What a privilege to get the behind-the-scenes peek at how these wonderful garments are preserved and so carefully cared for. A lot of time and attention and love is clearly put in to their preservation and how their shared with the broader public. Much appreciate these videos and look forward to each and everyone. Thank you for the content!
A lady would of looked breathtakingly beautiful in such an exquisite dress. Having it professionally being cared for is worth any expense to keep this treasure in tact.
@@dan13ljks0n There's also a survivor bias, in that the larger the garment, the more material available to remake a garment to update the style or fit a different wearer. We see the same thing in real time today with "thrift flips", where larger garments are cut down and restyled.
@@lindsaythegreatSurvivor bias loves the twice exceptional. The highest quality in the smallest size. You're less likely to add panels after growing if you're wealthy, and it's less likely to be handed down as well, so worn the least amount of time. Still they're truly stunning pieces and we're blessed that they survived for us to learn from!
Amazing how this historical dress from 18th century has survived. Lots of tlc and correct storage helped I imagine. Though I look at it in wonder of how it was made, I also wonder who the lady that it belonged to was feeling about the dress. Did she love it, did she appreciate the work of the seamstress and lacemaker? Was it comfortable to wear?Thank you for taking care of these incredible garments.💐💝🇬🇧
You might want to check out the books by Janet Arnold, patterns of fashion books 1 and 5. They go into great detail regarding the construction of the garments and the underpinnings. It wouldn't have been that comfortable to wear, but the point was how bling the wearer looked, not how easy it was to wear
I can help but think how tiny the owner of that dress would have been. They've created the mannequin to be at such a height that the skirt just brushes the floor, as it would have been worn, but next to the ladies it barely come to their shoulders.
The size of this garment is amazing! I remember how tiny I thought my great grandmother was; she was born in 1864 and was just months short of 100 when she died; I was 12. I am considered medium sized at 5' 6.5" tall. The woman who wore this must have been under 5 feet tall and probably a size zero! New subscriber!
The problem with clothing of this nature is that it was meant to be worn once or twice and never thought of again. People didn't care if they would last forever so the materials didn't usually have a long shelf life. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries very wealthy people had a hobby of unraveling beautiful garments they were done with. They just didn't see a need to save them for future generations. It's a miracle we have any extant garments from this time. I'm glad someone is taking the time to preserve them. I sometimes wonder if people back then had any curiosity about what the Elizabethans or Tudors wore. Maybe curiosity about clothing of the past is something unique to our time.
Also the personal attendants of the wealthy had access to the cast off clothes as part of their wages. They would often sell them on. And yes, there was a craze for salvaging precious metals from embroidered 'vintage' clothing This reverence for the past is quite a modern phenomenon when it comes to clothes!
Wasn’t expecting to see the Bacton Altar Cloth (aka the only existing piece of Elizabeth I’s wardrobe) hanging in the background behind the first speaker!
Probably a soft cloth to remove surface oxidation and possibly judicious use of ethanol. One of the reasons these haven't survived is that they were mostly picked apart and the thread and fabric recycled separately. So conservation wasn't a priority for the purchaser You could resell the silver thread and fabric separately or reuse the silk for a different outfit. Either way, it wouldn't have been an issue because it was super expensive fast fashion
Garments like these were worn only a handful of times, for very formal occasions, and the rest of the time would be carefully wrapped in paper or polished linen and stowed in boxes. A domestic servant would need years of training to acquire all the methods for caring for the every aspect of her mistress' wardrobe, and she could spend hours packing and unpacking, preparing, cleaning, and restoring every time they were worn--so not only was it unimaginably expensive to BUY a dress like this, it was even quite an investment maintain one. Of course we have lots of surviving examples of silver dresses that are blackened with age, but in this case we can credit the skill and diligence of the maid, plus the equal diligence of her successors in caring for and preserving this garment.
Great video and amazing work from the textile conservators! And originally a mantua was not seperate! The original mantuas from the late 17th century were one piece and not a petticoat and an extra bodice. The separation was made in the 18th century.
