Copyright (c) Jane Austen’s World. A fine mist and cool air will greet my dog and me on our morning walk. I intend to put on a thick short coat and scarf, and faux fur lined boots. How would my Regency counterpart have dressed in November, 1810, precisely 200 years ago?
More elegantly, I decided. While I putter on my computer in my jammies and robe, and sip coffee upon first rising, my Regency counterpart would have sipped hot chocolate from a delicate china cup and written letters, read from a book, or practiced on the pianoforte, as Jane Austen was wont to do in the early morning.
The maid would have started a fire in the morning room, but the house overall would have felt much cooler than it did even a month ago. A Rumford stove, which was becoming quite popular, would have retained more heat, but as you can see, our Regency miss is swathed in a cap, long sleeved dress, and a high-necked chemisette. She wears gloves, stockings, and thin slippers. Layered as she is (for she probably wore a corseted petticoat underneath her ensemble and perhaps even a chemise), she would have felt comfortably warm. Had she still felt cold, she could opt to throw a thick shawl around her shoulders and a small throw over her lap.
Morning dress, or undress, were dresses worn by ladies who expected to be seen only by close members of the family or guests in the home. They were never meant to be seen by visitors. Undress outfits, especially in more modest households where women worked alongside their servants, preparing vegetables or overseeing household duties, gardening and the like, were covered by aprons and pinafores.
In this image from Sense and Sensibility 1996, Elinor and Mrs. Dashwood are shown wearing undress. As soon as Edward Ferrars nears the house, the women tidy themselves, taking off their aprons, and making sure they look neat and presentable. They would not have had time to change into nicer outfits, nor would they have likely had many choices of dress to choose from.
Some Regency ladies who stayed at home all day would remain in a state of undress until dinner, when they changed into a gown suitable for the dinner table. Others would change their outfit much sooner, when they were ready to leave the house or if they had arranged to receive visitors. After I finish writing this post, I shall put on my half-dress, replacing my morning robe with a walking outfit consisting of a hooded sweatshirt, long-sleeved t-shirt, jeans a short coat and a scarf. I’ll exchange these outdoor exercise clothes with a more formal office look for work, which means that I will have worn three outfits by nine a.m.
My Regency counterpart would also change her outfit. A lady of fashion would look vastly more elegant in her walking outfit with its little fur tippet artfully arranged over a long-sleeved spencer jacket than me in my walking suit. If she was married or a spinster, she would place her jaunty hat with its soft capote crown over a cap, whose lace trim would peep out from beneath the hat’s brim. Sturdier leather slippers, leather gloves, a reticule and umbrella or parasol would complete the ensemble.
A middle class lady would look less modish than the idealized women depicted in Ackermann’s Repository, which was the Vogue magazine of its day. She would have fewer clothes to choose from, and most likely possessed only one walking outfit instead of a variety, and certainly not in the first stare of fashion.
Whatever her social background, our Regency lady was now ready to meet the world and visit friends, go shopping, or generally run errands outside of the house. The walking outfit in the Ackermann plate provided sufficient layers for a lady to stay warm during her walks and errands. Should the November day turn particularly windy and wet, she would most likely trade the tiny fur tippet for a more substantial shawl or cloak. The middle class Regency lady might trade her shawl for her only cloak, which she would keep for years until its usefulness was outworn.
More on the topic:
Jane Austen's World 
That’s really interesting.=) I didn’t realise those gowns they wore were quite warm.=) But they don’t seem to get out of the house much either. How terrible. About the chocolate, wasn’t it rather expensive back in those days? I vaguely remember them mentioning that in Lost in austen.
Actually, its terribly hot out here in November on the other side of the world, so yeah.=D Let’s wait June, and I”ll snuggle up and read this post again.=)
Yes, chocolate was quite expensive, but so was tea! Water needed to be boiled in some fashion before it was safe for drinking. It was not uncommon for people to drink watered down home made ale for breakfast over plain water or the more expensive beverages of tea, chocolate, and coffee.
Interesting post but I can’t help but feel no matter what these ladies wore, they would have been really cold! Guess I’m basing this on all the available comforts to us in this day and age.
