I got to thinking last night, about how rarely historical fiction mentions women wearing pants or trousers in the 19th century. And yet, if you know your fashion history, it's clear women did wear pants--indeed, quite often.
On an everyday basis, they wore drawers, which were open or split-crotch, to make using the bathroom easier. Drawers have been around since the late Renaissance, but weren't very popular until the flimsy dresses of the Regency appeared (1890s-1820s) and women needed an additional layer for warmth and modesty. They soon became a popular necessity. Sometimes drawers were combined with a chemise, becoming a one-piece garment known as "combinations" (aka a Union suit).
Less commonly known, ladies wore trousers beneath their riding habits. These weren't meant to show, but provided protection, comfort, and modesty while riding. This was especially important because you weren't supposed to wear petticoats with a riding habit. Too much fabric flapping around the horse could be dangerous, so riding skirts did not include hoops or bustles or very full skirts. Just enough fullness to preserve the lady's modesty while riding sidesaddle.
Women also wore trousers while ice skating. Skirts could be shortened to mid-calf length or just below the knee, and worn with matching loose trousers. Nothing snug or formfitting, kind of like modern straight-leg jeans, or even harem pants. They were optional, of course. You could go skating in an ankle-length dress, instead. But if I were a lady of the times, I would much prefer the freedom of movement afforded by a shorter skirt and pants while ice skating. Not to mention the additional warmth--and lack of drafts!
In the mid-century, "Bloomers" became well-known as a revolutionary ladies' costume, worn by radicals and dress reformists. It was comprised of either long, straight trousers worn under a "short" skirt, or full trousers that could be tucked into boots, also worn with a knee-length skirt. A lady's modesty and elegance was completely maintained, yet she had more freedom to move. (Note that bloomers are not a lady's undergarment!)
For this reason, bloomers were adopted for sportswear several decades later. In the 1880s and 1890s, bloomers appeared as part of bicycling costumes, gymnastic costumes, and so forth.
Lest we forget swimwear, ladies always wore trousers while publicly swimming or bathing. Pants could be ankle-length, or below the knee with dark stockings to hide her calves. The fullness of the skirt varied according to the fashion of the day, but hoops and bustles were left off, so they wouldn't weigh the lady down, or be ruined by water (i.e.: rust).
So, the next time you write about a Victorian lady, don't forget that she's no stranger to trousers!
Are there any other commonly-held historical misconceptions that you would like brought to justice?
On an everyday basis, they wore drawers, which were open or split-crotch, to make using the bathroom easier. Drawers have been around since the late Renaissance, but weren't very popular until the flimsy dresses of the Regency appeared (1890s-1820s) and women needed an additional layer for warmth and modesty. They soon became a popular necessity. Sometimes drawers were combined with a chemise, becoming a one-piece garment known as "combinations" (aka a Union suit).
Less commonly known, ladies wore trousers beneath their riding habits. These weren't meant to show, but provided protection, comfort, and modesty while riding. This was especially important because you weren't supposed to wear petticoats with a riding habit. Too much fabric flapping around the horse could be dangerous, so riding skirts did not include hoops or bustles or very full skirts. Just enough fullness to preserve the lady's modesty while riding sidesaddle.
Women also wore trousers while ice skating. Skirts could be shortened to mid-calf length or just below the knee, and worn with matching loose trousers. Nothing snug or formfitting, kind of like modern straight-leg jeans, or even harem pants. They were optional, of course. You could go skating in an ankle-length dress, instead. But if I were a lady of the times, I would much prefer the freedom of movement afforded by a shorter skirt and pants while ice skating. Not to mention the additional warmth--and lack of drafts!
In the mid-century, "Bloomers" became well-known as a revolutionary ladies' costume, worn by radicals and dress reformists. It was comprised of either long, straight trousers worn under a "short" skirt, or full trousers that could be tucked into boots, also worn with a knee-length skirt. A lady's modesty and elegance was completely maintained, yet she had more freedom to move. (Note that bloomers are not a lady's undergarment!)
For this reason, bloomers were adopted for sportswear several decades later. In the 1880s and 1890s, bloomers appeared as part of bicycling costumes, gymnastic costumes, and so forth.
Lest we forget swimwear, ladies always wore trousers while publicly swimming or bathing. Pants could be ankle-length, or below the knee with dark stockings to hide her calves. The fullness of the skirt varied according to the fashion of the day, but hoops and bustles were left off, so they wouldn't weigh the lady down, or be ruined by water (i.e.: rust).
So, the next time you write about a Victorian lady, don't forget that she's no stranger to trousers!
Are there any other commonly-held historical misconceptions that you would like brought to justice?