@@itsacarolbthing5221 I said "AND originally ..." This was an addition to her comment. Not a correction. Most people don't know the history of this kind of fashion.
For those who would like to learn more about Lady Rockingham and her Mantua , the Wentworth Woodhouse Preservation Trust (who are restoring her home) have just released two videos - 'Mary Watson-Wentworth, Second Marchioness of Rockingham- A Love Story' czcams.com/video/NAlDvtk3X5c/video.html ; and 'Lady Rockingham’s Mantua 'czcams.com/video/30P7RYCsr4c/video.html which features a never before published letter from Lady Rockingham to her husband about her extraordinary "Spanish Dress".
Just watched this again. Great video and beautiful dress, but still so disappointed that you did not include some pictures of the dress fully mounted. Why???
Am I correct in thinking that how well preserved it is might imply it was very little worn (perhaps even only to the coronation?) ? It seems like anything worn more frequently would have acquired more signs of wear, and possibly cut down and repurposed in some way.
It looks stunning but must have been hell to wear,so unwieldy and heavy. No wonder Ladies did very little! Another way to keep them in their place? But you have done a marvellous job👍👍
I’m not so sure about these specific dresses, but the stays (type of corset they wore in this period) actually supported the hip skeletons and layers of skirts, and they aren’t that bad at all with the stays (corsets themselves are pretty comfy but that’s a topic on its own) these dresses in particular would’ve only been worn for short periods of times at extravagant events, working class (yes there were many many working women) hip pads are often smaller then the upper class, though even the upper class had more practical dresses compared to the ones we usually see in paintings and movies and what not
actually, the fabric may not have been to much weight. Some reasons women did sweat(as much) due to clothing is because they were light weight. But yes it could weight a little more due to decor.
Amazing dress but the film would have benefitted from the following: 1: Where was the fabric sourced/ woven? 2: Amount of time to create the dress? 3: Weight of the dress - as this would give the viewer an understanding of restriction of movement. 4: The height of the wearer, it only became obvious at the end of the film that the dress and initial wearer was tiny, barely 5’ 5: For such a costly dress was the wearer not painted wearing the dress, this would have been very informative as the whole look, hair, makeup and accessories would be there and put it into context. NOT the portrait of George lll unless KP are now implying he was a cross dresser .
It's an interesting point. People in the middle ages were bigger than those in the 17th and 18th centuries. There are several possibilities why it happened, most likely being northern Europe being in what was called the little ice age, where weather conditions made the atmosphere colder, thus damaging agricultural output.
I always adore the care with which the people handle their items. Now, was the wife of the fellow eleven? Because this dress is teeny-tiny? I do recall Queen Victoria's gown being much the same - being dwarfed by the two rather petite ladies where were working with it - so maybe all the ladies back then were teensy?
This dress is in such a splendid condition. Do you know something about its history, how and where it was kept, was it worn more than once? Also, how come the silver thread did not darken (oxidise) with time? It must have been kept away from light and humidity.
The end result looks as though the person wearing this (?The Marchioness of Rockingham) must have been a very petite person. Do we know her actual height etc?
Marie Antoinette was 5'6 and she was considered quite tall in that age, but dwarfed by her husband Louis XVI who was 6'4 or 6'5. both men and women wore heels at that time. the dress made for 14yo Marie Antoinette was actually too small so her corset was exposed lol..., but i think she would still looks amazingly beautiful because the dress would resembles this one actually had larger pannier which is ridiculous but by making it smaller it looks more proportioned lol
@@jodrichy I know they used real silver in the tapestries at Hampton Court. But once again, I couldn’t find anyone to ask how silver thread can be cleaned of tarnish. Maybe it can’t. The tapestries in Hampton Court looked pretty tarnished.
These 18th century silver threads are usually a thin layer of real silver wrapped around silk thread. I don't think you can clean the tarnish off. The silver on the thread has to be very thin in order to be flexible enough that you can weave and sew it. If you removed the tarnish, you would probably ruin the thread. The only thing you can do is store the garment in a way that prevents the silver from tarnishing. An 18th century method for doing this was to sew paper to the top of garment when it was it storage so that air couldn't get to the silver.
