Thank you for mentioning that underclothing was important for helping the more expensive outerwear cleaner. With more expensive clothing & especially with the many delicate fabrics, having a layer of cloth between the outer dress & the skin would help prevent soiling (especially around the neck, cuffs, etc) & thus preserve the expensive outerwear by allowing continued wear with less washing/cleaning, as both soiling & cleaning is destructive. This use of undergarments to protect outerwear was common in the mid-20th c still, as I recall from my childhood. Undershirts were commonly worn by men, particularly when wearing suits or evening wear with white shirts being standard. In the 1950s my great-uncle, who was a country preacher who founded two churches, still wore a celluloid collar with his white shirt, the celluloid collar preventing soiling of the shirt, making it easier to preserve the shirt but also making less work for his wife in laundering clothes by hand. Underwear still served more useful purposes in times when people didn't have easier ways to clean clothing, when clothing tended to be better made & meant to last longer, also when fabrics were made of natural materials (often harder to keep clean).
In the late 60s when mohair sweaters were popular my mother had me wear underarm protectors so that the sweaters didn't have to be dry cleaned as often. Straps with vinyl (?) liners. Strange
My uncle was an air cadet, late 1960's and early 1970's, and he said that they had an issue of 2 light blue shirts, same as the Police in those days, with detachable collars, for wear under Grey Blue RAF battledress, and had 3 collars issued, most purchased more for when they attended a 7 day annual camp. My aunt was in the WRAF and had 4 blouse/shirts a similar issue of collars into the early 80's. My first boss in the NHS a lady consultant also wore Irish linen blouses, finely embroidered with detachable collars, often fine lace, well into the 90's for the same reason to protect the main garment. She always liked the style of the civil war ladies, and preferred a breast band rather than a bra when she did surgery for freedom and comfort. She always had a penchant for using any changing room too and used to chuckle and tease when she found male colleagues, in their underwear changing into "greens" , saying "Oh don't be so darned shy, i am a surgeon, you have nothing i haven't seen or handled before " then laughed and waltzed off to the Theatre. She looked stunning in evening dress at dinners or celebrations and loved the styles from the middle ages and civil war periods, reflected in her dresses. A true lady worthy of being treated like Royalty. A classic.
@@hensonlaura Yep ! Well they worked but I felt like a trussed up chicken. Between that and garter belts and sanitary pads belts it was almost too much for a skinny 13 yr old ! Eeesh ....
It's very good to hear properly researched history presented calmly, without melodramatic "interpretation" and editorializing by the narrator. The Tudors, particularly Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, had a special genius for doing one thing that was the responsibility of all monarchs: presenting a powerful, positive image of their Crown, dynasty, government, and nation. Back when cloth itself was woven by hand, and every bit of clothing was made completely by hand, clothes were eye-wateringly expensive compared to now. Ditto for special weaves that produced patterns, such as damask or brocade, and any embellishments such as lace and embroidery. It takes a prosperous country to sustain those specialty industries. Yes, the Tudors imported certain items, but the Tudors figured out that they represented not just the wealth of the Crown, but of the _country._ That's one of the reasons that they encouraged the members of the court to wear much finery: a court's international reputation as glittering and magnificent signaled not just the personal wealth of the individuals, but the wealth of their nation. It's actually one of the ways in which they built their country, by building it up in the people's eyes both domestically and internationally.
@@navarrenavarre They were spreading papish anti-Protestant propaganda. Such smears had Elizabeth I being a wanton slut, an adultress, a mother of multiple children, a man (as though her parents wouldn't have noticed!), a changeling, and just about any insulting thing someone could dream up. It was a deliberate policy publicly encouraged by the pope.
It seems odd to us now how many layers and people it took to get dressed for the day, only to change again for the evenings. How fascinating about the undergarments being found in Austria! People sometimes forget that body heights were different then. Makes you wonder with all of the physical dancing they did, how did some of those gowns stay in place, or how many ladies suffered for their fun by so many layers? Wonderful work! Greatly enjoyed! Thank you! Background music was perfect. Bravo!
It means so much to receive such positive feedback! In a few hundred years time, the people then may ask us 'why did you subject yourself to the torture of high heels?'
One explanation I’ve found was because it was unseemly for men to see menarche blood. So women would change regularly each day. Then, so man wouldn’t know what week women were menstruating, women just changed every day. I don’t remember where I read it, unfortunately, but it made sense to me
Remember there was no central heating and multiple layers ensured warmth...same with head coverings which have only really gone out of fashion since the mass adoption of automobiles in the west in the 1950s....
To have to proper silhouette, you have to support the clothing over it. That was STAYS (they were not corsets in the Tudor era), bum rolls and petticoats did.
Corset and stays aren't much different, apart from metal eyelets in corsets and stays having natural ones. Corset is so ingrained in general society that people won't know what you speak of when you say stays, or find this video. Calling them corsets allows for more exposure on topics such as these as you won't be preaching to your own choir but actually reach people. in the end, it's just a word
I was also thinking that ridiculous “tight lacing” was pretty much confined to drawn fashion plates as well (wanna bet they were drawn by men?), not to actual human bodies. Not all that different from the insanely tiny waists, long legs, lack of human looking torso and gravity defying boobs on anime and comics women today. The illusion of those small waists was made by proportioning the hips and shoulders to be bigger.
The corset wasn't used until the mid 19th (1800's) century. During the 16th (1500's) century women would wear a "pair of bodies" commonly referred to as stays. And tight-lacing in the 19th century was not common and only done by a few women.
I have been going through my Punch magazines for the 1880s and the cartoons absolutely lampoon the fashions of both men and women (but especially the 'latest' womens' fashion fads.
I have always wondered how such rich fabric such as velvet was cleaned. I can't see its being boiled as so many pieces of clothing might have been nor can I imagine that it as cleaned very often. Fascinating video!
Not sure how this popped up in my recommendations, but I could listen to this lady talk about anything especially with that music in the background. Such a pleasant voice. Could have been a video about how long it takes for different types of grass to grow and I would have been entertained.
You forgot to mention that at that time they were in the middle of a mini ice age and it was flippin' cold, more so in draughty castles/palaces. They needed to wear lots of layers just to keep warm.
Some of the racier Elizabethan and Jacobean plays speak of a man putting his hand into a ladies placket- which I always imagined to be openings to get the skirt on. The term placket is still current in dress making. I rather envy wearing a clean shift every day and no uncomfortable drawers. Really enjoyed this presentation.
The thing is, there was no elastic until the late 19th century and no zippers until the early 20th century. Clothes were put on very differently before that. I myself have made and worn full skirts that had a placket opening near the waist and closed with a button. Another use for a placket was so that a girl or woman could own one or two pockets that tied on around her waist underneath her skirt, and reach into the skirt to access the pocket. This, by the way, is how Lucy Locket Lost Her Pocket in the old rhyme - it had been tied around her waist.
