Well, to answer that question properly, we'll need a little more detail.

First off, what sort of social rank are you? Obviously, your clothing is goinf to be completely different if you're portraying a lord or one of the archers in his following.

If you're just starting out - and I'd assume you are, from the question - then I'd try for something not too far up the social scale at first, because the seriously nice kit anybody with real status will have can be very, very expensive.

Second, what time of year is it? Seasons matter a lot more when you don't have central heating, and something entirely appropriate for august, 1402 could have you freezing your ass of in december snow.

Third, what are you going to be doing? At the bottom of the social scale, this isn't too much of a problem ("what shall I wear today?" is an easy question, if you only have one suit of clothes), but as soon as you start getting above the poverty level, people start dressing differently when they are entertaining, hunting, on campaign or whatever.

Hope that helps

quote:

---

Originally posted by NEIL G:
[B]Hi,

Well, to answer that question properly, we'll need a little more detail.

First off, what sort of social rank are you? Obviously, your clothing is goinf to be completely different if you're portraying a lord or one of the archers in his following.

---

Let' see... portrayal... I am a 'Lord' and have been know to arm up and go of to battle, For the longest time I have played at a Vikingish persona but now wish to be a little more civil

quote:

---

If you're just starting out - and I'd assume you are, from the question - then I'd try for something not too far up the social scale at first, because the seriously nice kit anybody with real status will have can be very, very expensive.

---

Not really starting out, just starting again...

quote:

---

Second, what time of year is it? Seasons matter a lot more when you don't have central heating, and something entirely appropriate for august, 1402 could have you freezing your ass of in december snow.

---

Considering that it is coming up on winter that may be a good start.

quote:

---

Third, what are you going to be doing? At the bottom of the social scale, this isn't too much of a problem ("what shall I wear today?" is an easy question, if you only have one suit of clothes), but as soon as you start getting above the poverty level, people start dressing differently when they are entertaining, hunting, on campaign or whatever.

---

Don't want to rain on your parade, but if you want to do an authentic portrayal of a "lord" (....and you really need to tighten that down some - are you a duke, an esquire?), with clothing and equipment for both campaign AND court, you'd better be seriously rich.

I know rather more about campaigning life than court life, so we'll start there.

Assuming you are completely divorced from any background (ie are in a modern classroom or museum setting etc) and want to be able to appear both in armour and out of it;

As a basic spec, i'd be expecting roughly the following;

Boots (both ankle length arming boots for wearing under your armour, plus over knee riding boots for when you're not wearing it)

Single legged hose, plus possibly padded hose for under your armour

Shirt (...silk is recommended, probably hand-embroidered)

Cotehardie

Arming doublet (to attach points for your armour, and act as padding)

Hat (out of armour) plus arming coif (for armour)

Full harness, of excellent quality, plus weapons (sword, dagger and poleaxe as an absolute minimum, again of excellent quality.)

Sword belt - the kind faced with metal plaques is pretty much de rigeur at that period.

Jupon (again, probably rich fabric, plus lavish hand emroidery)

Cloak

Light and Heavy duty gloves

Jewelry - a "lord" is going to be practically dripping with the stuff, as far as I can see - figure a good heavy gold chain, several big rings, a couple of good broaches, maybe some other stuff.

I can only re-emphasise that this should all be of the highest possible quality - most stuff I see on re-enactors (...including ones claiming to be John of Gaunt or somebody, Grrr!) is OK for the troops, but a rich man like you is going to want, and be able to afford, extremely nice kit.

A lot of it will probably be decorated with your arms and badges, too, so you really need to decide exactly who you are, and research your persona.

Based on what my kit has cost (...about $3500, and I'm several notches down the social scale from being a "lord") I'd suggest that you're probably looking at about $10,000 worth of kit on your person, minimum)

Now, that's just what you are wearing. What's a lord like you doing here by himself? To do it right, in any scenario when you aren't completely divorced from the background, (ie any battle or encampment) you need to be thinking about horses, tents, servants, furniture, eating utensils, a writing kit hawks....

