[HPforGrownups] Robes, and what is under them, and TMTSNBN

[Jacob Lewis]

No: HPFGUIDX 45799

Bluesqueak scripsit:
> Robes:
> Archie probably *is* eccentric as underclothes were certainly worn
> in medieval monastries.

Tut, tut.  As the Rule of St. Benedict, which is in the minds of all other
monastic orders when they make their Rules, so illustriously puts it:
"Each monk needs only two each of tunics and cowels, [...]. Anything else is
superfluous and should be banished."

Additionally, in a book I belive to be titled "A History of
Undergarments" -- lovely book by Dover, everyone should own one -- the first
male undergarments really show up in the 12th and 13th centuries, if memory
serves.  As for

> In addition, no underclothes under robes
> would be - how do I put it? - a little inconvenient for the girls at
> least once they hit puberty.

Yes, women's undergarments show up a little earlier than men's -- and of
course all of this is subject to your comfort levels and climate.

> Time and cost probably said the 'cloak over school uniform' was the
> better option and wouldn't cause the cinematographer and lighting
> designer to tear their hair out trying to film/light tons of dull,
> light absorbing black-on-black uniforms[grin].

Occam's Razor is always the best solution. (grin)

Jacob Lewis
-----------------------------------------------
One can never have enough socks [...].  Another
Christmas has come and gone and I didn't get
a single pair. People will insist on giving me books.
-- Albus Dumbledore,
"Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone"