It is only this week that, at an auction house in Kent, England, a pair of knickers went for £6,200.
Knickers: that’s panties, pants, underwear. We also call them drawers, and once upon a time they were pantaloons and even bloomers.
But the reason, girls, that you are walking around in M&S cotton briefs today – or shorts, or camis, or strings or whatever – is because of the owner of the pants which have just sold for such a stupendous sum somewhere outside Folkestone.
It is interesting to note that the aforementioned, extremely valuable knickers had a waist of some 52 inches.
Despite the perfectly developed bra-and-pants model developed in the Classical World (or strophium-and-subligaculum model, if you prefer) women in Mediaeval and Tudor Britain did without pants. Which, I know, seems unconscionably draughty to us today. But it was just another garment to purchase, and garments cost money. Petticoats were long, and voluminous. Perhaps they created a benign microclimate. I hope so, for the sake of all those generations of women in this unforgiving corner of the world called the British Isles.
But towards the end of the eighteenth century it was fabric technology which made the whole pant thing possible. Until then they had been often rough, unforgiving, itchy, abrasive. And as the reign of Victoria approached, suddenly lawn, and fine silks, and cambric appeared: light, and soft against the skin.
And because the climate in the Northern Hemisphere is inclement, women took to pantalettess instantly.Two leg sections, held together by a tie at the waist.
But the final seal on the longevity of the pant came from an august source indeed.
Because knickers were modest.
Queen Victoria loved them: because they met her standards of propriety. And where royalty leads the fashion is never far behind. Throughout her reign, though details changed, the bloomer remained as an essential garment for the fashionable Victorian woman.
They were not an invitation, but a barricade for the good Queen. And this is evidenced by the pair of bloomers which was auctioned for more than £6000, which belonged to her.
They had found their way into a Kent family because Victoria often gifted her underwear after wearing it to her servants.
Auctioneer Michael Hogben told the BBC: “The items are very large.
“She wore them towards the end of her life when she had eaten a lot more than most people could afford to.”
He added: “These bloomers have been in a Kent family for more than 80 years.
“These” he concluded wryly, ” are some of the most interesting items I have auctioned in my 40-year career.”
30 thoughts on “The Knickers Business”
Only you would find such a whimsical story for a Sunday evening, Kate. And, did you manage to keep a straight face during the telling? 😀
Always, Karen 😀 Pants are a most upstanding subject if you believe Queen Victoria.
Underwear, panty hose and trousers (on my blog) have had a good run this past week. Lol
Comfortable underwear is essential to feminine happiness.
Agreed. It’s M&S all the way here in the UK 🙂
A 52 inch waist! That should have been Victoria’s biggest secret.
Ha! Great line, you do your city proud, Virginia….it should have been, but she would go about giving her undies away to servants. It’s not a way to keep your counsel.
That sketch makes for quite a header, Kate.
Such big bloomers. She must have had a great chief. LOL!
😀 ROFL! Attention seeking bloggery, that’s my game, Jamie. the bigger the bloomers the better the stats….
Haha! Wearing bloomers allowed Her Majesty to bloom, blossom, and expand her reach into new reaches.
…or even new breeches, Nancy….indeed, they were empire-building garments, for sure.
Preliminary visits to Costa Rica revealed that knickers were available in two versions…the first, miniscule scraps of material; the second, entitled ‘bloomers senora’, which would have contained ten wearers of the miniscule scraps of materials…
I have since discovered something entitled Columbian lingerie whose mysteries, given the price, remain unrevealed.
I’m still stocking up at Primark in each visit to Europe.
The Primark versions are anything but exotic, Helen, but they’re deeply comfortable! *Potters off to investigate the mysteries of Columbian lingerie*
I wonder if I can auction my old panties (rushes off to the cupboard)?
A whole new income stream, Sidey. How refreshing.
Fabulous! I love the idea that the Queen gave her “used” undies to the servants. And that her girth was attributed to having better food than anyone else. This is choice! I would like to know more about the person that purchased these knickers…maybe I don’t.
Alas, whoever it is has asked to remain anonymous, Debra. I think that is probably most wise…
Presumably, as they were gifted, she had another pair into which she could step.
I suppose it kept the seamstress in business 😉
I’m sure it did, Myfanwy!
I’m having difficulty getting excited about a pair of used underwear. Ick! And to think people were competing to buy it!
This is true…..it wouldn’t be my choice to spend more than £6000 on, for sure. It takes all sorts to make a world!
Only you, dear Kate. 🙂 These remind me of my grandmother’s bloomers – though a bit smaller, perhaps. Fun post.
Knickers AND history? My two favourite things together, blissful!
A smile, Kate, for my cat Luna inspired the phrase “puttin’ with the pantaloons” due to her furry upper legs.
If Victoria could know her undies had been auctioned off, would she be amused?
Still crotchless though, still draughty. Second-hand knickers, nice. 😉
Reblogged this on To write is to write is to write and commented:
Over 6,000 pounds sterling for a pair of panties? It’s obvious they didn’t come from Wal-mart. Read Kate Shrewsday’s account of where they did come from.
(When I was a child, I considered “panties” an inferior word, and saying it would have caused me to keel over out of embarrassment. But I’ve gotten over that.)
Of course, in Queen Elizabeth’s time, the first that is, us blokes were wearing the pantyhose 😉 Fascinating ‘expose’ Kate 🙂