Smaller People in the 1800s?

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:50 am

Were people actually smaller in Lizzie's time than they are today? The clothes and shoes I see in museums from that time period look awfully small.

And, if we go back another century to the 1700's, were they smaller yet?
Again, just an observation from past museum trips.

I notice in my family, my grandmother's shoes were a size 4. My mother's a size 6. Mine a size 7 1/2. And my daughter's an 8.

But Andrew Borden was not short or tiny. Of course, there were heavy people in every era. I've noticed some statistics on some people of the past that were even very tall. I just mean 'smaller people' in general.

Jeff · Post by **Jeff** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:05 am

I believe they were shorter back then. Andrew was tall for his time.

Back during the 1700's people were very short. I visited Valley Forge
and got to see the replica cottages they stayed in and it was very small.
I had to duck to stand in them and I'm only 5'9"

stuartwsa · Post by **stuartwsa** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:55 pm

I sell vintage clothing for a living, and people definitely have gotten bigger. The older the piece of clothing, the smaller it is, it seems. For instance, I occasionally get men's Victorian coats, like the Prince Albert that Andrew wore. But no men can ever fit into them. They always end up selling to women that like that very tailored look.
In particular, heads, hands and feet have grown the most. Most men's hats of that period are 6 7/8, while most men today need at least 7 3/8. And with shoes, most men wore size 8 back then, while now they are all averaging size 12!
Women's feet are the same. Size 6 seems to have been the average back then; now it is 9.
I think it is due to many reasons: hormones in the food now, and the coming of immunization and antibiotics. These all have made us much sturdier than our Victorian ancestors--and larger, too.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:17 am

Wow! Good answer!
Very interesting question too.
Thanks you guys.

After seeing Elizabeth Montgomery's movie gown at the B&B, it seems that maybe even each generation is getting bigger- which is weird!
I heard a sociological fact on TV once that stated that bigger taller people would become outmoded and their size inefficient- leading to their decline. They take up too many resources, whereas smaller people will be coming back- more smaller people taking the place of those to-be-extinct taller ones!

No offense- I don't discriminate between tall & small.

SteveS. · Post by **SteveS.** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:26 am

Very interesting observation Augusta and something I've always wondered about also. After visiting the B & B I also said the same thing. All the furniture seems so low to the floor and the bannister to the front staircase seemed to me like a 1/2 banister in height. I'm only 5'2" but after my first visit to the B & B I turned to my friend and said to her "geesh, They must have been some tiny people".

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 1:49 am

I forgot about that bannister!

Also, re-reading my post- I meant Elizabeth Montgomery was smaller than I could ever imagine- and of a generation one older than myself. So I am small but she was smaller!

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:39 am

I looked up Elizabeth Montgomery in the IMDb and they have her listed as being 5' 8 1/2" tall.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:47 am

There are charts on the internet verifying the gradual rise in average height for both men and women.

Just by personal observations (anecdotal evidence) most sons, when adults, are taller than their father.

This article states that the tallest people are in the Netherlands. Who would have thunk it!

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... d=rss.news

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:11 am

Liz Montgomery did look like she was tall on tv. But her dress size on that gorgeous green Lizzie dress at the B & B is like a size 4. I was really surprised.

All interesting posts! That's neat to know Stuart sells vintage clothing. I never knew that. Totally interesting about the coats not fitting today's men. I'm not surprised, tho.

A lot of staircases were so small in the past. They seem too narrow for us today and sometimes the steps too small for safety.

I hadn't noticed the furniture being lower to the ground. That's very interesting. I'll have to pay attention the next museum I go to.

Thanks for the link, Harry. The Netherlands, huh? My father-in-law was one-half Finnish, and he and his brothers growing up in the early 1900's were very tall, as is at least one cousin, and my husband and our kids. I am the only one in the family with short legs. Grrrrr ...

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:52 am

I was a size four when I was born.

twinsrwe · Post by **twinsrwe** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:47 am

Angel @ Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:39 am wrote:I looked up Elizabeth Montgomery in the IMDb and they have her listed as being 5' 8 1/2" tall.

