Just like us, they purchased the best fabric they could afford and did the best they could to look the best they could. Keeping up with the Jones'

I just posted a comment about lower class! I can't be bothered to retype it though 😹 but you can check out my other comment instead

i often wait and watch them when im ready to strap in and be cozy

@Entraya Crosshill same

Most of them is well represented in my book, with lots of photos there:-)

I was just talking about this with my partner last night. How come we dont do that anymore? Arm warmers are sort of similar, but not quite

Actually, to my surprise- in the research I've done, they could be *quite* flamboyant, just in a different way to the wealthy- sewing was a skill practically *every* woman was taught as a child, so dressing something up with some embroidery was easy enough to do- & there were plenty of natural dyes, native to the UK; a lot of them were yellows, browns & greens- but also a rich tomato red, from madder- blues from woad (indigo was the more expensive blue dye)- even coral pink, from lady's bedstraw, or a soft pink-brown from alkanet, pink from sorrel or purple from elder. The Scots also had a heap of colours that largely came from various lichens & stuff- though Scotland was not exactly a wealthy country in comparison to England. Neither had to rely solely on expensive imports. The rich & royalty could make a statement in their clothing, but so could the ordinary folk- if they chose to.

Yes, but a well fitted bra is everything.

@@clare5one Bras don't allow as customized of a fit as the kirtle shown in the video or even a corset or pair of stays. It's all in the laces!

@@MizzKittyBichon I was referring to 20th-21st C. underwear.

True! It's so difficult to find a blouse or shirt that fits both at the waist and at the bust. If it fits at the bust it's too loose at the waist, and if the waist fits just right the bust is getting flattened

Truer words have never been spoken

It's rather amusing to see modern style "gurus" talk about accessorising and mix and matching as if it is a new thing. By having all their clothes in seperate parts - sleeves, bodices, skirts, jackets etc - the historical lady could get away with only having a few items and yet multiple outfits for most occasions, just by mix and matching the parts.

Prior to that - if I remember correctly- they just tied large baglike pockets around the waist!

before that pockets were a separate garment! Something I, for one, would like to see come back. That actually persisted as an option until the beginning of the 20th Century.

@@sophiejones7727 Yes, I know. But they're easily ripped off, just like a purse. And some people would consider them a 'vanity' item.

@@lesliekendall5668 no, they were under the skirt :) ripping one off would have been tricky, since you'd have to slip your hand inside her skirt without her noticing! Actually much more secure than a purse. It's just about as secure as a modern pocket if your seamstress knows what she's doing: but with all the convenience of a modern purse (no need to empty it in the evening or restuff it in the morning).

@@sophiejones7727 Where were they located on the skirt? And I only wear dresses. Were they available on dresses, too?

mastersadvocate yes, reed is a plant! The same plant as is used for wicker chairs, actually. The reed is flexible but sturdy. It was used as boning to give more structure to the garments.

AliceMarieM she would most likely buy them as bolts of cloth (kinda of like what you find today in fabric stores) from a textile merchant, she’d take her own measurements (with help from a maid if she could afford one), and made them herself. There were professional seamstresses out there but the many were also employed by the Toffs and could charge fee and set their own hours. if a middle-class woman planned to make a dress out of expensive fabrics such as silk, brocade, velvet or lace (yes velvet and lace were both very expensive back then) only then would a professional seamstress be hired to do the work as a normal middle class family could only afford one attempt.

I know there was a second-hand clothes industry in the 18th & 19th c, but it could have begun earlier (though I have no evidence) - yes, sewing was one of the main skills women were taught, & it was one of the professions women were omnipresent in (though it is interesting to note that *'professional'* embroiderers, ie. employed by the Queen, were *men* ) - employing a specific seamstress would be unlikely, unless you were at the higher end of the middle class. There were 'mantua-makers', seamstresses, glovers, hatters, tailors & cobblers; these were the professions that related to the making of clothes, shoes & outerwear Buying clothes 'off the rack' didn't yet exist- that came in in the 19th c.

What? They didn't go to Ye Olde Mark & Spencers?

:)

Deborah Rochefort I am in complete agreement

"I've been looked forward to this. I love these videos and I always enjoy them" ~

well, 3 , but yes