With love and marriage, there can unfortunately be divorce. For our Edwardian counterparts, divorce was a difficult and arduous process that could be, depending upon the social circle, a one-way ticket to the cut direct.

The law of England regarded marriage as a contract, a status and institution. Up until 1857, divorce was administered by ecclesiastical courts, who created such a long, frustrating and expensive route to end a marriage, most unhappy couples had no choice but to remain together. Upon the passing of the controversial Divorce Act of 1857, the jurisdiction was passed from the ecclesiastical courts to a new civil tribunal, and absolute divorce was sanctioned with permission of remarriage on proof of adultery on the part of the wife, or adultery and cruelty on the part of the husband.

For the miserable couple willing to weather the scandal and the exclusion from the choicest circles, if not the still considerable expense, the application for divorce would be made by a petition to the Probate Divorce and Division of the Court of Justice. The party seeking relief was called the “petitioner” and the party against whom the petition is brought was called the “respondent“. If the wife was accused of adultery, the party with whom she committed this “criminal act” was the “co-respondent.” However, the person with whom the wife alleged her husband had committed adultery was not a party to the suit–but a woman implicated in a divorce suit could, upon proper application, be allowed to secure an order permitting her to attend the proceedings as an “intervener.”

While a husband was entitled to a divorce if his wife committed adultery, a wife had to jump through hoops. Besides adultery, a husband had to commit incestuous adultery, bigamy, rape,  sodomy, bestiality, adultery coupled with cruelty, or adultery coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for two years or more. Incestuous adultery was adultery with a woman within the prohibited degrees (sister, grandmother, mother-in-law, etc). Furthermore, a wife would not be granted a degree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and adultery, unless the cruelty consisted of bodily hurt or injury to health, and at least two acts of cruelty on the party of the husband were required. Thankfully (in this instance at least), the communication of venereal disease when the husband knew of his condition was considered an act of cruelty.

Barring condonation (where a matrimonial offense, which is a sufficient cause for divorce, is condoned or forgiven by the spouse aggrieved), connivance (where the adultery complained of was committed by the connivance or active consent of the petitioner) or collusion (the illegal agreement and co-operation between the petitioner and the respondent in a divorce action to obtain a judicial dissolution of the marriage), the couple was on its way to receiving a decree nisi. If, after six months, it was unaffected by any intervention by the King’s Proctor or any other person it could be made decree absolute upon proper application.

For the gentleman or lady who desired lose an undesirable spouse, there was no greater a solicitor than Sir George Lewis of Ely Place, Holburn. Described by contemporary portraits as a “pleasant-voiced, white-haired, dapper little man” who was the “depository of so many scandalous secrets,” it was he who helped society’s brightest extricate themselves from sticky situations–such as the time when Lady Charles Beresford attempted to blackmail the Countess of Warwick into breaking off her relations with Lord Charles, and Lady Warwick brought in the Prince of Wales to back her up.

The divorce court itself was a source of entertainment. On almost any day, particularly if a scandalous case was being tried, a line some fifty or sixty people deep, made mostly of women, queued up at Royal Courts of Justice the for a seat in the public gallery. This was a considerable annoyance to junior barristers, who, especially when an aristocratic trial brought a crush, were perpetually unable to find a sufficient number of seats.

Despite collusion nullifying a petition for divorce, it was a standard procedure for couples who just couldn’t stand one another. To spare the wife even greater scandal, she would hire a private detective to follow her husband on an appointed night, the husband himself having hired a lady to impersonate his lover, and there would be proof of adultery. On the other hand, a wife could publicly refuse to share her husband’s bed, and he could sue for divorce based on her repudiation of his conjugal rights. If divorce was unobtainable, a couple could petition for a legal separation, which was easier to receive, but the prospect of a future divorce was made a bit more difficult.

