Friday, April 3, 2015

From Babyhood to Boyhood: The Breeching Process

by Keli Gwyn

The idea of baby boys wearing dresses is foreign to many modern readers, even those who read historical fiction. Since I've long known this fact, I didn't realize others were unaware of it until my editor pointed that out in the revision notes for my upcoming release, Family of Her Dreams.
 

Because readers today could have a hard time relating to the thought of a boy in dresses, I used some creative wording to describe the clothing my widowed hero's four-year-old son wears at the beginning of the story. I refer to Luke's garments as "loose-fitting little-boy outfits."

The ambiguity enables me to avoid the word dress, although that's what the garments were, as evidenced in the following picture from 1871. If it weren't for the notation on the back, showing the child's first name as Michael, it could be difficult to tell that he is a boy because of his dress and his long hair.


After Spencer's new housekeeper, Tess, arrives, she transitions little Luke into his "big boy clothes," as she calls them. This process is known as breeching, which means to put a boy into breeches, or trousers. Because the term breeching has fallen out of use and the word breech could be confused with breach, as in a breach birth, I avoided them as well.
 

Although I made modifications to the language in my story, my representation of the breeching process is accurate for the year 1866, in which my story takes place. It wasn't until the early 1900s that little boys' clothing began to differ from that worn by little girls.

For many centuries men and women wore similar clothing. It wasn't until the 1600s that men began to wear separated lower garments that have become the pants we know today. Below you can see Walter Raleigh and his son in breeches and hose.
 

For many centuries men and women wore similar clothing. It wasn't until the 1600s that men began to wear separated lower garments that have become the pants we know today. Below you can see Walter Raleigh and his son in breeches and hose.
 

Although men's clothing changed, little boys' clothing didn't. Why is that? There are three primary reasons that little boys continued to wear dresses for another three hundred years.
 

Ease of toilet training is the first reason. Fasteners in days past were more difficult to operate than the snaps and zippers we have today. Little boys would have had a hard time manipulating buttons, hooks and eyes, and such.
 

Practicality came into play in the second reason as well. Clothing was expensive, and fabric could be hard to come by. The free-flowing dresses could be worn longer than form-fitting items, such as breeches or trousers. The dresses could be passed down from one child to the next, regardless of gender, enabling a mother to get the most use from each garment.
 

The third reason little boys remained in dresses for so many years is that they were under the care of their mothers at that stage of life. Since dresses had always been worn by boys and girls alike, there was no stigma. Mothers, mindful of the first two reasons, had no motivation to change things.
 

Several historians point out that a number of mothers preferred keeping their sons in dresses as long as possible. Since their influence over their sons diminished once they were breeched, that's understandable.
 

So when did a boy become breeched? The age varied. There was no hard and fast rule. Some boys were breeched quite early, at perhaps two years old. This would happen in cases where a parent wasn't expected to live and wanted to see his or her son in breeches before passing. Other boys weren't breeched until the age of seven or even later. This could happen when a mother was reluctant to relinquish her son from childhood.
 

The general age for breeching was four to six years old. In affluent families a breeching could become quite the event, having been planned for months in advance. Extended family and very close friends were invited. The process often began with a haircut, for until they were breeched, most boys had long hair like their sisters.

After the cut the boy would go behind a screen and be helped into his new big-boy outfit. He would then parade in front of the guests, who would slip money in his pockets, presumably to help with his expenses in life, such as his education. In later years after the advent of photography, a well-to-do family would often have a photograph taken to mark the occasion, such as the one with the proud father and his son below.
 

Out in the American West where families were working hard to make a living, a breeching was less of an event, although it was still an important rite of passage. This is the type of breeching I portray in my story.
 

When a boy was breeched, he would often be put into what were known as short pants, such as those shown in the picture of a mother and her sons below. He would wear those until his next transition to long pants or trousers. It's still the custom in Britain to keep a boy in short pants until he's eight years old.

When did the wearing of dresses by little boys end? Surprisingly the practice continued until the 1920s and, in a few cases, into the 1930s. Below is a picture of my father-in-law when he was a baby in 1918. He was the youngest of five boys, so there was no sister from whom his dress would have been passed down, proving the custom of baby boys wearing dresses was still in effect then.


In the picture below, taken in 1920 when Dad was two years old, he's wearing short pants. This indicates that the wearing of dresses by little boys had already begun to wane. I feel certain Dad was the last Gwyn fellow to wear a dress.


Breeching was a monumental event in a boy's life. In writings of the time, men referred to life as before and after they were breeched. Some have even joked about practicing a certain habit or holding a certain belief "since before I was breeched." When the practiced ended, so did this long-standing rite of passage.

Have you seen photos of your male ancestors wearing dresses as boys?

What rite(s) of passage do boys have to look forward to today?
 

Award-winning author Keli Gwyn, a native Californian, transports readers to the early days of the Golden State. She and her husband live in the heart of California’s Gold Country. Her favorite places to visit are her fictional worlds, historical museums and other Gold Rush-era towns. Keli loves hearing from readers and invites you to visit her Victorian-style cyber home at www.keligwyn.com, where you’ll find her contact information.
 

A Family of Her Dreams
 

Headstrong Tess Grimsby loves her new job caring for the children of a recently widowed man. But she never imagined that she’d fall for her handsome employer. Yet Spencer Abbott is as caring as he is attractive, and Tess can’t help but feel for him and his family. Though, for the sake of her job, she’ll keep any emotions about her boss to herself.
 

