Regency Gentlemen's Clothing: pants, trousers, pantaloons, oh my!

Any well-heeled gentleman knows the importance of being well-turned out, if he hopes to catch the ladies' eyes, or even be accepted among their peers. Here are what Regency Romance Novel heroes would wear, based on what they really wore in Regency England.

BREECHES
Breeches, (pronounced britches) by the Regency era were considered old-fashioned. They are very baggy through the hips and seat. The exception was buckskin breeches, which are made of leather, and were quite tight, even being well molded to the body, like Levi's. That actually paints a nice visual, doesn't it? ;-)

Most breeches had a front fall which is a flap that covers the front opening. Early in the era the flap was a wide fall, going all the way across from hip to hip (think of the outer seam of the pants we wear today). Later, the fall narrowed, going only from hip-bone to hip-bone. Both falls worked in exactly the same way; the waistband buttoned, usually with 2-3 buttons, then the fall closed like a bib over the otherwise open front area of the pants.

Side by side drawing of wide and narrow falls which comes from:
http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/widefall-and-narrowfall2.jpg

There was a style called the "French fly", which is a simply a center front fly, but most Regency Englishmen didn't wear this style because they felt the French fly was somehow indecent and shouldn't be seen. In the painting "Passer Payez", Boilly c. 1803. The gentleman in the center is wearing breeches with a "French fly" which, isn't a suprise since it's a French painting. I think it's more flattering. This picture was taken from http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/passpaye.jpg

Men in Regency England didn't use belts. Instead, pants of all types would have been held up by "X" crossed braces (suspenders). In England it had to do with the length of the waistcoat. When the waistcoat was long enough to cover the front of the trouser, you saw both front-fall and French fly configurations. When fashion shortened the waistcoat, the front-fall was the most popular method of closure. Personally, I don't see much difference in modesty but at the time, it mattered. Shrug.

A pair of breeches, front view, close, c. 1770s.
http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/breeches-c1770s.jpg

Back views of same. See how baggy it is?
http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/back-of-breeches.jpg

Buckskin breeches, c. 1790s
http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/buckskin-breeches-1790s.jpg
http://www.pemberley.com/images/Clothes/close-up-of-pocket.jpg

1790s breeches, with a close up of the fastening which hides a pocket.


These are the slimmest breeches I've ever seen, and these were made by a reenactor. See how they are still much baggier through the hip than pantaloons?


These breeches are from Sense and Sensibility. Note now baggy they are, and how the fall gapes when the man bends over; Edwards are baggier than Willoughby's, Edward being more conservative in manners and dress, so that's a nice detail.


Buckskin breeches were the jeans of the 19th century. They were comfortable and generally fairly form-fitting, so in my humble opinion, flattering. This is circa 1815. In the detail shots that the waistband comes up higher than the fall, and that the knee has both buttons and ties. This one is my favorite.



On my next post, we'll discuss pantaloons for the Regency Gentleman. 'til then!