The most difficult part of an English divorce were the children. Unlike in France or America,where children of divorced parents lost nothing and were at liberty to watch over their bringing-up, according to English law, a guilty mother was entirely deprived of their custody and even access (however, it was allowed for a faithless father). Under no circumstances, if the mother was found guilty, would she have custody of the children regardless of their ages. In divorce, the guilty woman lost everything: income, custody and access to children, reputation, and even in some cases her husband’s name.

Sources:
Thirty-five Years in the Divorce Court by Henry Edwin Fenn
Inside the Victorian Home: A Portrait of Domestic Life in Victorian England by Judith Flanders
The Eighth Year by Phillip Gibbs
Edwardian Stories of Divorce by Janice Hubbard Harris
Marriage and Divorce Laws of the World by Hyacinthe Ringrose

There arose in the 1880s, the phenomena of the “professional beauty.” A curious phase had come over society wherein publicity became the fashion, and from it, the craze to exhibit photographs of “Ladies of Quality” in the windows of Fleet Street. Instrumental in creating this sensation was London-based artist Frank Miles, who specialized in watercolors of society women, and Lillie Langtry.

Born on the Isle of Jersey, she arrived in London in the mid-1870s with her alcoholic husband Edward Langtry and promptly entered society despite having little money. While her beauty at first created a mild interest, it was her attendance of social events clad in the same black dress that created a stir. When someone finally commented on her continuous use of that dress, she arrived at her next engagement wearing a white dress of similar fashion. This provocation created a furor and suddenly, artists wanted to paint her, hostesses vied to have her on their guest lists, and people (even the most fearsome dowagers!) even stood on benches in Hyde Park, or chairs at balls, to catch a glimpse of her. So great was her fame that her greatest wish–to be presented to Queen Victoria–was granted (some say at the instigation of the queen herself!). Coached by the highest in the land (the Prince of Wales, soon her lover), the wittiest (Oscar Wilde), and the most talented (James MacNeil Whistler), she cut a swath through aristocratic society. Frank Miles, one Lillie’s earliest acquaintances, capitalized on the increasing voraciousness of people for pictures of society beauties, and these women, subsequently dubbed “Professional Beauties” or, P.B.’s for short, took not only London at large by storm, but the known world.

Just about any beautiful woman could become a professional beauty–not through success at court, but in the emerging celebrity culture associated with illustrated periodicals and mass-circulated photographs. The professional beauty needed not be rich, highly born, nor well educated–provided she had sense enough to escape from committing any glaring missteps–all that was required of her was that her face should be approved by society as a great beauty and her future was assured. Recognition as a P.B. was reward in itself. Reproductions of the beauties appeared in every store window and hung in every middle-class dwelling. The originals graced the mansions of wealthy patrons of the arts. Queen Victoria ‘s youngest son, Prince Leopold, became so enamored of a pen-and-ink sketch of Lillie Langtry he had seen while visiting Miles’s studio that he acquired it to hang in his bedchamber – until his mother snatched it down.

Women of superior social stations inundated the P.B. with cards for dinners and receptions; for a time no party was considered complete or successful without these ladies. People would receive invitations with “Do come, the P.B. s will be there,” and this meant the certain attendance of society. Artists vied with each other in inviting her to their studios in the hope that they would be permitted to paint or sketch her. The professional beauty need never purchase clothing or accessories again; all that was required of her was the murmur of her couturier’s or milliner’s names to guarantee instant success of that artist of fashion. “She was worth – literally – 100 paying customers. She was a walking – no a gliding – advertisement.”

In London, the professional beauty was queen. Not a ball was considered a success without her presence. At dinner she eclipsed rank wealth and fame and was the object of attentions which would be flattering were they less curious and obtrusive. Should she ride in the Row a little cavalcade accompanied her, which only quit her presence when some very distinguished personage came up to canter by her side. At a country house party, no matter who may be the visiting, she was always the most favored of guests. So firmly did the professional beauty rule society that her word was law and her wishes commanded the amusement of the hour: If she voted guessing acrostics dull, acrostics were abandoned. If she was fond of hunting, the best and safest of mounts that the stables possessed were placed at her disposal, whilst the most sober and careful of grooms was to specially attend upon her and to see that her exquisite beauty should not for a moment be in danger.

