Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Undergarments

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • YankeeSergeant
    replied
    Underpinings

    If we remember the times underpinings which include a lrge variety of undergaments including petticoats etc were not discussed but women's pantaloons(?) were crotchless to accomodate the necessary daily biological functions. I don't know if this held into the 1880s but it was true in the 1850-60s and I have to believe until a better fashion system came along other than teh multiple layers that that was the case.

    Leave a comment:


  • smezenen
    replied
    Originally posted by Gman992 View Post
    Well, that's just because they didn't have Victoria's Secret or Frederick's back then....
    I'm sure Queen Victoria knew many secrets, and as for Frederick's (Abberline)I dont believe it would have been proper for him to deal in lacy underthings.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gman992
    replied
    Well, that's just because they didn't have Victoria's Secret or Frederick's back then....

    Leave a comment:


  • Hunter
    replied
    Hi Phil,

    The reason for my reference to the fire can be found in Abberline's testimony at the Kelly inquest-

    "There were traces of a large fire having been kept up in the grate, so much so that it had melted the spout of a kettle off. We have since gone through the ashes in the fireplace; there were remnants of clothing, a portion of a brim of a hat, and a skirt, and it appeared as if a large quantity of women's clothing had been burnt. "

    Dr. Phillips also stated that Mary was wearing linen undergarments.

    If you look at the 2nd Kelly death scene photo you may see what appears to be a hand held mirror on the table underneath the flesh.

    Abberline did make an inventory of what was in the room. I remember a candle, but I don't have his full report at hand at the moment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Hello cappucina,

    Yes indeed. one must take these things into account. However Eddowes was laden with materials, and as regards Kelly, for her to have a home, a dry home, there are things in that room that SHOULD be there. Everyday household and personal things.
    A small lump of soap?
    A brush/comb?
    A piece of string
    A piece of cotton
    A needle
    A slither of mirror?
    A bedsheet? (apart from the one on it)
    The only stockings she wore were her own, like many other of her garments, no replacements.

    She owed 6 weeks rent. Around Oct 1st infact. Barnett was living with her until when? And she had a visitor staying in that room, and that bed, often. Another female. It makes me wonder.

    best wishes

    Phil

    Leave a comment:


  • cappuccina
    replied
    Remember, their nutrition was so poor, that it is quite probable that they had no regular cycles, or any at all...

    Leave a comment:


  • tji
    replied
    Hi Phil



    The problem of the Thames, the smell and the sewers, came to a head in the 1860's I believe.



    Thanks for that - I was only a couple of decades out, my history teacher would have been so proud!!

    Tj

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Hunter, Looby,

    An excellent comment from you both. Thank you.
    The only question in your entire posting I will question is the presumption of what we do not know as fact... what was burnt on the fire. It becomes a negative supposition.
    However, your other comments are excellent, and worthy of consideration.

    best wishes

    Phil

    Leave a comment:


  • Hunter
    replied
    Looks like Looby answered most of the question well enough. Got my post in late.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hunter
    replied
    Hello Phil,

    In Kelly's case, we don't know what was burned in the fire. As far as clothes, the women wore all that they had. They dressed in layers and took everything with them because they didn't know where they might call home on a given night.
    Now, Kelly did have a room and should have had more clothes, including undergarments, but, again, we don't know what was burned in the fire.
    I'm only able to go by what I've learned about 19th century American practices, but women that were on their "period" cut rags and pinned them to a linen belt or the botton of their stays. You will notice that all of the victims killed outdoors were carring rags- hence the term " on the rag". These rags were probably used to "clean up" after a business session as well.
    Though some may have only been part time prostitutes, they were likely pursuing that trade on the nights they were killed and couldn't be hampered with a garment that had to be pulled down to the ankles. I know it seems surreal to us now, but their's was a different world. Many of these people had lice. Even a scratch could turn septic because of the bacteria that was always present.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phil Carter
    replied
    Hello tji,

    The problem of the Thames, the smell and the sewers, came to a head in the 1860's I believe.

    best wishes

    Phil

    Leave a comment:


  • looby64
    replied
    Hi, found this on wapedia - Wiki. This is part of the article.

    Until the birth of disposable pads, women used a variety of sewn or makeshift pads made from a variety of fabrics, often leftover scraps, to collect menstrual blood, although some women have used anything absorbent, including grass to collect menstrual blood. [2] Fabrics could generally be washed and used again. Some women, mostly ones living in rural areas or from a low socio-economic status, did not use anything to collect menstrual blood. [7] It was believed that they left a trail of blood behind them. When disposable pads were introduced, they were too expensive for many women to afford.

    GRASS!
    Hard to imagine how people used to live and this is the norm to them.
    Lucky its not like that now!

    The cost of living in 1888. Doesn't show undergarments but gives us an idea.
    Clothing
    Item /S/d
    1 overcoat 1/15/0
    1 umbrella -/7/6
    1 hat -/2/6
    1 silk hat -/7/6
    1 week-day suit 2/0/0
    1 Sunday suit 2/10/0
    1 pair socks -/1-/10
    1 pair boots -/10/6
    repairing boots -/6/0
    1 under vest -/2/6
    1 flannel shirt -/3/0
    1 collar -/-/5
    1 pair cuffs -/-/8
    cutton, buttons -/0/1


    x Looby
    Last edited by looby64; 01-24-2010, 10:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • tji
    replied
    Hi all

    If I remember rightly isn't this when the members of Parliment took to soaking the curtains in chlorine as the smell of the Thames was so bad, with all teh raw sewage flowing directly into it?

    Tj

    Leave a comment:


  • Mike Covell
    replied
    Originally posted by corey123 View Post
    p.s You are right, they would have stank to heaven. whew! How did the Ripper do it?
    You and I might think they smell by todays standards, but back then the odour could have been considered the norm for such a social class.

    Leave a comment:


  • corey123
    replied
    Phil,

    I know this isn't likely but what if the Ripper took the undergarments?

    Just a thought.

    p.s You are right, they would have stank to heaven. whew! How did the Ripper do it?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X