Traditional female wear????

[Dale Seago]

Not a myth so much as a lack of understanding about clothing of the age.
Shirts had much longer tails (almost like a modern nightshirt) and frequently did duty both as your base layer on top AND bottom.

Right. By the 1700s at least, the shirt was considered "underwear" and it was considered improper for ANY of it to even be visible out of doors unless, for example, you "stripped down" and took off your jacket, waistcoat, and neck stock to engage in some physical work on your farm.

I recall reading an account from the 1745 Rising of a few men who showed up at some village wanting to fight for the Jacobite cause: It was clear they were desperately poor, as they were wearing only shirts and belted plaids.

[neloon]

Dale,
"I recall reading an account " Where? Who wrote it? I'm afraid you and artificer are just propounding a version of the story that everybody in the US has told each other so often that it has become a "fact".
However, we are wondering away from the original question so I suggest we leave this aspect.
Alan

[Nik]

Not to sound chauvinistic or anything but as a matter of biology, women do generate as much body heat as men. This is an on average things, so I'm sure some hot-blooded ladies don't come hunting me for that. As well traditionally women didn't do much in the way of medial labor that required the versatility of a shorter garment like a kilt. As such I do think that while it's not a 100% traditional a Hostess skirt is pretty close to what was worn.

Besides let's be honest here, the idea of modesty has be pushed more so on women over the years and with the truth that any woman, married or not having shown skin above her ankles as risque it's a good concept to keep in mind that long skirts/dresses were the norm. Men got around it because we were the ones making the rules and in most cases the ones that could justify striping an article of clothing off when doing work.

As for shirts being a type of under-garment... not to sure about that. If you were to mean an undershirt, yes that sounds correct. Particularly as undershirts even today have a completely different look and material about their construction. Now things like bracers/suspenders were once and item of under-garment dress and were to be covered by a vest/waistcoat. However as I'm sure you all know, fashion senses change, so do taste. Best not to hold to rigidly to them, unless you are going to hold yourself to that standard.

[Downunder Kilt]

I have posted this before.
This is what hardworking women of Stkilda traditional wore in the mid 19th century


Image courtesy of the University of Aberdeen-zps7e128010

[Barb T]

OMG - my feet are FREEZING just looking at this picture!!!

[TheOfficialBren]

Wow! Those are some hearty, hearty women! They remind me of my grandmothers.

Not to drift too far off-topic but I am impressed by the resolution of some of these antique images.

[Grizzly]

That is an outstanding picture, probably hand tinted from an original B & W . Possibly the finest historical photo I have seen on this forum. Thank you for sharing.

Back to the question, by the look of the photo the "tradition" would be to go barefoot, however I am a firm advocate of wear whatever feels comfortable for the occasion just like you would if you wore a skirt or trousers.

[ronin6290]

One would have to have Hobbit feet to walk about the Highlands like that. That now is a sturdy women!

[creagdhubh]

OMG - my feet are FREEZING just looking at this picture!!!

***

[creagdhubh]

Back to the question, by the look of the photo the "tradition" would be to go barefoot, however I am a firm advocate of wear whatever feels comfortable for the occasion just like you would if you wore a skirt or trousers.

Quite so.