Today I'll mainly be moaning about ...

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, First_Lexus said:

^^ Interesting question...well, it is for the historian in me! Most social conventions - and this is one - are passed down through families. Before WW2, when marriage outside of social class was unusual these were easy to spot and defined your 'place' in polite society. As the social barriers broke down after the war the situation became less clear, but the premise remains.

Milk first, tea second indicates somebody - somewhere in the family lineage and at some point - who was in a hot climate most likely in Empire. Think India, East Africa and the West indies. The thought was that, without refrigeration, adding the hot tea to the milk help to sterilise it. Such conventions are then passed down.

There are plenty of others. Sandwiches with butter on the bread or not? Adding butter - or more likely dripping - is a sign of working class convention, as they a) had less money for filling and b) needed the added fat. Wealthier people didn't need to add anything. Shoes on or off when entering a house (outside of for religious reasons)? Working class people had little to protect, so shoes on is a likely outcome. But with this one, the upper classes were the same, as they had servants to clean up for them. Shoes off? Probably driven by the new middle classes in the early Victorian era. They had enough money to buy nicer things, but often only had a single maid to help with the chores. Hence, 'shoes off' became common in order to protect the carpets they'd been able to purchase.

As I said, such conventions are less clear now due to increased social mobility - bluntly put, the reason for their adoption by particular family members has been lost to time...

My own upbringing is a great example. One parent came from an upper middle-class landowning family. The other was from working-class stock. The factor that clouds the 'history' is adoption of 'doing the right thing' by those eager to be seen to move 'up' the social scale.

An interesting social vignette Ed but where's the moan exactly? Do explain 😉

[LenT]

1 hour ago, First_Lexus said:

Milk first, tea second indicates somebody - somewhere in the family lineage and at some point - who was in a hot climate most likely in Empire. Think India, East Africa and the West indies. The thought was that, without refrigeration, adding the hot tea to the milk help to sterilise it. Such conventions are then passed down.

I suggest that the origin actually predates the Raj and is rather more prosaic.

Tea was introduced to England in around 1650 from China.  It was very expensive and was drunk in tea cups that also came from China. This ‘China’ was what we now know as bone China and it was of a very delicate nature.

If water sufficiently hot to infuse tea was added first, the thermal shock would crack the delicate china.  By introducing the milk first, the temperature was reduced sufficiently to prevent this while still brewing the tea.  

[First_Lexus]

16 minutes ago, LenT said:

I suggest that the origin actually predates the Raj and is rather more prosaic.

Tea was introduced to England in around 1650 from China.  It was very expensive and was drunk in tea cups that also came from China. This ‘China’ was what we now know as bone China and it was of a very delicate nature.

If water sufficiently hot to infuse tea was added first, the thermal shock would crack the delicate china.  By introducing the milk first, the temperature was reduced sufficiently to prevent this while still brewing the tea.  

That’s the more old fashioned explanation - history has, as it has a habit of doing - revised the view, certainly in my experience. 

[LenT]

6 hours ago, Mincey said:

…it's a case of working your way around the seal, looking for the part which has a tab on it. This tab is then grasped and the seal ripped off in one swift and continuous movement. 

Why?

This is a good illustration of the kind of overthinking that I have often complained about.  

It confuses form and function with purpose and objective .  The function of the seal is to prevent foreign bodies - or even parts of foreign bodies - getting in to the milk in the container.

The objective is to get the milk out of the container.  This does not mean that the second process should be the reverse of the first!

The most efficient method of gaining access to the milk is simply to punch a hole in the seal with any appropriate kitchen utensil conveniently to hand.  The seal becomes functionally redundant once the milk has been exposed, so there is little point in trying to remove it intact.

Its function as a seal is now more than adequately replaced by the screw cap.  In the course of a year, the time thus saved could be more usefully spent in admiring your Lexus automobile while drinking a cup of milky tea.

[LenT]

18 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

That’s the more old fashioned explanation…

Well, I often am old fashioned!

There’s far too much of this ‘modern’ revisionist thinking for my liking!

[royoftherovers]

6 minutes ago, LenT said:

Well, I often am old fashioned!

There’s far too much of this ‘modern’ revisionist thinking for my liking!

I am in the same ball park as you Len.

Da Vinci got it right about the helicopter

and Galileo got it right about about air pressure.

[Phil xxkr]

48 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

That’s the more old fashioned explanation - history has, as it has a habit of doing - revised the view, certainly in my experience. 

Am I missing something here chaps? If the tea came from China and China invented porcelain China cups, didn't the cups crack for them as to the best of my experience and knowledge the Chinese do not add milk to tea? 

[LenT]

13 minutes ago, royoftherovers said:

I am in the same ball park as you Len.

Da Vinci got it right about the helicopter

and Galileo got it right about about air pressure.

A brilliant clip, John!

I recall this moment too.  It’s all very well knowing the theory, but nothing beats a practical demonstration like this.  The pleasure on the faces of the assembled scientists and engineers testifies to this.

And there is an available moan to go with it.  Modern science teaching in classrooms is so sanitised, as I understand it, that practical, hands-on experience no longer features in the curriculum.  No wonder we now have a section of society that is gullible and easy prey for any nonsense they read on ‘social media’.

[LenT]

20 minutes ago, Phil xxkr said:

Am I missing something here chaps? If the tea came from China and China invented porcelain China cups, didn't the cups crack for them as to the best of my experience and knowledge the Chinese do not add milk to tea? 

I expect a fair few cups did break.  However I don’t think that the water was actually used at the same high temperatures that the early. English tea drinkers favoured.

I would also suggest that the brewing process could be conducted at lower temperatures because it was unhurried as it formed an essential component of the tea ceremony.

