Star news
Boy at home in a dress. Son or daughter? Celebrity mothers who dress their children in clothes of the opposite sex
Interestingly, in some countries, for example, in India, boys could only wear short shorts before puberty, and then long trousers.
Nurturing spirituality
Today, few people would think of dressing a two-year-old boy in a lace dress. People raise heroes and real men from infancy, and welcome the brutal behavior of their heirs. One of the reasons for this is the banal homophobia of parents, and, in the end, it is a personal matter for each couple how to start sex education for their child. As for earlier times, the problem of determining a child’s orientation was not so acute. But at a time when military conflicts arose almost every decade, parents wanted to protect their children from the affairs of battle, to admire them dressed in angelic outfits. There is also a version that with the help of ruffles and lace, mothers wanted to instill in their child a love of beauty.In peasant families in Rus', young children of both sexes wore long-skirted shirts during the warm season.
Hygiene and care
In fact, the reason why boys were dressed in dresses is quite simple and trivial. Underwear in the form that it has now appeared only at the end of the 19th century. Previously, men did not wear panties, but underpants that reached the knee, and sometimes even lower, and women often did not use such items of clothing at all. Therefore, dressing a boy who cannot always control the urge to defecate and urinate in long pants is impractical - doing laundry in those days was not a pleasant activity, although the nobility did not bother with household chores. At the age of 6-7 years, almost all children can already control the natural processes in the body; it was during this period that boys were dressed in clothes worthy of a man.Why boys wore dresses for 400 years.
Even until the beginning of the last century, little girls and boys were not very different from each other in their outfits. Nowadays, this fact, of course, leads to bewilderment and raises many questions. And a little more than 100 years ago, this was the absolute norm, not only in Europe, but also in many countries of the world, where boys, from infancy to adolescence, wore dresses.
Boy in white. (c. 1641).
Moreover, these dresses were long and very elaborate, decorated with ruffles, lace and embroidery, and caps and headdresses also matched the attire. We can judge this from the paintings of the Flemish masters, who depicted on their canvases, as a rule, the little heirs of the greats of this world. Starting from the 17th century, artists will paint a huge number of portraits of children, which will testify to current generations about the oddities of past centuries.
The role of dresses in a little boy's wardrobe
“Portrait of Louis XV” (1712).
The tradition of dressing offspring in dresses in noble and wealthy families appeared by the middle of the 16th century. And what’s interesting is that dresses, as part of a woman’s wardrobe, were not perceived at that time as a sign of gender difference, but most likely meant that the boy was under the care of his mother, under her skirt, that is, completely dependent on her. Hence the familiar expression - “mother’s skirt”.
"Lydia Elizabeth Hoare, Lady Ackland, with her sons Thomas and Arthur" (1814-1815)
“Portrait of A.G. Bobrinsky as a child” (1760)
The boy was dressed in pants and breeches when his father or tutor joined in his upbringing and personal development. In aristocratic houses, a holiday was held on this occasion, which seemed to become the boundary between the childhood and adolescence of the future man.
French Duke Gaston d'Orléans.
When the boy received his first pants.
The three eldest children of Charles the First. (In the center is two-year-old James II.) (1635-1636)
There were no strict rules at what age a boy should take off his dress and put on pants; this was decided purely at the family council. But for the most part, this event occurred when the child was 6-7 years old. And in this regard, the relatives tried to arrange a family celebration, which the child would remember for a long time. There are cases from history when a boy was given pants at the age of 3, and there were also cases when changing clothes occurred at the age of 18, which was a rare exception.
Portrait of Prince Baltasar Carlos in hunting clothes.
An interesting fact is that sometimes a boy, as punishment for an unacceptable prank or offense, could be changed from pants to a dress again, so that the little naughty person would reflect on his actions or unpious deeds and begin to behave appropriately for his age.
So why did they dress the boys in dresses?
Portrait of a boy. (1620-1630s.)
Yes, everything is very simple... There are several reasons, the first of which lies in the banal tradition that prescribes not to divide small children into genders, that is, into male and female. This division occurred much later, at a more mature age, when boys were given trousers and girls were given skirts. This was partly facilitated by the conservatism of our ancestors, who were less prone to various changes, including in clothing.
Little boy with a whip. Unknown artist. 1840s.
Most researchers are inclined to believe that wearing dresses made it much easier for young children to relieve their natural needs. And since the need for regular washing and purchasing clothes was difficult at that time, it was much more practical and profitable to sew and buy boys' dresses for growth - this is another reason for boys wearing dresses.
Portrait of a boy in a hunter's costume with a goat and a dog. (1670s).
And what was quite important was that it was much easier to wash a child dressed in a dress and change it into other clothes. In addition, the kid himself for quite a long time could not figure out the complex design of men's pants of those times.
