 |
| ca. 1750s |
I'm attending an event in 2020 where a francaise is the order of the day (an optional one but considering it's based on the 18th century French court I'd be mad to go without a francaise). I know what you're thinking - 2020? It only just turned 2019! And you'd be right, but I'm a planner, and since I've never made a francaise before I'd like to get some research in now.
Thankfully for me, the francaise is so iconic that tons of people have tried it before (unlike my 17th century court gown). American Duchess (AD) even have detailed instructions in their book! I am tempted to cave in and buy a commercial pattern, but why go down the easy route when I have an abundance of costuming books up the stairs all with patterns and details about the francaise?
As you know if you've been following me for a while, I'm a no-frills sort of costumer. Minimal trim kind of stuff, which is the complete opposite of the 18th century, especially the francaise where trim is mandatory, the more the better. I don't mind trim, honestly I don't, it's just that whenever I find myself designing costumes they don't have much. Even my 18th century Pierrot ( which almost went completely untrimmed) only has trim around the neckline and cuffs, and the silk petticoat has none at all! The largest amount of trim I've ever done were the 3 rows of pleating and 6 bows I had to put on my natural form era gown.
Don't get me wrong, my francaise will be trimmed....the silk version anyway. But this is more of an inspiration post. What are the garments I use to get ideas onto paper? My francaise will be mid-century, so before the big hair of the 1770s. I'm thinking about 1750s-1760s, but of course the francaise doesn't go through that many changes in the entire century, let alone these 20 years, so it might be difficult to pinpoint an extant garment to a precise year. Paintings are better.
The only thing different between earlier gowns and later ones is the size of the pleats at the back. They tend to be wider earlier in the century. Can't say I've noticed.
Madame de Pompadour was my first person of interest during my research because it was she who was dominant during these decades, despite not being the official Maitresse en titre (she retired in 1750 from that role and just became the King's close friend).
The first is by far the most famous portrait of her painted by Francois Bouchet about 1750. In fact I think all of the above are painted by him during her lifetime. Obviously I love the colour of the first one, but just the thought of all that floof makes me sad.
Then I moved onto extant garments. Now, I don't know about you, but most reproduction francaise by costumers are done in silk taffeta which tends to be one colour. Conversely, most, if not all, extant francaises are silk brocade. To add another layer onto this mess most of the paintings from the era also have the gowns as one or two solid colour silk. Obviously silk is still expensive, and after finding out you need at least 10m for one I fell out with silk taffeta for a little while. Let's just say that any silk francaise you make will be an investment.
The robe a la francaise can be fastened 2 ways. The first is the old stomacher and pins method, which was very, very common. The other is the so-called compere front, which usually attached the stomacher to the sides of the gown and buttoned up down the centre front. A lot of the stomacher's I noticed, both in portraits and extant garments, were trimmed up the wazoo, and I'm just not a fan.
 |
| circa 1760s, currently held in the Bath Fashion museum |
 |
| circa 1760s, Museum of Fine Arts Boston |
 |
| circa 1740s |
 |
| circa 1760s |
You see I'm more of an embroidery kind of gal. Ironic since embroidery actually takes longer than normal 18th century stomacher trim, but I just prefer it. And embroidered stomachers were also worn with the robe a la francaise.
 |
| ca. 1775 |
 |
| Stomacher ca. 1730-1750, VA museum |
All in all designing the francaise itself was actually one of the easiest parts of this idea. On the other hand, we had the foundation garments. WTF is up with the 18th century and all of these weird cushions, cages, panniers, and rumps? Just calm the f**k down.
At least in the 19th century its the crinoline, then bustle, then 2nd bustle, there's one silhouette for each, and usually one or two variations on the same undergarment. God forbid the 18th century is the same.
We have pocket hoops, court panniers, normal panniers, square panniers, and all give a slightly different silhouette. I've spent more time researching these garments than I did the friggin francaise itself!!
These are my current favourite, but I have the intentions of shortening it a bit. There is a name for it, I think it's a short hoop (at least that's what they call it in POF 5). I came to this conclusion after reading somewhere that pocket hoops tend to be a bit unstable, but I;m not sure if perhaps tying them together would alleviate that problem. Never having made or worn them I can't say either way, but I have plans to make them as well (I've got an abundance of books with a pattern in it).
The square/rectangular panniers I'm talking about I think are usually worn with court gowns, like whatever is underneath the gown below.
 |
| Court gown ca. 1750, The Met |
 |
| ca. 1759 |
POF 5 has 2 patterns for a pannier similar to this, but from a brief skim it looked quite fiddly, so I think I'll stick to the short hoop for now.
I am making pocket hoops, but I'm unsure if they're as large as I'd like, especially the ones below. I know there is a costumer recently who's made slightly bigger ones and they look perfect, but again stability issues. Don't get me wrong, I'm not making a court pannier size, but I just feel the pocket hoops are a little too small and flimsy for me.
Perhaps it's just the mannequin. I did notice with my prototype pair that the size of my hips did make them stick out more, but it's more the stability issues that concern me.
I've found recently that I actually prefer making undergarments. I know that's a strange thing to enjoy because a lot of people find it tedious and just want to get onto the actual gown, but with gowns come trim. I find undergarments fascinating, and despite the sheer number of them in the 18th century, I really enjoy finding the differences between them, and when they would've been worn.
So, that's it for my inspiration post, but don't expect a completed francaise this year (2019). I still intend to do my 1890s gown first, then if my obsession for the francaise lingers then I'll attempt one in cotton because can you believe, my money tree still hasn't grown.
