1780s dressing the different social classes, english fashion
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มี.ค. 2023
- In this video, I get dressed in English fashion from the 1780s as an upper-class lady, middle-class and working-class woman. I go through the different garments worn to create the style. But keep in mind these are just examples showcasing the different socio-economic status in dressing, in the 18th century there was a huge secondhand clothing market making fashionable and expensive goods available to a much broader audience so that social lines in dress often blurred making it hard to distinguish one's wealth based on dress. Also, this is a time when the middle classes were on the rise, making them much wealthier than before.
Fascinating. By the end, I had almost forgotten it was the same person in each segment. Excellent editing.
Thanks ❤️
I did mot notice!!!!😅
This video is fantastic. It is particularly valuable in its comparison of the different classes - not just visually, but with detailed information explaining those differences. Can't thank you enough!
I absolutely love the lower class outfit 😍
Great breakdown! Especially informative to see them side by side like this :)
Thanks ❤️
I have this pet theory that upper class people wore their garters above their knees and lower class people tied them below the knee. This applies to both women and men. Working class people had to do a lot more physical tasks and movement than their upper class counterparts, so naturally their stockings were more prone to falling down. To prevent this, they would probably have preferred to tie their garters right below the knee, where it was most secure. The upper classes, on the other hand, could afford to wear their stockings in a more dainty style and often tied their garters above the knee to ensure their stockings stayed thigh-high. Obviously, wearing garters like this would be more cumbersome and restrict movement, so it wasn't suited for people who had to do manual labor. Gartering the stockings above the knee wasn't as secure as below, so the fancy silk stockings would often slip down beneath their skirts or breeches, so I also think upper class folk would've had to be more mindful of their legwear.
Sounds very plausible. I need to check period images were women have their skirts hiked up to see if the garters are ever visible
@@sewthroughtimeSometimes they are! The paintings of Hogarth and Fragonard come to mind, they feature plenty of women with their skirts hiked up, exposing garters tied above their knees. I've seen various paintings and cartoons from the 18th century that suggest upper class men wore their garters above the knee as well. You have Jean Baptiste Huet, who's paintings invariably display a pink or red garter peeking out from the male figures' lower thighs. And if you observe all of those seated portraits of noblemen and statemen from the 18th century, you'll see that their posing almost always causes the pants legs of their breeches to ride up, showing silky stockinged knees... yet there's no garters to be seen. I think the only way the men could've styled their hosiery to achieve this effect is to tie their garters above the knee, otherwise the stockings would slip down to their ankles all day long.
Yes I'm aware 😏 I was talking about your theory that poorer people would wear garters lower. All the images were I have noticed garters are above the knee but I have to check since there are plenty of images with women working with their skirts hiked out of the way
Oh! It's just a pet theory of mine, based off of the fact that garters tend to sit more securely when worn below the knee.
Came over from IG. This is so cool! I love the class contrast. Must've been quite the planning process to time each section to match up so well!
Not really, I tend to go with a certain color palette and then things just match.
@@sewthroughtime I meant the timing of each step. The voiceover works marvelously because the each "person" matched the moment to don the next item. I thought that was clever.
The colour palette is lovely too!
Oh thankyou so much i just come from instagram to find your channel. Honestly its fancinating! Each is beautiful 😍. Im working on my family tree and its so cool seeing the fashion for all my ancestors ❤️
Love the middle class outfit, without the apron or cap.
I just found your channels and i must say you are absolutely stunning! ❤❤
Thanks for this video. It explains very well. UK
Amazing! I love your videos and the knowledge and information you pass on about time period fashions! 💖💖💖
❤️
This is amazing to watch!! A new high🏆
This is well done, I love to see the difference in styles, and this is one of my favorite eras for fashion! I am curious about the glasses on the working class costume, were they common during this time amongst the lower classes? If so, were they more common amongst the lower classes than upper? I would have assumed the more wealthy would be able to afford glasses more readily than lower class and that glasses would be more prominent amongst them, as contacts would not have been an option at the time.
I am pretry sure they were not part of the costume.
I loved the video!
This is wonderful 😊. Looking amazing in each one.
Thanks!
Very informative and interesting! I love it!
