Faux Victorian couple ejected from Butchart Gardens for fancy attire

Sorry, unless you’re reading this naked, you are wearing costume, right now. Films and plays set in “regular”, contemporary society still have and need costume designers, for good reason. Your costume tells a viewer your socioeconomic class, what kind of country you live in, whether or not you belong to a cultural minority in that country (and which one), and what sort of activity you’re currently engaged in.

To think there is a real distinction between costume and clothing is, at best, naïve, and at worst pro-conformist in a really ugly way.

And as for the “but they might get mistaken for staff” BS: I and many other people I know have been mistaken for sales staff in shops, even while we were carrying a purse or backpack, even when we were wearing an overcoat, even when what we were wearing wasn’t available at that shop. It happens. You can’t legislate against it.

8 Likes

Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?

7 Likes

Why should she have to take off her hat? Do they make every visitor to the gardens, standing in the sun, remove their hats?

Maybe that particular hat crossed the line and made the get up a costume.

Take the example of the guy at Disney kicked out 'dressed like Abraham Lincoln and hanging out at Liberty Square. Without the hat…he’s just inappropriately dressed for Florida heat…with the hat. It was a costume, and was mistaken as an employee.

These people do wear costumes, it’s ‘period’ costumes but they cos play Victorians.
They were just asked to tone it down a bit so there’s no confusion about them being Garden employees.

2 Likes

A public garden is not Disneyland.

They aren’t cosplaying. They’re just wearing 100 year old styled clothes. It is their lifestyle. Again, would they ban Amish?

and a raven is not a writing desk. Your point being? And yes, they are CosPlaying…they’re extrimly dedicated, but they’re still reenacting a historical period with their …shall I say “Costumes”

Amish, Nuns, Marines, exist in this time period.

3 Likes

Apples and oranges? Disneyland doesn’t matter.

So do people who live in Victorian era clothing, using era tools, and engaging in a largely era lifestyle. They’ve written several books about it.

Again, these aren’t special costumes they are wearing. They are in their day to day clothing.

5 Likes

So do Gabriel and Sarah Chrisman.

3 Likes

They look too serious to be real Victorians…




14 Likes

When my family and I were kicked out of a mall in Carlsbad (we were there to ride a carousel in the mall with friends–yes, this was covered on BoingBoing), the mall made similar statements about no costumes and no masks. Of course, their actual rules didn’t have clear guidelines at all–it mentioned gang clothing and face visibility only-- and nobody in our group had masks.

One of the commenters made a mention of did they have a problem with furries in the flower beds-- well, imagine, the mall security actually complained to us that they were kicking us out (and calling the police) mostly because they’d had a problem with VAMPIRES. Yes, that’s right, a group of “vampires” came to ride the carousel and that meant any outfit out of the ordinary meant full scale panic at the mall (even though we’d been welcomed at another mall in the city run by the same company just three months earlier).

And, really, simple victorian outfits, whether you consider them costumes or not–by any use of the definition of that word, aren’t going to harm anyone. They rarely cause confusion. They are not different than formal event wear that is allowed in these same places.

If this garden allows weddings or 15-16 year old birthday parties, then they were unfairly discriminating against this couple.

Here’s a reminder of our experience: http://boingboing.net/2014/02/20/mall-cops-freak-out-over-steam.html

11 Likes

It’s a private facility. They can make any rules they like, as long as they don’t violate B.C. law.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

2 Likes

If they were truly serious about their privacy, they could refuse to admit any visitors. Funny how so many businesses that claim to be private try to encourage as many of the public as they can to go there.

4 Likes

You know what might solve this “confusion” problem? They should make all employees where a singular and massive silly hat and name badges.

1 Like

“Private” as in privately owned, as opposed to a municipal facility, not “private” as in I vant to be alone. The Gardens have been owned by the same family for about a century.

3 Likes

Not my historical era, but I was just thinking about this book today (also, the infamous Hellfire Club, not to be confused with the goth band the Electric Hellfire club):

9 Likes

I am aware of the distinction. My point is that privately-owned businesses who invite the public to visit are playing a shitty game, where they promote inclusiveness to get people there, but reserve a right to exclusion when they imagine that it is in their interests. Nobody told them that they need to constantly re-negotiate their boundaries when they could always operate as the private exclusive club which they reserve their right to be. Except that it seems their virtues stop at their wallet.

If they had the guts to be “invite only”, they would not have these problems.

I vill be in my bunk…

5 Likes

About that: legal doesn’t mean unobjectionable.

8 Likes

Regardless of how I feel about them, this is one of the funniest things I’ve ever read, ever: http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/to-hell-with-voxs-victorian-living-idiots-1729873090

3 Likes

Meh. The clothes are cool.

1 Like

Interesting. Been to Butchart numerous times, but other than the Victorian-style carolers at Christmas, i don’t recall seeing period costume any other time, but that may have changed.
That said, it is a Victorian style garden, in a city names Victoria, full of other Victorian architecture. Wouldn’t want to confuse anyone…

4 Likes