Uninhibited History

Various ramblings, musings, film reviews and fantasies of a couple of history geeks and their guests

Wednesday, March 9, 2011

Dressing (or Undressing) the Georgian Lady

I have a fascination with clothing, perhaps because one of my first jobs, back in the dark ages, was as a dressmaker. In those days I was trying to recreate designs found in magazines for my clients and, in the course of those endeavours, really learned a lot about fabric, fit and construction.

Well, none of that served any purpose when I got involved with 18th Century re-enactors. Like every other facet of life, clothing, and more importantly clothing construction, has changed and evolved over time. But that’s one of the things that makes writing historical novels so interesting, and provides one of the pitfalls for authors setting their books in the past. It takes research to get things just right.

For example, my latest WIP is Georgian set, but I couldn’t leave it with so wide a designation. There were lots of changes in fashion within the period, so I had to narrow it down. I picked a year—mainly by looking at the various political issues and choosing a particularly factious one that would keep the hero in the House of Lords on a regular and protracted basis. Once I had a year picked, I could start looking at the clothing popular during that time.

Strangely enough for someone with my background, I rarely go into long descriptions of clothing. Yes, the outfits were elaborate and costly, many covered with fine embroidery or precious metals. It wouldn’t be that difficult for me to wax lyrical about these things, but it would probably bore the socks off most of the readers. As a writer, just because I’m familiar with a topic doesn’t mean I have to spew all the information onto the page.

I also think it’s unrealistic. Not everyone is obsessed with clothing and, if you belong to a certain group and are used to seeing others dressed a certain way, unless clothing is your ‘thing’ you probably wouldn’t take note of what everyone around you is wearing all the time. If a Goth goes into a Goth club, are they going to stand at the door and notice what all the other Goths are wearing? Probably not. What they would notice is if someone is not dressed like a Goth, so unless my characters are thrown out of their milieu, or being hyper-aware of fashion is part of their character, I don’t make a big deal out of their clothing.

What I do try to get right (being an erotic romance writer) is what they’re wearing when the clothing starts to come off, or if naughtiness is taking place while they’re still dressed. How do they get to the action? What are the impediments? How long will it take? What are the various layers? I found that in the Georgian era the clothing made trysts easy enough, but getting bare a bit of a production. So here’s a brief primer on what a Georgian lady went through to get dressed…

Closest to the skin, the shift, made of thin linen, low cut with or without a drawstring at the top. It had tight sleeves and was slightly flared at the bottom because of the side gussets. On the legs, the hose, made of silk or wool, coming up over the knees and held in place by garters, which could be ribbons (ribbands) tied or buckled.

The next layer would be the stays, which separated the breasts and flattened the front of the silhouette. Some stays laced up the back only, others had lacing both front and back. These shouldn’t be confused with corsets, which were more tightly laced and lifted the breasts into more of a shelf arrangement. From my research the stays weren't tightened to the extent of later foundation garments, which sought to narrow the waist to an extraordinary extent. For the contrast between waist and hips, the Georgian lady turned to…

…the panniers, or a bumroll, depending on the outfit and timeframe. The panniers were those inverted basket-like arrangements that made the skirts wide, while the bumroll sat over the bottom to put the junk in their trucks. These went on over the under-petticoat, but under the rest of the petticoats, of which there could be several.

Over all of this came the gown. This was a bodice and attached skirt, the skirt usually being open down the front to expose the topmost petticoat. There were various styles of gowns, the variations most notable in the back, and in earlier parts of the era a stomacher was also worn, with the edges of the bodice being attached to it. You might also wear a fichu, a square of linen or lace that goes over the shoulders and is tucked into the front of the low-cut bodice.

Step into your shoes (finally) and you’re ready to go.

So, from an erotic point of view, there is a great deal of mileage to be had from the slow undress, because it would be a fairly laborious task. But for trysts, it’s even better. They didn’t wear any kind of underwear—no pantelles or panties or bloomers. There is great scope for the hand under the skirts or the tossing of the petticoats over her face or up on her back if doggie is your style. The men would get a bit more dishevelled under those circumstances, because of the shirt being tuck down into their breeches, but those were the only layers keeping the penis in check. So what if he had to re-tuck and re-button afterwards?

What my research taught me is, as much fun as it is to imagine and even wear some of these outfits on occasion, I’m so glad I can get up in the morning and pull on a pair of sweats and a hoodie…getting dressed back then sounds like it could take all day!

As an aside, women of the lower orders, although not as burdened by clothing, still wore basically the same under garments. The difference was in the topmost layer, and the lack of the panniers or bumrolls. Unlike the gentry, these ladies needed to be able to move freely and work.

No comments: