Itt: Historical costume/clothes threadMaking anything? Adding something to your to-make wishlist? Any favorite shops to buy accessories or full outfits, patterns, etc? Anything you wish would change about the historical costume community? Favorite videos or channels? Favorite books related to historical costuming? etcchat up
Does interest in historical hair/wig styles count? I have a copy of "An Illustrated Dictionary of Hairdressing and Wigmaking" and found it very interesting. It has a lot of illustrations and photos of historical hairstyles but isn't limited to that
>>10628843sure, I'd like to see it.
Rolling up to the con like this
>>10628717I'm getting a mid-18th century robe à la française made by a seamstress, mostly inspired by this beauty. I've been wanting to get into historical costuming for a decade and finally have the money and time to do so.
>>10628717I'm drafting a "short bustle" (short in hem length) to see what it looks like with Lolita. I'm getting old and I'm seeking to make my dresses a bit more "lady-like".
>>10629331Same. I don't really have the skill or desire to make my own historical clothing, but I'm starting to get a collection of pieces made by other people. It's fun.
>>10629331How much is it going cost you?
Are the American Duchess Simplicity patterns worth it?
>>10629980No; by their book instead.The patterns aren't terrible, but Simplicity had control over them each to change a lot of the historical/practical elements. The patterns in the book will fit you more accurately.If you hate drafting a pattern from blank paper, then I'd say get both and read the book's instructions on fitting to adjust your dress to fit accurately.
>>10630009Just want to elaborate: When I say "fit accurately" I mean that a robe ah la france is suppose to, like all fashion of the era, fit your specific body very precisely. Modern Patterns are generally not as fitted to the body and modern patterns by simplicity and others often add in a lot of "ease", which works for the "modern fit" but doesn't work with historical concepts of how fashion is suppose to work.Other resources you'll want to check out are https://burnleyandtrowbridge.com/ for authentic materials / sewing supplies / fabrics / more patterns and books along with Abby Cox's youtube channel and the other costubers you'll be recommended through watching her.
>>10629951>>10629331Are there any shops for decent or good 18th century clothes? Looking around I mostly find stuff where they're clearly using mediocre patterns. I don't mind paying more, I just have trouble finding stuff that is basically accurate.
>>10630028Here are some, but I want to give a bit of a warning; lots of people who COULD run a shop making 18th century clothing simply don't because the finished garments are so expensive and need to fit you, specifically, that it would be very hard to stock inventory. In real world modern money terms a dress could easily take 10 yards or more (more if it's a pattern for pattern matching) and most of the fabrics that would suit start at $30 USD from the fabric supplier. Futher, while you can machine-stich long seams, most of the pleating and sewing requires handwork, so labor would be a lot (the outer gown of a fancy dress would be over $500 USD, a farmer's wife would be under $300, closer to $200)>redthreaded.comCorests & Stays both custom fitted and ready-to-ship. Be careful to zero-in on a specific time period and make sure your outter garment is the same style as your stays or it'll not fit. For 18th (1700s) you want "stays", not coresets. DO NOT plan to lace down; the goal is to smooth your shape, not to shrink it.>https://www.priorattire.co.uk/ourshop/Good outer garments, check her YouTube channel for lots of videos of pieces she's made.Last tip; save money by making your "inner garments" and your "whites". That is to say your shift (the base layer; a white t-shirt dress basically), your inner-most petticoat and buy whatever knee-high socks (tie under knee with ribbon to hold). Then, the whites; Your cape, your cuffs and your neckerchief; these three can literally be made out of any white fabric.
>>10629954Around $1100. Which is a lot compared to some of the more off-the-rack pieces out there but I know the seamstress knows her stuff and cares about historical accuracy, including materials and sewing methods, it's worth it for me.
>>10630028You could try asking for recommendations in historical costuming facebook groups. I personally like Historical Costuming Without Judgement.
>>10630038*cap, not cape. You'll end up wearing a hat or a bonnet-thing over your cap often and that you'll want to buy from somewhere, but the cap is so basic it's not worth paying for (it's like lolita; save up for the main piece).If you want to do the white-powder hair, then you should get American Duchess's book on 18th century beauty and get ready to start mixing animal fats. A wig could work, but most women did not use wigs at the time (more often hair rats and homemade hair pieces to clip in/ pin in).One more site;>https://www.townsends.us/Very American fashions of the era, more frontier. They offer clothing, but I would say they are excellent as an "accessories" shop for all the extra props/things you might want to carry with you. They carry a lot of suitable menswear ready-to-buy as well and re-printed books from that era. They also have a youtube channel, but the focus is mostly on cooking in the 1700s and their current project; building a 18th century log cabin homestead.
