Copyright (a) Jane Austen’s World. Gentle Readers, The previous post elicited a question about Regency underdrawers or a lady’s unmentionables. My answer was so long that I decided to create a new post from it.
1742 and 1794 fashion silhouette contrast
Drawers, which made their first serious appearance in 1806, and were fashioned after men’s underdrawers, were still optional during 1810. They would be worn more frequently as the century progressed. Underdrawers were considered risque, for the garments resembled men’s pant legs. Even if the garments were worn, they did not resemble the pretty underdrawers that we associate with the Victorian era.
Image of early under drawers
As you can see in this image, early ladies underdrawers consisted of two tubes of cloth that were tied to the waist, allowing a woman to, uhm, attend to her business without having to remove too many clothes. In an era without indoor plumbing, this must have been an important consideration.
I recently viewed a shameless cartoon by Thomas Rowlandson of a group of travelers (3 ladies and a gent, all family members), who were attending to their calls of nature on the side of the road. Because the image is quite vulgar, which many of Rowlandson’s images tend to be, I will only link to it. From the headdresses that the ladies are wearing, this cartoon was drawn much earlier than 1806. As you can see, no underdrawers obstructed the group from relieving their most pressing needs.
Detail of Rowlandson's Exhibition Staircase, 1800
Rowlandson’s Exhibition Staircase cartoon has a given date of 1800. The ladies’ tumble down a steep, crowded staircase forcibly reminds us that underdrawers were still a fashion consideration for the future.
Underdrawers belonging to the Duchess of Kent, 1810-1820. *Image@Regency Society of America Pro Boards
By 1820, wearing drawers was still optional, but by the 1850’s, the caged hooped skirts made them a necessity, for a hoop could be wildly unpredictable. One wrong swinging move or errant gust of wind, and a lady’s most delicate (or indelicate) parts would appear in full view. The 1956 version of The King and I contains one of my favorite scenes in which the King’s wives wear Western dresses for the first time. When the King enters, they immediately drop down to bow to him. Their hooped skirts swung straight up in the air, revealing their bare bottoms and shocking Anna, who had not anticipated such an END (ahem) to her well-meant scheme.
Caged crinoline
Needless to say, by the mid-19th century, ladies wore drawers as a matter of course.
*Regency Society of America Pro Boards
.jpg){kind=link}
This is indeed very interesting. I was under the impression underwear wasn’t worn till the end of the 19th century. So I suppose, during jane Austen’s time, and the type of characters she created, they would probably have worn drawers.
I did read though, that those troublesome many petticoats were removed during the world wars, as more women just wore their underwear, which evolved into the pants these days, and real underwear shrunk.;)
Thanks for this post though. Very interesting indeed.=D
Once again, Vic, you give us the full scoop on a topic that readers of Jane Austen might wonder about from time to time!
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Vic and Heather Carroll, Kate Curry. Kate Curry said: RT @janeaustenworld: A most delicate topic on Jane Austen's World: Ladies Underdrawers in Regency Times: http://t.co/T9hcFoH […]
I have wondered about the underwear issue, too. I would have been so cold in the winter.
The top illustration and the Rowlandson picture show the fuller woman without a doubt. Very ample and curvaceous derrières.
Not at all like the size zero, stick thin, models of today.
Wow, that’s fascinating! I had no idea this was the case, but I suppose it’s something people wouldn’t really talk about! Thanks for giving the full scoop.
I can see where the soft draping Regency style gown would have a marred silhouette with underdrawers.
However, 1800 the northern hemisphere was just emerging from the mini ice age (roughly 1300-1800). During those very cold years when the ice on the Thames was thick enough to hold carnivals on and light bonfires, I would think that under garments would have been a necessity. Up until the lighter cloth and draping gowns of the Regency, the fuller skirts would hang properly with or without drawers.
jmho
I had thought the same, Phyllis, but all indications are that drawers were not a regular part of a woman’s wardrobe during this mini ice age when Frost Fairs were still common. So far, I have not run across any documentation, but I am still searching!!
To be sure, the chemise and petticoats were layered, and a woman could opt to wear more petticoats. One imagines that those garments clung to the legs and offered some warmth.
I heard about this feature of women’s clothing a few years ago when I watched the BBC “Regency House Party,” wherein people volunteered to live “in that era” in a period house for a certain length of time, as an social experiment and learning experience. (I think I have that show title correct) The participating “Lady of the House” apparently wore he “two-legged” underdrawers, and she said it was “cold down there” and had some trouble getting used to it. (I daresay!)
