The top portion of this mourning dress is a black silk bodice with lace overlay, high collar, and a peplum. Circa 1880. Belonged to Mrs. S.V. Wood and donated to HHM by her grandchildren in 1963.
By: Linnea Dahlquist
In the winter of 1861, England’s Queen Victoria was left devastated by the sudden loss of her beloved husband, Prince Albert, and entered a period of mourning which lasted forty years. In response, England’s relationship to death changed; what was once seen as a private and personal matter became subject to a dizzying array of norms and rituals, collectively known as the Victorian Cult of Death. Nowhere is this more visible than in women’s Victorian mourning attire.
Attire for men was comparatively simple, under the expectation that they work during the mourning period. Men wore simple, dark suits and hats adorned with a band called a “weeper”. Weepers were made of a type of crimped silk called “crape,” the width of which determined by their relationship to the deceased.
Most expectations for mourning centered on women, as they were considered the moral and spiritual center of their families, and therefore the “true vessels of grief”. Mourning etiquette of the time dictated that there were three stages of mourning: Deep; Second or Full; and Light or Half. Each stage had unique attire, and its duration was dictated by the relationship of the mourner to the deceased.
For Deep mourning, a period lasting from three months to a year, they were expected to wear simple and modest dresses made from non-reflective black silk, wool, or cotton known as “widows’ weeds”. This was accessorized with a long crape “weeping veil”. Modest jewelry was allowed, such as gemstones like jet or garnet, and even the hair of the deceased.
For Second/Full Mourning – another three months to a year – dress became less restrictive. While dresses still needed to be primarily black, white could be introduced in small amounts. The veil could be made from net or tulle, or else replaced entirely by a silk bonnet. Jewelry could be more ornamental but was expected to still remain modest.
For Light/Half Mourning – three to six months – dresses could be made in muted colors like lavender, navy blue, dark green, and gray. The veil was no longer needed, and gold jewelry could be worn.
While women of means could easily purchase an entirely new wardrobe to fit these expectations, this was not true of lower classes. Poorer women often had to overdye existing outfits and modify them with crape fabric, mixing in purchased accessories alongside their homemade alterations. By 1900 ready-to-wear mourning garb became an industry. Initially, catalogs and department stores started offering mourning attire in addition to their usual selections. This gave way to specialty shops dedicated to selling appropriate mourning attire. Even etiquette books were published detailing proper mourning practices.
The Victorian Cult of Death was concluded by the onset of WWI. The grieving process was forced to contend with the new realities of mechanized war: deaths now happened in droves, far from home, and often without a recoverable body. This change in the reality of death forced norms to become more practical, marking the end of the elaborate and time-consuming rituals of the Victorian period.
Author Bio: Linnea Dahlquist holds two B. A’s, one in Cultural Anthropology with a minor in art history from Minnesota State University Moorhead and the other focusing on History, Archaeology, and Cultural Studies and Comparative Literature from the University of Minnesota. In addition, they received a certificate in Museum Studies from the University of Washington. They often go down rabbit holes on a variety of topics but are especially drawn to anything relating to visual arts, crafts, folklore and mythology, music, identity expression, performing arts, and food. In their spare time they enjoy crafting and hanging out with their cat.
This project was made possible in part by the people of Minnesota through a grant funded by an appropriation to the Minnesota Historical Society from the Minnesota Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund. Any views, findings, opinions, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the State of Minnesota, the Minnesota Historical Society, or the Minnesota Historic Resources Advisory Committee.