Undressing Your Hero

Susan/Miranda, stepping up to the podium to make an introduction….

Sometimes here at WordWenches, we have historical experts (like Dr. Josh King) as guests.  Sometimes we have other historical authors (like too many to list) come visit us.  Today we’re fortunate to welcome a guest who combines both qualities, as well as being a frequent visitor to post.

Cover Kalen Hughes is the author of the acclaimed LORD SIN, which landed her on Amazon’s "Hot New Releases" list as a first-time author. Her next book, LORD SCANDAL, will be released in June, ’08.  For  more about Kalen the author as well as her books, please stop by her site: www.Kalenhughes.com.

But today it’s Kalen Hughes, specialist in historical dress, who’s our guest-blogger.  Since the age of three, she has been involved in various living history events from the Middle Ages to the Roaring 20s, and is an expert historical seamstress as well as a scholar of fashion and clothing.  We’re delighted to have her as a resource here this Wednesday, and next Wednesday, too.   Let the questions begin!

I was extremely excited and honored when the Wenches invited me over to talk about historical clothing. As many of you already know, historical costuming is a major hobby of mine. I spend oodles of time both studying and recreating (and sometimes wearing) the clothing of past eras.

While my own novels are set in the late 18th century, today we’re going to take a look at the layers of 1812 clothing a gentleman would have worn c. 1812 (note, the layers are the same for the entire extended Regency era, roughly 1790-1830). To the right we have a fashion plate of just such a man. He’s wearing the most fashionable hat of the day, pantaloons, top boots, and an open dress coat over a double-breasted wasitcoat.

Please feel free to ask about other eras if you’re curious. In picking the garments for our hero I’m going to go with the most common versions, not the exceptions (but if you have questions about exceptions just ask!).

Let’s start from the skin out. Our hero’s “underwear” consists of a shirt, stockings, and drawers. The Shirt_1810_1830 shirt is going to be of white linen. It is not much longer than a modern shirt, but it is considerably fuller in both the body and the sleeves. One very important thing to note: it does not open all the way down the front (regardless of what is depicted on countless romance novel covers)! It has a partial neck-opening from the collar to about mid-chest. So the shirt had to be pulled on/off over the head. It buttons closed at the throat, though this is hidden by the cravat. The cuffs are wide (2”-3”) and button closed in an overlapping fashion (like a modern dress shirt, not like a French cuff)

Drawers are not universally worn (there are reports that some men simply tucked their shirt tails over 1805_mens_drawers_2  and under), but they certainly existed. JP Ryan describes the extant pair of drawers she based her pattern on thusly: “In design, these under drawers are like a separate lining for men’s breeches. The drawers have a shaped waistband with an open front fly. The waistband is fastened with two buttons, and is laced closed in the back. The seat is full, the legs tight, with sufficient fullness through the crotch for full freedom of movement. The fly front rise is short, with the waistband fitting around the hips and stomach. The knee-bands are designed for ties.”

Socks_1Our hero is most likely wearing a relatively thick pair of stockings (most likely of cotton or wool). The curator at the Costume Museum in Bath says that for dress occasions they wore a cotton stocking under the silk stocking to hide their leg hair.

Coats come in several varieties, and the terminology is confusing, and sometimes contradictory (esp. as the Victorians messed them all about). On most of the coats in our period (shooting coats excepted) the pocket flap is for decoration only. The actualCoat_1805_1810  pocket (if there is one) is inside the coat, usually in the tail (as with the extant example on display at the Jane Austen Center in Bath). This pocket was sometimes reached from the outside of the coat, and sometimes from the inside (which seems inconvenient, to say the least). Information on when the breast pocket appeared varies. I’ve heard that Brummell invented them in 1813, but J. P. Ryan says she’s seen them on extant 18th century coats.

Our hero is most likely in a dress coats (also called a tail coat). It has a cutaway front and tails in the back. It could be single or double breasted, and while most are made of wool (usually in a dark colour), extant examples in other fabrications (such as plaid linen) do exist. Blue coats are invariably shown with brass/gold buttons, all others with self fabric covered buttons.

Pantaloons_c1800 As for our hero’s “unmentionables”, let us put him into buckskin breeches. Though breeches, by the Regency, are considered old fashioned, buff leather ones are still commonly worn for “morning” or “country” attire. These are the jeans of their era. Most have a front fall, a flap that covers the front opening. This fall goes only from about hip-bone to hip-bone. The waistband buttoned, usually with 2-3 buttons, then the fall closed like a bib over the otherwise open front area of the pants. Belts were not worn. Pants of all types would have been held up by “X” crossed braces (suspenders).

Waistcoats all button up the front. They could be single or double breasted (like coats) All the examples I’ve seen have a method of tightening at the back. Some have ties, some have buckles and straps. Waistcoat_makover_1_2The front is the fancy, decorative part, with the back (and sleeves on some 18th century examples) being plain (just like a modern day suit vest). The interesting thing to note for Regency-ear examples is that they are square/flat across the bottom.

Cravat_and_padCravats are simply long rectangles of material that are tied around the neck. Mostly they were white, but colors were not uncommon among the working classes and the sporting and dandy sets. Though Brummell made the starched cravat fashionable, it wasn’t jut starch that was responsible for the stiff nature of the Regency cravat: there is a horse hair pad hidden inside! The “Belcher” neckcloth (named after the man who made them fashionable, the famous pugilist Jem Belcher). These colorful cravats were also called peacock eyed. They are the origin of the cowboy bandana. I think our hero might be just enough of a Corinthian dandy to sport one of these, don’t you?

Boots were the sneaker of the Regency era. Previously they had been worn only for riding, hunting, etcReproduction_top_boot. Now, they’re part of proper morning (informal) attire. They come in many forms for Regency_top_hatsmen, There was the top boot (also called the English, John Bull, Jockey, or tall boot), Hessians (also called the Austrian or Hess boot). Some reach the knee, other examples only come up to the calf. Both lengths of boot are worn with pantaloons of varying length, and with breeches, sometimes exposing a good deal of stockinged calf.

Our hero would complete his ensemble with gloves (most likely of a yellow/buff or brown) and an beaver hat (what we would call a top hat, or an opera hat). So that’s it. He’s dressed. I know we said "undressing", but now you can picture it in reverse. *grin*

265 thoughts on “Undressing Your Hero”

  1. Kalen, thank you for that very clear, succinct summary.
    I am interested in the drawers (hmm; maybe I should phrase that differently?). My impression is that the wearing of underpants was still very far from universal amongst the males of many classes in far more recent times, except when they were being worn chiefly to provide extra warmth in very cold weather. The shirts of the mid-20th century were still fairly long and full (and did not open all down the front), and were quite capable of acting as a layer between the wearer’s delicate bits and the often rather rough trouser-fabrics.
    I just wonder if you have any information about which Regency males wore linen drawers and why? Were they more common amongst the privileged classes, who had plenty of servants to do the washing and ironing? I find it hard to envisage this rather voluminous undergarment (even though the linen would be a fine fabric) sitting smoothly under the close-fitting pantaloons of town wear.
    Oh – and the fabric for those close-fitting pantaloons. Is it true that they were sometimes made of a jersey (knitted fabric) rather than a woven cloth, to improve their stretch and cling? Or is that just a modern legend?
    I can think of dozens more questions, but I think you are going to be overwhelmed, so I shall shut up now!
    🙂

    Reply
  2. Kalen, thank you for that very clear, succinct summary.
    I am interested in the drawers (hmm; maybe I should phrase that differently?). My impression is that the wearing of underpants was still very far from universal amongst the males of many classes in far more recent times, except when they were being worn chiefly to provide extra warmth in very cold weather. The shirts of the mid-20th century were still fairly long and full (and did not open all down the front), and were quite capable of acting as a layer between the wearer’s delicate bits and the often rather rough trouser-fabrics.
    I just wonder if you have any information about which Regency males wore linen drawers and why? Were they more common amongst the privileged classes, who had plenty of servants to do the washing and ironing? I find it hard to envisage this rather voluminous undergarment (even though the linen would be a fine fabric) sitting smoothly under the close-fitting pantaloons of town wear.
    Oh – and the fabric for those close-fitting pantaloons. Is it true that they were sometimes made of a jersey (knitted fabric) rather than a woven cloth, to improve their stretch and cling? Or is that just a modern legend?
    I can think of dozens more questions, but I think you are going to be overwhelmed, so I shall shut up now!
    🙂

    Reply
  3. Kalen, thank you for that very clear, succinct summary.
    I am interested in the drawers (hmm; maybe I should phrase that differently?). My impression is that the wearing of underpants was still very far from universal amongst the males of many classes in far more recent times, except when they were being worn chiefly to provide extra warmth in very cold weather. The shirts of the mid-20th century were still fairly long and full (and did not open all down the front), and were quite capable of acting as a layer between the wearer’s delicate bits and the often rather rough trouser-fabrics.
    I just wonder if you have any information about which Regency males wore linen drawers and why? Were they more common amongst the privileged classes, who had plenty of servants to do the washing and ironing? I find it hard to envisage this rather voluminous undergarment (even though the linen would be a fine fabric) sitting smoothly under the close-fitting pantaloons of town wear.
    Oh – and the fabric for those close-fitting pantaloons. Is it true that they were sometimes made of a jersey (knitted fabric) rather than a woven cloth, to improve their stretch and cling? Or is that just a modern legend?
    I can think of dozens more questions, but I think you are going to be overwhelmed, so I shall shut up now!
    🙂

    Reply
  4. Kalen, thank you for that very clear, succinct summary.
    I am interested in the drawers (hmm; maybe I should phrase that differently?). My impression is that the wearing of underpants was still very far from universal amongst the males of many classes in far more recent times, except when they were being worn chiefly to provide extra warmth in very cold weather. The shirts of the mid-20th century were still fairly long and full (and did not open all down the front), and were quite capable of acting as a layer between the wearer’s delicate bits and the often rather rough trouser-fabrics.
    I just wonder if you have any information about which Regency males wore linen drawers and why? Were they more common amongst the privileged classes, who had plenty of servants to do the washing and ironing? I find it hard to envisage this rather voluminous undergarment (even though the linen would be a fine fabric) sitting smoothly under the close-fitting pantaloons of town wear.
    Oh – and the fabric for those close-fitting pantaloons. Is it true that they were sometimes made of a jersey (knitted fabric) rather than a woven cloth, to improve their stretch and cling? Or is that just a modern legend?
    I can think of dozens more questions, but I think you are going to be overwhelmed, so I shall shut up now!
    🙂

    Reply
  5. Kalen, thank you for that very clear, succinct summary.
    I am interested in the drawers (hmm; maybe I should phrase that differently?). My impression is that the wearing of underpants was still very far from universal amongst the males of many classes in far more recent times, except when they were being worn chiefly to provide extra warmth in very cold weather. The shirts of the mid-20th century were still fairly long and full (and did not open all down the front), and were quite capable of acting as a layer between the wearer’s delicate bits and the often rather rough trouser-fabrics.
    I just wonder if you have any information about which Regency males wore linen drawers and why? Were they more common amongst the privileged classes, who had plenty of servants to do the washing and ironing? I find it hard to envisage this rather voluminous undergarment (even though the linen would be a fine fabric) sitting smoothly under the close-fitting pantaloons of town wear.
    Oh – and the fabric for those close-fitting pantaloons. Is it true that they were sometimes made of a jersey (knitted fabric) rather than a woven cloth, to improve their stretch and cling? Or is that just a modern legend?
    I can think of dozens more questions, but I think you are going to be overwhelmed, so I shall shut up now!
    🙂

    Reply
  6. Can you recomend any books or websites that we can go to for more detail, like military uniforms, nightwear, hairstyles, etc.? I’ve read about tying a cravat in a Waterfall and styling the hair “a la Brutus” and I’d like a picture. Also, what about accessories? Riding crops, canes, jewelry, cloaks, overcoats? What was common for most gentlemen- how adorned or unadorned woulld most of our heros be? I ‘m fascinated by fashions of the past- so much nicer than today’s grungie looks!

    Reply
  7. Can you recomend any books or websites that we can go to for more detail, like military uniforms, nightwear, hairstyles, etc.? I’ve read about tying a cravat in a Waterfall and styling the hair “a la Brutus” and I’d like a picture. Also, what about accessories? Riding crops, canes, jewelry, cloaks, overcoats? What was common for most gentlemen- how adorned or unadorned woulld most of our heros be? I ‘m fascinated by fashions of the past- so much nicer than today’s grungie looks!

    Reply
  8. Can you recomend any books or websites that we can go to for more detail, like military uniforms, nightwear, hairstyles, etc.? I’ve read about tying a cravat in a Waterfall and styling the hair “a la Brutus” and I’d like a picture. Also, what about accessories? Riding crops, canes, jewelry, cloaks, overcoats? What was common for most gentlemen- how adorned or unadorned woulld most of our heros be? I ‘m fascinated by fashions of the past- so much nicer than today’s grungie looks!

    Reply
  9. Can you recomend any books or websites that we can go to for more detail, like military uniforms, nightwear, hairstyles, etc.? I’ve read about tying a cravat in a Waterfall and styling the hair “a la Brutus” and I’d like a picture. Also, what about accessories? Riding crops, canes, jewelry, cloaks, overcoats? What was common for most gentlemen- how adorned or unadorned woulld most of our heros be? I ‘m fascinated by fashions of the past- so much nicer than today’s grungie looks!

    Reply
  10. Can you recomend any books or websites that we can go to for more detail, like military uniforms, nightwear, hairstyles, etc.? I’ve read about tying a cravat in a Waterfall and styling the hair “a la Brutus” and I’d like a picture. Also, what about accessories? Riding crops, canes, jewelry, cloaks, overcoats? What was common for most gentlemen- how adorned or unadorned woulld most of our heros be? I ‘m fascinated by fashions of the past- so much nicer than today’s grungie looks!

    Reply
  11. Kalen!! Great post. The online class you taught on dressing and undressing the Regency Hero and Heroine is the most useful I’ve ever taken.
    My question is about Banyans. How did they close? Did they close?
    Also, shoes. When a gentleman was relaxing in his sitting room with friends, would he be in boots, slippers, something else?
    BTW, if anyone hasn’t read Kalen’s LORD SIN – it is sinfully delicious. Better than chocolate.

    Reply
  12. Kalen!! Great post. The online class you taught on dressing and undressing the Regency Hero and Heroine is the most useful I’ve ever taken.
    My question is about Banyans. How did they close? Did they close?
    Also, shoes. When a gentleman was relaxing in his sitting room with friends, would he be in boots, slippers, something else?
    BTW, if anyone hasn’t read Kalen’s LORD SIN – it is sinfully delicious. Better than chocolate.

    Reply
  13. Kalen!! Great post. The online class you taught on dressing and undressing the Regency Hero and Heroine is the most useful I’ve ever taken.
    My question is about Banyans. How did they close? Did they close?
    Also, shoes. When a gentleman was relaxing in his sitting room with friends, would he be in boots, slippers, something else?
    BTW, if anyone hasn’t read Kalen’s LORD SIN – it is sinfully delicious. Better than chocolate.

    Reply
  14. Kalen!! Great post. The online class you taught on dressing and undressing the Regency Hero and Heroine is the most useful I’ve ever taken.
    My question is about Banyans. How did they close? Did they close?
    Also, shoes. When a gentleman was relaxing in his sitting room with friends, would he be in boots, slippers, something else?
    BTW, if anyone hasn’t read Kalen’s LORD SIN – it is sinfully delicious. Better than chocolate.

    Reply
  15. Kalen!! Great post. The online class you taught on dressing and undressing the Regency Hero and Heroine is the most useful I’ve ever taken.
    My question is about Banyans. How did they close? Did they close?
    Also, shoes. When a gentleman was relaxing in his sitting room with friends, would he be in boots, slippers, something else?
    BTW, if anyone hasn’t read Kalen’s LORD SIN – it is sinfully delicious. Better than chocolate.

    Reply
  16. Great post! My question is on belts. On a lot of cover art the hero is shown wearing pants with belt loops. Now, I know that vikings had loops, but when did belts as we know them come into being?

    Reply
  17. Great post! My question is on belts. On a lot of cover art the hero is shown wearing pants with belt loops. Now, I know that vikings had loops, but when did belts as we know them come into being?

