Queen Vic's bloomers!

[liz (di-va)]

I know I can't be the only one who saw these photos (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Queen-Victoria-Bloomers/ss/events/lf/090809bloomers) today:

[Sugar]

I don't understand how they fit since the crotch up to the waist has no length to it...

:confused:

[liz (di-va)]

I don't understand how they fit since the crotch up to the waist has no length to it...
I was wondering that too...I think they might have been split? to do her business? Not quite sure.

(or) maybe she had a penchant for low-rise bloomers :). Like...super low-rise

[Leonard]

Bloomers fit for a queen-sized queen!

[ssflbelle]

Where in the world would her belly go. There is no way that crotch and waist go together to fit over a belly. I think this might be a scam.

[intraultra]

I was wondering that too...I think they might have been split? to do her business? Not quite sure.


I believe this is correct. It says they were also known as "split drawers."

[Keb]

I believe this is correct. It says they were also known as "split drawers."

Yup, bloomers had been worn split up the middle for a long time. It's actually why words like "pants" are plural, even though we talk about one garment with them. Each leg portion is a pant leg, so together, they're pants.

The point was more to cover the legs, for both warmth and modesty, than to cover the rear. Medieval mens' pants followed the same pattern, introducing a codpiece to cover up the bits in the middle.

I know way too much about historical fashions.

[liz (di-va)]

Cool--thanks for info, Keb.

This article (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090908/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_victoria_s_bloomers_3) tells a little more about the acquisition. 56" waist! Go go! I think modern representations of her downplay her size, given that stat...

(Some part of me still finds it a little shocking to see her undies held up for all the world to see like that! When not too long ago you couldn't depict royalty on stage, even. But still--fascinating. And there's something way cool in a big-girl way about her.)

[wrench13]

Victoria Regina was a short fat little woman, who ruled England with an iron fist, stood up to the powers of the Continent and kicked thier asses, and was adored and venerated by her subjects. Tell me big women are not movers and shakers.

[1300 Class]

who ruled England with an iron fist, stood up to the powers of the Continent and kicked thier asses,
Thats historically inaccurate.http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/364/jaby2.gif

[Dr. Feelgood]

Victoria Regina was a short fat little woman, who ruled England with an iron fist, stood up to the powers of the Continent and kicked thier asses, and was adored and venerated by her subjects. Tell me big women are not movers and shakers.

Thats historically inaccurate.http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/364/jaby2.gif

To be more historically accurate, she married her daughters to the powers of the continent and gave 'em hemophilia.:(

[butch]

I'm guessing the girdles most women wore back then must have distorted her figure as well, so even the images of her while she was alive don't look to me like a woman with a 56' waist. Interesting stuff for sure, but by now I'm used to both real people and characters from novels losing weight when they show up in a film or on TV, and of course someone like Queen Victoria would never in this day and age be depicted as fat, since it seems to be the #1 moral failing in Western societies now. :(

[Weeze]

WHERE IS TANIA!?

She's queen of dress up!

[liz (di-va)]

Sort of begs the question of whether or not Prince A. was an FA, I guess? Probably has been discussed before?

There was an English king who was an FA, right? The one who liked to weigh people after they ate or something...

[crayola box]

According to one article online, when she was married the rhyme circulating about Albert was : He comes to take, for better or for worse, England's fat Queen and England's fatter purse' and according to Wikipedia (not the most credible source I know, but FWIW...) Oscar Wilde said: She's so fat that the crotch on her caftan is tight". Basically I guess it was no secret to anyone that she was fat despite the way she may have been portrayed in images and how tight her girdle or corset might have been tied.

ETA: after reading the entire article I realized it wasn't wikipedia but rather "uncyclopedia" which i guess is aiming to be humorous and offensive at the same time- anyway the Oscar Wilde quotation is clearly a fake though apparently I am so clueless today as to not completely realize until the paragraph about her walking down the street holding onto her husbands penis...somehow the first paragraph about her being computer illiterate at birth wasn't enough (insert head smacking smiley face here)

[rainyday]

Yes, they are split bloomers. Here's a picture that shows this type of garment with the split a little more clear.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b358/brullygirl/Links/miscellaneous/splitbloomers.jpg

[StarWitness]

Somewhere in Dimsland, a steampunk FA has fapped himself into dehydration.

