#1820 to 1920

[chic-a-gigot]

19th century fashion plates, designs, etc.

(with late 18th and early 20th century plates)

Tagged by decade:

1790s | 1800s | 1810s | 1820s | 1830s | 1840s | 1850s | 1860s | 1870s | 1880s | 1890s | 1900s | 1910s | 1920s | 1930s | 1940s

Check out today’s plates.

Or check out the art, design, and fashion posts I reblog.

[adamsvanrhijn]

my six daughters for whom i have winter clothes now live on my desk in chronological order. tis the season

[gothiclit]

guy who is catastrophically failing maths voice: what if i wrote an essay comparing shelley's the masque of anarchy and milev's september

[97-liners]

I've been thoroughly enjoying your kpop takes recently 🤣 You seem very sane 👌👌

I just thought I'd throw in my thoughts since album collecting was brought up 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

(Please feel free to roast me as you see fit 🙏)

I love collecting albums but I don't really get the pre-ordering thing. I've pre-ordered a handful of albums before but people who pre-order theirs favs every single time? Why? You don't even know what it sounds like or looks like??

I collect albums for many different reasons. Of course if I really like the album musically I will buy it but I'm also really into photography and fashion and makeup ect and so if I feel mid on the album musically but I really like it visually I'll still buy it. I mean the album is 99% a picture book so like it seems justified to want to buy it based on the visuals. That being said I won't buy an album full stop if I hate it musically no matter how pretty. But if I'm just out and about in a place that sells albums I'll buy one as a silly $20 purchase every once in awhile too yk?

At the end of the day I think collecting can be as serious or unserious of a thing as you want as long as it's adding something positive to your life yk?

Seeing the different concepts and designs/layouts for albums is something I really enjoy from an artistic standpoint

Are my albums collecting habits/views too much? How much grass do I need to touch🤪🤪🤪

I also collect photocards but I would never buy multiples of an album to try to get the one I want. I just find the pc I want online and buy it 🙈

i'm not the ultimate arbiter of the line between normal behavior and insane wasteful consumerism, but i think you're very normal?!?

i love collectors. i think everybody needs a hobby, and i think there's a lot of merit to collecting physical media. kpop albums albums are a wealth of art and pop culture. and collecting is fun! i mean, i have a bunch of kpop albums myself, and one of my biggest regrets is not having any money in high school and not being able to buy copies of my favorite second gen kpop albums. one of these days i am going to buy the misconceptions for us and just spend a whole afternoon poring over the pages and listening to the albums over and over again!! i love love love my wayv albums, i have every single one and i really do frequently take them out and flip through the pages. the wayv albums, especially totm, are beautifully designed!!!

like, you're totally fine. i respect and love album collectors. but in the end, there's a huge difference between collecting albums, and blindly buying 10+ copies of the same album just to boost numbers for some dudes you think are hot.

[bixels]

Luna full-body reference, with Celestia for comparison.

And original designs for comparison and design notes under the cut:

Tulli worked with me a bit more on Luna. We decided to have her in a regency era dress, which matches the period of time that she was banished during (the 1820s); in stark contrast is Celestia's more modern art deco dress from the 1920s. Also in contrasts: Celestia is structured and rigid with bold lines while Luna is flowing and organic with flowers and rounded laces. Regency dresses are very youthful-looking without a lot of frills and stiff parts, while still remaining very regal and elegant. Her dark fabrics have, Epiphyllum oxypetalums, or "Princesses of the Night," embroidered on them. Her color palette was given a more cool tone to match her original design's palette.

Within the story of the AU, after returning to Canterlot, Luna cuts her hair (the source of a witch's power) short to temper herself. She wears a blue veil meant to look like her show version's hair to cover Nightmare Moon's face, which is always silhouetted in the back of her hair. The blotch on her left breast is meant to reference her cutie mark. Probably a scar from her banishment.

[marzipanandminutiae]

I would like to humbly ask for your rant about ballgownification

MANY people asked and I shall deliver!

What is Ballgownification? Simply put, it's the idea that people nowadays will believe that ANY dress from before the the 1920s is a ball gown.