>>10630046Townsends is good for accessories, not so much for fashion, particularly women's. This is... oof. You'd be better off buying an etsy dress someone made with an inaccurate but more pleasant looking simplicity pattern.
I would like to make some general suggestions towards the Lolita community today, about historical fashion stuff, before I go for the day;Consider intergrating historical fashion directly into your coords, instead of trying to source the "lolita-fied" version. It could be cheaper and it will ground your coord in a more "real world" way to have elements that people did actually use to wear. COnsider the following;>pair a "Bum Roll" with a light petticoatInstead of total uniform poof, see how a bum roll might balance out with wearing a softer petti; the shape will be reminiscent of different eras depending on the cut of your bodice.>Try Clockwork Silk StockingsClockwork refers to how the knited design finishes up around the ankle/heel (not a literal clock design) and is a style of sock that nobody sees anymore, but that most people know is old-fashion. These can be cheaper then brand OTKs but made with silk instead of poly/cotton blends.>18th century straw hats and cotton ruffle-trim capsConsider a different straw hat from the boater; the 1700s lady's staw hat was almost completely flat like a disc, could easily be super decorated or super plain and tied under the chin with a ribbon. It was often paired with a headcap (with ruffle/lace trim); so you would pin up your hair into the cap, pull out a few decorative locks and tie the straw hat on top; a good option for fancy-looking, but low-effort up-does.
>>10629290not colorful enough!
>>10630049Thats awful, how can they even put their name/brand on that?
>>10630049 >>10630595(disclaimer: I'm not a fan of Townsend, I'm not trying to defend this specific company exclusively, this explanation applies to ALL fashion of this genre)The reason why this doesn't look great is because it's not fitted properly ON PURPOSE. The truth is, a proper gown of this time period, no matter upper class or lower class (this purple one is a middle-class frontier America), is suppose to be fitted to the individual. The only way this company, and many others, can produce reasonably priced garb (without tacking on another $200, $300 in labor, sending the garment out, having it sent back, re-fitting, re-sending out, etc etc) is to fit it just enough that then YOU only have to do the final adjustments/taking in.In the 18th century most gowns below royalty had no exact patterns; people would measure with string cut at the point of overlap to use to the cut materials and would roughly copy the shapes of dresses based on pictures and dresses they already had access to. Once the rough shapes were cut out, they were then pinned DIRECTLY onto the future owner of the dress and the needed take-in points were marked. Ideally, you are suppose to set the sleeve of the bodice/jacket while it's on the actual wearer. As a last note, there were no snaps, zippers and a limited supply of buttons; your stomacher would be pinned directly into your Stays (corset) every morning and then you would unpin yourself every night.With all this in mind, the only modern dress makers that will be selling custom fitted-correctly garments of this era will be charging you A LOT more and will require more measurements from you and or you might have to go in for fitting.Retro-actively in the 20th century we've created sewing patterns for these garments by studying the surviving ones, but often (as mentioned with the simplicity pattern above) they still will never fit you correctly if you hire out the work and have it shipped back to you.
>>10630669For $500? I wholeheartedly disagree with this defense.It's not the fit, it's the construction. It's sloppy and inaccurate. It looks like Baby's First Historical Gown. The website also specifically asks you to various body measurements with your stays on so they can fit it closer, so there's no reason for all the example photos to look so baggy and off. "You have to buy this dress and then have it all taken in and fitted so it doesn't look like a mess" is a ridiculous notion, especially since this is not indicated at all on the site. And you'd have to do so much more than fitting it around you to make this look good.There are countless people out there who manage to make better looking gowns, more accurate looking gowns, for the same price. Sometimes less, depending on complexity.
>>10630669Last little tack on, then I'll back off;Overall, I would not reccomend TOwnsend (after reviewing their full inventory) for women's dresses above the status of farmer's wife / middle class American colonist. They seem to be very set in their specific location and era; likely they are using local historical sources to create a very accurate, but highly regional, line of products. In general, Early-America fashion looks really different, unfitted and not as pretty as what was going on in Europe, because Europe had access to 100x the resources, dressmakers and trade oppertunities. So for a "classic" dress of the era, I would go with something French or English-style and not American-style.All of that said, most of the accessories are inter-exchangeable; Townsends prices for undergarments, the "whites" sets (cap, apron, neckerchief) could all be used with any outfit of the era, even going into court dress (at which point you'd dump the plain neckerchief and add expensive lace sleeve cuffs). So I'd say look at that store as a good US-based "basics" store for the era, but shop somewhere else for the main piece/ your gown.And best, best bet would be to either make the gown yourself or to hire someone you know and trust locally.
>>10630671I absolutely agree it's baggy, which is why I would not recommend it, but I wouldn't say it's shotty. The sleeves look set into the bodice correct for that era (again, it's a method you're suppose to fit directly onto the wear's arm, to fit their arm specifically) but it's been left a bit poofed because you're not there to fit it to. The waist needed to be nipped in way more, but I don't see any physical construction problems with it's technical assembly. The biggest gripe I have is I wish they pictured the model with and without petticoats. A farmer's wife/ working woman would only have one petticoat and maybe no bum roll and for that the dress hangs right; but I can't tell if a wealthier person, who would have spent money on more petticoats, bum rolls and structure could fit all of that under there. Skirts are suppose to be 4+ yards in with.
>>10630050>Consider intergrating historical fashion directly into your coords, instead of trying to source the "lolita-fied" version.so......."make your lolita coords not lolita"?
>>10630049You'd be better off getting stuff from Samson Historical, which has as similar "clothes for lower-middle class" vibe but it's not nearly as expensive. I have a few short gowns and skirts from them, I like to wear them around the house. >>10630669The problem is that they're going for a polonaise gown look, but they're using basic materials and silhouettes equivalent to lower-middle class women, like the lower, loose unstructured torso and straight bodice. The end result looks like a cheap mish-mash, something you might make with a crappy Simplicity pattern or see at a high school community theater production. it doesn't look like anything we see in representations of colonial or early American women's clothing.
>>10630729Here's the vibe that Townsends wanted.. a far cry from what they were able to produce. Maybe they should have hired someone who did a stint at the costume shop for Williamsburg.
>>10630050>Instead of total uniform poof, see how a bum roll might balance out with wearing a softer petti; the shape will be reminiscent of different eras depending on the cut of your bodice.so just throw out the lolita silhouette is what you are suggesting. Lolita dresses and skirts are created with a specific petticoat or coats in mind.>Try Clockwork Silk Stockingsaccording to American Duchess for around 30 USD...https://www.americanduchess.com/products/clocked-ivory-silk-stockingsHonestly it half looks like diabetic socks you'd buy for your grandma at Walmart. The other half looks like the socks I can get made of cotton for 2-5$ but for 2 bucks it's actually thick. I don't understand how you can compare brand socks to this, used socks aren't that expensive and add visual interest unlike this diabetic-kei>70% Silk & 30% Nylon>Top quality silk with woven tone-on-tone clock pattern at the anklesStockings come up above the knee, and stay up without garters>"These can be cheaper then brand OTKs but made with silk instead of poly/cotton blends." So instead of a cotton/poly blend you are suggesting a silk/nylon blend. Silk is hard to wash and easily stains and I can tell you this as someone who owns a ton of it. Lolita is a fashion, often worn daily, why would I want socks I can't wear and wash every day? You realize silk is delicate right?>18th century straw hats and cotton ruffle-trim capsYou're describing something new but refusing to provide an image on an image board. You are completely oblivious to what you are trying to "make some general suggestions towards" without actually doing surface research on the egl and not even bothering to lurk in any threads dedicated to lolita.Some of this wasn't even lolita knowledge, most people know that there are delicate materials that are not intended for daily use.Are you a larper, tradwife or a scrote?
Tagging for Gropey.
I finally made a chemise a la reine and I... I get it now. I get why this dress is so popular. It's like wearing a cloud that turns you into a princess. Fantastic.
>>10631084Ooh, I've been wanting to try making one of these myself. Are they as comfortable as they look (because they look incredibly comfy)?
>>10631099Yes, extremely comfortable. I plan to make a few more in different styles and fabrics
>>10630824 Thanks for this. Someone found me on Facebook.Good to see folks are rocking the 18th century. On that note this might be a good place to offer, I still have a bunch of girls gowns retired from my museum's clothing rental. I sold The vast majority of them, but there are still about a dozen size child's 9/10 left, because these were the most popular rental size. These are all based off of CW-932A.All of them are an excellent condition, and I'm willing to trade for interesting things for my macaroni outfits or last quarter of the 18th century impressions.Unrelated: has anyone messed around with that new of voila app for converting pictures into 18th century paintings? It's worked pretty well for me, and I'm getting ready to make some lover's lockets for myself and my better half.
