Figure 1.--This beautiful photograph shows an American mother, during the early 1890s with all her children in dresses, ringlets, and hairbows. Is it possibly that all of her children were girls? Imagine the poor father who must have wanted at least one son.

The most common outfits chosen by 19th and early 20th Century mothers to dress their family identically was dresses. It was quite acceptable to outfit little boys in dresses during the 19th Century. While younger boys were normally outfitted in dresses, families varied widely as to the ages boys were kept in dresses. This was primarily determined by the mother, although fathers often incouraged a doting mother to breech their son. A boy with older sisters might be kept in dresses longer than otherwise so all the children could be dresses alike, but it was mostly the particular inclination of the mother that decided the issue. Interestingly, while boys could be attired in dresses, it was not acceptable, however, to dress girls at the time in trousers, kneepants, or knickers.

Styles

The most common outfits chosen by 19th and early 20th Century mothers to dress their family identically was dresses. It was quite acceptable to outfit little boys in dresses during the 19th Century. While younger boys were normally outfitted in dresses, families varied widely as to the ages boys were kept in dresses. The styles of dresses worn by boys and girls were little different in the early 19th cebtury, but by the end of the century destinctive boys' styling haad emerged. Such styling was, however, optional. A mother choosing to keep the younger children in dresses almost invairably would choose dresses with out the destintive boyish touches, typically front buttons, belts, less lace and ruffle trim, tartan materials, ect.

Reasons

There appear to have been two primary reasons for outfitting the children all alike in dresses.

Style

Some mothers thought it charming to dress the children alike. For these mothers they saw it primarily as a fashion statement. The choice of dresses was given the conventiions of the day the only style, other than more casual smocks and pinafores, that could be used. While boys could be outfitted in dresses, it was not considered appropriate for girls to wear pants.

Practicality

There were some practical reason for choosing dresses. When the older children were girls, boys could wear their hand-me-downs. As children often out grow perfectly good clothes, this was especially appealing for the thrifty mother. Given that clothes were more expensive in real terms during the 19th century, especially the first half of the century, this was a much more important factor than is apparent to the modern reader.

Parent's Role

The mother was the princible arbriter of fashion for the younger children in the 19th century, but in the later decades the father began to take a greater interest.

Mother

How to dress the children when they were young was primarily determined by the mother. A boy with older sisters might be kept in dresses longer than otherwise so all the children could be dresses alike, but it was mostly the particular inclination of the mother that decided the issue. Interestingly, while boys could be attired in dresses, it was not acceptable, however, to dress girls at the time in trousers, kneepants, or knickers.

Father

Fathers often incouraged a doting mother to breech their son and cut his curls earlier than she may want. This became increasingly common in the late 19th century. Some fathers were concerned when their sons were kept in dresses much beyond 5 years of age. Sometimes boys appealed to their father or even an uncle to intervenee on their behalf. It may be that the Fauntleroy craze of the late 19th century may have had the impact of involving the father in clothing choices because they so disliked the style.

Social Status

Dressing all the children in dresses appears to have been most common in wealthy and upper middle class families. HBC is not entirely sure why this was. One factor is that the wealthier children were better supervised and not out on his own enough. Closeted in the nursery with hus siblings, a boy was less likely to be aware of clothing styles worn by other children nor would he as kikely to be teased over his clothes.

Siblings

A boys siblings probably had a lot to do with how he was dressed. A boy with older sisters would be most likely to be kept in dresses. The availability of hand-me-downs, as mentioned above, is one factor. Another factor is the role models avaiable. A boy with older brothers is very likely to want boys' clothes at an early age than a boy with older sisters.

Individual Families

The best evidence of dressing all the family in dresses is actual reports from known families. Unfortunately HBC has few of them. More available are unidentified photographic images. The problem with these photographs of course is that it is not always apparent who is who as it is often difficult to determine the gender of younger children

HBC has decided to post images from individual families and do its best to assess the gender of the children and the decission each mother has made over the clothing. HBC encorages readers to offer any insights they may draw from the images.

American families

HBC has assessed the following American families:

Family one (probably the early 1890s): The mother is pictured with seven childre, all fairly close in age. They all wear dresses. Of course it is possible that the children are all girls, but the odds against that are very high indeed. At lesst two of the children are probably boys.
Family one (probably the early 1890s): There are four children in this family. They are from 1½ to 6 years old. All the children wear dresses whichm except, for the youngest, are identical.

England

France

Germany

Created: April 6, 1999
Last updated: November 15, 1999