Things called "ball gowns" on the internet (the Met is a repeat offender, as you will see):

(1820s, Met Museum. There's debate about whether the notion of Short Sleeves = Only Formal existed back then, but long sleeves have been suitable for day or evening for ages. And if short sleeves weren't exclusively formal back then, there's no reason to assume sheer sleeves were either.)

(1880s, Met Museum. The 3/4 sleeves and low neckline suggest formal or semi-formal, but there is absolutely nothing to suggest that this is an Evening Only Dress)

(C. 1835, Met Museum. This one has NO excuses- those are long, opaque sleeves! Suitable for day OR evening!)

(c. 1900-1905, Museum of Fine Arts Boston. Like...WHY would you assume this is exclusively a ball gown and therefore worthy of the name?)

I've also seen references to "18th century ball gowns"- not a thing; they just had varying degrees of dress formality, not actual dedicated Ball GownsTM.

My theory for why all this happens is that we only wear things that look like their clothing- even casual clothing! -for formal events nowadays. So we assume it ALL must be formal, regardless of actual context. ...also the term "ball gown" sounds terribly Romantic, so we want everything to be that.

[haggishlyhagging]

The single most impressive fact about the attempt by American women to obtain the right to vote is how long it took. From its earliest beginnings in the public speaking of Fanny Wright in the 1820s and the Grimké sisters in the 1830s, through the complex history of equal rights suffrage associations led by such woman's-rights pioneers as Lucy Stone, Susan Anthony, and Elizabeth Stanton, it was indeed a "century of struggle" (Flexner 1959) before the suffrage amendment to the Constitution was ratified and women could first participate in a national election. Of the first generation pioneers, only Antoinette Brown Blackwell lived to cast her ballot in that first election in 1920.

-Alice S. Rossi, The Feminist Papers: From Adams to de Beauvoir

[chic-a-gigot]

19th (and early 20th) century fashion plates, designs, etc.

Tagged by decade:

1800s | 1810s | 1820s | 1830s | 1840s | 1850s | 1860s | 1870s | 1880s | 1890s | 1900s | 1910s | 1920s | 1930s

Check out today’s plates.

[vincentbriggs]

Hi! I’ve been sewing historical gowns for about 15 years. My parents ended up getting really into historical dancing after we went to a few events together. Our next event is 1810s-1820s, an era which I’m not that familiar with. Previously, we’ve been able to find decent garments for my dad while I make the dresses for me and my mom. I’d like to make something for my dad for this event, especially as there were some problems with the jacket he found. I’m a little uncertain about the canvas-usually I can just throw in a quick close-fitting coutil or twill interlining and some steel and call it a day. Do you have any advice about the structural components? Also, do you have any advice about fitting someone quite short (5 feet 6 inches) with a waist 2 inches larger than his chest? I’m not as familiar with that alteration, particularly in a jacket, and I’d really like this to be nice and make him feel good. Photos of us in 1860s/1920s included if it helps. Thanks for all the great posts!

Hello! I am definitely the wrong person to ask about this, since I have done zero 1810's-20's things. The only early 19th century tailoring I've done is that 1830's patchwork dressing gown, which I'm sure I didn't put together in the "correct" way, since I'm more comfortable with 18th century construction. And I also had to do a lot of things weirdly because the patchwork was so bulky and bumpy.

I am pretty familiar with the 1780's and 90's, but there was such a huge shift in tailoring around the turn of the century that I don't think that would help much at all with Regency/Romantic era stuff.

There are some patterns in The Cut of Men's Clothes, but that book doesn't have much of anything on the actual construction. For an introduction to canvas & all those other tailoring supplies I highly recommend this video.

I'm also not very experienced in fitting clothing on other people, despite being an alterations tailor. It's been years since I've drafted or sewn anything for someone else, and at work I just sew what the salesmen have pinned and marked.

@rowzien makes a lot of 1820's stuff though, so perhaps he can suggest some resources!

