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

Re: [WarOf1812] Francis Scott Key

Expand Messages
  • BritcomHMP@aol.com
    In a message dated 5/6/2001 8:06:12 AM Central Daylight Time, scribe@pobox.com writes:
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.