[Richard III Society Forum] Re: Richard's fashion, was Re: Fifteent

mariewalsh2003 wrote:

> I think that is the Burgundian painting of someone
presenting a book
> to Edward IV. He seems to have been identified
merely by the Garter
> on his leg. Anne Sutton &LLivia Visser-fuches have
cast some doubt on
> whether we should take it seriously as a true
likeness. Liva has
> demonstrated that "the man with the big buttocks" -
ie a figure in
> identical pose and the same risque jacket - was a
stock figure in
> Burgundian art. So if it was meant to be Richard it
was not a
> portrait.

I never said it was a portrait, but it seems odd if
they deliberately painted him in uncharacteristicly
daring clothing, especially when he's the only one in
the painting dressed ithat way. And if it's not
Richard, why would a garter make someone assume it is
him? There were a lot of Knights of the Garter back then.


Take care,
Kat

The guy who's supposed to be Richard actually looks more like Dick
Tracy, except there's nothing on his wrist.

Rogue wrote:
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > I think that is the Burgundian painting of someone
> presenting a book
> > to Edward IV. He seems to have been identified
> merely by the Garter
> > on his leg. Anne Sutton &LLivia Visser-fuches have
> cast some doubt on
> > whether we should take it seriously as a true
> likeness. Liva has
> > demonstrated that "the man with the big buttocks" -
> ie a figure in
> > identical pose and the same risque jacket - was a
> stock figure in
> > Burgundian art. So if it was meant to be Richard it
> was not a
> > portrait.
>
> I never said it was a portrait, but it seems odd if
> they deliberately painted him in uncharacteristicly
> daring clothing, especially when he's the only one in
> the painting dressed ithat way. And if it's not
> Richard, why would a garter make someone assume it is
> him? There were a lot of Knights of the Garter back then.
>
> Take care,
> Kat
>
>

That's great.

In fact, this whole discussion is great. Drinks all around.

Bill Barber <bbarber@...> wrote:
The guy who's supposed to be Richard actually looks more like Dick
Tracy, except there's nothing on his wrist.

Rogue wrote:
>
> mariewalsh2003 wrote:
>
> > I think that is the Burgundian painting of someone
> presenting a book
> > to Edward IV. He seems to have been identified
> merely by the Garter
> > on his leg. Anne Sutton &LLivia Visser-fuches have
> cast some doubt on
> > whether we should take it seriously as a true
> likeness. Liva has
> > demonstrated that "the man with the big buttocks" -
> ie a figure in
> > identical pose and the same risque jacket - was a
> stock figure in
> > Burgundian art. So if it was meant to be Richard it
> was not a
> > portrait.
>
> I never said it was a portrait, but it seems odd if
> they deliberately painted him in uncharacteristicly
> daring clothing, especially when he's the only one in
> the painting dressed ithat way. And if it's not
> Richard, why would a garter make someone assume it is
> him? There were a lot of Knights of the Garter back then.
>
> Take care,
> Kat
>
>

Here's the Wavrin illustration, which I think is the one we're speaking
of. Richard is allegedly the dude at the front with the green hat and
garter . I swear to God it's really Dick Tracy. Look at the jawline.
Sorry, it's the best copy of the image I can find.
http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/britishlibrary/controller/subjectidsearch?id=10213&startid=7378&width=4&height=2&idx=2

Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> That's great.
>
> In fact, this whole discussion is great. Drinks all around.
>
> Bill Barber <bbarber@eol. ca <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>> wrote:
> The guy who's supposed to be Richard actually looks more like Dick
> Tracy, except there's nothing on his wrist.
>
> Rogue wrote:
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> >
> > > I think that is the Burgundian painting of someone
> > presenting a book
> > > to Edward IV. He seems to have been identified
> > merely by the Garter
> > > on his leg. Anne Sutton &LLivia Visser-fuches have
> > cast some doubt on
> > > whether we should take it seriously as a true
> > likeness. Liva has
> > > demonstrated that "the man with the big buttocks" -
> > ie a figure in
> > > identical pose and the same risque jacket - was a
> > stock figure in
> > > Burgundian art. So if it was meant to be Richard it
> > was not a
> > > portrait.
> >
> > I never said it was a portrait, but it seems odd if
> > they deliberately painted him in uncharacteristicly
> > daring clothing, especially when he's the only one in
> > the painting dressed ithat way. And if it's not
> > Richard, why would a garter make someone assume it is
> > him? There were a lot of Knights of the Garter back then.
> >
> > Take care,
> > Kat
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , Bill Barber
<bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> Here's the Wavrin illustration, which I think is the one we're
speaking
> of. Richard is allegedly the dude at the front with the green hat
and
> garter . I swear to God it's really Dick Tracy. Look at the
jawline.
> Sorry, it's the best copy of the image I can find.