I believe we can safely say she was 5' 8 1/2" tall. I found a couple of web sites which had her height listed the same:

http://www.tv.com/elizabeth-montgomery/ ... rivia.html
and
http://www.celebritywonder.com/html/eli ... omery.html

I also found her normal weight of 122lbs, in this link:

http://www.findadeath.com/Decesed/m/Eli ... gomery.htm

(Hmmm, interesting that she liked to be called "Lizzie"...)

If it is true that Elizabeth Montgomery's height was 5' 8 1/2", and her weight 122lbs, then she was tall and very skinny.

augusta @ Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:11 am wrote:... But her dress size on that gorgeous green Lizzie dress at the B & B is like a size 4. I was really surprised. ...

I wonder if the dress sizes of that particular designer, ran small?

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 12:35 pm

Well I am 5'3" and 123 lbs and a size Petite 10 always.

That Movie dress is at least 2 sizes smaller than me in the real world.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:51 pm

Gee, Kat is tiny! I hugged her once and was lifting her off the sidewalk.

Yes, 122 lbs. is too skinny for LM's height. I was too skinny at 5'5" and 117 pounds.

I thought Liz M. put on 30 pounds to play Lizzie.

During the Lyndon B. Johnson administration, all the press releases on his daughters, Lucie Byrd and Lynda Byrd ?, all would say one takes a size 8 and the other like a 6. It was out-loud laughable, because they were not small girls.

doug65oh · Post by **doug65oh** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:31 pm

If I remember correctly I read that during the Civil War the average height of veterans on both sides was somewhere betwixt 66 and 68 inches, with an average weight between 130 and 145 pounds or so. That sound right to you Harry?

1bigsteve · Post by **1bigsteve** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:09 pm

I think I remember Elizabeth Montgomery being listed at 5' 4" years ago. We can't put much faith in many of the listings on the Net. People look taller and older on camera as oppossed to real life. Often times the stars list their heights in shoes and then add an inch or two.

Each generation is getting bigger. I am the tallest man on my dad's side of the family and I'm only 6' bare-footed. I'm also the biggest at 270lbs. Fortunately it's all muscle or I'd be on a diet post-haste!

I visited Old Town San Diego years ago and the top of the door way in an old building came to about my chin. I had to bend down a foot just to get in. I couldn't believe people could be that short two hundred plus years ago!

-1bigsteve (o:

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 11:26 pm

That reminds me of when I lived on Beacon Hill in Boston. I lived on Pickney Street in the second oldest surviving house on the Hill. In the top floor apartment of a three-floor house. The staircase was tiny. We could barely get furniture up there or beds. It almost spiraled. We had to build a built-in bed on site.
The place was pretty small. Small doorways, small rooms, small everything. It was an 1840 house I think I recall.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:33 am

doug65oh @ Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:31 pm wrote:If I remember correctly I read that during the Civil War the average height of veterans on both sides was somewhere betwixt 66 and 68 inches, with an average weight between 130 and 145 pounds or so. That sound right to you Harry?

That's just about the range I remember as well, Doug.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 9:17 am

I remember when we visited London many years ago we saw a suit of armor worn by Henry VIII. He was unusually tall for that time, reaching six feet tall, according to the guide. And Mary Queen of Scots was near that height, which was extremely tall for a woman at that time.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:29 am

Big Steve, I would tend to agree with L. Montgomery's height as like 5'8". She looks tall, long-legged. Are you thinking of Lizzie Borden? Wasn't she 5'4"?

Why does this happen, the bigger people in future generations? Someone posted it was better health than the previous generation. That makes sense. I'll say, "Is it better health, Alex?"

snokkums · Post by **snokkums** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:19 pm

I guess I'd fit right in. I am 5'2".

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 4:11 pm

So you're a tiny Snookums. My mother is 5'2".

Smudgeman · Post by **Smudgeman** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 8:14 pm

I believe people shrink as they get older. When I was a teenager, my great-grandmother was 99 years old, she was like a shrinking violet, she definitely got shorter before she passed away. In her youth she was a sturdy woman, in her last days she was a fragile shell of the body she once had. Old age and gravity I guess..............
I am short 5'8, Both my sisters are taller, 5' 9, my father is tall, I got the short gene from my Grandparents I think. Seems the women were taller in my family.