[batmanshole]

2019: haha there were plague outbreaks in 1720, 1820 and 1920. haha and it's the year of the rat too! isn't that funny? well i guess we don't have 2020 vision

2024: i have been irreversibly changed as a person

[magnetothemagnificent]

I think there should be a festival in the same vein as a Renfaire except every year it's a different time period. One year it's 1920s, another year it's Paleolithic, another year it's 1820s, another year it's 0CE, etc etc. This gives historical costumers whose niche isn't as well represented or popular to have a chance to show off their outfits *and* gives people a chance to learn about the diversity of these time periods by showcasing what different people were wearing in different parts of the world. For pre-Columbian eras, the food booths could be divided into Old World and New World so that guests could really get an idea of what food ingredients were actually available in different parts of the world before the Columbian Exchange. The festival also wouldn't focus just on Europe and would have different sections for different regions, because hey, during the European Renaissance other countries existed too.

[txnarisims]

Timeless Thai Lookbook  

Note :  *  (In game items)

General :  Hair 1* | Hair 2 | Hair 3,6 (Vega hair) |                    Hair4  | Hair 5 (WINGS_HAIR_ER0408)

🌺 Look #1 (1820s)  :  Top  /  Female sarong  /  Shoes*  /  Belt and Sangwan 🌺Look #2 (1900s)   :  Top (VV_JacketIII) /  Pants  / Necklace (Dimitrescu Pearl necklace)  /      Earring  / Shoes 

🌺Look #3 (Northern Thai 1900s)        :  Top(VV_ShirtwaistI)  / Long skirt (bottom)  / Necklace(Audrey collar) / Earring      / Sangwan (BODY-ACC-RING-RIGHT)  / Shoes* / Hair accessories

🌺 Look #4 (1920s)   :   Blouse(Olivia brocade)  / Long skirt (bottom)  / Earring (Alice earring)       Necklace (Choker_Volindur_F)  /  Headband [1] (Hat) [2] (Bracelet option) /       Bracelet  / Shoes* (Cottage Living EP)

🌺 Look #5 (1940s)   :   Top (Tie Ribbon Blouse) / Bottom (Pei Skirt) / Hat (BigHeatBeret)        / Shoes (lissa shoes)

🌺 Look #6 (Northern Thai Wedding outfit)   :    Blouse (Magnolia top) / Long skirt (belt with bottom) / Earring*     /  Sangwan (Nose ring option)   / Hair accessories       /  Breast cloth (Sabai | สไบ)   / Shoes*

In Siam late1860s -1910s (aka called Thailand), The royal court inspired of European fashion and mixed Victorian blouse fit to traditional pants at that time. So I found some of google photos searching keyword “ Queen RAMA V ” they gave me an idea to choose Pose and Umbrella for women character in Thai renaissance period.

✨ Thanks to all gorgeous cc creators  ✨  @serenity-cc  @sentate @rustys-cc  @gilded-ghosts @javitrulovesims  @marsmerizing-sims @ommosims @glitterberrysims @pralinesims @bedisfull @zurkdesign @arethabee​ and others are not currently in tumblr.

[ironwoman359]

i saw your tag about how in 500 years we WON'T be calling britney spears' "toxic" classical music, and i am willing and able to hear this rant if you so wish to expand upon it :3c

You know what, it's been over six months, so sure, why not, let's pick today to have this rant/lesson!

To establish my credentials for those unfamiliar Hi my name's Taylor I was a music teacher up until last year when the crushing realities of the American Education SystemTM led me to quit classroom work and become a library clerk instead. But said music teaching means that I have 4+ years of professional classical training in performance and education, and while I'm by no means a historian, I know my way around the history of (european) music.

So, now that you know that I'm not just some rando, but a musical rando, let me tell you why we won't be calling Britney Spears or [insert modern musician(s) that'd be especially humorous to today's audience to call classical] "classical music."

The simple answer is that "Old music =/= Classical music," which is usually the joke being made when you see this joke in the first place.

As funny as this joke can be when executed well (this is one of my favorite versions of said joke, especially since this is a future world where there's very little accurate surviving info about the culture from the 21st century), there is VERY little likely of this actually being how music from today is referred to in the future, because, again, music being OLD does not automatically make music CLASSICAL.

If you'd indulge me a moment, have a look at these three pieces from the early 1900s, which is now over 100 years ago. That's pretty old! You don't have to listen to the whole of all of them if you don't want to, but give each around 30 seconds or so of listening.

All three pieces are over 100 years old, but would you call "In the Shade of the Old Apple Tree" classical? Or "The Entertainer?" Most likely not. You'd probably call these songs "old timey" and you may even be savvy enough to call "The Entertainer" by it's actual genre name, ragtime. But if either of these songs came on the radio, you wouldn't really call them classical, would you? They're just old.

