I've worn a variety of period clothing from the 1700 and 1800s, including petticoats and corsets, and never found them an impediment to undergarments. (Given that pockets at the time consisted of a slit in the outer garment and a pouch tied on beneath, it wouldn't have been necessary to lift the skirts to undo the undergarments.) Perhaps among the royalty we could find a garment so elaborate that underwear would be a burden, but the vast majority of women never wore such fancy things. For a woman with only one or two dresses, I imagine that keeping them clean would be important (a concern at all times of the month.) But this might require nothing more than a sort of loincloth that no one might have found worth commenting on.
The women who did wear those fancy dresses had servants who helped with dressing and undressing. It seems within the realm of possibility that one of a chamber maid's or dressing maid's functions would have been to help hold up all of that clothing to make sure none of it fell in the toilet. (I have seen floorplans, at least, for castles with "toilets" in them that resemble our modern toilets that you can sit comfortably on, with the exception that instead of flushing, there's just a big pit below that has to be mucked out from time to time.)
On the other hand, your/her argument is not unreasonable.
The women who did wear those fancy dresses had servants who helped with dressing and undressing. It seems within the realm of possibility that one of a chamber maid's or dressing maid's functions would have been to help hold up all of that clothing to make sure none of it fell in the toilet. (I have seen floorplans, at least, for castles with "toilets" in them that resemble our modern toilets that you can sit comfortably on, with the exception that instead of flushing, there's just a big pit below that has to be mucked out from time to time.)
On the other hand, your/her argument is not unreasonable.
Reply
Leave a comment