Caps, Kerchiefs, and Common Sense

I admit to watching the Starz production of Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander, set in eighteenth-century Scotland, with one eye on the characters’ clothing. I’ve been a history buff and Revolutionary War reenactor for so long that I cannot help it. Hollywood revels in dressing actors for historical productions. However, we all know better than to believe that those costumes are completely accurate. Right?

Claire Randall, OutlanderHere’s the character Claire Randall out of doors. Most of her clothing is fairly accurate for the time period. However none of the three pieces around her neck and shoulders is correct. For an eighteenth-century woman in the out-of-doors, especially a woman who isn’t wearing a shawl, cape, or cloak, Claire is missing several very important articles of clothing. Common sense articles of clothing.

The bodices of eighteenth-century gowns tended to be low-cut, so a woman wore a neck kerchief for modesty when she left her home—and often when she was indoors. The neck kerchief came in several variations and could be worn outside the bodice or tucked into it. Outdoors, it protected a woman’s chest from exposure to cold and blistering sunlight. It also shielded her skin from the bites of disease-carrying insects such as mosquitoes and ticks.

She wore a mobcap to cover most of her hair. The mobcap prevented the buildup of grease and dirt in her hair and kept the hair from having to be washed often. It also saved her from spending a lot of time fussing over her hair every day. Indoors, on certain occasions, she might opt out of wearing the mobcap. But when she went outside, the combination of the mobcap and a hat kept the sun out of her eyes and off the top of her head, and it acted as a barrier to those nasty bugs. In the winter, it helped keep her head warm.

Mobcap and kerchiefI’ve reenacted in living history events in the summer and winter. The kerchief does protect my chest. The mobcap and hat do protect my head. Eighteenth-century people knew what they were doing by using all that clothing. People of Western cultures in the twenty-first century think nothing of Claire’s bare head and bare chest. However if she were truly in the eighteenth century, venturing outside without a neck kerchief and at least a mobcap would tell people that she’d lost her wits, or was sexually promiscuous, or both.

Enjoy those lovely “Outlander” costumes. But do remember to take them with a grain of salt.

**********

Did you like what you read? Learn about downloads, discounts, and special offers from Relevant History authors and Suzanne Adair. Subscribe to Suzanne’s free newsletter.

Enter your email address:

Comments

Caps, Kerchiefs, and Common Sense — 12 Comments

  1. The costuming is just as inaccurate on shows like CSI or certain cop shows where the women are dressed very inappropriately for their jobs. Most would be called in to their boss’s office for a quiet talk about dress codes.

    • Excellent point, Mary Ellen. It’s fantasy they’re pitching, not reality.

  2. Some good points here, not to mention that the bulky knit accessories in Outlander did not exist at the time. Neck handkerchiefs were made of woven fabric, sometimes very fine and translucent.
    The were worn for protection and fashion, but I disagree about modesty. If they had our modern concerns about modesty, necklines would not be that shape — and they were for most styles!

    • Thanks for commenting, Carol. I saw those bulky cowls for sale everywhere before the first episode of the show had even aired. Not the first time Hollywood has influenced fashion.

  3. The custom of wearing a hat outside continued well into the 20th century, and hats were required for ladies’ modesty. I remember an episode of a TV series about an early female doctor(sorry, the name escapes me) who, in a crisis, ran to an alpha male’s office and was scolded as completely unladylike for being out without a hat. Apparently considered almost wanton, no matter the circumstances.

    • Jill, if a woman didn’t have a hat, she had to at least be wearing a head scarf to be considered a “lady.” Look at TV shows and movies filmed in the 1950s and early 1960s. Outside, women are at least wearing scarves. I think I remember hats going out of fashion in the mid-1960s.

  4. The historical accuracy (or lack thereof) in some of Claire’s clothing in the TV adaptation may not simply stem from Hollywood trying to sell sex. Terry Dresbach, the designer, has a wonderful blog that talks about the costuming of the characters and sometimes, the reasons behind the pieces.

    In the books, Claire is often criticized for her choice of clothing after her trip through the stones, usually for her complete refusal to wear either stays or any type of head covering. The lack of a cap on her head actually causes certain consequences to her but I hesitate to be too specific since I am not sure how–or if–those consequences will be shown in the TV adaptation. And, Claire being Claire, she maintains her stubbornness regarding comfort over style, consequences be damned…

    I may try binge-watching the first eight episodes tomorrow before the new season begins tomorrow night, and I’ll try to watch out for similar issues with Mrs. Fitzgibbons and the other women. With one other possible exception (again–I don’t want to spoil anything), I think the other female characters are sensible souls who are dressed in kerchiefs and mobcaps at all times.

    The costuming of the male characters seems to be quite accurate for the time. Suzanne, what about the Redcoat uniforms? I know that Outlander is set several decades ahead of our Revolution, but Black Jack and his men seem to be dressed correctly.

    • Exactly right Linda! The other women in the books are frequently trying to get Claire to cover her hair. She does often keep her chest covered though. Also, she has been in a number of situations in the books where she had to borrow clothing and make do with what was available, so she wasn’t always wearing a completely acceptable-for-the-period outfit specifically b/c of the situation she was in at the moment. It’s not b/c Diana Gabaldon didn’t do her homework. It’s done on purpose for specific reasons. I think anyone who’s read the books would know that Claire is stubborn and dresses mostly in keeping with the times, but she also has definite ideas of her own, and that shows through, at times, to her own detriment.

      • Suzanne, thanks for stopping by. You’ve pinpointed a big reason why anyone from modern times who got sent back into the past would have trouble fitting in there. The clothing that people in the eighteenth century wore was an organic outgrowth of the culture they were in. People from the twenty-first century (or even 1945) aren’t part of that culture.

    • Lynda, I’m familiar with redcoat uniforms for only a few regiments and not Black Jack’s. I hope that Dresbach has done her research with those uniforms when it comes to facings, trim, braid, etc. I read on her blog that she’d used the movie “The Patriot” for inspiration. Unfortunately that movie wasn’t very accurate.

      To me, the red color of the uniforms looks too bright and too similar from soldier to soldier. Of course, Hollywood is going to make all redcoats’ uniforms look really vivid and pristine. However, historically, the army didn’t have that degree of uniformity in the hue of their uniforms, even within a regiment, because the demand for uniforms was great enough that the army couldn’t use the same cloth supplier for every uniform. Also, the hue faded with exposure to the elements. Eyewitnesses reported that Cornwallis’s redcoats, who marched into Wilmington after a long, hard campaign that culminated with the Battle of Guilford Courthouse, were more like “orange-coats.”