There is no escaping the reality that in some family photographs there is little to see or to go on, except the human subject(s) of the picture: even when there are other pictorial elements that can be researched, generally it is the appearance of our ancestors and relatives – both their physical characteristics and their attire – that particularly captures our attention. The fashions worn in the past may appear very different to today’s modes and immediately confirm that we are viewing an image from another era. Dating clothing, hairstyles and accessories is not the easiest process for the average researcher, but it is an accurate method and in some cases assessing the fashions may be the only way of estimating when a photograph was taken.
A question frequently raised by family historians when examining the dress in old photographs is whether their poorer ancestors would have been able to follow fashion closely – that is, whether they may have looked up to date, despite their humble status, or whether they are likely to have been wearing very outmoded clothes. This is a significant point and suggests that before we look at how to recognise historical dress styles, we should consider how fashion may have impacted on past generations.
Following Fashion
By the time portrait photography reached a mass market in the 1860s, fashion information was becoming more accessible via fashion plates and paper sewing patterns in women’s magazines, while widely circulated carte de visite photographs of royalty, aristocracy, actresses and other ‘celebrities’ provided popular images of the fashion leaders of the day. By the late 1800s many newspapers published illustrated advertisements for consumer goods and mailorder catalogues illustrated their wares: as the literacy of the general public improved, people could view and read about the latest fashions in print. Anyone could visit a sizeable town or city to see at first hand what was being worn in the streets by the prosperous classes, or to view goods in the windows of drapery shops, outfitters and department stores. Professional tailors, dressmakers and milliners also kept abreast of new trends and many stocked fashionable materials and trimmings for their customers.
Gentlemen typically visited their favourite tailor for bespoke coats and suits, although decent, affordable ‘off-the-peg’ lounge or business suits were already available for ordinary working men. By contrast, relatively few female garments could be purchased ready-made in the Victorian era, since ladies’ fashions were generally more complex and required a skilled hand for accurate styling and intricate ornamentation. A wide selection of ready-to-wear female fashions only became available between the wars when simpler clothing styles aided mass-production and inexpensive chain stores proliferated throughout Britain. Traditionally, most of our female ancestors learnt to sew when young and many women assembled undergarments, shirts and other small articles at home, some making dresses and outerwear too: indeed, many sewed, altered and mended garments for a living. However, if family members were not very competent needlewomen or had no time for home dressmaking, numerous professional tailors, dressmakers and seamstresses catered for all sectors of the market, including an ordinary lower middle or working class clientele.
Fashion news and clothing options were plentiful throughout much of the period covered by this book, with many tradesmen operating in rural areas, as well as urban centres. When our working forebears bought, made or ordered new clothes and accessories they could, if they wished, follow the most up-to-date modes – or a version of fashionable dress, to suit their personal taste: certainly many went to great efforts with the ‘best’ outfit that would be kept for church on Sundays and other special occasions. The most expensive part of a new ensemble was the material and an enormous variety of textiles were available by the mid-nineteenth century to suit all pockets and seasons of the year, from fine silks to plain woollen cloth, workaday cottons, linens and mixed fabrics. The quality of the material and extravagance of trimmings distinguished the dress of the wealthy from that of the working classes – not the basic cut or shape of their clothes. When the style of garments grew outmoded, if still wearable they were often re-modelled to reflect changing fashions: surplus fabric was kept from the original making of the garment for the purpose of alterations and repairs. Unfortunately, our most impoverished ancestors with little or no income only rarely acquired new clothes, instead relying on a combination of charity, cast-offs, clothing clubs, second-hand garments from dealers or low-quality goods from market stalls.
Dress in Photographs
Accurate historical information about the poorer sectors of society tends to be elusive, but photographic evidence (or lack of) suggests that ancestors who struggled to earn a basic living or were genuinely impoverished never sat for a professional photographic portrait, unless it was a workhouse photograph or, worse, a criminal ‘mug-shot’: certainly, this would explain why we never see figures wearing ragged clothing in regular family photographs. However, the occupational data surrounding identified images confirms that many ancestors and relatives from the lower working classes visited their local photographer on occasion and invariably presented a respectable, even stylish appearance that may seem to belie their social status as seamstresses, domestic servants, miners, fishermen, farm hands and so on. Judging from certain images, we might even speculate whether the desire to display a flattering outfit or new hairstyle may sometimes have been instrumental in prompting a visit to the local photographer (see Figs 43(a) and (b)). Victorian and Edwardian women’s fashions were particularly distinctive and there seems to be a correlation between photography and the opportunity for personal display: it is no coincidence that in the mid–late nineteenth century on average two adult females to every male were photographed in the studio.