@Wandering Spark Fascinating. I didn’t know the thread was wrapped in silver. The dress in this video really sparkles. It must have been stunning when it was new.
Yes! A lot of them can fold in on themselves! And sitting down is actually really easy because theyre only on the side and not the back. For the ultrawide mantuas like this, they were mainly worn in palace settings where you'd have ballroom spaces for ease of movement. Otherwise you can just turn sideways if you don't have an open pair of double doors. Everyday mantuas, robe a la francaise and anglaise if you want to look them up, had much smaller panniers for easy wear. A lot of them were giant pockets, there's some fun reconstruction videos in the historical costuming community on here.
@@vinnm4516 Also, especially with this level of formality, the wearer may not have had the chance to sit; she would probably have been standing during the ceremony and the court was VERY specific about who could/not sit, and when. I always imagine rows of ladies swaying with exhaustion, praying for a break!
It’s strange that though the dress looks huge in silhouette, it looks like the lady it was created for was tiny. It’s stunningly beautiful. If it was worn for the Coronation are there any pictures that exist of her wearing this gown? It’s a strange dichotomy that in some ways photography can be very intrusive, but oh to have photographic evidence of the time prior to photography. Or even video of that dress as she danced under torch and candlelight, which it was created to be seen in.
The dress is so tiny. The coronation took place is 1761 and she would have been around 26 at that time. So not a child by any stretch, but definitely child sized. At least by todays standards.
This was not a Coronation dress: Coronation robes were heavily regulated - then as now! The Marchioness would have worn a red velvet kirtle, drawn back over white or silver petticoats, with a train of no more and no less than 3 1/2 yards long. Most of the portraits done afterwards show Peeresses wearing petticoats with gold embroidery. Nor were the Coronation robe dresses so wide as this one. Even the Queen’s dress was narrower. Mary had a formal role to play- she led the Marchionesses in the Queen's procession ahead of the Queen; her husband presented the right- hand glove to the King, supported his arm while he held the Orb and took the Oath of Allegiance on behalf of the Marquises, kissing the king's cheek. This dress is very unlikely to have been worn at the Coronation- it was never designed to be covered. It was a STATEMENT dress. There were other important court occasions- the birth of the future Prince of Wales in July 1762, and the King's Birthday in 1763- for which it might have been created.
That is a really tiny dress.. Just look at the size of the sleeves.. I have clothing in my collection that is tiny also. The smallest I have has a 16-inch waist. 😮
@@amandajstar LOL! I'm sure it was. Having used chamberpots in places without plumbing, I can say it takes practice. And it definitely helped them that they didn't have to deal with panties/underpants.
Many comments about the size of the dress, and/or the woman wearing it. Maybe a small boned, petite woman was what a really high class noble man would expect in a bride? Perhaps the more normal sized women would be rejected as being "too peasant like"? Might explain the lack of children as well. And before people knock the idea, look at current beauty standards. How many "high status" women have breast implants and are very thin?
The episodes are sadly too short. I could watch a full hour of this.
Absolutely!
Me too
I just found this. Love it.
Yes! Me too!!! 🎉
What a privilege to get the behind-the-scenes peek at how these wonderful garments are preserved and so carefully cared for. A lot of time and attention and love is clearly put in to their preservation and how their shared with the broader public. Much appreciate these videos and look forward to each and everyone. Thank you for the content!
A lady would of looked breathtakingly beautiful in such an exquisite dress. Having it professionally being cared for is worth any expense to keep this treasure in tact.
Seeing these in painting and then in real life is very jaw-dropping. it's gorgeous!
the dress is so tiny, child size almost.
Very beautiful and amazing that it has survived in such a good state for so long - definitely not primark 🙂
Just what I was thinking! People seem (especially women) like they were so much smaller then! Shows what better nutrition and healthcare can achieve!
Looks about 5'3.