Whereas Mahler's Symphony No. 5, now that sounds like classical music to you, doesn't it? It's got trumpets, violins, a conductor, it's being played by a philharmonic! That's a classical musicy word!

The short answer of why we in the real, nonfictional world won't be calling Britney Spears's "Toxic" classical music in 100 years is it simply doesn't sound like classical music.

.....and the long answer is that Mahler's Symphony No. 5 isn't actually classical either.

See, music, just like everything in culture from dress to art to architecture changed with the times, and therefore 'classical music' is technically (although not colloquially) only one of about four to five musical periods/styles you're likely to hear on one of those "classical music tunes to study to" playlists.

Our dear friend Mahler up there was not a classical composer, he was a composer of the late romantic era.

So now, because I have you hostage in my post (just kidding please don't scroll away I had a lot of fun writing this but it took me nearly 3 hours) I'm going to show you the difference between Classical music and the other musical eras.

These are the movements we'll be dealing with, along with the general dates that define them (remembering of course that history is complicated and the Baroque Period didn't magically begin on January 1st, 1600, or end the moment Bach died) :

The Baroque Period (1600-1750)

The Classical Period (1750-1820)

The Romantic Period (1820-1910)

The Impressionist Movement (1890-1920)

You'll notice that as time goes on, the periods themselves grow shorter, and there starts to become some overlap in the late 19th to early 20th century. The world was moving faster, changing faster, and music and art began changing faster as well. Around the beginning of the 20th century music historians quit assigning One Major style to an entire era of history and just started studying those movements themselves, especially since around the 20th century we were getting much more experimentation and unique ideas being explored in the mainstream.

Even the end of the classical to the beginning of the romantic period can get kind of fuzzy, with Beethoven, arguably one of the most famous classical (and yes he was actually classical) composers in history toeing the line between classical and romantic in his later years. The final movement of his 9th symphony, known as Ode to Joy, far more resembles a romantic work than a classical one.

But, I'm getting ahead of myself.

To oversimplify somewhat, here are the main characteristics of said movements:

The Baroque Period (1600-1750)

Music was very technical and heavily ornamented. This coincided with a very "fancy" style of dress and decoration (the rococo style became popular towards the latter half of this period). The orchestras were far smaller than we are used to seeing in concert halls today, and many instruments we consider essential would not have been present, such as the french horn, a substantial percussion section, or even the piano*. Notable composers include Vivaldi (of the Four Seasons fame), Handel (of the Messiah fame) and Bach:

*the piano as we know it today, initially called the pianoforte due to its ability to play both softly (piano) and loudly (forte) in contrast to the harpsichord, which could only play at one dynamic level, was actually invented around 1700, but didn't initially gain popularity until much later. This Bach Concerto would have traditionally been played on a harpsichord rather than a piano, but the piano really does have such a far greater expressive ability that unless a group is going for Historical Accuracy, you'll usually see a piano used in performances of baroque work today.

The Classical Period (1750-1820)

In the classical period, music became more "ordered," not just metaphorically but literally. The music was carefully structured, phrases balanced evenly in a sort of call and response manner. Think of twinkle twinkle little star's extremely balanced phrasing, itself a tune that Mozart took and applied 12 classical variations to, cementing it in popularity. And speaking of twinkle twinkle, memorable melody became more important to the composition than ornamentation, and many of our most universally known melodies in the west come from this period. The orchestra also grew bigger, adding more players of all kinds as now we didn't have to worry about overpowering the single-volume harpsichord, and additional instruments like more brass and woodwinds were added. Notable composers include Haydn (of The Surprise Symphony fame) Beethoven (of, well, Fame), and Mozart:

Pay attention to the size of the orchestra here, then go back to the Bach concerto. Notice how in that very typical Baroque setting, the orchestra sits at maybe 20 people, and that here in a Classical setting, there's nearly two times that!