I'm sorry if I'm sounding dismissive, or like I don't think anybody can take up medieval re-enactment without being prepared to spend that sort of money. That isn't my intention.

On the other hand, I see a lot of people trying to do personas they can't afford the kit for, and ending up perpetuating myths about the "shabby didn't-everybody-wear-rags" hollywood view of the middle ages.

If you really are intending to put that sort of money in, well, I take my hat off to you, and I'll try to get some more solid references together for you.

If not, I'd suggest that you reconsider what social rank your persona should be. Unless you get a special kick out of being lord high muckety-muck, you have just as much fun as a coustilier or whatever as you can as a duke - you get to fight more, if anything, and STILL have enough status to order your inferiors around - and it's a damn sight more afordable!

Hmmmm, if you want to be a "noble" think even higher budget - all nobles are lords, but not all lords are nobles!

Seriously, I think the problem is that c15th social stratification isn't as simple as "nobles" and "common people". There are quite a lot of graduations in between - yeomen, gentlemen, esquires etc - any of whom would be entirely capable of turning up in full armour, albeit not as fine quality as that of a noble. Such people won't go to court, though, other than as somebody's servant.

Seriously, take a look through some good history books - especially economic and social history - and decide exactly where you want your persona to fit into the social scale.

Based on what you've said, I'd say you might well be looking at something at the poorer end of an esquire - full armour, capable of fighting mounted or on foot, and you get about enough social clout to boss archers and grooms. About right?

Assuming that is so, let's start with the soft kit you'll be wearing under your armour;

- A pair of ankle height arming boots
- A pair of woolen single legged hose
- A linen shirt (some people will quote a source that says you don't wear shirts under arming jacks. It's a matter of taste)
- a padded arming jack to point your armour to. Outer might be linen, leather or even velvet, inner might be linen or silk (silk's best, to my mind, as it moves most easily over what you're wearing undernearth)
- Gloves and hat, for when you're in armour but not wearing helmet and gauntlets, and a linen padded coif to go under your helmet
- A lined woolen cloak that you can wear over your armour when it's cold or raining.
- An embroidered Jupon to go over your armour - probably applique decorated, and in a pretty nice material, perhaps velvet etc.

Does that help any?

quote:

---

Don't want to rain on your parade, but if you want to do an authentic portrayal of a "lord" (....and you really need to tighten that down some - are you a duke, an esquire?), with clothing and equipment for both campaign AND court, you'd better be seriously rich.

---

No, that's not really necessary. Willing to part with some buckage, yes, and willing to take some time, yes. Seriously rich? I don't think so. Operating on the assumption that when he said 'lord' he meant 'lord', not more than, the basic kit can be much more in the reasonable range than you imply.

quote:

---

As a basic spec, i'd be expecting roughly the following;

Boots (both ankle length arming boots for wearing under your armour, plus over knee riding boots for when you're not wearing
it)

---

The one set of ankle boots will do, actually. The high boots are mostly worn for riding and hunting, and can be done without. They are a
luxury. A nice luxury, mind you, and I certainly love my pair, but they are by no means necessary. A pair of shoes for when not in harness would be a better purchase, and for the price of a pair of tall boots you can easily get one plain and one fancy set of shoes.

quote:

---

Single legged hose, plus possibly padded hose for under your armour

---

Agreed, in linen or wool. If you are going to be wearing short cut cothardies, a pair of joined hose would also be a good thing to have. Keeps you from hanging out in back, as it were.

quote:

---

Shirt (...silk is recommended, probably hand-embroidered)

---

Ummm. Why? For the most part shirts of linen are more than adequate, and were certainly more the norm than anything else. And as far as I can tell there is a complete *lack* of any sort of embroidery on shirts of this period. The fancy embroidery and blackworking is a much later phenomenon. Shirts (and braies as well) tended to be quite plain.

