Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [WarOf1812] Francis Scott Key

Expand Messages
  • Scribe
    ... As for the clothing, since when did dressing in the fashion of the day necessarily make one gay? It was a fussy, frilly time. Less so, in my opinion, than
    Message 1 of 9 , May 6, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      gmginsfo@... wrote:

      > Artists' depictions of the man - I have never seen what even
      > purports to be a true representation of him - consistently portray
      > him as a rather fashionable dandy, from his buckled beaver hat down
      > to his au courant ([requiescat in] pace, Mr. Franklin) pantaloons.
      > In short, he appears in American history as a sort of latter-day Will
      > Scarlet, a likeable, rambling troubador with an honest enough - for
      > then, at least - profession, but not to be taken too seriously once
      > inside the courtroom. (I have not discovered any opinions in the
      > early reporters listing him as counsel.) Thus, can anyone offer
      > any evidence or their opinion as to whether or not FSK was gay? Or,
      > why has his image come down to us in a way that at least suggests
      > such a possibility?

      Then spikeyj@... wrote:

      > In Richard Shenkman's "I Love Paul Revere, Whether He Rode Or
      > Not" it's revealed that Key was not the patriot that 200 years of
      > myth-accretion has made him. He was actually against the war, calling
      > it "this abominable war" and "a lump of wickedness". He told his
      > mother that he thought the U.S. was at fault, and that the States
      > deserved to lose.
      >
      > He did see military service, but described it as "brief and
      > uneventful".
      >
      > Spike Y Jones

      As for the clothing, since when did dressing in the fashion of the day
      necessarily make one gay? It was a fussy, frilly time. Less so, in my
      opinion, than the fashions of waistcoats and falls of lace at the neck
      and wrists, such as those worn by our "founding fathers". But it really
      was an era when men obsessed on their clothing, if what I have read is
      accurate. Being a "dandy" was fairly common-place among callow young
      men. It was a means of rebelling. And among older men trying to look
      young. It was an age of fashion where men--most men--took their attire
      seriously. And a time when there were fewer options in clothing. You
      bought what your tailor would make.

      It was a time when people were sorting out their social standings in the
      world, when the "old way of judging things" was no longer holding true.
      America was still trying to figure out how we were going to know who was
      important and who wasn't, since we had turned our backs on noblesse.
      Clothing had something to do with that.

      And one must account for the biases of the portrait artists, who tended
      to put their subjects in what they considered "the best light". That is,
      best fashion.

      I'd have to say I think this is reaching just a bit. However, I am not
      the scholar most of you are, on this subject at least. It's interesting
      to pursue the subject, I suppose. But I haven't seen enough here yet
      even to make me wonder. Just searching Key on the Net has led to a
      source stating he had a wife, six sons and five daughters. Now, as we
      know, this is not definitive, but I would have to consider it more
      indicative than dandified clothing in an age of dandies.

      Scribe
    • Maxine Trottier
      Curious of a Sunday morning....is there a Peter Boardman on this list? Max [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Message 2 of 9 , May 6, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Curious of a Sunday morning....is there a Peter Boardman on this list?

        Max


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • BritcomHMP@aol.com
        In a message dated 5/6/2001 8:06:12 AM Central Daylight Time, scribe@pobox.com writes:
        Message 3 of 9 , May 6, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          In a message dated 5/6/2001 8:06:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
          scribe@... writes:

          << Now, as we
          know, this is not definitive, but I would have to consider it more
          indicative than dandified clothing in an age of dandies. >>

          As a strict fashion point I think a lot of people (and many historians) don't
          actually get what a 'Dandy' is. Most people confuse a Dandy with a Beau or
          Macaroni when in actual fact it is a complete repudiation of frippery and
          ostentation.
          The fashion is developed from English country clothes, whereas the 18th
          century was obsessed with cut the Dandy was obsessed with fit and absolute
          perfection in every aspect of dress. The supreme dandy was Beau Brummel, Dark
          blue coat with gilt buttons, buff waistcoat and breeches, perfectly polished
          boots and spotless linen shirt and neckcloth. Trousers were much used by
          later dandies.

          Military Dandies of the time included Captain Gronow, Col. Kelly and of
          course, though he was nicknamed 'the Beau,' what was Wellington, in his white
          breeches and neckcloth, blue frock coat and small black cocked hat, but a
          dandy?

          In fact what was introduced by the dandy of that period is still very much
          the fashion for today, George Brummels maxim was that if the common
          man-in-the-street were to turn to look at you, you are not properly dressed.

