you can absolutely do a kirtle/petticoat with upperbodies for early 17th century, as opposed to a fully boned separate pair of bodies. the extant pairs of bodies we have all belong to very upperclass women. common women are definitely still wearing kirtles/petticoats with upperbodies into the 17th century. you don't *need* a bum roll, depending on what class you're going for.
i do have undergarments for an upperclass woman that i've already made (http://reine-de-coudre.livejournal.com/209981.html). you'll notice that the petticoat is worn UNDER the bodies and are tied together. this is the newer alternative to a petticoat with upperbodies stitched to the skirt. unfortunately, period terminology is a bit sketchy on what differentiates a kirtle from a petticoat, since petticoats often had upperbodies stitched to them. but both garments generally have a bodice and skirt stitched together which may or may not be made of the same fabric. it /seems/ that petticoats are a lesser garment than kirtles, if that makes sense. but "kirtle" falls out of fashion by the 17th century. it's near the end of the 16th c and early 17th c that we start seeing completely separate skirt "petticoats" like we think of today. this is all pretty new research from the last few years (sort of like the "polonaise" discovery).
i would highly suggest getting "the tudor tailor" if you haven't!!! a wealth of info there. also think about joining the "elizabethan costuming" page on FB. a truly excellent group. i work at jamestown settlement making historical clothing, so early 17th c consumes my life! i definitely do not claim to know everything, but i've learned a lot in the year and a half i have worked there.
for what it's worth, i'm working on my lower class/common woman's 17th c outfit right now and will be doing a write up on it soon! i just finished my petticoat with upperbodies. next will be a partlet and waistcoat (jacket)!
no subject
i do have undergarments for an upperclass woman that i've already made (http://reine-de-coudre.livejournal.com/209981.html). you'll notice that the petticoat is worn UNDER the bodies and are tied together. this is the newer alternative to a petticoat with upperbodies stitched to the skirt. unfortunately, period terminology is a bit sketchy on what differentiates a kirtle from a petticoat, since petticoats often had upperbodies stitched to them. but both garments generally have a bodice and skirt stitched together which may or may not be made of the same fabric. it /seems/ that petticoats are a lesser garment than kirtles, if that makes sense. but "kirtle" falls out of fashion by the 17th century. it's near the end of the 16th c and early 17th c that we start seeing completely separate skirt "petticoats" like we think of today. this is all pretty new research from the last few years (sort of like the "polonaise" discovery).
i would highly suggest getting "the tudor tailor" if you haven't!!! a wealth of info there. also think about joining the "elizabethan costuming" page on FB. a truly excellent group. i work at jamestown settlement making historical clothing, so early 17th c consumes my life! i definitely do not claim to know everything, but i've learned a lot in the year and a half i have worked there.
for what it's worth, i'm working on my lower class/common woman's 17th c outfit right now and will be doing a write up on it soon! i just finished my petticoat with upperbodies. next will be a partlet and waistcoat (jacket)!