quote:

---

Cotehardie

---

Agreed, this is a basic necessity of the period...

quote:

---

Arming doublet (to attach points for your armour, and act as padding)

---

This in addition to the Cotehardie? I think that's a little excessive. Shirt and arming cote should be sufficient...

quote:

---

Hat (out of armour) plus arming coif (for armour)

---

Agreed. Hat's are fairly easy, and hoods (which are quite common in all classes) even more so.

quote:

---

Full harness, of excellent quality, plus weapons (sword, dagger and poleaxe as an absolute minimum, again of excellent
quality.)

---

Well, there's no way around the fact that this part runs to some money. But I think you are exaggerating the cost. Especially if one is only a 'sometime' combatant, the quality needn't be all that 'excellent'. Of good make, yes, well fitted and made, and not cheap, but fancy brass work is not required, nor are elaborate flutings. Also, I think that the poleax is *not* part of the 'absolute minimum'.

quote:

---

Sword belt - the kind faced with metal plaques is pretty much de rigeur at that period.

---

Agreed, you see them in all the illuminations and effigies...

quote:

---

Jupon (again, probably rich fabric, plus lavish hand emroidery)

---

By this you mean the armorial surcoat? Again, I think you are greatly exaggerating the cost and richness required. While the surviving
pieces that come closest to the period in question (the jupon of the Black Prince, circa 1376, the which can be seen here http://www.forest.gen.nz/Medieval/articles/garments/blackprince/blackprince.html ) is indeed of a rich fabric (red and blue velvet ) it is to be born in mind that it is the garment of a Prince, and of a prince known for his extravagance, no less. The garment of a lord in England needn't be anywhere near that costly. Flat silk for the outer, if you're feeling showy, linen or wool if you're watching your pennies. If you're destitute (as was the Duke of Anjou at one point, trapped in southern Italy), you can paint the arms on.

quote:

---

Jewelry - a "lord" is going to be practically dripping with the stuff, as far as I can see - figure a good heavy gold chain, several big rings, a couple of good broaches, maybe some other stuff.

---

Again, it would depend on the class of the lord, and the tastes of the same... It's not as universal as you make it seem...

To this I would add the following, to round out the 'Out-of-Harness' experience...

A robe or gown (we French call this a houpellande...). This can be of wool or linen, silk if you're feeling rich, silk brocade if you're feeling
extravagant. Worn over the cotehardie.

A pair of braies, just for the sake of completeness. Linen

A pair of joined hose, as I mentioned above. Wool.

Leather belt with mountings, bucle and tip, and a purse as well.

quote:

---

I can only re-emphasise that this should all be of the highest possible quality - most stuff I see on re-enactors (...including ones claiming to be John of Gaunt or somebody, Grrr!) is OK for the troops, but a rich man like you is going to want, and be able to afford, extremely nice kit.

---

Again, who says he's necessarily a rich man? While I am not an expert on the economy of England at the time I'm fairly certain that the title of lord does not automatically imply staggering wealth. Duke, yes. Earl, more than likely. But Somebody, Lord Somewhere does not. Again, I don't know about England specifically, but there were Seigneuries in France that produced little more than 500 l. per annum (l being in this case livres, usually livres tournois, which was a little more than half a pound in the period...), and at the extreme low end no
more than 60 l. Hardly a budget that allows for extravagance. Good quality will suffice for a lord of relatively modest means, and in most cases is reasonably easy to achieve.

quote:

---

A lot of it will probably be decorated with your arms and badges, too, so you really need to decide exactly who you are, and
research your persona.

