Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

Katharine wrote:Sorry, Kerren. I think I was the one who first mentioned underwear on this thread - but it had morphed off DRW way before then. I'm not sure that she would have minded. I remember her saying that you could always tell that someone was well educated because they would always be able to carry on a conversation, whatever the topic. That's all we have done, in her honour!

Oh well said DR! I wish I had been aware of this before.

I used to work with a particularly objectionable (to me) Australian woman who, unfortunately, was employed in a senior position and to whom I had to report occasionally. We had nothing in common, and she would talk nineteen to the dozen, but never actually say anything worthwhile.

During a visit by two visiting UK scientists she decided to include me in a business lunch - possibly just to make up numbers, as she can't possibily have thought that I would have anything scientific to contribute. Anyway, we three Poms sat and chatted and laughed our way through lunch, extablishing a rapport which then extended into our scientific discussions.

The aforementioned woman made a point of taking me aside to tell me that she was amazed that I was able to hold a conversation, and that she would consider including me in other lunch meetings for my entertainment value.
I am sure that my Dad would be thrilled to hear that his investment in my education was not wasted

To bring this post vaguely back to topic: the mother of the same woman died when she had only been working with us for a couple of weeks, and I was amazed to see my Supervisor dressed in black suit and tie on the day of the funeral. Lovely guy, but not terribly strong willed: she (daughter of deceased) had 'requested' that staff attended the funeral, even though they hardly knew her, and had never met her mother, because she was concerned that there would be so few in attendance that people would think her mother unimportant.

I know that this will not be the case on 11/1. Can't attend physically, but will be thinking of everyone: DR in particular, of course.

Love

Caroline

Hi everyone and a Happy New Year.

The shoe man - I wonder if this brings back memories:
Liz Jay (Plummer), Mary McDonagh and I used to do a brilliant skit of our encounters with the shoe man in the cellar of the science block. One of us would play the role of the shoe man and would lurch from a dark corner of the room towards the person who needed shodding, brandishing a shoe. This would then be tried on and from the 'shoe man' would come a barely comprehensible, ghoulish voice saying "D'they fit? D'they fit?" The poor man! He always seemed to be covered in shoe polish and wore an apron. We used to joke that he lived down there in the dark like Quasimodo and never came out.

In real life we found that if we kept refusing the ancient pre-worn shoes that were offered, saying they didn't fit - and if we were very nice to him - he would produce a shiny new pair which we'd regard as a triumph on our part!

I'll try to get to DR's funeral. I'm supposed to be at work that day, so can't guarantee anything, but would like to be there.

New!!! shiny!!!,

If I remember correctly the new shoes were bright orange and it was only after a month or so of daily polishing they turned a lovely shiny dark brown.

At that time the neat shoes were only available up to a size 6 and those of us with larger feet (7) had great big clodhoppers which would have doubled as a cross-channel ferry.

I remember saying that old shoes didn't fit which wasn't difficult when you had big (in those days) feet like I did.

Nowadays a 7 seems quite reasonable.

I really can't believe that we had to wear second-hand shoes but some did.

I have 2 claims to fame from my CH days:
i) I never spent so much as a single day in the infirmary, a fact much exclaimed upon at some sort of 'leaving medical'.
ii) I got a new pair of shoes when I went there and wore them for the entire 6 years. Thinking about that now they must have been a bit big at first and a tad small at the end but it's true my feet hardly grew. They were that lovely shiny brown (the shoes, not my feet ...), having been polished several hundred (? over a thousand) times. Hard to imagine any shoes being treated like that these days!

Su Bonfanti
5's 1967-73

Angela Woodford wrote:

midget wrote:School bras were first issued in about 1950 (AudreyG any ideas on that?)
The school doctor apparently got fed up with seeing girls with deep grooves in their shoulders from the "hoist them up and stick them out" bras which were being worn.

Do you mean girls were bringing in unsuitable bras to wear, causing the grooves? How thrilling. Hoicked up straps! Whirlpool-stitched cups! The Jane Russell Look!

I'm becoming over-excited.

Munch

Calm down Munch! Yes that is exactly what I mean

How can I be calm, thinking of those pointed-cup cone shaped bras smouldering away below the horrid uniforms? How I love the history of lingerie!

