Puffer

I think that says it all.

I could perhaps be forgiven for suggesting that the words 'the rest of' are inappropriate in the present context. (Your personal apology appreciated.) I was at a family friend's wedding a couple of years ago, in church in a modest country town. The bridegroom's father, with the general appearance of an artisan or farmer, was tidily dressed (in a suit!) but wore a 'flat cap' both in church and at the reception afterwards (in a fairly grand country house). Frankly, I thought that disrespectful to both venues and to those present, and the bride's father (whom I know well) did not seem pleased, although too polite to comment.

Are they really? Because of the 'Hunter' label or because they are expensive? The quality is not what it used to be when they were UK-made and there are better wellies available at a much lower price. Maybe the man you saw was wearing 'old' Hunters (from the 1970s?) which have lasted well, as they normally did? My wellies cost me about £4, bought from a builders merchant some 25 years ago, and remain fine for walking in wet and muddy conditions - including canal towpaths. Even now, an equivalent pair can be found for £20 or less.

Attitudes do vary in the UK. As a general rule, people in the south tend not to engage in casual geetings or conversation with strangers unless there is a good reason which turns them into temporary allies or conspirators. For example, their bus or train is involved in an accident or is severely delayed, or they witness some remarkable event nearby. I understand (and have experienced) a different situation in the north, where complete strangers will converse on meeting or passing - but sometimes this is an unwelcome or inappropriate breach of privacy. There are exceptions (as Shyheels says) in that people meeting briefly on a country walk or similar will very often exchange at least a greeting and may engage in conversation, however brief or trivial. But this is more a politeness than a wish to have any type of meaningful discussion.

I have made the point before that women in the northern part of England and in Scotland are often rather shorter than their southern sisters and heels help to add the extra height they seem to desire. Moreover, there seems to be a different attitude to the desirable 'look' in the north, whereby women make much more of an effort to 'dress up', almost regardless of the occasion. There is a 'bravery' element too - typically seen in Newcastle etc - where bare feet in high-heeled sandals, skimpy dresses and no coat is considered the way to dress for an evening out, even in bitterly cold or snowy weather. What is worn by either sex in a given situation has long been inluenced by dress codes, explicit or otherwise. But, as the world moves to a more casual way of doing things, at work and at play, dress codes have been eroded if not entirely dismantled. Although, in the UK, the suit and tie is still 'expected' of men in most white-collar environments, it is increasingly the case that women are no longer obliged to wear the skirt-suit and heels that would have been regarded as obligatory in many occupations, particularly those considered 'professional'. The result is a plethora of increasingly-casual 'middle of the road' dressing - but people forget that those staying in the middle of the road tend to get run over. From observation, the position in the US appears to be more polarised - either fairly strict formality in dress codes in many situations or 'anything goes' - but correct me if I'm wrong. I can't but help referring to the shocking Trump/Zelensky meeting last week, when Mr Z was roundly criticised for daring to enter the White House in other than a suit (for reasons well-known whilst his country is at war) - his primed journalist attacker being apparently attired in a bright blue blazer! A cheap shot from cheap people. Would they have dared to challenge an Arabian or African leader wearing tradional robes - or a Scotsman in a kilt for that matter?

I have never heard the term 'runners' in England, although I believe that what we usually call 'trainers' (or, more formally, running shoes) are sometimes called 'runners' in Scotland and Ireland. We don't say 'sneakers' either (although the term is understood) but a canvas 'sports' shoe would be generally called a tennis shoe, gym shoe or plimsoll. I digress but can't understand why (bright) white plimsolls have been so popular with both sexes in recent years - even worn with formal clothing or in a formal setting - but surely the very essence of casualness? When I was young, any child wearing them other than for a school or sports activity would almost always be from a poor family, as plimsolls (most commonly black) could be bought for a few shillings from Woolworths and would last for a few months before being worn out or outgrown. Rubber Wellington boots were the alternative if the weather was poor - equally cheap and quite durable but not good for the feet when worn constantly for days or even weeks, usually without socks.