Thanks Bill, that's the one. I really don't understand the
identification. Personally I think it's Desperate Dan wearing one of
his sister's frocks. I'm trying to remember whose idea this
originally was. I seem to think it was first suggested it might be
Richard in the 1970s or 1980s, and it's sort of taken on a life of
its own since then. The arguments are:
1) He's wearing a Garter
2) He's got dark hair and a craggy chin like the portraits of Richard.
But one of the figures on the right is also wearing a garter, only
it's not so obvious as it's only visible where his gown is slit - and
these are the only two where the relevant leg is on show.
Of course there were a lot of Garter knights, but this is a painting
of something which occurred during Edward's exile in Burgundy and
there weren't many Garter knights in exile with him; this is the
foundation of the identification as Richard.
I'm sure, however, that Richard wasn't the only one Garter knight in
Burgundy - perhaps we should make a list. Also, is this any more than
the artist's way of indicating the presence of top English courtiers
whilst Waurin presented his book? There was no journalist present
noting who was there and who was wearing what. So, the counter-
argument runs, stock figures were used - these are nobody in
particular. Burgundian court fashions were extreme and I doubt if the
artist saw anything odd about the figure he was drawing. In fact,
many of the other examples of this figure have much more on show.
Other than Edward IV and Waurin, I think we might be following a
false trail in attempting to identify the figures.
Jonathan Hughes has gone even further, identifying a figure from an
illustration in a copy of Lull's 'Book of the Order of Chivalry' as
Richard. The figure is - of course - a dark-haired man with a craggy
chin (and a long gown & flat hat, if anyone's interested) being
instructed by a hermit. Hughes uses this to suggest that Richard was
putting himself forward as an old-fashioned knight with a mission to
fulfil the chivalric ideals which Edwardd IV had failed to observe.

All very dubious stuff. Sometimes it would help if historians would
admit where the evidence is lacking.

Marie



>
http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/britishlibrary/controller/subjectidsearc
h?id=10213&startid=7378&width=4&height=2&idx=2
>
> Megan Lerseth wrote:
> >
> > That's great.
> >
> > In fact, this whole discussion is great. Drinks all around.
> >
> > Bill Barber <bbarber@eol. ca <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>> wrote:
> > The guy who's supposed to be Richard actually looks more like Dick
> > Tracy, except there's nothing on his wrist.
> >
> > Rogue wrote:
> > >
> > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think that is the Burgundian painting of someone
> > > presenting a book
> > > > to Edward IV. He seems to have been identified
> > > merely by the Garter
> > > > on his leg. Anne Sutton &LLivia Visser-fuches have
> > > cast some doubt on
> > > > whether we should take it seriously as a true
> > > likeness. Liva has
> > > > demonstrated that "the man with the big buttocks" -
> > > ie a figure in
> > > > identical pose and the same risque jacket - was a
> > > stock figure in
> > > > Burgundian art. So if it was meant to be Richard it
> > > was not a
> > > > portrait.
> > >
> > > I never said it was a portrait, but it seems odd if
> > > they deliberately painted him in uncharacteristicly
> > > daring clothing, especially when he's the only one in
> > > the painting dressed ithat way. And if it's not
> > > Richard, why would a garter make someone assume it is
> > > him? There were a lot of Knights of the Garter back then.
> > >
> > > Take care,
> > > Kat
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

When was this illustration first printed/made available? I mean, if it was created early on in Edward IV's reign, wouldn't Richard be represented as a child/very young teenager? (If this has already been discussed, please pardon my slow uptake.)

mariewalsh2003 <marie@...> wrote: --- In , Bill Barber
<bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> Here's the Wavrin illustration, which I think is the one we're
speaking
> of. Richard is allegedly the dude at the front with the green hat
and
> garter . I swear to God it's really Dick Tracy. Look at the
jawline.
> Sorry, it's the best copy of the image I can find.

