May 1, 2010

Notes on the Restoration of King Charles and the Flashing Whores of St James's Fair

It is easy to look at history as a set of dates with events chalked up next to them, but in a city as vibrant and organic as London, nothing happens out of the blue, as a commonplace book of the 1660s recently revealed, giving a tiny snapshot of the streets of Restoration London.

Charles's return to England would come in late May, 1660, when he was sure of his welcome, but the signs were on the streets much earlier. In March, an odd event occurred on the Royal Exchange, when a 'kind of painter' appeared in broad daylight with a ladder, which he erected next to the statue of Charles Ist. The writing on the statue was thus: Exit Tyrannus, Regnum Ultimus Anno Libertatis Anglicae Anno Domini 1648, Jan 30. With a pot and brush, the painter 'washed the writing quit out, threw down his pot and brush, and said he should never do him any more service in regard it had the honour to put out rebell's hand wrightinge out of the wall'. The painter then came down, took down his ladder and went away, 'not a word said to him'. Imagine everyone stopping to stare on the busy Royal Exchange, with someone defacing a public monument: quite a thing. Later that month, the Thames watermen were seen wearing their large arm badges bearing the coat of arms of Charles Ist, a united act of defiance. From the 13th of April, members of the aristocracy who had been living abroad were seen on the streets in London. I love the fact that they were recognized, and also knew they would be recognized. On the 8th of May, with Charles not not even in the country, he was 'proclaimed in Westminster', and 'Bow Bells could not be heard for the noise of the people'.

Charles returned to England on the 29th of May, on what became known as Oak Apple Day. The following night, one John Adler puts on such a display of fireworks over London that he is knighted. Aubrey recorded maypoles being erected all over London as a mark of celebration. The largest was in the Strand, near St Mary-in-le-Strand church, where is remained for over a decade as a reminder, before being felled by the high winds of 1672. The theatres re-opened and by November, playwrights could not keep up with demand for new material.

By the following year, London was back into the heady swing of things, and Charles's fun-loving reign was underway. St James's Fair, which had suffered during the Interregnum, was returned to its appointed place in the summer calendar and ran for the full fortnight. The London fairs were boisterous places, with everyone across the classes clustered together, but this particular fair went down in the book as one to remember, with arrests for lewdness and infamy. My absolute favourite are the whores Charles ordered the Lord Chamberlain, who in turn ordered a Robert Nelson Esq., to detain: Tory Rory, Mrs Winter, Jane Chapman, Rebecca Baker, Anne Browne, Elizabeth Wilkinson, Rachel Brinley, Mrs Munday, Alice Wiggins, Nell Yates and Betty Marshall were arrested for 'impudence' and 'discovering their nakedness' to the crowd, including the King and his party when drunk, 'which they often were'. There is no record of the subsequent fate of these ladies, but knowing Charles they were probably let off with a stiff warning, after he'd stopped laughing.

March 12, 2010

Plate Six of Hogarth's Harlot's Progress

(download)

Please click the download link to see a full size image. It'll open in a new window.

March 12, 2010

Plate Five of Hogarth's Harlots Progress

(download)

Please click the download link to see a full size image. It'll open in a new window.

March 12, 2010

Plate Four of Hogarth's Harlot's Progress

(download)

Please click the download link to see a full size image. It'll open in a new window.

March 12, 2010

Plate Three of Hogarth's Harlot's Progress

(download)

Pleas click the download link to see a full size image, and it will open and play in another window.

March 11, 2010

Plate Two of Hogarth's Harlot's Progress

(download)

March 11, 2010

Plate One of Hogarth's Harlot's Progress

(download)

March 8, 2010

Alimony and Acting: The Life of Nosegay Fan

Frances Barton was born around 1737 (although some say as early as 1731) near Vinegar Yard off the Strand, where her father had a shoe stall. Her mother died when she was young and her father did not remarry. Fanny had the good luck to be a very beautiful little girl, and her father and brother (who ran a pub in Stanway Yard later in life) sent her out to sell nosegays. Her cheeky spirit and quick ear soon meant she was singing to the customers and reciting bits and pieces she had heard on the streets of Covent Garden. The actors and actresses thought she was hilarious and used to put her up on a table and get her to sing or act for them and give her a few pence in return. A shrewd girl, she began to learn passages from the famous poets and bring them forth to great amusement, and no doubt a few more pennies.