Between his stationmaster responsibilities in a gold-rush town and trying to put his family back together, Spencer has his hands full. He soon finds his new hire’s kind personality warming his frosty exterior. But could he ever admit to seeing her as more than just an employee?



Copyright © 2015 by Harlequin Enterprises Limited
Cover copy text used by arrangement with Harlequin Enterprises Limited.
® and ™ are trademarks owned by Harlequin Enterprises Limited
or its affiliated companies, used under license.

Other images used are public domain or from the author's collection.

23 comments:

  1. Keli, I have a picture of my father at about eighteen months old. Born in 1903, he's wearing a dress, although his hair is short. I have the picture in a frame right beside one of him in his U. S. Navy uniform around 1920. Believe me, he was all man. Thanks for this wonderful and informative post. It's too bad you had to change your story to suit uninformed readers who might take offense.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Louise, I'm sure that photo of your dad as a little boy is a treasure. When I cleaned out my in-laws' house after the last of those two dear people passed, the first thing I went in search of were the pictures.

      Delete
  2. That was fascinating Keli. Great article!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your kind words, Lori. I'm glad you enjoyed the post.

      Delete
  3. Great article! I have some terrific old family pictures of the men in gowns. Way of life back then! Thanks!

    Mary

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mary, it's interesting to see young boys of yesteryear wearing gowns, isn't it? They wore them for centuries, though.

      Delete
  4. This is such an interesting and informative post, Keli! And yes, I believe I have a photo of my Dad in a dress. He was born in Wisconsin in 1913. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elaine, you must treasure that picture of you father as a youngster.

      Delete
  5. Very interesting! I do not have any pictures of relatives in dresses, as my parents were both born in Russia. I do have a picture of my Mom when she was 13. I believe that is the first picture I have of either of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Betti, how sad that you don't have photos of your parents as babies. I'm sure they have/had plenty of stories to tell of their early days in Russia, though. Have you recorded them?

      Delete
  6. My grandmother had four children (my mom was the youngest), and she had a formal photograph taken of each of her children when they were six months old. Both of my uncles wore dresses. This was in northwest Ohio in 1914 and 1915. Of course my mom and her sister wore the same type of dress too. The funny thing was that my grandmother bought each of the children their first pair of shoes for their photo, and they all kept looking down at their feet during the portrait session.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Donna, how wonderful that your grandmother arranged to have a professional photograph taken of each of her children as babies. It's cute how they were each so fascinated at their new shoes that they focused on them instead of the looking at the camera.

      Delete
  7. Hi Keli, interesting post.
    We have a photo of my husband's grandfather and his brother wearing white dresses. Their hair was done up in long ringlets. The photo was taken in New York, probably around 1915-1920. I had a hard time convincing my kids that this really was a picture of their great-grandfather.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Margaret, what a wonderful picture that must be. I've seen several pictures of little boys sporting ringlets. It can be difficult to tell the boys from the girls because they were treated the same back then. Hmm. Equality did exist earlier than we think. Interesting!

      Delete
  8. I wasn't aware of this rite of passage in American society. Thanks for a fascinating lesson! I still can't help but look at Michael's photo, though, and think, "you poor thing ... tied to Mama's apron strings." Although now I realize that may not have been the case at all. I've seen a photo of poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning's son with what we consider long ringlets that seemed to scream "over-protected" to me. Must reconsider.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stephanie, like you, I found it enlightening to learn how little boys were clothed in the days of yore. I've read that parents treated small children differently back then, in part as a way to emotionally distance themselves since so many children died before reaching the age of four. Perhaps that is another reason they were clothed the same.

      I did read that there were some overly attached mothers who kept their little boys in dresses and long hair as long as possible because they were reluctant to relinquish control of their sons to their fathers.

      Delete
  9. Hi Keli. Very interesting post. I knew baby boys wore dresses, but had no idea they wore them for such a long time. When my boys were two and three, I made them matching knickers which amused my father who remembered wearing "short pants" when he was a young boy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marilyn, it sounds like your father has some fun stories to tell. I loved listening to those my father-in-law recounted of his days as a boy. I'm glad I thought to capture as many of them as I could before we lost him.

      Delete
  10. Oh, I meant to comment that those pictures are great!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes, I have seen a picture when my daddy was a baby. Looked about 6 mo. Precious baby dress with ruffled around neck. I had my baby boy in dresses also, but more boyish looking. more plain. I love babies in sweet baby dresses. I think now days everything seems to try to make them look like older girls. They grow up too fast anyway. I like letting them look like babies while you can. I never saw a baby picture of my husband, but his brother loved to tell this story. He was born in 1919. He said my Joe was in dresses until he was 3 years. Well, his mom finally got him some little overalls. My Joe hated them. Kept getting out of them. the two older boys 9 and 11 finally put them on him backwards. He said you never saw a fit. he said a little while later their baby brother when he had the overalls off took them and threw them down the well. LOL Pretty smart, huh? Happy Easter everyone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maude Maxine, that picture of your father must be one of your greatest treasures. It's interesting to hear that you dressed your baby boys in dresses, too. I'm not exactly sure when that practice ceased. I can see the reasons for it. Before snaps and zippers, getting a baby changed had to be a lot more work for busy mamas than it is today.

      What fun stories your brother-in-law has to tell. Loved the tales of those overalls.

      Delete
  12. Love those boys in dresses. Interesting post. Sm Wileygreen1(at)yahoo(dot) com

    ReplyDelete