why did they? my friend who visited austria told me that her guide told her, the reason they had those big balloon dresses was so that they could defecate and urinate in there. (eeew) and then he also showed her how there were no bathrooms in the palace!
heard anythign about this?
2006-08-26 09:20:54 · 15 answers · asked by *dj's gurl* 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Royalty
A lot of really good answers given above already. You must be thinking of the hoop skirt that was worn throughout the early to mid Victorian era (1830s-1860s). They started out as wire hoops, and as the skirts got bigger and wider, changed to bone. They were worn for fashion only, and had nothing to do with the calling of nature. Most houses, including palaces, didn't have any kind of indoor facility, so they had outdoor privies or outhouses. A single family home might have one outhouse in the yard. While larger homes like a palace might have what we might think of as public bathrooms at a park- one for ladies and one for men, with three or four commodes in each (however they saw no need for privacy so there was no barrier between each commode). At night when one didn't want to exit the building, they would use the chamber pot which would be emptied by a maid in the morning. Some people tried building an "outhouse" on the side of the house so you wouldn't have to walk far. Still others built or bought a commode and put it right in their bedroom. But most found it utterly disgusting and unsanitary to have anything like that even attached to the building. As for the pantaloons, or underwear of the time, they usually wouldn't be sewn at the crotch, so when a lady needed to go to the bathroom, she merely needed to keep her skirts out of the way, and pull her underwear to the sides to open the crotch wide enough to not get soiled. I'm sure it was very awkward doing so with such huge skirts and hoops, though. So to sum it up, I'm certain there was a misunderstanding somewhere because no logical woman would invent, much less wear a wearable toilet back then. Either that or the guide was intentionally being deceitful.
2006-08-26 14:57:00 · answer #1 · answered by EtteDawn 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The balloon dresses were shaped that way because they were fashionable at the time. They were phased out in favor of bustle dresses, which gave way to something else, etc.
As to defecating and urinating in them, that's garbage. It could have been possible to urinate in them - but what would you do about the pantaloons that were worn underneath the dresses? Piddle right through them and wear soggy pants all day? And just think about defecating standing up. Do you think you could do it?
There were no bathrooms in the palace in the sense that we think of bathrooms today, but every bedroom had a chamber pot under the bed, which was emptied daily by the maid. And there were pitchers of water and a wash basin in the bedroom so you could wash and have a sponge bath. These, too, were emptied each day by the maid.
Bathing, as we know it, wasn't very popular in Victorian times because there wasn't a lot of indoor plumbing and lugging buckets of water in and out wasn't easy. So all-over baths were kept for special occasions -- such as before a girl married. The rest of the time it was simple sponge baths, but done on a daily basis, they kept people clean.
2006-08-26 10:23:24 · answer #2 · answered by old lady 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the guide was pulling your leg :) Anyway the bathroom then, is different of what we think bathroom now. Mostly they did stuff in those porcelain vases(if they were rich) that they have an specific name in English, but for the life of me I can't remember. The servants later would trow out their masters messes. The dresses have nothing to do with it. There were like that because of the style in that period.
2006-08-26 09:35:58 · answer #3 · answered by Sakura ♥ 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the Victorian Era, there was a concerted effort to keep a woman's legs completely covered up, as it would have been considered most indecent to see any hint of a proper lady's limbs. To see a woman's ankle would have been most shocking back then.
2006-08-26 09:30:53 · answer #4 · answered by Feathery 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Women's fashion in the past was a means of control. They wore uncomfortable, restrictive, impractical clothes which reflected their lack of freedom and made it difficult to have productive, useful lives. When did women's fashions really start to change? After WWI, when women also entered the workforce for the first time in great numbers. It was no coincidence. In the past 150 years men's clothes have not changed as much as women's, as men's lives have not changed as much.
2006-08-26 12:29:34 · answer #5 · answered by Dunrobin 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I'm a guy and I've always wanted to play the flute. A common phrase from the middle schoolers was that it was a "girl's instrument." I say, "Hogwash."
2016-03-26 20:59:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
not 100% sure, but i always thought they did it to make there waist look smaller, thats also why they wore corsets, and put bones in them.
did the palace have running water? they might have had an out house
2006-08-26 09:25:12 · answer #7 · answered by jmarie09 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nope, it was just the style at the time, just like any other weird fashion trend through out history.
2006-08-26 21:28:48 · answer #8 · answered by bobatemydog 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, haven't heard this. They used chamberpots and guarderobes for bathroom duties.
2006-08-26 09:24:13 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought it was just the style
2006-08-26 09:23:36 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