Would Queen Victoria Have Worn a Leotard?

We’re scraping the proverbial bottom again but it is a momentarily, mildly interesting thing to contemplate - but not envision. The idea that Queen Victoria might have, in reality, donned a leotard is quite out of the question.

We consider the very idea of things ‘born’ in the Victorian era to be prudish, uptight, buttoned to the neck, etc. - and there may be reason for that. Monarchs have always been given, by the media, a discreet curtain of silence, which could be drawn over their indiscretions - and it would appear that Victoria was no different.

In fact, it is my theory that in order to make sure that such indiscretions did not make the dailies, an impenetrable cone of silence was put in place - and the fallout from this had repercussions throughout society at large; the fact that the Queen might be having the odd dalliance could not be known and thus, as a result, the entire zeitgeist of the time began to reflect a more ‘closed’ world in which ‘vice’, however defined, must be tamped down.

Whenever a society tries to lay a conservative blanket of suppressive thinking over the body of humanity, they are bound to find a lot of illicit activity going on under the covers - we are animals, after all.

Which brings me to my point (I had a point!?):

It’s funny to think that in the midst of all this moral, sexual suppression, a Frenchman by the name of Jules Leotard should have begun to appear, in public, in what must have been, for the times, the skimpiest, and tightest of costumes.

Jules Leotard, originator of the eponymously named garment, was not only the ‘father’ of that close fitting, stretchy little number worn by dancers and acrobats alike - but the father/inventor of the flying trapeze act. He was also memorialized in song - I’m sure you’ve heard, ‘The Daring Young Man on the Flying Trapeze’, haven’t you?

What I find amazing is that amidst all the suppression of the Victorian Era, there should have been such displays of the human figure - in public.

I know it doesn’t seem like much today - a leotard, a pair of tights - but think about it - there was but the thinnest veil of fabric covering the rawest of rippling, muscled flesh while an entire population went around, daily, covered from head to heel- does that sound ‘prudish’ to you? It sounds like the suppression of basic human characteristics to me - all that wrapping up (while observing the more or less, unclad.).

I guess what it all amounts to is that there were double standards - say one thing and dress accordingly but, behave in a completely different way. And Victoria did - if one is to believe all that has come to be revealed over the years.

But Monarchs shape their times - and no matter what hijinks or high spirits might have been about during her reign, her age will always be known as one which was repressed - and rehabilitation of that image of her epoch is virtually impossible, once committed to history.

And so I suggest that we all squeeze into a leotard and prance about in honour of this Victoria Day weekend - but only if said garment is buried beneath a royally respective number of outer clothes - top hats are optional…