Thanks so much! I'm a typical American dude, no style sense at all, just a "huh, why bother" kind of guy, the sort of guy who thinks that it's not clothes but no clothes that makes women interesting, but (1) the clothes worn by Tudor royalty really were extraordinarily beautiful, and (2) it's fascinating to hear the outlook of those who care deeply about that kind of stuff and all the technical concerns and the history of dealing with them.
I find this fascinating & engaging to hear. It is without doubt that the fine clothes of rich Tudors was to show off their wealth & power (rather like today sometimes) but there was also the practicality in keeping warm in the cold & wet British winters that were probably much colder than today.
Their gowns/dresses were gorgeous. The first grown up coloring book I had was of Tudor clothing, and the intricate detailing of embroidery, jewels, etc. was astounding. The rather small bodice of one of Elizabeth I’s dresses took me over 8 hours to finish, mainly because of how much time I spent simply studying the pattern to determine what was what! The Royal dresses were ladened with jewels, and beautiful though they may have been, they were extremely heavy. It was not uncommon for many bejeweled dresses to weigh as much as 50 lbs. No wonder they needed help getting dressed!
Why do you have the music while you are talking? It makes it harder to hear what you are saying, I'm Norwegian, so I need to consentrate more when I listen to a foreign language. It was to disturbing with the music, so sadly I could't se the video to the end. The topic was very interesting.
I can only guess that the Tudors wore the types of underwear indicated within your documentary because they need underwear which are comfortable and not restrictive in movement. These underwear were also leading fashion garments during Tudor era because the under clothing supports the garments they wore during those times. The not so privileged would have more simpler undergarments as they are practical and convenient during daily movements and when they need to do the necessary when a visit to the toilet is required.
Thought I’d try here. Do you have any idea what that cap is being worn in the portrait of Henry FitzRoy is? It just seems bizarre they would paint him in his bed clothes. Unless there’s some “meaning” behind it. I have seen a couple of others in extremely casual clothing, but…..
I have often wondered where the breast band came from as opposed to the bra, my great grandmother wore one for years, my mother told me about it, makes me wonder about the native american tribes and other indigenous tribes etc and what they wore. What did anglo saxons, vikings and early Brits wear?
In the Tudor times, clothing was certainly a status symbol - since the narrator already mentioned and we can imagine silk (then as now) was an expensive fabric. Clothing, worn in layers, was for warmth of course since they didn't have fur coats or other fabrics that we wear as winter jackets/ coats. I am really surprised about the bras/panties found in Austria. Can anyone imagine how those women went to the toilet - no wonder they didn't wear "knickers", and, finally, whale bones were inserted into corsets during Elizabeth's reign!
Warmth indeed but also natural fibres that would 'breath'. They did of course have corsets but it was not to pull in the waist (like the Victorians) but to give a certain shape.
@@kipscathy1850 They certainly weren’t wearing fur inside their home…before telling people they’re ridiculous take a deep breath. I won’t go into detail but I know people have been furs forever.
silk,velvet,furr was already a status symbol .and the added sleeves,that were detachable at the time,and could even be switched or used with different dresses,were also a symbol of wealth.the thicker and longer the sleeves,with many layers,the higher the status.
@@marinazagrai1623 ,please don't forget that homes weren't very warm at the time ,specially large castles and mansions.the rooms were large even if they had huge fireplaces, and weather in England wasn't really kind.so wealthier people also wore fur over sleeves ,or capes, and capes trimmed with fur even inside. it was also a status symbol .
Fascinating! Thank you. I always wondered how ladies in bygone days managed their periods - your comment on Elizabeth's garters is interesting. Also, I imagine that wearing a farthingale made it easier to walk, especially when it supported several layers of fabric.
That was very interesting, but also if that contraption of a garter was over 400 years ago... why were we still wearing garters when I was young? Yes, huge pads held up by garters. This was late 1960-early 1970 before pads had self stick on them. They were horrible things and the pad slipped all the time. I think when women finally got to the scene of manufacturing things changed for the better!
@@coolwater55 Yep, I hated them but...my grandmothers, like all of their generation, used rags - literally old clothes cut into strips and folded into pads, then tied or pinned on in some way. I know because my mother (b. 1925) told me that her mother wouldn't buy sanitary napkins that were common by then because she had 5 daughters to clothe and very little money to do it. I think one of the first things my mother and her sisters bought when they went to work word was a box of sanitary napkins and the belt that went with them. BTW, I have been told that sanitary napkins were invented by French nurses during the Franco-Prussian War. They were derived from the disposable, very absorbent bandages used to cover soldiers' bleeding wounds.
@@rdwright6708 Wow, yes, lest we forget. And even today in some countries girls have had issues with getting sanitary napkins, ie some places in India in smaller villages. The girls are mocked and many quit school it becomes so bad. Anyway, those thing are slowly getting resolved. We must be grateful for what we do have today.
Is that true about the dates of the drawers and bras found? I always thought that drawers were 19th Century and bras 20th. Did they maybe fall out of favour during Regency times, when fashions reflected a 'simpler' and more 'back to nature' paradigm?
Yes, they were found in a castle in Austria. Unless there is some weird 'time travel' going on? 😉www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/20/medieval-bras-history-women-support
Look up the Lengberg finds. It was one "bra" that was probably attached to a skirt, a pair of mens underwear (mistakenly portrayed as women's underwear here), and several pieces of headwear that were early on mistaken for underwear. The finds were made in 2008, not 2012. The researchers have several youtube videos explaining what they found. IDK how this video got it so wrong.
i've been watching the series The Tudors and enjoyed all the fabulous clothes. this article is very nicely documented. however I used the CC option and the results are hilarious. At no time did they ever say farthingale correctly!
I always thought a farthingale was a piece of horses head tackle or a bit. I was also under the impression that the hooped dress was used because they had to stand at Royal Court for hours on end and had to relieve themselves where they stood, into sawdust or straw on the floors, so a crotch less, bottomless undergarment would have been sensible.
@@robshirewood5060 aren't you glad we were born in this century? with indoor plumbing and hot water? I have heard that pages would get under the skirts to hold chamber pots! Versailles was enoumous and had NO bathrooms. I shudder to think of the stench.
@@barbiesmom You are most definitely correct. I have sent a lot of my life out in the field for various reasons and seriously value hot water having heated thousands of gallons over small fires or cookers over the years, treating it like gold, especially in winter, and really appreciating the return to such amenities. Having said that i believe that Henry VIII had plumbed water, washbowls and soap available in all his residences for many of the guests. The castles also had Garderobes or toilet chutes before his time, so they did have some conveniences. Not ideal and the poor peasants who had to clear up the dung at the bottom, yeuk . I have a friend in France who lives not far from Versailles who has visited often and she remarked many times on the historical lack of facilities. "Ah mon dieu, les Garlic les Onion , c'est terrible" or similar. No wonder people all had scented posies to sniff, i guess early Pot Pourri. As a teenager i worked in an elderly care home, night shifts, with a continuous circuit changing beds, pants, pads, washing faeces, soap, 8 hours, so i am familiar with the stink. God bless, stay safe, and thanks. Lol, cor lumme what a life
Yeah, you are. Claire wore period clothing when she went back deliberately to find Jamie. The first accidental trip was wearing one outfit, not several bras.