    Reply
  18. Great post! My question is on belts. On a lot of cover art the hero is shown wearing pants with belt loops. Now, I know that vikings had loops, but when did belts as we know them come into being?

    Reply
  19. Great post! My question is on belts. On a lot of cover art the hero is shown wearing pants with belt loops. Now, I know that vikings had loops, but when did belts as we know them come into being?

    Reply
  20. Great post! My question is on belts. On a lot of cover art the hero is shown wearing pants with belt loops. Now, I know that vikings had loops, but when did belts as we know them come into being?

    Reply
  21. First, the shorter answers . . .
    ***Marie: I would love for you to describe to me clothes of late 1800’s (1886) in say Kansas.***
    That’s a rather large question, and quite frankly a bit out of my area of expertise, but I’ll try to find you some websites and info today. I assume that you’re looking for information on what working class people were wearing?
    ***Maggie: Somewhere I have an illustration of all the different ways for tying cravats.***
    Yep. I think it’s from 1818. Neckclothitania.
    http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/1818nkcl.gif
    ***Kay: My question is on belts. On a lot of cover art the hero is shown wearing pants with belt loops. Now, I know that vikings had loops, but when did belts as we know them come into being?***
    Belts are a mid-to-late Victorian thing. So yes, all those covers are wrong. This is not to say that belts didn’t exist, they did. They just weren’t used to hold up pants. Belts were for holding up swords. Braces (suspenders) were for holding up pants (came in during the 1780s).
    ***Nina: My question is about Banyans. How did they close? Did they close?
    Also, shoes. When a gentleman was relaxing in his sitting room with friends, would he be in boots, slippers, something else?***
    Banyans function in different ways depending on the style and the era. They either pull on over the head much like a caftan or jalaba, or they overlap and are held shut with a belt like a kimono, or they button up like a coat. The kimono and coat style ones usually had matching waistcoats and all styles frequently had matching caps. Note that when worn as loungewear, banyans were worn in place of the coat. All other garments normally worn under a coat were still worn.
    A man relaxing at home could be in any footwear he chose. The most likely options, IMO, are pumps/shoes or slippers.

    Reply
  22. First, the shorter answers . . .
    ***Marie: I would love for you to describe to me clothes of late 1800’s (1886) in say Kansas.***
    That’s a rather large question, and quite frankly a bit out of my area of expertise, but I’ll try to find you some websites and info today. I assume that you’re looking for information on what working class people were wearing?
    ***Maggie: Somewhere I have an illustration of all the different ways for tying cravats.***
    Yep. I think it’s from 1818. Neckclothitania.
    http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/1818nkcl.gif
    ***Kay: My question is on belts. On a lot of cover art the hero is shown wearing pants with belt loops. Now, I know that vikings had loops, but when did belts as we know them come into being?***
    Belts are a mid-to-late Victorian thing. So yes, all those covers are wrong. This is not to say that belts didn’t exist, they did. They just weren’t used to hold up pants. Belts were for holding up swords. Braces (suspenders) were for holding up pants (came in during the 1780s).
    ***Nina: My question is about Banyans. How did they close? Did they close?
    Also, shoes. When a gentleman was relaxing in his sitting room with friends, would he be in boots, slippers, something else?***
    Banyans function in different ways depending on the style and the era. They either pull on over the head much like a caftan or jalaba, or they overlap and are held shut with a belt like a kimono, or they button up like a coat. The kimono and coat style ones usually had matching waistcoats and all styles frequently had matching caps. Note that when worn as loungewear, banyans were worn in place of the coat. All other garments normally worn under a coat were still worn.
    A man relaxing at home could be in any footwear he chose. The most likely options, IMO, are pumps/shoes or slippers.

    Reply
  23. First, the shorter answers . . .
    ***Marie: I would love for you to describe to me clothes of late 1800’s (1886) in say Kansas.***
    That’s a rather large question, and quite frankly a bit out of my area of expertise, but I’ll try to find you some websites and info today. I assume that you’re looking for information on what working class people were wearing?
    ***Maggie: Somewhere I have an illustration of all the different ways for tying cravats.***
    Yep. I think it’s from 1818. Neckclothitania.
    http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/1818nkcl.gif
    ***Kay: My question is on belts. On a lot of cover art the hero is shown wearing pants with belt loops. Now, I know that vikings had loops, but when did belts as we know them come into being?***
    Belts are a mid-to-late Victorian thing. So yes, all those covers are wrong. This is not to say that belts didn’t exist, they did. They just weren’t used to hold up pants. Belts were for holding up swords. Braces (suspenders) were for holding up pants (came in during the 1780s).
    ***Nina: My question is about Banyans. How did they close? Did they close?
    Also, shoes. When a gentleman was relaxing in his sitting room with friends, would he be in boots, slippers, something else?***
    Banyans function in different ways depending on the style and the era. They either pull on over the head much like a caftan or jalaba, or they overlap and are held shut with a belt like a kimono, or they button up like a coat. The kimono and coat style ones usually had matching waistcoats and all styles frequently had matching caps. Note that when worn as loungewear, banyans were worn in place of the coat. All other garments normally worn under a coat were still worn.
    A man relaxing at home could be in any footwear he chose. The most likely options, IMO, are pumps/shoes or slippers.

    Reply
  24. First, the shorter answers . . .
    ***Marie: I would love for you to describe to me clothes of late 1800’s (1886) in say Kansas.***
    That’s a rather large question, and quite frankly a bit out of my area of expertise, but I’ll try to find you some websites and info today. I assume that you’re looking for information on what working class people were wearing?
    ***Maggie: Somewhere I have an illustration of all the different ways for tying cravats.***
    Yep. I think it’s from 1818. Neckclothitania.
    http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/1818nkcl.gif
    ***Kay: My question is on belts. On a lot of cover art the hero is shown wearing pants with belt loops. Now, I know that vikings had loops, but when did belts as we know them come into being?***
    Belts are a mid-to-late Victorian thing. So yes, all those covers are wrong. This is not to say that belts didn’t exist, they did. They just weren’t used to hold up pants. Belts were for holding up swords. Braces (suspenders) were for holding up pants (came in during the 1780s).
    ***Nina: My question is about Banyans. How did they close? Did they close?
    Also, shoes. When a gentleman was relaxing in his sitting room with friends, would he be in boots, slippers, something else?***
    Banyans function in different ways depending on the style and the era. They either pull on over the head much like a caftan or jalaba, or they overlap and are held shut with a belt like a kimono, or they button up like a coat. The kimono and coat style ones usually had matching waistcoats and all styles frequently had matching caps. Note that when worn as loungewear, banyans were worn in place of the coat. All other garments normally worn under a coat were still worn.
    A man relaxing at home could be in any footwear he chose. The most likely options, IMO, are pumps/shoes or slippers.

    Reply
  25. First, the shorter answers . . .
    ***Marie: I would love for you to describe to me clothes of late 1800’s (1886) in say Kansas.***
    That’s a rather large question, and quite frankly a bit out of my area of expertise, but I’ll try to find you some websites and info today. I assume that you’re looking for information on what working class people were wearing?
    ***Maggie: Somewhere I have an illustration of all the different ways for tying cravats.***
    Yep. I think it’s from 1818. Neckclothitania.
    http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/1818nkcl.gif
    ***Kay: My question is on belts. On a lot of cover art the hero is shown wearing pants with belt loops. Now, I know that vikings had loops, but when did belts as we know them come into being?***
    Belts are a mid-to-late Victorian thing. So yes, all those covers are wrong. This is not to say that belts didn’t exist, they did. They just weren’t used to hold up pants. Belts were for holding up swords. Braces (suspenders) were for holding up pants (came in during the 1780s).
    ***Nina: My question is about Banyans. How did they close? Did they close?
    Also, shoes. When a gentleman was relaxing in his sitting room with friends, would he be in boots, slippers, something else?***
    Banyans function in different ways depending on the style and the era. They either pull on over the head much like a caftan or jalaba, or they overlap and are held shut with a belt like a kimono, or they button up like a coat. The kimono and coat style ones usually had matching waistcoats and all styles frequently had matching caps. Note that when worn as loungewear, banyans were worn in place of the coat. All other garments normally worn under a coat were still worn.
    A man relaxing at home could be in any footwear he chose. The most likely options, IMO, are pumps/shoes or slippers.

    Reply
  26. For AgTigress
    ***My impression is that the wearing of underpants was still very far from universal amongst the males of many classes in far more recent times, except when they were being worn chiefly to provide extra warmth in very cold weather . . . I just wonder if you have any information about which Regency males wore linen drawers and why? Were they more common amongst the privileged classes, who had plenty of servants to do the washing and ironing?***
    Your impression is correct. Drawers were far from universal (just as today many choose to go “commando”). There are clear records showing that privileged men owned linen drawers and flannel drawers (note that this means a soft napped wool at this point in history). The purpose of drawers would have been to save laundering the pants, the drawers being much more easily washed (and better at standing up to the harsh soaps of the day) than many of the materials used for breeches and pantaloons.
    **Oh – and the fabric for those close-fitting pantaloons. Is it true that they were sometimes made of a jersey (knitted fabric) rather than a woven cloth, to improve their stretch and cling? Or is that just a modern legend?***
    Totally true. The Victoria and Albert has a lovely pair of extant knit pantaloons from the Regency period in their collection.
    http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l35/TondaFuller/knitbreeches2.jpg

    Reply
  27. For AgTigress
    ***My impression is that the wearing of underpants was still very far from universal amongst the males of many classes in far more recent times, except when they were being worn chiefly to provide extra warmth in very cold weather . . . I just wonder if you have any information about which Regency males wore linen drawers and why? Were they more common amongst the privileged classes, who had plenty of servants to do the washing and ironing?***
    Your impression is correct. Drawers were far from universal (just as today many choose to go “commando”). There are clear records showing that privileged men owned linen drawers and flannel drawers (note that this means a soft napped wool at this point in history). The purpose of drawers would have been to save laundering the pants, the drawers being much more easily washed (and better at standing up to the harsh soaps of the day) than many of the materials used for breeches and pantaloons.
    **Oh – and the fabric for those close-fitting pantaloons. Is it true that they were sometimes made of a jersey (knitted fabric) rather than a woven cloth, to improve their stretch and cling? Or is that just a modern legend?***
    Totally true. The Victoria and Albert has a lovely pair of extant knit pantaloons from the Regency period in their collection.
    http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l35/TondaFuller/knitbreeches2.jpg

    Reply
  28. For AgTigress
    ***My impression is that the wearing of underpants was still very far from universal amongst the males of many classes in far more recent times, except when they were being worn chiefly to provide extra warmth in very cold weather . . . I just wonder if you have any information about which Regency males wore linen drawers and why? Were they more common amongst the privileged classes, who had plenty of servants to do the washing and ironing?***
    Your impression is correct. Drawers were far from universal (just as today many choose to go “commando”). There are clear records showing that privileged men owned linen drawers and flannel drawers (note that this means a soft napped wool at this point in history). The purpose of drawers would have been to save laundering the pants, the drawers being much more easily washed (and better at standing up to the harsh soaps of the day) than many of the materials used for breeches and pantaloons.
    **Oh – and the fabric for those close-fitting pantaloons. Is it true that they were sometimes made of a jersey (knitted fabric) rather than a woven cloth, to improve their stretch and cling? Or is that just a modern legend?***
    Totally true. The Victoria and Albert has a lovely pair of extant knit pantaloons from the Regency period in their collection.
    http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l35/TondaFuller/knitbreeches2.jpg

    Reply
  29. For AgTigress
    ***My impression is that the wearing of underpants was still very far from universal amongst the males of many classes in far more recent times, except when they were being worn chiefly to provide extra warmth in very cold weather . . . I just wonder if you have any information about which Regency males wore linen drawers and why? Were they more common amongst the privileged classes, who had plenty of servants to do the washing and ironing?***
    Your impression is correct. Drawers were far from universal (just as today many choose to go “commando”). There are clear records showing that privileged men owned linen drawers and flannel drawers (note that this means a soft napped wool at this point in history). The purpose of drawers would have been to save laundering the pants, the drawers being much more easily washed (and better at standing up to the harsh soaps of the day) than many of the materials used for breeches and pantaloons.
    **Oh – and the fabric for those close-fitting pantaloons. Is it true that they were sometimes made of a jersey (knitted fabric) rather than a woven cloth, to improve their stretch and cling? Or is that just a modern legend?***
    Totally true. The Victoria and Albert has a lovely pair of extant knit pantaloons from the Regency period in their collection.
    http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l35/TondaFuller/knitbreeches2.jpg

    Reply
  30. For AgTigress
    ***My impression is that the wearing of underpants was still very far from universal amongst the males of many classes in far more recent times, except when they were being worn chiefly to provide extra warmth in very cold weather . . . I just wonder if you have any information about which Regency males wore linen drawers and why? Were they more common amongst the privileged classes, who had plenty of servants to do the washing and ironing?***
    Your impression is correct. Drawers were far from universal (just as today many choose to go “commando”). There are clear records showing that privileged men owned linen drawers and flannel drawers (note that this means a soft napped wool at this point in history). The purpose of drawers would have been to save laundering the pants, the drawers being much more easily washed (and better at standing up to the harsh soaps of the day) than many of the materials used for breeches and pantaloons.
    **Oh – and the fabric for those close-fitting pantaloons. Is it true that they were sometimes made of a jersey (knitted fabric) rather than a woven cloth, to improve their stretch and cling? Or is that just a modern legend?***
    Totally true. The Victoria and Albert has a lovely pair of extant knit pantaloons from the Regency period in their collection.
    http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l35/TondaFuller/knitbreeches2.jpg

    Reply
  31. Fascinating post. I have two questions.
    1. I remember reading once about someone putting on a cravat and then a stock. What’s the difference?
    2. Just what is the difference between breeches and pantaloons?

    Reply
  32. Fascinating post. I have two questions.
    1. I remember reading once about someone putting on a cravat and then a stock. What’s the difference?
    2. Just what is the difference between breeches and pantaloons?

    Reply
  33. Fascinating post. I have two questions.
    1. I remember reading once about someone putting on a cravat and then a stock. What’s the difference?
    2. Just what is the difference between breeches and pantaloons?

    Reply
  34. Fascinating post. I have two questions.
    1. I remember reading once about someone putting on a cravat and then a stock. What’s the difference?
    2. Just what is the difference between breeches and pantaloons?

    Reply
  35. Fascinating post. I have two questions.
    1. I remember reading once about someone putting on a cravat and then a stock. What’s the difference?
    2. Just what is the difference between breeches and pantaloons?

