Alive after Death

Accession #:  2002.0002

Item: Mourning Ring

Brett Randolph, son of Richard Randolph of Curles and cousin to William III,  may have made a request for a mourning or memorial ring to be made upon his death, bequeathing money for this very purpose. It may have also been possible that the family had a desire to have a piece of him with them, to keep him alive after his death. Brett Randolph had four children- Richard, Henry, Brett and Susanna. Any of which could have been the wearer of this ring.

The mourning ring is black enamel and inscribed on the enamel in gold is the name of the deceased, “Brett Randolph” and the date of his death “ 4 September 1759”. The ring is set with nineteen diamonds in a circle surrounding a piece of hair under glass.

Mourning rings date back to William Shakespeare (1564-1616), who mentioned them in his will. He states:

“I gyve and bequeath to [Mr. Richard Tyler thelder] Hamlett Sadler xxvj.8. viij.d. to buy him a ringe; to William Raynoldes gent., xxvj.8. viij.d. to buy him a ringe; to my dogson William Walker xx8. in gold; to Anthonye Nashe gent. xxvj.8. viij.d. [in gold]; and to my fellowes John Hemynges, Richard Brubage, and Henry Cundell, xxvj.8. viij.d. a peece to buy them rnges”

The wealthy in the 17^th and 18^th centuries could afford mourning rings. In their wills they would specifically write out how they were to be designed and made. The fact that there was a ring made in memory of Brett Randolph at his death showed that the family had the money to have a ring produced just for them in the way requested.  The popularity of mourning jewelry accelerated when Queen Victoria had one made after Prince Albert’s death in 1861. “Commemorative jewellery” was also mass produced with images of royalty to remember a monarch such as for Charles I who was executed in 1649 (http://www.britishmuseum.org/; see image 1).

In the I8th century, if the details of the person were put on the stem of the ring in white enamel then that meant the person was single. If they were put in black enamel then the deceased was married.   Family members liked to included hair from the deceased for its close connection to its previous owner and it was a “symbol for life” (http://hairwork.com/remember.htm).  An excerpt from Godey’s Lady Book (c. 1850), a magazine popular in the United States, declares:

"Hair is at once the most delicate and last of our materials and survives us like
love. It is so light, so gentle, so escaping from the idea of death, that, with a
lock of hair belonging to a child or friend we may almost look up to heaven
and compare notes with angelic nature, may almost say, I have a piece of thee
here, not unworthy of thy being now" (qtd. in Harran)

These types of jewelry, like the mourning ring, kept the life of a loved one in the wearer’s memory. It was a way of physically having a part of the person with them by having hair incorporated into the mourning jewelry. Mourning jewelry is also known as memorial jewelry because of its ability to be a permanent memorial of a person’s life. Memorial rings are still sold today (see image 2).

However, these modern mourning rings are not as personal as the rings of Brett Randolph’s day, when the pieces were fashioned specifically with the intention of physically having a part of the deceased with the wearer. It takes being alive after death to a whole different level.

Image 1 "Commemorative Ring-Charles I" : http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_mla/m/memorial_ring_commemorating_ch.aspx.

Image 2 "Sterling Silver Memorial Message Ring (25 Characters)":

http://www.gordonsjewelers.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2605732&camp=SEM_none_none_none

Works Cited

Harran, Susan and Jim. “Remembering a Loved one with Mourning Jewelry” .  Antique Week. December 1997. 25 October 2011. http://hairwork.com/remember.htm.

Peters, Hayden. The Art of Mourning. “An Overview of the History and Industry of Hairwork”. 25 October 2011. http://artofmourning.com/hairwork.html.

Victoria’s Past . “Mourning Rings”. 25 October 2011.  http://www.victoriaspast.com/LadyinBlack/MourningRings.htm.

 “The Last will and Testament of William Shakespere”.  25 October 2011. http://hiwaay.net/~paul/shakspere/shakwill.html.

Things Gone By Museum. “Mourning Jewelry Museum” .  25 October 2011. http://thingsgoneby.com/museum/mourningmuseum.html.

The British Museum. “Memorial Ring Commemorating Charles  I”. 25 October 2011.

http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/pe_mla/m/memorial_ring_commemorating_ch.aspx.

My Love Ten Thousand Times

Accession #: 1906.0009
Item: wedding dress belonging to James Madison's mother

Mermaid, princess, A-line, shift, or column. Potential silhouettes of any dress for any sort of occasion. But more importantly: the dress, for the occasion many dream about starting from their adolescence. Although most only wear their wedding dress on the momentous day itself, it serves the purpose of honoring matrimonial tradition. Today's dream of the big, white dress was not always the case. It was not until Queen Victoria's wedding in 1840 when she dressed in white satin and lace that the trend was set. Before then, it was of fashion to simply wear one's “sunday best” for the special occasion.