The Romantic Period (1820-1910)

In the romantic period, it was all about BIG FEELINGS, MAN. It was about the DRAMA. Orchestras got even bigger than before, the music focused less on balance and became more dramatic, and there was a big focus on emotions, individualism, and nationalism. Discerning listeners will notice a lot of similarities between romantic symphonies and modern film scores; John Williams in particular is very clearly influenced by this era, any time I'd play the famous Ride of the Valkyries by Wagner in a class, the kids would remark that it sounds like it should be in Star Wars. A lot of romantic composers were German, including Beethoven, if you want to call his later works romantic (which I and many others argue you can, again, compare Ode to Joy to one of his earlier works and you can hear and see the difference), but you also have the Hungarian Liszt (of the Hungarian Rhapsodies fame), the Russian Tchaikovsky (of the Nutcracker and 1812 Overture fame), and the Czech Dvořák:

See how this orchestra is even bigger still? Modern orchestras tend to vary in size depending on what pieces they are playing, but the standard is much closer to this large, romantic size, and it's far less typical to see a small, intimate Baroque setting unless specifically attending a Baroque focused concert. Also I know I embedded Dvořák because Symphony From a New World slaps but please also listen to Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody No.2 it's one of my all time favorite pieces and NOT just because of the Tom and Jerry cartoon, alright? Alright.

The Impressionist Movement (1890-1920)

A bit after it began but definitely still during the romantic period, a counter movement began in France that turned away from the emotional excess of romanticism and focused less on standard chord progression and explored more unconventional scales. This music was less worried about how it 'should' sound and was more concerned with evoking a certain emotion or image, giving you an "impression" of an idea. Debussy is by far the most well known name in this movement, even though he personally hated the term 'impressionism,' lol.

Notice the way the periods build on each other naturally, literally, physically builds on the orchestras that came before, evolving in style and structure until you get to the late 19th and early 20th century when things were built up so big that a response to that excess started to develop, first in the impressionist movement, and then into 20th century music in general, which got much more experimental and, as we say, "weird." (frickin 12 tone scales, man)* *i do not actually dislike the sound of 12 tone, it's interesting and unique, but it is HELL to analyze in music theory, which is unfortunately when a lot of us classical musicians are first introduced to it, therefore tarnishing our relationship to the genre as we cannot separate it from our own undergrad anguish

Even if you're not a super active listener and you have a harder time discerning the difference between, say, late baroque and early classical, you cannot deny that the first piece I've linked by Bach and the last piece I've linked by Debussy sound completely different. They're both orchestral pieces (I intentionally chose all orchestral pieces as my examples here, getting into solo works, opera, and chamber ensembles would take too long), but other than that, they couldn't be more different.

Wait, so what are we talking about again?

Classical Music is first a period of music, a specific artistic movement with music typically written in Europe between 1750 and 1820 with a specific sound that is distinct from these other styles I've outlined here.

And Classical Music is second a genre. Because while academically and historically Baroque music is not classical, and Romantic music is not classical...colloquially it is. They sound similar enough that it makes sense to put them on the same playlists, the same radio stations, the same 'beats to study to' youtube compilation videos. While individuals may have favorites and preferences, it's not far fetched to say that if you like listening to one of these styles, you'll at least like one of the others.

But whether you're being broad and referring to our modern idea of the classical genre, or you're being pedantic like me and referring to a specific period of musical history (or modern compositions emulating that style, because yeah, modern compositions of all of theses styles do exist), I think we can all agree that, as much as it slaps, "Toxic" by Britney Spears is not classical music, and 500 years is unlikely to change our perspective of that.

A Traditional Ballad though?

Yeah, I can see us calling it that in 5 billion years.

(the full version of this scene is age restricted for some reason, but you can watch it here)

Anyway, thanks for reading y'all, have a good one!

[specialagentartemis]

Public Domain Black History Books

For the day Frederick Douglass celebrated as his birthday (February 14, Douglass Day, and the reason February is Black History Month), here's a selection of historical books by Black authors covering various aspects of Black history (mostly in the US) that you can download For Free, Legally And Easily!

Slave Narratives

This comprised a hugely influential genre of Black writing throughout the 1800s - memoirs of people born (or kidnapped) into slavery, their experiences, and their escapes. These were often published to fuel the abolitionist movement against slavery in the 1820s-1860s and are graphic and uncompromising about the horrors of slavery, the redemptive power of literacy, and the importance of abolitionist support.

Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass - 1845 - one of the most iconic autobiographies of the 1800s, covering his early life when he was enslaved in Maryland, and his escape to Massachusetts where he became a leading figure in the abolition movement.

Running a Thousand Miles for Freedom by William and Ellen Craft - 1860 - the memoir of a married couple's escape from slavery in Georgia, to Philadelphia and eventually to England. Ellen Craft was half-white, the child of her enslaver, but she could pass as white, and she posed as her husband William's owner to get them both out of the slave states. Harrowing, tense, and eminently readable - I honestly think Part 1 should be assigned reading in every American high school in the antebellum unit.

Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl by Harriet Jacobs writing under the name Linda Brent - 1861 - writing specifically to reach white women and arguing for the need for sisterhood and solidarity between white and Black women, Jacobs writes of her childhood in slavery and how terrible it was for women and mothers even under supposedly "nice" masters including supposedly "nice" white women.

Twelve Years a Slave by Solomon Northup - 1853 - Born a free Black man in New York, Northup was kidnapped into slavery as an adult and sold south to Louisiana. This memoir of the brutality he endured was the basis of the 2013 Oscar-winning movie.

Early 1900s Black Life and Philosophy

Slavery is of course not the only aspect of Black history, and writers in the late 1800s and early 1900s had their own concerns, experiences, and perspectives on what it meant to be Black.

Up From Slavery by Booker T. Washington - 1901 - an autobiography of one of the most prominent African-American leaders and educators in the late 1800s/early 1900s, about his experiences both learning and teaching, and the power and importance of equal education. Race relations in the Reconstruction era Southern US are a major concern, and his hope that education and equal dignity could lead to mutual respect has... a long way to go still.

The Souls of Black Folk by W.E.B. Du Bois - 1903 - an iconic work of sociology and advocacy about the African-American experience as a people, class, and community. We read selections from this in Anthropology Theory but I think it should be more widely read than just assigned in college classes.

Darkwater: Voices from Within the Veil by W.E.B. Du Bois - 1920 - collected essays and poems on race, religion, gender, politics, and society.

A Negro Explorer at the North Pole by Matthew Henson - 1908 - Black history doesn't have to be about racism. Matthew Henson was a sailor and explorer and was the longtime companion and expedition partner of Robert Peary. This is his adventure-memoir of the expedition that reached the North Pole. (Though his descriptions of the Indigenous Greenlandic Inuit people are... really paternalistic in uncomfortable ways even when he's trying to be supportive.)

Poetry

Standard Ebooks also compiles poetry collections, and here are some by Black authors.

Langston Hughes - 1920s - probably the most famous poet of the Harlem Renaissance.

James Weldon Johnson - early 1900s through 1920s - tends to be in a more traditionalist style than Hughes, and he preferred the term for the 1920s proliferation of African-American art "the flowering of Negro literature."

Sarah Louisa Forten Purvis - 1830s - a Black abolitionist poet, this is more of a chapbook of her work that was published in newspapers than a full book collection. There are very common early-1800s poetry themes of love, family, religion, and nostalgia, but overwhelmingly her topic was abolition and anti-slavery, appealing to a shared womanhood.

Science Fiction

This is Black history to me - Samuel Delany's first published novel, The Jewels of Aptor, a sci-fi adventure from the early 60s that encapsulates a lot of early 60s thoughts and anxieties. New agey religion, forgotten technology mistaken for magic, psychic powers, nuclear war, post-nuclear society that feels more like a fantasy kingdom than a sci-fi world until they sail for the island that still has all the high tech that no one really knows how to use... it's a quick and entertaining read.

[charlesdesvoeux]

vampterror au-- some people and when they were turned:

crozier: sometime in the mid-to-late 1500s and early 1600s. need to do more research on irish history but rn i feel strongly about this time-frame. his maker probably died in the 1600s.

fitzjames: georgian vampire, maybe 1750s-1760s. MAYBE made by lady jane. him and crozier are often drawn to one another; essentially an on-and-off couple. but they are NEVER 100% quitting one another. might spend a century apart but always come back to the other.

james clark ross: made by crozier in the late 1600s; crozier's first companion. probably remained together as pretty much husbands until the late 1700s; had a more-or-less amicable break-up (although crozier was kind of devastated) and are still cordial/come together occasionally.