"Portrait of a little boy with a toy gun and a dog."
Girl or boy?
Boy with an apple. (1664).
It is very difficult for uninitiated people to distinguish representatives of the stronger half of humanity, dressed in children's lace dresses, from girls. And since a modern person can form an idea of those times only thanks to portraits of old painters or photographers, historians confidently say that there are several ways to distinguish a boy from a girl in such portraits.
Portrait of a one-year-old girl from the van der Burch family. (1650s)
An important detail of difference was the color and location of the buttons on the clothes: boys' dresses, as a rule, were darker and closed, made of heavy fabric, and the buttons were sewn on them in the front; and the girls’ dresses had calmer tones, the buttons were hidden, and the bodices, like women’s dresses, were more open.
Boy with a goat. (1646). Unknown artist. / Portrait of Emilia Antwerpiana of Oranje-Nassau (c. 1582).
There was also one important difference: girls had their hair parted in the middle - in the center, and boys had their hair parted sideways or had their bangs shortened. They also cut their hair shorter, but some mothers also grew their sons' hair long.
Senior boy with a golf club. (1631).
To determine the gender of the depicted child, artists, for example, placed a whip, a toy horse, or an imitation weapon in the hands of boys, and a doll or other appropriate object for girls.
Not only the paintings of artists, but also photographs taken over the past 200 years eloquently testify to past traditions.
Empress Maria Feodorovna with her son Nicholas, the future Emperor Nicholas II
Over time, there was a change in the general appearance of dresses for boys. For a long time, the length of the hem of the dress reached the floor. And already in the mid-1820s they were shortened - approximately to the knee. And now short trousers were visible from under the hem. This combination of wardrobe items - dresses and pantaloons - survived until the beginning of the 20th century.
Alexei - Heir Tsarevich and Grand Duke, fifth child and only son of Nicholas II.
US President Franklin Roosevelt. / Portuguese King Manuel II.
"Blue" and "Pink"
And only in the early 30s of the last century, based on the theory of Freud, who proved in his scientific works that small children are not at all asexual creatures, the light industry dressed small children in “blue” and “pink”. Thus, removing boys' dresses from the children's wardrobes, in memory of which only baptismal shirts remained.
The surprising thing is that a tradition that was unshakable for 400 years has come to naught in almost one decade. The education reform also played an important role, based on which children of both sexes began to attend secondary schools together and wear uniforms: girls - skirts, boys - trousers.
Baby George's christening.
An interesting fact is that in our time in Britain the royal family sacredly observes centuries-old family traditions. Thus, Prince William and Kate Middleton christened baby George in a lace dress created exactly from the original dress of Queen Victoria's eldest daughter, sewn in 1841. Moreover, all the heirs to the crown of Britain were baptized in the same or similar outfits.
Life in society dictates to us certain rules of behavior, ethics and morality. If you go out naked, you can attract the attention of an astonished public, but most likely you will be brought to administrative responsibility for this. Well, if, for example, you dress your son in a funny dress, then, at best, passers-by will twist their finger at his temple. But oddly enough, people of the 19th century had a different opinion about the outfits of their sons and dressed them up in dresses until the age of eight...
LiveJournal user under the nickname "Chiara cat" conducted her own investigation and found out the origins of this strange tradition.
Re-reading the memoirs of F. Yusupov, I noticed the following:
« While carrying me, my mother was expecting her daughter, and they made a pink trousseau for the children. My mother was disappointed with me and, to console herself, she dressed me as a girl until I was five. I wasn’t upset, but on the contrary, I was proud.”
After reading this paragraph today, you can be indignant: what a perversion, dressing a boy as a girl! But the most interesting thing is that in those years little boys were very often dressed in dresses, and not in pants; one only has to remember the portraits of Tsarevich Alexei.
Empress Maria Feodorovna with her son Nicholas II. 1870
Dress for a boy. 1893
Flemish boy in a dress. 1625
This tradition continued from the mid-16th century until approximately the 1920s.
Consuelo Vanderbilt with his sons. 1899
In dresses, the boys did not feel inferior or indecently dressed - many, if not all, wore this way. How today you and I are not embarrassed by girls in trousers.
This is what Franklin Roosevelt looked like as a child.
Although the kids, of course, were looking forward to being allowed to wear trousers, because then they would already be considered “adults.”
On the day when the baby changed his dress for trousers or breeches, they could even have a holiday - to commemorate the transition from infancy to adolescence. In Western European countries, boys wore dresses until they were four to eight years old.
Pantaloons, usually trimmed with lace, were often worn under dresses.
It was believed that while boys were in the care of their mother, they wore dresses, but as soon as they passed into the care of a man - a father or a teacher, they put on trousers.