Susan, I thought the same thing until my ex and I visited New Zealand in the winter for 6 weeks. The house we rented did not have central heating, only a gas unit in the livingroom/kitchen/diningroom space. It is amazing how quickly one gets used to 55 degree temperatures inside the house, which is what it would be in the dead of night or upon first entering the house after a long absence. Of course, I wore flannel and wool, and layered my outfits, but after a while, 55 degrees became the norm.
It took me a long while to reacclimate to the heated houses in the US. In fact, I still maintain a cool house in the winter until guests arrive.
A corset does an excellent job keeping the core warm. At the recent JASNA AGM we were lodged in a different building than the main hotel, so I had to walk outdoors in my ball gown, and didn’t feel the cold at all.
Thanks for the post – it is lovely to have more details about these things – one gets sick of reading the same generalizations all the time.
Incidentally, I’m from New Zealand and live in Australia, and have found when visiting Europe that we have a different attitude to changing outside temperatures than the Northern hemisphere. On going ice skating with some German friends (indoor in spring) we found that they wrapped up very warmly, gloves, thick jackets etc., while us antipodean types have the attitude of simply dealing with the cold – wearing t-shirts and jeans, perhaps a thin jumper, nothing warmer.
And muslin gowns require so many under layers to keep from being completely transparent that I never freeze in costume!
It was such a pleasure to read your post! Thank you!
This was really interesting and informative. This posting clarified well what is meant by “morning dress”, something I’ve been wondering about. Basically it’s Regency for PJ’s!!
Still, I keep wondering – chemises and petticoats included – with no underwear and no woollens – the ladies must have felt cold, especially in the colder season.
Very good Vic. I enjoyed this post.
So, jeans and T shirts are out then?
Tony
Excellent, as usual. This reminds me of when I went on a cruise and had to dress for dinner. Of course, before the cruise, I had to go shopping for all these outfits that I would hardly ever wear, and that made me cranky. But I have to admit that I love looking at other people who are all dolled up.
This was a most enjoyable post! I love the history of fashion, and I always wondered what the ladies of the Regency era would wear during the winter months their dresses all look so thin and springy. Thanks for posting!
Hi All, I will be posting about fashions more frequently, since that was the number one request from visitors. Thank you all for stopping by and giving me your input.
Frankly, I too think that muslin is too thin a fabric for fall and winter. Stay tuned for more information about winter Regency fashions!
Regarding one of the comments above:
Although the chemise and corset etc. were the upper support *no bra* as such they had underwear…or at least we had some dated 1820 in the Museum I worked in! A little later than 1810 but Vic wasn’t it the same pretty much? Its was a kind of bloomers !
Marilyn, Thank you for the clarification. I have created a post that addresses your question regarding drawers. Click here to see it.
I have read that the chemise or shift, usually homemade, was worn two ways, under or over a petticoat. Usually, the chemise and drawers would sit next to the skin.
The chemise tended to be much shorter than the dress, was serviceable and washable and had a plain hem. Its main function was to protect the outer dress dress from the skin. A woman would own several chemises, which were washed more often because the material could withstand the harsh treatment of pounding with lye soap during laundering. A lady could opt to wear a chemise only. Over it would go a short corset that reflected the shortened bodice of the empire gown.
Ladies could also wear the corseted petticoat, which was longer than a chemise, and whose frilled hem sometimes peeped out under the hem of a dress. I have read that a chemise could be worn over the petticoat, but I did not get this information from a fashion source. Thinking more about the statement, it doesn’t make sense. The very short hem of the chemise would be visible under the sheer fabric of the outer dress.
Chemises and petticoats kept the thin fabric of the dress from being too revealing and also helped the shape of the dress to remain columnar or conical, instead of clinging to the legs. There were some scandalous women (not many in England) who opted to wear neither chemise nor petticoat, and reveal their bodies and a shameless way.
In either case, the corset was a must, since it pushed up the breasts and helped to define the “shelf” contour of the bust. The truth was that even in summer, ladies wore several layers of clothing.
[…] Readers, The previous post elicited a question about Regency underdrawers or a lady’s unmentionables. My answer was so […]