Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« You Can't Crush the American E... | 10 Zeros »

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Queen Victoria’s Secret

posted by on July 30 at 12:13 PM

Her underwear? Expensive and crotchless.

A pair of Queen Victoria’s bloomers, with a 50-inch waist, were snapped up for $9,000 by a Canadian buyer at a central England auction Wednesday. Auctioneer Charles Hanson said Queen Victoria’s underpants belonged to “a very big lady of quite small stature with a very wide girth.” She was said to be 5 feet tall.

The handmade knickers—which date back to the 1890s—bear the monogram “VR” for Victoria Regina. They are open-crotch style, with separate legs joined by a drawstring at the waist….

Five feet tall with a A 50-inch waist? That’s spherical, right? Reading on…

[Victoria’s] reign is noted for both imperial expansion and the decreasing political power of the monarch.

You don’t say.

RSS icon Comments


No, that's queenly.

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 30, 2008 12:19 PM

one's diameter and one's circumference.

Posted by maf-a-matician | July 30, 2008 12:20 PM

Math is not your strong suit.

Posted by w7ngman | July 30, 2008 12:24 PM

the chemise, with a 66-inch bust, sold for $8,000. sounds a little less spherical and more umm...... trapezoidal?

Posted by nos | July 30, 2008 12:33 PM

Harrumph! I'm guessing more people than me must have sent in this SlogTip. Dammit.

Posted by leek | July 30, 2008 12:42 PM

With that size she was a modern woman! Or maybe an American?

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger | July 30, 2008 12:49 PM

Most knickers were crotchless until women got out of HUGE skirts. Almost impossible to get them down for peeing etc then back up until then.

Posted by Viking | July 30, 2008 1:02 PM

50 in waist. Holy christmas. Can you imagine the stank that came off that pussy? Yikers!

Posted by Mike in MO | July 30, 2008 1:26 PM

So why wear them in the first place?? Why, in fact, do we all cling to the idea of panties/boxers/briefs, Dan?
Please respond... is it to catch stray dripples, prevent zipper snags, and avoid wet patches on our trousers when we watch Jake Gyllenhaal movies? Or is it mere modesty (although apparently not a modesty carry-over from the Victorian age).

Posted by robo | July 30, 2008 1:29 PM

VR-Victoria Regina: Crotchless panties-Victoria Vagina

Posted by inkweary | July 30, 2008 1:40 PM

@9: groins sweat, and unless you shower every time you go to the toilet you get rank (remember, Vicky probably didn't shower at all). If you're still unsure why people wear underpants, find some people who don't and hang out with them for a couple of weeks.

Posted by Fnarf | July 30, 2008 2:34 PM

She probably had more baths and showers than most people back then did.

Why do you think perfumed handkerchiefs and dresses were such a rage then?

Posted by Will in Seattle | July 30, 2008 2:52 PM

thanks fnarf. i've always wanted to ask that. i guess my hygiene has precluded the rank smell when i've gone without. mostly, i find that i'm a little too 'well-defined' visually when i free-ball it, for my tastes.

It's kind of hard to imagine a thong being that good at absorbing crotch sweat/rank toilet leftovers.

Posted by robo | July 30, 2008 2:54 PM

Well, a thong is a whole 'nuther subject.

And you've pointed out another benefit of underpants: concealment. Not everybody wants to look like Derek Smalls from Spinal Tap.

Posted by Fnarf | July 30, 2008 3:40 PM

awww dan, i didn't know you had a thing for ladies undies. how very hetero of you!

Posted by Harry Callahan | July 30, 2008 4:23 PM

some research will tell us the good Queen bathed often

it was the commoner trash, the Savage family down the road in the small cottage who did not do much bathing, soap was expensive and some body odor was no big deal

horse manure galore, pigs everywhere, no sewers, shitting in the pot in the corner = the town is alive with stench

Posted by John | July 30, 2008 5:37 PM

Harry, are you suggesting that "a Canadian bidder" is actually a popular sex columnist from nearby Seattle, Washington?

Posted by Fnarf | July 30, 2008 5:44 PM

We are not amused.

Posted by Queen Victoria | July 30, 2008 6:49 PM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.