---

Nice, yes, and very cool, but not required. Again, you're looking at the luxury category here, and not at the requirements, in my opinion.

quote:

---

Based on what my kit has cost (...about $3500, and I'm several notches down the social scale from being a "lord") I'd suggest that you're probably looking at about $10,000 worth of kit on your person, minimum)

---

Yow. That's *way* more money than it needs to be... Especially if you can do some of it for yourself. My kit, which includes 2pr shoes (1
plain, 1 fancy w/ long points) 2 pr boots (one pair at ankle length, one pair high riders), pattens, couple cothardies and couple houps, braies, split hose, couple hoods, jewelry, collar chain and a circlet for *really* fancy dress up probably hasn't cost me more than than $2000.00. BUT a great deal of that I did for myself, and bartered out for some of the rest. High time cost, mind you, and you have to be prepared for that, but you *can* do it.

Admittedly, that's without any of the harness, but I still don't think that it would cap out nearly as high as you're predicting, given the premise of 'lord' so and so... decent harness can be had without mortgaging the house...

quote:

---

On the other hand, I see a lot of people trying to do personas they can't afford the kit for, and ending up perpetuating myths about the "shabby didn't-everybody-wear-rags" hollywood view of the middle ages.

---

But not everyone wore excessive fancy dress either. A lot depends on the attitudes of the impression. Is one a conservative lord of a well off estate? Is one the spendthrift lord of a great holding? What is the level one is 'playing' at? That, more then the title, determines the kit requirements. If one is a flashy, over the top Captain of the Militia, one can end up spending more on kit that a reserved conservative Baron.

As to where to get these things, at least those you cannot make for yourself, I'd say one of the best places to start is at Historic Enterprises. They do pretty good kit for the period, certainly the best that's to be had in the 'off the rack' kind of way. I got my plain shoes, tall boots and pattens from them, some knives, some buttons, some other stuff. I don't generally buy their clothing, but that's 'cause I can make my
own...

--------------------

Ta

Adhemar

I think we've got three issues here;

First, the definition of what DW meant, and what I understandd, by "lord". NB, these are not necessarily the same thing.

Second, differing opinions of how "nice" such a person's kit needs to be, and/or how "nice" medieval equipment is generally

Third, the fact that I have a personal down on people who claim to "be" such-and-such (usually rich and powerful) medieval personage, but are dressed in a polyester hose, army boots and a doublet made from curtain fabric. I'm not implying that DW is such a person, but such a viewpoint invariably tends to colour my thinking in certain matters.

To cover each of the issues in turn;

I would understand a "lord" to be an individual who would be addressed as such in the period, ie at least a knight.

Such individuals (OK, baring the occasional impoverished ones you get in any social group) are by period standards EXTREMELY rich. We know what the minimum income expected to support a knight was from the distraints of knighthood etc, and a quick conversion using other salaries as a benchmark suggests a MINIMUM income of around $100,000 a year in modern money, and an AVERAGE of around $1 million. I think this should put my thinking regarding the likely standard of such individuals' personal kit into perspective.

From his subsequent post, what DW actually meant was that his definition of a "lord" was somebody that could afford full armour.

That includes a lot of social ranks that I wouldn't include in my definition, and as you can see from my second post, I've put up a second list of the stuff I'd expect such a person to have.

As to how "nice" medieval kit is likely to be, well, there are two viewpoints here. The first (exagerated to the point of parody) says that medieval craftsmen are primitive, uneducated and have poor tool, so the stuff they turn out will be consequentlt shoddy.

The second (equally exagerated)says that while there are certainly bodge-artists for the cheapskates, a rich man will use good craftsmen. These people will have been learning their trade for - literally - their entire lives, and have access to the same tools that were used to build ships capable of crossing the atlantic, and armour so good NASA came to look at the jointing when designing the space suits.

Guess which point of view I subscribe to?

Seriously, we don't see real craftsmanship - as opposed to stuff done by hobbyists - that often in our century, and then usually only in luxury items.

As far as making kit, well, I don't know you, and you may well have the skills of (say) a master tailor for all I know. I'd be willing to bet that you aren't also a master cobbler, a master armourer, a master silversmith etc, because NOBODY can be all those things.

