I like to learn something new every day. Today I learned that shirts were considered underwear in the 18th century. Normally we think of underwear as something that's meant (for the most part) to be covered by outer clothes and unseen (except perhaps for the collar and cuffs), and yet so much care was put into the making of them. The ones that were shown from your collection are gorgeous, and very intricately designed all over.
My husband and I were in an art museum which had a lot of 16th to 18th century furniture. And he had basically the same thought process of "These were just everyday objects to them and now they are in a museum. Is my bowl going to be in a museum in a few hundred or a thousand years from now?"
@@HitomiMudo Nobody ever thought G-Plan furniture would considered 'classic' but the early models are worth a lot of money these days. I think the future classics will be some of the designer label furniture that's on sale now! Maybe IKEA though, you never know! 😂
Wow! Thank you so much for talking about this and uploading this gem for us to see, this is so fascinating. I love to see these functional items that have sooo much detail and craft and artistry put into them. Such high quality.
Linen is an ideal material for an undergarment because it’s breathable and acts as a gentle exfoliator. It’s easy to assume that people in the past were all filthy and smelly because they didn’t bathe the way we do, but they kept clean in their own ways. Of course there were people who practiced bad hygiene but that is still the case today
I’m guessing since the shirt will be tucked into the breeches it has to be long enough to stay in place while still being loose enough to allow free movement. Natural fabrics are only really stretchy if they’re cut on the bias but for something so basic it was probably easier (and less wasteful) to make it longer and looser instead. Knee length seems a little excessive but it was made for royalty
It's historically accurate that shifts and linens were changed once a day, if not more. And it's not that hard to find evidence of it, considering the change to modern clothing happened only about 100 years ago, if not less. So your great grandmother wore shifts under her corset and gown
@@HitomiMudo All I am asking is where is this evidence. I know that during the 1900 's, and for many years after middle class men were changing the cuffs and collars of their shirts but not the shirt which could last for a week ! and I know wealthy women changed their dresses two to three times a day but underwear ? please site your sources so that I can see for myself
The nobles and the wealthy even changed several times a day. At the court of Louis XIV in Versailles, the king, his entourage and the courtiers didn't wash with water (which was considered unhealthy) but they did a "toilette sèche", where basically they rubbed their skin with a dry cloth and some vinegar or perfume to wash away the sweat, and put on a clean shirt every time they had had a sweat, exercising or hunting or playing paume (the ancestor of tennis).
The princedom of Orange is not 'one of the principalities of Holland'. Holland doesn't have any principalities, and never has. Orange isn't even in the Netherlands, it's in France. The title Prince of Orange dates fron the time kings and nobles could, through inheritance, own land all over the place
@@BlueberryMom It was never part of the Dutch Republic. The principality of Orange belonged to the Princes of Orange and formally had no connection to the Republic whatsoever. There wasn't even a personal union, because the princes of Orange were not sovereign lords of The Netherlands (though they did own a lot of land there), but rather very powerful functionaries. When the House of Orange at last did gain souvereignty over The Netherlands, the principality of Orange had already been lost to the French.
