Print Page | Close Window

Underpants (a.k.a Drawers)

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the Americas
Forum Discription: The Americas: History from pre-Colombian times to the present
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=37284
Printed Date: 19-Jan-2022 at 21:43
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Underpants (a.k.a Drawers)
Posted By: EverythingBefore1812
Subject: Underpants (a.k.a Drawers)
Date Posted: 09-Apr-2017 at 18:27
I had a reenactor from the 1750s North America dressed as a British soldier tell me he wasn't wearing any underpants. I have bumped into a number of "British" North American reenactors who tell me the Brits didn't wear any underpants. But they say it as "People didn't ware them back then." 

I know this is a half-truth (I research probate inventories. I never see women of British heritage with underpants in their inventories. Sometimes, men do. But not often and it is one pair. )  However, as much as I really want to say, "Not everyone who immigrated to America went commando during the colonial era", it would turn into an back and forth. And in the end, I sort of think they like it this way. 

Silly topic but ... does anyone know why British people didn't ware underpants until the Regency era? My hypnosis is that it 1) they lined their breeches for men, 2) women in under breeches offended men 3) they were erroneously associated with prostitutes who wore knee length silk breeches (they have a button closure) as opposed to the linen drawstring ones I find in inventories. 

Any thoughts? 



-------------
From the Neolithic to the 1820s; Textiles, Weaving, Clothing Styles, Ceramics, Economics, Small Business, Trades, Artisans, Child development, and more.



Replies:
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2017 at 16:05
Were codpieces classed as underwear?


Posted By: Arthur-Robin
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2017 at 02:03
I remember reading that the Roman soldiers in (North) Britain were the first to wear "underpants".
So is the question why they stopped between Roman times and Regency?
And/or is it esp Brits in America(s)? (Like, climate maybe?)
(Robin Hood merry men often depicted/described in tights / stockings / leggings / long-johns / breeches?)
Expensive?

(Of course the modern western world socio-economic regime is a totally Unnatural tyranny & oligarchy (&  ochlocracy), so us moderns are not so adapted to natural climate etc extremities (so we are not inferior/unfit, because its massively forced on us (eg fluoridated water)).)



-------------
NZ's mandatory fluoridation is not fair because it only forces it on the disadvantaged/some and not on the advantaged/everyone.


Posted By: red clay
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2017 at 13:42
My grandmother was Scottish. I once asked her what the men wore under the Kilt, and she just started laughing.

-------------
"Arguing with someone who hates you or your ideas, is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter what move you make, your opponent will walk all over the board and scramble the pieces".
Unknown.


Posted By: EverythingBefore1812
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2017 at 22:43
Originally posted by Arthur-Robin

I remember reading that the Roman soldiers in (North) Britain were the first to wear "underpants".
So is the question why they stopped between Roman times and Regency?
And/or is it esp Brits in America(s)? (Like, climate maybe?)
(Robin Hood merry men often depicted/described in tights / stockings / leggings / long-johns / breeches?)
Expensive?


I didn't know the Brits wore them in Roman times. I know the Romans, and later Renaissance Italians did wear them and continued to do so through to modern times. So, yeah, why did the Brits stop waring them between Roman and Regency? But especially in the 17th and 18th century when breeches were worn. 

It does seem like the Scots are the last holdouts. 

In Italy it was the Catholic nuns. But even they went with it once they realized they could just share or have communal underpants. (They took a vow of poverty, in the 16th century "only the most destitute" were without the most basic of garments... underpants. Communal underpants got around the vow of poverty.) 


-------------
From the Neolithic to the 1820s; Textiles, Weaving, Clothing Styles, Ceramics, Economics, Small Business, Trades, Artisans, Child development, and more.


Posted By: EverythingBefore1812
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2017 at 22:58
Originally posted by .Sidney

Were codpieces classed as underwear?

No, not technically. So, drawers, underpants, and "underwear bottoms" are always worn as a first layer "under" an out-ter garment. 

So, Italian people had a briefs they wore under their one-peace tights. These were the cheapest form of underwear bottoms for them in the middle ages. They were not made as a "pair" but made from one piece of fabric. Both men and women wore them. There are other kinds, but the brief was the most common and basic. 




-------------
From the Neolithic to the 1820s; Textiles, Weaving, Clothing Styles, Ceramics, Economics, Small Business, Trades, Artisans, Child development, and more.



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com