Thanks Bill, that's the one. I really don't understand the
identification. Personally I think it's Desperate Dan wearing one of
his sister's frocks. I'm trying to remember whose idea this
originally was. I seem to think it was first suggested it might be
Richard in the 1970s or 1980s, and it's sort of taken on a life of
its own since then. The arguments are:
1) He's wearing a Garter
2) He's got dark hair and a craggy chin like the portraits of Richard.
But one of the figures on the right is also wearing a garter, only
it's not so obvious as it's only visible where his gown is slit - and
these are the only two where the relevant leg is on show.
Of course there were a lot of Garter knights, but this is a painting
of something which occurred during Edward's exile in Burgundy and
there weren't many Garter knights in exile with him; this is the
foundation of the identification as Richard.
I'm sure, however, that Richard wasn't the only one Garter knight in
Burgundy - perhaps we should make a list. Also, is this any more than
the artist's way of indicating the presence of top English courtiers
whilst Waurin presented his book? There was no journalist present
noting who was there and who was wearing what. So, the counter-
argument runs, stock figures were used - these are nobody in
particular. Burgundian court fashions were extreme and I doubt if the
artist saw anything odd about the figure he was drawing. In fact,
many of the other examples of this figure have much more on show.
Other than Edward IV and Waurin, I think we might be following a
false trail in attempting to identify the figures.
Jonathan Hughes has gone even further, identifying a figure from an
illustration in a copy of Lull's 'Book of the Order of Chivalry' as
Richard. The figure is - of course - a dark-haired man with a craggy
chin (and a long gown & flat hat, if anyone's interested) being
instructed by a hermit. Hughes uses this to suggest that Richard was
putting himself forward as an old-fashioned knight with a mission to
fulfil the chivalric ideals which Edwardd IV had failed to observe.

All very dubious stuff. Sometimes it would help if historians would
admit where the evidence is lacking.

Marie

>
http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/britishlibrary/controller/subjectidsearc
h?id=10213&startid=7378&width=4&height=2&idx=2
>
> Megan Lerseth wrote:
> >
> > That's great.
> >
> > In fact, this whole discussion is great. Drinks all around.
> >
> > Bill Barber <bbarber@eol. ca <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>> wrote:
> > The guy who's supposed to be Richard actually looks more like Dick
> > Tracy, except there's nothing on his wrist.
> >
> > Rogue wrote:
> > >
> > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think that is the Burgundian painting of someone
> > > presenting a book
> > > > to Edward IV. He seems to have been identified
> > > merely by the Garter
> > > > on his leg. Anne Sutton &LLivia Visser-fuches have
> > > cast some doubt on
> > > > whether we should take it seriously as a true
> > > likeness. Liva has
> > > > demonstrated that "the man with the big buttocks" -
> > > ie a figure in
> > > > identical pose and the same risque jacket - was a
> > > stock figure in
> > > > Burgundian art. So if it was meant to be Richard it
> > > was not a
> > > > portrait.
> > >
> > > I never said it was a portrait, but it seems odd if
> > > they deliberately painted him in uncharacteristicly
> > > daring clothing, especially when he's the only one in
> > > the painting dressed ithat way. And if it's not
> > > Richard, why would a garter make someone assume it is
> > > him? There were a lot of Knights of the Garter back then.
> > >
> > > Take care,
> > > Kat
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

This picture allegedly represents a period in which Edward and Richard
were in exile in Burgundy.