Fanny then took work with a French milliner in Cockspur Street. She must have had an ability with languages, as she apparently emerged from this employment speaking fluent French. Her stay in Cockspur Street also introduced her to fashion, something that would serve her well for the rest of her life. For a while, she had a friend whose boyfriend was an actor, and spent a lot of time in the theatres.

This period of Fanny's life is hazy. Some scholars have her down as a child prostitute at this stage. I can see why they would draw this conclusion (especially with the later associations with Reynolds), but in the early 1750s Fanny was aged somewhere between 13 and 20. The age of consent at the time was 12. She seems to have continued in employment from the milliner to service as a kitchen maid in the North household, earning money on the side as a 'ballad-singer'. Perhaps she also took money for sex. Who knows? I am in no way condoning teenage prostitution but as far as I can see Frances Barton was acting under no authority but her own and the tendency to brand attractive, assertive women as whores isn't exactly a concept limited to the Georgian period. I would argue for the opposite being true. I would argue that Fanny seems to have abandoned street and theatre working as she entered sexual maturity, for respectable work in a shop and household, in order to avoid becoming a prostitute. There may have been an incident that told her it was time to find more secure work, or maybe she was smart enough to work it out for herself.

By 1755 though, Fanny is on the stage. She is a comic actress, a new kind of entertainer. She dons outlandish outfits, breeches and sometimes fantasy costume. Fanny is a hit. Suddenly earning the heady sum of 30 shillings a week, she invested in education; learning languages, literature and music. Then she married James Abington, trumpeter and music master. Big mistake. They went to Ireland. Dublin only had two theatres at the time, and it appears Mrs Abington was queen of both of them. Mr Abington got jealous, and finally they had to part, but not before Fanny had agreed to give him a pension for the rest of his life, and based upon her success. Oh yes.

Fanny went on to become the mistress of Mr Francis Needham, an MP who furthered her hard-won education and happily showed her off in society. In 1765, they came to England, and Needham died at Bath, with his mistress in attendance. She quickly returned to the stage, where she was even more popular than before.

Once again, there are assertions that Fanny was living as a courtesan. There are no clear attachments extant, but she was soon acting as a trendsetter and arbiter of taste, as a single woman. By 1764, she was posing for Joshua Reynolds. He depicted her as an actress, not a whore, unlike Kitty Fisher and Nelly O'Brien. In 1781, she had a costume allowance from the Covent Garden Theatre for five hundred pounds a year. If Mrs Abington was also selling sex, it was because she wanted to, not because she needed the money.

Fanny took a house in Pall Mall and set about surrounding herself with the thinkers and wits of the day. Horace Walpole, notorious bitch, thought she was great as did Samuel Johnson. She had an ongoing feud/mutual admiration society with David Garrick, who quite rightly regarded her as both a prima donna and businesswoman (he signed his letters to her 'Yours very truly, when you are not unruly'). A mark of her popularity was the sell-out of her benefits. Benefits were the night when one of the actors got most of the takings at the door, and her nights were always 'full to the rails'. James Boswell once upbraided Johnson for braving the crush to attend Fanny's benefit, and Johnson turned on him with, 'When the public cares one thousandth part for you that it does for her, I shall go to your benefit too.'

Frances Abington continued to live in a fashionable and very popular way long after she had given up the stage. She died in her home in Pall Mall in 1815, an old and very successful lady. Brava!

January 17, 2010

The Importance of Foundation Garments: A peep up the skirts of Georgian London

Any girl worth her salt knows underwear is of vital importance. I am not particularly interested in fashion, as anyone who has ever met me will be able to testify, but I am interested in daily life and the observations of costume in this post are based on my knowledge of Georgian London as ordinary working wear has not survived in any great quantity. Beautiful silks and tabbies in patterns too complicated to be easily changed with fashion were packed away and passed down to others and have now made it into museums, but ordinary wools, linens and cottons were cut down for smaller sisters, babies and eventually, rags. If you know more about 18thC fashions than me, please do comment and correct any inaccuracies.