ann coulman ross: made by jcr in the 1770s-1780s. at first crozier was very cold to her and resented her "coming between" him and jcr but eventually warmed to her and they became friends.

john franklin: ooooold vampire. like late 1400s-early 1500s vampire. made by lady jane who is probably at least 100 years older than him. she made him after the death of his first wife. died in the late 18th century maybe.

sophia cracroft: lady jane's human niece from the 1300s, the first vampire made by her aunt. spent some time as crozier's companion i think during 1800s-1820s or 30s maybe but then left. 2nd oldest vampire in britain ie very powerful.

lady jane franklin: 1300s vampire. very old and very powerful. by this point probably the oldest vampire in the british isles???

eleanor franklin: john's daughter by his human wife, made into a vampire by her father (late 1400s-early 1500s). difficult relationship with both him and lady jane, but close to sophia. dad's death in the late 18th century sends her spiraling. a great vampire, in the same way that hickey is a great vampire (see below). i can see her becoming friends with hickey eventually.

hickey: made by crozier in the mid-1830s. a prodigious killer who relishes in his nature. crozier thought he was an interesting, downright fascinating guy at first but then eventually came to find him wearisome and dumped him and hickey will be forever pissed off about it, it's like being abandoned by your father.

billy: made by hickey circa 1848. the thing is though, both bc billy was sick when he turned and also hickey didn't really know what he was doing he "came out wrong"-- essentially, it's like he's suspended in a dying state for all eternity: moribund but unable to die. it's pretty rough and he resents cornelius for it. some days are better and others are worse; sometimes he can leave the coffin and hunt and all that, but a lot of the time he can't really do all that much. resents hickey, but loves him too.

tozer: made by hickey circa 1850s-1860s, a very good hunter and for a long while hickeygibson's "third" which he resents but also he simply cannot quit hickey. like maybe he'll go away for a couple years or something but he WILL eventually come back to hickey and coming back to hickey also means coming back to gibson so.

armitage: also made by hickey circa 1850s-1860s. was already friends with/looked up to tozer before he became a vampire, and tozer essentially refused to quit his friendship with tommy after he was turned but he was also ADAMANT that he did NOT want tommy to be a vampire!!! he's too good he doesn't deserve our wretched existence!!! i think one day tozer really pissed hickey off and he turned tommy out of spite.

pilkington: made by tozer after tommy BEGGED him to turn him, prob in the 1910s or 1920s, ww1 vet. tommy essentially said "you will never love me like i love you, i have spent more than 40 years being the one you only turn to when hickey disappoints you, I WANT ONE PERSON WHO IS FOR ME". i think him and tommy are very devoted to one another. but also tommy still has very complicated romantic feelings towards tozer that frustrate pilk.

jopson: made by crozier in the 1850s. was crozier's extremely devoted human servant before getting turned. where hickey was a disappointment jopson was (in crozier's opinion) an astounding success. gets a monopoly on crozier's love for a good decade at least but then OOPS fitzjames comes knocking and he's feeling kinda jealous and insecure. which leads us to...

little: a human who managed crozier's business interests, knew about the vampirism and was desperately in love with jopson. after fitzjames comes back jopson turns him out of jealousy and feeling betrayed by his beloved crozier. poor little. initially his love is not enough to heal jop's broken heart but i do think eventually jop comes to actually love him and they become long-term companions. prob made in the 1860s.

le vesconte: regency-era dandy, made by fitzjames in the 1810s. very devoted to jfj but knows that once james gets with crozier he's pretty much kicked to the curb for a while, and it hurts him. still revels in being a vampire. fun guy. on-and-off with fitzjames for all of eternity but a second-choice forever.

hodgson: made by le vesconte in the 1830s-40s. they have a good time but i wouldn't call their bond necessarily super deep. like friends who are roommates.