A fierce war of opinion as to their rival merits raged about them. Artists extolled Mrs. Langtry’s classical Greek profile golden hair and wonderful column-like throat, graced with the three plis de Venus, which made her an ideal subject for their brushes and chisels. Poems were written in celebration of the professional beauty, one of which was saved by Lady Randolph Churchill, herself a professional beauty:

First Lady Dudley did my sense enthral,
Whiter than chisel’d marble standing there,
The Juno of our earth “divinely tall,
And most divinely fair.”

And next with all her wealth of hair unroll’d,
Was Lady Mandeville bright eyed and witty;
And Miss Yznaga whose dark cheek recall’d
Lord Byron’s Spanish ditty.

The Lady Castlereagh held court near by,
A very Venus goddess fair of love,
And Lady Florence Chaplin nestled nigh,
Gentle as Venus dove

As gipsy dark with black eyes like sloes,
A foil for Violet Lindsay sweetly fair,
Stood Mrs Murietta a red rose,
Was blushing in her hair.

And warmly beautiful like sun at noon,
Glowed with love’s flames our dear Princess Louise,
Attended by the beautiful Sassoon,
The charming Viennese!

Then Lady Randolph Churchill, whose sweet tones
Make her the Saint Cecilia of the day;
And next those fay-like girls, the Livingstones,
Girofla Giroflé!

And then my eyes were moved to gaze upon
The phantom like celestial form and face
Of the ethereal Lady Clarendon,
The loveliest of her race

The beauteous sister of a Countess fair,
Is she the next that my whole soul absorbs,
A model she for Phidias, I declare,
The classic Lady Forbes

Other preeminent professional beauties were Lady Lonsdale (afterwards Lady de Grey), Lady Brooke (later Lady Warwick), the Duchess of Leinster and her sister Lady Helen Vincent, Lady Londonderry, Lady Dalhousie, Lady Ormonde, Lady Mary Mill, Lady Gerard, Mrs. Luke Wheeler, who always “appeared in black,” and Mrs. Cornwallis West, the mother of Lady Randolph Churchill’s much younger second husband. Accordingly, and some say, obviously, many of these women reigned briefly as the Prince of Wales’s mistress. In direct contrast to these London beauties, the professional beauties of Paris were not ranked or cataloged. They did not have their portraits published in the illustrated papers nor did they allow their photographs to be sold at the stationers. However there always existed a little staff of about twenty women who represented grace, beauty and Parisian elegance.

But one Parisian hostess did break the mold: Virginie Amélie Gautreau, who is better known to history as the subject of John Singer Sargent’s “Portrait of Madame X.” An American expatriate married to a wealthy French banker, when her painting was revealed in the Paris Salon of 1884, it caused a scandal. Already trailed by whispers of fast behavior, the portrait as painted, was of a sexually-aggressive woman clad in a figure-hugging black gown whose right strap had fallen–a hint that with “one more struggle“, wrote a critic in Le Figaro, “...the lady will be free“. Amidst the outrage and ruination of his career, Sargent painted over the strap to secure it on Madame Gautreau’s shoulder and concealed the painting for over thirty years. As for the lady, her reputation was destroyed and she passed the remaining years of her life alternately attempting to recapture her fame and escaping the realities of time by avoiding mirrors.

