What did people wear 200 years ago?

I was watching a period piece earlier and noticed everyone bad on fancy duds.
What did they wear during down time?
No jeans, no jammy pants, no cargo shorts.
What the hell did they wear?

Sleeping wear was generally heavier and included something to keep your head warm (“and she in her kerchief, and I in my cap…”), since houses had significantly less heating. Googling, you can find some pretty early illustrations of the The Christmas Carol which, as they feature Victorian artists drawing a character who was snatched from his bed, show bedclothes from the time.

Pajamas were introduced to Western culture in the late 1800’s from India. 200 years ago, no-one in the English speaking world would have worn them unless they were from India or something. There are subtle hints here and there - I was reading a novel from the 1800’s and it referred to a boy putting on his “nightgown”.

In terms of formal wear, it seems that there has been a general trend where specific articles of clothing become more formal as time progresses. I understand that it was normal for men to wear suits and ties casually in the 1930’s and possibly beyond - wearing them to the park, to the bowling alley, or to the football game.

Khakis originated in the British Army as part of their field uniform - effectively khakis are the bottom part of Victorian BDU’s. Levi’s Jeans were originally sold to miners as work wear in the 1800’s.

There are several settlements with colonial reenactors. Williamsburg is one that I know of. There’s also one near Plymouth? Basically the entire village is recreated. You can see people living everyday colonial life. Cooking, sewing, weaving, carpentry etc. All in period clothing. I visited Williamsburg about 20 years ago. It was fascinating and I felt like Doctor Who stepping off the Tardis. Those reenactors were amazing.

http://carolynsmith-kizer.com/ph-10636.jpg

http://206.113.151.20/images/Williamsburg/CWkids.jpg

I do think for really hard, sweaty work the men must have stripped off their jackets and shirts. I can’t imagine chopping down a tree in July or digging out a foundation wearing heavy clothing. You’d get heat stroke.

It depended on your status, your wealth. A poor person might have one or two changes of clothes, if that. A wealthy woman might change her outfit two or three times a day.

Emile Zola’s characters often pawned their clothes, as well as their bedding. Poor people would wear everything they owned, what with being homeless or constantly moving, and would lose layers as the clothes became rags, and they’d sell the rags.

I think it’s only recently (the last 50-60 years) that ordinary people started acquiring many changes of clothes. Older homes, even large ones, have small or no closets. The few changes of clothes you had could be kept in armoires or chests, or further back in time, hung on hooks on the wall.

I think you picked the wrong random number to mean “long, long ago”, for girls’ clothes at least. 200 years ago women didn’t wear panniers or hoops or layers of petticoats - they wore flowing empire-waisted dresses. Think: Empress Josephine, or any movie based on Jane Austen. I’d put good money down that it was more comfy than a modern woman’s “work” or “going out” wardrobe.

edit: I’m a dummy and decided your post was “Clothing must have been uncomfortable, huh?”. I bet they wore morning dress around the house, or underlayers only.

There’s going to be massive variation based on where these clothes were worn.

200 years ago was Regency styles, mentioned by akeimi. Flowing white (around 1795–1805, practically everything is white, with more colors showing up after that) muslin dresses with the waistline right up under the bosom. Not only Jane Austen is known for this look, but also Dolley Madison, Josephine de Beauharnais, and Madame Récamier.

Also: Ostrich feathers sticking up over your head if you’re an 1812 fashion victim. Speaking of fashion victims, dudes had their own fashion perpetrator, Beau Brummel, who was said to spend hours each day just tying his cravats. By 1812 knee breeches were obsolete and trousers had taken over. There’s a painting of President Madison with his cabinet, where everybody is wearing trousers and the prez is the last holdout still in knee breeches.

What about at the beach? If you wanted to go swimming, did you just strip down? I don’t think that swimming clothing was even invented til the 19th century. I always liked those striped, convict-style swimsuits.

they wore old clothes.

There’s references in medieval chronicles to people swimming in castle moats when it got hot, including the noble ladies in their shifts. From English coroner rolls, one of the most common causes of death for the peasantry was drowning in streams and ponds; probably they stripped down to their underwear or even swam naked.