Susan · Post by **Susan** » Tue Oct 16, 2007 10:10 pm

My greatgrandmother, who was born in the 1890s, was only like 5' 2" or 5' 4", something like that. Her daughters were around 5' 6", her sons around 5' 8" to 5' 9". My mom's mom was only like 5' 5" or 5' 6". My mom is only around 5' 7", so, I tower over the women on my mom's side of the family at 5' 9". It is interesting to see the progression over the years.

Liz Crouthers · Post by **Liz Crouthers** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:18 am

Well I'm 5'6. The shortest in my dad's family and the tallest in my mom's family. My brother is 5'7, I'm hoping to beat him.Women grow till their 26. So maybe.

Tracie · Post by **Tracie** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 3:15 pm

My grandmother was one of eight. There were 10 years between her and her only sister. My Aunt Georgie was born and raised in Vermont and was 5'8" while my Gram was the youngest and born in Vermont but raised in Massachusetts and she was 5"1". My Uncle Alzor was the youngest and smallest of all the brothers. The family said Gram and Uncle Al were short because they grew up away from the fresh air and country of Vermont. Gram was born in 1902. I am 5'2.5" and shortest of three. Jake is 6' even and brother Tim is 5'4" on a good day. My mom was 5"3" and she is shrinking due to arthritis (this is first time in my life that I am taller than my mom) and my Dad was 5'4".

Hello to everyone, it's been awhile!!

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:39 pm

Is that our Taunton Tracie???
Where've you been? Welcome home!

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:18 am

The height increases seem to occur in the twentieth century. My grandfather was 5'9", my father was 5'11", I'm 6'3", and my eldest son is 6'6". My other two sons are 6'3" and 6'4", but my daughter is 5'5" which is an inch shorter than her mother. I had a great-uncle who was born in the early 1880's who was 6'1" and he was considered unusually tall for that time period. His wife, my maternal grandmother's eldest sister, was 4'11".

Tracie · Post by **Tracie** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Yes Kat it is me!!

Busy with life, I guess. I check in every so often. My sweetheart has been metal detecting at Taunton State Hospital and finding mecury dimes, old buckles and other odd items. I went for a walk thru the grounds last week and I had a different view from my younger days. I STILL have not been to Lizzie's. Can you belive that? My niece is living on Second Street and I plan to visit before she moves away. Always wanted to go but just never have.

Glad to be remembered.

Tracie

Tina-Kate · Post by **Tina-Kate** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:16 pm

Seems to be the common thing.

My grandmother was around 5' 2" (altho I must admit, she was elderly when I knew her). My mother at full height was 5' 6" (altho she has shrunk, as she is now elderly). I am 5' 7-1/2".

My Dad was 6' at full height. I have one brother 6' & the other reached about 6' 2".

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:25 pm

One anomaly I've come across in genealogy research is a distant relation in North Carolina, the Williamson family. They were close to 7' tall and all lived to about 100 years of age. They were well known locally as Indian fighters in the 1700's.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:05 pm

Yes, people shrink when they're older, Smudgeman. I forgot about that. But I'm not talking about that phenomenon. I mean people at their full height.

Williamson - are they Finnish, Yooper? The suffix "son" often comes from Finns, that I've noticed.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Thu Oct 18, 2007 8:24 pm

I understand that the Williamsons were English. The suffix "son" is quite often Swedish. The tradition worked quite well as long as everyone knew the son's father by his first name. Eric, Ander's son (Anderson)->John, Erick's son (Erickson)->Lars, John's son (Johnson), etc. The name Johnson is not always Swedish in origin, it can be Scottish, derived from Johnston. Finnish names often end with "la" (Hemmila, Laurila), "nen" (Manninen, Kaukonen, Heitinen), and the name Maki can have several prefixes (Hautemaki, Rintamaki).

