Re: Underwear? Underwhere?

Posted by Druncle Mark on March 12, 2000 at 14:47:33:

In Reply to: Underwear? Underwhere? posted by Doc M on March 12, 2000 at 14:17:14:

:Well, Doc M....everything we have read, etc., research (which takes in
lots and lots of well known researchers of 18th century) has shown that underwear did not become the
vogue until mid 1800s right before the Civil War.....the term underwear was known, but in 18th century it
meant a man's long shirt and in women the chemise or shift....Davey Gunn, my true brother (we have the
same mother) was correct in stating that the long shirt was long because it served as a covering for the front
and back of men. Scotsmen would carry a bodkin or pin which when taking off the kilt they could pin the
front and back of their shirt together so it wouldn't fly up.....this long shirt was called underwear and no self
respecting man would ever be caught without a waistcoat (small clothes) or his "underwear" (longshirt)
would show.....there are always fads and at times there may have been some short pants type things worn
under the breeches (but I doubt it), but NEVER under the kilt. To this day, the Highlanders in the British
army pride themselves in being "regimental" or "true" under their kilts. As for DDL in LOTM, if he is
wearing a breech clout, there is NO way that anything can be worn under a clout..I know, I've worn one for
years at Rendezvous, hunting, and reenactments.
As for your reference, History of Underclothes, I also hate to be difficult, but I would question this reference, except, as I said, in certain fads that may have cropped up. Nothing I have ever read has mentioned underwear during this time period..
I've seen a lot of vintage clothing displays, none ever showing little boxer type drawers of linen or silk....and a pants type garment with a stirrup....think about it....that would show down the leg underneath the hose that was worn with knee breeches. No way could a garment with stirrups have been worn with knee breeches....Maybe this is Chinese under clothing or something.
.. Pax Aye!!

Dr. Mark H.

Follow Ups:

• Re: Underwear? Underwhere? From One Who Knows Knows These Things 21:39:44 3/13/2000 (0)
• Re: Underwear? Underwhere? davey gunn 16:45:25 3/12/2000 (0)

Post a Followup

Name    : 
E-Mail  : 
Subject : 

Comments:
: :Well, Doc M....everything we have read, etc., research (which takes in 
: lots and lots of well known researchers of 18th century) has shown that underwear did not become the 
: vogue until mid 1800s right before the Civil War.....the term underwear was known, but in 18th century it 
: meant a man's long shirt and in women the chemise or shift....Davey Gunn, my true brother (we have the 
: same mother) was correct in stating that the long shirt was long because it served as a covering for the front 
: and back of men.  Scotsmen would carry a bodkin or pin which when taking off the kilt they could pin the 
: front and back of their shirt together so it wouldn't fly up.....this long shirt was called underwear and no self 
: respecting man would ever be caught without a waistcoat (small clothes) or his "underwear" (longshirt)  
: would show.....there are always fads and at times there may have been some short pants type things worn 
: under the breeches (but I doubt it), but NEVER under the kilt.  To this day, the Highlanders in the British 
: army pride themselves in being "regimental" or "true" under their kilts.  As for DDL in LOTM, if he is 
: wearing a breech clout, there is NO way that anything can be worn under a clout..I know, I've worn one for 
: years at Rendezvous, hunting, and reenactments.  
: As for your reference, History of Underclothes, I also hate to be difficult, but I would question this reference, except, as I said, in certain fads that may have cropped up.  Nothing I have ever read has mentioned underwear during this time period..
: I've seen a lot of vintage clothing displays, none ever showing little boxer type drawers of linen or silk....and a pants type garment with a stirrup....think about it....that would show down the leg underneath the hose that was worn with knee breeches.  No way could a garment with stirrups have been worn with knee breeches....Maybe this is Chinese under clothing or something.
: ..  Pax Aye!!

: Dr. Mark H.


Optional Link URL:  
Link Title:         
Optional Image URL: