Gilded Age to the Edwardian


L

lisagay harrod

Guest
To All,

I'm wondering about historical dates...
When did the Gilded Age begin and end according to the history books? The same with the Edwardian Age. Is the Gilded Age just the American version of the Edwardian Age, and is it generally considered that the Victorian Era died with Queen Vickie in 1902? Did these "Ages" overlap one another? I guess I'm sort of looking for a timeline here.

Thanks & Cheers,
Lisa
 
J

John Meeks

Guest
Lisa,

Damned good question! I bet everyone, truly, has their own view on this one!

Personally I've always thought that "The Gilded Age" started around 1890 and ended in 1914. I always equate it with "La Belle Epoque" - as the French say.

And yes, the Victorian Era did cease with The Queen's death, giving rise to the "Edwardian Era" in 1902/3. Curiously the latter seems to remain so-called right up to 1914 - notwithstanding that it had, truly, become the "Georgian Era" by then.

I guess the new King didn't have quite the same charisma!

Anybody else...?

Regards,

John M
 
May 12, 2005
3,109
1
108
I believe The Gilded Age was a term coined by Mark Twain in his writings, circa 1870s (?) so I always think of it as Victorian. However it probably is, as John has mentioned, the American equivalent of the French "la belle epoch" which encompasses the 1890s through to the beginning of WWI.

The Victorian era would have technically ended with the death of Victoria in 1901, though many historians point to 1897, the year of her Jubilee, as sort of the swan song of the era and the true beginning of the Edwardian era. Similarly the Edwardian years ended technically with Edward VII's death in 1910 but its generally recognized that the period extends to 1914.
 

Tracy Smith

Member
Apr 20, 2012
1,646
1
66
South Carolina USA
As a child, I always put the date of when "modern times" vaguely began as around 1920, which coincided with women's hemlines rising from the ankles/floor for the first time in recorded history.

Even now, as an adult, I'm very curious as to what finally was the impetus for women's skirts to rise from the ankles/floor. Does anyone have any idea whose idea it was or can it not be traced to any one person?
 
May 12, 2005
3,109
1
108
Tracy,

That skirts were floor-length through history till the 1920s is one of those myths that costume folks like me get all bent out of shape over!
happy.gif


Actually as far back as the late 18th century there was a fad for court dresses reaching (in extreme cases) to just below-calf length. Again in the 1820s and 30s, skirts crept up to well over the ankles.

All through Victorian times fashionable skirts swept the ground, though for sports wear the length was modified to the instep or ankle.

It wasn't until 1909-10 with the narrowing of skirts that hems picked up as well. This could be attributed to Poiret or Lucile or Fortuny or any of the other big name designers at this time as they all promoted the style.

Skirts between 1909-14 were basically instep or ankle-length with some slightly shorter hems for dance dresses.

From 1914 to 1919, hemlines were between 2 to 5 inches over the ankle (sometimes shorter).

From 1919 to 1921 there was a fad for mid-calf length hems, the shortest yet seen. Skirts dropped again in 1921 to below calf and remained there until about 1924-25 when they started to rise season by season till in 1926-27 they reached their shortest level of knee-length (flappers went for mid-kneecap; few ever really were above the knees). So you see, even the popular notion that skirts were ultra-short all through the 1920s is not true.

Hemlines descended again in 1929 and remained long through the mid-30s.

Well, there's you a History of Hemlines!

I would add that the modern idea of a short skirt (knee length or above) only came about in around 1925. But it was not a sudden change from long to short. It was a progressive cycle.

Randy
 
J

John Meeks

Guest
Hi Folks!

Randy...

You seem to have ignored the most important period of "the History of Hemlines"!

As a young man, then living in England in the late 'sixties when the miniskirt reigned supreme, I remember being very polite and allowing young ladies to board 'double-decker' 'buses ahead of me. Naturally, I had to follow them up the stairs...!

Those were the days....!

Anyway....and more seriously...

If you look at the economic history of the 20th century, you can discern a connection between affluence and 'skirt length'. When people have more money to spend - they can afford more fabric, wholesale or retail!

Just take a look at fashions prior to, and after 1940.

Even guys - anybody have 'cuffs' ('turnups') on their pants these days?