I'm sure you've noticed many Medieval artist like Durer show men wearing a string bikini like garment that I always suspected was underwear. The one you show from Austria was for a woman..but the basic design was the same. I think that garment was also worn further back in time. Underwear obviously would be useful for the poor as well as the rich as a way to help keep clothes clean longer ... bathing being different then. Of course I'm talking about the period before the Tudors but I would think practical items of dress would continue in use.
There’s no reason to say the Austrian garment was for a woman. The archaeologists studying the castle finds describe it as more than likely for a man, because of the huge number of images of men wearing them, and zero images of women wearing them - female bottoms in medieval art are almost always naked, so the assumption is no drawers were worn except for possible “towels” tied to girdles during menstruation.
The under-chemise/tunic was worn by men and women as early as the early middle ages. It was indeed meant to keep one's outer garments clean and it was also handy as a night gown.
What an interesting presentation! Just love the medieval era history of all things. But I confess that, compared to what we wear today, the clothing was outrageously uncomfortable. The peasants likely were a heck of a lot more comfy in their everyday wear. 😂. Thank you.
People who wear properly fitted Tudor dress often report that it is as or more comfortable than modern dress. The same is said for dress from other eras. I find early Norman dress to be far more comfortable than modern clothing - no stays, bodies or corsets either - so you might find it uncomfortable but many don't.
No on speaks about the regular ornate vests that are worn over blouses, and laced up. This was worn by ALL European women, in EVERY VILLAGE from Sweden to Greece. From Spain to Russia. Up to only a hundred years ago, as a bra. They are comfortable. (Corsets were only for fancy dress). Each village had its own costume design. Google these beautiful outfits. This FACT is NEVER shown in movies Each village had all the people dressed identically for Sundays.
Willing to bet it was the Ladies-in-Waiting holding the mirrors and they'd be fighting over who held it. Proximity to the monarch was extremely important at Court.
19th century corsets shouldn't be uncomfortable, either. The corsets that the people I know who wear them seem to like the least are the early-20th century S-bend corsets, but other than that, most seem to find them comfortable, especially for all-day reenactments where you're grateful for back support. Only a very few women tight-laced, and there were lightly boned or soft corsets for work wear.
Incredibly as it may sound of the 1,900 dresses that Queen Elizabeth the First owned only one has been known to survive. It was used as a alter cloth in a small village church in Wales . Not only that but there is a portrait of her wearing the same dress.
I think they were like a work uniform/ power costume that was befitting and expected of a person in their station. Like a judge, magistrate, priest, or Matriarch of a country
The shift or chemise was an undergarment. Every woman, even of the meanest class, would have worn one under her clothing, because it was washable. Shirts were the male equivalent, although they wore underdrawers as well. One thing movies get wrong is having women wear stays or corsets next to the skin. It looks sexy, but they were never worn that way.
Female breast supports were used as far back as Roman times. Several floor mosaics show ladies wearing briefs and breast bands, not bras as we know them.
Nice video but the background music is TOO LOUD and really makes it difficult to pay attention to what you are saying. Not very enjoyable due to this...
Excellent content. But the music throughout is distracting and annoying when it competes with the interesting and well-written commentary. Also, the title of the video should make it clear that you ignore the fact the half of the Tudors were men.
The elaborate outer garments couldn’t be cleaned. There were no dry-cleaners. In that regard, peasants could keep their clothes cleaner than the aristocracy.
What your wore for unders depended on your wealth and social standing. That is NOT a corset - those re stays. There is a difference. That is not bra, it is a covering. It has no support and most likely was for some who could not afford proper stays. This video is mixing Victorian terms with Tudor terms. For a history channel, they got quite a lot wrong.
Given the cost of the dresses, theyve got to last, inner clothing would preserve them, and avoid unecessary washing thatd again reduce their life. Also no central heating so many layers worn to keep warm
I'm guessing that, for practical purposes, such as going to the loo, the bumroll and hooped skirts made things easier for women standing, spreading the skirts away from the body as they do.
The narrator has an accent/pronunciation I cannot place. The way words lIke "stockins" and "clothin" are pronounced remind of me of southern speech patterns in the US. I understand this type of pronunciation came from the UK before the shift to received pronunciation. Does anyone know the region of the narrator's speech?
There are several factors that would have influenced Tudor women’s clothing. The first being climate. While weather would change daily, the climate during this time was what has been called “ the little Ice Age”. So therefore the layering if different types of fabrics would have been used. Even in royal palaces, with fireplaces going, the size of the rooms would still permit drafts. This would then cause the Tudor women to embrace a long legged undergarment but due to outer styles, would have been while not fully crotchless, bur be close to that condition for the purpose of bodily relief. Augmented with a light girdle sewn to be able to hold linen folds during menstruation. , the purpose of the fatheringale was to form a more freely ability to both hold outer garments but still be able to help retain body heat, as cold would still penetrate from the floors. Most women would have used a bodice to support the breasts. These could be closely fitted with ribbons to maintain support but to not cause discomfort.. the use of what we consider acorest, would have been used by Elizabeth to give the general appearance of the flatness of a male, to maintain her full authority especially with all the political plotting of the time, while still maintaining her comfort Outer garments if the finest cloth and newest style was de rigur for any royal court. It was partly showing iff of one’s wealth even if such outer garments would cost ten times the wages of a middle class man’s annual income sometimes even the annual income of a lord. Both men and women needed to be fully decked out even for everyday life at court. Frills and most especially neck ruffs. A neck ruff when wirn can act in the same manner as wearing a neck scarf to keep out cold. From a small frill on a high necked shift to as ostentatious as could be afforded in the finest lace and silks.
Speaking of clothing from earlier times, when was Lincoln Green in fashion or common, Henry VIII supposedly wrote Greensleeves (which he did not) and it is referred to as Green being the sign of a courtesan, is it true? It also beggars the question of when Robin Hood might have existed based on the fashions of the time, he wearing (expensive) Scarlet his men Green. Was it in early Tudor times that Lincoln Green was in vogue?
Even during the Victorian era, women wore complicated dresses that restricted their freedom of movement. Crinolines, hoop skirts and bustles made getting dressed a very complicated affair.
It seems they rejected the natural curves of the body and favored fashion depicting status. ? What do you think? In this case Elizabeth was truly a woman of her times.
Wow, some of this is right, but you got so much of it wrong, or misleading, or out of context. And you take the entire era of over a hundred years of Tudor historical fashion, and sweep with a broad brush! I suggest you research the more recent information that has come out in the past few decades, and not try to apply garments like the Lengberg finds in Austria, to the garments worn by the English ladies, whose fashion styles, along with their undergarments, changed over their decades, and were nothing like the fashion ideals of Austrian ladies in the prior century.
As a ten minute overview it was informative and visually fascinating. Thank you so very much. Perhaps another longer video from K Kelley would provide the additional information.