Those are the people somebody of knightly status would be going to routinely, and there's no way I can make kit at that level.

If I was a liveried archer, or some other social level where I'd be using stuff made by a journeyman, maybe I could make stuff of a suitable quality, but even then, I'd consider myself proud I could master even one of those skills to what is, after all, the level of a full-time profesional.

The third point, I don't think needs more discussion.

Hope that all makes sense,

quote:

---

I think we've got three issues here;

To cover each of the issues in turn;

I would understand a "lord" to be an individual who would be addressed as such in the period, ie at least a knight.

---

I'm not sure, personally, I'd include knights in the 'lord' classification....

quote:

---

Such individuals (OK, baring the occasional impoverished ones you get in any social group) are by period standards EXTREMELY rich. We know what the minimum income expected to support a knight was from the distraints of knighthood etc, and a quick conversion using other salaries as a benchmark suggests a MINIMUM income of around $100,000 a year in modern money, and an AVERAGE of around $1 million. I think this should put my thinking regarding the likely standard of such individuals' personal kit into perspective.

---

BUT... How much of that is free and clear cash? How much of that is supporting the estate, paying the servants and the livery and maintenance retainers, paying off the ransom, entertaining and currying favor... Just because the total income is so much doesn't mean that the disposable income is the same. I'm not arguing with your figures, they seem right to me. I'm just saying that all income is not necessarily entirely disposable. I may make N0, 000 a year, but if I spend all of that on clothes, jewelry and sports equipment (as a moderately reasonable
analogy) I'll be living under a bridge. With some really great clothes, jewelry and sports equipment, mind you... :-)

How many times did Edward III pawn his jewels to finance his wars? Why was John of Gaunt 'of Gaunt' anyway? How many times did the
King of France (with an income in the multi-billions...) debase the coinage?

quote:

---

From his subsequent post, what DW actually meant was that his definition of a "lord" was somebody that could afford full armour.

That includes a lot of social ranks that I wouldn't include in my definition, and as you can see from my second post, I've put up a second list of the stuff I'd expect such a person to have.

---

quote:

---

As to how "nice" medieval kit is likely to be, well, there are two viewpoints here.
...
Guess which point of view I subscribe to?

---

I'm more in agreement with you than not on that. I've seen originals, and have few doubts that they were capable of great things. I certainly don't think that doing a whack together hack job somehow makes is more 'medieval'...

quote:

---

Seriously, we don't see real craftsmanship - as opposed to stuff done by hobbyists - that often in our century, and then usually only in luxury items.

---

I actually think that we, that is the recreationist community, see a greater amount of craftsmanship than the world in general. I have seen some stunning pieces, made with both skill and a love of the craft. I have a set of trestles that are extremely fine work, and a linen fold coffer that inspires envy... :-)

quote:

---

As far as making kit, well, I don't know you, and you may well have the skills of (say) a master tailor for all I know. I'd be willing to bet that you aren't also a master cobbler, a master armourer, a master silversmith etc, because NOBODY can be all those things.

---

Well, I like to think I'm not a complete hack... :-) And as for the rest, well that's why I hire people to do the things I can't, and hire the best I can find and afford.

And, please, cordwainer, not cobbler. A cordwainer makes shoes, a cobbler fixes old ones... (knee jerk reaction, a cordwainer friend of mine froths at the mouth if you call him a cobbler... It can be fun at parties... :-))

quote:

---

Those are the people somebody of knightly status would be going to routinely, and there's no way I can make kit at that level.

---

If they had access to same, perhaps. Not everyone could pop down to London or Paris and scoop up a master craftsman at that level. Sometimes you have to deal with what you've got locally, and what you've got locally, while he may be a master by the standards of the area, is not a master by the 'global' standard. I (as my impression) am a Baron in western Normandy and eastern Brittany. Paris is a long hike, and Rouen isn't exactly the corner store. So, my plaque belt and shoes may not be as nice as some jumped up baron with a nice plot around St.
Germain des Pres, but it's the best I can lay hands on at the time... The Masters of Rennes are not the Masters of Paris...