>>10631171>Unrelated: has anyone messed around with that new of voila app for converting pictures into 18th century paintings? It's worked pretty well for me, and I'm getting ready to make some lover's lockets for myself and my better half.No, but that sounds pretty dope ngl.Nice dresses btw.
>>10631171Any new outfits lately?
>>10631118Nyart, is there a pattern you recommend? I wanna be a cloud of princess, too.
>>10632055I used the Laughing Moon pattern but there's a lot of tutorials out there if you don't like them or want to try without a pattern.Chemise dress with video tutorial and free pattern in the description: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw-oqLPgmEA&Visual guide: https://freshfrippery.com/2015/04/07/easy-chemise-dress/I did add additional layers to mine to give it more floof.
>>10631171...do you work where I think you work?
Sooo does anyone have the tea on what happened at Colonial Williamsburg today that has people losing their minds on Twitter & Tiktok?
>>10634691Basically it was an event organised at a formal plantation, invite only, with no non white people invited, held on Juneteenth
>>10634813Wow did the black people not show up and reenact a plantation takeover?
Why are people sperging about lolita in this thread when it is about historical fashion, not lolita.Anyway, does anyone here wear folk costumes or any sort? or time periods older than the 1700/1800s.
>>10634813>>10634821This is what I've been able to find out.Basically someone held a fashion show for their private costuming group, which was all white women, most of them wearing chemise a la reine gowns. Posted a video online. They had a table for their group, I don't know what the table was about/for. Then someone made a vagueposting Tiktok about it, with lots of eyebrow-judging expressions, saying that there's a costume event happening "on a former plantation, with no black women or BIPOC women in sight, on JUNETEENTH." Which blew up.Then people started making comments & responses suggesting that actually, the chemise a la reine is cultural appropriation because "it was made by BLACK WOMEN" (even though its exact origins are contested, and even if we subscribe to the idea that its origins derive from the French colonies and it was designed by black women uh, it was definitely based on luxury clothing worn by elite slave-owning light skinned mixed women, not slaves, but y'know) and then people started referencing that really poorly written Medium article that blames Marie Antoinette for the American slave trade (because the author somehow believes that MA liking the chemise a la reine sparked the demand for cotton in the Western world and not uh, the... existing demand for cotton which led to Britain repealing its import/export laws regarding cotton years before the dress became popular)Then someone made an Instagram post demanding white people who wear chemise gowns pay reparations Someone in the group who got doxxed made a tiktok being like "We're gonna do better!!" which naturally got them torn to shreds. Another person in the community made a video yelling at her fellow white women for doing this. Colonial Williamsburg actually had a number of slavery related talks and events on the 19th, so I guess the crux of the issue is that this was taking away from that. Too bad they didn't do it a different day.
>>10634847It wasn't a fashion show. It was a picnic. A group of friends planned a picnic, and it ended up going from an informal "let's go dressed up and have a picnic" to an event with a group and more attendees. of 100 people who said they were going, 30 ended up going. Some of the planned intendees were POC but they had to cancel. They didn't have a fashion show, just took a video where some of them wearing the same types of clothing were walking in a row and added music to the video of it later. Supposedly (can't find out the truth) they set up their picnic near some of the official Juneteenth events and it was distracting from the actual events. Which if this is true, yeah that's not appropriate to take attention away from the actual people working at Williamsburg. But I also see a bunch of the attendees were sharing photos/videos of the Juneteenth interpreters, so it kind of becomes "are they assholes for... attending on this day at all?" idkBut of course it's now blowing up into "you were dressed as slave owners!! yt people!"
>>10634847>>10634856jesus christ is this the new lolita? Same garbage drama just with longer more expensive dresses. It almost makes me laugh but its actually very sad that this is the "tea'. Those tiktokers and circulators are insane and shouldn't be allowed into the historical dressing community, they're making it so incredibly toxic. In 5 years we'll see ita threads be replaced by the historical reenactment equivalent.
