I've said it on tons of threads, but I've been here in Europe for a year, and the climate is wildly different. I am constantly impressed by how long the colonists held on to English (European) norms when it came to clothing.
Fabric was incredibly expensive, and the wealthy literally wore their wealth. Two layers of silk in the doublet, one with holes poked through it so it wouldn’t be remade, is ultimate conspicuous consumption. Those huge pants are the same message using two to three times as much silk as normal breeches. The black is extremely hard to dye and costs much more than other colors. The money is important to understanding status statements. We’re very spoiled when regular people can wear black.
Yes. Conspicuous consumption is an excellent way to put it. One's clothing would identify their class and status as well as determined how they were treated. Whether there was the social obligation for one to dress to their class or the urge to dress above one's class, there could be could be much wealth displayed. Regardless if one could actually afford it or not, and a reason that secondhand clothing retained value. George Percy was fortunate that his brother was more than wealthy enough to send him clothing appropriate for his status.
Yes. The English world view was shaped by the concept of the Great Chain of Being. That everything was ordered and had its appropriate place. There was also the social view that masterless men were a social disruption. Who were you tied to, who were you in service to? Nobility tied to the monarchy, apprentices tied to their masters, or soldiers tied to their captain. Of course rank had its privileges and could include great wealth. But, rank also brought the obligation to keep and display status, which could also be a significant financial burden. If you were gentry you were obligated to keep your status, you couldn't just dress down or cheap out. This could be difficult for poorer gentry families, or young second or third sons leaving their fathers households to make their way in the world. While in Virginia George Percy relied on his brother, the Earl of Northumberland, to cover all of his expenses to maintain his status. This becomes important for the common classes, because when you've tied yourself to one of a higher social rank, their ability to maintain their status directly impacts your economic stability, potential success and maintained social order.
Jay looks ridiculous! No offense, Jay. I guess following fashion was even more important then than now. It just seems so impractical, especially in a time and place where just living seems more difficult than now. Interesting presentation!
Met Jay last Friday just before closing time as a substantially different class of citizen.🪶 I learned a lot and had a great visit. Yall keep up the great work!
I've said it on tons of threads, but I've been here in Europe for a year, and the climate is wildly different. I am constantly impressed by how long the colonists held on to English (European) norms when it came to clothing.
(Laura Mellin) EEEEE! You’re still using my ruff! I made that ruff! …I’m amazed it’s still holding together. 🙂💜
Love it!!
Two of our favorite interpreters! Very well done, I actually believed Jay was a gentleman. 😁
Right, of course! Jay would never be caught using a saw, operating a lathe, or pushing a plow. Too far below his gentry status. 😁
Great video from a English man 🏴
Thank you! 👍
Perfect timing! I'm reading a novel that takes place in the 17thc and I've been trying to picture how the people dressed. This helps a bit!
Thanks! We're glad you've found our video helpful.
Loving the getting dressed videos 😊 Well done 👍
Thanks so much 😊
Very interesting, thanks. 😊
You're welcome!
Wait is that Samantha Bullat?!
Fabric was incredibly expensive, and the wealthy literally wore their wealth. Two layers of silk in the doublet, one with holes poked through it so it wouldn’t be remade, is ultimate conspicuous consumption. Those huge pants are the same message using two to three times as much silk as normal breeches. The black is extremely hard to dye and costs much more than other colors. The money is important to understanding status statements. We’re very spoiled when regular people can wear black.
Yes. Conspicuous consumption is an excellent way to put it. One's clothing would identify their class and status as well as determined how they were treated. Whether there was the social obligation for one to dress to their class or the urge to dress above one's class, there could be could be much wealth displayed. Regardless if one could actually afford it or not, and a reason that secondhand clothing retained value. George Percy was fortunate that his brother was more than wealthy enough to send him clothing appropriate for his status.
So they were keeping up appearances in an attempt to have social status in the colonies. Very amazing suit!
Yes. The English world view was shaped by the concept of the Great Chain of Being. That everything was ordered and had its appropriate place. There was also the social view that masterless men were a social disruption. Who were you tied to, who were you in service to? Nobility tied to the monarchy, apprentices tied to their masters, or soldiers tied to their captain.
Of course rank had its privileges and could include great wealth. But, rank also brought the obligation to keep and display status, which could also be a significant financial burden. If you were gentry you were obligated to keep your status, you couldn't just dress down or cheap out. This could be difficult for poorer gentry families, or young second or third sons leaving their fathers households to make their way in the world. While in Virginia George Percy relied on his brother, the Earl of Northumberland, to cover all of his expenses to maintain his status.
This becomes important for the common classes, because when you've tied yourself to one of a higher social rank, their ability to maintain their status directly impacts your economic stability, potential success and maintained social order.
Jay really looks like a gentleman from 17'th century.
He does!
@@JYFMuseums The spectacles are a bit of an anachronism, though: they look more 18th century. 17th c. glasses didn't have temples.
And that was so useful for the mud, horse poop, sewage, and hot weather.
Thank you for this! Always interesting!! 🧡💙
You are so welcome
what were english grooming /hair length standards of the period and did they differ between upper and lower classes?
Thank you!! ■ M
You're welcome!
Overlord
Jay looks ridiculous! No offense, Jay. I guess following fashion was even more important then than now. It just seems so impractical, especially in a time and place where just living seems more difficult than now. Interesting presentation!
Fashion is often ridiculous. 😊 Impractical clothing was often worn by the upper classes, throughout the centuries. 🙂
dude looks like hes 5´5😂
Met Jay last Friday just before closing time as a substantially different class of citizen.🪶 I learned a lot and had a great visit. Yall keep up the great work!
That is awesome! Thank you.