The professional beauty’s American counterpart was found in the “Gibson Girl” of the 1890s and 1900s, as created by Charles Dana Gibson. The Gibson Girl set the first national standard for a feminine beauty ideal: “She was taller than the other women currently seen in the pages of magazines.. infinitely more spirited and independent, yet altogether feminine. She appeared in a stiff shirtwaist, her soft hair piled into a chignon, topped by a big plumed hat. Her flowing skirt was hiked up in back with just a hint of a bustle. She was poised and patrician. Though always well bred, there often lurked a flash of mischief in her eyes.” The Gibson Girl appeared on saucers, ashtrays, tablecloths, pillow covers, chair covers, souvenir spoons, screens, fans, umbrella stands and was personified by Gibson’s wife, Irene Langhorne, Evelyn Nesbit and the Danish-American stage actress, Camille Clifford, whose towering coiffure and long, elegant gowns wrapped around her hourglass figure and tightly corseted wasp waist defined the style. Depicted as an equal and sometimes teasing companion to men, the Gibson Girl was provocative and independent, perfectly expressing the cool exuberance of the turn-of-the-century American lady.

The life of a professional beauty could be wonderful, exhilarating and fun, but only on the condition that she remained beautiful and charming, had not a hairsbreadth of scandal attached to her name, and could financially maintain her socializing. This was near impossible not only because of her attachment to the spendthrift and frivolous Marlborough House Set, but also the passing of time. Lillie Langtry fell from grace when she bore a child out of wedlock, and only recaptured a bit of her fascination by becoming a moderately talented actress. Even aristocratic women found it difficult to escape the fate of chance: Lady Randolph Churchill was plagued with money troubles all of her life and Daisy Warwick, her family fortune run dry by the 1910s, attempted to blackmail George V into granting her renumeration for her amusement of his deceased father by threatening to publish the letters he exchanged with her during their relationship.

Truly only a step above a courtesan, the professional beauty was protected from scandal and the taint of sexual immorality by her rank and marriage. But in a time where women could be considered property (though this lessened considerably by the 1880s in comparison to earlier eras), and her social roles were defined and the boundaries between “public” and “private” were beginning to blur, the P.B. could essentially have the best of both worlds: the fame and fascination of an actress and the venerated social status of an aristocrat.

Sources:
Days I Knew by Lillie Langtry
The Reminiscences of Lady Randolph Churchill by Mrs. George Cornwallis-West
The Edwardian Woman by Duncan Crow
Strapless: John Singer Sargent and the Fall of Madame X by Deborah Davis
London Society by eds Hogg, James and Marryat, Florence.
Edward and the Edwardians by Philippe Jullian

In my quest to discover what it was truly like to wear the clothes of an Edwardian woman, I discovered the wonderful, bubbly and highly-praised reenactment actress, Kandie Carle. Through period-correct clothing and undergarments, Carle shares intriguing anecdotes and facts about the history of the undergarments, etiquette, leisure activities and home life of women and men of the Civil War, Victorian and Edwardian eras! Her level of expertise was too good to pass up, and with strength and humor matching our Victorian & Edwardian forbears, Ms. Carle kindly took time out of her busy schedule to answer a few questions and in the process, clear up a few misconceptions about both women and women’s clothing.

What attracts you to the Victorian/Edwardian era?

Initially it was my family history. I have photos of my Great-Grandmother in the 1890s. Then, doing research on different time periods as an actress, I was intrigued by the women I was reading about. Then, in 1992 I began dancing in a vintage dance performance group and my research had to branch out into the clothing and fashion in particular. As a seamstress I made my own clothing for the balls and dance demos. From there, I was hooked. I loved so much abut the women of the Victorian and Edwardian time periods, their attempts to get the vote, their moving into the workforce, and yet keeping their femininity. I also appreciated the beauty. If you say anything about the time period, you must say it was lovely. The hair, the clothes, the automobiles, home furnishings, even their calling cards. It was ornate, and beautiful.

When you slip on a costume, do you feel transformed into the woman you’re portraying?

Absolutely. Physically, I wear all of the appropriate foundation undergarments, so I stand taller, straighter, and feel automatically more lady-like. I also find myself behaving with more grace and refinement.

Did Victorian belles really have 15 inch waists?