@@dan13ljks0n There's also a survivor bias, in that the larger the garment, the more material available to remake a garment to update the style or fit a different wearer. We see the same thing in real time today with "thrift flips", where larger garments are cut down and restyled.
@@rsmith6366 shorter than that! I’m 5’3” and I definitely stand taller than that unless the speaker is much above average.
@@lindsaythegreatSurvivor bias loves the twice exceptional. The highest quality in the smallest size. You're less likely to add panels after growing if you're wealthy, and it's less likely to be handed down as well, so worn the least amount of time. Still they're truly stunning pieces and we're blessed that they survived for us to learn from!
How marvellous!! How tiny was the lady who wore this! Look at the waist!!
Amazing how this historical dress from 18th century has survived. Lots of tlc and correct storage helped I imagine. Though I look at it in wonder of how it was made, I also wonder who the lady that it belonged to was feeling about the dress.
Did she love it, did she appreciate the work of the seamstress and lacemaker? Was it comfortable to wear?Thank you for taking care of these incredible garments.💐💝🇬🇧
You might want to check out the books by Janet Arnold, patterns of fashion books 1 and 5. They go into great detail regarding the construction of the garments and the underpinnings. It wouldn't have been that comfortable to wear, but the point was how bling the wearer looked, not how easy it was to wear
It's amazing it survived in its original form. So many times the gowns were taken apart and the fabric used to make an updated style.
I would love to know these answers as well 😊
That dress must have been stunningly beautiful but I can't imagine a dress like that could have been comfortable.
yes she loved it, she was the wife of the owner of Wentworth woodhouse lol
I can help but think how tiny the owner of that dress would have been. They've created the mannequin to be at such a height that the skirt just brushes the floor, as it would have been worn, but next to the ladies it barely come to their shoulders.
That would be me.
More of these please!
I could watch these videos all day!
The size of this garment is amazing! I remember how tiny I thought my great grandmother was; she was born in 1864 and was just months short of 100 when she died; I was 12. I am considered medium sized at 5' 6.5" tall. The woman who wore this must have been under 5 feet tall and probably a size zero! New subscriber!
This dress is beyond!
Everyone’s dresses must have smushed into each other! Such wide skirts!
Thanks for another great video! I love royal history, costuming, and sewing, so these dress restorations are always really interesting to me!
It must be a little scary to handle such a garment.
Oh yes definitely!
Such a gorgeous garment. I am glad pieces like this are preserved and shown off. For me it is a chance to see history come to life.
Wow this show is amazing! I had to subscribe!!! 🎉
I could listen to this lady talk about her work for hours. Wonderful video and beautiful dress.
I'd love if a glass was put about 10cm from the dress, to be able to get that close to the silver lace and get a good look at it. It's fabulous.
so peaceful watching this
Seeing this makes people from history come alive. They were realnpersons. Just amazing! Thankyou for showing
Beautiful! I do hope you’ll post another video when it gets installed.
Very interesting & well done ! Just crave more details as there must be so much more to share !
Would be nice to see an actual person next to all of you and the dress that would have fit in the dress. Do very interesting! 🤔
The problem with clothing of this nature is that it was meant to be worn once or twice and never thought of again. People didn't care if they would last forever so the materials didn't usually have a long shelf life. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries very wealthy people had a hobby of unraveling beautiful garments they were done with. They just didn't see a need to save them for future generations. It's a miracle we have any extant garments from this time. I'm glad someone is taking the time to preserve them. I sometimes wonder if people back then had any curiosity about what the Elizabethans or Tudors wore. Maybe curiosity about clothing of the past is something unique to our time.
Also the personal attendants of the wealthy had access to the cast off clothes as part of their wages. They would often sell them on. And yes, there was a craze for salvaging precious metals from embroidered 'vintage' clothing
This reverence for the past is quite a modern phenomenon when it comes to clothes!
What a wonderful job! Can you imagine waking up in the morning knowing what work you will be doing?
Wasn’t expecting to see the Bacton Altar Cloth (aka the only existing piece of Elizabeth I’s wardrobe) hanging in the background behind the first speaker!