>>10634897Historical costuming has always been filled with drama. The difference is that TikTok-esque culture now ramps it up to ridiculous levels that are faster and more intense than the type of drama previously found in the historical fashion community.Look at that lady that made a negative Tiktok about the bee lady who handles hives without gear, long hair, etc. It took less than a week for some popular TikToker to attack her and now her business had to close because Tiktokers review bombed it, gave it bad press, doxxing, attacks, etc. Should Colonial Williamsburg start making its employees wear lower class clothing? Since according to this new argument, the picnic group were "dressed in slave owner clothing" because they were wearing polonaise, anglaise, chemise, etc.
>>10634897>>10634953>>10634856>>10634847>>10634691To add to the confusion: There is debate about whether or not they were... actually there on the 19th or the 18th. The main account that people are targeting with this said Saturday night in her stories: "just to be clear, I was not at CW today. i was on my way home this morning." Other tagged people have said the same thing, they left in the morning. Also multiple people in stories clarifying that no, they didn't pretend like they worked there and yes, they tell people they aren't employees. So was this on the 18th, after all? I want to figure out what actually happened here, because it's starting to look onto other sites and of course when people repeat it, they're adding/embellishing and now the group "made a spectacle of themselves." Also sorry, don't mean to clog a thread with drama, just since it's relevant to the costuming community I want to figure out wtf actually happened.
All right y'all this is what I've discovered after indulging in a shit-ton of videos and stories, including videos + stories from people that work at CW and were there on Saturday. Colonial Williamsburg is one of the few living history spaces that allow guests to come dressed in historical costume. It is not unusual for people to plan meet-ups there, because you can dress up in a historical setting, take photos, videos, etc. A meet-up was planned for the weekend of June 17th-19th, which went from an informal thing to a group with a Facebook. It was open-invitation, but primarily white people joined the groupo/event. Some people are focusing on this, and blaming the costumers for not having BIPOC friends, and essentially saying they should have reached out to BIPOC people to make sure they were coming too. There appears to be no issues with the group on the 17th or 18th. On the 19th, however, the group decided to have a picnic--this was a planned picnic, in which they brought their own tables, food and decor (specifically, bowls of citrus fruit). They set up the picnic tables... across from a living history event put on by employees of Colonial Williasmburg, specifically, black living history interpreters who were educating guests about the lives and struggles of enslaved people at Williamsburg. So picture the Colonial Williamsburg walking paths with seemingly two events on the side: a picnic full of women in fancy gowns giggling and eating, bowls of fruit, etc, and then the other side a platform stage of black people in homespun looking clothes sitting 6 feet apart, talking. 1/2
>>106349682/2Not surprisingly, guests started going over to the group of women huddled together in pretty dresses and talking to them as if they were employees. Because most people would assume that people dressed in historical clothing at Williamsburg work there. Some of the people in the group were not very forthcoming about the fact that they were just visitors. Others were not. Some of the people who were there on the 17th-18th were not there for the picnic, and had left in the morning. The video of the women walking in a line was not from the 19th, but taken on the 18th and uploaded on the 19th. Anyway. The meat of the issue that the group detracted from the serious living history interpretations that the black employees of Williasmburg have been working on for months, years in some cases, on the very first official Juneteenth. They set up tables and did indeed "make a spectacle of themselves" within visual and earshot of Williamsburg employees and their work.I'm reminded of when Traci Hines would pull stunts like this at Disney Parks, though it's even more extreme here since you're fully allowed to be in historical costume. (Anyone else think CW might switch to the "costumes only on designated days/events" now like most living history spaces do?)The "well they should have invited BIPOC people!!" argument is monumentally retarded, because the problem is that they took attention away from the employees and a serious historical living history event, not that none of the giggling women taking attention away from living history interpretation going on right across the way were black. Finally, Abby Cox chiming in with an aNgRy vIdEo with her tight-almost-in-tears "HHHHow fucking DARE YOU!" crying videos about this, when her white ass got married at a plantation, and the video about "why" she did it was so ridiculous, she was laughing and giggling while talking about it, never took accountability, is hilarious.
>>10634969Why didn't the workers do the explaining since they do have legitimate authority in this situation?It feels like it wouldn't be hard to say >"please ignore the visitors sitting in the park, we have a policy allowing historical costumes to be worn on site while visiting CW. Thank you."
>>10634970>Why didn't the workers do the explaining since they do have legitimate authority in this situation?Because they were in the middle of a living history interpretation. Sounds like there wasn't any way for them to find a way to get a different employee who wasn't "on" to steer people away or talk to the women having a picnic.CW needs to start having "handlers" like the way they do face characters at Disney. Someone on hand to handle situations like this.