[Sugar]

I'm suddenly thankful for my LB cotton panties...

[liz (di-va)]

Somewhere in Dimsland, a steampunk FA has fapped himself into dehydration.
bwah! :)

RE: Depictions. I agree, Butch; I don't feel like I've really seen images of her that show her size as it really must have been. I am kind of a sucker for Mrs. Brown...want to see Young Victoria when it comes out here: it is interesting to think, though, about what it would mean to show her size somewhat as it really was. If her size would be perceived/portrayed as part of part of her far-off/foreign/quaint/Other quality, or if it would have a modern feel (intentionally or no). Or what.

[liz (di-va)]

dupe post !

[frankman]

I'm guessing the girdles most women wore back then must have distorted her figure as well, so even the images of her while she was alive don't look to me like a woman with a 56' waist. Interesting stuff for sure, but by now I'm used to both real people and characters from novels losing weight when they show up in a film or on TV, and of course someone like Queen Victoria would never in this day and age be depicted as fat, since it seems to be the #1 moral failing in Western societies now. :(

Just to throw this in: Victoria = moral failing. That woman single-handedly distorted Europe's views sexuality and taught men how not to show their feelings until the emotions alone lumped up in the pits of their stomach and caused ulcers.
Politically, he might have been a stabilizing factor, but the English people never fucked the same after her reign.

EDIT: in hindsight, single-handedly is perhaps somewhat of an exaggeration, but I still blame her.

[1300 Class]

Even the sight of a naked piano leg was to titilating for the victorian gent.http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9208/joenods8fpyw6.gif

[frankman]

Even the sight of a naked piano leg was to titilating for the victorian gent.http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/9208/joenods8fpyw6.gif

Well, if you put it like that it almost seems kind of okay-ish...
:)

[1300 Class]

Just to throw this in: Victoria = moral failing. That woman single-handedly distorted Europe's views sexuality and taught men how not to show their feelings until the emotions alone lumped up in the pits of their stomach and caused ulcers.
Sounds like a load of balderdash.

So what if people show a bit of reserve?

Politically, he might have been a stabilizing factor, but the English people never fucked the same after her reign.
People don't "fuck". People make love or have sex with one another. Dogs 'fuck' one another.

[frankman]

People don't "fuck". People make love or have sex with one another. Dogs 'fuck' one another.

There are days that making love is fine. There are also days that I'd rather fuck. Both of them fall into the category "having sex" or copulation, yet the emotional intensity is diferent. And yes, it's the fucking that suffered from the Victorian age.

[fatgirlflyin]

People don't "fuck". People make love or have sex with one another.

The lucky ones do.

[Dr. Feelgood]

Blaming Victoria for upper-class manners during her reign makes no more sense than blaming Richard Nixon for disco. Victorian prudishness was a reaction to the moral degeneracy of the Regency period, just as Edwardian high jinks were a reaction to Victorian prudishness. If there was a prude at the palace it was Albert von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha ... and he brought us, among other things, the Christmas tree.:)

[liz (di-va)]

...makes no more sense than blaming Richard Nixon for disco.
This...cracked me up. :)

[Tania]

Sorry I missed this, guys.

It's already been covered, but yes...the drawers are split to make doin' yer bidness easy - you don't have to take off your corset or bodice to yank anything down. The two halves of the crotch would overlap to keep your junk covered.

I've posted pics of me in my 1876 combination and corset previously; the combination features drawers + upper portion of chemise in one connected garment, but the crotch split is the same.

The 1860s drawers in the photo below are similar to the queen's.

http://www.strangegirl.com/gallery/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=362&g2_serialNumber=2

[Tania]

Blaming Victoria for upper-class manners during her reign makes no more sense than blaming Richard Nixon for disco. Victorian prudishness was a reaction to the moral degeneracy of the Regency period, just as Edwardian high jinks were a reaction to Victorian prudishness. If there was a prude at the palace it was Albert von Saxe-Coburg-Gotha ... and he brought us, among other things, the Christmas tree.:)

And the Balmoral Boot and the World's Fair.

PS - Blame the Prince Regent (everyone else did), not the entire upper class. Oh, and Lord Byron doesn't count. :P