Victoria's Secret

[evile]

Queen Victoria's knickers were sold to a collector at auction. For 9 grand. They're crotchless. She had a 50" waist. And a 66" bust. She was probably about 5' tall.

I'm just not sure what, exactly, disturbs me so much about this story. There are just soo many disturbing things to choose from...

Oh, and PS? her shoe size? UK 3 to 3.5, which is 5 in US sizes. itty bitty!

Comments

[bramblekite.livejournal.com]

OH, and Wikipedia says she had 9 kids.

guess those crotchless bloomers come in handy.

(ew. why did I do that to myself? Drill, brain, bleach. repeat.)

[buckeyebrain.livejournal.com]

60??? Holy Rule 12, Batman!

[bramblekite.livejournal.com]

sixty-SIX, actually.

But considering she was as big around as she was tall, I can't quite picture that being all that sexxay.

[faesdeynia.livejournal.com]

I keep imagining Violet from the original Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie, having to be rolled around. . .

[cfred.livejournal.com]

I was about to say, on the US5 feet, how could she have balanced?

The reporters are wrong.

[islenskr.livejournal.com]

As a costumer, I have to protest.

I have made many a chemise and I assure you all that the reporters have got it wrong. Chemises are made much larger than modern nightgowns. THey're roomy. They're supposed to be. If you had a cotton chemise that was made exactly to your bust measurement, it would be skin tight even if you could get it on. (Victoria's era was one before ubiquituous jersey knit fabric.) In order to get her exact bust measurement, you'd need to measure one of her dresses, which would fit pretty exactly over her corset.

On to the drawers. Modern undies as we know them are only barely one hundred years old. (THere's lots of speculation, but it appears that women didn't wear any sort of underwear other than a chemise up until about the end of the 18th century. I could be wrong, but that's what the research said last time I looked. And most men didn't either, though they did have a sort of boxer arrangement sometimes.) Victoria's undies were what nearly every woman wore. Why were they crotchless? You wore them plus your chemise underneath your corset, which came down over your hips. If you had to go to the bathroom, there was no way you were going to get your drawers pulled off. Victoria's drawers were two legs joined at the waist. This was necessary for going to the bathroom without having to get entirely undressed. Back to the measurements: if you had drawers made to exactly your measurements, you'd probably not be able to get them on. They were meant to be baggy. Really baggy. So her waist could not have been 50" if her drawers were. I have not made drawers yet, but have a few patterns from the late 1800's and early, early 1900's. When I make a pair for myself, they will probably have a waist measurement of 45", when the waist is fully stretched out. My hips are 40" and my waist is 30".

Lastly, if Victoria were only 5 feet high, and if she had a bust measurement of 66", she'd sure look a LOT larger than all those pictures you see of her in the late 1800's.