This is impressive. I've had my embroidery threads get dry and brittle over time. Fantastic.
That's a gorgeous gown. I am debating on make one.
What I’ve always wondered was how did they keep the silver thread shiny back in the day?
not only back in the day, but also over time. wouldn't silver have turned black from oxidization?
For the conservators it's a constant battle against oxidation, fungi and bacteria.
Probably a soft cloth to remove surface oxidation and possibly judicious use of ethanol. One of the reasons these haven't survived is that they were mostly picked apart and the thread and fabric recycled separately. So conservation wasn't a priority for the purchaser
You could resell the silver thread and fabric separately or reuse the silk for a different outfit. Either way, it wouldn't have been an issue because it was super expensive fast fashion
Garments like these were worn only a handful of times, for very formal occasions, and the rest of the time would be carefully wrapped in paper or polished linen and stowed in boxes. A domestic servant would need years of training to acquire all the methods for caring for the every aspect of her mistress' wardrobe, and she could spend hours packing and unpacking, preparing, cleaning, and restoring every time they were worn--so not only was it unimaginably expensive to BUY a dress like this, it was even quite an investment maintain one.
Of course we have lots of surviving examples of silver dresses that are blackened with age, but in this case we can credit the skill and diligence of the maid, plus the equal diligence of her successors in caring for and preserving this garment.
Great video and amazing work from the textile conservators! And originally a mantua was not seperate! The original mantuas from the late 17th century were one piece and not a petticoat and an extra bodice. The separation was made in the 18th century.
That's what she said. It dates from the 1760's, ie the 18th Century. It wasn't stated they were always separate.
@@itsacarolbthing5221 I said "AND originally ..." This was an addition to her comment. Not a correction. Most people don't know the history of this kind of fashion.
@@xTapirmaedchen thank you for the clarification. Be well x
I’m fascinated by historic couture
Wow. So beautiful
Beautiful dress but I can’t imagine it’s very comfortable to wear.
For those who would like to learn more about Lady Rockingham and her Mantua , the Wentworth Woodhouse Preservation Trust (who are restoring her home) have just released two videos - 'Mary Watson-Wentworth, Second Marchioness of Rockingham- A Love Story' czcams.com/video/NAlDvtk3X5c/video.html ; and 'Lady Rockingham’s Mantua 'czcams.com/video/30P7RYCsr4c/video.html which features a never before published letter from Lady Rockingham to her husband about her extraordinary "Spanish Dress".
Is tarnishing an issue and if so how do you deal with it? Thanks for the great videos!
Beautifully Facinating.
i'm so admiring the fabric. the embellishments are fantastic.
It would be nice to see the complete dress instead of only closeups of its parts. and the conservators working on it.
Just watched this again. Great video and beautiful dress, but still so disappointed that you did not include some pictures of the dress fully mounted. Why???
Am I correct in thinking that how well preserved it is might imply it was very little worn (perhaps even only to the coronation?) ? It seems like anything worn more frequently would have acquired more signs of wear, and possibly cut down and repurposed in some way.
Amazing work!!!
Just beautiful!
It's so interesting, it feels like the video is only a minute long
What a job to have.
That was fabulous to watch.
Incredible, took my breath away!!
It looks stunning but must have been hell to wear,so unwieldy and heavy. No wonder Ladies did very little! Another way to keep them in their place? But you have done a marvellous job👍👍
I’m not so sure about these specific dresses, but the stays (type of corset they wore in this period) actually supported the hip skeletons and layers of skirts, and they aren’t that bad at all with the stays (corsets themselves are pretty comfy but that’s a topic on its own) these dresses in particular would’ve only been worn for short periods of times at extravagant events, working class (yes there were many many working women) hip pads are often smaller then the upper class, though even the upper class had more practical dresses compared to the ones we usually see in paintings and movies and what not
actually, the fabric may not have been to much weight. Some reasons women did sweat(as much) due to clothing is because they were light weight. But yes it could weight a little more due to decor.