    Reply
  36. ***Gretchen: Can you recommend any books or websites that we can go to for more detail, like military uniforms, nightwear, hairstyles, etc.? I’ve read about tying a cravat in a Waterfall and styling the hair “a la Brutus” and I’d like a picture. Also, what about accessories? Riding crops, canes, jewelry, cloaks, overcoats? What was common for most gentlemen- how adorned or unadorned would most of our heroes be?***
    All the little details of a man’s toilette are hard to pin down . . . these are items you find in specialty books (which tend to be very expensive) or to just stumble across in larger volumes. Basically men’s clothing becomes plainer and plainer as the 18th century progresses. By the 1780s much of the embellishment is gone (except for Court suits) and stripes have taken over. By 1800 even the stripes have given way and nearly everything is made from plain cloth (except for the waistcoats). By the 1840s the more austere Victorian look has really settled in for good.
    Hair is particularly hard to research. I can tell you that “a la Brutus” is fashioned after the hair of the classic Roman statures (so cropped very close to the head, not that different from the way many men wear their hair now).
    Many regiments have websites that show past uniforms, and there are books on the topic, like Wellington’s Army: Uniforms of the British Soldier,1812-1815 by Charles Hamilton Smith (ISBN: 1853675016) or the Men at Arms books from Osprey (which are usually specific to regiment).
    If you want t see a (partial) list of my research books you can check out my Shelftari page (yes, I succumbed).
    http://www.shelfari.com/KalenHughes/shelf

    Reply
  37. ***Gretchen: Can you recommend any books or websites that we can go to for more detail, like military uniforms, nightwear, hairstyles, etc.? I’ve read about tying a cravat in a Waterfall and styling the hair “a la Brutus” and I’d like a picture. Also, what about accessories? Riding crops, canes, jewelry, cloaks, overcoats? What was common for most gentlemen- how adorned or unadorned would most of our heroes be?***
    All the little details of a man’s toilette are hard to pin down . . . these are items you find in specialty books (which tend to be very expensive) or to just stumble across in larger volumes. Basically men’s clothing becomes plainer and plainer as the 18th century progresses. By the 1780s much of the embellishment is gone (except for Court suits) and stripes have taken over. By 1800 even the stripes have given way and nearly everything is made from plain cloth (except for the waistcoats). By the 1840s the more austere Victorian look has really settled in for good.
    Hair is particularly hard to research. I can tell you that “a la Brutus” is fashioned after the hair of the classic Roman statures (so cropped very close to the head, not that different from the way many men wear their hair now).
    Many regiments have websites that show past uniforms, and there are books on the topic, like Wellington’s Army: Uniforms of the British Soldier,1812-1815 by Charles Hamilton Smith (ISBN: 1853675016) or the Men at Arms books from Osprey (which are usually specific to regiment).
    If you want t see a (partial) list of my research books you can check out my Shelftari page (yes, I succumbed).
    http://www.shelfari.com/KalenHughes/shelf

    Reply
  38. ***Gretchen: Can you recommend any books or websites that we can go to for more detail, like military uniforms, nightwear, hairstyles, etc.? I’ve read about tying a cravat in a Waterfall and styling the hair “a la Brutus” and I’d like a picture. Also, what about accessories? Riding crops, canes, jewelry, cloaks, overcoats? What was common for most gentlemen- how adorned or unadorned would most of our heroes be?***
    All the little details of a man’s toilette are hard to pin down . . . these are items you find in specialty books (which tend to be very expensive) or to just stumble across in larger volumes. Basically men’s clothing becomes plainer and plainer as the 18th century progresses. By the 1780s much of the embellishment is gone (except for Court suits) and stripes have taken over. By 1800 even the stripes have given way and nearly everything is made from plain cloth (except for the waistcoats). By the 1840s the more austere Victorian look has really settled in for good.
    Hair is particularly hard to research. I can tell you that “a la Brutus” is fashioned after the hair of the classic Roman statures (so cropped very close to the head, not that different from the way many men wear their hair now).
    Many regiments have websites that show past uniforms, and there are books on the topic, like Wellington’s Army: Uniforms of the British Soldier,1812-1815 by Charles Hamilton Smith (ISBN: 1853675016) or the Men at Arms books from Osprey (which are usually specific to regiment).
    If you want t see a (partial) list of my research books you can check out my Shelftari page (yes, I succumbed).
    http://www.shelfari.com/KalenHughes/shelf

    Reply
  39. ***Gretchen: Can you recommend any books or websites that we can go to for more detail, like military uniforms, nightwear, hairstyles, etc.? I’ve read about tying a cravat in a Waterfall and styling the hair “a la Brutus” and I’d like a picture. Also, what about accessories? Riding crops, canes, jewelry, cloaks, overcoats? What was common for most gentlemen- how adorned or unadorned would most of our heroes be?***
    All the little details of a man’s toilette are hard to pin down . . . these are items you find in specialty books (which tend to be very expensive) or to just stumble across in larger volumes. Basically men’s clothing becomes plainer and plainer as the 18th century progresses. By the 1780s much of the embellishment is gone (except for Court suits) and stripes have taken over. By 1800 even the stripes have given way and nearly everything is made from plain cloth (except for the waistcoats). By the 1840s the more austere Victorian look has really settled in for good.
    Hair is particularly hard to research. I can tell you that “a la Brutus” is fashioned after the hair of the classic Roman statures (so cropped very close to the head, not that different from the way many men wear their hair now).
    Many regiments have websites that show past uniforms, and there are books on the topic, like Wellington’s Army: Uniforms of the British Soldier,1812-1815 by Charles Hamilton Smith (ISBN: 1853675016) or the Men at Arms books from Osprey (which are usually specific to regiment).
    If you want t see a (partial) list of my research books you can check out my Shelftari page (yes, I succumbed).
    http://www.shelfari.com/KalenHughes/shelf

    Reply
  40. ***Gretchen: Can you recommend any books or websites that we can go to for more detail, like military uniforms, nightwear, hairstyles, etc.? I’ve read about tying a cravat in a Waterfall and styling the hair “a la Brutus” and I’d like a picture. Also, what about accessories? Riding crops, canes, jewelry, cloaks, overcoats? What was common for most gentlemen- how adorned or unadorned would most of our heroes be?***
    All the little details of a man’s toilette are hard to pin down . . . these are items you find in specialty books (which tend to be very expensive) or to just stumble across in larger volumes. Basically men’s clothing becomes plainer and plainer as the 18th century progresses. By the 1780s much of the embellishment is gone (except for Court suits) and stripes have taken over. By 1800 even the stripes have given way and nearly everything is made from plain cloth (except for the waistcoats). By the 1840s the more austere Victorian look has really settled in for good.
    Hair is particularly hard to research. I can tell you that “a la Brutus” is fashioned after the hair of the classic Roman statures (so cropped very close to the head, not that different from the way many men wear their hair now).
    Many regiments have websites that show past uniforms, and there are books on the topic, like Wellington’s Army: Uniforms of the British Soldier,1812-1815 by Charles Hamilton Smith (ISBN: 1853675016) or the Men at Arms books from Osprey (which are usually specific to regiment).
    If you want t see a (partial) list of my research books you can check out my Shelftari page (yes, I succumbed).
    http://www.shelfari.com/KalenHughes/shelf

    Reply
  41. Jane, bless you for things I can answer succinctly. LOL!
    ***1. I remember reading once about someone putting on a cravat and then a stock. What’s the difference?***
    Both are forms of neckwear. A cravat is a looooong piece of fabric (scarf-like) that wraps around and ties. A stock is a much shorter piece that goes around the neck once and buckled in the back (it’s the clip on tie of the era). Stocks were popular in the 18th century, and again towards the end of the Regency and into the Victorian period, but not during the height of the Regency when the Brummell-style cravat ruled.
    ***2. Just what is the difference between breeches and pantaloons?
    Breeches are generally looser, and end at the knee. Pantaloons are tight and go to mid calf or even to the ankle.***
    Breeches in Sense and Sensibility (note now baggy they are, and how the fall gapes when the man bends over; Edwards are baggier than Willoughby’s, Edward being more conservative in manners and dress)
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/front-fall-1.jpg
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/frontfall-2.jpg
    Fashion plate showing pantaloons, c. 1806 (just below the knee, like the extant pair).
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1806-pantaloons-knee.jpg
    Fashion plate showing pantaloons, c. 1808 (mid-calf, shown with shoes).
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1808-pantaloons-calve.jpg
    Drawing from 1809 showing a man with his hand in his pocket.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/pantaloon-pocket-1809.jpg
    Fashion plate showing pantaloons, c. 1821 (long with foot-straps).
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1821-pantaloons-with-inset-.jpg

    Reply
  42. Jane, bless you for things I can answer succinctly. LOL!
    ***1. I remember reading once about someone putting on a cravat and then a stock. What’s the difference?***
    Both are forms of neckwear. A cravat is a looooong piece of fabric (scarf-like) that wraps around and ties. A stock is a much shorter piece that goes around the neck once and buckled in the back (it’s the clip on tie of the era). Stocks were popular in the 18th century, and again towards the end of the Regency and into the Victorian period, but not during the height of the Regency when the Brummell-style cravat ruled.
    ***2. Just what is the difference between breeches and pantaloons?
    Breeches are generally looser, and end at the knee. Pantaloons are tight and go to mid calf or even to the ankle.***
    Breeches in Sense and Sensibility (note now baggy they are, and how the fall gapes when the man bends over; Edwards are baggier than Willoughby’s, Edward being more conservative in manners and dress)
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/front-fall-1.jpg
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/frontfall-2.jpg
    Fashion plate showing pantaloons, c. 1806 (just below the knee, like the extant pair).
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1806-pantaloons-knee.jpg
    Fashion plate showing pantaloons, c. 1808 (mid-calf, shown with shoes).
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1808-pantaloons-calve.jpg
    Drawing from 1809 showing a man with his hand in his pocket.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/pantaloon-pocket-1809.jpg
    Fashion plate showing pantaloons, c. 1821 (long with foot-straps).
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1821-pantaloons-with-inset-.jpg

    Reply
  43. Jane, bless you for things I can answer succinctly. LOL!
    ***1. I remember reading once about someone putting on a cravat and then a stock. What’s the difference?***
    Both are forms of neckwear. A cravat is a looooong piece of fabric (scarf-like) that wraps around and ties. A stock is a much shorter piece that goes around the neck once and buckled in the back (it’s the clip on tie of the era). Stocks were popular in the 18th century, and again towards the end of the Regency and into the Victorian period, but not during the height of the Regency when the Brummell-style cravat ruled.
    ***2. Just what is the difference between breeches and pantaloons?
    Breeches are generally looser, and end at the knee. Pantaloons are tight and go to mid calf or even to the ankle.***
    Breeches in Sense and Sensibility (note now baggy they are, and how the fall gapes when the man bends over; Edwards are baggier than Willoughby’s, Edward being more conservative in manners and dress)
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/front-fall-1.jpg
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/frontfall-2.jpg
    Fashion plate showing pantaloons, c. 1806 (just below the knee, like the extant pair).
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1806-pantaloons-knee.jpg
    Fashion plate showing pantaloons, c. 1808 (mid-calf, shown with shoes).
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1808-pantaloons-calve.jpg
    Drawing from 1809 showing a man with his hand in his pocket.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/pantaloon-pocket-1809.jpg
    Fashion plate showing pantaloons, c. 1821 (long with foot-straps).
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1821-pantaloons-with-inset-.jpg

    Reply
  44. Jane, bless you for things I can answer succinctly. LOL!
    ***1. I remember reading once about someone putting on a cravat and then a stock. What’s the difference?***
    Both are forms of neckwear. A cravat is a looooong piece of fabric (scarf-like) that wraps around and ties. A stock is a much shorter piece that goes around the neck once and buckled in the back (it’s the clip on tie of the era). Stocks were popular in the 18th century, and again towards the end of the Regency and into the Victorian period, but not during the height of the Regency when the Brummell-style cravat ruled.
    ***2. Just what is the difference between breeches and pantaloons?
    Breeches are generally looser, and end at the knee. Pantaloons are tight and go to mid calf or even to the ankle.***
    Breeches in Sense and Sensibility (note now baggy they are, and how the fall gapes when the man bends over; Edwards are baggier than Willoughby’s, Edward being more conservative in manners and dress)
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/front-fall-1.jpg
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/frontfall-2.jpg
    Fashion plate showing pantaloons, c. 1806 (just below the knee, like the extant pair).
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1806-pantaloons-knee.jpg
    Fashion plate showing pantaloons, c. 1808 (mid-calf, shown with shoes).
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1808-pantaloons-calve.jpg
    Drawing from 1809 showing a man with his hand in his pocket.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/pantaloon-pocket-1809.jpg
    Fashion plate showing pantaloons, c. 1821 (long with foot-straps).
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1821-pantaloons-with-inset-.jpg

    Reply
  45. Jane, bless you for things I can answer succinctly. LOL!
    ***1. I remember reading once about someone putting on a cravat and then a stock. What’s the difference?***
    Both are forms of neckwear. A cravat is a looooong piece of fabric (scarf-like) that wraps around and ties. A stock is a much shorter piece that goes around the neck once and buckled in the back (it’s the clip on tie of the era). Stocks were popular in the 18th century, and again towards the end of the Regency and into the Victorian period, but not during the height of the Regency when the Brummell-style cravat ruled.
    ***2. Just what is the difference between breeches and pantaloons?
    Breeches are generally looser, and end at the knee. Pantaloons are tight and go to mid calf or even to the ankle.***
    Breeches in Sense and Sensibility (note now baggy they are, and how the fall gapes when the man bends over; Edwards are baggier than Willoughby’s, Edward being more conservative in manners and dress)
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/front-fall-1.jpg
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/frontfall-2.jpg
    Fashion plate showing pantaloons, c. 1806 (just below the knee, like the extant pair).
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1806-pantaloons-knee.jpg
    Fashion plate showing pantaloons, c. 1808 (mid-calf, shown with shoes).
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1808-pantaloons-calve.jpg
    Drawing from 1809 showing a man with his hand in his pocket.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/pantaloon-pocket-1809.jpg
    Fashion plate showing pantaloons, c. 1821 (long with foot-straps).
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1821-pantaloons-with-inset-.jpg

    Reply
  46. Kalen, as always, you are a fountain of wisdom, thank you! Your pictures of underwear alone clarify so much that costume books tend to dismiss. Your patience in providing all these fascinating websites and images is to be commended!
    Our wenchly readers have insatiable interests and knowledge of many eras, so just a point in the right direction can be the start of a lovely journey. Again, thank you.

    Reply
  47. Kalen, as always, you are a fountain of wisdom, thank you! Your pictures of underwear alone clarify so much that costume books tend to dismiss. Your patience in providing all these fascinating websites and images is to be commended!
    Our wenchly readers have insatiable interests and knowledge of many eras, so just a point in the right direction can be the start of a lovely journey. Again, thank you.

    Reply
  48. Kalen, as always, you are a fountain of wisdom, thank you! Your pictures of underwear alone clarify so much that costume books tend to dismiss. Your patience in providing all these fascinating websites and images is to be commended!
    Our wenchly readers have insatiable interests and knowledge of many eras, so just a point in the right direction can be the start of a lovely journey. Again, thank you.

    Reply
  49. Kalen, as always, you are a fountain of wisdom, thank you! Your pictures of underwear alone clarify so much that costume books tend to dismiss. Your patience in providing all these fascinating websites and images is to be commended!
    Our wenchly readers have insatiable interests and knowledge of many eras, so just a point in the right direction can be the start of a lovely journey. Again, thank you.

    Reply
  50. Kalen, as always, you are a fountain of wisdom, thank you! Your pictures of underwear alone clarify so much that costume books tend to dismiss. Your patience in providing all these fascinating websites and images is to be commended!
    Our wenchly readers have insatiable interests and knowledge of many eras, so just a point in the right direction can be the start of a lovely journey. Again, thank you.

    Reply
  51. Michelle, I’ve taught an online workshop called HOW CLOTHES WORKED IN THE REGENCY twice now. I’m sure I’ll be teaching it again this year (it always seems to be popular). I give it through the Beau Monde Chapter of RWA. If you’d like me to email you next time I give it, shoot me an email (kalenhughes@yahoo.com) and I’ll start a notification folder.

    Reply
  52. Michelle, I’ve taught an online workshop called HOW CLOTHES WORKED IN THE REGENCY twice now. I’m sure I’ll be teaching it again this year (it always seems to be popular). I give it through the Beau Monde Chapter of RWA. If you’d like me to email you next time I give it, shoot me an email (kalenhughes@yahoo.com) and I’ll start a notification folder.

    Reply
  53. Michelle, I’ve taught an online workshop called HOW CLOTHES WORKED IN THE REGENCY twice now. I’m sure I’ll be teaching it again this year (it always seems to be popular). I give it through the Beau Monde Chapter of RWA. If you’d like me to email you next time I give it, shoot me an email (kalenhughes@yahoo.com) and I’ll start a notification folder.

    Reply
  54. Michelle, I’ve taught an online workshop called HOW CLOTHES WORKED IN THE REGENCY twice now. I’m sure I’ll be teaching it again this year (it always seems to be popular). I give it through the Beau Monde Chapter of RWA. If you’d like me to email you next time I give it, shoot me an email (kalenhughes@yahoo.com) and I’ll start a notification folder.

    Reply
  55. Michelle, I’ve taught an online workshop called HOW CLOTHES WORKED IN THE REGENCY twice now. I’m sure I’ll be teaching it again this year (it always seems to be popular). I give it through the Beau Monde Chapter of RWA. If you’d like me to email you next time I give it, shoot me an email (kalenhughes@yahoo.com) and I’ll start a notification folder.

