The AFU and Urban Legend Archive Misc victorian legs Select a topic - - - - - - - - Home Searches AFU FAQ - - - - - - - - AFU Animals Books Celebrities Classic Collegiate Death Disney Drugs Food GIF Language Legal Medical Misc Movies Politics Products Religion Science Sex Songs TV - - - - - - - - Other sites

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.urban
From: mike_holmans@cix.compulink.co.uk ("Mike Holmans")
Subject: Victorian legs
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 1996 20:09:56 GMT

On Friday 26.04.96, The Guardian carried a report by Jack Massarik that the Olympic organising committee were asking that the nether regions of two nude statues at the LA Coliseum should be covered up because of the TV coverage of the delivery of the Olympic flame, and he likened this to the Victorian era's supposed predilection for covering up the legs of furniture items on the grounds of modesty.

My small research suggests, at least to me, that the Victorians didn't do this.

References:
National Trust Book of English Interiors, Geoffrey Beard, Viking 1990,

0-670-80979-9
Victorian Style, Judith & Martin Miller, Mitchell Beazley 1993,

1-85732-0908-0
Mary Gilliatt's Period Decorating, Conran Octopus 1990, 1-85029-196-9 Victorian Things, Asa Briggs, Batsford 1988, 0-7134-4519-X

Briggs in particular is a noted historian of the Victorian era, and sets out specifically to show how objects and manufactures of the era reflect the social attitudes of the day.

I apologise for not quoting extensively from the works consulted, but there is a consensus between them on the major points.

The Victorians did not always cover table or chair legs. In the dining room, the opulence of carved or worked decoration of the table legs was a sign of wealth, and the legs were never covered - similarly the chairs. However, the dining room was not a feminine preserve.

The drawing room was a feminine preserve, and was supposed to have a feminine aspect. This meant quantities of drapery and rustling fabrics, which resembled female dress of the era.

None of the works consulted made mention of the idea that furniture legs resembled women's legs and should be covered on grounds of modesty. In itself, the absence of comment proves little. However, a couple of quotes do suggest other reasons.

J&M Miller refer to the custom of covering tables in the drawing room with shawls: "A custom of draping tables with fringed fabrics meant that the lower middle classes could disguise ordinary pine tables."

Briggs says "It was in middle class homes where most doubts were expressed about the presence of the piano. There , indeed, it might be draped to hide its very existence."

The illustrations in the various books are photographs of actual Victorian rooms or rooms which have been lovingly restored or preserved. Nearly all are examples of rooms in upper class homes. There is little covering of furniture legs in these examples.

J&M Miller also refers to the paintings likely to be hung, saying that despite the prudish attitudes of the Victorians, nudes were acceptable, as long as the subject wore a blank or vacant expression.

The impression I get is that drapery in upper class homes was an expression of wealth and fashion. In middle class homes, it was an expression of aspiration or a welcome chance to disguise relative lack of means. Modesty, yes, but of a class-guilt nature than one of morals.

So, how did the furniture version of 'In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking' gain currency? Given the above, I incline to the view that it originated from a disparaging comment about the social climbers amongst the middle classes by a satirical author attacking prudery and/or ambitions above their station. This would at least narrow the search for the source of this UL. An analogue appears in the Diaries of Alan Clark (Phoenix, 1994, 1-85799-142-7). Clark is English upper class, who was a junior government Minister at the time of this remark (by the government Chief Whip) about Michael Heseltine, then a senior Minister (and now Deputy Prime Minister), but who became wealthy through trade rather than inheritance: "Memorable remark about Heseltine: 'The trouble with Michael is that he had to buy all his furniture'. Snobby, but cutting."

Mike "cut social history classes" Holmans