I am giving this thumbs down solely because you keep refering to stays/pair of bodies as corset. Which is misleading even though you try to explain what stays are. Sadly, the explanation is lacking and doesn't explain why it was way better than bra( making that austrian bra's discovery almost useless and unlikely to be popular and widespread-because women had much better alternative already.) By the way in 2nd half of 1490, fartingale or verdugado, was already covered, so Catherine of Aragon already introduced covered version of it. It gave the shape, but you couldn't see the hoops.
@@marichristian1072 It's mistakenly presented that way in many sources. Stays are ancestors of corset and you couldn't tight-lace them. Sadly there are big misinformation circulating about both stays and corset, and in historical tv shows, often you see actress wearing corset(without any chemise beneath, and it is ill-fitting too-no wonder they complain it is uncomfortable), even though the scene is set in times there were no corsets yet, and they should have used stays.
If corsets were truly much better and more comfortable than bras, we would still wear them today. Everyone loving corsets in the past is a myth spread by amateur fashion "historians" with TH-cam channels.
@@M123Xoxo I am amateur, I never claimed to be anything else. But so called historical experts believed Mr Mathews when he said painting by Sittow is not Catherine of Aragon. Among one of the reasonings he gave was that she had no reason to wear scallops(which trimmed her dress). They are symbol of Camino de Santiago, the most important pilgrimage in all of Spain-which she did before coming to England. You really sure experts always know their stuff? Also, the reason why corsets went away, was big campaign about corsets being killers, which didn't originate with suffragets as you'd think. It started with men, being against women leading their own bussiness-as most corset makers were women, and it gave them income and indipendence. So they vilified corsets.
In regards to the Austrian excavations. Firstly, the term vault my confuse people, these findings were located between two parts of the flooring filled among other things with various pieces of textile. These included the mentioned 'bras', only that they were not stand alone pieces, they were an integral part of shirts, which is even visible in the images of this video. Not only that, these findings are considered rare, possibly tied to a single noble woman having resided at this castle and should not be taken as something more wide spread. The video also shows some thong like underpants. These have been clearly identified as male, they are found in many illuminations of the 15th century, we don't have a single source indicating such may have been worn by women. I am not a specialist in these time periods, so I cannot say what people might have worn as underwear, if any. Though I would underline that linen was certainly worn in shirts and in the case of men braies of all classes, cotton and mixed fabrics had also appeared by the 15th century, though they were probably rather higher class. Lastly, at least for the high- and late-medieval periods we have no evidence for female underpants, however unpractical that may seem. To the opposite, we find some illuminations where women are seen wearing male underwear while the men, supposedly under their wives' rule, don't wear any. Those illuminations are a clear social criticism that men should be the masters of their house etc. (which we happily have overcome, at least largely, since the late 19th century).
I found this interesting and not as a fashion guru, there is something obvious. It appears that the illusion was more important than comfort. The illusion of the body as in the artwork of the times left some women struggling to fit the styles. The rich were showing off their affluence by controlling their image while the poor were left more to what their bodies allowed. Today, the same images models portray to the average woman. Modern expensive clothing is cut and hemmed to accent and hide areas achieving a desired look in the same ways.
Is it possible that someone could re-edit this film and rewrite the subtitling WITHOUT the appalling 'howlers', (that aren't actually funny AT ALL, when you need them due to hearing problems.) For instance, it took me three times regoing over and over the film, to work out what a 'father girl' was referring to! Very unprofessional! It REALLY ruined what would otherwise have been a very educational video. If subtitles are not done properly, they are a hindrance, NOT a help!
I would have loved this but the music was too loud and, being a pedant, I can't bear it when anyone pronounces 'gown' as gownd'. Plus there are a few mistakes but other than that, it could be very good.
![일상 속 기분 좋음 [Proto disco meme]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DwmEIaZ7XGQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you for mentioning that underclothing was important for helping the more expensive outerwear cleaner. With more expensive clothing & especially with the many delicate fabrics, having a layer of cloth between the outer dress & the skin would help prevent soiling (especially around the neck, cuffs, etc) & thus preserve the expensive outerwear by allowing continued wear with less washing/cleaning, as both soiling & cleaning is destructive.
This use of undergarments to protect outerwear was common in the mid-20th c still, as I recall from my childhood. Undershirts were commonly worn by men, particularly when wearing suits or evening wear with white shirts being standard. In the 1950s my great-uncle, who was a country preacher who founded two churches, still wore a celluloid collar with his white shirt, the celluloid collar preventing soiling of the shirt, making it easier to preserve the shirt but also making less work for his wife in laundering clothes by hand. Underwear still served more useful purposes in times when people didn't have easier ways to clean clothing, when clothing tended to be better made & meant to last longer, also when fabrics were made of natural materials (often harder to keep clean).
In the late 60s when mohair sweaters were popular my mother had me wear underarm protectors so that the sweaters didn't have to be dry cleaned as often. Straps with vinyl (?) liners. Strange
My uncle was an air cadet, late 1960's and early 1970's, and he said that they had an issue of 2 light blue shirts, same as the Police in those days, with detachable collars, for wear under Grey Blue RAF battledress, and had 3 collars issued, most purchased more for when they attended a 7 day annual camp. My aunt was in the WRAF and had 4 blouse/shirts a similar issue of collars into the early 80's. My first boss in the NHS a lady consultant also wore Irish linen blouses, finely embroidered with detachable collars, often fine lace, well into the 90's for the same reason to protect the main garment. She always liked the style of the civil war ladies, and preferred a breast band rather than a bra when she did surgery for freedom and comfort. She always had a penchant for using any changing room too and used to chuckle and tease when she found male colleagues, in their underwear changing into "greens" , saying "Oh don't be so darned shy, i am a surgeon, you have nothing i haven't seen or handled before " then laughed and waltzed off to the Theatre. She looked stunning in evening dress at dinners or celebrations and loved the styles from the middle ages and civil war periods, reflected in her dresses. A true lady worthy of being treated like Royalty. A classic.
Don't remind me of the horrors of my early schooldays...Aertex vests and horrible Aertex 'parachute harness' underpants.
@@kathybouziane5269 "dress shields".
@@hensonlaura Yep ! Well they worked but I felt like a trussed up chicken. Between that and garter belts and sanitary pads belts it was almost too much for a skinny 13 yr old ! Eeesh ....
It's very good to hear properly researched history presented calmly, without melodramatic "interpretation" and editorializing by the narrator.
The Tudors, particularly Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, had a special genius for doing one thing that was the responsibility of all monarchs: presenting a powerful, positive image of their Crown, dynasty, government, and nation. Back when cloth itself was woven by hand, and every bit of clothing was made completely by hand, clothes were eye-wateringly expensive compared to now. Ditto for special weaves that produced patterns, such as damask or brocade, and any embellishments such as lace and embroidery. It takes a prosperous country to sustain those specialty industries. Yes, the Tudors imported certain items, but the Tudors figured out that they represented not just the wealth of the Crown, but of the _country._ That's one of the reasons that they encouraged the members of the court to wear much finery: a court's international reputation as glittering and magnificent signaled not just the personal wealth of the individuals, but the wealth of their nation. It's actually one of the ways in which they built their country, by building it up in the people's eyes both domestically and internationally.