Like these? I think you are correct; the Hunter 'wellies' with high heels are seemingly discontinued. But be aware that Hunter boots now all seem to be made in China and quality may be variable, whilst the price tends to be very high. (Alas, Hunter also discontinued making rubber thigh waders several years ago - much missed and no readily-available (and affordable) substitutes.) This range from Sweden may interest you, but again expensive: https://acquoofsweden.com/shop/

In principle, I would prefer to do without a car. I live in an urban area with good public transport and within walking distance of the town centre and principal amenitites. But the preferred supermarkets are a little out of walking range and even a modest grocery shop is too heavy to carry in one go, so the car is needed for that and anything else bought on the (just) out-of-town trading estates. Also, although retired, I am often doing 'advanced DIY' at various family properties, for which my estate car is essential for carrying tools and materials. My nearest family (two sons) both live an easy 55 minute drive away - but almost two hours on the bus, excluding onward transit from their town centre - and no direct train service either. My wife has a car too, and I do foresee the time when we will share a single car - but I doubt she will want the same type as me! Meanwhile, we carry on, using the cars as sparingly as possible and endeavouring to avoid the ever-increasing parking charges and the draconian penalties for straying into a bus lane or low-traffic area, or for exceeding 20mph urban speed limits - all of which have removed any pleasure one might have had from driving in the past.

I agree, although all is not quite lost. In addition to imports via Amazon etc, several UK high street or online sources offer a UK9. And ASOS, notably, offers some of its 'female' styles (boots, shoes, sandals) in sizes up to UK11, and sometimes UK12 and 13 also. (That said, the sizing is a little off, with the UK13 being effectively a 12 - but fine for me.)

True - and no longer available anyway!

These (from M&S) for example?

One does indeed see some cringe-making fashion choices - by both sexes - at the supermarket etc. But the suggestion of an airline dress code is sure to be controversial, given that (in the UK at least) most people only fly when they are going to or returning from a holiday overseas - with little need of more formal clothing, and a luggage allowance that usually requires 'holiday clothes' to be worn in transit too. Go to any UK airport in the summer months and the women (at least) will nearly all be barefoot, in either sandals or trainers; sensible footwear when feet swell aloft. I'm not sure why the established casual (and increasingly often not-so-casual) fashion of barefeet in sandals should be regarded as objectionable. Or is the aim to prevent flying without any footwear at all - which I would agree is both unsightly and unsafe?

I would say that Chelsea boots can be flat, or have Cuban, block or stiletto heels. The 'Chelsea' aspect seems to relate to the elastic sides, although zip-sided boots are also called 'Chelsea' style. These (Calvin Klein) are sold as 'Chelsea boots' (and would surely look good on many men):

I completely agree, although I am a little older than you - so even more of a dinosaur! In the 12 or so years that I ran my last car (a fairly basic 2003 model), I never did get to understand or master many of its features, despite having an owner's manual about 1" thick. I then bought a later (2015) and slightly more refined model of the same car (with another 1" manual), which has even more features that I cannot really understand or access. That said, some of the 'standard' features - such as warning bleeps when manoeuvring near obstacles - are very useful. If we are still allowed cars (and I'm still fit to drive one!) when I next need to change, I dread to think what bells and whistles it will have. And don't get me started on modern gadgetry such as (so-called) 'smart' phones and the like ... 🤬

I acquired and read a copy of the 'High Heel - Object Lessons' book Shyheels mentions. I can't say I found it particularly inspiring or enlightening as it is clearly one woman's take on 'high heel' matters rather than any type of scientific study, but her opinions and experiences are quite interesting. But worth reading for the insight, such as it is.

Those thigh boots look almost identical to (fishing) waders in all but material. Waders are 'acceptable' male wear - in the right place - so perhaps these new boots could follow in their footsteps (pun intended)? The question is - what is the right place?

I don't know whether your 3,000 sq ft is the house footprint or its total floor area. My house (in an urban area) has a building footprint of about 1,100 sq ft and a total floor area of about 4,300 sq ft; no outbuildings and modest gardens, I pay £3,200 (say $4,000) per annum in council tax, with a 5% increase almost inevitable in April. And our local council and county council services are being steadily cut back as they run out of cash, with some councils elsewhere becoming bankrupt. The future is not looking good. Although smoke detectors are not yet compulsory in owner-occupied homes in England, they are certainly advisable - ideally at least one on each floor. The cost is small and the safety element large. The more so if one lives in a house of mainly timber construction, which is very rare here.

I assume you mean headroom - floor to ceiling? (Still usable without head-banging - unless in very high heels!). Are you intending your new house's basement to be similarly restricted, to save tax, or to potentially provide a normal living space? Council tax in England is assessed on a fairly crude basis - the notional historic selling price in 1991, divided into eight bands. In theory, a cellar or basement would be included according to its perceived 'added value'; in practice, many would be unknown or ignored as the overall appraisal is almost always superficial (e.g. a 'drive-by') and sometimes quite unrealistic.

