Talk:Breeching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Fashion Portal This article is within the scope of the Fashion WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of Low-importance within fashion.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

A fact from Breeching appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 22 September 2007.

Superb! --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Stumbling across this article has completely revitalised my enthusiasm for the project this week. Thankyou :-) Shimgray | talk | 19:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In terms of actual content... we discuss the meaning of the term "coat" (for "dress") a couple of times. Might it be worth noting the survival of a vestigal use of this term, in "petticoat" etc? Shimgray | talk | 19:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Coat, which I should link to, is a complicated word, like frock, which has a very odd history given its main meaning now. Johnbod 21:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

See Clothing terminology as well, which was the article that got me into editing wikipedia big-time in the first place. Probably due for a refresh... - PKM 19:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the term 'retractable' sword meant to convey that the hilt was affixed permanently to the scabbard? If so, might a more felicitous term be found? I hate to suggest an edit to such an otherwise well-done article, but the mental image of a retractable sword offers up a gigantic spring-blade (switch-blade) knife to me! {grin} Cordially, --Drieux 20:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll have to think of something. Johnbod 21:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 20th century usage

I can assure you that the wearing of "dresses" by very young boys did not die out after the First World War; I have a photograph of myself taken on Coronation Day in 1953, when I was just over a year old, and I am clearly wearing a dress. I am male! Furthermore, Christening Robes (though rarely used these days) are in the form of a dress for children of either sex.

In fact, I do not think the use of dresses for baby boys died out until stretch-suits (e.g. Baby-Gro) became widely available. While kids still need nappies (diapers for American readers), a dress is a very practical answer to problems of access for changing!--APRCooper 19:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the sources say 1920 (Museum of Childhood link etc), but really this is for toddlers & up. I hope you didn't remain in dresses too long! The pre-"shortcoating" dresses stage for babies did continue for sometime, which I should add. I think I have some incriminating photos myself. Really we need a broader article on the whole topic of children's clothes, which I don't think we have. Long Christening robes are the long-coats (not I think actually called that) all babies wore all the time until they were shortcoated, up to ?the C19. Johnbod 21:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Not once I was reliably toilet trained! --APRCooper 18:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beginning..?

A very interesting article. Congrats on getting onto DYK. Though, I am curious as to when this practice began. The article says "until the 19th or 20th century..." So, are we meant to believe that this practice goes back forever? Did it begin in the 10th century? the 12th? the 15th? And how different were the clothes (the fashion, the style) involved over the course of the centuries? Thanks. LordAmeth 06:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit vague about that because the sources we have at the moment are. In most of the Middle Ages (see the various period articles) any leggings or trousers were essentially worn under a long gownish garment which was the top layer. Young boys just didn't wear the leggings, or not up to a joined pants section at the top - I suppose. They may have had open back seams as Chinese babies/toddlers still I think do. But I don't have sources on this, and wonder how much is actually known. Until the mid to late C15th dress-type gowns were plausible wear for adult males, even if mostly worn, say, by older men, or poorer ones, so you can't distinguish boys really. The pictures (& those on commons) cover the styles more fully than the article is able to, and show that boys dresses tracked many of the very complicated changes in style in womens dresses over the period, at a certain distance. Johnbod 13:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I've found a peer-reviewed article that suggests that the practice arose (in England at least) in the 1540s, which seems about right. I'll add "mid-sixteenth century" with the citation. - PKM 16:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - there are also some pretty small boys to be seen wearing the baggy shorts C16 things (I forget the name) which presumably could be got down quicker in an emergency than later breeches - or were held up by a belt and more forgiving of growth. Scholarship does not seem to have fully covered this important aspect of matters yet! Johnbod 16:25, 29 September 2007 (UTC)