Lizzie Borden Society Forum

these links all deal with clothing, especially proper mourning attire:

http://www.victoriana.com/library/harpers/funeral.html

http://www.geocities.com/victorianlace11/mourning.html

http://www.msu.edu/user/beltranm/mourning/mourning.htm

http://www.chicagohs.org/AOTM/oct98/oct98fact2.html

http://www.tudorlinks.com/treasury/articles/#Victorian

Some people today, especially women, view Victorian mourning customs as sexist because ladies who lost their husbands were expected to dress in black from head to toe while men who lost their wives only wore black armbands. But there was a valid reason for the discrepancy. The Bible teaches us to care for “widows and orphans.” It was on this Biblical instruction that women’s mourning customs were based, and it was for the widow’s protection. For example, if a woman owed a debt or entered a store to purchase goods, her black clothing announced to the world she was a widow and shopkeepers and other merchants were expected to be lenient if bills were paid late or if the lady did not have quite enough money to pay for her groceries. This is not to say everyone granted special privileges to widows, but in Victorian society, they were expected to do so.

Of course, fancy mourning attire could be expensive and women who did not have the money to purchase such clothing often borrowed black dresses and hats from friends and relatives or dyed some of their own clothes black.

wow! thanks for the info..... that is so interesting.

Hi Sarah!

I went to my local Historical Society display on funeral & mourning customs. I saw their little clothes (those ladies were little) and their hair jewelry. And heard about the ice under the undertaker board. The jewelry was the most interesting part.

I have a friend who sews Victorian clothing and she recently crafted a pair of bloomers for my girlfriend. They are lovely little be-ribboned things-with the backside open for ease of...relieving oneself. I was surprised, though it makes perfect sense. (but for releiving onself how? I will spare you the really off-color jokes we shared over this little feature in the bloomies)
Kash

I have a pair of those Victorian bloomers, and they're really breezy to wear. When going out in public, I wear something underneath, just in case I get hit by a bus. (I've always wondered why I should be concerned about my attire if hit by a bus. Lying there broken and bleeding, why would I care about the state of my underwear?)

Because your mother taught you right?

I remember a resurgence of The Bloomer craze in the early 1960's. Did anyone else wear 1960's boomers?

I recall something called "petti-pants" that were designed to replace both panties and a half-slip. They were about the same length as bloomers but not as baggy. Nor did they have an open crotch. I have a couple of pairs of those that I've used with Victorian dress prior to finding some more authentic bloomers/drawers.
When I was in high school (1940s), wearing multiple starched petticoats came back into style. I recall starching them and then ironing for hours before going out on a date. I would climb into my date's car, sit just so and spread my petticoats and full skirt out around me, so that they wouldn't get wrinkled. It was as if to say, "Don't you dare put a dent in my attire!" Skirts in those days were about mid-calf length or slightly longer -- not floor-length as in Lizzie's day. What a dumb fashion that was! I think it came about because of the WWII fabric shortages. When we were finally able to get decent materials, we all went hog-wild with them. That was the era of the Dior "new look," which was actually a pretty old look.

I wrote "boomers" meaning Bloomers- but you got my point, thanks! Yes you've described those petti-pants exactly!
My mother sewed "tent" dresses for me and my girlfriend with bloomers underneath and a triangular head scarf, so that we matched.
That was right after parochial school days where we always wore shorts under our uniforms so we could confidently play on the schoolyard equiptment at recess.
We went from those shorts to petti-pants in public school, California, c. 1962.

Ah, nostalgia. I remember a fashion that combined shorts and a skirt (or a jumper) for girls. This was in the 1960s also, and I thought, "What a wonderfully practical outfit. It looks dressy enough for school and yet has the shorts for modesty." I then spent my daughter's entire clothing budget on several of those outfits. A couple of days after she started school, she brought home a pronouncement that "skorts" were not allowed at school! Now they tell me! I think she had already worn the ones I had bought, so no returning them to the store. As I recall, I solved the problem by cutting the shorts off and simply having her wear the outfits as regular skirts, which were extremely short. Of course that wasn't nearly as modest. What idiocy! There I was, an impoverished single mother, trying to cope with wardrobes for three kids, and the school drops a bomb on me. When I think of what kids get away with these days...

If I put on a black dress do you think they'll turn my cable back on?