If school issue bras only became available in 1950, were own-choice bras legal at school? I suppose so...?.... the girls must have needed support.

I'm looking at my battered paperback "The Girls' School in the 20th Century", page 130, an inspiring photo - "1953. The (girls) March Past the Duke of Gloucester at Horsham". Without a doubt, those are splendid hoicked up and thrust forward specimens; I would think notslightly supported in a demure Tea Rose button-up.

Go, girls of the early 50s!

Yes, OK, I'm straying again. Miss Morrison always told me to try to concentrate!

Excitedly

Munch

Hi Munch

One thing I enjoy about your posts is that they are just SOOOO supportive.

Obviously you are wrapped up and hooked in by your subject, I feel uplifted by your very words. So please don't be offended if I suggest a digression.

I've loved reading about bras but why has no-one mentioned suspender belts??? Having at twelve years old no hips whatsoever I found this a most difficult garment to relate to, and have never understood the male enthusiasm for this fiddly elasticated non-holder-up of falling-down stockings.

How wonderfully liberating it was to wear tights in the Real World!!!!

As an enthusiastic student of lingerie perhaps you could enlighten me some time please regarding the rise and fall of the suspender belt?

Yours in anticipation, or should that be suspense.....

I never understood the logic that the suspender belts were our own and NOT school uniform whereas bras....

For most of my time we had the dreaded lisle stockings. Twice a week you would see the Wardrobe Girl going around the cloakroom putting stockings on pegs for mending. Some years it seemed I had to darn mine every time! When you got your BA you progressed to a pair of silk stockings for Sundays - except by the time I got my BA it was a pair of 60 denier nylons not the silk I had coveted. Those stockings were almost indestructable, I had mine for 3 years and they were still intact!

As a tall girl 5'4 at 11 when I started I didn't have to wear knee socks, I went straight to the ribbed stockings. The trouble was the following year the rest of the world moved on to tights and we were (once again) left behind.

However (at risk of getting JR reaching for his pills) I have always preferred stockings to tights.

Mary, when I was there, the knee socks were only worn by those in the Junior Houses. Does your post mean that after the Junior Houses went, the juniors in ALL houses wore socks?

Is this the reason that junior girls wear yellow socks and senior girls grey socks or black tights now?
I`ve always wondered why, as there`s nothing different for the boys!

englishangel wrote:As a tall girl 5'4 at 11 when I started I didn't have to wear knee socks, I went straight to the ribbed stockings. The trouble was the following year the rest of the world moved on to tights and we were (once again) left behind.

However (at risk of getting JR reaching for his pills) I have always preferred stockings to tights.

Thanks for the invite to this thread again, Mary.

Liz Jay said she couldn't understand the males fascination with stockings.

You really need to look at the physical make-up of what raises the human libido. As far as men and stockings are concerned, its basically a visual thing. You have probably noticed that girly-mags usually show women wearing black stockings, thereby accentuating the flash of soft white thigh above offering promises of things to come.

During my early fumbling days, tights were only just starting to make their arrival, therefore the sense of touch played a great part. The magical difference from where the crakling feel of nylon ended and the warm soft touch of skin started. Then there was also the light snap and twang of a taut suspender !!

Just too much information there JR. Thanks all the same. Which mag is it you write for??

I still maintain that if you had to WEAR them they might lose their charms.

Just think of the contrast between the relatively warm bestockinged legs and the flash of ice in one's nether regions.

And despite my big sister's efforts to locate the smallest suspender belt in the world mine ALWAYS succumbed to gravity on any walk longer than the length of the dayroom, as did my two pairs of oversized knickers, one white and one blue.

I was forever having to fumble with my underwear to restore it to its proper position. A great distraction...

For skinny pre-pubescent girls they just weren't RIGHT. Maybe a paedophile's dream but a nightmare for the wearer!!!!!

I rest my case.

Love

Can some clever person tell me why my "number of posts" thingy has got stuck on "69"?

What do I have to do to move it on to "70"?

Feeling victimised now.

Love

Hmmm....

So now it's got stuck on "70".

Oh well.

Love