Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Why was clothing in previous centuries ...

11 replies

HMSSophie · 29/10/2020 19:41

Can anyone shed light on why women wore such long skirts for so many centuries when they did not have washing facilities?

I'd have thought a short dress off the ground at least, would be more rational, as it would be easier to keep clean

And why so much material? Why not one or two layers? Why later after later after later of copious fabric?

I'd have thought that with modern washing machines, now would be the era for petticoats and floor length dresses.

OP posts:
DelphineWalsh · 29/10/2020 19:42

Because it was cold.

Maireas · 29/10/2020 19:44

Modesty meant women had to cover their legs. Poorer women did not have so much fabric. Petticoats were useful on a period, you could change the petticoat and the skirt wouldn't be stained.

SorrelBlackbeak · 29/10/2020 19:45

Washing didn't really matter as dresses (and clothing in general) was rarely washed. Many women only owned one or two dresses in total.

Interested in this thread?

Then you might like threads about this subject:

Charles11 · 29/10/2020 19:46

Wasn’t it only the rich who dressed like that? They could afford masses of materials and washerwomen.

CaptainMyCaptain · 29/10/2020 19:47

Women did not wear pants until part way through the Victorian era so long skirts would have been necessary for reasons of modesty. Red petticoats were often worn when women were on their period.

JellyBabiesSaveLives · 29/10/2020 19:47

Long skirts made peeing in public easier - you squat and fan the skirt out.

Petticoats made of white-ish cloth that could be boil-washed, and a skirt on top that didn’t get washed.

Michaelbaubles · 29/10/2020 19:48

Layers of fabric are very useful because you only really need to wash/change the bottom layer regularly. When the “fancy” top layer might even need unpicking to be laundered, with lace and so on treated specially, you’d want to have to do that as little as possible.

Plus a lack of warmth inside means you needed as many clothes on as you could. Basically we live in an indoor climate that means we can wear clothes the Victorians would have regarded only as suitable for tropical regions. They would have regarded most of our indoor outfits as underwear.

Brandaris · 29/10/2020 19:48

Sign of wealth. Most wouldn’t have had more layers than necessary to keep warm and wouldn’t have had them dragging in mud.

The layers they had were practical for washing, you only need to wash the innermost (slip etc) and outermost (pinny/apron) layer frequently.

Gibbonsgibbonsgibbons · 29/10/2020 19:51

As above warmth, modesty, convenience.

Also clothes grew with people over their life (pregnancy etc) and a servant often came with the clothes (from the last person who had the job) so more fabric means it’s easier to adjust to different people/stages of life - also why pleats & pintucks featured heavily.

TreaterAnita · 29/10/2020 19:54

Lots of reasons. It’s been a long time since I studied social history, but from memory: warmth, social norms/modesty (women didnt wear underwear until the 19th C) & everyone stank.

HMSSophie · 29/10/2020 21:27

Well how interesting! Thank you.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread