Regency Costume (Men's) Help!

[3113]

This has been driving me crazy for a while. Look at this picture below.

Notice that from under the man's waist coat, dangling down on his right thigh is, a guess, a kind of ribbon or strip of cloth or something. There seems to be a loop or tab at the end. Where he a modern man, I'd say he was going to attach his keys to it.

It doesn't seem to be a watch fob or anything like that. Here's another picture where you will see that both men are wearing this:

What the heck is it? Seriously? None of the regency dress sites online offer any hit or clue to what it might be. Yet all the upper class gentlemen in at least one version of Pride and Prejudice that I'm watching are wearing them. And no, I don't think it has anything to do with a "Prince Albert" piercing and keeping a certain male body part in check while it's under those nice tight trousers

 

[lovecraft68]

Was it perhaps just fashionable back then to have the end of your belt dangling instead of tucked into a loop?

 

[3113]

Was it perhaps just fashionable back then to have the end of your belt dangling instead of tucked into a loop?

I don't believe they wore belts. They wore a form of suspenders, didn't they? "Bracers"?

 

[Handley_Page]

This has been driving me crazy for a while. Look at this picture below.

Notice that from under the man's waist coat, dangling down on his right thigh is, a guess, a kind of ribbon or strip of cloth or something. There seems to be a loop or tab at the end. Where he a modern man, I'd say he was going to attach his keys to it.

It doesn't seem to be a watch fob or anything like that. Here's another picture where you will see that both men are wearing this:

What the heck is it? Seriously? None of the regency dress sites online offer any hit or clue to what it might be. Yet all the upper class gentlemen in at least one version of Pride and Prejudice that I'm watching are wearing them. And no, I don't think it has anything to do with a "Prince Albert" piercing and keeping a certain male body part in check while it's under those nice tight trousers

Those trousers are not supposed to be tight.
Linky.

I believe "braces" is the word, but don't hold me to it

 

[oggbashan]

Notice that from under the man's waist coat, dangling down on his right thigh is, a guess, a kind of ribbon or strip of cloth or something. There seems to be a loop or tab at the end. Where he a modern man, I'd say he was going to attach his keys to it...


What the heck is it?

It is a fob. Later on, but not in this period, fob watches were attached to them.

They were fashionable among dandies who might have one or several, but several would be considered vulgar display. They are a relic of the sword belt for attaching a slim dress sword.

It is possible that they were taken as an indication that the wearer is entitled to wear a sword i.e. is a gentleman, but swords were no longer worn in polite society except when in military uniform.

 

[MSTarot]

This is purely a guess so it's worth is in question.

I think you are seeing where they flipped the camera image around in the editing. That strap hanging on their left side would be for a saber. A saber frog or sword hanger. Purely decorative, really, the sabers for what they were wearing wouldn't cut tissue paper.

Mine holds a heavy saber so it's made of leather. But then my SCA persona is from the late 1500s so on me it's kind of right.

Like I said best guess, based on something similar that I wear.

M.S.Tarot

 

[oggbashan]

Added after M S Tarot.

The Regency fob had ceased to have any practical purpose. It was merely a decorative feature and could be anywhere at the front of trousers. Note: trousers that went to the ankle, not knee breeches which were an earlier fashion but still de rigeur for formal occasions.

Several writers about the Regency period, especially Georgette Heyer whose research was meticulous, suggest that wearing more than one fob was taking the fashion to a ridiculous extreme. The influence of Beau Brummel and Beau Nash was to change male fashion to understated simple elegance of tailoring from the over ornate styles of the then recent past.

 

[3113]

Thank your Og!

It is possible that they were taken as an indication that the wearer is entitled to wear a sword i.e. is a gentleman, but swords were no longer worn in polite society except when in military uniform.

You get kisses and hugs for that, Og. THANK YOU! Every time I saw that particular P&P I noticed these fobs and wondered what the heck they were and absolutely none of the on-line sites even *had* the darn things in images and didn't mention them or anything.

I'm so glad to have that mystery solved. And it makes perfect sense. Fascinating, too. Of course, a gentleman is distinguished by being able to wear a sword, and in the 18th and early 19th century no gentleman would be presented at court without wearing a wearing said sword. But how do you show you're gentleman enough to wear a sword without bothering with a cumbersome sword? Especially as wearing the swords go out of style for all but military men? Ta-Da--you wear something that metaphorically suggests a sword. Of course, once you do that, the abbreviated bit becomes like jewelry, a fashion statement. Meaning that the dandies will go overboard with 'em.

And, of course, the way these things go, they start as useful (holding the sword) go to useless but meaningful (indicating the wearing of a metaphorical sword) to having a different use entirely (holding a pocket watch--which in itself is a statement of wealth, power, position). Cool.

Yay!

 

[oggbashan]

I'm pleased that my useless store of knowledge (and extensive library) sometimes helps.

I have given many of my books on historic fashion to The Museum of Lace and Fashion (English version link) in Calais, France, but the knowledge is still in my head.

Edited for PS: Even before the fob became a useless fashion statement, and when swords were still worn, the dress sword had become smaller, more ornate and less practical as a realistic weapon. The dress sword was a piece of male jewellery.

As M S Tarot pointed out, the fob couldn't have supported a useful sword.

 

[Handley_Page]

Is it my imagination, or:
Is the bloke (Mr D'Arcy?) left handed?
Or is the picture back to front ?

 

[3113]

Is it my imagination, or:
Is the bloke (Mr D'Arcy?) left handed?
Or is the picture back to front ?

Fob is on the right side in all the pictures that I see (i.e. in the series, too.) You are correct that if a real sword was there this would make no sense as the man would have to grab the hilt and draw the blade out with left hand rather than right.

Mr. Og, the answer to this? Were ceremonial sword (the jewelry type) worn on the right to signify that they weren't going to be drawn?

 

[oggbashan]

Dress swords were short and light, more like long thin daggers than real swords. They could be worn on the right because they were never intended to be drawn or used. They were certainly never intended for a fast draw. Duels were formal affairs arranged for a meet hours or days ahead. In the early to mid 18th Century some small swords could be used for duelling and they remained (and remain) part of a military officer's full dress uniform.

Civilian versions of the dress or small sword became more ornate, more showy and less practical and by the later 18th Century were rarely worn in England.

But by the Regency period illustrated, a fob was essentially useless. It could be, and was, placed anywhere it could be seen.

 

[R. Richard]

Then, a claymore would have been out of the question. Pity.

 

[sr71plt]

Fob is on the right side in all the pictures that I see (i.e. in the series, too.)

Rumor has it that wearing the sword fob on the right is a signal that you're a gay bottom and not to take this marriage too seriously. She's an American and comes with a fortune to save the manor house.

 

[oggbashan]

Then, a claymore would have been out of the question. Pity.

No gentleman, except a Scots gentleman, ever wore a claymore.

Some Scots gentlemen had claymores so large that they could never have been worn at the waist. They could have been carried on the shoulder, but not worn except down the back.

That's why they were called claymores = sword, large.

 

[sr71plt]

Oh, you're saying a claymore is an actual name of a sword type. I thought RR was just being typically "overkill it; use a landmine."

 

[oggbashan]

Oh, you're saying a claymore is an actual name of a sword type. I thought RR was just being typically "overkill it; use a landmine."

Wiki on Claymore the sword.

The average claymore ran about 140 cm (55 in) in overall length, with a 33 cm (13 in) grip, 107 cm (42 in) blade, and a weight of approximately 5.5 lb (2.5 kg).

 

[soflabbwlvr]

No gentleman, except a Scots gentleman, ever wore a claymore.

Some Scots gentlemen had claymores so large that they could never have been worn at the waist. They could have been carried on the shoulder, but not worn except down the back.

That's why they were called claymores = sword, large.

I'm surprised that Claymore hasn't become a euphemism for penis, since it is basically an over-sized, two-handed sword.

 

[oggbashan]

I'm surprised that Claymore hasn't become a euphemism for penis, since it is basically an over-sized, two-handed sword.

Of course it has. 'I'll wield my claymore'

Everything larger has become a euphemism for penis over the years.

Some men have delusions of grandeur.

 

[sr71plt]

"He had delusions of Claymore." That probably would fit on the "best lines" thread.

 

[MSTarot]

Some Scots gentlemen had claymores so large that they could never have been worn at the waist. They could have been carried on the shoulder, but not worn except down the back.

That kind of puts a new spin to what Ogg said here. It would also explain why the full nine yard kilt has a shoulder sash.

From what I have seen and heard the big claymores were used to unhorse a knight. You could get a swing at the horses head or legs while being safely far enough away from the scene of the crash.

I think I remember the English made it a capital crime to own one. Same way that they outlawed Kilts for a while.

I bet when that law went into effect there were a lot of chaffed Scotsmen.

Also puts a new spin to William Wallace's battle cry "Freedom!"

M.S.Tarot

 

[R. Richard]

Some Scots gentlemen had claymores so large that they could never have been worn at the waist. They could have been carried on the shoulder, but not worn except down the back.

A claymore could not realistically have been worn in a normal belt scabbard. It night have been worn in a rib height scabbard, by a tall man. It could have been worn in a back carry scabbard. However, the ability to draw a sword from a scabbard is basically a function of arm length. Generally, carrying something like a claymore was just that, carrying. The full length scabbard had to be removed before the sword could be practically drawn. There were partial length scabbards with some sort of top retainer, but they were cumbersome and not too reliable.
The claymore was basically a war weapon and very useful against a mounted warrior.

 

[Handley_Page]

That kind of puts a new spin to what Ogg said here. It would also explain why the full nine yard kilt has a shoulder sash.

From what I have seen and heard the big claymores were used to unhorse a knight. You could get a swing at the horses head or legs while being safely far enough away from the scene of the crash.

I think I remember the English made it a capital crime to own one. Same way that they outlawed Kilts for a while.

I bet when that law went into effect there were a lot of chaffed Scotsmen.

Also puts a new spin to William Wallace's battle cry "Freedom!"

M.S.Tarot

The 'whole nine yards' is timed about the first world war. It was the length of the belt of .303 ammunition used in a Vickers machine gun. The expression is an admonishment to give it ALL.


The Shoulder sash is actually part of the blanket carried when on the march.
It was, at one time, part of the material that made up the kilt and was, naturally, in the wearer's tartan. (or so I recall being told by a scots military expert!.

 

[Handley_Page]

Fob is on the right side in all the pictures that I see (i.e. in the series, too.) You are correct that if a real sword was there this would make no sense as the man would have to grab the hilt and draw the blade out with left hand rather than right.

Mr. Og, the answer to this? Were ceremonial sword (the jewelry type) worn on the right to signify that they weren't going to be drawn?

Those who were left-handed had a natural advantage here.

 

[oggbashan]

Getting back to the OP and the change from sword-wearing to a fob:

Before small swords became redundant as part of a gentleman's civilian attire, they had already become male jewellery rather than a practical weapon. Their purpose was display.

They would normally have been worn on the left, but they got in the way if a gentleman was escorting a lady who would be at his left. They were a real encumbrance at a Ball. Before the introduction of the waltz, dances were at arms length and a small sword wasn't too difficult to manage.

But once the waltz became popular and a gentleman actually put his arm at a lady's waist (shock! horror!) the small sword was a bloody nuisance.

Gentlemen took to carrying a cane, which could be but usually wasn't a swordstick, and the cane became ornate male jewellery. The cane would be left with the hat and gloves when attending a Ball. A small sword would have been too valuable to leave with the servants.

However some formal Balls banned the waltz because it was too erotic. At such events swords could continue to be worn, and if it was a Court Ball, were required until the end of King George V's reign.

Until 1939, and some suggest beyond WW2 into the late 1950s, Naval Cadets at HMS Britannia at Dartmouth were instructed how to dance while wearing a dress sword. Some of the hostilities-only officers in the RNVR were very rude about such training.

But one of the first general orders to the Royal Navy at the start of WW1 and 2 was 'sharpen swords'. A really unhelpful order but it did come after 'commence hostilities against Germany'.

Full size swords were for war use only. They would not be worn as part of a gentlemen's dress except when on full-dress parade in military uniform. As R Richard pointed out, a real claymore could not be worn.