          Cheers

          Tim
        • colsjtjones2000@yahoo.ca
          I must admit that I am unsure of the differences between breeches, trousers and pantaloons when worn with Hessian boots in our period. Would appreciate
          Message 4 of 9 , May 6, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            I must admit that I am unsure of the differences between breeches,
            trousers and pantaloons when worn with Hessian boots in our period.
            Would appreciate amplification. Doug




            --- In WarOf1812@y..., BritcomHMP@a... wrote:
            > In a message dated 5/6/2001 8:06:12 AM Central Daylight Time,
            > scribe@p... writes:
            >
            > << Now, as we
            > know, this is not definitive, but I would have to consider it more
            > indicative than dandified clothing in an age of dandies. >>
            >
            > As a strict fashion point I think a lot of people (and many
            historians) don't
            > actually get what a 'Dandy' is. Most people confuse a Dandy with a
            Beau or
            > Macaroni when in actual fact it is a complete repudiation of
            frippery and
            > ostentation.
            > The fashion is developed from English country clothes, whereas the
            18th
            > century was obsessed with cut the Dandy was obsessed with fit and
            absolute
            > perfection in every aspect of dress. The supreme dandy was Beau
            Brummel, Dark
            > blue coat with gilt buttons, buff waistcoat and breeches, perfectly
            polished
            > boots and spotless linen shirt and neckcloth. Trousers were much
            used by
            > later dandies.
            >
            > Military Dandies of the time included Captain Gronow, Col. Kelly
            and of
            > course, though he was nicknamed 'the Beau,' what was Wellington, in
            his white
            > breeches and neckcloth, blue frock coat and small black cocked hat,
            but a
            > dandy?
            >
            > In fact what was introduced by the dandy of that period is still
            very much
            > the fashion for today, George Brummels maxim was that if the common
            > man-in-the-street were to turn to look at you, you are not properly
            dressed.
            >
            > Cheers
            >
            > Tim
          • BritcomHMP@aol.com
            In a message dated 5/6/2001 4:55:46 PM Central Daylight Time, colsjtjones2000@yahoo.ca writes:
            Message 5 of 9 , May 6, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 5/6/2001 4:55:46 PM Central Daylight Time,
              colsjtjones2000@... writes:

              << I must admit that I am unsure of the differences between breeches,
              trousers and pantaloons when worn with Hessian boots in our period.
              Would appreciate amplification. >>

              Simply speaking.

              Breeches end at the knee and are usually worn with stockings and pumps. No
              gentleman would think of attending a formal engagement during our period in
              anything other than breeches. They can be worn with boots of course but in
              that case the lower part of the breeches (knee down) was usually covered by a
              short tube of cloth called a 'manchette' these can be seen used by French
              heavy cavalry officers of the period.

              Pantaloons are cut like breeches but extend below the calf and are usually
              (though not exclusively) worn with boots. If the pantaloons are the usual
              buttoned kind and worn with boots they can look very much like breeches but
              are rather more comfortable to wear when riding.
              For certain gala occasions on foot (balls, court, etc.) certain light cavalry
              officers were permitted to appear in pantaloons of stockinette, usually
              highly decorated, and special soft boots.

              Trousers were developed from overalls, though they fit the leg rather more
              closely. They are still very loose compared to the above, are invariably worn
              over the boots and can be strapped under the foot.

              I think part of the problem here is that people use these terms in the wrong
              way and pantaloons are often called breeches (and vice versa) whit many
              people thing that these are just quaint period alternative words for
              'trousers'.

              As with most things in life, words mean things and are not interchangeable.

              Cheers

              Tim
            • Craig Williams
              What are you basing your theory that FSK was gay on ? Or do you misunderstand ( misinterpret) the fashion of the time.? What kind of book is that? Craig Thus,
              Message 6 of 9 , May 20, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                What are you basing your theory that FSK was gay on ?
                Or do you misunderstand ( misinterpret) the fashion of the time.?
                What kind of book is that?

                Craig


                Thus, can anyone offer
                >> any evidence or their opinion as to whether or not FSK was gay? Or,
                >> why has his image come down to us in a way that at least suggests
                >> such a possibility?
              • HQ93rd@aol.com
                In a message dated 20/5/01 1:13:50 PM, sgtwarnr@idirect.ca writes: He seems to have been rather
                Message 7 of 9 , May 21, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  In a message dated 20/5/01 1:13:50 PM, sgtwarnr@... writes:

                  << What are you basing your theory that FSK was gay on ? >>

                  He seems to have been rather happy at the "dawn's early light", but probably
                  not so gay when the Brits first made him stay on board...
                  OH!! -- You mean THAT gay!
                  ....nevermind.....
                  B
                  93rd SHRoFLHU
                  THE Thin Red Line
                  www.93rdhighlanders.com
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.