Wow. I enjoyed reading this. Thanks
Same here! Thank you
@@navarrenavarre They were spreading papish anti-Protestant propaganda. Such smears had Elizabeth I being a wanton slut, an adultress, a mother of multiple children, a man (as though her parents wouldn't have noticed!), a changeling, and just about any insulting thing someone could dream up. It was a deliberate policy publicly encouraged by the pope.
It seems odd to us now how many layers and people it took to get dressed for the day, only to change again for the evenings. How fascinating about the undergarments being found in Austria! People sometimes forget that body heights were different then. Makes you wonder with all of the physical dancing they did, how did some of those gowns stay in place, or how many ladies suffered for their fun by so many layers? Wonderful work! Greatly enjoyed! Thank you! Background music was perfect. Bravo!
It means so much to receive such positive feedback! In a few hundred years time, the people then may ask us 'why did you subject yourself to the torture of high heels?'
@@tudorworldhistorychannel3955 Uh-oh. I am already wondering that...
😬
One explanation I’ve found was because it was unseemly for men to see menarche blood. So women would change regularly each day. Then, so man wouldn’t know what week women were menstruating, women just changed every day. I don’t remember where I read it, unfortunately, but it made sense to me
Remember there was no central heating and multiple layers ensured warmth...same with head coverings which have only really gone out of fashion since the mass adoption of automobiles in the west in the 1950s....
To have to proper silhouette, you have to support the clothing over it. That was STAYS (they were not corsets in the Tudor era), bum rolls and petticoats did.
How about the fact that Elizabeth the first wore a "pair of bodies." not a corset. Structured shape wear was not called Corset until the 19th century.
Or stays. Corsets weren't a thing. Thank you!
Corset and stays aren't much different, apart from metal eyelets in corsets and stays having natural ones. Corset is so ingrained in general society that people won't know what you speak of when you say stays, or find this video. Calling them corsets allows for more exposure on topics such as these as you won't be preaching to your own choir but actually reach people. in the end, it's just a word
I was also thinking that ridiculous “tight lacing” was pretty much confined to drawn fashion plates as well (wanna bet they were drawn by men?), not to actual human bodies. Not all that different from the insanely tiny waists, long legs, lack of human looking torso and gravity defying boobs on anime and comics women today. The illusion of those small waists was made by proportioning the hips and shoulders to be bigger.
I think it's spelled Bodice, but bodies would be right, she was evil hahaha!
indeed ,it was called a stay at the time.only around the 18th century it started to be mentioned as a corset.
The corset wasn't used until the mid 19th (1800's) century. During the 16th (1500's) century women would wear a "pair of bodies" commonly referred to as stays.
And tight-lacing in the 19th century was not common and only done by a few women.
stays are corsets by another name
@@thomasmiles9068 No they are not. There differences between corsets and stays. Ask people who do living history. I've worn both - they are different.
I have been going through my Punch magazines for the 1880s and the cartoons absolutely lampoon the fashions of both men and women (but especially the 'latest' womens' fashion fads.
@@gusmonster59 they are both really hot in the summer
I have always wondered how such rich fabric such as velvet was cleaned. I can't see its being boiled as so many pieces of clothing might have been nor can I imagine that it as cleaned very often. Fascinating video!
Not sure how this popped up in my recommendations, but I could listen to this lady talk about anything especially with that music in the background. Such a pleasant voice. Could have been a video about how long it takes for different types of grass to grow and I would have been entertained.
You forgot to mention that at that time they were in the middle of a mini ice age and it was flippin' cold, more so in draughty castles/palaces. They needed to wear lots of layers just to keep warm.
Some of the racier Elizabethan and Jacobean plays speak of a man putting his hand into a ladies placket- which I always imagined to be openings to get the skirt on. The term placket is still current in dress making. I rather envy wearing a clean shift every day and no uncomfortable drawers. Really enjoyed this presentation.
The thing is, there was no elastic until the late 19th century and no zippers until the early 20th century. Clothes were put on very differently before that. I myself have made and worn full skirts that had a placket opening near the waist and closed with a button. Another use for a placket was so that a girl or woman could own one or two pockets that tied on around her waist underneath her skirt, and reach into the skirt to access the pocket. This, by the way, is how Lucy Locket Lost Her Pocket in the old rhyme - it had been tied around her waist.
Thanks so much! I'm a typical American dude, no style sense at all, just a "huh, why bother" kind of guy, the sort of guy who thinks that it's not clothes but no clothes that makes women interesting, but (1) the clothes worn by Tudor royalty really were extraordinarily beautiful, and (2) it's fascinating to hear the outlook of those who care deeply about that kind of stuff and all the technical concerns and the history of dealing with them.
I find this fascinating & engaging to hear. It is without doubt that the fine clothes of rich Tudors was to show off their wealth & power (rather like today sometimes) but there was also the practicality in keeping warm in the cold & wet British winters that were probably much colder than today.
A note: black was worn because it was one of the most expensive dyes.
And it didn't show the dirt of the day!
Their gowns/dresses were gorgeous. The first grown up coloring book I had was of Tudor clothing, and the intricate detailing of embroidery, jewels, etc. was astounding. The rather small bodice of one of Elizabeth I’s dresses took me over 8 hours to finish, mainly because of how much time I spent simply studying the pattern to determine what was what! The Royal dresses were ladened with jewels, and beautiful though they may have been, they were extremely heavy. It was not uncommon for many bejeweled dresses to weigh as much as 50 lbs. No wonder they needed help getting dressed!
Thanks for your excellent presentation on this important and fascinating topic! Great way to end my week!
Corsets support the back. Very helpful for hardworking women who to do heavy work in the home
Why do you have the music while you are talking? It makes it harder to hear what you are saying, I'm Norwegian, so I need to consentrate more when I listen to a foreign language. It was to disturbing with the music, so sadly I could't se the video to the end. The topic was very interesting.
I can only guess that the Tudors wore the types of underwear indicated within your documentary because they need underwear which are comfortable and not restrictive in movement. These underwear were also leading fashion garments during Tudor era because the under clothing supports the garments they wore during those times. The not so privileged would have more simpler undergarments as they are practical and convenient during daily movements and when they need to do the necessary when a visit to the toilet is required.
Says the person who has never worn stays.... **L**
New to your channel
Watched about 5 of them
Very well done and informative
Subscribed
Im Look forward to going through your library, thank you
Thank you for sharing, very interesting.
Thought I’d try here. Do you have any idea what that cap is being worn in the portrait of Henry FitzRoy is? It just seems bizarre they would paint him in his bed clothes. Unless there’s some “meaning” behind it. I have seen a couple of others in extremely casual clothing, but…..
