i really think it's quite sad how many people in the historical costuming or reenactment community overlook the 17th century, especially the first half. I personally in my humble opinion love this period and find it to be one of the most interesting there are!
Check out anything Ruth Goodman has done if you haven't heard of her. She does reanactments etc... I wouldn't be surprised if these women knew each other. 😊
Oh wow this is so cool! I just watched a video from Karolina about a 1613(I think) book on how to avoid/survive the plague and it mentioned those warm, cold, wet and dry "body types". It's really cool to see how this also applied to colors!
I'm curious, since they weren't wearing drawers or anything, could the red also be to save on heavy laundering of accidents when a woman was menstruating ? That would be the layer it bled to.
Thank you for your question and staff from our historic clothing shop have answers for you! We have not yet found a primary reference linking red petticoats to menstruation. Red was believed to be a healthy color for all people regardless of gender. While women didn't wear drawers during this period, it's quite likely that they used some kind of linen rags to cope with menstruation.
Questions about the petticoat! So, I've seen them laced up the sides and the front, which do you see more prevalently? Is there a regional difference? (like the colonies vs England vs the HRE) When did we start seeing boning or reed start getting added in again? I know bodies and stays were commonly boned before and after this period, especially in upper classes, but what about working classes? Do we know much about the methods and materials used in making petticoats / bodies / kirtles or is a lot of this inference based on paintings?
We love talking about petticoats, so thank you for asking! We really don't have enough information just from images to make a concrete determination about what is more prevalent based on geography, since there are considerably fewer images from England and Virginia of working class women, although you do see quite a bit of side-lacing in Italian images. Current research suggests there isn't much evidence of boning, even reed or bents, to stiffen bodices before at least the last quarter of the 16th century. If you would like to learn more here on RUclips, you can find more information about this from The Tudor Tailor, material culture historian Sarah Bendall, and the personal RUclips channel of our host in this video, Samantha, which can be found by searching "@Samantha Bullat".
How did they work all day with straight pins in their bodice? They look like the kind seamtresses use to pin temporarily, and they are very sharp. Seems impractical. Surely they would stick the wearer!
Hi Jeffrey, thanks for the question. Yes the top half of the petticoat is a herringbone or broken twill weave. The weave of the cloth itself is not what is going to determine whether a fabric is common or upper class, but rather the fiber content of the cloth. Considerations of the period would be whether you could financially afford the cloth and how might the cloth be covered in the sumptuary laws.
@@JYFMuseums it’s so interesting how fashion changed. I do French and Indian war and about the only place I get cloth is at an event. I never seem to see a herringbone, nor much corduroy. You have your bag, was pockets as a delegate garment worn by ladies then or is that just an eighteenth century thing
@@JYFMuseums just neat to think how fashion changed so quickly over such a large area. We think about all the stuff needed in colonial America, hacking their life out of the wilderness. But for all the axes and bolts of rough cloth there were plenty of fashion dolls dresses In latest London fashion. I just discovered this channel a few weeks ago, really enjoyed it I can dress my self for the times I play in, but women’s fashion for the same time I just have the foggiest idea
No matter time and place, man is a creature of fashion and the men and women coming to Virginia in the early 17th century would be no different. When sent to Virginia a woman’s skill at blackwork embroidery was often noted. As an officer in Virginia and the younger brother of Henry Percy, 9th Earl of Northumberland, there would be the expectation that men such as George Percy would be able to maintain their status, especially in regards to their clothing. To accommodate him, the Earl purchased cloth for George’s clothing including 11 yards of Chamlette at 7 shillings 9 pence a yard, 10 yards of Philizella, and 6 yards of Perpetuano at 4 shillings a yard. From records it appears that at least 5 suits of clothing were intended to be made, with the total cost for the cloth being 12 pounds 15 shillings 9 pence. In the archaeology of History Jamestowne, 5 goffering irons have been excavated. These irons were used to press the collars and ruffs worn by English men and women at the time -- historicjamestowne.org/collections/artifacts/goffering-iron/
Hi Tara, like many many things it's difficult to say exactly when hooks and eyes actually appear but, they are contemporary to this period of time. Hooks and eyes do begin to appear in portraits/artwork in the 15th century and there are surviving 16th century examples. Check out the c 1442-1445 portrait of the Ferrara Court Jester Gonella by Jean Fouquet, to see hooks and eyes illustrated on the on the subject's clothing -- commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean_Fouquet-_Portrait_of_the_Ferrara_Court_Jester_Gonella.JPG A great book to check out is Janet Arnold's "Patterns of Fashion: The cut and construction of clothes for men and women, c1560-1620. Her book illustrates a number of garments with hooks and eyes.
Thank you foot the question. With regards to underwear, no not in the manner that we have undergarments today. Go to the 1:06 mark in the video where Samantha starts with the smock. It is the smock for women or shirts for men that is the "underwear" meant to absorb body oils, sweat, and dirt, could be regularly laundered, and used to protect the outer garments from soiled by the body.
i really think it's quite sad how many people in the historical costuming or reenactment community overlook the 17th century, especially the first half. I personally in my humble opinion love this period and find it to be one of the most interesting there are!
Great to see Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation showcase its talented staff. Looking forward to future videos.
I love history of any sort but my favorite is how things were done in everyday life....all those things not written about. This was right up my alley.
Check out anything Ruth Goodman has done if you haven't heard of her. She does reanactments etc... I wouldn't be surprised if these women knew each other. 😊
@@MyWorld-zw6oe Thanks. I will definitely check her out.
Oh wow this is so cool! I just watched a video from Karolina about a 1613(I think) book on how to avoid/survive the plague and it mentioned those warm, cold, wet and dry "body types". It's really cool to see how this also applied to colors!
