The More women hadn't slit their dresses. It's just the early/mid-century style.They were made to lace that way. What the picture shows is the lacing without the stomacher or (over) gown. For a pregnant woman at home, it must have been much more comfortable.
Here's an Elizabethan noblewoman (1595) in maternity. (Why would you have your picture painted at this stage!?) http://picasaweb.google.com/Designs121/ElizabethanCostume#5121609088447398002 But it's a different style (a couple decades earlier) than Lady Burghley's kirtle and gown. what confuses me is the embrodered or whatever top part of the kirtle and how it just stops. MaggiRos -- Maggie Secara ~A Compendium of Common Knowledge 1558-1603 ISBN 978-0-9818401-0-9 Available at http://elizabethan.org/compendium/paperback.html or your favorite online bookseller On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 9:23 PM, otsisto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, two women but the More painting is earlier then her painting. The > style > of the dresses are different. > > De > > -----Original Message----- > I beliebe there is a Hans holbein portrait of Thomas Moore?and his > family?mostly women ...and at least one if not two of the wome if I amnot > mistaken , are obviously pregnant and seem to have slit ther gowns p the > fron and then laced it to allow for the growing tummy... > i is 11:30 here so please corret me if im wrong.. > > _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