No, just a fancy coif perhaps? I would be interested to find out.
I’m trying lol..I’ll let you know if I do!
I believe it’s a skull cap!
I have often wondered where the breast band came from as opposed to the bra, my great grandmother wore one for years, my mother told me about it, makes me wonder about the native american tribes and other indigenous tribes etc and what they wore. What did anglo saxons, vikings and early Brits wear?
In the Tudor times, clothing was certainly a status symbol - since the narrator already mentioned and we can imagine silk (then as now) was an expensive fabric. Clothing, worn in layers, was for warmth of course since they didn't have fur coats or other fabrics that we wear as winter jackets/ coats. I am really surprised about the bras/panties found in Austria. Can anyone imagine how those women went to the toilet - no wonder they didn't wear "knickers", and, finally, whale bones were inserted into corsets during Elizabeth's reign!
Warmth indeed but also natural fibres that would 'breath'. They did of course have corsets but it was not to pull in the waist (like the Victorians) but to give a certain shape.
Don’t be ridiculous. Of course they had fur coats. Humans have been wearing furs since time immemorial.
@@kipscathy1850 They certainly weren’t wearing fur inside their home…before telling people they’re ridiculous take a deep breath. I won’t go into detail but I know people have been furs forever.
silk,velvet,furr was already a status symbol .and the added sleeves,that were detachable at the time,and could even be switched or used with different dresses,were also a symbol of wealth.the thicker and longer the sleeves,with many layers,the higher the status.
@@marinazagrai1623 ,please don't forget that homes weren't very warm at the time ,specially large castles and mansions.the rooms were large even if they had huge fireplaces, and weather in England wasn't really kind.so wealthier people also wore fur over sleeves ,or capes, and capes trimmed with fur even inside. it was also a status symbol .
A great channel .....thanks 👏 👍
Excellent subject and I loved seeing the clothing that still exists.
This was interesting. I found the background music to be a bit too loud, though.
The leaves be greene, the nuts they be browne, they hang so high they will not come down. An Elizabethan earworm
Music too loud making it hard to follow with her accent. I find this in a lot of videos etc. Music too loud for what purpose?
It would easier to understand the speaker without the music.
Fascinating! Thank you. I always wondered how ladies in bygone days managed their periods - your comment on Elizabeth's garters is interesting. Also, I imagine that wearing a farthingale made it easier to walk, especially when it supported several layers of fabric.
That was very interesting, but also if that contraption of a garter was over 400 years ago... why were we still wearing garters when I was young? Yes, huge pads held up by garters. This was late 1960-early 1970 before pads had self stick on them. They were horrible things and the pad slipped all the time. I think when women finally got to the scene of manufacturing things changed for the better!
@@coolwater55 Yep, I hated them but...my grandmothers, like all of their generation, used rags - literally old clothes cut into strips and folded into pads, then tied or pinned on in some way. I know because my mother (b. 1925) told me that her mother wouldn't buy sanitary napkins that were common by then because she had 5 daughters to clothe and very little money to do it. I think one of the first things my mother and her sisters bought when they went to work word was a box of sanitary napkins and the belt that went with them.
BTW, I have been told that sanitary napkins were invented by French nurses during the Franco-Prussian War. They were derived from the disposable, very absorbent bandages used to cover soldiers' bleeding wounds.
@@rdwright6708 Wow, yes, lest we forget. And even today in some countries girls have had issues with getting sanitary napkins, ie some places in India in smaller villages. The girls are mocked and many quit school it becomes so bad.
Anyway, those thing are slowly getting resolved. We must be grateful for what we do have today.
@@rdwright6708 That’s a detailed and poignant sharing! One can hope those women today appreciate the modern advantages. 😊
Brilliant research, homage & presentation. Thank you 💛
Is that true about the dates of the drawers and bras found? I always thought that drawers were 19th Century and bras 20th. Did they maybe fall out of favour during Regency times, when fashions reflected a 'simpler' and more 'back to nature' paradigm?
Yes, they were found in a castle in Austria. Unless there is some weird 'time travel' going on? 😉www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/20/medieval-bras-history-women-support
Look up the Lengberg finds. It was one "bra" that was probably attached to a skirt, a pair of mens underwear (mistakenly portrayed as women's underwear here), and several pieces of headwear that were early on mistaken for underwear. The finds were made in 2008, not 2012. The researchers have several youtube videos explaining what they found. IDK how this video got it so wrong.
I’m having trouble finding the credits- is Marina Sirtis the narrator?
Love this channel
i've been watching the series The Tudors and enjoyed all the fabulous clothes. this article is very nicely documented. however I used the CC option and the results are hilarious. At no time did they ever say farthingale correctly!
“Father and girls hidden under petticoats “ 🤣. So That’s where I stashed my family!
I always thought a farthingale was a piece of horses head tackle or a bit. I was also under the impression that the hooped dress was used because they had to stand at Royal Court for hours on end and had to relieve themselves where they stood, into sawdust or straw on the floors, so a crotch less, bottomless undergarment would have been sensible.
@@robshirewood5060 aren't you glad we were born in this century? with indoor plumbing and hot water? I have heard that pages would get under the skirts to hold chamber pots! Versailles was enoumous and had NO bathrooms. I shudder to think of the stench.
@@barbiesmom You are most definitely correct. I have sent a lot of my life out in the field for various reasons and seriously value hot water having heated thousands of gallons over small fires or cookers over the years, treating it like gold, especially in winter, and really appreciating the return to such amenities. Having said that i believe that Henry VIII had plumbed water, washbowls and soap available in all his residences for many of the guests. The castles also had Garderobes or toilet chutes before his time, so they did have some conveniences. Not ideal and the poor peasants who had to clear up the dung at the bottom, yeuk . I have a friend in France who lives not far from Versailles who has visited often and she remarked many times on the historical lack of facilities. "Ah mon dieu, les Garlic les Onion , c'est terrible" or similar. No wonder people all had scented posies to sniff, i guess early Pot Pourri. As a teenager i worked in an elderly care home, night shifts, with a continuous circuit changing beds, pants, pads, washing faeces, soap, 8 hours, so i am familiar with the stink. God bless, stay safe, and thanks. Lol, cor lumme what a life
@@robshirewood5060 You are thinking of "martingale" for a horse.
The Anne Boleyn thumbnail is most excellent.
ok all seriousness aside the bras and panties found under the floorboards am i the only one here getting Outlander vibes lol
Yeah, you are. Claire wore period clothing when she went back deliberately to find Jamie. The first accidental trip was wearing one outfit, not several bras.
I'm sure you've noticed many Medieval artist like Durer show men wearing a string bikini like garment that I always suspected was underwear. The one you show from Austria was for a woman..but the basic design was the same. I think that garment was also worn further back in time. Underwear obviously would be useful for the poor as well as the rich as a way to help keep clothes clean longer ... bathing being different then. Of course I'm talking about the period before the Tudors but I would think practical items of dress would continue in use.
Sailors' slops were eminently sensible.
There’s no reason to say the Austrian garment was for a woman. The archaeologists studying the castle finds describe it as more than likely for a man, because of the huge number of images of men wearing them, and zero images of women wearing them - female bottoms in medieval art are almost always naked, so the assumption is no drawers were worn except for possible “towels” tied to girdles during menstruation.
The under-chemise/tunic was worn by men and women as early as the early middle ages. It was indeed meant to keep one's outer garments clean and it was also handy as a night gown.
What an interesting presentation! Just love the medieval era history of all things. But I confess that, compared to what we wear today, the clothing was outrageously uncomfortable. The peasants likely were a heck of a lot more comfy in their everyday wear. 😂. Thank you.
People who wear properly fitted Tudor dress often report that it is as or more comfortable than modern dress. The same is said for dress from other eras. I find early Norman dress to be far more comfortable than modern clothing - no stays, bodies or corsets either - so you might find it uncomfortable but many don't.
No on speaks about the regular ornate vests that are worn over blouses, and laced up. This was worn by ALL European women, in EVERY VILLAGE from Sweden to Greece. From Spain to Russia. Up to only a hundred years ago, as a bra. They are comfortable. (Corsets were only for fancy dress). Each village had its own costume design. Google these beautiful outfits. This FACT is NEVER shown in movies Each village had all the people dressed identically for Sundays.
I love your videos. Could you please though pronounce “th” instead of “fink”.
fascinating. thank you so much for compiling.
I feel sorry for the maid having to hold the mirror for such a long time ! Her arms and hands must have been in agony!!
Willing to bet it was the Ladies-in-Waiting holding the mirrors and they'd be fighting over who held it. Proximity to the monarch was extremely important at Court.
I liked this a lot, but would have liked some coverage of men's clothing too.
19th century corsets shouldn't be uncomfortable, either. The corsets that the people I know who wear them seem to like the least are the early-20th century S-bend corsets, but other than that, most seem to find them comfortable, especially for all-day reenactments where you're grateful for back support. Only a very few women tight-laced, and there were lightly boned or soft corsets for work wear.
1/35 "This could washed and changed daily." It could be but was it ? Is there any evidence for this?
Incredibly as it may sound of the 1,900 dresses that Queen Elizabeth the First owned only one has been known to survive. It was used as a alter cloth in a small village church in Wales . Not only that but there is a portrait of her wearing the same dress.
How on earth did these people survive the heat of summer???
I don't think people back then were afraid to sweat like people today are...
I think they were like a work uniform/ power costume that was befitting and expected of a person in their station. Like a judge, magistrate, priest, or Matriarch of a country
I was waiting for you to talk about the undergarments if male Tudors
The ornate dress of the monarchy suggests they would have worn undergarments. The dress would be uncomfortable and an undergarment would be needed.
The shift or chemise was an undergarment. Every woman, even of the meanest class, would have worn one under her clothing, because it was washable. Shirts were the male equivalent, although they wore underdrawers as well. One thing movies get wrong is having women wear stays or corsets next to the skin. It looks sexy, but they were never worn that way.
Medieval bras? Surprising!
Female breast supports were used as far back as Roman times. Several floor mosaics show ladies wearing briefs and breast bands, not bras as we know them.
Nice video but the background music is TOO LOUD and really makes it difficult to pay attention to what you are saying. Not very enjoyable due to this...
*What did the Tudors underwear? Listening from Mass USA TYVM 💙*
You ought to credit the music used.
Excellent content. But the music throughout is distracting and annoying when it competes with the interesting and well-written commentary. Also, the title of the video should make it clear that you ignore the fact the half of the Tudors were men.
It's a pity all the episodes have the constant same loud music. This made me stop watching
The background music is wretched.
Interesting! So the more things change, the more they stay the same...some of today's fashions remain pretty ludicrous:)
Very interesting
It was believed that Henry VIII wore a fishnet Speedo Junior or a loincloth. 👑
The elaborate outer garments couldn’t be cleaned. There were no dry-cleaners. In that regard, peasants could keep their clothes cleaner than the aristocracy.
They couldn't be washed, but they could be aired and brushed. You would be surprised by how much dirt can be removed by brushing.
I have my doubts if the shifts were fresh every day. The amount of labour to do so would be too much for the average "worker".
What your wore for unders depended on your wealth and social standing. That is NOT a corset - those re stays. There is a difference. That is not bra, it is a covering. It has no support and most likely was for some who could not afford proper stays. This video is mixing Victorian terms with Tudor terms. For a history channel, they got quite a lot wrong.
Can anyone please provide the details of the music playing in the background?
ìndeed. Reference should be listed under the video description, but isn't there.
Given the cost of the dresses, theyve got to last, inner clothing would preserve them, and avoid unecessary washing thatd again reduce their life. Also no central heating so many layers worn to keep warm
I would love to hear more about that 500 year old austrian underwear
Who voiced this? ‘What to wear’?
Very interesting thank you
I'm guessing that, for practical purposes, such as going to the loo, the bumroll and hooped skirts made things easier for women standing, spreading the skirts away from the body as they do.
The narrator has an accent/pronunciation I cannot place. The way words lIke "stockins" and "clothin" are pronounced remind of me of southern speech patterns in the US. I understand this type of pronunciation came from the UK before the shift to received pronunciation. Does anyone know the region of the narrator's speech?
wonder what naughty teen boy stole the underwear found in the floorboards !!!
There are several factors that would have influenced Tudor women’s clothing. The first being climate. While weather would change daily, the climate during this time was what has been called “ the little Ice Age”. So therefore the layering if different types of fabrics would have been used. Even in royal palaces, with fireplaces going, the size of the rooms would still permit drafts. This would then cause the Tudor women to embrace a long legged undergarment but due to outer styles, would have been while not fully crotchless, bur be close to that condition for the purpose of bodily relief. Augmented with a light girdle sewn to be able to hold linen folds during menstruation. , the purpose of the fatheringale was to form a more freely ability to both hold outer garments but still be able to help retain body heat, as cold would still penetrate from the floors. Most women would have used a bodice to support the breasts. These could be closely fitted with ribbons to maintain support but to not cause discomfort.. the use of what we consider acorest, would have been used by Elizabeth to give the general appearance of the flatness of a male, to maintain her full authority especially with all the political plotting of the time, while still maintaining her comfort
Outer garments if the finest cloth and newest style was de rigur for any royal court. It was partly showing iff of one’s wealth even if such outer garments would cost ten times the wages of a middle class man’s annual income sometimes even the annual income of a lord. Both men and women needed to be fully decked out even for everyday life at court. Frills and most especially neck ruffs. A neck ruff when wirn can act in the same manner as wearing a neck scarf to keep out cold. From a small frill on a high necked shift to as ostentatious as could be afforded in the finest lace and silks.
@JDraper, check out the portrait at 6'45 !
The lute music is too damned LOUD!!
The long gown was the undergarment but later wore pantaloons.
They had to be made of blood absorbent material because believe it or not, beheadings can get rather messy.