Regards,

John M
 

Kris Muhvic

Member
Sep 26, 2008
295
0
46
Hello all-

Well, to put another perspective on this "gilded/hemline" theme; there is a theory that hemlines shorten during more progressive or liberal times. As Randy has pointed out, in the 1820's and 30's it was a more accepting, freer time. The Victorian era gets the reputation as a prudish time, which sets the modern mind thinking that is how it always was throughout history. Even that concept is misleading: sure, women were expected to be parlour ornaments lets say, 1840 on, but that was because they could be. With the industrial revolution kicking in, there was more people making more money than ever before (yes, at the expence of the rising "underclass", but that's another story). The wife, with servants, and little else to do, was a social status, not unlike the "corporate wives" of today. And if costume could promote this ideal...so much the better. By the time of Gilded/Edwardian era, social activity became a new fashion: women were working more outside the home (bicycles allowed more freedom in movement), and society ladies were now involved in any number of reform or advocacy organizations. And dress reflected this un-ornamental living. Of course with WWI, both men and women had to get, well, "down and dirty" in social responcibilities. The post-war years, getting to Tracy's thoughts, was an extention of the tearing down/rebuilding of what we would call the modern era. Which one can understand as coinsididing with practical living- who can imagine hoop-skirts ever being common again?!

Well, enough of my epoch!
Take care-
Kris
 

Dave Gittins

Member
Apr 11, 2001
4,986
221
193
A small correction from an old cyclist. In Edwardian times the bicycle was a toy for the wealthy. Women who could afford them used them for recreation but working women could not afford them. Quite a few cycling advertisements of the time include women but they are always well-dressed women on a pleasure excursion.

On page 38 of The Birth of the Titanic there's a picture of an Edwardian woman with her bike and her long skirt. Can anybody spot something very unusual about the bike?

In the same book, it's noticeable that the working women have skirts that clear the ground quite well.
 

Inger Sheil

Member
Dec 3, 2000
5,342
34
208
Dave, I would have thought that bicycles were a practical means of transport for some of the Edwardian middle class rather than just a 'toy for the wealthy'? James Moody, for example, used one to get around Southampton and nearby townships. Agreed that working women couldn't afford them, but they did have their practical applications and were used as such. In Conan Doyle's story, 'The Adventure of the Solitary Cyclist', the female character is forced by circumstances to earn a living as a music teacher. She used her bicycle as a means of transportation, getting her to and from her train station.

Typical Sherlock Holmes moment:

With a resigned air and a somewhat weary smile, Holmes begged the beautiful intruder to take a seat. and to inform us what it was that was troubling her.

"At least it cannot be your health," said he, as his keen eyes darted over her: "so ardent a bicyclist must be full of energy."

She glanced down in surprise at her own feet, and I observed the slight roughening of the side of the sole caused by the friction of the edge of the pedal.

"Yes, I bicycle a good deal, Mr. Holmes. and that has something to do with my visit to you to-day."

My friend took the lady's ungloved hand, and examined it with as close an attention and as little sentiment as a scientist would show to a specimen.

"You willl cxcuse me. I am sure. It is my business," said he, as he dropped it. "I nearly fell into the error of supposing that you were typewriting. Of course, it is obvious that it is music.

You observe the spatulate finger-ends, Watson, which is common to both professions? There is a spirituality about the face, however" -- she gently turned it towards the light -- "which the
typewriter does not generate. This lady is a musician."


My favourite historic cyclist is indubitably Michael Collins, who in the late teens/very early 20s used to cycle around Dublin, dressed as a businessman, conducting the work of the Irish War of Independence. Never mind that there was a hefty price on his head - he joked his way through military checkpoints, and there was not a soul who cared - or dared - to pointed out that probably the most wanted man in the British Empire moved freely in their midst, undisguised. There's a great photo of him with the bicycle.
 

Kris Muhvic

Member
Sep 26, 2008
295
0
46
I imagine I should have clarified a little better what I meant by "working women". Of course, women in farming, factory, servant etc. capacities could not afford much of anything, let alone cycles. I was speaking of what was considered the "New Woman" of this said time frame. Stenographers, governessess, secretaries- yes Inger, also music teachers! were in this odd catagory of middle class working (outside the home) women. I think of Hazel in "Upstairs Downstairs". Sure, fiction, but that character represented a role that was transpiring on both sides of the Atlantic.