Megan Lerseth wrote:
>
> When was this illustration first printed/made available? I mean, if it
> was created early on in Edward IV's reign, wouldn't Richard be
> represented as a child/very young teenager? (If this has already been
> discussed, please pardon my slow uptake.)
>
> mariewalsh2003 <marie@...
> <mailto:marie%40remote.tenos.co.uk>> wrote: --- In
>
> <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> <bbarber@...> wrote:
> >
> > Here's the Wavrin illustration, which I think is the one we're
> speaking
> > of. Richard is allegedly the dude at the front with the green hat
> and
> > garter . I swear to God it's really Dick Tracy. Look at the
> jawline.
> > Sorry, it's the best copy of the image I can find.
>
> Thanks Bill, that's the one. I really don't understand the
> identification. Personally I think it's Desperate Dan wearing one of
> his sister's frocks. I'm trying to remember whose idea this
> originally was. I seem to think it was first suggested it might be
> Richard in the 1970s or 1980s, and it's sort of taken on a life of
> its own since then. The arguments are:
> 1) He's wearing a Garter
> 2) He's got dark hair and a craggy chin like the portraits of Richard.
> But one of the figures on the right is also wearing a garter, only
> it's not so obvious as it's only visible where his gown is slit - and
> these are the only two where the relevant leg is on show.
> Of course there were a lot of Garter knights, but this is a painting
> of something which occurred during Edward's exile in Burgundy and
> there weren't many Garter knights in exile with him; this is the
> foundation of the identification as Richard.
> I'm sure, however, that Richard wasn't the only one Garter knight in
> Burgundy - perhaps we should make a list. Also, is this any more than
> the artist's way of indicating the presence of top English courtiers
> whilst Waurin presented his book? There was no journalist present
> noting who was there and who was wearing what. So, the counter-
> argument runs, stock figures were used - these are nobody in
> particular. Burgundian court fashions were extreme and I doubt if the
> artist saw anything odd about the figure he was drawing. In fact,
> many of the other examples of this figure have much more on show.
> Other than Edward IV and Waurin, I think we might be following a
> false trail in attempting to identify the figures.
> Jonathan Hughes has gone even further, identifying a figure from an
> illustration in a copy of Lull's 'Book of the Order of Chivalry' as
> Richard. The figure is - of course - a dark-haired man with a craggy
> chin (and a long gown & flat hat, if anyone's interested) being
> instructed by a hermit. Hughes uses this to suggest that Richard was
> putting himself forward as an old-fashioned knight with a mission to
> fulfil the chivalric ideals which Edwardd IV had failed to observe.
>
> All very dubious stuff. Sometimes it would help if historians would
> admit where the evidence is lacking.
>
> Marie
>
> >
> http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/britishlibrary/controller/subjectidsearc
> <http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/britishlibrary/controller/subjectidsearc>
> h?id=10213&startid=7378&width=4&height=2&idx=2
> >
> > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > >
> > > That's great.
> > >
> > > In fact, this whole discussion is great. Drinks all around.
> > >
> > > Bill Barber <bbarber@eol. ca <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>> wrote:
> > > The guy who's supposed to be Richard actually looks more like Dick
> > > Tracy, except there's nothing on his wrist.
> > >
> > > Rogue wrote:
> > > >
> > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think that is the Burgundian painting of someone
> > > > presenting a book
> > > > > to Edward IV. He seems to have been identified
> > > > merely by the Garter
> > > > > on his leg. Anne Sutton &LLivia Visser-fuches have
> > > > cast some doubt on
> > > > > whether we should take it seriously as a true
> > > > likeness. Liva has
> > > > > demonstrated that "the man with the big buttocks" -
> > > > ie a figure in
> > > > > identical pose and the same risque jacket - was a
> > > > stock figure in
> > > > > Burgundian art. So if it was meant to be Richard it
> > > > was not a
> > > > > portrait.
> > > >
> > > > I never said it was a portrait, but it seems odd if
> > > > they deliberately painted him in uncharacteristicly
> > > > daring clothing, especially when he's the only one in
> > > > the painting dressed ithat way. And if it's not
> > > > Richard, why would a garter make someone assume it is
> > > > him? There were a lot of Knights of the Garter back then.
> > > >
> > > > Take care,
> > > > Kat
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>

Just one further note on the ID of the garter knight with the big bum
& the big chin:-
1) If the illustration is, as I understand it, in Edward's own copy
of the book, it must have been made BEFORE the presentation actually
occurred. It may even be that Waurin never got to present the book in
person. I should like to know more about this, but at any rate logic
suggests to me that this must have been an imaginary scene.

