Friday, May 18, 2012
Trains
Lately I have been thinking a lot about trains, and how
ladies encumbered by them ever managed to back away from the royal presence
after having been presented at court. Walking backwards with a train of between
three and a half and four and a half yards in length surely amounts to a kind
of dare that got out of hand, especially when the wearer carried the burden of sometimes
mountainous quantities of jewels, including a tiara that could weigh almost as
much as a motorcycle helmet, and was also obliged to hold in one gloved hand a large
floral bouquet, and a fan in the other. Presumably the gloved fan hand was the one
that doubled as a behind-the-back train manipulator when treading carefully backwards on
high-ish heels. It seems remarkable that no account of any accident has
survived, though it seems inconceivable that from time to time train-wearers
did not topple backwards, or fall head over heels, with the consequent hazards associated with the regulation low bodice. Let us assume that the Lord Chamberlain’s
department discreetly suppressed the news of any such incident, but it does remind me of that absurd anecdote about Queen Victoria in which on one occasion, before going in to dinner, Her Majesty urged one of her royal granddaughters:
“A little rose
in front, dear child, because of the footmen.” Another obstacle,
especially when long trains were fashioned from velvet, was the unhelpful
traction of the deep pile of silk carpets at the palace, especially heading up staircases. The physical effort alone must have
been the equivalent of a jolly good work-out at Equinox or Crunch, which, I suppose, in our depressingly crude and metropolitan moment, strikes one as almost the social equivalent of being presented at court.
No comments:
Post a Comment