Back to bikes... I believe that the reason women's bicycles have a lowered cross-bar was originally to accomodate the skirts, although there was a fad in the 1890's for a bloomer style cycling outfit. Never saw it again after 1902 or so; I guess the ammount of a ladies' woolen-stockinged leg was too much for the streets!

Take care-
Kris
 
Apr 11, 2001
4,565
4
168
There's a theory that hemlines rose and fell in relationship to prosperity- and there can be an argument made for that. I have read in various sources that increased athleticism and women travelling more in the workplace and in service work during WWI as nurses and other war-related occupations necessitated more convenient skirts. WWII certainly brought trousers for Rosie the Riveter and her sisters.
 

Kyrila Scully

Member
Apr 15, 2001
2,079
6
168
South Florida
I have also read in fashion history books of yesteryear that fashions changed due to war. In peace time, more material is used in women's wear. In wartime, less is used so that the material could be used for military purposes,(which would sort of explain shorter hemlines) although this doesn't really hold up when you look at time lines. For instance, WWI had ended when the shorter skirts of the 20's came into vogue. The only time I can really see justification for that theory is the coincidence of the miniskirt with the height of the Viet Nam conflict, and that the midi came out in the 70's after it ended. Any other thoughts?

Kyrila
 

Kris Muhvic

Member
Sep 26, 2008
295
0
46
I do think a psychological effect on, or reaction to transitional times plays a large role in lifestyle in general, dress in particular. When WWI broke out, skirts flared out; any semblence of the more masculine lines (the one trouser leg-esque hobble) was defeated by a much more feminine, almost 1830's silhoette. This was a result of a more passive role women were expected to take during the time of male "Over There!" bravery. Of course, the realities of the war, and it's unprecendented brutalities was cause for a more practical and involved outlook, including dress. After the war, there was a slight attempt to pre-war styles, however a liberating effect was put in place and it's hold was strong. Colorful dress shirts for men were quite popular in the 1920's, although we may not be able to tell judging from black and white photos. I think that was a reaction to the dingy browns and greens soldiers were forced to wear. Women, after working in munition factories etc., were probably not too keen on corsetry and sweeping hemlines.

Now, the pendulum can swing the other way: after WWII, Dior's "New Look" (very 1915) brought feminity back after a long sleep within a more austere time. The 60's mini was often considered a throwback to the rambunchous 20's, the 70's had a 30's feel, the 80's had a 40's/50's style, the 90's had a double retro (30's/70's!), and now...well, you get the idea.

The thing that I think of, getting back to the original question is this: the "labels" we give to times, or eras...whatever- that is usually done in retrospect. Any decade I mentioned before, I don't believe anyone living day-to-day within that time really thought of "THE ERA" in which they were moving about. Now I always hear of the boom years of the 90's, well- evidently that passed me by. But years from now kids might ask me if I was some dot-com millionare who lost his fortune! It would be like asking my Grandparents if they lived like "Great Gatsby"; and then getting laughed at in my face! It's this funny, difficult, confusing thing about history- the more we try to box it up all tidy, the more we find ourselves stumbling about!

Oh well...I guess I'll just stumble on anyway!

Take care-
Kris
 
J

John Meeks

Guest
Kris...

I know exactly what you mean, and what you're getting at - with one qualification...

When I was a younger guy, I can assure you that there was something special about..that we were conscious of living in...the 'sixties!

...I guess you had to be there...!

Peace!...man!

John M
 

Tracy Smith

Member
Apr 20, 2012
1,646
1
66
South Carolina USA
Well, I guess the point I was making in my original hemlines post, is that it was some time after the First World War when skirts shorter than ankle/floor length were worn by the vast majority of women, for the first time in recorded history.

I know that wars, economic realities, etc, have had an effect on hemlines in the 20th century, but such conditions apparently did not affect women's hemlines until the 20th century. I'm wondering what the great catalyst was in the 20th century that finally did in the long dress/skirt essentially for good?

And I'm wondering how many women continued to wear floor/ankle length dresses even after they were passe, considering that they'd gone their entire lives never showing so much as an ankle? I've seen photos of the British Queen Mary of Teck wearing floor length dresses even in the 1930s.

We must remember that even calf length dresses were probably considering very daring when they first came out.