2) Contrary to the descriptions that try to nail Richard as the ugly
mean-looking bloke man with the faintly ridiculous short clothes,
there are actually two Garter knights in the picture - the figure in
the RIGHT foreground is also wearing a garter, which can clearly be
seen through the side slit of his gown.
3) Ross names the lords who arrived in Burgundy with Edward as
Gloucester, Rivers, Hastings and Say. Of these, all but Lord Say were
knights of the Garter. So was Charles of Burgundy himself. So there
were at least three knights of the Garter in Burgundy with Edward -
four if you count Charles.
4) The man in the short jacket looks middle-aged to me, certainly not
a youth of barely 18. On the other hand, the man with the peeping
garter on the right looks very young indeed. Only princes of the
Blood were ever elected to the Order that young.
Of our three Garter knights with Edward, Richard was just 18, Rivers
was about 30, and Hastings about 40. If these two gartered figures
are meant to represent anyone in particular, surely Richard would
have to be the young guy in the long gown on the right. The middle-
aged tart on the left is surely far more likely to have been
Hastings??





--- In , Bill Barber
<bbarber@...> wrote:
>
> This picture allegedly represents a period in which Edward and
Richard
> were in exile in Burgundy.
>
> Megan Lerseth wrote:
> >
> > When was this illustration first printed/made available? I mean,
if it
> > was created early on in Edward IV's reign, wouldn't Richard be
> > represented as a child/very young teenager? (If this has already
been
> > discussed, please pardon my slow uptake.)
> >
> > mariewalsh2003 <marie@...
> > <mailto:marie%40remote.tenos.co.uk>> wrote: --- In
> >
> > <mailto:%40yahoogroups.com>, Bill Barber
> > <bbarber@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Here's the Wavrin illustration, which I think is the one we're
> > speaking
> > > of. Richard is allegedly the dude at the front with the green
hat
> > and
> > > garter . I swear to God it's really Dick Tracy. Look at the
> > jawline.
> > > Sorry, it's the best copy of the image I can find.
> >
> > Thanks Bill, that's the one. I really don't understand the
> > identification. Personally I think it's Desperate Dan wearing one
of
> > his sister's frocks. I'm trying to remember whose idea this
> > originally was. I seem to think it was first suggested it might be
> > Richard in the 1970s or 1980s, and it's sort of taken on a life of
> > its own since then. The arguments are:
> > 1) He's wearing a Garter
> > 2) He's got dark hair and a craggy chin like the portraits of
Richard.
> > But one of the figures on the right is also wearing a garter, only
> > it's not so obvious as it's only visible where his gown is slit -
and
> > these are the only two where the relevant leg is on show.
> > Of course there were a lot of Garter knights, but this is a
painting
> > of something which occurred during Edward's exile in Burgundy and
> > there weren't many Garter knights in exile with him; this is the
> > foundation of the identification as Richard.
> > I'm sure, however, that Richard wasn't the only one Garter knight
in
> > Burgundy - perhaps we should make a list. Also, is this any more
than
> > the artist's way of indicating the presence of top English
courtiers
> > whilst Waurin presented his book? There was no journalist present
> > noting who was there and who was wearing what. So, the counter-
> > argument runs, stock figures were used - these are nobody in
> > particular. Burgundian court fashions were extreme and I doubt if
the
> > artist saw anything odd about the figure he was drawing. In fact,
> > many of the other examples of this figure have much more on show.
> > Other than Edward IV and Waurin, I think we might be following a
> > false trail in attempting to identify the figures.
> > Jonathan Hughes has gone even further, identifying a figure from
an
> > illustration in a copy of Lull's 'Book of the Order of Chivalry'
as
> > Richard. The figure is - of course - a dark-haired man with a
craggy
> > chin (and a long gown & flat hat, if anyone's interested) being
> > instructed by a hermit. Hughes uses this to suggest that Richard
was
> > putting himself forward as an old-fashioned knight with a mission
to
> > fulfil the chivalric ideals which Edwardd IV had failed to
observe.
> >
> > All very dubious stuff. Sometimes it would help if historians
would
> > admit where the evidence is lacking.
> >
> > Marie
> >
> > >
> >
http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/britishlibrary/controller/subjectidsearc

