Regency Ladies Fashion: pantaloons -- did they or didn't they?

 

I recently taught a workshop at a writer's conference on Regency Ladies Fashions. One attendee asked what ladies wore underneath their skirts. You should have heard the gasps when I told her, "Nothing." 

Now is a good time to revise and cross-post about this somewhat controversial topic.

Historians, researchers, and authors agree that ladies wore a shift, or chemise, over which they laced up stays (a type of Regency corset but more comfortable), and then a petticoat, which was basically a long slip or jumper. We also know they wore stockings that tied or buckled. Our modern-day sensibilities insist that the ladies who lived during the time of Jane Austen's heroines must have worn something underneath all that, right?

Read on, dear reader.

Drawers

We know drawers existed by 1806 because merchants advertised and sold them. However, these merchants did not cater to the upper classes; their clientele was the working class.  Some advertisements tried to bring them into fashion for the wealthy by listing them as being good for wearing while riding. However, they didn't understand the first rule of advertising: know your audience.

In 1811, Princess Charlotte wore them at least once, because she accidentally revealed them. However, many considered the garment shocking and openly criticized her for not only letting it show but wearing it at all.

Drawers and similar undergarments were a direct imitation of men's undergarments called "small clothes." As such, they were considered masculine and therefore vulgar for ladies. In addition, drawers had two entirely separate legs with strings that tied around the waist and left open in the middle. For decades, the only women who wore them were prostitutes.  Ladies of high society wanted nothing to do with this kind of garment.

In 1817, some fashionable ladies wore pantaloons, a longer, lace-edged variation of drawers that were meant to be seen below the petticoat. In English Women's Clothing in the 19th Century, by C Willet Cunnington, the author describes drawers as "frilled trousers" but goes on to state that the fashion disappeared almost immediately, adding, "On the whole however, it seems probable that most women did not wear any garment of this kind until the '30's" (meaning the 1830's).

Before you continue, I must warn you: the colored drawings below are a tad graphic, so please don't send me hate mail.

Risqué Regency Era Cartoons

The lack of any garment underneath ladies' skirts was such common knowledge that even social and political cartoons of the day reflected this. Thomas Rowlandson, a famous illustrator and cartoonist, created watercolors of soldiers, wars, death and dying, the hunt, several humorous series, as well as some rather erotic pieces. I  have not included those in this post. You're welcome.

One of Rowlandson's pieces is called Exhibition Stare Case (pictured to the left). In this image, several people are tumbling down the stairs. Three of them are misfortunate ladies, positioned with their legs up, revealing naked thighs and bums. This suggests ladies did not wear drawers or pantaloons.

Other satirical cartoons by different cartoonists including Cruikshank and Gilray show pictures of women falling off horses or, in the case of the picture to the right, warming themselves in front of a fire. In all these drawings, women are wearing nothing underneath their skirts except stockings and shoes. (Don't you love the fat cat lying in front of her as if it has just expired?)

Obviously, back then, as today, political cartoons are only loosely based on fact. They're supposed to be absurd. However, so many of them reveal (no pun intended) the lack of ladies' undergarments that the combination begins to present a strong case against the practice, at least among the wealthier classes.

Another period drawing that addresses this is called "Progress of the Toilet." It's a set of three images published by James Gillray in 1810. His drawings are well-known to ridicule many practices of the Regency Era. Several of his creations mock the fashions of the period which dictated how the shapes of women should be altered to meet current standards of beauty.

The image to the left shows a woman wearing drawers. It is difficult to see, but she's wearing a chemise -- you can see the sleeves and the edge around the top of her stays -- which seems to be tucked into her drawers. The stays appear to be from earlier in the century when ladies wore Georgian stays, as evidenced by the little tabs on the bottom of the stays. But I digress. It's also possible the cartoonist showed drawers to further ridicule the complicated process of dressing for the day and even perhaps to poke fun at the drawers themselves. Unfortunately, I was unable to determine the exact date of the image. One source said this series was created in 1810 but I have not been able to verify that. I find it more likely that it was around 1817 during that blip when drawers were popular.

Pantaloons

In the 1820s, which was the Victorian Era, long pantaloons (also called pantaletes) arrived on the scene with more popularity. The term can be confusing because men wore pantaloons -- silk breeches that went to the knee -- for formal occasions until well into the 1820s until trousers became mainstream fashion.

None of my books of Regency fashion prints show drawers or anything of the kind peeping out from underneath skirts -- not even those labeled "walking dress," "carriage dress," or "riding habit."

Conclusion

While some historians stubbornly claim that women wore drawers, there is too much proof to the contrary.  I suspect that just as today some men and women don't always wear underwear, there were those ladies during the Regency while most did not. Our modern-day sensibilities might make the idea of not wearing underwear sound a tad obscene. Just remember, they had far different viewpoints about a great many things during the Regency.

