts longer and she's not so wealthy as to waste money on buying new clothes before the older ones are unsuitable for wear. She has some servants, but her clothes are cut to allow her to dress herself where possible rather than being reliant on employing a dedicated ladies maid.

Creating the Costume

Subsequent posts on this topic will go through my plans for making/buying the different layers to dress u[ as this character. Before I go though, here is a great guide to the general outline of the layers: http://www.uvm.edu/~hag/regency/tips/

Who Am I? Where Do I Want to Be?

Two hard questions to answer, but ones which I need to face up to and then answer.

Who Am I?

So, who am I? 

On the surface, this is an easy question to answer - I'm me, I'm >>name<<, and so on. 

Or do I define myself by others - I'm the spouse of, the child of, the parent of, the sibling of someone...?

Or perhaps by what I do professionally. I'm a librarian, I'm a researcher, I'm a medievalist

Or by personal traits? I am a nerd, I am intense, I am focused, I am frustrating, I'm INTP

Or by ability/disability? I am autistic, I am arthritic, I am neurodivergent, I am disabled, I am dyslexic, I am a person with executive dysfunction, I'm someone with allergies/intolerances

Or by leisure activities? I am a reader, I am a music lover, I am a violist, I am a crafter, I am a sewer, I am a re-enactor, I'm a baker, I'm a cook, I'm a musician

Or by labels others have given, foisted on, or granted to me? Annoyance, Nuissance, Scarily organised (hah!), Weirdo, Wench, 

Or? You see, who am I is a lot more of a question than people think it is. And some of those things may also be hard to accept - for example, I am quite happy to say I have disabilities, but I feel very uncomfortable saying "I am disabled". Why are these two things different? What about things I love, used to do, and which I would like to do again, but yet currently don't do now. Am I still able to use those to define me?

So, given the above, why have I been spending so much time considering this whole anal naval gazing process? Put simply, because I'm a mimic, and with that I've realised I'm losing myself.

Mimicry

So what does mimicry mean in this context? Mimicry is an aspect, for me, of ASD. It means that I reflect other people's interests and ambitions, and can end up confusing their interests and desires with my own. It isn't intentional, but the more I've become aware of it, the more frustrating it's become for me. I've been using the COVID shutdown, and my own shut-in, to try to "bring myself together". One aspect of that is to force myself to figure out what I'm interested in because I love it, and what I'm into solely because someone else is (or was!). The posts I am planning on writing and releasing over the next few weeks, months, and possibly longer, are designed to focus on each of these things and to help me analyse what is ME in my likes and loves, and what should possibly be viewed more as an appreciation of another's love. 

Hopefully this will help my mental health a lot by enabling me to focus on suceeding on the ME things, and to gently put the "that's cool and interesting" things into a box in my head which is just enjoyment. I am now in my 40s, and we don't get to re-run this simulation - this life is what we get. I want to ensure that I make the most of what time I have by narrowing the focus for my skitterish brain.

Where Do I Want to Be?

As part of figuring all this out, I need to work out what are my personal ambitions. Destination is also an important part of self-definition. We can't be at a destination before we know how to get there, or even if it is possible to get there. Or do we even have a destination worked out? I want to go on holiday "abroad" compared to "I want to go to Europe" (better), "I want to go to France" (better again), or "I want to go to Toulouse"... 

We need two main things: A clear destination, and an idea of what route we would need to get there. 

To return to my holiday example: I can walk to Toulouse, or drive, go by train, or fly. Walking is impractical because of time - I wouldn't be there before I'd need to come home! Driving is a good idea, but I can't drive. I could fly, but I dislike the carbon emissions from flying, so I'd rather not, which leaves the train. OK. 

New Considerations: 

How much is a train ticket; 

Can I afford it or do I need save up; 

How long will it take to get there; 

Do I need to plan food; 

Can I carry what I need on public transport; 

What about changing / connecting trains; 

Crossing Paris or London with luggage

And all that is before one considers accommodation, booking train tickets, and what dates you are going to go! Let alone what to do when there, spending money, and so on...

So a more practical life example:

If I want to be able to consider myself a musician, then I need to... play my instrument. I need to practice, regularly. I need to consider whether I want to join a group, a symphonia, or an orchestra. Sometimes those goals need financial input, or time input to be achievable. So, using the above: 

My destination is to play in an amateur orchestra.