> >
<http://www.imagesonline.bl.uk/britishlibrary/controller/subjectidsear
c>
> > h?id=10213&startid=7378&width=4&height=2&idx=2
> > >
> > > Megan Lerseth wrote:
> > > >
> > > > That's great.
> > > >
> > > > In fact, this whole discussion is great. Drinks all around.
> > > >
> > > > Bill Barber <bbarber@eol. ca <mailto:bbarber%40eol.ca>> wrote:
> > > > The guy who's supposed to be Richard actually looks more like
Dick
> > > > Tracy, except there's nothing on his wrist.
> > > >
> > > > Rogue wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > mariewalsh2003 wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I think that is the Burgundian painting of someone
> > > > > presenting a book
> > > > > > to Edward IV. He seems to have been identified
> > > > > merely by the Garter
> > > > > > on his leg. Anne Sutton &LLivia Visser-fuches have
> > > > > cast some doubt on
> > > > > > whether we should take it seriously as a true
> > > > > likeness. Liva has
> > > > > > demonstrated that "the man with the big buttocks" -
> > > > > ie a figure in
> > > > > > identical pose and the same risque jacket - was a
> > > > > stock figure in
> > > > > > Burgundian art. So if it was meant to be Richard it
> > > > > was not a
> > > > > > portrait.
> > > > >
> > > > > I never said it was a portrait, but it seems odd if
> > > > > they deliberately painted him in uncharacteristicly
> > > > > daring clothing, especially when he's the only one in
> > > > > the painting dressed ithat way. And if it's not
> > > > > Richard, why would a garter make someone assume it is
> > > > > him? There were a lot of Knights of the Garter back then.
> > > > >
> > > > > Take care,
> > > > > Kat
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>

--- In , "mariewalsh2003"
<marie@...> wrote:
>
>
> Just one further note on the ID of the garter knight with the big
bum
> & the big chin:-
> 1) If the illustration is, as I understand it, in Edward's own
copy
> of the book, it must have been made BEFORE the presentation
actually
> occurred. It may even be that Waurin never got to present the book
in
> person. I should like to know more about this, but at any rate
logic
> suggests to me that this must have been an imaginary scene.
>
> 2) Contrary to the descriptions that try to nail Richard as the
ugly
> mean-looking bloke man with the faintly ridiculous short clothes,
> there are actually two Garter knights in the picture - the figure
in
> the RIGHT foreground is also wearing a garter, which can clearly
be
> seen through the side slit of his gown.
> 3) Ross names the lords who arrived in Burgundy with Edward as
> Gloucester, Rivers, Hastings and Say. Of these, all but Lord Say
were
> knights of the Garter. So was Charles of Burgundy himself. So
there
> were at least three knights of the Garter in Burgundy with Edward -

> four if you count Charles.
> 4) The man in the short jacket looks middle-aged to me, certainly
not
> a youth of barely 18. On the other hand, the man with the peeping
> garter on the right looks very young indeed. Only princes of the
> Blood were ever elected to the Order that young.
> Of our three Garter knights with Edward, Richard was just 18,
Rivers
> was about 30, and Hastings about 40. If these two gartered figures
> are meant to represent anyone in particular, surely Richard would
> have to be the young guy in the long gown on the right. The middle-
> aged tart on the left is surely far more likely to have been
> Hastings??


All good points. Just extrapolating from the conventions of
Medieval art in other places, if one person in a scene is dressed
differently, it usually indicates some sort of difference other than
his or her taste in clothes. Usually it's a difference in rank or
status and it is indicated by fancier duds. In the case of this
piece, as Marie notes, the difference seems to be that of age: the
youngest-looking man wearing a garter is the guy in the gown.

It's possible that there was some sort of understood "rule" about
what styles of clothing were acceptable or traditional at what age.
There used to be quite an unwritten rule regarding at what age a
girl started to put up her hair and to wear longer skirts, and
within the past centuries boys wore short pants similar to golf
slacks till they reached their mid-teens, when they began to wear
long trousers.

If Richard was the youngest Garter member there, I'd say chances are
the guy in the gown represents him, if anyone does.

Katy
>