    Reply
  56. Marie, the very specific information you’re looking for is sadly outside my area of focus, but the layers are going to be the same as the ones I’ve shown. You can see some great examples of what people wore during this era on the “frontier” in shows like DEADWOOD or movies like 3:10 TO YUMA.
    You might also check out sites that group links around the topic like The Costumer’s Manifesto:
    http://www.costumes.org/HISTORY/100pages/victlinks.htm
    Or even look for reenactors to talk to:
    http://www.wheelerjobin.com/clients/afrg/viewpage.asp?ID=29

    Reply
  57. Marie, the very specific information you’re looking for is sadly outside my area of focus, but the layers are going to be the same as the ones I’ve shown. You can see some great examples of what people wore during this era on the “frontier” in shows like DEADWOOD or movies like 3:10 TO YUMA.
    You might also check out sites that group links around the topic like The Costumer’s Manifesto:
    http://www.costumes.org/HISTORY/100pages/victlinks.htm
    Or even look for reenactors to talk to:
    http://www.wheelerjobin.com/clients/afrg/viewpage.asp?ID=29

    Reply
  58. Marie, the very specific information you’re looking for is sadly outside my area of focus, but the layers are going to be the same as the ones I’ve shown. You can see some great examples of what people wore during this era on the “frontier” in shows like DEADWOOD or movies like 3:10 TO YUMA.
    You might also check out sites that group links around the topic like The Costumer’s Manifesto:
    http://www.costumes.org/HISTORY/100pages/victlinks.htm
    Or even look for reenactors to talk to:
    http://www.wheelerjobin.com/clients/afrg/viewpage.asp?ID=29

    Reply
  59. Marie, the very specific information you’re looking for is sadly outside my area of focus, but the layers are going to be the same as the ones I’ve shown. You can see some great examples of what people wore during this era on the “frontier” in shows like DEADWOOD or movies like 3:10 TO YUMA.
    You might also check out sites that group links around the topic like The Costumer’s Manifesto:
    http://www.costumes.org/HISTORY/100pages/victlinks.htm
    Or even look for reenactors to talk to:
    http://www.wheelerjobin.com/clients/afrg/viewpage.asp?ID=29

    Reply
  60. Marie, the very specific information you’re looking for is sadly outside my area of focus, but the layers are going to be the same as the ones I’ve shown. You can see some great examples of what people wore during this era on the “frontier” in shows like DEADWOOD or movies like 3:10 TO YUMA.
    You might also check out sites that group links around the topic like The Costumer’s Manifesto:
    http://www.costumes.org/HISTORY/100pages/victlinks.htm
    Or even look for reenactors to talk to:
    http://www.wheelerjobin.com/clients/afrg/viewpage.asp?ID=29

    Reply
  61. Hi, Kalen! Your visit here is very timely, because I’m working on a scenario where my aristocratic protagonist is forced to flee with no clothes but the ones on his back, and *those* are quickly ruined. It’s going to be awhile before he’s in a position to visit a tailor and/or recover some of his old wardrobe. Also, since he’s on the run, it makes sense for him to dress like a common workman as a disguise.
    Anyway, what would seem most remarkable to him about wearing workmen’s clothes? I’m assuming some of the fabrics would be rougher, and that the secondhand clothes he buys and borrows along the way won’t be as comfortable and flattering (which matters–my man is a bit vain) as the custom-made wardrobe he’s accustomed to. Also, he might have to do with just a shirt rather than shirt and drawers. Anything else? And can he keep his good boots, or would they scream to the world “we were made for a rich guy” even when scuffed and worn? The time frame is 1805-06.

    Reply
  62. Hi, Kalen! Your visit here is very timely, because I’m working on a scenario where my aristocratic protagonist is forced to flee with no clothes but the ones on his back, and *those* are quickly ruined. It’s going to be awhile before he’s in a position to visit a tailor and/or recover some of his old wardrobe. Also, since he’s on the run, it makes sense for him to dress like a common workman as a disguise.
    Anyway, what would seem most remarkable to him about wearing workmen’s clothes? I’m assuming some of the fabrics would be rougher, and that the secondhand clothes he buys and borrows along the way won’t be as comfortable and flattering (which matters–my man is a bit vain) as the custom-made wardrobe he’s accustomed to. Also, he might have to do with just a shirt rather than shirt and drawers. Anything else? And can he keep his good boots, or would they scream to the world “we were made for a rich guy” even when scuffed and worn? The time frame is 1805-06.

    Reply
  63. Hi, Kalen! Your visit here is very timely, because I’m working on a scenario where my aristocratic protagonist is forced to flee with no clothes but the ones on his back, and *those* are quickly ruined. It’s going to be awhile before he’s in a position to visit a tailor and/or recover some of his old wardrobe. Also, since he’s on the run, it makes sense for him to dress like a common workman as a disguise.
    Anyway, what would seem most remarkable to him about wearing workmen’s clothes? I’m assuming some of the fabrics would be rougher, and that the secondhand clothes he buys and borrows along the way won’t be as comfortable and flattering (which matters–my man is a bit vain) as the custom-made wardrobe he’s accustomed to. Also, he might have to do with just a shirt rather than shirt and drawers. Anything else? And can he keep his good boots, or would they scream to the world “we were made for a rich guy” even when scuffed and worn? The time frame is 1805-06.

    Reply
  64. Hi, Kalen! Your visit here is very timely, because I’m working on a scenario where my aristocratic protagonist is forced to flee with no clothes but the ones on his back, and *those* are quickly ruined. It’s going to be awhile before he’s in a position to visit a tailor and/or recover some of his old wardrobe. Also, since he’s on the run, it makes sense for him to dress like a common workman as a disguise.
    Anyway, what would seem most remarkable to him about wearing workmen’s clothes? I’m assuming some of the fabrics would be rougher, and that the secondhand clothes he buys and borrows along the way won’t be as comfortable and flattering (which matters–my man is a bit vain) as the custom-made wardrobe he’s accustomed to. Also, he might have to do with just a shirt rather than shirt and drawers. Anything else? And can he keep his good boots, or would they scream to the world “we were made for a rich guy” even when scuffed and worn? The time frame is 1805-06.

    Reply
  65. Hi, Kalen! Your visit here is very timely, because I’m working on a scenario where my aristocratic protagonist is forced to flee with no clothes but the ones on his back, and *those* are quickly ruined. It’s going to be awhile before he’s in a position to visit a tailor and/or recover some of his old wardrobe. Also, since he’s on the run, it makes sense for him to dress like a common workman as a disguise.
    Anyway, what would seem most remarkable to him about wearing workmen’s clothes? I’m assuming some of the fabrics would be rougher, and that the secondhand clothes he buys and borrows along the way won’t be as comfortable and flattering (which matters–my man is a bit vain) as the custom-made wardrobe he’s accustomed to. Also, he might have to do with just a shirt rather than shirt and drawers. Anything else? And can he keep his good boots, or would they scream to the world “we were made for a rich guy” even when scuffed and worn? The time frame is 1805-06.

    Reply
  66. Susan, The clothes are going to be rougher, and he’ll either end up with old breeches (baggy!) or with trousers (not what he’s used to at all!). Things won’t fit. His pants might be missing buttons. Depending on how “under cover” he needs to be, he might need to lose the boots too. The working class tended to wear shoes/brogans, unless they were in a job that needed boots (like drover or postboy).
    Here’s an extant brogan c. 1800-1830 (the long date shows you just how common this was):
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/unisex-brogan-1800-1830.jpg
    The images from Walker’s LIFE IN YORKSHIRE (1814) might be helpful. As you’ll see, many of the people are still shown in 18th century fashions:
    http://www.maggieblanck.com/Land/OPCE.html

    Reply
  67. Susan, The clothes are going to be rougher, and he’ll either end up with old breeches (baggy!) or with trousers (not what he’s used to at all!). Things won’t fit. His pants might be missing buttons. Depending on how “under cover” he needs to be, he might need to lose the boots too. The working class tended to wear shoes/brogans, unless they were in a job that needed boots (like drover or postboy).
    Here’s an extant brogan c. 1800-1830 (the long date shows you just how common this was):
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/unisex-brogan-1800-1830.jpg
    The images from Walker’s LIFE IN YORKSHIRE (1814) might be helpful. As you’ll see, many of the people are still shown in 18th century fashions:
    http://www.maggieblanck.com/Land/OPCE.html

    Reply
  68. Susan, The clothes are going to be rougher, and he’ll either end up with old breeches (baggy!) or with trousers (not what he’s used to at all!). Things won’t fit. His pants might be missing buttons. Depending on how “under cover” he needs to be, he might need to lose the boots too. The working class tended to wear shoes/brogans, unless they were in a job that needed boots (like drover or postboy).
    Here’s an extant brogan c. 1800-1830 (the long date shows you just how common this was):
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/unisex-brogan-1800-1830.jpg
    The images from Walker’s LIFE IN YORKSHIRE (1814) might be helpful. As you’ll see, many of the people are still shown in 18th century fashions:
    http://www.maggieblanck.com/Land/OPCE.html

    Reply
  69. Susan, The clothes are going to be rougher, and he’ll either end up with old breeches (baggy!) or with trousers (not what he’s used to at all!). Things won’t fit. His pants might be missing buttons. Depending on how “under cover” he needs to be, he might need to lose the boots too. The working class tended to wear shoes/brogans, unless they were in a job that needed boots (like drover or postboy).
    Here’s an extant brogan c. 1800-1830 (the long date shows you just how common this was):
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/unisex-brogan-1800-1830.jpg
    The images from Walker’s LIFE IN YORKSHIRE (1814) might be helpful. As you’ll see, many of the people are still shown in 18th century fashions:
    http://www.maggieblanck.com/Land/OPCE.html

    Reply
  70. Susan, The clothes are going to be rougher, and he’ll either end up with old breeches (baggy!) or with trousers (not what he’s used to at all!). Things won’t fit. His pants might be missing buttons. Depending on how “under cover” he needs to be, he might need to lose the boots too. The working class tended to wear shoes/brogans, unless they were in a job that needed boots (like drover or postboy).
    Here’s an extant brogan c. 1800-1830 (the long date shows you just how common this was):
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/unisex-brogan-1800-1830.jpg
    The images from Walker’s LIFE IN YORKSHIRE (1814) might be helpful. As you’ll see, many of the people are still shown in 18th century fashions:
    http://www.maggieblanck.com/Land/OPCE.html

    Reply
  71. Kalen, you are such a wonderful — and generous! — resource for all of us who write about the Georgian & Regency eras. Thank you again for providing great info. I love how you always have images of extant pieces, which is always more helpful, to me, that just looking at fashion prints, etc.
    One thing I remember from your last Beau Monde presentation on men’s fashion was how baggy those breeches were, and how our heroines could not possibly admires a man’s tight derriere in those things! 🙂 But what about pantaloons? They seem pretty tight in the leg. Were they also tight around the butt? (In which case, that’s what we probably want our well-built heroes to wear!)
    Regarding stocks and cravats … I have a few prints where it looks like a man is wearing both, ie a stiff stock that cuts him under the chin and a neckcloth tied around it. Does that seem right, or is it likely all one long neckcloth wound very tight?

    Reply
  72. Kalen, you are such a wonderful — and generous! — resource for all of us who write about the Georgian & Regency eras. Thank you again for providing great info. I love how you always have images of extant pieces, which is always more helpful, to me, that just looking at fashion prints, etc.
    One thing I remember from your last Beau Monde presentation on men’s fashion was how baggy those breeches were, and how our heroines could not possibly admires a man’s tight derriere in those things! 🙂 But what about pantaloons? They seem pretty tight in the leg. Were they also tight around the butt? (In which case, that’s what we probably want our well-built heroes to wear!)
    Regarding stocks and cravats … I have a few prints where it looks like a man is wearing both, ie a stiff stock that cuts him under the chin and a neckcloth tied around it. Does that seem right, or is it likely all one long neckcloth wound very tight?

    Reply
  73. Kalen, you are such a wonderful — and generous! — resource for all of us who write about the Georgian & Regency eras. Thank you again for providing great info. I love how you always have images of extant pieces, which is always more helpful, to me, that just looking at fashion prints, etc.
    One thing I remember from your last Beau Monde presentation on men’s fashion was how baggy those breeches were, and how our heroines could not possibly admires a man’s tight derriere in those things! 🙂 But what about pantaloons? They seem pretty tight in the leg. Were they also tight around the butt? (In which case, that’s what we probably want our well-built heroes to wear!)
    Regarding stocks and cravats … I have a few prints where it looks like a man is wearing both, ie a stiff stock that cuts him under the chin and a neckcloth tied around it. Does that seem right, or is it likely all one long neckcloth wound very tight?

    Reply
  74. Kalen, you are such a wonderful — and generous! — resource for all of us who write about the Georgian & Regency eras. Thank you again for providing great info. I love how you always have images of extant pieces, which is always more helpful, to me, that just looking at fashion prints, etc.
    One thing I remember from your last Beau Monde presentation on men’s fashion was how baggy those breeches were, and how our heroines could not possibly admires a man’s tight derriere in those things! 🙂 But what about pantaloons? They seem pretty tight in the leg. Were they also tight around the butt? (In which case, that’s what we probably want our well-built heroes to wear!)
    Regarding stocks and cravats … I have a few prints where it looks like a man is wearing both, ie a stiff stock that cuts him under the chin and a neckcloth tied around it. Does that seem right, or is it likely all one long neckcloth wound very tight?

    Reply
  75. Kalen, you are such a wonderful — and generous! — resource for all of us who write about the Georgian & Regency eras. Thank you again for providing great info. I love how you always have images of extant pieces, which is always more helpful, to me, that just looking at fashion prints, etc.
    One thing I remember from your last Beau Monde presentation on men’s fashion was how baggy those breeches were, and how our heroines could not possibly admires a man’s tight derriere in those things! 🙂 But what about pantaloons? They seem pretty tight in the leg. Were they also tight around the butt? (In which case, that’s what we probably want our well-built heroes to wear!)
    Regarding stocks and cravats … I have a few prints where it looks like a man is wearing both, ie a stiff stock that cuts him under the chin and a neckcloth tied around it. Does that seem right, or is it likely all one long neckcloth wound very tight?

    Reply
  76. ***Candice: I love how you always have images of extant pieces, which is always more helpful, to me, that just looking at fashion prints, etc. ***
    You can tell more from looking at extant pieces of clothing, like the stupid things opened and closed. I’ll never forget the stunned expressions in the room the first time I demonstrated how an apron-front gown works (this was a very common style during the Regency). A wonderful historical costumer has recreated one that the late costume historian Janet Arnold documented and you can see not only how she made it, but how it is worn on her website. The whole thing is worth paging through, but I love her demo of this dress:
    http://www.koshka-the-cat.com/drop_front.html
    ***One thing I remember from your last Beau Monde presentation on men’s fashion was how baggy those breeches were, and how our heroines could not possibly admires a man’s tight derriere in those things! 🙂 But what about pantaloons? They seem pretty tight in the leg. Were they also tight around the butt? (In which case, that’s what we probably want our well-built heroes to wear!)***
    Pantaloons are much tighter, as are leather breeches, but none of them is a pair lf Levi’s if you know what I mean. LOL! Besides, unless he’s taken his coat off (scandalous!) to play cricket or some such she can’t see his backside anyway. LOL! Breeches, if made of knit fabric could be nearly as tight as pantaloons, but the style had simply gone out of fashion by the Regency. I know lots of writers hesitate to use the term “pantaloon” though, as it doesn’t sound very masculine.
    ***Regarding stocks and cravats … I have a few prints where it looks like a man is wearing both, ie a stiff stock that cuts him under the chin and a neckcloth tied around it. Does that seem right, or is it likely all one long neckcloth wound very tight?***
    What I *think* you’re seeing there is the stiff pad under the first layer of the cravat, then the cravat crossing back over itself and tying. If you want to pretend to put on a cravat get a long scarf and put the center of it against your throat, wrap it around the back of your neck in both directions, bring it back to the front, and tie it. A period, linen one would be folded over a horsehair stiffening pad like the one shown in the photo and then wrapped around the back of the neck, then the ends are folded up a bit before it is tied.
    If it’s a print of a military man he may well be wearing a stock. Very stiff stocks were in vogue for them.
    And I’ve even seen a portrait (18th century) where the stock buckled in the front (!) and there was a dangling little bit that hung to about mid-chest.