She looks fantastic! She tailored those clothes perfectly to her figure, Bravo!
Samantha is such a lovely host! I enjoy her personal videos as well!
I love all these videos. Very cool info.
And props to her and the others for the awesome job they do at this!
Wonderful presentation! Makes me grateful for refined cotton.
The birds in the background are a delight to hear. 🐦
I didnt know hooks and eyes were used in Jamestown in that period i wander if they were used in England as well. Lovely presentation.
They were!
I'm curious, since they weren't wearing drawers or anything, could the red also be to save on heavy laundering of accidents when a woman was menstruating ? That would be the layer it bled to.
Thank you for your question and staff from our historic clothing shop have answers for you! We have not yet found a primary reference linking red petticoats to menstruation. Red was believed to be a healthy color for all people regardless of gender. While women didn't wear drawers during this period, it's quite likely that they used some kind of linen rags to cope with menstruation.
Ewwwww haha. Makes sense though
Omg that’s a lot of wool for summer. I’m trying to picture wearing that in a crowded church on a hot day.
I would love to know if there’s a pattern online for that kirtle.
Burnley and Trowbridge did an hour long how-to on kirtles. Definitely worth a watch
Questions about the petticoat!
So, I've seen them laced up the sides and the front, which do you see more prevalently? Is there a regional difference? (like the colonies vs England vs the HRE)
When did we start seeing boning or reed start getting added in again? I know bodies and stays were commonly boned before and after this period, especially in upper classes, but what about working classes?
Do we know much about the methods and materials used in making petticoats / bodies / kirtles or is a lot of this inference based on paintings?
We love talking about petticoats, so thank you for asking! We really don't have enough information just from images to make a concrete determination about what is more prevalent based on geography, since there are considerably fewer images from England and Virginia of working class women, although you do see quite a bit of side-lacing in Italian images.
Current research suggests there isn't much evidence of boning, even reed or bents, to stiffen bodices before at least the last quarter of the 16th century. If you would like to learn more here on RUclips, you can find more information about this from The Tudor Tailor, material culture historian Sarah Bendall, and the personal RUclips channel of our host in this video, Samantha, which can be found by searching "@Samantha Bullat".
Nice video
How did they work all day with straight pins in their bodice? They look like the kind seamtresses use to pin temporarily, and they are very sharp. Seems impractical. Surely they would stick the wearer!
A close up on the top of the petticoat looked like a herringbone weave. Is it, was this common or a wealthy weave at that time?
Hi Jeffrey, thanks for the question. Yes the top half of the petticoat is a herringbone or broken twill weave. The weave of the cloth itself is not what is going to determine whether a fabric is common or upper class, but rather the fiber content of the cloth. Considerations of the period would be whether you could financially afford the cloth and how might the cloth be covered in the sumptuary laws.
@@JYFMuseums it’s so interesting how fashion changed. I do French and Indian war and about the only place I get cloth is at an event. I never seem to see a herringbone, nor much corduroy.
You have your bag, was pockets as a delegate garment worn by ladies then or is that just an eighteenth century thing
For an English women of the 17th century they are going to carry a purse, as shown by Samantha in the video.
@@JYFMuseums just neat to think how fashion changed so quickly over such a large area.
We think about all the stuff needed in colonial America, hacking their life out of the wilderness. But for all the axes and bolts of rough cloth there were plenty of fashion dolls dresses In latest London fashion.
I just discovered this channel a few weeks ago, really enjoyed it
I can dress my self for the times I play in, but women’s fashion for the same time I just have the foggiest idea
No matter time and place, man is a creature of fashion and the men and women coming to Virginia in the early 17th century would be no different. When sent to Virginia a woman’s skill at blackwork embroidery was often noted.
As an officer in Virginia and the younger brother of Henry Percy, 9th Earl of Northumberland, there would be the expectation that men such as George Percy would be able to maintain their status, especially in regards to their clothing. To accommodate him, the Earl purchased cloth for George’s clothing including 11 yards of Chamlette at 7 shillings 9 pence a yard, 10 yards of Philizella, and 6 yards of Perpetuano at 4 shillings a yard. From records it appears that at least 5 suits of clothing were intended to be made, with the total cost for the cloth being 12 pounds 15 shillings 9 pence.
In the archaeology of History Jamestowne, 5 goffering irons have been excavated. These irons were used to press the collars and ruffs worn by English men and women at the time -- historicjamestowne.org/collections/artifacts/goffering-iron/
I have never seen a skirt (petticoat) and a bodice sawn together!!!
The original onesie. 😎
I didn't know hooks and eyes were used back then, always thought they were a modern thing
Hi Tara, like many many things it's difficult to say exactly when hooks and eyes actually appear but, they are contemporary to this period of time. Hooks and eyes do begin to appear in portraits/artwork in the 15th century and there are surviving 16th century examples.
Check out the c 1442-1445 portrait of the Ferrara Court Jester Gonella by Jean Fouquet, to see hooks and eyes illustrated on the on the subject's clothing -- commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean_Fouquet-_Portrait_of_the_Ferrara_Court_Jester_Gonella.JPG
A great book to check out is Janet Arnold's "Patterns of Fashion: The cut and construction of clothes for men and women, c1560-1620. Her book illustrates a number of garments with hooks and eyes.
She looks like a Filipino celebrity - Solenn Heussaff
Helllllllllllllllllo
Thank you for this interesting video! It provides so much insight in the way the women dressed and how practical it was 🤗. Did they have underwear 🩲?
Thank you foot the question. With regards to underwear, no not in the manner that we have undergarments today. Go to the 1:06 mark in the video where Samantha starts with the smock. It is the smock for women or shirts for men that is the "underwear" meant to absorb body oils, sweat, and dirt, could be regularly laundered, and used to protect the outer garments from soiled by the body.