I’ve seen medieval German woodcuts of a typical married couple getting ready for bed – it seems like, depending on the weather, either you wore everything you owned or you slept nude. The wife was depicted wearing her jewelry to bed (probably not a bad idea if you didn’t want it getting nicked by servants).

Here’s an illustration of people bathing at Brighton circa 1829. Note the little carts, called “bathing machines”.

My family (other than me) does Am Rev re-enactment. Pretty much Williamsburg. A little more than 200 yrs ago and geographically restricted, but I believe some things continued for the next 20-30 yrs or so.

For women, stays (think corset) were a big deal - at least above the lowest classes. It always bugs my wife and daughters when we see a period movie and the actresses are not wearing stays. Undergarments were a shift - a loose, unstructured linen garment. Women would wear a dress or blouse/skirt sans stays, but that was VERY informal and “improper.” In late 18th century America/England, women wore some kind of a scarf over their shoulders/upper chest. To appear in public without one was extremely improper - almost tantamount to announcing oneself as a loose woman.

Men wore breeches, shirt, vest, stockings, and neckstock (also known as "small clothes I believe.) I get the impression they were essentially considered analogous to underwear, and a proper man simply was not seen without his coat. Laborers wore breeches and smocks.

This is all based solely on my living with 4 people who have been quite involved in Am Rev re-enactment for a decade or so. I get the impression they go to pretty incredible lengths to be as historically accurate as possible. I’ll do my best to answer any specific questions you might have.

The old Captian webb’s ah swam the channel in 1875

Looks like it was off with the shoes and right in the pool. Fully clothed. And… the beach appears to be “ladies only.”

The women in the water are all wearing yellow. The woman still in the bathing machine is wearing a blue-and-white dress, but there’s what appears to be something yellow under it. So it looks to me like it’s off with the shoes and the dress, and swim in the underwear…

[QUOTE=Lukeinva]
Looks like it was off with the shoes and right in the pool. Fully clothed. And… the beach appears to be “ladies only.”
[/QUOTE]

As was usual at most English seaside resorts at that date, Brighton beach was segregated by gender. And most men swam naked.

Dinsdale has the right idea for the late 18th century. What would be worn by an individual would very much depend on who they were (rich, poor, or middling), where they lived, and what they were doing at the time.

I’m a rev-war reenactor (playing a Colonial Loyalist) like Dinsdale’s family, and when we get up to head out of the tent in the morning, we have on the following;

Breeches (knee length pants)
Long stockings. (ends mid thigh)
Long shirt (White in uniform)
Waistcoat (White in uniform)
Wool leggings if in uniform (Green)
Wool jacket (Regimental if in uniform, frock-coat if other)
Neckstock
Leather shoes
Hat (felted fur or workcap)

My wife wears:
Shift (long shirt)
Stays
2-4 petticoats
Pockets tied on under petticoats
Gown (short gown + an outer petticoat, or a round-gown)
Cap
Hat
Kerchief

Some tasks would allow the removal of some clothing, but these are the minimums I’m expected to wear regardless of the temperature. As a modern man, I tend not to wear my regimental jacket unless I have to, or need it for warmth… but technically, I’d be in a state of “undress” without a jacket.

At events where I’m portraying a civilian laborer/craftsman, I’d not have on a jacket, but would be wearing a work-apron (ties around the back, uses a waistcoat button in a buttonhole to hold up the top) along with all the other kit above.

The kit descriptions above would have held for most of the 18th century. In the 19th century, fashions changed radically and continue to do so to current day. In 1812, a switch to trousers, lighter fabrics, and more modern styling of hats than the tricorn/bicorn/round hat began. Others have better detailed what early 19th century wear was like. Suffice to say, to a modern person, it would have been considered “a lot of clothing.”

robert_columbia, be very careful attempting to picture period clothing using modern interpretations of words describing clothing. For example, a late 18th century bedgown was not something worn to bed. It was something a lady would wear after getting out of bed, prior to putting on her stays and either a short gown, or a round gown.