If you were 13 years old! We always focus on the exception instead of the norm. 15 years of research has shown me that there are many misconceptions about women’s sizes. Certainly we are much larger in terms of weight and girth, but the median height is almost the same: 5′ 4″ to 5′ 6″. Simply standing up straight changes measurements all over the body. There is a 3″ difference in the measurement across my shoulders when I am standing up straight. Add wearing a corset, as young teenagers did, and you may get a 15″ waist. Extant garments which look like adult fashions, many times are actually teenagers clothing, but the styles were so similar, that when compared to the adult fashion plates, we think they are adult women’s clothing! 100 years ago a 15 year old’s dress was shorter, but almost exactly in the style of an adult.

Were there some tight lacing? Sure, was that everyone? No. 100 years from now people will say of us: “Everyone did what Michael Jackson did to himself”. Generalities and stereotyping do a disservice to everyday women of the past who were as varied in stature, height and size as we are today. They certainly didn’t weigh as much, but they weren’t midgets. Specialty attire like wedding gowns, can appear very small to our eye. They were wearing a corset and may have cinched themselves in tighter for the occasion. I challenge any woman of today to deny that they not only lose weight for their weddings, but often wear a tight wedding dress, then three weeks later they are back to their normal size and wouldn’t be able to get into their wedding dress! That’s not a new thing. Also keep in mind that larger clothes were frequently cut down to be made into children’s clothing or made into quilts, etc. So what survives, of everyday people’s clothing, tends to be special occasion or young ladies clothes. I am not referring to the fashionistas of the day, like the Vanderbilts, I am talking about every day women.

How has the corsetry and undergarments shaped the way you think about the Victorian/Edwardian era woman?

Many women were slaves to fashion then, just as many women are today. Look at the incredible use of plastic surgery and cosmetic treatments to achieve what we think of as ideal beauty today. How many women have/will have bunions and other foot problems because of the incessant attachment we have to high heeled shoes? Vanity knows no age. Corsetry of the Victorian and Edwardian eras was a tool they used to achieve what they thought of as the ideal female form. The hourglass, the S curve, the straight ‘Titanic’ era undergarments, etc. all served the purpose of supporting a specific silhouette. If you are genetically predisposed to have an hourglass shape then you will have no trouble getting into an hourglass shaped corset and being relatively comfortable in it. I can wear my Victorian corsetry for several hours while dancing at vintage balls without discomfort because of two things: I made them to fit me, [and] I don’t cinch them in too tightly. It is all relative, especially when you consider they grew up wearing them. They were used it. We are not, so when we do occasionally wear one they are uncomfortable and restrictive. I am amazed at how much the women of the Victorian and Edwardian eras achieved, given their restrictive clothing and undergarments. My respect for them doubled once I experienced living a day in the clothes. We need to remember, corsetry was common underwear. In 1900 1,200 workers were cranking out corsets at the Royal Corset factory in Worcester MA.

What research have you done to get into the mind of the Victorian/Edwardian lady?

My research is ongoing, and I must say it is a lot of fun for me. I have every kind of book imaginable on the subject of clothing, lifestyle, patents, inventions, literature, trades, slavery, sweatshops, dressmaking, sewing manuals, marriage, motherhood, jobs, travel…and the list goes on. I have the diaries, the letters, the biographies and autobiographies as well as the newspapers, catalogues and ladies magazines of the day. They all show me what everyday people were being enticed to buy and use. Articles on politics and the suffragette movement are integral to my presentations. Knowing what and who was in the news of the day is important.

Describe a typical Victorian/Edwardian lady’s day.

