18th Century Pockets

D2s2v1505250627

My first item of clothing for my Rev War camp follower kit is completed… a pair of pockets!

Most women, myself included, lament the utter uselessness or total lack of pockets in our garments. Too bad we don’t still use 18th century style pockets! Unlike their modern counterparts, 18th century women’s pockets are roomy and actually functional! Instead of being attached to the garment they are instead suspended on their own waistband/ties. This allows you to change gowns without having to transfer all of your pocket contents and also keeps the pocket from weighing down the skirt. Pockets were accessed through slits in the sides of the petticoats. They could either be a single pocket, a matching pair each on their own set of ties, or a matching pair on one set of ties. To reduce bulk and to prevent me from losing one of my pocket’s mates I chose the latter style.

Many pockets of the 18th century were elaborately embroidered, while others were a pieced patchwork design or printed textile.

pockets museum of london.jpg
An elaborately embroidered pair of late 1770s pockets from the Museum of London (Museum number: MOL 35.35.2)

There are less surviving plain style pockets, but the examples I could find were the inspiration for my pockets, including this simple linen stripe pocket from the MET:

Pocket the met
1789 linen pocket from the MET (Accession Number:
C.I.40.159.4)

I have to give credit to my dear David. He drafted the pocket pattern piece for me, gave me almost all the fabrics and supplies I needed, and even cross-stitched my initials for me!

IMG_20170908_215639541.jpg
Part of my pocket “kit” from David 🙂

The front of the pockets is a lightweight stripe linen that I flat-lined with a scrap of handkerchief linen I had on hand, just to give it some body. I basted these two layers together before binding the pocket slit with a 1″ strip of blue plaid linen. The binding is back-stitched with a scant 1/4″ seam and then folded over to the wrong side and whip-stitched down to encase all of the raw edges.

Most examples I saw had a plain linen back, so I used a medium weight white linen I had on hand. I basted the front and backs of the pockets together and then bound the edges with more of the plaid linen.

IMG_20170912_142518570 (1).jpg
The backside of my pocket

I tacked the linen ties onto the top edge of binding before folding it over to the wrong side and whip-stitching it down.

IMG_20170912_142427629.jpg
Detail of pocket binding and linen ties

18th century pockets, just like their modern counterparts, were useful for keeping necessary items handy and personal items safely on your personage. I plan on using one pocket to hold small items I’ll need during an event as a camp follower such as a sewing kit, knife, small pair of scissors, handkerchief, food, brush, etc. The other pocket I’ll use to secret modern items like my car keys, modern cash, and contacts. I can’t wait to get the chance to use them!

-Michaela, “The Farming Daughter”

Just the basics:

Fabric: 1/4 yard blue stripe linen, 1/4 yard handkerchief white linen from Burnley and Trowbridge, 1/4 yard medium weight white linen, 1/8 yard blue plaid linen

Notions: cotton hand sewing thread (shhhhh…), colored linen thread, 1 yd. linen 1/4″ linen tape ($1)

Year: 1770s

How historically accurate is it?: There aren’t as many surviving examples of plain and simple pockets, but the materials and shape are authentic, they’re 100% hand sewn, and constructed in the same manner as a pair of pockets in Colonial Williamsburg’s collection. I should have used linen thread, but other than that I’d say it’s pretty good.

Hours to complete: 10

First worn: Just to try on when finished

Cost: Technically free (because David!), but I’d guess about $15 worth of supplies

Advertisements

Why Reenact British?

Why Reenact British https://thefarmingdaughter.com/2017/04/06/why-reenact-british

The uncertainty was clear in Mom’s voice. “You’re going to reenact British? Why would you want to do that?” It was a fair question. I had, after all, just announced I was going to start reenacting the Revolutionary War…on the side of the “enemy”.

I have reenacted the 19th century and the American Civil War for over five years. Most of the time I portray a Northern civilian on the side of the Union. This year I decided to branch out into reenacting the 18th century and the Revolutionary War. I am currently researching and sewing to develop a British camp follower impression, a woman who followed the army to lend support through cooking, doing laundry, sewing, and nursing. So why did I decide to portray what is usually viewed as “the bad guys”?

Besides wanting to participate with some of my friends who reenact British, there are several reasons why I chose to side with the Redcoats for my first 18th century impression.

I want to reenact British because…

1.) …someone has to portray them!

You have to admit, it would be a pretty lame reenactment if the brave Continental soldiers and American militia marched out to do battle with no one! There are two sides to every conflict and it’s necessary for reenactors to be willing to rally ’round the King’s Colours as well as the Continental banner.

2.) …I want to accurately tell their story.

It has been said, “History is written by the victors.” As Americans it’s understandable that we would like to glorify and emphasize our side of the story. However, I think the British narrative deserves to be told as well. To gain an accurate picture of the war we need to look at the events from both the American and British perspectives. I hope through my portrayal I will be able to negate some of the common misconceptions and bias surrounding the British.

3.) …I want to humanize them. 

This somewhat goes along with #2. Since the British were on the opposing side we tend to brand them as vengeful monsters. History is not as cut and dried as “good guys” and “bad guys”, however. There were men who acted honorably and those who acted deplorably on both sides. I want my persona to bring the British to life, to make their motivations, hopes, desires, and struggles relatable.

4.) …I might have been one in the 18th century.

Before the Revolutionary War, the 13 colonies belonged to Great Britain and the colonists themselves were British subjects. At the time, rebelling against England was viewed by some as a treacherous and foolish decision, essentially turning traitor on your own country. Even if you disagreed with some of England’s policies, that didn’t necessarily mean you were willing to take the radical step of revolution. With the perspective of time it’s easy to unhesitatingly claim that we would have sided with the Patriots, but that might not have been the case.

5.) …they had more camp followers.

Both the American and British armies had women camp followers, but the Crown forces tended to have a higher ratio. It is entirely appropriate to portray a follower of either army, but the description of the British with their “Herds of Women” makes it especially relevant to portray one. The double benefit is most of the clothing I will be sewing for my British impression will translate to an American impression as well.

 

It had been suggested to me that portraying the British will disrespect the sacrifices our founding fathers made. I believe the contrary. Accurately and knowledgeably representing the British will only further show how truly amazing the American victory was over the super power of Great Britain. I’m excited to begin this foray into a new historical portrayal!

What do you think of reenactors portraying “the other side”? If you are a reenactor, what made you choose your particular persona?

-Michaela “The Farming Daughter”

(Post image: detail of “The Relief” by William Dickinson after Henry William Bunbury, 1781)