    Reply
  77. ***Candice: I love how you always have images of extant pieces, which is always more helpful, to me, that just looking at fashion prints, etc. ***
    You can tell more from looking at extant pieces of clothing, like the stupid things opened and closed. I’ll never forget the stunned expressions in the room the first time I demonstrated how an apron-front gown works (this was a very common style during the Regency). A wonderful historical costumer has recreated one that the late costume historian Janet Arnold documented and you can see not only how she made it, but how it is worn on her website. The whole thing is worth paging through, but I love her demo of this dress:
    http://www.koshka-the-cat.com/drop_front.html
    ***One thing I remember from your last Beau Monde presentation on men’s fashion was how baggy those breeches were, and how our heroines could not possibly admires a man’s tight derriere in those things! 🙂 But what about pantaloons? They seem pretty tight in the leg. Were they also tight around the butt? (In which case, that’s what we probably want our well-built heroes to wear!)***
    Pantaloons are much tighter, as are leather breeches, but none of them is a pair lf Levi’s if you know what I mean. LOL! Besides, unless he’s taken his coat off (scandalous!) to play cricket or some such she can’t see his backside anyway. LOL! Breeches, if made of knit fabric could be nearly as tight as pantaloons, but the style had simply gone out of fashion by the Regency. I know lots of writers hesitate to use the term “pantaloon” though, as it doesn’t sound very masculine.
    ***Regarding stocks and cravats … I have a few prints where it looks like a man is wearing both, ie a stiff stock that cuts him under the chin and a neckcloth tied around it. Does that seem right, or is it likely all one long neckcloth wound very tight?***
    What I *think* you’re seeing there is the stiff pad under the first layer of the cravat, then the cravat crossing back over itself and tying. If you want to pretend to put on a cravat get a long scarf and put the center of it against your throat, wrap it around the back of your neck in both directions, bring it back to the front, and tie it. A period, linen one would be folded over a horsehair stiffening pad like the one shown in the photo and then wrapped around the back of the neck, then the ends are folded up a bit before it is tied.
    If it’s a print of a military man he may well be wearing a stock. Very stiff stocks were in vogue for them.
    And I’ve even seen a portrait (18th century) where the stock buckled in the front (!) and there was a dangling little bit that hung to about mid-chest.

    Reply
  78. ***Candice: I love how you always have images of extant pieces, which is always more helpful, to me, that just looking at fashion prints, etc. ***
    You can tell more from looking at extant pieces of clothing, like the stupid things opened and closed. I’ll never forget the stunned expressions in the room the first time I demonstrated how an apron-front gown works (this was a very common style during the Regency). A wonderful historical costumer has recreated one that the late costume historian Janet Arnold documented and you can see not only how she made it, but how it is worn on her website. The whole thing is worth paging through, but I love her demo of this dress:
    http://www.koshka-the-cat.com/drop_front.html
    ***One thing I remember from your last Beau Monde presentation on men’s fashion was how baggy those breeches were, and how our heroines could not possibly admires a man’s tight derriere in those things! 🙂 But what about pantaloons? They seem pretty tight in the leg. Were they also tight around the butt? (In which case, that’s what we probably want our well-built heroes to wear!)***
    Pantaloons are much tighter, as are leather breeches, but none of them is a pair lf Levi’s if you know what I mean. LOL! Besides, unless he’s taken his coat off (scandalous!) to play cricket or some such she can’t see his backside anyway. LOL! Breeches, if made of knit fabric could be nearly as tight as pantaloons, but the style had simply gone out of fashion by the Regency. I know lots of writers hesitate to use the term “pantaloon” though, as it doesn’t sound very masculine.
    ***Regarding stocks and cravats … I have a few prints where it looks like a man is wearing both, ie a stiff stock that cuts him under the chin and a neckcloth tied around it. Does that seem right, or is it likely all one long neckcloth wound very tight?***
    What I *think* you’re seeing there is the stiff pad under the first layer of the cravat, then the cravat crossing back over itself and tying. If you want to pretend to put on a cravat get a long scarf and put the center of it against your throat, wrap it around the back of your neck in both directions, bring it back to the front, and tie it. A period, linen one would be folded over a horsehair stiffening pad like the one shown in the photo and then wrapped around the back of the neck, then the ends are folded up a bit before it is tied.
    If it’s a print of a military man he may well be wearing a stock. Very stiff stocks were in vogue for them.
    And I’ve even seen a portrait (18th century) where the stock buckled in the front (!) and there was a dangling little bit that hung to about mid-chest.

    Reply
  79. ***Candice: I love how you always have images of extant pieces, which is always more helpful, to me, that just looking at fashion prints, etc. ***
    You can tell more from looking at extant pieces of clothing, like the stupid things opened and closed. I’ll never forget the stunned expressions in the room the first time I demonstrated how an apron-front gown works (this was a very common style during the Regency). A wonderful historical costumer has recreated one that the late costume historian Janet Arnold documented and you can see not only how she made it, but how it is worn on her website. The whole thing is worth paging through, but I love her demo of this dress:
    http://www.koshka-the-cat.com/drop_front.html
    ***One thing I remember from your last Beau Monde presentation on men’s fashion was how baggy those breeches were, and how our heroines could not possibly admires a man’s tight derriere in those things! 🙂 But what about pantaloons? They seem pretty tight in the leg. Were they also tight around the butt? (In which case, that’s what we probably want our well-built heroes to wear!)***
    Pantaloons are much tighter, as are leather breeches, but none of them is a pair lf Levi’s if you know what I mean. LOL! Besides, unless he’s taken his coat off (scandalous!) to play cricket or some such she can’t see his backside anyway. LOL! Breeches, if made of knit fabric could be nearly as tight as pantaloons, but the style had simply gone out of fashion by the Regency. I know lots of writers hesitate to use the term “pantaloon” though, as it doesn’t sound very masculine.
    ***Regarding stocks and cravats … I have a few prints where it looks like a man is wearing both, ie a stiff stock that cuts him under the chin and a neckcloth tied around it. Does that seem right, or is it likely all one long neckcloth wound very tight?***
    What I *think* you’re seeing there is the stiff pad under the first layer of the cravat, then the cravat crossing back over itself and tying. If you want to pretend to put on a cravat get a long scarf and put the center of it against your throat, wrap it around the back of your neck in both directions, bring it back to the front, and tie it. A period, linen one would be folded over a horsehair stiffening pad like the one shown in the photo and then wrapped around the back of the neck, then the ends are folded up a bit before it is tied.
    If it’s a print of a military man he may well be wearing a stock. Very stiff stocks were in vogue for them.
    And I’ve even seen a portrait (18th century) where the stock buckled in the front (!) and there was a dangling little bit that hung to about mid-chest.

    Reply
  80. ***Candice: I love how you always have images of extant pieces, which is always more helpful, to me, that just looking at fashion prints, etc. ***
    You can tell more from looking at extant pieces of clothing, like the stupid things opened and closed. I’ll never forget the stunned expressions in the room the first time I demonstrated how an apron-front gown works (this was a very common style during the Regency). A wonderful historical costumer has recreated one that the late costume historian Janet Arnold documented and you can see not only how she made it, but how it is worn on her website. The whole thing is worth paging through, but I love her demo of this dress:
    http://www.koshka-the-cat.com/drop_front.html
    ***One thing I remember from your last Beau Monde presentation on men’s fashion was how baggy those breeches were, and how our heroines could not possibly admires a man’s tight derriere in those things! 🙂 But what about pantaloons? They seem pretty tight in the leg. Were they also tight around the butt? (In which case, that’s what we probably want our well-built heroes to wear!)***
    Pantaloons are much tighter, as are leather breeches, but none of them is a pair lf Levi’s if you know what I mean. LOL! Besides, unless he’s taken his coat off (scandalous!) to play cricket or some such she can’t see his backside anyway. LOL! Breeches, if made of knit fabric could be nearly as tight as pantaloons, but the style had simply gone out of fashion by the Regency. I know lots of writers hesitate to use the term “pantaloon” though, as it doesn’t sound very masculine.
    ***Regarding stocks and cravats … I have a few prints where it looks like a man is wearing both, ie a stiff stock that cuts him under the chin and a neckcloth tied around it. Does that seem right, or is it likely all one long neckcloth wound very tight?***
    What I *think* you’re seeing there is the stiff pad under the first layer of the cravat, then the cravat crossing back over itself and tying. If you want to pretend to put on a cravat get a long scarf and put the center of it against your throat, wrap it around the back of your neck in both directions, bring it back to the front, and tie it. A period, linen one would be folded over a horsehair stiffening pad like the one shown in the photo and then wrapped around the back of the neck, then the ends are folded up a bit before it is tied.
    If it’s a print of a military man he may well be wearing a stock. Very stiff stocks were in vogue for them.
    And I’ve even seen a portrait (18th century) where the stock buckled in the front (!) and there was a dangling little bit that hung to about mid-chest.

    Reply
  81. Fabulous post, Kalen, and wonderful illustrations.
    I have to admit that one thing I fudge is braces with leg-coverings in the regency. It always feels so Old-Alf to me. At least they didn’t wear them in the 1760s, my Georgian period.
    Susan, re ordinary dress. In the country the smock was very common for men. You could have fun with that because your hero would probably hate wearing one.
    There’s an image here from 1830.
    http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/183rogry.jpg
    Jo 🙂

    Reply
  82. Fabulous post, Kalen, and wonderful illustrations.
    I have to admit that one thing I fudge is braces with leg-coverings in the regency. It always feels so Old-Alf to me. At least they didn’t wear them in the 1760s, my Georgian period.
    Susan, re ordinary dress. In the country the smock was very common for men. You could have fun with that because your hero would probably hate wearing one.
    There’s an image here from 1830.
    http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/183rogry.jpg
    Jo 🙂

    Reply
  83. Fabulous post, Kalen, and wonderful illustrations.
    I have to admit that one thing I fudge is braces with leg-coverings in the regency. It always feels so Old-Alf to me. At least they didn’t wear them in the 1760s, my Georgian period.
    Susan, re ordinary dress. In the country the smock was very common for men. You could have fun with that because your hero would probably hate wearing one.
    There’s an image here from 1830.
    http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/183rogry.jpg
    Jo 🙂

    Reply
  84. Fabulous post, Kalen, and wonderful illustrations.
    I have to admit that one thing I fudge is braces with leg-coverings in the regency. It always feels so Old-Alf to me. At least they didn’t wear them in the 1760s, my Georgian period.
    Susan, re ordinary dress. In the country the smock was very common for men. You could have fun with that because your hero would probably hate wearing one.
    There’s an image here from 1830.
    http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/183rogry.jpg
    Jo 🙂

    Reply
  85. Fabulous post, Kalen, and wonderful illustrations.
    I have to admit that one thing I fudge is braces with leg-coverings in the regency. It always feels so Old-Alf to me. At least they didn’t wear them in the 1760s, my Georgian period.
    Susan, re ordinary dress. In the country the smock was very common for men. You could have fun with that because your hero would probably hate wearing one.
    There’s an image here from 1830.
    http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/183rogry.jpg
    Jo 🙂

    Reply
  86. Hi Kalen,
    Faboo as ever!
    A question: Were breeches ever black? If not, this is so going to derail my hero’s whole dark poet/Jim Morrison vibe he’s got going on.
    I’m assuming gentlemen still always rode in breeches during the Regency, right?
    I seem to remember a bit of equestrian mythology that hunt stocks were originally long in case a bandage was needed. Any truth in that? If so, then it’s curious that soldier’s stocks were small, bandages being in higher demand.
    Thanks in advance, nice to see you at WW.

    Reply
  87. Hi Kalen,
    Faboo as ever!
    A question: Were breeches ever black? If not, this is so going to derail my hero’s whole dark poet/Jim Morrison vibe he’s got going on.
    I’m assuming gentlemen still always rode in breeches during the Regency, right?
    I seem to remember a bit of equestrian mythology that hunt stocks were originally long in case a bandage was needed. Any truth in that? If so, then it’s curious that soldier’s stocks were small, bandages being in higher demand.
    Thanks in advance, nice to see you at WW.

    Reply
  88. Hi Kalen,
    Faboo as ever!
    A question: Were breeches ever black? If not, this is so going to derail my hero’s whole dark poet/Jim Morrison vibe he’s got going on.
    I’m assuming gentlemen still always rode in breeches during the Regency, right?
    I seem to remember a bit of equestrian mythology that hunt stocks were originally long in case a bandage was needed. Any truth in that? If so, then it’s curious that soldier’s stocks were small, bandages being in higher demand.
    Thanks in advance, nice to see you at WW.

    Reply
  89. Hi Kalen,
    Faboo as ever!
    A question: Were breeches ever black? If not, this is so going to derail my hero’s whole dark poet/Jim Morrison vibe he’s got going on.
    I’m assuming gentlemen still always rode in breeches during the Regency, right?
    I seem to remember a bit of equestrian mythology that hunt stocks were originally long in case a bandage was needed. Any truth in that? If so, then it’s curious that soldier’s stocks were small, bandages being in higher demand.
    Thanks in advance, nice to see you at WW.

    Reply
  90. Hi Kalen,
    Faboo as ever!
    A question: Were breeches ever black? If not, this is so going to derail my hero’s whole dark poet/Jim Morrison vibe he’s got going on.
    I’m assuming gentlemen still always rode in breeches during the Regency, right?
    I seem to remember a bit of equestrian mythology that hunt stocks were originally long in case a bandage was needed. Any truth in that? If so, then it’s curious that soldier’s stocks were small, bandages being in higher demand.
    Thanks in advance, nice to see you at WW.

    Reply
  91. Very interesting post, Kalen. Thank you. I was wondering about your illustrations: are they from your own collection? And are they authentic pieces or replicas? Or maybe a mix? The waistcoat looks authentic to me, but how about the shirt? And is it as yellow as in the picture?

    Reply
  92. Very interesting post, Kalen. Thank you. I was wondering about your illustrations: are they from your own collection? And are they authentic pieces or replicas? Or maybe a mix? The waistcoat looks authentic to me, but how about the shirt? And is it as yellow as in the picture?

    Reply
  93. Very interesting post, Kalen. Thank you. I was wondering about your illustrations: are they from your own collection? And are they authentic pieces or replicas? Or maybe a mix? The waistcoat looks authentic to me, but how about the shirt? And is it as yellow as in the picture?

    Reply
  94. Very interesting post, Kalen. Thank you. I was wondering about your illustrations: are they from your own collection? And are they authentic pieces or replicas? Or maybe a mix? The waistcoat looks authentic to me, but how about the shirt? And is it as yellow as in the picture?

    Reply
  95. Very interesting post, Kalen. Thank you. I was wondering about your illustrations: are they from your own collection? And are they authentic pieces or replicas? Or maybe a mix? The waistcoat looks authentic to me, but how about the shirt? And is it as yellow as in the picture?

    Reply
  96. I forgot about smocks! Oh, the horror. LOL!
    I’d love to move back in time with my own books and write some stuff in the 1730s (BIG SKIRTS!) and the 1760s (just the height of Georgian fashion for me; love it).

    Reply
  97. I forgot about smocks! Oh, the horror. LOL!
    I’d love to move back in time with my own books and write some stuff in the 1730s (BIG SKIRTS!) and the 1760s (just the height of Georgian fashion for me; love it).

    Reply
  98. I forgot about smocks! Oh, the horror. LOL!
    I’d love to move back in time with my own books and write some stuff in the 1730s (BIG SKIRTS!) and the 1760s (just the height of Georgian fashion for me; love it).

    Reply
  99. I forgot about smocks! Oh, the horror. LOL!
    I’d love to move back in time with my own books and write some stuff in the 1730s (BIG SKIRTS!) and the 1760s (just the height of Georgian fashion for me; love it).

    Reply
  100. I forgot about smocks! Oh, the horror. LOL!
    I’d love to move back in time with my own books and write some stuff in the 1730s (BIG SKIRTS!) and the 1760s (just the height of Georgian fashion for me; love it).

    Reply
  101. ****Jane: Were breeches ever black?***
    Yes. There are plenty of extant examples of black breeches. The Victoria and Albert owns a pair.
    ***I seem to remember a bit of equestrian mythology that hunt stocks were originally long in case a bandage was needed. Any truth in that? If so, then it’s curious that soldier’s stocks were small, bandages being in higher demand.***
    I have no idea. And soldier’s stocks are leather, so no bandages there. Long stocks don’t really make a lot of sense though, since the garment buckles. It it’s long, it’s most likely a cravat.