In the UK, any storey of a building that is constructed mostly or wholly below the immediately prevailing ground level is its 'basement' or 'cellar'. The two terms are often treated as synonymous but are generally regarded as having distinct application in that: (i) a basement is a part of the building that is or could be readily used for most domestic purposes as it usually has easy access (e.g. via an internal staircase), is typically divided into separate rooms (usually with normal windows), and possibly has a separate doorway to the outside. In many buildings, such a basement constitutes a separate dwelling, in which case there is typically no stairway connection from above. (ii) a cellar is not intended for normal domestic purposes and may be one open area or divided by simple supporting pillars or walls. The internal wall surfaces, floor and ceiling are often unfinished. There will only be windows (usually small and high up) if the surrounding ground does not fully cover the outside walls. Access may be via a trapdoor or staircase from above, with possibly a separate doorway (or hatch) to the outside. The essential difference is that a basement is a normally usable part of the building but a cellar is primarily for storage or to accommodate services. But the distinction is often blurred, especially where enterprising occupants have 'converted' a cellar into living space. In my house, the basement has an internal staircase, an external door, two living rooms, a utility room/kitchen and a bathroom (shower/basin/WC), all with windows. My neighbour's house (a different design) has a cellar, used only for storage and reached through a trapdoor and without external access or windows. When my house was built (1886), the basement was intended to accommodate the servants' quarters and the kitchen. In due course, live-in servants disappeared and the kitchen was then moved to the ground floor to occupy what had probably been a study; the original kitchen remaining as primarily a utility room and store.

Thanks to all for the clarification of what the 'Victorian' style means outside the UK. I suppose that the British should feel flattered that the label has been exported, albeit often to describe a house whose age is often anything but 19th century and possibly with features not found on the typical British Victorian house. Just for possible interest and illustration, I attach a pic of the front elevation of my house. (Yes, I know that the pointing needs some attention!) The depth is almost twice the width shown. Quite typical of its age; very similar houses (detached, semi-detached or terraced) are found everywhere, although the number of storeys and overall size varies. Indeed, this semi is unique in our road; all others of similar age, although mostly semis, have different configurations, sometimes with a cellar but very few with a basement.

You don't say when your house was built. But, if 'Victorian' in the US is a description of style rather than age, I suppose it could be almost any age. In the UK, we would tend to describe a large house with features like yours as 'neo-Gothic'; it would only be (also) called 'Victorian' if it was built during the reign of Victoria (1837-1901) or in the same style shortly afterwards. The typical 'Edwardian' house that followed (roughly 1901 - 1920) was typically smaller and less ornate, but solidly built to last. Alas, the shortage of seasoned timber resulting from WW1 means that many UK houses built after c1920 show the effects of poor materials and, in some cases, inexperienced or shoddy workmanship - and this remains true today, especially in estates of similar houses constructed by the major housebuilding companies. But, as you say, there are both good and bad of all types, sizes and ages.

Interesting that you refer to your house in the US as 'Victorian'. Is such reference to British monarchs (Georgian, Victorian, Edwardian) common to describe the age of a house in the US? That said, I'm not sure what the alternatives could be, other than a straight date-reference, e.g. '1890s'. I live in a 'genuine' Victorian house (c1886) in England, semi-detached with a fully-usable basement and three storeys above. It is solid, quite spacious with high ceilings and airy (aka 'draughty'!), and its construction and decorative features have stood the test of time, albeit that insulation could be better. The inside of the perimeter (brick) walls is of lath-and-plaster construction (rather than plaster directly on brick) and the small air gap (about 2") gives a measure of insulation, but we could certainly do with more - a totally impractical task to install except at a very localised level. And fixing shelves, radiators etc to those walls requires a bit more thought and work if to withstand the loading. All that said, I would not wish to live elsewhere!

I agree (he said, whilst grovelling and fawning at his superior's superbly-booted feet). 🙊

I think that is a good summary of what is often a difficult situation. If someone presents here his latest footwear for 'approval', it is easy to say 'nice' but potentially awkward (or worse) to say, honestly, 'not for me' - let alone 'ugh!'. I sometimes wonder about theatre critics; they can be absolutely scathing about a production or performance but their opinion, good or bad, is expected and generally welcomed, albeit not perhaps by the promoters and actors.

A thought-provoking observation. I agree that it is not so easy to criticise (even if constructively) someone here with whom one has a relationship, albeit only online and remote. However, that can lead to an individual assuming that his activity or opinions are more acceptable than is truly the case, which is not altogether fair to him and indeed could result in some danger to him. It is difficult to strike a balance between fair and well-meant criticism (using that word in its proper sense of appraisal) and simply being 'nice', friendly, supportive, accepting or whatever. Needless to say, my comments here are not aimed at mlroseplant personally. I think he knows me well enough to realise that anything I might say about him or his posts is not intended to be unfair, let alone offensive!