Beautiful, thanks for your extraordinary care.
So incredibly beautiful wow that was amazing 😍
Amazing dress but the film would have benefitted from the following:
1: Where was the fabric sourced/ woven?
2: Amount of time to create the dress?
3: Weight of the dress - as this would give the viewer an understanding of restriction of movement.
4: The height of the wearer, it only became obvious at the end of the film that the dress and initial wearer was tiny, barely 5’
5: For such a costly dress was the wearer not painted wearing the dress, this would have been very informative as the whole look, hair, makeup and accessories would be there and put it into context. NOT the portrait of George lll unless KP are now implying he was a cross dresser .
wow! so beautiful!
They were a tiny little people in the day. Such a beautiful dress.
It's an interesting point. People in the middle ages were bigger than those in the 17th and 18th centuries. There are several possibilities why it happened, most likely being northern Europe being in what was called the little ice age, where weather conditions made the atmosphere colder, thus damaging agricultural output.
I always adore the care with which the people handle their items.
Now, was the wife of the fellow eleven? Because this dress is teeny-tiny? I do recall Queen Victoria's gown being much the same - being dwarfed by the two rather petite ladies where were working with it - so maybe all the ladies back then were teensy?
This dress is so beautiful. The dress is so tiny. She must have been such a petite lady.
How tiny the woman must have been seeing the dress all together, it looks childlike though obviously very beautiful!!
This dress is in such a splendid condition. Do you know something about its history, how and where it was kept, was it worn more than once? Also, how come the silver thread did not darken (oxidise) with time? It must have been kept away from light and humidity.
The end result looks as though the person wearing this (?The Marchioness of Rockingham) must have been a very petite person. Do we know her actual height etc?
Marie Antoinette was 5'6 and she was considered quite tall in that age, but dwarfed by her husband Louis XVI who was 6'4 or 6'5. both men and women wore heels at that time.
the dress made for 14yo Marie Antoinette was actually too small so her corset was exposed lol..., but i think she would still looks amazingly beautiful because the dress would resembles this one actually had larger pannier which is ridiculous but by making it smaller it looks more proportioned lol
❤ Beautiful! But either the gown is short, (so the shoes showed?) or she was incredibly tiny!
You have to remember people were much small back then, think how wonderful this dress would have looked but Candlelight, it’s just stunning!
Not much smaller actually. A few inches.
The funny guy is Kilroy. He’s from World War 2 times. My dad used to draw him on his doodles. My brother had him tattooed on his arm.
Is the dress made with real silver thread? If so, how do you keep it from tarnishing? How would you clean off the tarnish?
I was wondering the same thing!
I'm not too sure what they used to guild, but normally, they're real silver and gilded.
@@jodrichy I know they used real silver in the tapestries at Hampton Court. But once again, I couldn’t find anyone to ask how silver thread can be cleaned of tarnish. Maybe it can’t. The tapestries in Hampton Court looked pretty tarnished.
These 18th century silver threads are usually a thin layer of real silver wrapped around silk thread. I don't think you can clean the tarnish off. The silver on the thread has to be very thin in order to be flexible enough that you can weave and sew it. If you removed the tarnish, you would probably ruin the thread. The only thing you can do is store the garment in a way that prevents the silver from tarnishing. An 18th century method for doing this was to sew paper to the top of garment when it was it storage so that air couldn't get to the silver.
@Wandering Spark Fascinating. I didn’t know the thread was wrapped in silver. The dress in this video really sparkles. It must have been stunning when it was new.
A stunning gown and such loving treatment of it? How on earth did women sit down or go through regular sized doors? Were the panniers collapsible?
Yes! A lot of them can fold in on themselves! And sitting down is actually really easy because theyre only on the side and not the back. For the ultrawide mantuas like this, they were mainly worn in palace settings where you'd have ballroom spaces for ease of movement. Otherwise you can just turn sideways if you don't have an open pair of double doors. Everyday mantuas, robe a la francaise and anglaise if you want to look them up, had much smaller panniers for easy wear. A lot of them were giant pockets, there's some fun reconstruction videos in the historical costuming community on here.