    Reply
  102. ****Jane: Were breeches ever black?***
    Yes. There are plenty of extant examples of black breeches. The Victoria and Albert owns a pair.
    ***I seem to remember a bit of equestrian mythology that hunt stocks were originally long in case a bandage was needed. Any truth in that? If so, then it’s curious that soldier’s stocks were small, bandages being in higher demand.***
    I have no idea. And soldier’s stocks are leather, so no bandages there. Long stocks don’t really make a lot of sense though, since the garment buckles. It it’s long, it’s most likely a cravat.

    Reply
  103. ****Jane: Were breeches ever black?***
    Yes. There are plenty of extant examples of black breeches. The Victoria and Albert owns a pair.
    ***I seem to remember a bit of equestrian mythology that hunt stocks were originally long in case a bandage was needed. Any truth in that? If so, then it’s curious that soldier’s stocks were small, bandages being in higher demand.***
    I have no idea. And soldier’s stocks are leather, so no bandages there. Long stocks don’t really make a lot of sense though, since the garment buckles. It it’s long, it’s most likely a cravat.

    Reply
  104. ****Jane: Were breeches ever black?***
    Yes. There are plenty of extant examples of black breeches. The Victoria and Albert owns a pair.
    ***I seem to remember a bit of equestrian mythology that hunt stocks were originally long in case a bandage was needed. Any truth in that? If so, then it’s curious that soldier’s stocks were small, bandages being in higher demand.***
    I have no idea. And soldier’s stocks are leather, so no bandages there. Long stocks don’t really make a lot of sense though, since the garment buckles. It it’s long, it’s most likely a cravat.

    Reply
  105. ****Jane: Were breeches ever black?***
    Yes. There are plenty of extant examples of black breeches. The Victoria and Albert owns a pair.
    ***I seem to remember a bit of equestrian mythology that hunt stocks were originally long in case a bandage was needed. Any truth in that? If so, then it’s curious that soldier’s stocks were small, bandages being in higher demand.***
    I have no idea. And soldier’s stocks are leather, so no bandages there. Long stocks don’t really make a lot of sense though, since the garment buckles. It it’s long, it’s most likely a cravat.

    Reply
  106. ***Ingrid: I was wondering about your illustrations: are they from your own collection? And are they authentic pieces or replicas? Or maybe a mix? The waistcoat looks authentic to me, but how about the shirt? And is it as yellow as in the picture?***
    How I wish I owned all this stuff. No, I have a HUGE collection of images I’ve culled from the web and various books over the years. I started collecting them for my own personal reference, but have found them invaluable for teaching workshops and for things such as this.
    Only the boots are replicas (extant boots are very hard to find!). All the other garments are extant from the period (meaning that they are actual items from the time period). It’s a really wonderful shirt! If you look at these two detail pictures you can see the Dorset thread buttons at the collar and cuff. As to the shirts colour, I don’t know it it’s always been that yellow, or it the tint is a trick of the light, or if it’s yellowed over time. Sorry.
    Close up of the neck, showing the buttons, c. 1810-1830.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/shirt-1810-1830-detial.jpg
    Detail of another shirt’s cuff, c. 1800-1830.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/shirt-cuff.jpg

    Reply
  107. ***Ingrid: I was wondering about your illustrations: are they from your own collection? And are they authentic pieces or replicas? Or maybe a mix? The waistcoat looks authentic to me, but how about the shirt? And is it as yellow as in the picture?***
    How I wish I owned all this stuff. No, I have a HUGE collection of images I’ve culled from the web and various books over the years. I started collecting them for my own personal reference, but have found them invaluable for teaching workshops and for things such as this.
    Only the boots are replicas (extant boots are very hard to find!). All the other garments are extant from the period (meaning that they are actual items from the time period). It’s a really wonderful shirt! If you look at these two detail pictures you can see the Dorset thread buttons at the collar and cuff. As to the shirts colour, I don’t know it it’s always been that yellow, or it the tint is a trick of the light, or if it’s yellowed over time. Sorry.
    Close up of the neck, showing the buttons, c. 1810-1830.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/shirt-1810-1830-detial.jpg
    Detail of another shirt’s cuff, c. 1800-1830.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/shirt-cuff.jpg

    Reply
  108. ***Ingrid: I was wondering about your illustrations: are they from your own collection? And are they authentic pieces or replicas? Or maybe a mix? The waistcoat looks authentic to me, but how about the shirt? And is it as yellow as in the picture?***
    How I wish I owned all this stuff. No, I have a HUGE collection of images I’ve culled from the web and various books over the years. I started collecting them for my own personal reference, but have found them invaluable for teaching workshops and for things such as this.
    Only the boots are replicas (extant boots are very hard to find!). All the other garments are extant from the period (meaning that they are actual items from the time period). It’s a really wonderful shirt! If you look at these two detail pictures you can see the Dorset thread buttons at the collar and cuff. As to the shirts colour, I don’t know it it’s always been that yellow, or it the tint is a trick of the light, or if it’s yellowed over time. Sorry.
    Close up of the neck, showing the buttons, c. 1810-1830.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/shirt-1810-1830-detial.jpg
    Detail of another shirt’s cuff, c. 1800-1830.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/shirt-cuff.jpg

    Reply
  109. ***Ingrid: I was wondering about your illustrations: are they from your own collection? And are they authentic pieces or replicas? Or maybe a mix? The waistcoat looks authentic to me, but how about the shirt? And is it as yellow as in the picture?***
    How I wish I owned all this stuff. No, I have a HUGE collection of images I’ve culled from the web and various books over the years. I started collecting them for my own personal reference, but have found them invaluable for teaching workshops and for things such as this.
    Only the boots are replicas (extant boots are very hard to find!). All the other garments are extant from the period (meaning that they are actual items from the time period). It’s a really wonderful shirt! If you look at these two detail pictures you can see the Dorset thread buttons at the collar and cuff. As to the shirts colour, I don’t know it it’s always been that yellow, or it the tint is a trick of the light, or if it’s yellowed over time. Sorry.
    Close up of the neck, showing the buttons, c. 1810-1830.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/shirt-1810-1830-detial.jpg
    Detail of another shirt’s cuff, c. 1800-1830.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/shirt-cuff.jpg

    Reply
  110. ***Ingrid: I was wondering about your illustrations: are they from your own collection? And are they authentic pieces or replicas? Or maybe a mix? The waistcoat looks authentic to me, but how about the shirt? And is it as yellow as in the picture?***
    How I wish I owned all this stuff. No, I have a HUGE collection of images I’ve culled from the web and various books over the years. I started collecting them for my own personal reference, but have found them invaluable for teaching workshops and for things such as this.
    Only the boots are replicas (extant boots are very hard to find!). All the other garments are extant from the period (meaning that they are actual items from the time period). It’s a really wonderful shirt! If you look at these two detail pictures you can see the Dorset thread buttons at the collar and cuff. As to the shirts colour, I don’t know it it’s always been that yellow, or it the tint is a trick of the light, or if it’s yellowed over time. Sorry.
    Close up of the neck, showing the buttons, c. 1810-1830.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/shirt-1810-1830-detial.jpg
    Detail of another shirt’s cuff, c. 1800-1830.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/shirt-cuff.jpg

    Reply
  111. ***I’m assuming gentlemen still always rode in breeches during the Regency, right?***
    Nope. The whole pantaloon fashion grew out of cavalry uniforms (Brummell again). Long pantaloons with boots were quite fashionable for riding. Buckskin breeches, however remained fashionable for casual wear and for riding. This beautiful example is from 1815 (Kyoto Costume Institute):
    Buckskin breeches, c. 1815. Note in the detail shots that the waistband comes up higher than the fall, and that the knee has both buttons and ties.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1815-buckskin-breeches.jpg
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1815-buckskin-breeches-fall.jpg
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1815-buckskin-breeches-knee.jpg

    Reply
  112. ***I’m assuming gentlemen still always rode in breeches during the Regency, right?***
    Nope. The whole pantaloon fashion grew out of cavalry uniforms (Brummell again). Long pantaloons with boots were quite fashionable for riding. Buckskin breeches, however remained fashionable for casual wear and for riding. This beautiful example is from 1815 (Kyoto Costume Institute):
    Buckskin breeches, c. 1815. Note in the detail shots that the waistband comes up higher than the fall, and that the knee has both buttons and ties.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1815-buckskin-breeches.jpg
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1815-buckskin-breeches-fall.jpg
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1815-buckskin-breeches-knee.jpg

    Reply
  113. ***I’m assuming gentlemen still always rode in breeches during the Regency, right?***
    Nope. The whole pantaloon fashion grew out of cavalry uniforms (Brummell again). Long pantaloons with boots were quite fashionable for riding. Buckskin breeches, however remained fashionable for casual wear and for riding. This beautiful example is from 1815 (Kyoto Costume Institute):
    Buckskin breeches, c. 1815. Note in the detail shots that the waistband comes up higher than the fall, and that the knee has both buttons and ties.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1815-buckskin-breeches.jpg
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1815-buckskin-breeches-fall.jpg
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1815-buckskin-breeches-knee.jpg

    Reply
  114. ***I’m assuming gentlemen still always rode in breeches during the Regency, right?***
    Nope. The whole pantaloon fashion grew out of cavalry uniforms (Brummell again). Long pantaloons with boots were quite fashionable for riding. Buckskin breeches, however remained fashionable for casual wear and for riding. This beautiful example is from 1815 (Kyoto Costume Institute):
    Buckskin breeches, c. 1815. Note in the detail shots that the waistband comes up higher than the fall, and that the knee has both buttons and ties.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1815-buckskin-breeches.jpg
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1815-buckskin-breeches-fall.jpg
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1815-buckskin-breeches-knee.jpg

    Reply
  115. ***I’m assuming gentlemen still always rode in breeches during the Regency, right?***
    Nope. The whole pantaloon fashion grew out of cavalry uniforms (Brummell again). Long pantaloons with boots were quite fashionable for riding. Buckskin breeches, however remained fashionable for casual wear and for riding. This beautiful example is from 1815 (Kyoto Costume Institute):
    Buckskin breeches, c. 1815. Note in the detail shots that the waistband comes up higher than the fall, and that the knee has both buttons and ties.
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1815-buckskin-breeches.jpg
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1815-buckskin-breeches-fall.jpg
    http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/1815-buckskin-breeches-knee.jpg

    Reply
  116. Hi Kalen! I LOVED this post, the comments, the questions, the photos. . .all of it.
    What would a clergyman (Church of England) have worn in the Georgian/Regency era? Did they go for the whole black on black with a backwards white collar thing or did that come later or is that a Calvinist/Methodist thing? (And what about black robes and preaching tabs?) Did Anglicans dress differently from Methodists? (Mr Collins is always costumed in black, but is that accurate?) And what did Quakers wear?
    You know, I did take lots of church history but there wasn’t much time spent on the outfits, LOL.
    Thank you Kalen, you are fabulous!

    Reply
  117. Hi Kalen! I LOVED this post, the comments, the questions, the photos. . .all of it.
    What would a clergyman (Church of England) have worn in the Georgian/Regency era? Did they go for the whole black on black with a backwards white collar thing or did that come later or is that a Calvinist/Methodist thing? (And what about black robes and preaching tabs?) Did Anglicans dress differently from Methodists? (Mr Collins is always costumed in black, but is that accurate?) And what did Quakers wear?
    You know, I did take lots of church history but there wasn’t much time spent on the outfits, LOL.
    Thank you Kalen, you are fabulous!

    Reply
  118. Hi Kalen! I LOVED this post, the comments, the questions, the photos. . .all of it.
    What would a clergyman (Church of England) have worn in the Georgian/Regency era? Did they go for the whole black on black with a backwards white collar thing or did that come later or is that a Calvinist/Methodist thing? (And what about black robes and preaching tabs?) Did Anglicans dress differently from Methodists? (Mr Collins is always costumed in black, but is that accurate?) And what did Quakers wear?
    You know, I did take lots of church history but there wasn’t much time spent on the outfits, LOL.
    Thank you Kalen, you are fabulous!

    Reply
  119. Hi Kalen! I LOVED this post, the comments, the questions, the photos. . .all of it.
    What would a clergyman (Church of England) have worn in the Georgian/Regency era? Did they go for the whole black on black with a backwards white collar thing or did that come later or is that a Calvinist/Methodist thing? (And what about black robes and preaching tabs?) Did Anglicans dress differently from Methodists? (Mr Collins is always costumed in black, but is that accurate?) And what did Quakers wear?
    You know, I did take lots of church history but there wasn’t much time spent on the outfits, LOL.
    Thank you Kalen, you are fabulous!

    Reply
  120. Hi Kalen! I LOVED this post, the comments, the questions, the photos. . .all of it.
    What would a clergyman (Church of England) have worn in the Georgian/Regency era? Did they go for the whole black on black with a backwards white collar thing or did that come later or is that a Calvinist/Methodist thing? (And what about black robes and preaching tabs?) Did Anglicans dress differently from Methodists? (Mr Collins is always costumed in black, but is that accurate?) And what did Quakers wear?
    You know, I did take lots of church history but there wasn’t much time spent on the outfits, LOL.
    Thank you Kalen, you are fabulous!

    Reply
  121. Kalen–
    Thanks so much for the incredible post, and your wonderful generosity in sharing your knowledge. I am barely tuned in to what people wear in 2007, so having such an excellent, concise summary is invaluable.
    Looking forward to what you’ll do with corsets!
    Mary Jo

    Reply
  122. Kalen–
    Thanks so much for the incredible post, and your wonderful generosity in sharing your knowledge. I am barely tuned in to what people wear in 2007, so having such an excellent, concise summary is invaluable.
    Looking forward to what you’ll do with corsets!
    Mary Jo

    Reply
  123. Kalen–
    Thanks so much for the incredible post, and your wonderful generosity in sharing your knowledge. I am barely tuned in to what people wear in 2007, so having such an excellent, concise summary is invaluable.
    Looking forward to what you’ll do with corsets!
    Mary Jo

    Reply
  124. Kalen–
    Thanks so much for the incredible post, and your wonderful generosity in sharing your knowledge. I am barely tuned in to what people wear in 2007, so having such an excellent, concise summary is invaluable.
    Looking forward to what you’ll do with corsets!
    Mary Jo

    Reply
  125. Kalen–
    Thanks so much for the incredible post, and your wonderful generosity in sharing your knowledge. I am barely tuned in to what people wear in 2007, so having such an excellent, concise summary is invaluable.
    Looking forward to what you’ll do with corsets!
    Mary Jo

    Reply
  126. “Susan, re ordinary dress. In the country the smock was very common for men. You could have fun with that because your hero would probably hate wearing one.”
    Oh my, yes. He’d *hate* that. Must find way to force him to wear it…
    Thanks, Kalen and Jo!

    Reply
  127. “Susan, re ordinary dress. In the country the smock was very common for men. You could have fun with that because your hero would probably hate wearing one.”
    Oh my, yes. He’d *hate* that. Must find way to force him to wear it…
    Thanks, Kalen and Jo!

    Reply
  128. “Susan, re ordinary dress. In the country the smock was very common for men. You could have fun with that because your hero would probably hate wearing one.”
    Oh my, yes. He’d *hate* that. Must find way to force him to wear it…
    Thanks, Kalen and Jo!

    Reply
  129. “Susan, re ordinary dress. In the country the smock was very common for men. You could have fun with that because your hero would probably hate wearing one.”
    Oh my, yes. He’d *hate* that. Must find way to force him to wear it…
    Thanks, Kalen and Jo!

    Reply
  130. “Susan, re ordinary dress. In the country the smock was very common for men. You could have fun with that because your hero would probably hate wearing one.”
    Oh my, yes. He’d *hate* that. Must find way to force him to wear it…
    Thanks, Kalen and Jo!

    Reply
  131. ***RevMelinda: What would a clergyman (Church of England) have worn in the Georgian/Regency era? Did they go for the whole black on black with a backwards white collar thing or did that come later or is that a Calvinist/Methodist thing? (And what about black robes and preaching tabs?) Did Anglicans dress differently from Methodists? (Mr Collins is always costumed in black, but is that accurate?)***
    Ok, I’m treading out of my safety zone on this one. I would never claim that Clergical costume is a specialty of mine. A clergyman would have been free to wear whatever he liked in his day to day life. Most of them appear to have chosen conservative clothing in plain, dark fabrics (a la Mr Collins). But there was nothing constraining him to do so (just as there was nothing that forced a man who held a living to actual live there and perform his duties; the man who held the living and was paid for it was free to leave all of that to a hired underling if he so chose). There are accounts of vicars and parsons who were hunting-mad and dressed like any local squire, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a formal portrait of a man in his dog collar (but then I’ve never really looked).
    It is my understanding that during services they would have been dressed very much like their Roman Catholic cousins, in robes and in the dog collar, but I could be wrong. And I don’t even know what you mean by “black robes and preaching tabs”. Sorry. This REALLY isn’t my area.
    ***And what did Quakers wear?***
    Again, not my area of expertise, but all the extant clothing I’ve seen and all the portraits show them in plain, dark versions of the fashion of the day.