Also there was a great deal of inflation in the post plague years, and what had previously been affordable since there was a glut of craftsmen became much more expensive as the remaining craftsmen demanded higher pay for their labors pretty much across the board. A lot of 'lords' incomes got seriously devalued in terms of purchasing power.

quote:

---

If I was a liveried archer, or some other social level where I'd be using stuff made by a journeyman, maybe I could make stuff of a suitable quality, but even then, I'd consider myself proud I could master even one of those skills to what is, after all, the level of a full-time profesional.

---

quote:

---

The third point, I don't think needs more discussion.

---

Nope. I am *completely* there for you on that one. I put a lot of time, effort and thought into my kit, and I have neither the respect nor the time for those who make no effort at all and then claim to be somehow better. :-)

[QUOTE]Hope that all makes sense,

It does, yes. I think we may be arguing circles around a central point of basic agreement... plus or minus some economies of scale... :-D

--------------------

Ta

Adhemar

quote:

---

Seriously, I think the problem is that c15th social stratification isn't as simple as "nobles" and "common people". There are quite a lot of graduations in between -
yeomen, gentlemen, esquires etc - any of whom would be entirely capable of turning up in full armour, albeit not as fine quality as that of a noble. Such people won't go to court, though, other than as somebody's servant.

---

Always glad to help. I'm not sure I'd be able to recommend a single book, though - a lot of the ones that look at that subject in depth assume a fair degree of background knowledge. Try "Standards of living in the middle ages" by CM Dyer, if you have the background knowledge to feel comfy with a primarily economic study of the period.

Basic pattern is that as you go through the middle ages, there's more wealth around. More wealth means that social distinctions become to broad, so you split them into several sub-classes.

Most obviously, this means that the top end of the peasant spectrum starts getting categories like "Franklins" and "Yeomen", while at the bottom of the gentle classes, esquires become a recognised social class (rather than baby knights) and finally "gentlemen" appear as the lowest of the gentle categories.

As a (very) rough guide, an unskilled labourer is probably earning about £2 a year, a skilled craftsman probably has an income of £4 a year, an equire at least £10, and a knight at least £20, but probably near £100. An earl needs at least £1000, with the richest getting £4-8000. The income from the crown is about £40,000

(...and before anybody jumps on me, those are very rough figures and you can quibble with any/all of them, but it gives an idea)

This post's a trifle bitty, you make some valid points, see below

quote:
--------------------------------------------- I'm not sure, personally, I'd include knights in the 'lord' classification....
-------------------------------------------

Fair enough. I would, and wrote my post on that basis.

quote:
--------------------------------------------

BUT... How much of that is free and clear cash? How much of that is supporting the estate, paying the servants and the livery and maintenance retainers, paying off the ransom, entertaining and currying favor...
--------------------------------------------

I'm happy on the idea that not all income is disposable, but then again, how much of a million-dollar income needs to be disposable for me to be smartly dressed?

Taking my £100 average knight...well, a good quality robe is 5 shillings - nearly three week's work for a mason, but not something my knight would worry about buying.

Quote

--------------------------------------------

How many times did Edward III pawn his jewels to finance his wars?
--------------------------------------------

Three, as I recall. But does anybody comment that he's badly dressed? No. That's because a medieval monarch (...or any other social rank) HAD to keep up appearences. Our putative "lord" would spend the money for the clothes his station required, whther he had it or not.

Think of all those letters bemoaning the costs of keeping up with fashion, or the sumptuary laws, designed to stop inferiors aping clothing above their station.

