Not so very heavy
Posted by Jessamyn on September 24, 1997 at 22:07:18:
In response to Corsets and Stockings, written by Carrie on September 24, 1997 at 16:02:38
] There's a few more on one of my new pages (link below). Enjoy!
] ~Wow what a nice page! Very interesting. In regard to underthings, did the ladies wear stockings? If so what were they made of and how high did they wear them on the leg?
] Were all their garments, when worn, heavy? It seems that all the petticoats and other accessories, including the wood in the corset, would have been heavy.
I can't find much on stockings, but they definitely wore them; occasionally decorated ones for evening, but usually plain. I think they were the above-the-knee, held-on-with-a-garter type, but I'm not certain. All I can tell you for sure is that even in plates where the skirt is being lifted to just below the knee, you can't see the top of the stocking.
Regency undergarments wouldn't have been all that heavy--nothing like the horrible upholstered fashions of the late 1820s and '30s. Really, there was just a thin cotton chemise, thin socks or stockings, possibly a petticoat (without many gathers, so not too much fabric there) and a corset, with a relatively lightweight dress over all. Oh, and if you were really fashionable, in the early Regency you would have added a culs postiches--what the Elizabethans called a bumroll. It was of stuffed cotton or linen, and it tied on just above the waist. Not heavy, but, I must say, an ugly fashion.
The busk sounds scarier than it really is, I think. Imagine strapping a couple of long wooden salad spoons to your front--it really wouldn't be the weight that you'd notice. Just the rigidity.
Posting followups to old messages is disabled; instead go to the main index and post a new message which mentions this one.