    Reply
  132. ***RevMelinda: What would a clergyman (Church of England) have worn in the Georgian/Regency era? Did they go for the whole black on black with a backwards white collar thing or did that come later or is that a Calvinist/Methodist thing? (And what about black robes and preaching tabs?) Did Anglicans dress differently from Methodists? (Mr Collins is always costumed in black, but is that accurate?)***
    Ok, I’m treading out of my safety zone on this one. I would never claim that Clergical costume is a specialty of mine. A clergyman would have been free to wear whatever he liked in his day to day life. Most of them appear to have chosen conservative clothing in plain, dark fabrics (a la Mr Collins). But there was nothing constraining him to do so (just as there was nothing that forced a man who held a living to actual live there and perform his duties; the man who held the living and was paid for it was free to leave all of that to a hired underling if he so chose). There are accounts of vicars and parsons who were hunting-mad and dressed like any local squire, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a formal portrait of a man in his dog collar (but then I’ve never really looked).
    It is my understanding that during services they would have been dressed very much like their Roman Catholic cousins, in robes and in the dog collar, but I could be wrong. And I don’t even know what you mean by “black robes and preaching tabs”. Sorry. This REALLY isn’t my area.
    ***And what did Quakers wear?***
    Again, not my area of expertise, but all the extant clothing I’ve seen and all the portraits show them in plain, dark versions of the fashion of the day.

    Reply
  133. ***RevMelinda: What would a clergyman (Church of England) have worn in the Georgian/Regency era? Did they go for the whole black on black with a backwards white collar thing or did that come later or is that a Calvinist/Methodist thing? (And what about black robes and preaching tabs?) Did Anglicans dress differently from Methodists? (Mr Collins is always costumed in black, but is that accurate?)***
    Ok, I’m treading out of my safety zone on this one. I would never claim that Clergical costume is a specialty of mine. A clergyman would have been free to wear whatever he liked in his day to day life. Most of them appear to have chosen conservative clothing in plain, dark fabrics (a la Mr Collins). But there was nothing constraining him to do so (just as there was nothing that forced a man who held a living to actual live there and perform his duties; the man who held the living and was paid for it was free to leave all of that to a hired underling if he so chose). There are accounts of vicars and parsons who were hunting-mad and dressed like any local squire, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a formal portrait of a man in his dog collar (but then I’ve never really looked).
    It is my understanding that during services they would have been dressed very much like their Roman Catholic cousins, in robes and in the dog collar, but I could be wrong. And I don’t even know what you mean by “black robes and preaching tabs”. Sorry. This REALLY isn’t my area.
    ***And what did Quakers wear?***
    Again, not my area of expertise, but all the extant clothing I’ve seen and all the portraits show them in plain, dark versions of the fashion of the day.

    Reply
  134. ***RevMelinda: What would a clergyman (Church of England) have worn in the Georgian/Regency era? Did they go for the whole black on black with a backwards white collar thing or did that come later or is that a Calvinist/Methodist thing? (And what about black robes and preaching tabs?) Did Anglicans dress differently from Methodists? (Mr Collins is always costumed in black, but is that accurate?)***
    Ok, I’m treading out of my safety zone on this one. I would never claim that Clergical costume is a specialty of mine. A clergyman would have been free to wear whatever he liked in his day to day life. Most of them appear to have chosen conservative clothing in plain, dark fabrics (a la Mr Collins). But there was nothing constraining him to do so (just as there was nothing that forced a man who held a living to actual live there and perform his duties; the man who held the living and was paid for it was free to leave all of that to a hired underling if he so chose). There are accounts of vicars and parsons who were hunting-mad and dressed like any local squire, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a formal portrait of a man in his dog collar (but then I’ve never really looked).
    It is my understanding that during services they would have been dressed very much like their Roman Catholic cousins, in robes and in the dog collar, but I could be wrong. And I don’t even know what you mean by “black robes and preaching tabs”. Sorry. This REALLY isn’t my area.
    ***And what did Quakers wear?***
    Again, not my area of expertise, but all the extant clothing I’ve seen and all the portraits show them in plain, dark versions of the fashion of the day.

    Reply
  135. ***RevMelinda: What would a clergyman (Church of England) have worn in the Georgian/Regency era? Did they go for the whole black on black with a backwards white collar thing or did that come later or is that a Calvinist/Methodist thing? (And what about black robes and preaching tabs?) Did Anglicans dress differently from Methodists? (Mr Collins is always costumed in black, but is that accurate?)***
    Ok, I’m treading out of my safety zone on this one. I would never claim that Clergical costume is a specialty of mine. A clergyman would have been free to wear whatever he liked in his day to day life. Most of them appear to have chosen conservative clothing in plain, dark fabrics (a la Mr Collins). But there was nothing constraining him to do so (just as there was nothing that forced a man who held a living to actual live there and perform his duties; the man who held the living and was paid for it was free to leave all of that to a hired underling if he so chose). There are accounts of vicars and parsons who were hunting-mad and dressed like any local squire, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a formal portrait of a man in his dog collar (but then I’ve never really looked).
    It is my understanding that during services they would have been dressed very much like their Roman Catholic cousins, in robes and in the dog collar, but I could be wrong. And I don’t even know what you mean by “black robes and preaching tabs”. Sorry. This REALLY isn’t my area.
    ***And what did Quakers wear?***
    Again, not my area of expertise, but all the extant clothing I’ve seen and all the portraits show them in plain, dark versions of the fashion of the day.

    Reply
  136. ***And what did Quakers wear?***
    Again, not my area of expertise, but all the extant clothing I’ve seen and all the portraits show them in plain, dark versions of the fashion of the day.***
    I can add a bit about Quaker dress. (Living in the Philadelphia area makes this hard to avoid learning.*g*) Yes, Quakers wore plain versions of contemporary clothing, in “sad” (ie, somber) colors: brown, black, and the ubiquitous Quaker grey, which is a soft, dove grey.
    This plain dress meant no ruffles, lace, extra ribbons or bows, fancy collars, cuffs, bustles, or flounces. Even the buttons were plain, woven-thread or cloth-covered, or wood or bone. However, there doesn’t seem to have been restriction on the fabric itself. So while the wife of wealthy Quaker merchant couldn’t wear jewels or imported lace, her plain gown could be made of the highest quality grey silk or merino wool.
    Hats were also important details to Quaker dress. 17th and 18th century Quaker women wore wide-brimmed hats with very low crowns, felt or straw, but completely untrimmed. 19th century women wore a small-brimmed bonnet that fit close around the face, again untrimmed and severe.
    Quaker men continued to wear a 17th century style wide-brimmed hat long after men’s fashion had moved along (think of the gentleman on the Quaker Oats box). More importantly, Quaker men never removed their hats to anyone.
    There’s a famous story about William Penn refusing to take off his hat in the presence of King Charles II. Ever gracious and good -humored, Charles removed his instead, explaining how when the King of England was present, only one man in the room should have his head covered.
    You rock, Kalen! 🙂
    Susan/Miranda

    Reply
  137. ***And what did Quakers wear?***
    Again, not my area of expertise, but all the extant clothing I’ve seen and all the portraits show them in plain, dark versions of the fashion of the day.***
    I can add a bit about Quaker dress. (Living in the Philadelphia area makes this hard to avoid learning.*g*) Yes, Quakers wore plain versions of contemporary clothing, in “sad” (ie, somber) colors: brown, black, and the ubiquitous Quaker grey, which is a soft, dove grey.
    This plain dress meant no ruffles, lace, extra ribbons or bows, fancy collars, cuffs, bustles, or flounces. Even the buttons were plain, woven-thread or cloth-covered, or wood or bone. However, there doesn’t seem to have been restriction on the fabric itself. So while the wife of wealthy Quaker merchant couldn’t wear jewels or imported lace, her plain gown could be made of the highest quality grey silk or merino wool.
    Hats were also important details to Quaker dress. 17th and 18th century Quaker women wore wide-brimmed hats with very low crowns, felt or straw, but completely untrimmed. 19th century women wore a small-brimmed bonnet that fit close around the face, again untrimmed and severe.
    Quaker men continued to wear a 17th century style wide-brimmed hat long after men’s fashion had moved along (think of the gentleman on the Quaker Oats box). More importantly, Quaker men never removed their hats to anyone.
    There’s a famous story about William Penn refusing to take off his hat in the presence of King Charles II. Ever gracious and good -humored, Charles removed his instead, explaining how when the King of England was present, only one man in the room should have his head covered.
    You rock, Kalen! 🙂
    Susan/Miranda

    Reply
  138. ***And what did Quakers wear?***
    Again, not my area of expertise, but all the extant clothing I’ve seen and all the portraits show them in plain, dark versions of the fashion of the day.***
    I can add a bit about Quaker dress. (Living in the Philadelphia area makes this hard to avoid learning.*g*) Yes, Quakers wore plain versions of contemporary clothing, in “sad” (ie, somber) colors: brown, black, and the ubiquitous Quaker grey, which is a soft, dove grey.
    This plain dress meant no ruffles, lace, extra ribbons or bows, fancy collars, cuffs, bustles, or flounces. Even the buttons were plain, woven-thread or cloth-covered, or wood or bone. However, there doesn’t seem to have been restriction on the fabric itself. So while the wife of wealthy Quaker merchant couldn’t wear jewels or imported lace, her plain gown could be made of the highest quality grey silk or merino wool.
    Hats were also important details to Quaker dress. 17th and 18th century Quaker women wore wide-brimmed hats with very low crowns, felt or straw, but completely untrimmed. 19th century women wore a small-brimmed bonnet that fit close around the face, again untrimmed and severe.
    Quaker men continued to wear a 17th century style wide-brimmed hat long after men’s fashion had moved along (think of the gentleman on the Quaker Oats box). More importantly, Quaker men never removed their hats to anyone.
    There’s a famous story about William Penn refusing to take off his hat in the presence of King Charles II. Ever gracious and good -humored, Charles removed his instead, explaining how when the King of England was present, only one man in the room should have his head covered.
    You rock, Kalen! 🙂
    Susan/Miranda

    Reply
  139. ***And what did Quakers wear?***
    Again, not my area of expertise, but all the extant clothing I’ve seen and all the portraits show them in plain, dark versions of the fashion of the day.***
    I can add a bit about Quaker dress. (Living in the Philadelphia area makes this hard to avoid learning.*g*) Yes, Quakers wore plain versions of contemporary clothing, in “sad” (ie, somber) colors: brown, black, and the ubiquitous Quaker grey, which is a soft, dove grey.
    This plain dress meant no ruffles, lace, extra ribbons or bows, fancy collars, cuffs, bustles, or flounces. Even the buttons were plain, woven-thread or cloth-covered, or wood or bone. However, there doesn’t seem to have been restriction on the fabric itself. So while the wife of wealthy Quaker merchant couldn’t wear jewels or imported lace, her plain gown could be made of the highest quality grey silk or merino wool.
    Hats were also important details to Quaker dress. 17th and 18th century Quaker women wore wide-brimmed hats with very low crowns, felt or straw, but completely untrimmed. 19th century women wore a small-brimmed bonnet that fit close around the face, again untrimmed and severe.
    Quaker men continued to wear a 17th century style wide-brimmed hat long after men’s fashion had moved along (think of the gentleman on the Quaker Oats box). More importantly, Quaker men never removed their hats to anyone.
    There’s a famous story about William Penn refusing to take off his hat in the presence of King Charles II. Ever gracious and good -humored, Charles removed his instead, explaining how when the King of England was present, only one man in the room should have his head covered.
    You rock, Kalen! 🙂
    Susan/Miranda

    Reply
  140. ***And what did Quakers wear?***
    Again, not my area of expertise, but all the extant clothing I’ve seen and all the portraits show them in plain, dark versions of the fashion of the day.***
    I can add a bit about Quaker dress. (Living in the Philadelphia area makes this hard to avoid learning.*g*) Yes, Quakers wore plain versions of contemporary clothing, in “sad” (ie, somber) colors: brown, black, and the ubiquitous Quaker grey, which is a soft, dove grey.
    This plain dress meant no ruffles, lace, extra ribbons or bows, fancy collars, cuffs, bustles, or flounces. Even the buttons were plain, woven-thread or cloth-covered, or wood or bone. However, there doesn’t seem to have been restriction on the fabric itself. So while the wife of wealthy Quaker merchant couldn’t wear jewels or imported lace, her plain gown could be made of the highest quality grey silk or merino wool.
    Hats were also important details to Quaker dress. 17th and 18th century Quaker women wore wide-brimmed hats with very low crowns, felt or straw, but completely untrimmed. 19th century women wore a small-brimmed bonnet that fit close around the face, again untrimmed and severe.
    Quaker men continued to wear a 17th century style wide-brimmed hat long after men’s fashion had moved along (think of the gentleman on the Quaker Oats box). More importantly, Quaker men never removed their hats to anyone.
    There’s a famous story about William Penn refusing to take off his hat in the presence of King Charles II. Ever gracious and good -humored, Charles removed his instead, explaining how when the King of England was present, only one man in the room should have his head covered.
    You rock, Kalen! 🙂
    Susan/Miranda

    Reply
  141. Great post, Kalen! You are my costuming goddess. But I think you need to amend you blog from “hobby” to “passion.” 🙂

    Reply
  142. Great post, Kalen! You are my costuming goddess. But I think you need to amend you blog from “hobby” to “passion.” 🙂

    Reply
  143. Great post, Kalen! You are my costuming goddess. But I think you need to amend you blog from “hobby” to “passion.” 🙂

    Reply
  144. Great post, Kalen! You are my costuming goddess. But I think you need to amend you blog from “hobby” to “passion.” 🙂

    Reply
  145. Great post, Kalen! You are my costuming goddess. But I think you need to amend you blog from “hobby” to “passion.” 🙂

    Reply
  146. Kalen, you’ve probably seen an earlier Quaker woman’s hat, and not realized it. There’s a very famous portrait by Andrew Wyeth of his wife, reproduced many times, where she’s wearing one — though if she’d been more “proper”, she would have been wearing it over a white linen cap and with the strings tied. Still, it’s a lovely image:
    http://www.wyethprints.com/bookplates/magasdaughter.htm
    While we’re on a semi-rural discussion (and because I’m pretty sure I won’t be trespassing on Kalen’s expertise or bookshelf here *g*), I can suggest a costume book for 1730-1820 that covers rural America.
    “Rural Pennsylvania Clothing” by Ellen J. Gehret (Shumway Publishing, 1976)
    I know that most novelists these days are writing English settings for this time period, but since it’s mostly English-American farmers and middle class folk who are being addressed (most costume historians make a real point of separating the different ethnic groups), this book can be very useful.
    Includes lots of close-up photographs of shirts, waistcoats, breeches, shifts, pockets, even handknit stockings, plus schematics if you’re a reenacter and want to reproduce them — or just need to know exactly how many buttons are on the fall of a pair of gentleman’s breeches.
    Susan/Miranda

    Reply
  147. Kalen, you’ve probably seen an earlier Quaker woman’s hat, and not realized it. There’s a very famous portrait by Andrew Wyeth of his wife, reproduced many times, where she’s wearing one — though if she’d been more “proper”, she would have been wearing it over a white linen cap and with the strings tied. Still, it’s a lovely image:
    http://www.wyethprints.com/bookplates/magasdaughter.htm
    While we’re on a semi-rural discussion (and because I’m pretty sure I won’t be trespassing on Kalen’s expertise or bookshelf here *g*), I can suggest a costume book for 1730-1820 that covers rural America.
    “Rural Pennsylvania Clothing” by Ellen J. Gehret (Shumway Publishing, 1976)
    I know that most novelists these days are writing English settings for this time period, but since it’s mostly English-American farmers and middle class folk who are being addressed (most costume historians make a real point of separating the different ethnic groups), this book can be very useful.
    Includes lots of close-up photographs of shirts, waistcoats, breeches, shifts, pockets, even handknit stockings, plus schematics if you’re a reenacter and want to reproduce them — or just need to know exactly how many buttons are on the fall of a pair of gentleman’s breeches.
    Susan/Miranda

