>My point is that you can't be expected to do that in just one article, and I think the one that I gave the link to is a perfectly reasonable one, and the Victoriana site overall is an invaluable source of information on all things Victoriana.
And
my point was that you can't simply rely on fashion plates, from secondary resources, to educate yourself on Edwardian and Victorian fashions. I never said anything about putting it into one article. Which, could be done. It'd be a long article, yes, but it'd be an article still.
>There is no way, however, that you can compare fashion ideals of the 21st century to the 19th century.
Uhh... well I know
I didn't make that comparison - unless you're talking about where I said fashion is used by some today as a way to show their affluence.
And just because fashion changes, does that negate its importance in a given period? Is the aforementioned crinoline not important because it was passed over beginning in 1868 for the bustle? Which itself wouldn't be important because it got usurped by the slim-skirted lines of the mid and later 1870s? But aren't those slim-skirted lines not important, because they were replaced by the revival of the bustle in the mid 1880s? You could go on discounting the importance of each phase of fashion because "Well, it changed!" until you have negated fashion itself.
Fashion is always in a state of flux, yes, but so is civilization and society. The study of society and its changes is called social anthropology. If we were to say that study of something that changed over the years was impossible to document, how would we be able to study societal change? How would we, indeed, be able to conduct any field of historical research?
Fashion is an incredibly important segment of historical study - it is an expression and reaction to society norms, shifts, and its changes, that is why it changes as quickly as society itself does.
To tie this back in with the Titanic, to stay on topic - the Titanic changed. It was built, and fitted out (change). It entered service (a change) and it struck an iceberg and sank (rather big change) and it's rusted on the bottom of the ocean floor, for the most part in two pieces, (changing with the times. Rusting.) Does that make it impossible to document, and thus, not worthy of being documented? Not at all - otherwise, why would we be all here on this board having discussions about the ship, and the world that surrounded it?
>For instance, in the Victorian era, I can assure you, nobody would have walked through a lower class area wearing a shining top hat, coat, vest, pocket watch, etc....unless they were asking to be mugged.
Apparently they did, because there were muggings, and places where you are told not to go walking simply don't get their reputation by not being places where people are polite and courteous. The "bad part of town" doesn't get it's bad reputation if people walk through the streets handing flowers to strangers on the sidewalk - unless those flowers are soaked in chloroform and it knocks out the victim and they get robbed.
From your other posts around this forum - I know you've done research, and written articles on the Jack The Ripper killings. You did know that Whitechapel was a popular place for rich youths to go "slumming" in the 1880s, right? In New York, it was popular to go and "
Do" the slums of Five Points. So, yes, it could be said that you could some times see a man in a shining top hat, coat, vest, and pocket watch in a lower class area. Would he have gotten mugged? It's not out of the question.