@@vinnm4516 Also, especially with this level of formality, the wearer may not have had the chance to sit; she would probably have been standing during the ceremony and the court was VERY specific about who could/not sit, and when. I always imagine rows of ladies swaying with exhaustion, praying for a break!
Question: Has the colour changed much from the original time?
How the silver threads must glitter as the wearer walked past the candles or even in the sunlight.
Is it even possible to sit down in that beautiful dress?
How was the lace made? Was it crocheted or bobbin lace or made with another technique?
She must’ve been tiny almost childlike wow!
Hiw short was the Marquisa?!
I would love to know the size of this historical dresses.
It’s strange that though the dress looks huge in silhouette, it looks like the lady it was created for was tiny. It’s stunningly beautiful. If it was worn for the Coronation are there any pictures that exist of her wearing this gown?
It’s a strange dichotomy that in some ways photography can be very intrusive, but oh to have photographic evidence of the time prior to photography. Or even video of that dress as she danced under torch and candlelight, which it was created to be seen in.
Don't let Kim Kardashian know how special this garment is!
How is it the silver thread doesn’t tarnish?
Beautiful. Thank God we don't have to wear those panniers today.
How did they get through the doors? Or go to the bathroom?
The original social distancing through garment dimensions...
They would often go through sideways. Plus the panniers could be pushed down. As for the bathroom! Squat and hope for the best over a chamber pot.
It would have been nice 😳 to actually see!!! The entire dress🤷♀️
The dress is so tiny. The coronation took place is 1761 and she would have been around 26 at that time. So not a child by any stretch, but definitely child sized. At least by todays standards.
5’3” or thereabouts. Not too small, really.
This was not a Coronation dress: Coronation robes were heavily regulated - then as now! The Marchioness would have worn a red velvet kirtle, drawn back over white or silver petticoats, with a train of no more and no less than 3 1/2 yards long. Most of the portraits done afterwards show Peeresses wearing petticoats with gold embroidery. Nor were the Coronation robe dresses so wide as this one. Even the Queen’s dress was narrower. Mary had a formal role to play- she led the Marchionesses in the Queen's procession ahead of the Queen; her husband presented the right- hand glove to the King, supported his arm while he held the Orb and took the Oath of Allegiance on behalf of the Marquises, kissing the king's cheek. This dress is very unlikely to have been worn at the Coronation- it was never designed to be covered. It was a STATEMENT dress. There were other important court occasions- the birth of the future Prince of Wales in July 1762, and the King's Birthday in 1763- for which it might have been created.
you could hide a big screen tv underneath that dress
no more music >:-(
The Marchioness was a tiny woman.
Such a strange skirt shape that was in style .
That is a really tiny dress..
Just look at the size of the sleeves..
I have clothing in my collection that is tiny also.
The smallest I have has a 16-inch waist. 😮
either she was very tiny... or she was very young... what a small dress!
My question is: You've got the dress on. You look stunning in it. You've got to wee. Now what?
Hike up the front of the skirt and petticoats, spread your feet/squat slightly, stick your chamberpot under, and try not to spill over the sides.
@@vbrown6445 Sounds very dodgy!
@@amandajstar LOL! I'm sure it was. Having used chamberpots in places without plumbing, I can say it takes practice. And it definitely helped them that they didn't have to deal with panties/underpants.
What a tiny lady she was!
Many comments about the size of the dress, and/or the woman wearing it.
Maybe a small boned, petite woman was what a really high class noble man would expect in a bride?
Perhaps the more normal sized women would be rejected as being "too peasant like"?
Might explain the lack of children as well.
And before people knock the idea, look at current beauty standards. How many "high status" women have breast implants and are very thin?
Is this Kim Kardashians next diet inspiration? 😳😂
Tiny lady wore that dress.
Save this from Kim Kardashian
How on earth did she walk with her husband let alone sit at such an event as the coronation, the ladies must have been a nightmare !
Keep it away from Kim Kardashian please.