Why are you shitting on how they live? This couple is well known. As is mentioned, they have published a book. They talk at great length about why they choose to live that way but you and other clowns go “Steampunk, eh? ha ha!”
No, not Steampunk. Victorian…
Butch Art Gardens posted a press release…
So, historical costumes that bend in so well with the historic gardens that people look like they could work there are, at the same time, “distracting”… Got, it. Need to make sure that nobody looks like they belong there. /s
Edit: maybe all visitors could don orange prison jumpsuits, just to insure this policy is working.
Edited. You misunderstand my intentions, but offence is often perceived by the reader even when not intended by the writer. I will endeavour not to respond inappropriately to any other posts you make.
It seems clear that the Gardens quite properly don’t want historical-reenactment types wearing period costume and confusing visitors into thinking the reenactors work for the Gardens. If a visitor was misled or misinformed about something and complained, who’d be held responsible?
Anyway, these two loons make a huge deal about living as Victorians but have a website? Hypocrites. I bet they also take advantage of modern medicine and sanitation.
That was my first question. One of my standard outfits is utilikilt, t-shirt, and boots. Is this a costume? I sometimes present as female, although rarely in a “normal” public space, usually a nice skirts and blouse. (I may wear the same boots or I may wear black flats.) Is this a costume? For that matter, when I’ve worked in an office with a dress code (e.g., “wear a tie.”) I usually refer to the resulting outfit as a “business costume.” It’s pretty damned clear that I, at least, consider that to be a costume.
First thing: define your criteria clearly. Simply saying “Costumes of any sort” is essentially useless.
What’s with the hate? Have these two broken into your house and made you give up Diet Coke or something?
Victorian Coca-Cola was probably much more interesting.
This includes persons wearing period style, historical dress, or adult clothing that could be viewed as a costume
Employees at Butchart Gardens are often dressed in adult clothing that can be viewed as a costume. Uh oh!
Chefs:
Gelato Scoopers:
Also, you MUST use the proper terminology when referring to Butchart Gardens.
Usage
The Butchart Gardens and The Gardens are referred to in the singular. That is, “The Butchart Gardens is” or “The Gardens is”. “The Gardens” is used in the same way one would use “The Butchart Gardens”. If referring to the various gardens within The Butchart Gardens one would state “the gardens”.
Oh, just used the link to re-review the presser.
"As a compromise, Mrs. Chrisman was politely asked to remove only her hat, and had she not refused, the Chrismans would have been welcomed into The Gardens. "
Yes, yes, that deceptive hat. Sooo distracting, and docenty. Carrying it in her hands would be fine. But wearing it? Oh, just think of all the pearls that would be crushed in the wave of pearl clutching she would cause!
That, of course, is my job.
The press excuse release says:
“not permitting costumes or masks to be worn onsite. This includes persons wearing period style, historical dress, or adult clothing that could be viewed as a costume as they could be mistaken for entertainers or interpreters hired by The Gardens”
“The couple showed up for the lunch in Victorian attire, as they typically wear, but say they were told they needed to change, or put on old staff uniforms.”
So wearing actual Butchart staff uniforms would not be confusing or distracting to customers…but wearing historical Victorian clothing would… [headdesk]
From TVL: Bryan scowled. “I can see if there are some old staff uniforms you could put on.”
Staff uniforms, also known as adult clothing that could be viewed as a costume.
I’m not sure who’s mind you’ think you’re blowing. Many cultures that are sexually repressed have extremely perverse/libertine underbellies, subcultures, and subtexts.
My practical definition of “costume” has always been “distinct from what one usually wears”. Which means that enforcing it is impossible if for anyone who does not know what that might usually be.
I think they ought to have let this dapper-looking couple in, but I wouldn’t necessarily assume that this was some overweening act of ticket kiosk oppression. I think we underestimate how difficult it can be to run any service open to the public, and how frickin weird people can be.
So in situations like these, before I raise the pitchfork (and I love to raise the pitchfork), I always try to imagine what circumstances I would have considered this justifiable, if not exactly reasonable or cool. And I’m thinking something happened at some point - maybe some kids dressed up on Halloween and freaked people out, or a professional photograph tried to do a period shoot and when they objected claimed to be just taking pictures for fun. Whatever. So they craft a rule - “No kids in costumes freaking people out” or “No pro photographers pretending to be doing casual shoots for fun.” But the rule has to go through the city attorney (if its municipal) or legal first.
The attorney’s job isn’t PR - it’s keeping the organization away from costly and needless litigation. So she rewrites it as the legally defensible rule we see now. It gets printed out and tacked up at the ticket kiosk, and 80-year-old volunteer Edna takes a good, long look at it. “No costumes.” Being somewhat overzealous, she sees this couple saunter up to the counter - maybe they’ve got an attitude, maybe not - and she’s not having it.
So in the end it all came down to an overzealous volunteer who was having a bad morning. Or maybe they really did have people coming in wearing period costumes pretending to be docents - people do these things. People are weird. We see dumb rules being enforced by dumb people all the time, but I think it’s likely that all lot of those dumb rules were put in place by pretty competent people to solve a particular problem. They just didn’t anticipate the unintended consequences.
Note: I do not work for Butchart Gardens. I had not even heard of Butchart Gardens until today, and living in San Francisco I thought “Butchart” was a pretty funny name."
OK, back to lunch.
I don’t. I understand a prohibition against masks, and one against “costumes” makes sense for a theme park where you don’t want visitors mistaken for park employees, but here?
Yeah, the thing is, formal wear tends to change more slowly than general fashions, too - so it’s essentially archaic. Especially British formal wear, in particular wedding costume, which is actually entirely Victorian fashion.
1960s, I reckon. Any earlier than that, and you start getting into suit-and-hat-wearing, which is the biggest break with modern fashion.
Regency era? It’s just after that, for men’s clothes at least, that we have the modern items of clothing - long trousers (with hosiery not visible), jacket with lapels, short waistcoats, etc. I have some Victorian repro pieces in my wardrobe that I mix in with contemporary fashion and no one blinks. Unless I try to wear a top hat - it’s the full assemblage, especially with hat, that becomes so formal that it stands out.
The point of the rule is to give assholes like Bryan and John Tomlinson occasional excitement from wielding the power they so desperately crave in their small, boring, dead-end jobs.
The paradox is that contemporaneity, not unlike language, is a correlate of usage. So once one wears it, it has become “modern fashion”. It is only truly archaic if it is no longer used.
I’m trying to figure out which side in this story best represents The Village Green Preservation Society.
