Grammar Question--Why Robes

[Geoff]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, Margaret Fenney <fenneyml at ...> wrote:
>
> <snip>
> | Bookcrazzzy:
> |
> | The term as used in the HP books is referring not to the robe itself but
> to | the entire outfit required - shirt, tie, robe, etc. - so "dress robes"
> means "dress clothes" or "dress outfit".
> 
> [Lee]:
> Okay, but in the book, there's no mention of ties or other accessories, just
> the robe. ...The book mentions no accessories even if they do appear in the
> movies which, IMHO aren't cannon.

> > Bookcrazzzy:
> 
> It doesn't matter whether the outfit consists of just a robe or multiple
> pieces of clothing, it is the sense in which the word is used.  Lots of
> words have more than one meaning and in this case, "robes" is not the plural
> of "robe" but a word meaning "outfit".

Geoff:
Not in the UK context in which I have met it. Robes in a formal usage, say 
by the Queen or a member of the House of Lords might include an under 
layer but ties, shirts etc. lie outside this.

It occurred to me after my last post that the usage is rather odd. If I 
might refer to "the medium which dare not speak its name", pupils in 
the films really wear a  gown. 

In my grammar school, all the staff wore one of these. They are not an 
academic gown which would include a hood and the colour of the 
university faculty or discipline but are just a "working" gown for everyday 
use and I am surprised that JKR did not call them that. A very few public 
schools have retained them as part of school uniform - possibly Eton or 
Harrow come to mind.