A Ghost in Monte Carlo

Apparently Barbara Cartland is well-known and a big deal as romance novelists go (my Mother knows everything, I do not). Not only was she responsible for A Hazard of Hearts, but today's post is going to be another hilarious and over-the-top movie adaptation of a book of hers. This one is set in the 1870s, and is about a girl with a dead mother (she doesn't know who her father is - it is possible that this turns out to be important...), whose ex-madame of an aunt takes her off to Monte Carlo and starts throwing her at princes. Why? Well, who am I to ruin all the surprises. But the important part is that our ingenue this time around is an actress from one of my favorite movies ever, Without a Clue. The hero is recycled from the last movie (lazy!). And the villain is Oliver Reed, who stars alongside Diana Rigg (remember... the evil mother from yesterday!) in my very favorite movie ever, The Assassination Bureau. You might also recognize him from the 1970s Three Musketeers, or any number of other places.

Anyway, the girl in this movie has the most interesting range of hobbies!

Hanging out in convents!

Hanging out at fancy parties! And wearing grey.

Hanging out in runaway carriages!

Is that another runaway carriage? No, I guess it is an abduction. A lot like in A Hazard of Hearts, no?

Clinging to the sides of buildings!

Getting engaged to princes!

My personal favorite, screaming ineffectually while men on the same side fight! Possibly explaining the situation would be more effective...

Jewels, Gems, and Treasures at the MFA

About couple of weeks ago (but oh, I've been busy since then), I went to the MFA with a dear friend. At the moment, they are having an awfully sparkly exhibition called "Jewels, Gems, and Treasures." There were some cool ancient things, but obviously I'm most interested in jewelry that I could wear to a dance event. If only it was mine! Here are my favorites.

Oh, if I could have stolen one thing, it would have been this. The picture does no justice to the size of this thing! It is an 1890s corsage ornament. I found a website with what I think is the same item (or something very similar, at the least), and it claims to be 23.5 cm long. Wild, don't you think?

A detail of the 1890s corsage ornament. Look at those diamonds glitter!

This early 1860s set belonged to Mary Todd Lincoln. Cool.

1870s amethyst suite. You know, I really like amethyst. It is so pretty!

I am sure I have seen this one in books. It is a Lalique hair ornament with antennae, from approximately 1900. So cool! I really do love it.

Another view of the same. It was symmetrical, but my camera makes it look funny.

An 1890s Faberge diamond necklace. Oh yeah.

Close up!

And the winner of creepiest jewelry set, this 1870s set is composed of taxidermied hummingbirds. Eww! They have rubies for eyes and little gold beaks. Creepy.

Parasol Pockets Part 2

I was going to post about something completely different, but I got some insightful comments followed by a really astounding email from Gemma, full of fashion plates from The Englishwoman's Domestic Magazine. Even though she did all the work of finding these, I just had to pass them on. While you're looking them over, consider the evidence. A lot of these are very short for a parasol, it seems that non-triangular shaped pockets appear in similar contexts, and nowhere are these referred to as parasol pockets. On the other hand, the 1870s is a good time period for tiny accessories so we might be talking about short parasols, the existence of non-triangular pockets does not mean they were used for the same thing, and we could still be missing some perfect example of the parasol pocket in action. Still, this could just have been a fashion for impractically shaped pockets (some of them are kind of deep to be so narrow, don't you think?), and it would not be the first time a museum made something up that seemed cute and plausible. Ask my mother about Civil War Tear-catchers some time. On to the evidence!

January 1876: There is definitely a pocket there (under the second bow), but it is not one of the triangular ones.

January 1876: This does look like a triangular pocket, though most of it is hidden under a bow. No parasol in sight.

January 1876: The woman on the left has a square pocket with fringe in the place I might expect one of these triangular pockets.

May 1876: The woman on the right has a shallow triangular pocket.

May 1876: Both of these women have triangular pockets. Neither has a parasol.

July 1876: A lot of triangular pocket designs!

July 1876: But no mention of a "parasol pocket"...

August 1876: The woman on the left has a triangular pocket.

August 1876: A deep triangular pocket AND a tiny fashionable parasol. Is this good news?

August 1876: Maybe that wasn't such great news. The woman on the left has a cute little parasol, but a not-very-triangular pocket.

August 1876: Another triangular-ish pocket on the right.

August 1876: Two triangular pockets, no parasols. Hmmm.

September 1876: No way is that long parasol fitting comfortably in that short pocket.

September 1876: Again, that is a really long parasol for a relatively short (though quite triangular) pocket.

September 1876: Another pocket.

October 1876: Another pocket, woman on the right.

October 1876: Yet another pocket, woman on the right.

November 1876: This could practically be an unattached pocket, something worn slung over the skirt like a purse on a belt. But more likely it is a decorative feature and just another triangular skirt pocket.

November 1876: Another pocket with a bow!

November 1876: The woman on the right has a subtle but long pocket.

November 1876: Another pocket. It is triangular. I'm getting less insightful as this goes on...

March 1877: A very square and not triangular pocket. Interesting.

March 1877: A very deep triangular pocket, of the type I might actually comfortably put a parasol in. I would not want to go fishing for small objects in that, though.

March 1877: A probably triangular pocket on the left, but a square one on the right.

March 1877: One more triangular pocket, on the woman on the right.

Parasol Pockets

So, I've noticed this thing about 1870s dresses. Sometimes they have a hilarious little triangular pocket. A parasol pocket? You tell me. I haven't found any contemporary mentions of such a thing, nor any paintings of a woman with an actual parasol in such a pocket. On the other hand, they appear to be a recurring theme in original garments. Is this absolutely inspired, or kind of dumb? You decide!