            It is typically unheard of that a modern bride will wear a color other than white to her wedding. Today's interpretations of wedding white bring to mind purity, innocence, and virginity. In past centuries, however, it was the color blue that symbolized these qualities, as witnessed by the silk and cotton wedding gown (1860),  given to the Metropolitan Museum of Art from the Brooklyn Museum. In fact, the color of the bride's dress was much more focused on demonstrating she and her family's wealth, rather than symbolizing virtuous characteristics. This proved that the family was able to afford a dress that their daughter would most likely never wear again. The rarer the color, the better showcasing of wealth. A silly poem was published in the 19^th century about the color of your dress predicting the outcome of your marriage. It states,

            “Married in white, you will have chosen all right. Married in grey , you will go far away.    Married in black, you will wish yourself back. Married in red, you’ll wish yourself dead. Married in blue, you will always be true. Married in pearl, you’ll live in a whirl. Married in green, ashamed to be seen, Married in yellow, ashamed of the fellow. Married in brown, you’ll live out of town. Married in pink, your spirits will sink.”

Even after Queen Victoria's wedding in 1840, white was not a popular choice until the end of the 19^th century thanks to the rise of the upper-middle class who strove to emulate the upper class while now having a more expendable income.

            It was not uncommon for a woman to alter or dye her wedding dress after the special occasion. Some brides even purchased separate bodices to accompany the dress for later occasions. Necklines were higher and more conservative on wedding dresses than on typical evening attire so the bodice was often switched or altered for later use.

            Wedding gowns of the 18^th and 19^th centuries were created as two separate, adjoining pieces: the bodice and the skirt, as seen in the dress of James Madison's mother found in Wilton's collection. In the 1700s, the bodice would most always cover one's elbows as well as establish a narrow waist for the wearer. Elegant women of the time, such as Empress Josephine of France, greatly popularized certain silhouettes of the early 19^th century, such as the column-like gown, complete with an empire waist situated under the woman's bust. The silhouette was inspired by Ancient Greek and Roman dress however it was brought back into style thanks to Empress Josephine.

            By the 1840s, the circumference of the skirt grew to an exaggerated fullness thanks to increased petticoats and caged crinoline. The size of the skirt reached its climax by the 1860s, but then quickly fell out of style by the 1870s thanks to the rise of the bustle. Large leg-of-mutton sleeves often accompanied the bustle at the time up until the 20^th century. Thanks to the reverse “S” shape silhouette popular of 1900, women were forced to squeeze and contort their bodies into unnatural and painful feminine shapes. This sort of unnaturalness sparked the rebellion against corsets just before the 1920s, creating loose, diaphanous, and much shorter dresses. The silhouettes of the 1930s, 40s, and 50s echoed the natural shape of a woman, redefining the waist-line and took inspiration from Hollywood, World War II uniforms, and influential women such as Jacquelyn Kennedy and Grace Kelly.

            Wilton's upcoming exhibit opening February 4^th, 2012, entitled “My Love Ten Thousand Times: Love and Courtship since the 18^th century,” chronicles love and marriage in the 18^th, 19^th, and 20^th century. This exhibit will include a variety of wedding dresses spanning two hundred years.

Druesedow, Jean L. "In Style: Celebrating Fifty Years of the Costume        Institute." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 45.2 (1987): 5-63.Web. 20 July 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3268996>.    

Meehan, Norma Lu, and Mei Campbell. Victorian Wedding Dress in the United States: A History Through Paper Dolls. Lubbock, TX: Texas   Tech University Press, 2009. 2-5. Print

McIntyre, Kelsey. "The History of the White Wedding Dress." From Times Past. Johanne Yakula, Web. 15 July 2011. <http://www.fromtimespast.com/wedding.htm>.

Oakes, Leimomi. "Queen Victoria's wedding dress: the one that started it all." The Dreamstress. N.p., 18 April 2011. Web. 15 July 2011.  <http://thedreamstress.com/2011/04/queen-victorias-wedding-dress-the-one-that-started-it-all/>

Remington, Preston. "A Special Exhibition of Victorian and Edwardian Dresses: March 14-April 23." Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 34.3 (1939): 55-60. Web. 20 July 2011.  http://www.jstor.org/stable/3256305.

Thieme, Otto Charles. "The Art of Dress in the Victorian and Edwardian Eras." Journal of Decorative and Propaganda Arts 10. (1988): 14-27. Web. 20 July 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1504015>.

(1906.0009)