Regency do's and fashions (REGENCY LIFE DISCUSSION message #1180)

Regency do's and fashions

REPLIES - POST REPLY - REGENCY LIFE DISCUSSION - FAQ - HOME - Q

Posted by Caroline on October 02, 1997 at 22:44:49:

In response to Actually, it's not, written by Jessamyn on October 02, 1997 at 22:24:22

Now there's a letter I meant to write to Victoria and never did...those aren't Austen styles at all. They're ten to fifteen years later--more sort of George Eliot styles. Why couldn't they have either made real Austen dresses, or used those dresses and employed somebody else's quotes instead?

] That aside, they're pretty consistent for the time period they do show--and very pretty.

You know the reason why, Jess! Because until P&P and Emma2 came along, the Great American Public (GAP for short) was almost totally unaware of the existence of a "Regency" period! Somehow 1812 means forts and tricorns and Massa Jackson, and when all that is over with you slip straight into pioneers and industry and Indian Wars...Even the educated people at Victoria Magazine probably hadn't ever researched anything before 1835..

REPLIES:

Victorian Era Traci P 21:35:58 10/03/97 (1)
- Oh no! Not Mr. Collins! Traci P 20:19:02 10/04/97 (0)
Oh, I know, but still... Jessamyn 23:06:41 10/02/97 (4)
- Oh! Rosamunde 12:54:57 10/03/97 (0)
- Oh! that explains it! Rosamunde 12:54:29 10/03/97 (2)
  - what about the hair? Rosamunde 19:39:14 10/03/97 (1)
    - The loops of hair over the ears are non-Regency (NFM) Jessamyn 19:51:39 10/03/97 (0)

Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.