>>10634968>>10634969thank you for the context anon, but I can't find the Abby Cox video or any groups or accounts talking abt this. how were you able to dig this up?
>>10634974>its a living history interpretation!Bitch I'm sure if I started screaming "why is this n***er yapping" they would break character or find a handler. Security would be called and character would be broken that way or its equivalent would happen. The workers just allowed that situation to happen, they did not prepare and frankly not having a handler for a racially charged event is disorganized.I don't care how many years the idea was baked, if heckling is not anticipated then it is poorly planned.Honestly the workers that took part in CW probably wanted something like this to happen
>>10634991>Bitch I'm sure if I started screaming "why is this n***er yapping" they would break character or find a handler. O...kay? that's not what happened. What racially charged event? No one excepted a gaggle of white women in rich ladies gowns to descend upon an active living history event on a platform and set up a ridiculous tone-deaf cottagecore-esuqe picnic across the way. >I don't care how many years the idea was baked, if heckling is not anticipated then it is poorly planned.People don't really heckle like this or make big "oh shit we need security" stinks at CW.
>>10634978A lot of story hopping. Almost all of this is in stories. Start with sewstine, she had one of the employees stories in her story; that employee had another employee, along with one of the living history interpreters working that day, in her story. abbyelyn is Abby Cox's instagram, it's in her stories as a repost from her tiktok.
>>10634995>Black history event>On Juneteenth >not racially chargedPick two. Race is a very touchy subject right now and always has been so pretending that an event with attention on the times of slavery not being potentially disrupted intentionally isn't that far sighted. What if people decided this was the thing they want to protest? What if this was the event that was going to become the "orange fool" Townsend moment for CW?How the fuck was a contingency plan not developed?
>>10635004This. It reads as terribly uninformed to normies- I narrated the events to my incredibly normie bf and even though he isn't into woke culture he thought it was incredibly tone deaf.I could imagine the nyt or even a local newspaper picking this up and blowing this up into an attention grabbing headline.Even cynically speaking you really need to be thinking about things like this. I agree it's blown out of proportion but understanding why it was will hopefully let the group know in the future to plan a bit better for those contingencies.
>>10635004Just hopping into this discussion but historical reenactment space doesn't seem racially charged to me, especially one that acknowledges slave life considering the most intense racists pretend slavery either never happened or was "lazy black people taking advantage of the generous plantation owners" and ridiculous revisionist stuff which wouldn't be someone going to CW I would wager lol. Most people are there to learn or for the interest in aesthetics or craftsmanship and whatnot, right? Blaming the people working there who have seemingly never had this issue before for not trying hard enough or calling them lazy for not breaking character what was mostly a misunderstanding, not legitimate antagonism or anything, seems silly.Like idk historical communities are typically way too chill (and often boring to normies) from my perspective to attract hecklers beyond immature school kids on a field trip so I can see why this wasn't an issue before. Most rules exist because someone did something that caused problems for people, so now that this situation happened whether the intentions were bad or not, they can develop better systems for dealing with it like handlers or specific rules on dates you wan wear historical clothes and all.
>>10635004I'm not sure I understand why you're bringing up examples like "well yeah but what if I screamed racial slurs at them!" when that's not remotely close to what happened? Colonial Williamsburg regularly has slave and freed black person interpreters on site talking about their experiences without incident and has for a while now. The only difference is having specific events all day about the history of slaves and black people at Williamsburg, and the focus for the day being on rather than them rather than the focus being split between black and white history interpreter events. In the case of what actually went down... what were they supposed to do? It's not against the rules for guests to meet up in big groups, even in historical dress. It's not against the rules for guests to have picnics on site. It's not against the rules for guests to be dressed up near living history interpreters. They weren't breaking rules or doing anything wrong on paper. They were just being tone deaf morons who didn't think about the implications of creating a bucolic elite woman eating fruit picnic tableaux right across from a living history slave interpretation. >>10635015>Even cynically speaking you really need to be thinking about things like this. Right. I don't think the women in this case were malicious, but they're just moronic. Why did not a single person in the weeks leading up to this say hmm... should we really be descending on Colonial Williamsburg in a big group (remember there was about 100++ people originally signed up to go!) to have a pretty picnic on June 19th? Or while they were setting up... why did no one say hey guys, we're kind of close to those people doing their job and holding an event, don't you think? >I could imagine the nyt or even a local newspaper picking this up and blowing this up into an attention grabbing headline.Oh I suspect it's coming.