Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Lechmere]

"My date was a loser...a liar, womaniser, cheat."
Hold on a minute, I don't know you do I?

I think that your experience demonstrated that 'military bearing' was an ideal. It does not invalidate the term any more than a podgy soldier invalidates the 'ideal' nature of the term 'military appearance'.
As I have pointed out, the army's recruitment policies and training regime tended to encourage the stereotype as did the images in the popular press, prints and paintings. They informed people's mental images of what was and what wasn't 'military appearance'. To which can be added events like Trooping the Colour- when the army was on display in its finery - waists in, height enhanced by bearskins etc.

The terms 'military bearing' and 'military appearance' simply are not interchangeable no matter how much the illinformed on here say it repeatedly.

[babybird67]

Babybird
When considering the usage of a term such as 'Military Appearance' and what it may mean, the fact that some soldiers in reality are fat or short is irrelevant. It is an archetypal or stereotypical expression.

I think you will find stereotypes are derived from basic realities Lechmere. Otherwise where do they come from? Who do they refer to?

It does not mean that every single soldier in the world has to conform with this stereotype any more than any stereotype works for all people within the group. I am sure that not all Swedes are dour...

Absolutely. I'm just saying, in my experience, soldiers can just as much be short and stout as they can be tall and thin.

In the same way not all soldiers will conduct themselves with 'military bearing' – they may not always be calm and respectful, have poise and dignity and be confident.

Individuals wouldn't always behave the same way no. But the expression would be meaningless if it did not refer to something associated with soldiers. As Archaic's source material has established, this 'something' is their bearing, behaviour and comportment, not their physical appearance, since we have already established you can be in the military and be short/tall, fat/thin...but military bearing or appearance doesn't refer to physical characteristics, but to typical or stereotypical behaviour of someone in the army. How they might stand, behave etc.

My date was a loser...a liar, womaniser, cheat. So maybe Hutch did have a military bearing after all.

[DVV]

The two terms are not interchangeable as Mr Ben clearly seems to think.

They definitely are, as demonstrated by Archaic.

[Lechmere]

Babybird
When considering the usage of a term such as 'Military Appearance' and what it may mean, the fact that some soldiers in reality are fat or short is irrelevant. It is an archetypal or stereotypical expression. It does not mean that every single soldier in the world has to conform with this stereotype any more than any stereotype works for all people within the group. I am sure that not all Swedes are dour...
In the same way not all soldiers will conduct themselves with 'military bearing' – they may not always be calm and respectful, have poise and dignity and be confident. I don’t know whether your ‘date’ fulfilled these characteristics or not. But if he didn’t it would not invalidate the term ‘military bearing’.
Incidentally ‘military bearing’ is associated with but not the same as 'military appearance'. The two terms are not interchangeable as Mr Ben clearly seems to think.

[babybird67]

Some people apparently confuse army and basket-ball, Jen.

LMAO! David that had me laughing out loud! Thank you!

Jen x

[DVV]

who is short and not thin (though I wouldn't call him fat either!).

I also dated a soldier who was also on the short side, and had a belly on him!

Not all soldiers are thin and tall. Which is why it makes sense that the military appearance relates to how he conducted himself, not what he looked like, as borne out, I repeat, by the source material Archaic has found.

Some people apparently confuse army and basket-ball, Jen.

[Ben]

The only nonsensical element to this thread are your smug edicts on matters you clearly know nothing about.

Here again is Archaic's post, which Lechmere ignored:

I should have clarified that the Victorian dictionaries & other publications gave the meaning of "Military Appearance" as "Characterized By Military Bearing And A Soldierly Attitude". That's why I looked up further definitions of "Military Bearing''.

"Mr. Ben" is therefore asserting, without any fear of contradiction, that a short and stout individual can very easily have a military appearance if he meets the criteria outlined in Archaic's definitions - criteria that has nothing whatsoever to do with physique.

"You also continued to peddle the utterly discredited 'must be a seven year apprentice' line."

No, I never said this "must have" happened, as you'll discover if you read this thread from the beginning, which you clearly have done already. If you read Sally's information, however, you'll observe that many plumbers were apprenticed - a great many through familial connection, and you don't get more "familial" than your own plumbing father.

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
Yes the significance of the Worshipful Company of Plumbers test was discussed back then and discussed again now and on both occasions
you chose to assert that this meant that a rigerous new test was in place which would strongly mitigate against anyone engaging as a plumber without passing the test.
You also continued to peddle the utterly discredited 'must be a seven year apprentice' line.

[babybird67]

my friend is married to a soldier

who is short and not thin (though I wouldn't call him fat either!).

I also dated a soldier who was also on the short side, and had a belly on him!

Not all soldiers are thin and tall. Which is why it makes sense that the military appearance relates to how he conducted himself, not what he looked like, as borne out, I repeat, by the source material Archaic has found.