The female inhabitants of London in the 18thC had the top half sorted as far as underwear went. They wore a calf-length shift of fine linen which could be of elbow or 3/4 length on the arms. Over that went stays. Stays were usually made of calico and 'boned' to stop them buckling when one bent down. Some of them are only boned on either side of the laces to prevent tearing (more usually for younger girls, or pregnant women) and serious tight-lacing was more common during the Victorian period, and stays can be tightened or loosened within reason. Constant lacing throughout childhood, even of a modest sort created an enviably defined waist and inch measurements for young women were often in the low twenties. I doubt working women such as shopkeepers and housemaids laced themselves up very tightly, but firmly enough to give support (and they also do marvels for the posture and general shape). Stays are remarkably form-fitting and surprisingly comfortable, without the lumps and bumps created by bras. If you were reasonably well off, a petticoat would have gone over the shift and the stays. If you worked inside, it could be pretty; if you worked outside, it would be shorter and plainer, and so out of the worst of the filth, but washable if it did get soiled. Over the top went the gown. It might be cut away to show the petticoat, or it might not. Or you might wear a masculine style jacket and a skirt. For a long time, women tied a fat cloth sausage, known as a bum-roll just beneath their waists and put the skirt on over it. This made the skirt full without thick layers beneath, and hid the shape of the hips. A maid or a food retailer would then have an apron tied about her waist with the front flap pinned firmly over her chest. Various accessories such as shawls or a gauzy fichu could be used to fill in a bold neckline during the day, or in modest company.

The majority of stockings in London were hand-knitted until the end of the Georgian period. The machines were large, complicated and breakable and in the end only marginally more productive than a good hand-knitter sitting at home, who could produce about one pair a day in wool or silk. Stockings were tied up with garters, usually a silk ribbon or a wool band with a little give in it so that it could be tied tight. I have tried tying stocking both above and below the knee. Above the knee is prettier, but gravity is a nuisance and they usually sag. I'm fairly sure most women would have worn their stockings gartered below the knee, especially those who walked a lot. Men who wore their own hair long instead of a wig (notable exceptions being Frenchmen, who wore their hair cropped fairly short and almost always went without a wig) would use garters, a token from a wife or girlfriend if they had one, to tie their hair back.

We have reached the one garment for which there is an alarming lack of 18thC evidence: knickers. Charles Ist wore pants, both long and short, depending upon the weather, as did Samuel Pepys. Apparently, things were different for the girls. Titillating pictures of the 18thC reveal the coquette raising her skirts to reveal nothing beneath. Many costume historians are certain women wore nothing beneath their shifts. Well, I don't agree. Little girls wore knickers, boys and men wore knickers; why on earth wouldn't women wear knickers? It's not as if they were worried about VPL. Agreed, it's a fine and dandy principle, rendering every lady an available little minx, but commando is not a practical daily option. If you are anything like me and female, there are also a few questions you might have, which I hope I have answered here.

Pretty, long knickers exist from about 1800 onwards, usually without a gusset, although lots of material so that when you were wearing them, they didn't actually look 'crotchless'. It also meant you didn't have to fumble about around your waist for the drawstring ribbons in a dim bog-house. I think these are the most practical possibility for women during the 18th century, although I am also fairly sure that young couples of modest means probably had 'linen' that they both wore, particularly during the cold weather. All linens were boiled with a soap mixture to remove stains and keep them nice and white. All but the poorest people could afford a large enough pan and some soap to boil their linens, which is as effective a way of cleaning them as any other. I take exception to the accusations of poor hygiene in Georgian London and the assumption that we only achieved any notion of personal hygiene with the invention of anti-perspirant and showers. More on laundry, bath-houses and Georgian deodorant next week.

Click here to download:

The_Importance_of_Foundation_G.zip (627 KB)

January 12, 2010

A Molly's Map of Georgian London

Click the Gay London and Lewd London tags to see the stories related to this map.