But once skirts came up off the floor for good, it wasn't all that long before women wore pants. If I'm not mistaken wasn't Katherine Hepburn one of the first women to wear pants in public in the 1930s? And I've got a picture of Amelia Earhart and other female fliers wearing pants in the 1920s. Of course, the first large scale wearing of pants by women was in the 1940s, when the women moved into war work.

Speaking of the 60s, it was in my sixth grade year, 1969-1970, that the rule that girls must wear dresses or skirts to school was finally lifted.
 

Kyrila Scully

Member
Apr 15, 2001
2,079
6
168
South Florida
Tracy, even in the sixties, I remember women in the backhills of Kentucky, including my grandmother, who still dressed like pioneer women with the long skirts and blouses, sunbonnets and ankle length aprons. I even have a photograph of her with my grandfather, who also appeared to be wearing pioneer clothes. That's just how they dressed. My mother's aunt was finally "modernized" in the 70's and wore up-to-date ladies' polyester slacks and tops. Maybe that's why I feel so comfortable in the 19th century.

Kyrila
 

Kris Muhvic

Member
Sep 26, 2008
295
0
46
Hello!

Tracy- I can't really say what the pivotal reason as to why womens leg's became "acceptable"...possi bly the influence of the autobobile? There is another theory regarding shifting errogenous zones...hm-hm; busts, arms, bottoms, necks, backs, and even legs have gotten focused on in fashion. By that I do not mean simply exposed (think of the bustles of the 1870/80's). In the 30's hemlines dropped, but backs were exposed- and the bias cut nature showed, or implied the shape of the...posterior! (really for the first time).

Kyrila and John-

Not to start an issue, but, being born in '69, I sometimes wonder (I'm over 30 now, so you don't have to trust me;)), about this 60's nostalgia. Sure, an upheaval of just about everything, seemingly very exciting. But I can not believe it was all "Peace-Love-we're changing the world" sort of thing. A little story: when I was born, slap-cry-"it's a boy!"...my Mother's first thought was "I hope he doesn't go to Nam!". Yeah, ridiculous, but watching the body-count on TV every night, I can understand her fear. And nobody knew when it was going to end, least of all the kids (I can say "kids" now!) that were there...they didn't care about a concert in the mud, they were trying to stay alive. I guess what I'm getting at is there is another, more painful side; not the "it was so cool" perspective that I always see portrayed. Hmmm...I guess, in way, John answered my question, being conscious of the time. One couldn't help but be so.

See what I mean about history?!
Ugh! I better stop...

Take care-
Kris
 

Dave Hudson

Member
Apr 15, 2011
503
0
46
Tracy,

"I'm wondering what the great catalyst was in the 20th century that finally did in the long dress/skirt essentially for good?"

I know I'm simplifying this more than I should, but I would say the primary reason would be the Industrial Revolution. This was one of the primary reasons for both the great wealth that led to the Gilded Age as well as for the technology that would eventually kill that entire way of life. In short, technology led to a more modern way of thinking. This new way of life applied to everything; science, transportation, politics, and more importantly, fashion and society. Everyone wanted to be as modern as possible and that meant that old styles had to go. This was the age of progress and reform, not tradition and conventionalism. It was only a matter of time until prosperous women found ways to use this new philosophy to gain social status (be it by philanthropy, electrically lit ballrooms, or ankle-length hemlines).

Ironically, it was this same idea of reform that ended up balancing the classes and ending the Gilded Age. Thus, by the 20's, previously lower class women could now afford these new fashions. This new (and very LARGE) market forced fashion companies adapt. Because the new middle class didn't have as much refinement and pedigree, they didn't restrict themselves to more formal and elegant styles. The fashion industry realized this and thus, corsets vanished, hemlines jumped, and the new woman was born.

"And I'm wondering how many women continued to wear floor/ankle length dresses even after they were passe, considering that they'd gone their entire lives never showing so much as an ankle?"

For the women who were born of more refined and affluent families, elegance and class were still the prevailing motives when picking out clothes. To them, the new woman was the new commoner. Short hemlines did not apply to them.

At least this is my take on the whole thing.

happy.gif


David
 
L

lisagay harrod

Guest
I got an answer to my querie and then some!

Thanks to all...

Randy, I had forgotten that Mark Twain coined the term "Guilded Age", an important reminder...I'm a lover of Twain. Did you catch the Ken Burns piece on PBS? It was wonderful.

Cheers,
Lisa Harrod
 

Similar threads