[Lechmere]

The fact that there are two terms - 'military bearing' and 'military appearance' - one relating to comportment and one to visuals - should tell anyone that the second can only have meaning when related to physical appearance, unless the person is in uniform, which clearly Hutchinson wasn't.
Mr Ben is trying to claim that a short fat person could be of 'military appearance' if he comported himself in a soldierly manner or adopted a military manner while in conservation. I say this is nonsense.

[Ben]

Many thanks for the additional information, Archaic and Sally. Much appreciated.

Lechmere,

Why don’t you try reading the sources for once rather than waxing lyrical about how “perverse” I’m supposed to have been? I never said there was “no such thing” as a military appearance. I have merely pointed out that the term, as used in the late 19th century, did not apply to height and weight but rather to carriage and demeanour. Here again, are the definitions of military appearance or bearing:

'Military Bearing' is a term used to describe subjective impressions of professionalism, manliness, and dependability.

-Exhibiting an air of confidence, integrity, competence, calmness, courtesy, and respect.

-Comporting oneself with poise and dignity.

-Standing proudly erect with a respectful, confident, manly attitude.

- How one comports oneself; poise.

- A respectful manner which inspires confidence.

- A fine proud soldierly posture.

- Listening carefully and respectfully to one’s superiors; giving direct and forthright replies when spoken to.

Fortunately, for those who then attempted to claim very falsely that “military bearing” meant something different from a “military appearance”, we then learned that the latter expression was “Characterized By Military Bearing And A Soldierly Attitude”. Once again, this has nothing to do with physique. What you describe as my “perverse logic” or my “ridiculous position” is in reality a simple recognition and acceptance of the relevant sources. All you’re doing, by contrast, is attempting to create some mythical schism between Hutchinson and Lewis’ wideawake by attempting to suggest that the two were physically dissimilar. That attempt has failed, and it’s about time you accepted this.

“it was your colleague Mr Ben who put great emphasis on the Worshipful Company of Plumbers test”

No, it was you who decided to dredge up the source mentioning the Worshipful Company of Plumbers test, despite the fact that Gareth first provided it on this thread (where it was discussed at length) in June 2009. Until then, I placed no “emphasis” on it whatsoever.

Edit: Thanks, Beebs. Precisely what I was getting at!

[babybird67]

Mr Ben – you have put yourself – not the first time – into a ridiculous position where you are now arguing that there is no such things as a ‘military appearance’ as it can encompass all possible appearances.

I dont think this is what Ben said. He said the term was not linked to physical appearance in terms of height/weight but more of attitude. Which is borne out by the source material Archaic kindly discovered.

[Lechmere]

A soldiery attitude was standing erect, ramrod stiff, stomach in chest out. Also this may be of interest...
From ‘Underwear through History’.
“As for men, they too often used stiff corsets to give themselves a sleek, military appearance.”

Mr Ben – you have put yourself – not the first time – into a ridiculous position where you are now arguing that there is no such things as a ‘military appearance’ as it can encompass all possible appearances. If that were the case, the term would have no meaning and would not be used. It is a term used by the journalist in order to conjure up a mental image of Hutchinson in the mind of the reader. Yes I confess I only just figured out your perverse logic – as it is so perverse it took me some time.

Incidentally the army could control aspects of physique. They had minimum height requirements and engaged in training to ensure that the soldiers were fit. Indeed the uniforms were designed to enhance the idealised notion of ‘military appearance’ – to pull in wasp waists and enhance height.

Mr Wroe – check back – it was your colleague Mr Ben who put great emphasis on the Worshipful Company of Plumbers test – not me. You thought you were having a dig at me when I had attached no great significance to the test.
It is also clear from the context in which I used the word ‘prevalent’ that I did not mean majority.
There really is something about Hutchinson that brings out the most precious remarks from Hutchinsonites.

Sally – I don’t think anyone has suggested there were no apprentice plumbers in the 1880s.

[Sally]

United Operative Plumbers

Founded in 1865, was hugely popular as the trade union of choice for plumbers nationwide; and had hundreds of lodges across the country by the turn of the century.

The attempt by the Worshipful Company of Plumbers to establish an industry standard test should be seen at leas in part as an attempt to establish control over an industry which was showing every sign of having outgrown its traditions.

The idea that there were no apprentice plumbers in this period is untenable. There were, obviously, as records survive. The Worshipful Company of Plumbers may have been complaining about the wane of traditional indentured apprenticeships; but these are still in evidence, and in any case, the most usual way for a person to train as a plumber would have been through a familial connection.

Not all children (depends on the number of children as much as anything) but conservatively about 70% of children whose parents had a profession (in contrast to a mere job) followed them into that profession. Not all of them always stayed in that profession, of course, although many did.

[Archaic]

"Military Appearance" & "Military Bearing"

Hi guys.

I should have clarified that the Victorian dictionaries & other publications gave the meaning of "Military Appearance" as "Characterized By Military Bearing And A Soldierly Attitude". That's why I looked up further definitions of "Military Bearing''.

The definitions all had a great deal to do with demeanor and comportment. In other words, it was a phrase used to describe a subjective impression.

In everything I read it was looked upon quite favorably. The word "manly" was used a lot.

Best regards,
Archaic