There is no such thing as a typical day for anyone of any time period. It was really dependent on where in the country you lived and where you were in class and station. The typical day for a working class woman is vastly different than the typical day of a middle class woman who was running a household. In turn, the wealthy ladies had a totally different experience of day to day living. In my programs I focus on middle-class women who may have the resources to hire an extra pair of hands to help with the laundry, cooking, cleaning and taking care of the children. There were educated women in the work force in many types of jobs. Her life was going to be very different from the housewife or factory worker. On the whole we need to keep in mind that communities were smaller, and the workload to keep house was much more time consuming than it is for us today. No microwaves, no electric stoves, no automobiles, no indoor plumbing, no automatic washing machines. Washboards and ringer washers were the staple of an Edwardian household of the middle-class, still very labor intensive. Then there was the ironing, with an iron, made of iron! Social obligations also varied dependent on the position you held in your community.

How do the actual garments feel (weight, fabric sensation, walking/running/riding,etc)?

They are heavier than our contemporary clothes, mostly due to the layers and heft of fiber content in the fabrics. I wear authentic pieces for my presentation when it’s an indoor show, (always with a body stocking between my skin and the textile…I want these things to last another 100 years!) and I never wear the real stuff to dance in. When I wear reproduction garments, they are made as close to the originals as possible, including weight and fiber content. No polyester or nylon to lighten the load! For me the biggest difference is the heat. With very little skin exposed, I get warm very fast. Which was helpful 100 years ago when they didn’t have regulated heat in their homes or workplaces, but not fun when I am doing a presentation in a 75 degree room! When I dance, I try to wear lighter weight clothing as they did, as it is an aerobic activity. The corset requires that I relax into it, not struggle or fight against it. It becomes my exoskeleton and is very supportive, especially on the back. And as gravity is not our friend, I can say that it is much nicer to be supported from the under bust gussets in a corset rather than elastic straps down from my shoulders! No wonder we have hunched backs today!

What is the most rewarding experience of doing what you do?

I have a couple of main goals in doing my programs. First, to debunk some myths and stereotypes that have been passed down the ages, mainly from badly researched romance novels and TV shows and films like Gone With The Wind. No, they didn’t faint all the time. Yes, they did all kinds of sporting activities, many worked outside the home. Yes, many were educated, more women had a higher education than we give them credit for,etc.etc. Second, if I can get just one person in each audience to look at their own family’s history in a different light, with more appreciation and respect, then I feel I have done my job. Everyday women of 100 years ago were the movers and shakers of their families and towns, but seldom get their names in the history books. I hope the women and men who come and see my programs go home and record their family’s history and pass it on to the younger people in their lives. I also want to bring to light the things we take for granted today, like women voting. We didn’t get the vote until 1920, and it was hard fought for. Some women literally gave up their lives and/or were scorned as terrorists. And yet women today, ages 18-35 comprise the smallest voting populace in the US. That makes me very sad. If women today knew 1/4 of what I know of what the women went through 100 years ago during the height of the suffrage movement, they would never pass a polling place again. They’d go in and vote and say thank you to those women, without whom none of us may ever have gotten the voice in the political arena we enjoy today. We even have a woman running for President…for the second time. Yep, another woman in US history ran for president. Here’s a hint…it was in 1872!

If you could go back in time, where would you go, who would you be, and why?

Wow, I have thought of this many times. I know that I would want to be in my 20s living in the 1890s, I would own a book shop or be a librarian, I would want to be married, without children, living in New England somewhere. A mid-sized city with agriculture nearby.

Any funny anecdotes concerning your profession?

Too many to count, as I have been doing my Victorian Lady programs for 11 years now. It is always fun when gentlemen are in attendance, as there is a lot of humor in my programs. A couple of stories stick out amongst many…One organization decided to market my program as a Reverse Strip Tea (as I get dressed from the inside out, not strip from the outside down). They had a fellow call up and ask if he could make reservations for his buddy’s bachelor party! He was advised that it may not be the event they thought it was and the guy went elsewhere. Twice during my shows I have had a corset lace break as my volunteer was lacing me up. That is always interesting, as the clothes don’t fit if the corset isn’t laced properly, so the show comes to a halt until we can rig the corset to close. I now travel with a back up lace, just in case of a ‘wardrobe malfunction’!