It’s my understanding that the “two legged” underdrawers continued to be worn right through to the early 20th century. Which made me realize WHY in the Victorian era, in Paris (particularly) when the women performed the “Can-Can” on stage, it was considered so very scandalous. I could never figure it out when I saw it in movies, because, of course, the actresses wore bloomers underneath. Not so, apparently, in the Victorian era, when stage dancers performed that scandalous dance — no wonder!
Very interesting, thanks Vic!
Fascinating comment, Cathy. I love it!
I’m fairly certain they would have been wearing drawers on-stage. Drawers of that age had an open crotch, but were saggy and designed to overlap in the front so nothing would be seen. Fine for day-to-day activity, but if you start dancing the “Can-Can” on-stage, something “might” show. So at that point (1830s – 1850s) buttons and sewn crotch seams began to appear on the drawers. It’s highly doubtful any real flashing would have occurred.
I have read from various other sources that a Regency lady might choose to wear a knitted tube-like undergarment under her gowns during the cold months. I’m imagining something a bit like a fine-gauge knit wool tube dress. That would certainly add necessary warmth without marring the silhouette of a Regency gown.
Very interesting about the drawers!
[…] and closer to the body, the use of a chemise or petticoat was even more crucial. A few weeks ago, one of my posts created a stir when I revealed that drawers were regarded as optional underwear for Regency ladies and readers […]
I’ve done re-enactment in cold weather with no drawers and I was perfectly warm. As long as you have suitable layers of petticoats it’s fine. I found that a warm air pocket was created around my legs, probably generated by body heat and kept there by layers of linen and wool.
Interesting fact regarding ladies undergarments which makes me wonder, if they were optional, how did the ladies deal with that monthly period? I assume there were no tampons back then.
Btw, loving your blog. Coming from Asia and was introduced to Jane Austen, I try to learn how life was during her time.
There is no documentation. The guess is that ladies used cotton pads that were pinned or cloths that were fashioned much like diapers. I imagine that few would emerge from the privacy of their rooms during times of heavy flow.
I have so far found no satisfactory answers regarding what women absorbed menstrual blood with in Georgian times. It’s all very well for the upper classes to retreat to their bedrooms during the times of heaviest flow, feigning headache, but what about everyone else? They would have to work and wouldn’t be able to just sit around for several days a month.
When they had balls in Jane Austen times, many women must have gone even while having their periods, or half the women would be missing. The upper classes would all have had to shape their plans around every female’s period. I found one site which suggested women just bled into their clothes. Maybe the poorest classes might have, but I can’t believe upper classes went around trailing blood behind themselves and into their best dresses. I know that women before modern times often didn’t get their period till age 15 or 16 because of poor nutrition. Did poor nutrition also mean that women had irregular periods or ones that lasted less time?
On the subject of dances among the upper classes, where did the women go to the washroom? There was no indoor plumbing…did the organizers of the ball have a separate room where women could go to squat over a chamber pot? Or did they all trek outside somewhere to an outhouse in the dark? Did they bring extra whatever-it-was to absorb their menstrual blood?
Did the lower classes actually wear corsets? How could they work with them obstructing their breathing?
With regard to products for menstruation there is something on the history of it here: http://myperiodblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/history-of-menstruation-part-1/
I wouldn’t trust cartoonists too much for history of costume. It wouldn’t suit them to show drawers or even clouts.
[…] under her petticoats, well between her thighs and touched her cunt. — “You’ve no drawers on,” said I pleased (for every dirty little whore as well as servants and ladies all wear […]
Where do pantalettes comes in? I read somewhere that by 1820, they had been replaced by drawers except in some rural areas, but you don’t mention them at all.
Look for Gillray’s cartoon c.1810 “The Progress of the Toilet,” showing a woman with stockings, drawers, shift, and stays. Also, the Duchess of Kent’s drawers have a seat to them and aren’t just two legs. Girls wore pantalettes– meant to be seen below their hems and fancier than drawers,
There were ads in newspapers offering women’s drawers for sale. These were offered as though they were as regularly purchased as men’s drawers.
A clothing expert said country women wore jumps which were a sort of exterior stays. They look like a sort of weskit in illustrations.
Regarding monthly periods, there is a good chance that a woman of those times might never get one at all, being continuously pregnant from 13 till she died (probably in child-birth). I find it hard to believe these stories about simply bleeding into their clothes or onto the ground. If they had not pins or strings, they could have simply tucked cloths between their legs if they weren’t too active, but something like a loin cloth to hold everything in place is hardly difficult to fashion, although I’m sure I’ve seen something like a belt holding straps a pad could pin onto – from memory, not very comfortable looking.