An extravagant and impractical gown 

Hello

Aristocratic women were decorative objects, so they did a lot of nothing….perhaps a turn in the garden, or danced at court, but that is it. Even the dancing-especially in the French court-wasn’t going to cause much exertion, just a lot of gesturing and a bit of elegant hopping. Some aristocratic women rode horses, and therefore could get out of their panniers for that, but most of the time they stood around a room or sat. The panniers were much lighter than the fabrics of the time, as well, so that assumption is incorrect. Women obviously didn’t have to wear them when they weren’t expecting visitors, either, but they did no work of any kind. That’s why each estate had hordes of servants.

A very similar structure to what the conservator made, only with whale bone (baleen)…I think, panniers but very wide ones. These extra wide court gowns are not my specialty. Hopefully someone else will comment further.

thought to have belonged to the Countess of Haddington, probably the wife of the 7th Earl of Haddington en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hamilton,_7th_Earl_of_Haddington en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_of_Haddington

@@lazygardens Thank you!

@@lazygardens Thank you!

Also the comment about the "very very rigid stays"... they are clothing historicans for gods sake! DO. BETTER.

In most of the English speaking world, "display purposes" are considered distinct from "practical purposes," so calling this gown impractical makes perfect sense. And I fail to see any part where they acted like maids are wearing these dresses. In fact, the title very clearly calls it "extravagant," the description calls it "opulent," it's labelled as a "court gown," you know, for being worn in the presence of royalty, and its original ownership is attributed to a countess. Read better, and then check your ego.