1868
They write that the main reason why boys were dressed in dresses was because of the natural physiological needs of the baby. In addition, it was easier to sew dresses up, especially at a time when clothes were very expensive.
In the 19th century, a variant of the long Russian shirt, similar to a tunic, was also popular, which was worn over long trousers or knee-length trousers. This type of clothing was worn by boys from 2 to 5 years old, or even older.
In portraits, boys' dresses are not so easy to distinguish from girls' dresses. But we'll try. Boys' dresses were often made in brighter or darker colors than girls', and the fabrics were thicker and stronger.
Boyish dresses from the late 19th century.
The most popular trim on boys' dresses is lace collar and cuffs.
The decor of the dresses itself was more restrained and graphic.
Even at the beginning of the last century, babies and toddlers were very similar to each other due to their wardrobe features
Today it seems wild and raises many questions among the public and psychologists when mothers allow their sons to dress up in “princess” dresses. For example, actresses Charlize Theron and Megan Fox, singers Gwen Stefani and Adele do this. But just over a hundred years ago, boys up to a certain age ran around in dresses.
Charlize Theron 5 year old adopted son of from South Africa is transitioning into a girl... pic.twitter.com/s1tkDHaaa6
Presidential dress code
The tradition of dressing boys in dresses appeared in the 16th century and survived into the 20th century - right up to the 1920s.
The paintings of the Flemish masters have reached us, in which you can see small representatives of the stronger half of humanity, dressed in elaborate long dresses.
Rare photographs of the daughter of the railroad magnate, Duchess Consuelo Vanderbilt, and her sons in lace outfits have also survived to this day. Tsarevich Alexei, son of Emperor Nicholas II, in a snow-white girl's dress with a full skirt, and the 32nd President of the United States Franklin Roosevelt in dresses.
In those days, a lady's item of clothing was not strictly perceived as a sign of gender difference. Rather, it indicated that the boy was still in the care of his mother, not torn away from her skirt and completely dependent on her.
The boy was changed into trousers or breeches when his father and tutor joined his upbringing. This happened by the age of six or seven. Noble families celebrated this occasion. We can say that this was a kind of initiation: childhood was ending, and the child was entering adolescence.
Meet President Franklin Roosevelt. Frilly white dress, long blonde curls, black Mary Jane shoes, amazing hat. All typical dress for boys. pic.twitter.com/f1typpx2ex
And then Freud intervened
There were also reasons why a male child was dressed in the female version of clothing. In those days there was no underwear in the form in which we know it today. Men did not wear underpants, but long underpants.
Due to the physiological characteristics of babies, it was impractical to dress them in long pants. Small children do not always know how to control their needs, and there was tension with washing and buying clothes back then. It was more profitable to sew boys' dresses for growth.
The same peasant children, regardless of gender, until they were 5-7 years old, wore long-skirted shirts. Only after the 20s. The 20th century, when Freud began to argue in his works that children are not at all asexual beings, and the advertising industry dressed boys in “blue” and girls in “pink” based on gender, touching dresses disappeared from the wardrobe of children. Perhaps baptismal shirts were left in memory of them.
Parted and with bangs
There was no confusion. Even those who did not have children could always tell a boy from a girl, even if they were wearing a dress. The kids were given outfits that were brighter in color and made from thicker fabrics. The boy's dress was always trimmed with a lace collar and cuffs and at the same time there was no neckline.
Moreover, these dresses were long and very elaborate, decorated with ruffles, lace and embroidery, and caps and headdresses also matched the attire. We can judge this from the paintings of the Flemish masters, who depicted on their canvases, as a rule, the little heirs of the greats of this world. Starting from the 17th century, artists will paint a huge number of portraits of children, which will testify to current generations about the oddities of past centuries.
“Portrait of Louis XV” (1712). Author: Pierre Gobert. The tradition of dressing offspring in dresses in noble and wealthy families appeared by the middle of the 16th century. And what’s interesting is that dresses, as part of a woman’s wardrobe, were not perceived at that time as a sign of gender difference, but most likely meant that the boy was under the care of his mother, under her skirt, that is, completely dependent on her. Hence the familiar expression - “mother’s skirt”.
"Lydia Elizabeth Hoare, Lady Ackland, with her sons Thomas and Arthur" (1814-1815) Author: Thomas Lores. 
“Portrait of A.G. Bobrinsky as a child” (1760) Author: F. Rokotov. The boy was dressed in pants and breeches when his father or tutor joined in his upbringing and personal development. In aristocratic houses, a holiday was held on this occasion, which seemed to become the boundary between the childhood and adolescence of the future man.
French Duke Gaston d'Orléans.
The three eldest children of Charles the First. (In the center is two-year-old James II.) (1635-1636) Author: Van Dyck. There were no strict rules at what age a boy should take off his dress and put on pants; this was decided purely at the family council. But for the most part, this event occurred when the child was 6-7 years old. And in this regard, the relatives tried to arrange a family celebration, which the child would remember for a long time. There are cases from history when a boy was given pants at the age of 3, and there were also cases when changing clothes occurred at the age of 18, which was a rare exception.
Portrait of Prince Baltasar Carlos in hunting clothes. Author: Diego Velazquez. An interesting fact is that sometimes a boy, as punishment for an unacceptable prank or offense, could be changed from pants to a dress again, so that the little naughty person would reflect on his actions or unpious deeds and begin to behave appropriately for his age.
Portrait of a boy. (1620-1630s) Author: Unknown Flemish artist. Yes, everything is very simple... There are several reasons, the first of which lies in the banal tradition that prescribes not to divide small children into genders, that is, into male and female. This division occurred much later, at a more mature age, when boys were given trousers and girls were given skirts. This was partly facilitated by the conservatism of our ancestors, who were less prone to various changes, including in clothing.
Little boy with a whip. Unknown artist. 1840s. Most researchers are inclined to believe that wearing dresses made it much easier for young children to relieve their natural needs. And since the need for regular washing and purchasing clothes was difficult at that time, it was much more practical and profitable to sew and buy boys' dresses for growth - this is another reason for boys wearing dresses.
Portrait of a boy in a hunter's costume with a goat and a dog. (1670s). Author: Nicholas Mas. And what was quite important was that it was much easier to wash a child dressed in a dress and change it into other clothes. In addition, the kid himself for quite a long time could not figure out the complex design of men's pants of those times.
"Portrait of a little boy with a toy gun and a dog." Author: David Lueders. / "Portrait of William Ellis Gosling." Author: Henry William Beechey.
Boy with an apple. (1664). Author: Caesar van Everdingen. / Portrait of a girl (c. 1680). Author: Aert de Gelder. It is very difficult for uninitiated people to distinguish representatives of the stronger half of humanity, dressed in children's lace dresses, from girls. And since a modern person can form an idea of those times only thanks to portraits of old painters or photographers, historians confidently say that there are several ways to distinguish a boy from a girl in such portraits.
Portrait of a one-year-old girl from the van der Burch family. (1650s) Author: Albert Cuyp / Portrait of Dirk Alewine 1640s Author: Dieruk van Santvoort. An important detail of difference was the color and location of the buttons on the clothes: boys' dresses, as a rule, were darker and closed, made of heavy fabric, and the buttons were sewn on them in the front; and the girls’ dresses had calmer tones, the buttons were hidden, and the bodices, like women’s dresses, were more open.
Boy with a goat. (1646). Unknown artist. / Portrait of Emilia Antwerpiana of Oranje-Nassau (c. 1582). Author: Daniel van Queborn. There was also one important difference: girls had their hair parted in the middle - in the center, and boys had their hair parted sideways or had their bangs shortened. They also cut their hair shorter, but some mothers also grew their sons' hair long.
Senior boy with a golf club. (1631). Author: Wiebrand de Geest. To determine the gender of the depicted child, artists, for example, placed a whip, a toy horse, or an imitation weapon in the hands of boys, and a doll or other appropriate object for girls.
Not only the paintings of artists, but also photographs taken over the past 200 years eloquently testify to past traditions.
Empress Maria Feodorovna with her son Nicholas, the future Emperor Nicholas II Over time, there was a change in the general appearance of dresses for boys. For a long time, the length of the hem of the dress reached the floor. And already in the mid-1820s they were shortened - approximately to the knee. And now short trousers were visible from under the hem. This combination of wardrobe items - dresses and pantaloons - survived until the beginning of the 20th century.
Alexei - Heir Tsarevich and Grand Duke, fifth child and only son of Nicholas II. 
US President Franklin Roosevelt. / Portuguese King Manuel II. "Blue" and "Pink"
And only in the early 30s of the last century, based on the theory of Freud, who proved in his scientific works that small children are not at all asexual creatures, the light industry dressed small children in “blue” and “pink”. Thus, removing boys' dresses from the children's wardrobes, in memory of which only baptismal shirts remained.
The surprising thing is that a tradition that was unshakable for 400 years has come to naught in almost one decade. The education reform also played an important role, based on which children of both sexes began to attend secondary schools together and wear uniforms: girls - skirts, boys - trousers.
Baby George's christening. An interesting fact is that in our time in Britain the royal family sacredly observes centuries-old family traditions. Thus, Prince William and Kate Middleton christened baby George in a lace dress created exactly from the original dress of Queen Victoria's eldest daughter, sewn in 1841. Moreover, all the heirs to the crown of Britain were baptized in the same or similar outfits.