irving: made by hodgson in the 1850s. struggles immensely with religiosity and vampirism and the like; i mean SEVERE emotional and mental health struggles. hodge is extremely devoted to him; irving does love him in a way but also resents him for turning him into a monster. being a vampire also means a permanent rift with william malcolm, who is a human; he considers turning him but decides he cannot curse him with this horrible burden, and malcolm dies a human. i think it's possible that he meets and connects with gibson over their ambivalent (to say the least) feelings on vampirism and maybe finds a new purpose in becoming gibson's "keeper" and taking care of him (prob during a time when hickey and gibson are broken up)

henrietta lefeuvre: made by dundy in the 1860s-1870s. they do spend quite a while being fairly happy companions but eventually she was like "i'm only a substitute for when fitzjames isn't here and i can't handle that anymore" and eventually decided to travel alone out there and find who she is outside of dundy etc. i think eventually lady jane and sophia take her under their wing.

stanley: turned by fitzjames in the 1850s-1860s, were companions for a while but jfj got bored and dipped. which made him very mad. a pretty good vampire, keeps his kills clean. very discreet.

des voeux: turned by stanley in the 1910s. relishes his nature but is not very controlled with his kills; obsessed with stanley, who's always leaving and coming back and leaving and coming back etc. eventually falls in with hickey's little "coven" ie hickey, gibson, tozer, armitage and pilk. him and stanley are on-and-off forever but they're absolutely never quitting the other for good. i could see him dying in the 2020s which throws stanley into a spiral.

trying to place silna and goodsir in this au but I'm still not sure. might come back to it later

[marzipanandminutiae]

Friend Marzi, why do we have an inclination to believe that all historical clothing was very heavy? Fabrics varied in lightness and for the very heat of summer for example an all-silk or all-muslin ensemble could be made very light and breathable if necessary, even foregoing implements like boning, etc. Like, there are ways to not be dragging your skirts around.

Working people and people with active hobbies were already wearing fewer layers anyway, so we shouldn't expect them to be encumbered. Why do we anyway?

Friend Tumblr User Chasingtheskyline! Hello!

(This answer will focus primarily on conventionally feminine clothing, since that's my area of expertise. Just to disclaim.)

I think it's because of the layering, really. And the idea that, as you touched on, Only Rich People Wore All That (not so much- the basic makeup of chemise/combinations, maybe drawers post-1820s, corset/stays, at least one petticoat, skirt, bodice for women was pretty consistent across most of the social ladder during the 18th and 19th centuries at least) so of COURSE it's heavy and impractical. And as we all know, rich people didn't have lives or do things! They just lounged around being rich and not moving! </s>

We're used to one layer of our mostly-polyester clothing being extremely warming in summer because. It's polyester. Breathability is not something people think about much nowadays, since we're so used to just exposing as much skin as possible to cool down. Ergo, the idea that it's layers of lightweight fabric doesn't really occur to people, I think.

Another element, I think, may be that some of these people have carried reproduction historical garments but never worn them. Or weighed them in a heap on a scale- yes, really -and never taken into account the weight distribution when they're on a body. I've owned garments that were a bear to carry, but perfectly comfortable to wear.

Also, you know. We've long had a vested interest in making our own garments seem like The Best Most Advanced Garments. You can find articles from as early as the 1920s decrying Victorian "trailing skirts and trailing hair" as unhygienic and uncomfortable Never mind that the ADULTS saying this would have known full well that shorter skirts were commonplace for situations where Excessive Dirt would be present and grown women wore their hair up. (Also, you know. Unless you're licking your hem, your skirts cannot get you sick.)

Either you're getting only the experiences of women who hated what they wore before- which would somehow be the same fashion writers who once declared that the gowns of 1915 were the best, or 1910, or 1905 -or they had a vested interest in selling something to the public: in this case, the hottest, newest clothes (and hairstyles that required more regular trips to the hairdresser than long hair pinned up). Of course you get those writers calling earlier clothing heavy- they're trying to get people to buy rayon flapper dresses!

Now, does that mean that nobody in history found their clothing heavy? Of course not. One of Amelia Bloomer's key complaints about the fashions of the 1840s and early 50s was the many layers of petticoats women often wore to create the fashionable skirt shape- and while I'm often loath to take dress reformers as sole arbiters of women's opinion, the invention of the cage crinoline/hoop skirt was widely hailed as a marvel for enabling big skirts with much less weight.

But you're so right that this perception is extremely exaggerated nowadays. I do my best to fight it- had this conversation with a colleague today, as I was wearing a long-sleeved blouse of cotton voile and a long cotton skirt to work in 80-degree (F) weather -but. Well. It DOES get frustrating at times.