Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Gorseheart

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 26
Having Fun! / Re: Art by Romanov fans III
« on: August 02, 2011, 11:26:57 PM »
Thank you sooooo much GD Andrea!

That is true Sarushka, but here's an web page I found on it being more about tradition:

And the excerpt from this page:

Why did they dress little boys like little girls?

The way children have been dressed first relates to ideas of infancy, development, and gender identity. Until the eighteenth century most babies were wrapped in swaddling cloth, put in short dresses, then dressed in miniature adult clothing while still quite young in preparation for adult roles. The 1760's brought in philosophies of Rousseau which promoted clothing that allowed for children's natural development. Dresses promoted movement and ease for both sexes. Though adult roles were extremely gender specific, small children's clothing was not. The specifics of dress in every period of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries cannot be discussed here as they changed with fashion, science and culture. General theories and tendencies, however, can be discussed.

Many images of small boys from the Victorian period and earlier appear feminine by today's standards. Some images show young boys in dresses almost identical to those of girls. Late nineteenth century images show boys in the little pantsuits with lace and velvet deemed the Little Lord Fauntleroy suit after one described in the Frances Hodgeson Burnett book. Boys' clothing was not dissimilar to women's fashions of the nineteenth century. It was not unusual in the nineteenth century for small girls to wear bloomers, or pants beneath their dresses as well. Though the shapes and details of this form of dress are feminine by today's standards, people living at the time would not confuse these boys for girls, nor would a parent be appalled at the idea of someone thinking their infant son was a little girl or vice versa.

Like many other aspects of dress, the visible implicators of masculine and feminine have changed over time. The color schemes we associate with the identification of an infant's gender did not develop until the early to mid twentieth century. Pinks and blues were used interchangeably on children when colors were used, but infants of the nineteenth century would most likely be attired in white. It displayed purity and could be bleached clean, an issue of practicality. Visible designs and accessories were recognizable by contemporaries as masculine or feminine, but the dress itself would not necessarily be an indicator. Finally, the use of pants for infant and toddler boys could create additional difficulties as fasteners commonly used today (snaps, zippers and velcro) were not available until the twentieth century. In the time before a child was potty trained, dresses would provide cover and access to diapers.

Until recent decades parents were not as concerned with declaring a child's sex. Children would rarely be exposed to strangers until well into their toddler years due to the more home-based lives most people lived.[11] Gender would not need to be advertised to others who most likely knew the parents and the gender of the child already.

Beliefs about the nature of children also supported the idea that children developed personalities and individual traits as they grew, but were not necessarily born with them. Until babies grew into toddlers (2 or 3 years old) gender would not play a role in their lives. This may have been partially due to the high rates of infant mortality. This lack of individuality may have been a form of psychological protection for parents facing the likelihood of losing infant children.[12]

I read a long ago (from somewhere that escapes me) that they were superstitious, and they dressed them like girls to prevent evil spirits from taking them, because males were valuable in old societies. I don't know, just putting my two cents in.

Someone else thought so too I guess, I could be wrong....

 I have read that there was some superstitious reason for keeping little boys in long girl like curls and dresses.  It may have been Biblical and related to when all of the baby boys were ordered killed in Jesus' day.

His hair was Auburn.
And From Massie's Nicholas and Alexandra:

"a long, finely chiseled face, delicate features, auburn hair with a coppery glint, and large grey-blue eyes like his mother"

And as for the Sailor suit thing, here's a thread already on it:
And a quote!
As far as I know, this is what he largely wore. I think he no doubt did like to dress as part of the army and navy. He was handsome as a little boy, and as a baby, wearing dresses and frilly things.Sailor suits were first introduced to Russian royalty with the children of GD Marie Pavlovna the elder, and Empress Marie Feodorovna, Nicholas II's mother. It certainly became prevalent among young males in the Romanov family, and among European royalty to wear them. The native Russian like costumes seen in mid 19th century photos of boys of the more junior branches of the Imperial Family, were never worn by Alexei as far as I know.

May God keep you!

Having Fun! / Re: Art by Romanov fans III
« on: July 26, 2011, 03:46:16 PM »
Thanks guys.

Having Fun! / Re: Art by Romanov fans III
« on: July 25, 2011, 11:27:06 PM »
Here the finished versions, not so good....

Alexei: WIP:

Marie-Gabrielle and Luitpold sketch:

The Wittlesbachs / Re: Prince Luitpold of Bavaria 1901-1914
« on: July 25, 2011, 10:43:26 PM »
I'm compiling together a Fictional story about Luitpold and was wondering if there was any information that hadn't be said yet? Any help would be great! Plus, does anyone know what the name of the coachman's son who died of Polio the same time Luitpold did? Please and Thanks!

Having Fun! / Re: Art by Romanov fans III
« on: July 25, 2011, 10:28:24 PM »
Thanks and beautiful job Alice!

Rasputin / Re: Rasputin and advertisment
« on: July 25, 2011, 03:32:01 PM »
Here's a link to a blog that features all kinds of place Rasputin has shown up:

The Wittlesbachs / Re: Prince Luitpold of Bavaria 1901-1914
« on: July 24, 2011, 10:46:06 AM »
From a different user, that place is rich with photos, yet again, I don't own, but I just want to lasso it all together here.

Probably been here, but I love the larger quality:

The Wittlesbachs / Re: Prince Luitpold of Bavaria 1901-1914
« on: July 24, 2011, 10:27:22 AM »

The Wittlesbachs / Re: Prince Luitpold of Bavaria 1901-1914
« on: July 24, 2011, 10:21:17 AM »
Has this been on here?

From From Adagietto's account on there I believe, has the same icon. I hope you don't mind that I linked these here, I wanted to gather information all in one place.... So my apologies if I'm not suppose to use them

 CP Ruprecht at Luitpold's christening
Christmas with Luitpold 1901
With Crown Prince of Germany
In the mountains

The Wittlesbachs / Re: Prince Luitpold of Bavaria 1901-1914
« on: July 22, 2011, 12:03:07 PM »
Here Luitpold and brother Albretch, with cousins. Among them, his future step mother, Pss Antonia of Luxembourg

I wonder if she ever knew that she would mother Albrecht one day

Having Fun! / Re: Luitpold book! Help needed!
« on: July 21, 2011, 04:34:00 PM »
My German teacher had German magazines and there was an article on the family, but he took it back....

Having Fun! / True Blood: Dead in the Family
« on: July 21, 2011, 02:17:38 AM »

Evidently Alexei becomes a Vampire.... Anyone read this?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 26