Pregnancy and period clothing

[Maeve O'Treasaigh]

So, just what did women in the GAoP do for clothing when they were pregnant? What about wearing stays? Different or easily expanding skirts? Are there any extant examples? What do any of you know about this?

BTW, this is not an announcement, although it could be. Besides, I've OFTEN wondered.

[CrazyCholeBlack]

darn it, I've had this conversation with Kass & didn't take notes!

Off the top of my head what I do know is that period clothes have built in adjustment like you wouldn't believe. I've thought it would be really neat to see the same outfit on several women, all of different sizes. It would be very possible withing an average range of sizes.

Petticoats tie around like two aprons, back around, front around. A woman could grow or shrink and the only difference would be the amount of over lap on the sides. This is great because you can almost always borrow petticoats from someone else and they can be tied to fit.

Stays would adjust to an extent too. Mostly in the width. The gap in the back can be wider or narrow depending. The length doesn't adjust, but then again, we don't get taller when we have kids either There are also variations in stays with half boning vs. full boning that allowed for softer vs. harder construction.

What I've never been able to figure out is how do you nurse in stays? Maybe something to do with untieing the shoulder. That one baffles me honestly.

Of course, the natural next topic is what did infants wear?

[Capt. Sterling]

What I've never been able to figure out is how do you nurse in stays? Maybe something to do with untieing the shoulder. That one baffles me honestly.

What about front laced stays?

and swaddling clothes for the infants?

[CrazyCholeBlack]

ahh yes, babies clothes.

http://www.sharonburnston.com/baby_linen/index.html

Front lacing stays might have worked. I'm just remembering how difficult it was to wear just a front buttoning dress while nursing then imagining that but with stiffness. *shutter* Of course, there is a lot of "flexability" when it comes to nursing too and the common woman had to do *something*.

oh oh oh! I just remembered there are at least 2 women that appear to be pregnant in Laroon's Cries of London. I'll see if I can find the images to share. IIRC they are just dressed like the other criers and the only way to tell is their protruding bellies.

[Maeve O'Treasaigh]

Wonderful link Chole! I enjoyed perusing it thoroughly. I'm anxiously awaiting the images you're looking to find. :-)

[Kathyrn Ramsey]

Chances are they would not nurse in stays. They would wear what is known as a bed jacket. ie...

http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage...7&sp=23994&sp=X

bed gown, less frequently spelled bed-gown and bedgown A woman's informal, loose-fitting, typically thigh-length garment, with sleeves and skirts cut in one with the body, side seams at the natural side, a pleat or two at center back usually held in place only at the neck, and often a V-neckline in front. Fancier versions could be worn in very informal circumstances by the higher classes (e.g., in one's boudoir), but it was primarily a garment of the lower classes, who wore it as ordinary daily clothing. Toward the end of the 18th century, the bed gown was gradually superseded by the short gown. Examples:

Sandby, Paul. no title (view of two earthenware sellers). 1760. At the Guildhall Art Gallery—search for item number 26297. The woman on the left probably wears a bed gown; it is impossible to see whether the sleeves are set in or not, but the wrinkles at the waist look much more like what you would see in a bed gown than a fitted jacket.

Sandby, Paul. no title (view of a street entertainer reading a verse aloud). 1760. At the Guildhall Art Gallery—search for item number 26304. Almost certainly a bed gown.

Printed Linen Bedgown 1760-1770. Accession number 1972.110. On the Web at the Manchester Art Gallery's Gallery of Costume.

******************************************************

A fashionable mother breastfeeding her baby. Colored ectching by James Gilray, 1786, English. This piece pokes fun at a fashionable society woman, fully dressed for an evening out. The dress has slits across the breast for breastfeeding, before dashing off to a social function. She is "fashionable" because, instead of following the earlier 18th-century practice of hiring professional "wet-nurses", she is following Jean-Jacques Rousseau's fashionable theories of a "return to nature" and is breast-feeding the baby herself. The Wellcome Library.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=htt...l%3Den%26sa%3DN

You will have to scroll down the page.

********************************************************

Hope this helps. I have other links on this subject and am starting my own bed gown as I need it for a few upcoming events.

Kathryn Ramsey

[Capt. Sterling]

http://www.johannesvermeer.info/verm/house...gerschapENG.htm

Does anything here help?

[CrazyCholeBlack]

the only problem is that 1760 & 1786 are pretty far out of period. In the 1786 image you can see that the general clothing style has moved to the higher waist, short sleeve regency gown which is completely removed from the mantua of 1690. Although there is a very natural evolution from the mantua to the jackets worn in the middle of the 18th Century, Regency is a whole different kettle of fish.

I wish we could zoom in on this more. It sure looks like the lady in the lower right is nursing but she's too small to tell for certain.

In a totally, not supported by history thought, I can't see a woman, who's worn stays all her life, going without support while nursing (remember that stage probably lasted significantly longer than it does now). Plus if women were pregnant & nursing as frequently as was believed, when would a woman have had time to wear stays at all if not during both?

I'm still working on getting the 2 pregnant women from the Cries of London up. Both are in profile and both are wearing front closed mantuas. On one (the mop seller #28) you can see pretty clearly that the front of her skirt is higher than the rest, as if she's wearing it tied over the bump.

[Cheeky Actress]

Chole,

Could you please clarify the ‘social class’ of women you are speaking of.

Am I to assume you are speaking about the comman/middle class?

Would they have cloistered away upper class woman during pregnancy? Would she have had a ‘wet nurse’?