Speaking of clothing from earlier times, when was Lincoln Green in fashion or common, Henry VIII supposedly wrote Greensleeves (which he did not) and it is referred to as Green being the sign of a courtesan, is it true? It also beggars the question of when Robin Hood might have existed based on the fashions of the time, he wearing (expensive) Scarlet his men Green. Was it in early Tudor times that Lincoln Green was in vogue?
It was only Will Scarlet who wore scarlet, not Robin Hood. Perhaps you're thinking of Robin's niece, Little Red Riding Hood.
Women’s style changes every decade, then and now.
Sorry, cannot watch this with that racket in the background
I would suggest the title of this should be Did Tudor women wear underwear, since this was exclusively about women.
Even during the Victorian era, women wore complicated dresses that restricted their freedom of movement. Crinolines, hoop skirts and bustles made getting dressed a very complicated affair.
Foreplay must have been a nightmare for the man…I still struggle with removing the modern bra …imagine all this other stuff!
It seems they rejected the natural curves of the body and favored fashion depicting status. ? What do you think? In this case Elizabeth was truly a woman of her times.
Oh my-
Wow, some of this is right, but you got so much of it wrong, or misleading, or out of context. And you take the entire era of over a hundred years of Tudor historical fashion, and sweep with a broad brush! I suggest you research the more recent information that has come out in the past few decades, and not try to apply garments like the Lengberg finds in Austria, to the garments worn by the English ladies, whose fashion styles, along with their undergarments, changed over their decades, and were nothing like the fashion ideals of Austrian ladies in the prior century.
Thank you for your comments. Yes, a wide brush indeed to fit into 10 minutes.
@@tudorworldhistorychannel3955 Then take some extra time, or make the scope of your video smaller
As a ten minute overview it was informative and visually fascinating. Thank you so very much.
Perhaps another longer video from K Kelley would provide the additional information.
I am giving this thumbs down solely because you keep refering to stays/pair of bodies as corset. Which is misleading even though you try to explain what stays are.
Sadly, the explanation is lacking and doesn't explain why it was way better than bra( making that austrian bra's discovery almost useless and unlikely to be popular and widespread-because women had much better alternative already.) By the way in 2nd half of 1490, fartingale or verdugado, was already covered, so Catherine of Aragon already introduced covered version of it. It gave the shape, but you couldn't see the hoops.
I always thought that stays and corsets were synonymous.
@@marichristian1072 It's mistakenly presented that way in many sources. Stays are ancestors of corset and you couldn't tight-lace them. Sadly there are big misinformation circulating about both stays and corset, and in historical tv shows, often you see actress wearing corset(without any chemise beneath, and it is ill-fitting too-no wonder they complain it is uncomfortable), even though the scene is set in times there were no corsets yet, and they should have used stays.
If corsets were truly much better and more comfortable than bras, we would still wear them today. Everyone loving corsets in the past is a myth spread by amateur fashion "historians" with TH-cam channels.
@@M123Xoxo I agree. I've only ever heard how bad corsets were for women and uncomfortable not to mention deadly.
@@M123Xoxo I am amateur, I never claimed to be anything else. But so called historical experts believed Mr Mathews when he said painting by Sittow is not Catherine of Aragon. Among one of the reasonings he gave was that she had no reason to wear scallops(which trimmed her dress). They are symbol of Camino de Santiago, the most important pilgrimage in all of Spain-which she did before coming to England. You really sure experts always know their stuff? Also, the reason why corsets went away, was big campaign about corsets being killers, which didn't originate with suffragets as you'd think. It started with men, being against women leading their own bussiness-as most corset makers were women, and it gave them income and indipendence. So they vilified corsets.
In regards to the Austrian excavations. Firstly, the term vault my confuse people, these findings were located between two parts of the flooring filled among other things with various pieces of textile. These included the mentioned 'bras', only that they were not stand alone pieces, they were an integral part of shirts, which is even visible in the images of this video. Not only that, these findings are considered rare, possibly tied to a single noble woman having resided at this castle and should not be taken as something more wide spread. The video also shows some thong like underpants. These have been clearly identified as male, they are found in many illuminations of the 15th century, we don't have a single source indicating such may have been worn by women. I am not a specialist in these time periods, so I cannot say what people might have worn as underwear, if any. Though I would underline that linen was certainly worn in shirts and in the case of men braies of all classes, cotton and mixed fabrics had also appeared by the 15th century, though they were probably rather higher class. Lastly, at least for the high- and late-medieval periods we have no evidence for female underpants, however unpractical that may seem. To the opposite, we find some illuminations where women are seen wearing male underwear while the men, supposedly under their wives' rule, don't wear any. Those illuminations are a clear social criticism that men should be the masters of their house etc. (which we happily have overcome, at least largely, since the late 19th century).
Poor lady assistant always washing the clothes of the Queen .
In terms of your question, all of the above!
It seems impossible to me that women didn't wear something under their skirts. Chafing was an issue in Tudor times, too.
Khaleesi...chafing was the reason for those who could afford silk to wear chemises made of this fabric. This was the expense they had to make!
They would wear a chemise, which could be silk, cotton or linen.
Too slow
@@tudorworldhistorychannel3955 A chemise would do nothing for chaffing between the legs.
@@sherieffiong853 Only for women without a thigh-gap.
I found this interesting and not as a fashion guru, there is something obvious. It appears that the illusion was more important than comfort. The illusion of the body as in the artwork of the times left some women struggling to fit the styles. The rich were showing off their affluence by controlling their image while the poor were left more to what their bodies allowed. Today, the same images models portray to the average woman. Modern expensive clothing is cut and hemmed to accent and hide areas achieving a desired look in the same ways.
This interesting what the women wore in those days. The Japanese women often wear formal kimonos with many layers, the more the better.
I wonder how the ladies could go to the bathroom with 6-7 layers of clothes back in the days ... 😅
They don't call them TOOTERS for nothing! IMHO
When was deodorants invented? I know that they did not have toothbrushes during the Tudor period.
Is it possible that someone could re-edit this film and rewrite the subtitling WITHOUT the appalling 'howlers', (that aren't actually funny AT ALL, when you need them due to hearing problems.) For instance, it took me three times regoing over and over the film, to work out what a 'father girl' was referring to! Very unprofessional! It REALLY ruined what would otherwise have been a very educational video. If subtitles are not done properly, they are a hindrance, NOT a help!
I would have loved this but the music was too loud and, being a pedant, I can't bear it when anyone pronounces 'gown' as gownd'.
Plus there are a few mistakes but other than that, it could be very good.
Please - make positive contributions.
@@Robert_Keel i did!
@@SarahFerguson264
No - all you did was criticize and bitch.
I would have loved it if you had found something good to say, but you didn't.
I think she saying “the fashionably gowned”.
Apparently, not under their kilts!
The fashions of the Tudor age were that time's version of television. What was worn by the peerage was pure show.
Uh...you are TALKING about the Renaissance! Careful with your script!
Thinking Blackadder,and Baldrick....rags