    Reply
  148. Kalen, you’ve probably seen an earlier Quaker woman’s hat, and not realized it. There’s a very famous portrait by Andrew Wyeth of his wife, reproduced many times, where she’s wearing one — though if she’d been more “proper”, she would have been wearing it over a white linen cap and with the strings tied. Still, it’s a lovely image:
    http://www.wyethprints.com/bookplates/magasdaughter.htm
    While we’re on a semi-rural discussion (and because I’m pretty sure I won’t be trespassing on Kalen’s expertise or bookshelf here *g*), I can suggest a costume book for 1730-1820 that covers rural America.
    “Rural Pennsylvania Clothing” by Ellen J. Gehret (Shumway Publishing, 1976)
    I know that most novelists these days are writing English settings for this time period, but since it’s mostly English-American farmers and middle class folk who are being addressed (most costume historians make a real point of separating the different ethnic groups), this book can be very useful.
    Includes lots of close-up photographs of shirts, waistcoats, breeches, shifts, pockets, even handknit stockings, plus schematics if you’re a reenacter and want to reproduce them — or just need to know exactly how many buttons are on the fall of a pair of gentleman’s breeches.
    Susan/Miranda

    Reply
  149. Kalen, you’ve probably seen an earlier Quaker woman’s hat, and not realized it. There’s a very famous portrait by Andrew Wyeth of his wife, reproduced many times, where she’s wearing one — though if she’d been more “proper”, she would have been wearing it over a white linen cap and with the strings tied. Still, it’s a lovely image:
    http://www.wyethprints.com/bookplates/magasdaughter.htm
    While we’re on a semi-rural discussion (and because I’m pretty sure I won’t be trespassing on Kalen’s expertise or bookshelf here *g*), I can suggest a costume book for 1730-1820 that covers rural America.
    “Rural Pennsylvania Clothing” by Ellen J. Gehret (Shumway Publishing, 1976)
    I know that most novelists these days are writing English settings for this time period, but since it’s mostly English-American farmers and middle class folk who are being addressed (most costume historians make a real point of separating the different ethnic groups), this book can be very useful.
    Includes lots of close-up photographs of shirts, waistcoats, breeches, shifts, pockets, even handknit stockings, plus schematics if you’re a reenacter and want to reproduce them — or just need to know exactly how many buttons are on the fall of a pair of gentleman’s breeches.
    Susan/Miranda

    Reply
  150. Kalen, you’ve probably seen an earlier Quaker woman’s hat, and not realized it. There’s a very famous portrait by Andrew Wyeth of his wife, reproduced many times, where she’s wearing one — though if she’d been more “proper”, she would have been wearing it over a white linen cap and with the strings tied. Still, it’s a lovely image:
    http://www.wyethprints.com/bookplates/magasdaughter.htm
    While we’re on a semi-rural discussion (and because I’m pretty sure I won’t be trespassing on Kalen’s expertise or bookshelf here *g*), I can suggest a costume book for 1730-1820 that covers rural America.
    “Rural Pennsylvania Clothing” by Ellen J. Gehret (Shumway Publishing, 1976)
    I know that most novelists these days are writing English settings for this time period, but since it’s mostly English-American farmers and middle class folk who are being addressed (most costume historians make a real point of separating the different ethnic groups), this book can be very useful.
    Includes lots of close-up photographs of shirts, waistcoats, breeches, shifts, pockets, even handknit stockings, plus schematics if you’re a reenacter and want to reproduce them — or just need to know exactly how many buttons are on the fall of a pair of gentleman’s breeches.
    Susan/Miranda

    Reply
  151. Susan/Miranda, another really great one is “Fashion on the Ohio Frontier: 1790-1840” by Anne Bissonnette (the curator at Kent State).
    And Monica’s right, it is a passion (sometimes too much of one, LOL!).

    Reply
  152. Susan/Miranda, another really great one is “Fashion on the Ohio Frontier: 1790-1840” by Anne Bissonnette (the curator at Kent State).
    And Monica’s right, it is a passion (sometimes too much of one, LOL!).

    Reply
  153. Susan/Miranda, another really great one is “Fashion on the Ohio Frontier: 1790-1840” by Anne Bissonnette (the curator at Kent State).
    And Monica’s right, it is a passion (sometimes too much of one, LOL!).

    Reply
  154. Susan/Miranda, another really great one is “Fashion on the Ohio Frontier: 1790-1840” by Anne Bissonnette (the curator at Kent State).
    And Monica’s right, it is a passion (sometimes too much of one, LOL!).

    Reply
  155. Susan/Miranda, another really great one is “Fashion on the Ohio Frontier: 1790-1840” by Anne Bissonnette (the curator at Kent State).
    And Monica’s right, it is a passion (sometimes too much of one, LOL!).

    Reply
  156. Hi Kalen,
    Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts about clergy clothing. I bet Lady Catherine preferred Mr Collins to wear sober colors and so he did it (smile).
    The “black robes” I referred to would also be known as a “Geneva gown”–they’re worn by preachers for Sunday service (sometimes with velvet trimming), and by judges, and they’re also used for (or similar to) academic regalia. My best guess (without doing an internet search) is that Geneva gowns came in with our pal John Calvin.
    As far as “preaching tabs”–they’re little rectangles of white cloth that form an upside down “v” from the front collar. I’ve never worn them. Actually, in Jo’s link above with the smock, the clergyman (and the judge)both have on something similar.
    Kalen, thank you again and I can’t wait for your next blog and your next book!
    Melinda

    Reply
  157. Hi Kalen,
    Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts about clergy clothing. I bet Lady Catherine preferred Mr Collins to wear sober colors and so he did it (smile).
    The “black robes” I referred to would also be known as a “Geneva gown”–they’re worn by preachers for Sunday service (sometimes with velvet trimming), and by judges, and they’re also used for (or similar to) academic regalia. My best guess (without doing an internet search) is that Geneva gowns came in with our pal John Calvin.
    As far as “preaching tabs”–they’re little rectangles of white cloth that form an upside down “v” from the front collar. I’ve never worn them. Actually, in Jo’s link above with the smock, the clergyman (and the judge)both have on something similar.
    Kalen, thank you again and I can’t wait for your next blog and your next book!
    Melinda

    Reply
  158. Hi Kalen,
    Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts about clergy clothing. I bet Lady Catherine preferred Mr Collins to wear sober colors and so he did it (smile).
    The “black robes” I referred to would also be known as a “Geneva gown”–they’re worn by preachers for Sunday service (sometimes with velvet trimming), and by judges, and they’re also used for (or similar to) academic regalia. My best guess (without doing an internet search) is that Geneva gowns came in with our pal John Calvin.
    As far as “preaching tabs”–they’re little rectangles of white cloth that form an upside down “v” from the front collar. I’ve never worn them. Actually, in Jo’s link above with the smock, the clergyman (and the judge)both have on something similar.
    Kalen, thank you again and I can’t wait for your next blog and your next book!
    Melinda

    Reply
  159. Hi Kalen,
    Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts about clergy clothing. I bet Lady Catherine preferred Mr Collins to wear sober colors and so he did it (smile).
    The “black robes” I referred to would also be known as a “Geneva gown”–they’re worn by preachers for Sunday service (sometimes with velvet trimming), and by judges, and they’re also used for (or similar to) academic regalia. My best guess (without doing an internet search) is that Geneva gowns came in with our pal John Calvin.
    As far as “preaching tabs”–they’re little rectangles of white cloth that form an upside down “v” from the front collar. I’ve never worn them. Actually, in Jo’s link above with the smock, the clergyman (and the judge)both have on something similar.
    Kalen, thank you again and I can’t wait for your next blog and your next book!
    Melinda

    Reply
  160. Hi Kalen,
    Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts about clergy clothing. I bet Lady Catherine preferred Mr Collins to wear sober colors and so he did it (smile).
    The “black robes” I referred to would also be known as a “Geneva gown”–they’re worn by preachers for Sunday service (sometimes with velvet trimming), and by judges, and they’re also used for (or similar to) academic regalia. My best guess (without doing an internet search) is that Geneva gowns came in with our pal John Calvin.
    As far as “preaching tabs”–they’re little rectangles of white cloth that form an upside down “v” from the front collar. I’ve never worn them. Actually, in Jo’s link above with the smock, the clergyman (and the judge)both have on something similar.
    Kalen, thank you again and I can’t wait for your next blog and your next book!
    Melinda

    Reply
  161. Thank you for the fascinating tour of Regency fashion.
    My novel, Tangled Hearts by Rosemary Morris is set in the reign of Queen Anne the last Stuart monarch.
    When writing it I described Richelda, my early 18th century heroine’s petticoat worn beneath her looped back skirt.
    Someone obviously in the Regency mindset, wrote to tell me that ‘no lady would be seen in her petticoat’. Yikes!
    Rosemary Morris
    Tangled Hearts available from http://www.enspirenpress.com
    http://www.rosemarymorris.co.uk

    Reply
  162. Thank you for the fascinating tour of Regency fashion.
    My novel, Tangled Hearts by Rosemary Morris is set in the reign of Queen Anne the last Stuart monarch.
    When writing it I described Richelda, my early 18th century heroine’s petticoat worn beneath her looped back skirt.
    Someone obviously in the Regency mindset, wrote to tell me that ‘no lady would be seen in her petticoat’. Yikes!
    Rosemary Morris
    Tangled Hearts available from http://www.enspirenpress.com
    http://www.rosemarymorris.co.uk

    Reply
  163. Thank you for the fascinating tour of Regency fashion.
    My novel, Tangled Hearts by Rosemary Morris is set in the reign of Queen Anne the last Stuart monarch.
    When writing it I described Richelda, my early 18th century heroine’s petticoat worn beneath her looped back skirt.
    Someone obviously in the Regency mindset, wrote to tell me that ‘no lady would be seen in her petticoat’. Yikes!
    Rosemary Morris
    Tangled Hearts available from http://www.enspirenpress.com
    http://www.rosemarymorris.co.uk

    Reply
  164. Thank you for the fascinating tour of Regency fashion.
    My novel, Tangled Hearts by Rosemary Morris is set in the reign of Queen Anne the last Stuart monarch.
    When writing it I described Richelda, my early 18th century heroine’s petticoat worn beneath her looped back skirt.
    Someone obviously in the Regency mindset, wrote to tell me that ‘no lady would be seen in her petticoat’. Yikes!
    Rosemary Morris
    Tangled Hearts available from http://www.enspirenpress.com
    http://www.rosemarymorris.co.uk

    Reply
  165. Thank you for the fascinating tour of Regency fashion.
    My novel, Tangled Hearts by Rosemary Morris is set in the reign of Queen Anne the last Stuart monarch.
    When writing it I described Richelda, my early 18th century heroine’s petticoat worn beneath her looped back skirt.
    Someone obviously in the Regency mindset, wrote to tell me that ‘no lady would be seen in her petticoat’. Yikes!
    Rosemary Morris
    Tangled Hearts available from http://www.enspirenpress.com
    http://www.rosemarymorris.co.uk

    Reply
  166. Hi all. Perhaps, after all, America never has been discovered. I myself would say that it had merely been detected. Help me! Need information about: Brochure printing laser san jose. I found only this – brochure ga printing. Carson’s way, and the role it attempted, are at least not good for the american woman days., and the many spiral of the efforts decent law since the decades, brochure printing. Stance drive has configured its ammunition over the potent above pedestrians, brochure printing. Thanks ;-). Lavonne from Liberia.

    Reply
  167. Hi all. Perhaps, after all, America never has been discovered. I myself would say that it had merely been detected. Help me! Need information about: Brochure printing laser san jose. I found only this – brochure ga printing. Carson’s way, and the role it attempted, are at least not good for the american woman days., and the many spiral of the efforts decent law since the decades, brochure printing. Stance drive has configured its ammunition over the potent above pedestrians, brochure printing. Thanks ;-). Lavonne from Liberia.

    Reply
  168. Hi all. Perhaps, after all, America never has been discovered. I myself would say that it had merely been detected. Help me! Need information about: Brochure printing laser san jose. I found only this – brochure ga printing. Carson’s way, and the role it attempted, are at least not good for the american woman days., and the many spiral of the efforts decent law since the decades, brochure printing. Stance drive has configured its ammunition over the potent above pedestrians, brochure printing. Thanks ;-). Lavonne from Liberia.

    Reply
  169. Hi all. Perhaps, after all, America never has been discovered. I myself would say that it had merely been detected. Help me! Need information about: Brochure printing laser san jose. I found only this – brochure ga printing. Carson’s way, and the role it attempted, are at least not good for the american woman days., and the many spiral of the efforts decent law since the decades, brochure printing. Stance drive has configured its ammunition over the potent above pedestrians, brochure printing. Thanks ;-). Lavonne from Liberia.

    Reply
  170. Hi all. Perhaps, after all, America never has been discovered. I myself would say that it had merely been detected. Help me! Need information about: Brochure printing laser san jose. I found only this – brochure ga printing. Carson’s way, and the role it attempted, are at least not good for the american woman days., and the many spiral of the efforts decent law since the decades, brochure printing. Stance drive has configured its ammunition over the potent above pedestrians, brochure printing. Thanks ;-). Lavonne from Liberia.

    Reply
  171. Hi! Kalen.It’s a fabulous post. It’s very interesting to know about the dressings of late 18th century.I like all costumes which are presented in article. The one I like most is Boots, It’s true that earlier people suppose to prefer boots only for riding, but now it has become a trend. I would like to gather much more information regarding dressing of 18th century. Thanks for the article.
    http://shoesfact.com

    Reply
  172. Hi! Kalen.It’s a fabulous post. It’s very interesting to know about the dressings of late 18th century.I like all costumes which are presented in article. The one I like most is Boots, It’s true that earlier people suppose to prefer boots only for riding, but now it has become a trend. I would like to gather much more information regarding dressing of 18th century. Thanks for the article.
    http://shoesfact.com

    Reply
  173. Hi! Kalen.It’s a fabulous post. It’s very interesting to know about the dressings of late 18th century.I like all costumes which are presented in article. The one I like most is Boots, It’s true that earlier people suppose to prefer boots only for riding, but now it has become a trend. I would like to gather much more information regarding dressing of 18th century. Thanks for the article.
    http://shoesfact.com

    Reply
  174. Hi! Kalen.It’s a fabulous post. It’s very interesting to know about the dressings of late 18th century.I like all costumes which are presented in article. The one I like most is Boots, It’s true that earlier people suppose to prefer boots only for riding, but now it has become a trend. I would like to gather much more information regarding dressing of 18th century. Thanks for the article.
    http://shoesfact.com

    Reply
  175. Hi! Kalen.It’s a fabulous post. It’s very interesting to know about the dressings of late 18th century.I like all costumes which are presented in article. The one I like most is Boots, It’s true that earlier people suppose to prefer boots only for riding, but now it has become a trend. I would like to gather much more information regarding dressing of 18th century. Thanks for the article.
    http://shoesfact.com

    Reply
  176. Great post! i like it as it describes about the 18th Century Fashion. Yes you are true, at that time they all use to wear boots only for riding. But this has become a Fashion all time. Well had a great time going through your article.

    Reply
  177. Great post! i like it as it describes about the 18th Century Fashion. Yes you are true, at that time they all use to wear boots only for riding. But this has become a Fashion all time. Well had a great time going through your article.

    Reply
  178. Great post! i like it as it describes about the 18th Century Fashion. Yes you are true, at that time they all use to wear boots only for riding. But this has become a Fashion all time. Well had a great time going through your article.

    Reply
  179. Great post! i like it as it describes about the 18th Century Fashion. Yes you are true, at that time they all use to wear boots only for riding. But this has become a Fashion all time. Well had a great time going through your article.

    Reply
  180. Great post! i like it as it describes about the 18th Century Fashion. Yes you are true, at that time they all use to wear boots only for riding. But this has become a Fashion all time. Well had a great time going through your article.

    Reply

Leave a Comment