1. I need an instrument - this might involve researching costs, value for money, and saving up. What practice can I do before I get an instrument? Are there hire-purchase schemes through local shops, could I get a cheap-and-nasty while I save up? Perhaps I can work on bow posture, or sight reading, while I save.
2. I need to practice. Regularly. This will have to become a habit. I can't just play pretty tunes, I need to do theory, and scales, and other boring stuff too.
3. I need to put myself out there. Perhaps find a teacher
4. I then need to start looking for groups I can join. They won't come to me, I need to go find them, and ask to join. And then go!

Life is full of sequences like this. I can also look at those steps and say, actually, I just like playing tunes at home, and I have an instrument already. So I need to just play occasionally for fun or relaxation, and that's fine. Perhaps while I'd love to join an orchestra, I can't commit the time, or I can't physically undertake that amount of playing every week. That's OK. I can do as much as I want, how I want instead. And yes, I can still call myself a musician if I want!

Sometimes this process will be painful. Painful? Yes, because sometimes our self image isn't realistic and we discover we're not who we thought we were. Our self-definitions were inaccurate. And sometimes they're painful because we realise we can't do what we want, how we want, because of life limitations. I might want to up sticks and move to another country, but I won't get a visa, I don't have a desired occupation, or I have a partner who doesn't have the same dream. Sometimes compromise is necessary, but part of this process for me is going to be analysing where I'm open to compromise, and where I'm not. 

Returning once again to my holiday example:

I want to go to France, my partner wants to go to Germany. I want to see the Lascaux caves in Padirac, so I'm not willing to compromise on France. Or maybe I want nice dinners and a river, so I'm happy to look at Germany too. What about travel? I'm ambivalent over how we go, but carbon consumption is important to them, or they suffer from claustrophobia, so we choose to go by train. Life is about compromises, and learning what we can and can't compromise on. I'm intentionally not saying "willing to compromise", because I might be not be able to compromise on an aspect no matter how willing I am. I also want to emphasise to myself that this exercise is about trying to find where I can give, and where it's important to me that I don't, so while I might not want to compromise, I might need to in order to prioritise something else. 

Essential

Need

Desire

Would like

Nice to have

Prefer to have

Prefer not to have

Rather not

No

Definitely not

Absolutely not

Never

Life thoughts -- Rough Schedule

This is a rough schedule of the posts I am currently plannign to write, am writing, or have already written (posted or scheduled).

On Saturday I will be publishing the first in this Life Thoughts series, which will be on two big questions: "Who am I?", and, "Where do I want to be?", designed to help me focus my energies, spoons, and life goals more realistically. Not answering those questions, but explaining them as a framework for the rest of the series.

ASD in my life, in particular around specific impairments and/or adjustments I've made

• Executive dysfunction -- in progress.
• Being assessed, how to "de-mask", how to find an assessor, how the process was for me
• Co-morbidities

Academia

• Research goals - things I want to research myself
• Research interests - things I want to learn or understand, but am content just reading others' research
• vIMC commentary
• Study vs Appreciate, which subjects / areas go under which category
• Series on research progress
• Being AltAc

Crafting

• History-bounding -- in progress
• My periods
• Crafts for me
• Sewing plans
• Dream projects
• A series on project progress, including pre
• Gatherings - British Guild of Historical Costumers and other groups

Health & Personal bits

• Family, Infertility, IVF, and so on
• Mental health and ASD
• Disabled vs Impaired vs Having a disability
• Living arrangements
• Work/self/academic balancing

I plan to work on these as the whim takes me, but should anyone be reading this and want me to prioritise something in particular, do ask...

Start of the rest of my life

Long time no write. I've drafted a few posts, but not actually released them. As part of a general life overhaul thing, I'm going to stop that. Yes, one long-arse post will remain in draft for a fair while as fixing the code is an arse, but in general I need to get into the habit of just writing something each month at least. Will it always be "on brand"? Nope, but new habits only form if we do the thing!

So, what's up? With the pandemic, I've had the time to stop and think. I've been thinking a lot on two particular questions: "Who Am I?" and then "Where do I want to be?"

To this end, my plan for today is to start drafting a number of posts on various subjects investigating these questions, and then to schedule them for posting. I may need to go back and tidy some later, but the schedules will be set up well in advance. I will also need to decide how frequently to release them - too close and it's all a bit much, too far apart and it'll take a year to cover just my thoughts from this week! I'm thinking a theme a month, and then splitting them up into smaller posts maybe up to one a week. We shall see!

I'm also planning on having a weekly or monthly check-in post where I keep myself accountable (to me) on what I've achieved this week/month. Might be work stuff, crafty projects, some research, a new skill, house fixing, health progress, or more formal academics. Doesn't matter. The point is to get in the habit of saying "I did a thing!".

Inspiration Porn

So-called "inspiration porn" seems to be a fraught subject that can make a number of my friends very unhappy. For some it's Children in Need, for others it's those posters with bright slogans, and for others it's the social media videos that go viral because they have a disabled person doing something "ordinary" (or someone treating a disabled person as "normal"). I find my feelings towards the genre to be mixed. Some times they really rile me up, others are "meh". And yet there are also others that do help. So, what gives? I was musing on this today while at work, and decided to write out my thoughts.

Who is it for?

I think the first aspect of Inspiration Porn which has the potential to be problematic is the question: Who is it created for?"

Is it aimed at "normal" people or the in-community? 

So many of the Inspiration Porn videos (in particular) that I see which annoy the ever living fuck out of me are the ones which have a subtext. They say "See, you can do it - I mean THEY can, so why the fuck can't you, eh?". These pieces are othering. They see the world as "normal" and "disabled", and we are there to provide inspiration for them. These works seem to inspire a lot of <3s, cutesy comments, and talks about our "bravery", but not a lot else. My reaction to them, however, is either mostly at the comment threads, or directed at the commentary or annotations.

The people who seem to be allegedly inspired by these videos are the type to mostly elicit little more than an eye roll from me - they mean well, but they just can't see beyond platitudes and our disabilities. 

But not only Normals can be inspired. For me, seeing or reading about someone like me who has achieved something I didn't think was possible, or that I could do, DOES still inspire me. 

Why was it made?

This question is directly related to the last, but comes from a slightly different angle. As is so often said - intention matters! The difference here is not whether it's aimed at "normal people", but what is they expectation on seeing it. 

If it's intentionally created or promoted to elicit that "aww, so BRAVE!!" reaction, then it can do one. 

Was it produced to teach? It can be easier for us to forget when we look at poor treatment today, just how bad the general attitude towards the disabled was. Yes, it can be utterly shit, and sometimes downright horrifying, but for all that, we as a society have made progress. We have a long way still to go, for sure, but our trajectory is no longer at the beginning. Inspiration Porn can be useful in showing the non-bigot that the non-verbal can think, that not all Deaf are stupid, and that those with physical disabilities or in chairs can still love and participate in dance. Those people are our parents, potential partners, relatives, and friends. They need to know that we can, because when they don't believe in us, believing in ourselves becomes that much harder.

What about if it was for the in-community? Was it made for us to demonstrate to ourselves what we can achieve, so that we're holding our a metaphorical hand to others like us to encourage them to follow. One person's Inspiration Porn may be for another that spur that provides them with the impetus to achieve their dreams.

How can something decried as Inspiration Porn be "important"?

What? Yes!

Inspiration Porn has two aspects which can make it important to us. Yes, even the most saccharine and demeaning Inspiration Porn can be useful if we get control of it.

What is porn after all, but something that varies depending on the eye of the beholder. Not all conventional porn is carefully crafted, or even intentional, and the same can be said for Inspiration Porn. 

So, is it Inspiration Porn? 

A short documentary about conjoined twins who are teachers?
A cartoon about a person with clinical depression celebrating the small achievements?
A short story about how a person with a disability achieved their dream despite being told said disability would stop them?
How about an article about how the mother of a non-verbal autistic learned to presume competence?

What do you feel? For me it boils down to two questions:

1. Does it tell society "We can!"
2. Does it tell us "You can!"

I feel that if the answer to either is Yes, then that which I am dismissing as Inspiration Porn, is just Not for Me, in the same way that horror novels or Fifty Shades of Grey are Not for Me. They're doing the job for someone else, and that's fine, but like 50 Shade, they may need to get some further information to get a more rounded view.

What about a poster with a trite phrase on it?

Even that is in the eye of the beholder! If it's the thing I see on the day I need to see it, then sod off, it's Inspiration not Inspiration Porn. Being trite isn't automatically Inspiration Porn, it's often just crap that is intended to help. Badly... :P

In short, it's down to purpose and gaze, just like traditional pornography.

• Is it there to titillate and make the viewer feel good about themselves?
• Is it being shared to make the sharer feel good / not guilty about themselves?
• Is it there without the knowledge / understanding of the person being shown? (Compare some human child Inspiration Porn subjects with feel-good videos of animals) Consent is vital not only in sexual interactions!
• Is it there for You to look at Us, with the subtext of being glad not to be me?

That's Inspiration Porn. 

Pause for Breath

Taking a breather this month because work is very busy and I need to focus on that...