Women in the Victorian Era ~ Bathroom Usage in the Victorian Home
By celticeagle
@celticeagle (190109)
Boise, Idaho
January 8, 2026 3:56pm CST
Using the bathroom in the Victorian Age was a real burden for women of that time. Women wore a lot of clothes. There were under garments, bodices, corsets, crinolines, skirts and other outerwear to undo and take off. There were many layers.
Victorian homes did not have bathrooms in the bedroom. There was what was called a chamber pot which was about the size of a roasting pan and was kept under the bed.
Fashion of the time was such that a lady would need help in getting out of all the clothes. This also met she couldn't travel; she was confined. She had to have a servant help her in and out of all the clothing. Can you imagine?
And by the way:
Say her name! Rene Nicole Good. Say her name!
12 people like this
13 responses
@DaddyEvil (174797)
• United States
8 Jan
That does sound ridiculous to us here and now. I don't know why they put up with it.
3 people like this
@celticeagle (190109)
• Boise, Idaho
9 Jan
Because it was the fashion and society dictated.
4 people like this
@DaddyEvil (174797)
• United States
9 Jan
@celticeagle Yeah, I guess... I can't see Pretty following fashion if she didn't want to.
2 people like this
@BarBaraPrz (51839)
• St. Catharines, Ontario
9 Jan
Well, that's why they had them. Ordinary/poor women didn't wear all that stuff and just had to lift their simple skirt and drop their drawers to 'go'.
3 people like this
@BarBaraPrz (51839)
• St. Catharines, Ontario
9 Jan
@Fleura I remember wearing stockings pinned to my undershirt when I was young, but I still had to wear panties...
3 people like this
@Fleura (35173)
• United Kingdom
9 Jan
@BarBaraPrz Indeed, ordinary women didn't dress like that, only ladies. And they didn't have to drop their drawers either, the legs were separate.
3 people like this
@RasmaSandra (98156)
• Daytona Beach, Florida
8 Jan
I am surprise that the ladies did not have some comfortable clothes to just wear around the house so things would be easier for them, I got a questiong when people were out and about were there toilets to use?
2 people like this
@celticeagle (190109)
• Boise, Idaho
9 Jan
They had to keep up appearances. The walls seemed to have ears back then. I wonder how it worked when they were out and about.
2 people like this
@celticeagle (190109)
• Boise, Idaho
9 Jan
@Fleura .......Yes, public ones were very welcome I'm sure. But still all the layers to take off.
1 person likes this
@LindaOHio (222986)
• United States
9 Jan
I'm so glad things have changed. Have a good weekend.
2 people like this
@Nakitakona (59987)
• Philippines
9 Jan
It's too different nowadays. Modern women go to the bathroom with skimpy clothes.
2 people like this
@celticeagle (190109)
• Boise, Idaho
9 Jan
It certainly is different. I'm so glad.
1 person likes this
@luisadannointed (11886)
• Philippines
9 Jan
I watch it on tiktok, and that era is very unhygienic, but when you listen to their stories before it looks like they are really having a great time, but what the beautiful stories about them did not include about their problem with bathing, they don't have toothpaste, the discomfort when they have their periods, even their hair. I feel bad about them knowing all those facts.
1 person likes this
@celticeagle (190109)
• Boise, Idaho
9 Jan
It's all they knew. Yes, it is a rough time for women back then.
@wolfgirl569 (136091)
• Marion, Ohio
8 Jan
Say it often. Rene Nicole Good.
I would not have been able to live like that.
2 people like this
@celticeagle (190109)
• Boise, Idaho
9 Jan
So horrible.
Yeah, when I have to go I have to go and can't wait for a servant and the clothing. It would be awful.
2 people like this
@Marilynda1225 (91208)
• United States
9 Jan
I can't even imagine having to deal with all of that and certainly glad for less clothes and indoor plumbing
1 person likes this
@celticeagle (190109)
• Boise, Idaho
9 Jan
That is for sure. I couldn't have lived like that. But, if it is all you know I guess that might be different.
@Fleura (35173)
• United Kingdom
9 Jan
I'm sorry, it seems like I am continually butting in to your subject, but I don't think it was as bad as you say. Yes, a lady would wear all those things and have servants to help her, but ordinary women didn't dress up like that every day to do their daily work.
Apart from that, although knickers had long legs, not at all like the skimpy pants most women wear today, and were fastened with ties at the waist (no elastic in those days) the legs were actually separate, so they wouldn't have to take them off to pee. That's most likely why we now say 'a pair of knickers' rather than just 'a knicker' as we do for 'a vest' for example. I actually have some of these garments.
I also have several chamber pots, currently holding houseplants!
1 person likes this
@celticeagle (190109)
• Boise, Idaho
9 Jan
Women who lived in big cities were more apt to wear all the finery where those on ranches and out away from town were probably less apt to be all done up.
1 person likes this
@celticeagle (190109)
• Boise, Idaho
9 Jan
I am too. My bladder wouldn't allow it.
1 person likes this