Sources:

English Women's Clothing in the Nineteenth Century by C. Willet Cunningham

Fashions in the Era of Jane Austen by Jody Gayles

http://www.janeausten.co.uk/corsets-and-drawers-a-look-at-regency-underwear/

https://janeaustensworld.wordpress.com/2010/11/06/ladies-underdrawers-in-regency-times/

http://www.fashion-era.com/drawers-pants-combinations-knickers-fashion.htm

https://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2011/11/regemcy-era-ladys-prodigious-layers-of.html

https://www.kristenkoster.com/a-primer-on-regency-era-womens-fashion/

Ladies Regency Fashion--"Undress"

The Regency era brought dramatic changes in women's fashion. Those huge hoop skirts and pinched waistlines popular in the Elizabethan Era disappeared in favor of the Roman style gown with high waistlines and lighter fabrics.

Ladies of the Beau Monde changed her clothing at least three different times a day depending on the time of day and her activities. Because the aristocracy and upper crust were so steeped in tradition and manners, they had no trouble following the rules. However, I have no doubt that arrivistes and the rising middle class found this custom bewildering.

UNDRESS
The term Undress, or dishabille, was the more casual or simpler style of gown worn at home usually in the morning. These were loose, comfortable gowns made with warmer fabrics and had higher necklines than gowns worn later in the day. Ladies often wore a cap in the morning, too. Ladies wore Undress gowns all morning until noon, depending on scheduled outings or visitors. On a quiet day, a lady might wear Undress until four or five in the afternoon. Sometimes undress gowns were quite decorative. Alison Steadman as Mrs. Bennet in the 1996 film version of Sense and Sensibility wore a morning gown in the film that closely resembled an 1815 Ackermann fashion plate. The actresses playing the Dashwood women often wore an apron or pinafore over their dresses when picking herbs or working in the kitchen. I don't know how accurate this is, or if they only did so because they were not overly wealthy and had to be very careful with their clothing.

Mornings were a time for solitude and tending to the house. For the lady of the house, her morning activities were fairly regimented. After rising, dressing, and eating breakfast, she consulted with her cook and housekeeper, and caught up on her correspondence.

Young ladies such as Jane Austen often practiced the pianoforte first thing in the morning. Ladies also read, sewed, wrote letters, made preserves, and oversaw the gardens.

When I'm staying home, I like pajama pants or stretch pants and a big soft T-shirt. (My favorite writing attire) Of course, if I were to tell my husband I planned to wear undress today, he'd imagine something entirely different ;-)

What do you like to wear when you're at home?

Regency Men's Clothing; pants, breeches, pantaloons, oh my!

Any well-heeled gentleman knows the importance of being well-turned out, if he hopes to catch the ladies' eyes, or even be accepted among their peers. Here are what Regency Romance Novel heroes would wear, based on what they really wore in Regency England.

BREECHES
Breeches, (pronounced britches) by the Regency era were considered old-fashioned. They are very baggy through the hips and seat. The exception was buckskin breeches, which are made of leather, and were quite tight, even being well molded to the body, like Levi's. That actually paints a nice visual, doesn't it? ;-)

Most breeches had a front fall which is a flap that covers the front opening. Early in the era the flap was a wide fall, going all the way across from hip to hip (think of the outer seam of the pants we wear today). Later, the fall narrowed, going only from hip-bone to hip-bone. Both falls worked in exactly the same way; the waistband buttoned, usually with 2-3 buttons, then the fall closed like a bib over the otherwise open front area of the pants.
Side by side drawing of wide and narrow falls which comes from:
http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/widefall-and-narrowfall2.jpg

There was a style called the "French fly", which is a simply a center front fly, but most Regency Englishmen didn't wear this style because they felt the French fly was somehow indecent and shouldn't be seen. In the painting "Passer Payez", Boilly c. 1803. The gentleman in the center is wearing breeches with a "French fly" which, isn't a suprise since it's a French painting. I think it's more flattering. This picture was taken from http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/passpaye.jpg

Men in Regency England didn't use belts. Instead, pants of all types would have been held up by "X" crossed braces (suspenders). In England it had to do with the length of the waistcoat. When the waistcoat was long enough to cover the front of the trouser, you saw both front-fall and French fly configurations. When fashion shortened the waistcoat, the front-fall was the most popular method of closure. Personally, I don't see much difference in modesty but at the time, it mattered. Shrug.

A pair of breeches, front view, close, c. 1770s.
http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/breeches-c1770s.jpg

Back views of same. See how baggy it is?
http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/back-of-breeches.jpg

Buckskin breeches, c. 1790s
http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/buckskin-breeches-1790s.jpg
http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/close-up-of-pocket.jpg

1790s breeches, with a close up of the fastening which hides a pocket.


These are the slimmest breeches I've ever seen, and these were made by a reenactor. See how they are still much baggier through the hip than pantaloons?


These breeches are from Sense and Sensibility. Note now baggy they are, and how the fall gapes when the man bends over; Edwards are baggier than Willoughby's, Edward being more conservative in manners and dress, so that's a nice detail.


Buckskin breeches were the jeans of the 19th century. They were comfortable and generally fairly form-fitting, so in my humble opinion, flattering. This is circa 1815. In the detail shots that the waistband comes up higher than the fall, and that the knee has both buttons and ties. This one is my favorite.



On my next post, we'll discuss pantaloons for the Regency Gentleman. 'til then!