Thanks! ❤️
I was wondering what Claire's outfits were trying to emulate in the later seasons of Outlander, they felt anachronistic for the 18th century but not representative of 50s and 60s sensibilities, now that I know what a bedgown is (i saw jackets that look similar on older flemish portraits but i didn't make the link and assumed it was out of fashion and highly regional) i now realise she's mostly wearing bedgowns that are sometimes knitted using 20th century technics (although they are more representative of 21st century tastes but it's quite reminiscent of the cawls she wore in the early seasons)
A dutch jacket i adore that is homed at the Rijksmuseum or the met, can't remember which, has the necklace reaching all the way underneath the breasts, i used to assume the space was filled with the fichu but looking at traditional Frisian and some traditional dutch dress it could have been some thing similar to the "front zone" gown shown here, maybe with stays, a stomacher or a corset hiding it all
Very nice overview! ❤
😘
I'm Choctaw Native American. And I'm glad my ancestors didn't have to dress like this.
It’s amazing culture fashions, but whew!
❤❤We were on the same thought pattern!
🇯🇲 🇧🇿
Great video.
When i wear my historical costumes i always put my shoes on just before my corset, just because its easier to get them on. Does it matter?
Not really, in period images you typically see women putting on shoes last. And I personally don't find it any more difficult 🤷
I'm a bit confused by the wooden busk. I've never seen anyone replicating this era use it, as it doesn't seem to offer any support that isn't given by the stays. Also confused about the positioning of the layers of the skirts. Is there a reason the upper class bum pad was placed over the petticoat and underneath for the middle class?
In this particular style it goes over so that the petticoat doesn't have to accommodate the shape and can be worn with other gowns and jackets because that specific bum pad requires a huge amount of room in the skirt. It's a style choice not a class difference.
What sort of pins would one use for modern clothing? Corsage pin? Or something similar?
Also, were there separate night gowns, or did they sleep in their shifts?
Nightgown is misleadingly another name for the english gown the middle class woman is wearing 😅 but yes a shift possibly a separate one would be for sleeping. Regular sewing pins but theirs would have been slightly more heavy-duty. Reenactment stores carry the more accurate versions
@@sewthroughtime Thank you so much for the information.
Can you link to the pattern you used for the lower classes bed gown?
I didn't use one but I know Burnley and Trowbridge has one
Ah, may I ask what resource you DID use? I just love how nicely it fits for a 'square' garment/t-tunic type garment.@@sewthroughtime
It's based on the shapes of originals just using my measurements but as far as I know the Burnley and Trowbridge pattern has the same basic shape to it
The B and T appear to be modified t tunics, which are fairly easy to make.
These look beautiful but not very comfortable. Very informative, thank you!
They are extremely comfortable! 😊 The 2 non silk ones are my go to clothing for a longer hike 😜
@@sewthroughtime well then bring these styles back asap!
Pockets! They had real usuable pockets!
Not the when-i-grow-up-i'll-be-a-real-pocket.
All these layers of clothing and the men still found a way to the 😻
The higher classes wouldn’t have dressed themselves I think.
No, they had maids.
Hold up-POCKETS???
Yeah women's garments were practical till men started designing them in the 20th century 😂
@@sewthroughtime Are you sure about that? : th-cam.com/video/jJ-ovZaP5AA/w-d-xo.htmlsi=2nLzYJYKMLXSc7ry
@@sewthroughtime love the obnoxious bigotted misandrist comments, pretty sure it's women who design women clothes in 21st century, just had to ruin the video, blocked
@@sewthroughtimemisandristic bigot, there's nothing practical about wearing corset... such a stupid comment but that's to be expected from a woman bigot
I don't think that is truly how the working class woman truly dressed. When you try to physically do the same work today maybe sweep and a bit of cooking. I have learned over these decades of my life that only the fashionable printed would be circulated - no one who wrote history even then didn't want to be on the outs. You can't dress this way for real work. If you disagree watch historical recreators and even these village youtube day in life . Back then you wrote what is acceptable - not the neighbor woman donning mens pant. Though there are some hints in old writings here and there . Your other ladies lovely gowns. A's mom.
There is absolutely a wealth of documentation of the working class in the 18th century and yes this is a common way for them to dress though they absolutely could also wear full gowns too. We have runaway ads, physical descriptions, records of what was sold in shops and tons of drawings among other resources. Look up Paul Sandby's work as a good start, he drew mostly regular people and even the very poor.
