Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[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.

[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.

[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.

[babybird67]

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

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

Jen x

[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.

[DVV]

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

They definitely are, as demonstrated by Archaic.

[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.

[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]

are you suggesting Hutch was wearing a bearskin?

lol.

It is clear from the source material that the phrase referred to comportment and behaviour, NOT physical characteristics, Lechmere. No matter how many times you want to try to make it mean something else.

[Ben]

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

It has nothing to do with what I “think”, Lechmere, but what the sources actually tell us, as David and Babybird have both attempted to spell out for you.

The sources tell us that "Military Appearance" meant "Characterized By Military Bearing And A Soldierly Attitude" as defined in the late 19th century.

So what’s your response to the sources?

That’s right – you dismiss them as "ill informed" and insist that your version must be correct anyway, or even worse, you try to pretend that the sources don’t exist at all; that it was all in the mind of “Mr. Ben”. Let’s just clarify once and for all: military appearance meant "characterized by a military bearing", and your insistence to the contrary is completely worthless.

There has never been any tall and/or thin military stereotype, and common sense should dictate that a square-built, broad-shouldered muscular frame is far more suited to most tasks required by military operations.

Once again, this is just another very bad and ill-starred attempt to infer that the wideawake man was someone other that George Hutchinson.

[Sally]

Lechmere

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

I believe it was you who spoke of the 'collapse' of the apprenticeship system. No such collapse appears to have taken place. Not my opinion, but contemporary evidence. Lots of it.

[The Good Michael]

Things that are clear:

The apprenticship system changed when indentured servitude was outlawed in 1814. After that time, the 7 year system was much looser.

As capitalism increased so did people decide to hire cheaper labor in order to increase profit. This of course is seen in the LVP where Jewish immigrants worked for nearly half of what skilled workers got.

There can be no doubt that anyone who wanted to plumb at low wages, could find himself a job. If you plumb, you are a plumber. Case closed.

Mike

[Lechmere]

Sally – I specifically spoke of the collapse of the apprenticeship system with respect to for plumbers in London. That is quite a specific target for collapse and in any case I did not say that this specific collapse implied there were absolutely no apprentice plumbers in London either.

Mr Ben – no I am not saying the sources are ill informed – I am saying you are spectacularly ill informed in misquoting one passage, which your repeated remarks imply to me constitute the sum total of your knowledge about the Victorian army.
Also why did you say sources – it was one source that concerned ‘military bearing’ - and didn’t provide any details at all relating to ‘military appearance’ – beyond that tantalising expression ‘soldierly attitude’.
By contrast I have given numerous other examples, from prints, photographs, references to underwear, to details of military uniform.
It is a non argument as anyone who has any knowledge (i.e. not you clearly) of the Victorian military ideal would be able to tell you.

[DVV]

I'm afraid you only look more and more desperate on this, Lechmere.

[DVV]

Even if I thought Toppy was the witness, I wouldn't use this "military appearance" as an evidence.