Quote
---------------------------------------------

Why was John of Gaunt 'of Gaunt' anyway?
--------------------------------------------

Erm, because he was born in Ghent. Not sure how that relates to the matter in hand!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as making kit, well, I don't know you, and you may well have the skills of (say) a master tailor for all I know. I'd be willing to bet that you aren't also a master cobbler, a master armourer, a master silversmith etc, because NOBODY can be all those things.

((Well, I like to think I'm not a complete hack... :-) And as for the rest, well that's why I hire people to do the things I can't, and hire the best I can find and afford.
))
---------------------------------------------

....which costs a lot, hence my original point!

Quote

--------------------------------------------

And, please, cordwainer, not cobbler. A cordwainer makes shoes, a cobbler fixes old ones...
--------------------------------------------

I stand corrected :-)

quote:

---

I'm happy on the idea that not all income is disposable, but then again, how much of a million-dollar income needs to be disposable for me to be smartly dressed?

---

Smartly dressed? Dunno. I know that in 1398 it was costing the King of France 12s (sou, not shillings, roughly $300) to put 'breeches' and shoes on his varlets. Thats just leggings and shoes 'for a poor varlet that has no wages'... I think that the buying power of money to clothes was far less then, when everything was done by hand by real people you had to look at, than it is now when it's all done by machine by people in other countries...

quote:

---

Taking my £100 average knight...well, a good quality robe is 5 shillings - nearly three week's work for a mason, but not something my knight would worry about buying.

---

Well, but that's not quite the same as the £1000 noble above. And a good quality wool robe isn't an outrageous purchase, it's pretty basic wardrobe. If that's what your noble is walking around in (and there's no reason he shouldn't be) the kit, especially the soft bits which were the original point of inquiry, can be had much more reasonably in the modern world.

quote:

---

How many times did Edward III pawn his jewels to finance his wars?
--------------------------------------------

Three, as I recall. But does anybody comment that he's badly dressed? No. That's because a medieval monarch (...or any other social rank) HAD to keep up appearences. Our putative "lord" would spend the money for the clothes his station required, whther he had it or not.

---

Yes, but I'm still maintaining that to dress as a 'lord' does not require one to dress as a king, especially to dress as a king known for ruinous profligacy. Especially if one is not pursuing a flamboyant impression. Well made clothing of appropriate cut and quality, correct accessories will get you through just fine. Trying to dress like the Duke of Lancaster when you're the Lord of Podunk-Backwater is not going to impress me any, and will rather make you look a bit foolish.

quote:

---

Think of all those letters bemoaning the costs of keeping up with fashion, or the sumptuary laws, designed to stop inferiors aping clothing above their station.

---

The moaning done by those who choose to do so, and are perhaps dressing above their station anyway. :-) And there's only so far one can go into debt. I mean, yes the King of England can default on his loans and break Italian banking houses and people will still lend him money. But at lower stations, even in the noble class, that sort of behavior has a limited working life.

quote:

---

Erm, because he was born in Ghent. Not sure how that relates to the matter in hand!

---

He was born in Ghent because his mother, Queen Philippa, was the original (or at least a very early) 'Miss Marker'. After the campaign of 1339, which was both uselessly inconclusive and ruinously expensive, Edward III owed a staggering amount of money to his Flemish creditors. They agreed to let Edward return to England to raise money from parliament, but as a security he had to leave behind the Queen, his younger son, and the Earls of (as I recall) Suffolk and Somerset. John of Gaunt was born to Phillipa during that time, and was essentially a Prince of England born in a debtors prison. Admittedly a fairly luxurious and polite one, but nonetheless...

[/QUOTE]....which costs a lot, hence my original point! [QUOTE]

But my point was that actually, it didn't. The most money I've spent on kit has *not* been in soft kit. My clothing, from the skin out, didn't cost me more than $2000.00 - $2500.00 combined for a small but reasonable (for my impression) wardrobe. That's including jewelry and boots.

--------------------

Ta

Adhemar

That's less than I'd expect to spend, but maybe I just don't know where to shop!