@@sewthroughtime - I didn't say there wasn't any kind of documentation, I was hoping you would think about the time better. We are all use to TV version of life, but the 1700's was war packed. Someone had to get in the hay, so hard labor when the men are gone, or died. You get out into the fields swinging a heavy scythe, milk cows, shear sheep, handle horses, etc. I bet in no time with true honest reflection, you will start to rethink the "recorded" version, romantic version in paintings even. Here's an example of what I mean, 1940's and 1950's, there is tons of documentation on style of dresses, but many women donned working jeans, and boots. In other words it would be nice if 'era' presenters add to their collections britches and since bindings were perhaps too expensive for many households - a luxury men would not afford. It would be nice if someone would start to break the common thinking - after all the colonies were a wild and hard working place, not to mention England too. But your gowns are lovely and you put a lot of work in them, it shows. 'A' s mom.
The working lady is missing a tall hat, similar to puritan in America for look, this is the traditional Welsh costume. No fancy embroidery, no best coat, no good anything….poor is poor just the red flannel petticoats were always the same. The shawl was knitted for every day and something nice if you had it. The middle class lady was money….there wasn’t any one with more than that.
why IS she talking with that voice too lower for her ? can't she talk with her normal voice ? that's annoying.
I can’t believe it wasn’t acceptable to just wear a pair of comfortable pants and throw on a simple shirt.. crazy times. Beautiful at the same time but gosh being poor and having to worry about all of those things is even worse 🫠
That has been acceptable attire only the last few decades 😅 and isn't even today in many professions 🤷
That wouldn’t have been as comfortable or practical back in the old days I feel like.
Eh, I got time tonight. But really? Let me reason it out for you. Now we have to wear bras and very few of us have professions where being braless is acceptable, or practical. I'm constantly adjusting my bra straps, position, etc to keep it from rubbing and, because I'm busty, I have to also be careful because some types of sport and lounge bras with racerbacks because they sit on my neck and shoulders wrong, which causes a lot of pain. Stays, especially as a middling sort, would avoid due to custom fitting. But, sure, for lower/workers, I -am- surprised a little by the back lacing stays in this one specific video instance, but I think it was more showing silhouette/quality/possible hand-me-down status. From my research, front lacing would have been quite common with lowest classes because of their lack of a ladies maid (though I could be wrong for this era). Also, as is mentioned in the video, jumps are a soft vestlike garment. I think for people who are uninformed about this era, "corset" and even "bodice" sets their assumptions haywire. While for a costume and not replicating an extant historical piece, Angela Clayton has a video on making jumps. I also just saw a girl wearing a modern cottage core corset in Target yesterday and seemed very happy, comfortable, and it was practical for doing her errands. Ofc we're talking Target and not like planting crops but I don't think that girl would be working a field in Lululemon either!
Lastly, to do some accounting and equivalence: Modern femme presenting, casual - panties, sports bra, yoga pants, tshirt, sweatshirt. 5 garments, because I live in a place with weather. Here, the lower class woman had chemise, stays, petticoat, skirt, bedgown. 5 garments. Modern women have handbags, 18th century women had pockets. (See also: pocketbook = purse) Especially carrying a purse if I'm wearing yoga pants because those pockets are doing the least. Shoes, for both. Historical has stockings and I hope modern women still wear socks. So really the difference is kerchief and cap, but if you wear a modern scarf and hat for weather or fashion... then we're even again. Here's the real kicker. This amazing, detailed video does mention cosmetics. It's pretty brief because the hold that capital driven cosmetic companies have on us these days is really something! Most women I know spend 15 min to 1 hr on hair and makeup, especially with increasingly complex makeup styles. Additionally there is somewhat of a inverse correlation on the complexity of makeup and nails with wealth, the Upper West Side women who paid $50k+ in private school tuition where I used to work have short painted nails (if they do get gel, they don't add length) and usually have minimal makeup. Women who work a minimum wage customer service job, such as a barista or cashier, usually have full beats with longer nails. These days wealth means you don't have to be ready for presentation whereas poverty means you have to present yourself to an employer, customer or both to make money.
Anyway, "crazy time" is not an acceptable mindset to me, so I hope this opens your mind a little bit. I am a proponent of open, learning-first inquiry mindsets, not closed judgement-first mindsets. I am not limited by wordcount, but I am in structure, so hopefully the reference points out well help you find your way and understanding. There were many struggles for the working class in England, in fact about 60 years later Engels wrote the shocking Conditions of the Working Class in England. But getting dressed wasn't one of them!
@@misstanyamae if your bra isn’t comfortable try a different size. Most women wear a bra band way too big and a cup way too small. Measure yourself but don’t add ANY inches to your underbust measurement. Then try that bra size. It make a world of difference. I went from wearing a 34DD to a 30G. Now I never have to adjust my bra and it’s great!
How many women did? Aurora du Pin a.k.a George Sand. Good analysis on your part!