'Sewn in' for winter ??

[Lionrhod]

For reasons of mischief.

Exactly! I well remember a few years ago a member had two, if not three, identities, and on one occasion started a thread to which he then replied using his other identity.
He's still a member so I won't embarrass him by posting a link to the offending thread 

Well I will say that many years and I were both members of a politics forum. For several weeks we were attacked by members of the forum (notably those of differing political beliefs) as being one poster with two personas. The truth was that because of our particular ISP, we both had the same ISP number attached to our accounts.

Sometimes we DID both post to the same thread, if it was one that interested both of us. And at times we'd be on entirely different subjects. Eventually some of the folks on the forum realized that in many cases we had different interests, and that in ALL we had entirely different writing styles.

The idea of being sewn into clothes, if any parts of this is true, is insane to me. (Though highly interesting.) And yes, I can't imagine schoolmasters or Child Protective Services not noticing the stench and dealing with it as late as the 70's.

I HAVE read that back in the medieval period, before the invention of buttons and zippers, people were often sewn into their garments. It's my understanding that this was more of a rough stitch to keep the clothes from falling off, rather than something that kept them from removing trousers or lifting skirts to use the outhouse. It probably wouldn't require more than a few minutes to do, assuming the person had a servant or family member to help.

In those times, folks other than the wealthy rarely had more than one or two sets of garments, and that bathing was pretty much avoided as it was believed to cause sickness. (Go figure!) So easier to keep the same clothes on all the time, I guess. Now what boggles my mind is how knights in heavy armor (which usually DOES require a squire or other helper to get into) dealt with the bathroom problem!

[Lionrhod]

I wore liberty bodices with rubber buttons as a child but I was never "sewn-in" in the 1950's even though we weren't very "well off".
rayard.

Another interesting find from this thread that I'd never heard of. Wikipedia says they were originally designed to free women from the constriction of corsets. And also that they were preferred gear for maids so that they could move around and perform their duties more easily.

Though I can certainly guess that once undershirts were invented, these might have been unusually restrictive and outdated.

[groom]

With regards to the armour and bathroom problem, in some accounts I've read, if they needed to go they just went in the armour! After all, you can't call a halt in the middle of a battle so that people can use the toilet. Most knights had squires and it was their duty after battles to clean the armour inside and out.

[Cell]

"The blazer is just for show."

Are you sure the whole school isn't "just for show?"  Lots of people do just fine in public schools.

I am sure they do, but our local zoned state school does not meet my son's needs. Not that I have to justify  to anyone our choices of where we (myself and hubby) send our son, but if I sent my son to our local state school,  it would set him back by years.

He has grade skipped , and also grade skipped maths by 2 years on top of that(he is in high school -he is primary age). Our local zoned state school does not cater to this. (We have asked) . He also turned down a really good Music scholarship  to an out of catchment state school because they could not meet his high needs with mathematics. I can not have him sitting bored, not learning  because he has already done those years.

I'd love to send him to a state school, if there was a good one nearby! But there isn't.
Thanks for your concern

[groom]

As you say Cell, you don't have to justify your decision to anyone. You know your son and his needs best and it sounds to me (as a retired teacher) that you have done exactly the right thing for him. It is unfortunate and wrong that his needs can't be catered for in a state school, but if they can't there is no way you can sit back and see his education suffer.

[Lionrhod]

With regards to the armour and bathroom problem, in some accounts I've read, if they needed to go they just went in the armour! After all, you can't call a halt in the middle of a battle so that people can use the toilet. Most knights had squires and it was their duty after battles to clean the armour inside and out.

I'd heard that, but hoped it wasn't true. LOL

Seems to me like having cramps just when you need to swing your sword contribute to a rather poor fighting technique. But then I suppose when people are hacking you with swords from all directions, loosening of the bowels is prone to happen either way.

It's good not to be a squire.

On a different subject of clothes and battle, one of the things that gets me curious is those occasional movie scenes where two armies are fig to>hting each other where they don't look all that much different.

Sure, many battles have been Celts vs. Romans or Vikings vs. Normans, etc, where it's pretty clear who's on which side. But there are plenty of battles where that's not the case. So in the heat of a battlefield, assuming nobody's wearing a particular distinctive type of dress from the others, how do you figure out who to stab and hack at and who not to?

[suey]

Also in recent times, a first hand account of an adolescent boy growing so much during his first year at high school, his dad bought next size up in both shirt and shorts at the beginning of each term ( 4 terms) ... just saying 

We weren't smeared in goosefat (probably too expensive to buy) but we were coated in Vick to keep us warm.

With the exception of shoes, I can associate with the larger sized school uniform and also all other clothing bought by our parents, which was also chosen for us "to grow into".  Additionally last year's summer sandals were made to fit by father cutting off part of the leather uppers so that our toes were exposed - I think these days they'd be compared to the style known as "Jesus sandals".

How I remember that !  My lovely brown T bar sandals with a hole in the toe.  
But then there were others at school who only had black plimsoles summer and winter.  I can see them now, brown rubber soles and elastic across the front.

The summer dress from the year before with a bit sewn on the bottom because there wasn't enough hem left to let down.

We all came out all right though, didn't we ?    I don't feel that I was disadvantaged or damaged by the experience, probably because we were all in the same boat.   

[Rena]

With regards to the armour and bathroom problem, in some accounts I've read, if they needed to go they just went in the armour! After all, you can't call a halt in the middle of a battle so that people can use the toilet. Most knights had squires and it was their duty after battles to clean the armour inside and out.

I'd heard that, but hoped it wasn't true. LOL

Seems to me like having cramps just when you need to swing your sword contribute to a rather poor fighting technique. But then I suppose when people are hacking you with swords from all directions, loosening of the bowels is prone to happen either way.

It's good not to be a squire.

On a different subject of clothes and battle, one of the things that gets me curious is those occasional movie scenes where two armies are fig to>hting each other where they don't look all that much different.

Sure, many battles have been Celts vs. Romans or Vikings vs. Normans, etc, where it's pretty clear who's on which side. But there are plenty of battles where that's not the case. So in the heat of a battlefield, assuming nobody's wearing a particular distinctive type of dress from the others, how do you figure out who to stab and hack at and who not to?

I'm not talking about modern day armies.  Even if two sides were not wearing distinctive uniforms of their particular baron knights, I think I could probably tell my enemy from my friends.  For instance the colour of their dyed cloth would be different depending which plants grew in each local area and as I'm from a blonde-brunette hair & blue to hazel eyed area, I reckon I'd spot it if the enemy had black hair and eyebrows or different regional hairstyles and whilst I'd be wearing a rough sheepskin jerkin, my enemy might be wearing a rough goatskin jerkin not available in my area.  Also if you watch any antique shows on TV you'll see that different areas had different shaped/styes of tools, blades, daggers/knives. etc which all did the same job.  If you lived on the coast you'd know that sailors wore woollen jumpers from specific sheeps wool and the women of each port knitted a pattern into the jumper that belonged to that specific port, thus every sailor recognised where each sailor originated.

I bet their sense of smell was more keen than we have these days.  Thus, I think that insurgents probably had a different diet, which means their sweat glands exuded a different smell and you don't have to be face to face with somebody to know if they've eaten garlic for instance.   

[Andrew Tarr]

Now what boggles my mind is how knights in heavy armour (which usually DOES require a squire or other helper to get into) dealt with the bathroom problem!

Sounds like the old gag:  Q - what's the cure for water on the knee ?
A - (a) drainpipe trousers or (b) a tap on the ankle ....

Sorry ....