Pregnancy and period clothing

[kass]

I haven't heard of such a thing. But I haven't heard of everything, of course!

It seems unlikely to me that any dress a woman had from the day she got married wouldn't last until the day she died unless she either had an unfortunately short life or she rarely wore this dress. A dress worn often would take a lot of abuse. And even a dress worn occasionally can hardly be expected to last 50 years.

That being said, what I think is unlikely is irrelevant if there is evidence that these kinds of things existed.

Is it possible, Hector, that the guide in Salem meant that a woman could go through all the stages of her life -- skinny bride, pregnant woman, rotund older woman, skinny widow -- in one dress because it adjusted to accommodate her changing size, but not that women had only one dress? You see the distinction I'm making?

[Capt. Sterling]

Thanks Kass, yes I hear what you are saying... just surprising how they rely on this "garment" in a lot of the house tours... Gables even claims that one of the portraits is of the dress... They make it sound so common, but the only place I have ever heard of it is in that town.. so that I figured if anyone had heard of it, you would.... I think I will call them on it next time just to see where they got their info from...

[kass]

Cool! I'd be interested to hear the results of that confrontation!

I have found that historic tours often get something into their repetoire and it is very difficult to remove it because so much is based on it. Every historic site I've ever worked for or volunteered at had their own little mistakes that they couldn't discard because it'd become part of their identity. I've even had a site or two tell me, "We can't take that out because people expect it." Nevermind that it's a myth invented in the 19th century...

[Capt. Sterling]

Will do!

[Salty]

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!

Ach well for those of the lower social status....are any of the lower class open front stay patterns avalible or any lower class garb at all....after all not everyone can be the upper crusts of society.

I am asking this here because i wanted the correct frame of posing the questions

if there be another thread that answeres these questions I do beg pardon

Salty