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:57 am

Oh Tracie! How cool! Metal-detecting sounds like so much fun! I would love that.
It might be sad at the asylum grounds, but it is in a way a memorial to find and hold on to things found there.
I remember the pictures from there- very leaf-strewn and lonely and haunting...

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 2:12 am

BTW: I stumbled across census for 1900 for "Taunton Insane Hospital." It was weird because I didn't know what it was at first- I wasn't looking for it. I have pages and pages and pages and pages of it!

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 6:37 pm

Do you have a link for the Taunton census, Kat? It sounds fascinating!

Very interesting, Yooper. I didn't know about the different types of the name "Maki". So "-son" is more Swedish. You know, now that I think of it, part of our family are Olsens/Olsons. But one that was working on geneology did tell us that their real name over in Finland was something long-and-complicated-and-I-forget. They Americanized it when they came over here.

Yes, the suffixes of the Finns are interesting. Did you know that Christine Lahti is from the UP and I read she summers up there, but nowhere have I read where it is she goes. I don't know what town she is from.

If I ever move up there, we're changing our name to "Chapmanen". Just to fit in.

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:32 pm

The word maki is Finnish for hill, so the various prefixes are adjectives describing a hill such as "high hill" or "green hill". The surname Hill may indicate a change from Maki in an attempt to Americanize the name. Olson would indicate a father named Ole and is sometimes spelled Olesson or Oleson.

Kat · Post by **Kat** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:02 am

There's not a link to the census of that year. I saved a bunch of PDF's. I think I have about 6 or 8 pages and each page is what? About 35 names?
It's about the population of a small town. With all the attendant workers.

augusta · Post by **augusta** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:22 am

"Maki" means "Hill"? I never knew that. I'll have to tell my husband. I met someone named Ruth Maki one day up there when we were both getting our hair done. She knew the Olsons or Chapmanens

quite well. There are so many Makis up there! Even Finlandia University (the only Finnish college in the U.S., isn't it, Yooper?).

I learned how the Cornish got established in the UP, which is what my father-in-law was: half Cornish and half Finnish.

How did so many Finns end up in the UP?

Yooper · Post by **Yooper** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:19 pm

The climate here is much like that in the Nordic countries and I think that's what attracted so many Finns to the area. There were many jobs in the mining and logging industries. The Cornwall miners were right at home in the U.P. mines. They brought pasties (pronounced "past" rather than "paste") to the area and they remain a regional favorite. A pasty is diced beef, potatoes, onions, rutabagas, and carrots wrapped in a kind of pie crust. The Cornish miners brought them to work as their lunch and warmed them on a shovel held over a candle. Finlandia University is in Hancock across the Portage Canal from Houghton, which is the home of Michigan Technological University.

FairhavenGuy · Post by **FairhavenGuy** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:34 pm

I think that it has pretty much been disproved that people were considerably shorter in the past. One of our Revolutionary War heroes in Fairhaven was Nathaniel Pope, who was 6' tall in the 1770s. If I recall correctly THomas Jefferson and Abe Lincoln were no slouches when it came to height, either.

On average, Americans were considerably thinner even thirty or forty years ago and that's due more to french fries than to hormones. When I compare the kids coming out of school with Emily today to the kids in my class pictures in the 1960s thre a HUGE difference today. The "fat kid" was the rare one in class in the '60s. . .

Lot's of "stuff" was smaller for much more practical reasons.

In the days when homes were heated with wood or coal fires, smaller homes with low ceilings and small rooms meant less space to heat. Smaller doors let out less heat, as did smaller window openings.

Building materials were harder to come by without Lowes and Home Depot around, so smaller homes also meant less waste of valuable materials.

Furniture was designed to be funtional and to fit the small rooms. In the days when you had six or seven people living in a space the size of most people's living rooms today, they were'nt going to fill that space with huge overstuffed sofas and recliners. . .

The people themselves were not a whole lot smaller, but they lived in smaller, less wasteful quarters than most of us do today.

There were, almost none of the rolly-polly Civil War soldiers in real life that you'll see out on the battlefields during re-enactments today. That's because today one guy's dinner might have fed half a company of men in 1862.