[Kathyrn Ramsey]

"the only problem is that 1760 & 1786 are pretty far out of period. "

How is this out of period??? Piracy did not have a cut off specific as far as I can remember. There were pirates in the late 18th as well as through today.

[Salty]

by out of time period do you mean striclty GOAP?

Wish i had more insight to offer on this topic however I donae think that things have changed all that much for mothers within the 150 or so years most here seem happy to deal with. Swaddleing clothes would have most likly been as simple as could be to do the job and if anything i have read serves memory correctly linen, beg bit of time to find my resorces and they too may be earlier or later then GOAP

Thanks as always for the links Mistress Chole

Salty

[William Brand]

Maeve is asking about the Golden Age of Pyracy specifically.

[CrazyCholeBlack]

Ahh yes, sorry. Most everything I know is relegated to 1690-1720 middling and lower women. Sorry 'bout forgetting to mention that.

About children's clothes. There is an substantial reform in children's clothing in/around 1770. From what I've read the change was heavily influenced by the English publishing of Rousseau's Emile. There was also a component of reform encouraged by teachers and education theorists at the time, going against the "repressive attitudes towards children" (History of Children's Clothes Elizabeth Ewing p45) Up until that time children went from infant "sack" style clothes like in the link above, into miniature versions of adult styles. In fact its in the late 18th C - early 19th C (outside of the GAoP naturally) that we see the first garments for children that don't have any baring on adult styles of the times.

Some other good book references for Children's clothes

Clothes and the Child Ann Buck

Children's clothes Claire Rose

and the previously mentioned History of Children's Clothes Elizabeth Ewing

[CrazyCholeBlack]

ohh, just happened on this one. Crossing my fingers that my library loan system has it

Ivinski, Patricia, and Harry Payne and Kathryn Calley Galitz and Richard Rand. Farewell to the Wet Nurse: Etienne Aubry and Images of Breast-Feeding in 18th C France. Guide to the 1998 exhibit at the Clark Art Institute in Williamstown MA. ISBN 0-931102-41-3.

[Capt. Sterling]

hmmm just found this, 1728, just a bit late for GAoP but still interesting for you moms.... by Willem van Mieris

[Carlislekid]

Lass, pregnant women were mostly not seen. They stayed at home. Having a welp was not healthy, was dangerous to both mom and babe. Clothing was loose, no stays, skirts had long drawstrings, or she just stayed at home in her shift.

[Capt. Sterling]

Hmmm I'm not seeing this, especially for the working class... mind sharing your documentation?

[Salty]

much as that opinion of women is "delicate" condition stayed hidden at home....there seems to be more documentation to the opposite. for certian praytell how a middle class or low class lady hid at home for the entire nine monthes of pregnancy and if there are such documentations that every one did please do share them. from my ancestors journals the lady did not nicely hide at home. but alas i cannot share those here on the forum past what i recall reading from them.

so please both sides and me as well do come across with whatever documentation is to be had.

Salty

[kass]

Women certainly didn't stay hidden at home, particularly not working class women. This is a Victorian notion -- not a Golden Age of Piracy one -- and Hector has been wise to question it.

Stays typical of this time period were back lacing. But also remember that the extant stays tend to be those of the upper class. If we move slightly later in time -- to the 1750s -- there are extant stays that are back-lacing but have a small opening center front as well. This smaller opening is only 5-6" long -- just long enough to make access to the breast possible. I believe stays of this type are housed at Williamsburg.

To reflect an earlier time period, the stays typical on common women of this period (say 1660s) are front lacing. Not just on mothers. On most of the women we see in genre paintings -- working women. When we see their stays, they lace in front.

There's a painting by De Hooch from 1659 called "Nursing Mother" that shows a woman with her jacket open revealing half-laced red stays. Of course this is too early for the period we're discussing. And Hector's picture is too late. But if we make the leap (not always a good idea) that there was a continuum between the two, I think we have our answer.

Recently I made a set of GAoP stays for a customer but I made them front lacing since she is a nursing mother. She reported that she nurses her infant son while wearing them at events and they make it very convenient for her. So WOO HOO!!! Experimental anthropology!

[Maureen McCoy]

Thank ye all for so much information on this subject. Me sister is pregnant and wasn't sure if she could continue with her re-enacting till after the birth of the babe. This will make her happy. Thanks again.

[Salty]

Asides from debating on the appernce o pregnant women in public vs home, be it just acase o them take time effort and material making clothes fit throughout pregnacy or did they make clothes that mearly adjusted? shall keep lookin gfor my part anyways

Cheers,

Salty

[kass]

Hi Salty,

For the most part, we believe that they made clothes that adjusted. There are a few extant pregnancy gowns in museums, but they can also be laced closed and worn when not pregnant.

The frequency with which women were pregnant (or nursing) and the weight fluctuations that involves dictates that women need clothing that will adjust. And that's what we see in pictures and surviving clothing.

Kass

[Salty]

Thank ye kindly Kass,

sorta figured they worked around it that way, but has crossed me mind to ask.

Salty

[kass]

You're very welcome, Salty. This is one of those times where logic is actually backed up by the evidence.

[Capt. Sterling]

I am curious about what a lot of tour guides, for example in the Seven Gables House in Salem, refer to as that "one" dress that a woman got married in, was pregnant in, and then was buried in. I forget the term they used to call it, but they made it sound as if this one particular dress... yes one, actually went all the way from wedding to grave and was adjustable, like a later sackgown, and only worn on special occasions. If this is true how far back did such an item go? Has anyone heard about such in the GAoP?