[First_Lexus]

17 minutes ago, LenT said:

I expect a fair few cups did break.  However I don’t think that the water was actually used at the same high temperatures that the early. English tea drinkers favoured.

I would also suggest that the brewing process could be conducted at lower temperatures because it was unhurried as it formed an essential component of the tea ceremony.

Ah, but what I’m speaking about specifically is English social history. 

I do tend to agree about revisionism to an extent. When I was educated it was the period when the English Civil War started to be referred to as the ‘English Revolution.’ That name didn’t stick, thankfully…

I have a new (unrelated) moan based on my new RX. Width restrictions that I didn’t think about in the NX have all of a sudden become a bit more nerve wracking…although that may be the ‘new car’ effect!

A follow-up moan. You don’t seem to be able to set the RX to show the correct measure for temperature - Fahrenheit - instead of the upstart ‘Celsius’ nonsense. Shame!

[LenT]

13 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

I have a new (unrelated) moan based on my new RX. Width restrictions that I didn’t think about in the NX have all of a sudden become a bit more nerve wracking…although that may be the ‘new car’ effect!

I think you’ve identified another, very valid, moan here, Ed.

It’s certainly been my experience that new models - and certainly new versions- grow longer and wider than their predecessor.

Unfortunately, this is never matched by a similar expansion in the width of garages, car park spaces and country lanes!

[Phil xxkr]

46 minutes ago, LenT said:

I think you’ve identified another, very valid, moan here, Ed.

It’s certainly been my experience that new models - and certainly new versions- grow longer and wider than their predecessor.

Unfortunately, this is never matched by a similar expansion in the width of garages, car park spaces and country lanes!

Oddly enough Len people grow shorter and wider is their some form of correlation here? 

[Phil xxkr]

1 hour ago, LenT said:

A brilliant clip, John!

I recall this moment too.  It’s all very well knowing the theory, but nothing beats a practical demonstration like this.  The pleasure on the faces of the assembled scientists and engineers testifies to this.

And there is an available moan to go with it.  Modern science teaching in classrooms is so sanitised, as I understand it, that practical, hands-on experience no longer features in the curriculum.  No wonder we now have a section of society that is gullible and easy prey for any nonsense they read on ‘social media’.

Bravo 👍

[paulrnx]

Milk in last. Milk in first impacts the brew. For me anyway 😀

[paulrnx]

Tonight I’m going to moan about people who put milk first in their tea. Heathens…. 😉🤣

[Mossypossy]

Milk in first ensures the brew is less than 100 degrees.

Makes for better infusion of the tea. Too much heat stews the tea.

This is the theory.

Also people who don't read the preceding posts.......(me).

[Silversalmon]

There was also said to be a class issue, the upper or more wealthy classes drank from fine bone china, hence it was socially more upper class to add milk first, the working classes with enamel and heavy pottery didn't need to worry about hot tea cracking their vessel. 

[First_Lexus]

Can I add a very British moan? I love Autumn colours as the leaves turn as much as the next man, but when they blow around everywhere and need clearing up…I don’t like them so much! I know what I’ll be doing tomorrow when it stops raining and the wind drops…

[rayaans]

In bradford, theyve made a busy main road from 3 lanes into 2 lanes and used one of the lanes to make a disgusting looking bike lane with plastic bendy bollards. 

Its been there for 2 years

Im yet to see a cyclist ever use it

[LenT]

31 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

  I know what I’ll be doing tomorrow when it stops raining and the wind drops…

Waste not, want not!

Here’s something to impress the neighbours:

Forty Four Fun, Frivolous and Formal Fabrications Formed From Fallen Foliage.

https://www.countryliving.com/diy-crafts/g1899/fall-leaf-crafts/

[Phil xxkr]

3 hours ago, First_Lexus said:

Can I add a very British moan? I love Autumn colours as the leaves turn as much as the next man, but when they blow around everywhere and need clearing up…I don’t like them so much! I know what I’ll be doing tomorrow when it stops raining and the wind drops…

Moving to a tower block? 😎

[Thackeray]

On 11/26/2021 at 2:20 PM, First_Lexus said:

Shoes off? Probably driven by the new middle classes in the early Victorian era.

A fascinating account of changes in social habits. But I'm doubtful that people would take off their shoes when visiting a house as a guest in the early Victorian era.

A lot of people didn't have shoes in the early Victorian era! If they did, it would be far too cold on flagstone floors to take them off.

When a lady visited a friend for tea she would keep her hat on as a courtesy to her host or hostess. I can't imagine her keeping her hat on but taking her shoes off!

In Britain at least I've only seen this habit take off over the last two or three decades. With film going back nearly 100 years now, there would be some evidence of this happening if it had begun so long ago. But I can't say I've ever noticed it.

So yes, people now often take off their shoes when visiting friends. But I doubt this convention began in the 19th century or much earlier than the late 20th century.

[First_Lexus]

11 minutes ago, Thackeray said:

A fascinating account of changes in social habits. But I'm doubtful that people would take off their shoes when visiting a house as a guest in the early Victorian era.

A lot of people didn't have shoes in the early Victorian era! If they did, it would be far too cold on flagstone floors to take them off.

When a lady visited a friend for tea she would keep her hat on as a courtesy to her host or hostess. I can't imagine her keeping her hat on but taking her shoes off!

In Britain at least I've only seen this habit take off over the last two or three decades. With film going back nearly 100 years now, there would be some evidence of this happening if it had begun so long ago. But I can't say I've ever noticed it.

So yes, people now often take off their shoes when visiting friends. But I doubt this convention began in the 19th century or much earlier than the late 20th century.

As with many things in history, there are likely numerous causes as there are numerous theories. My specialist field isn’t (well, wasn’t) social history, it’s political history. My post was simply articulating views from a lecture I attended (voluntarily because I was interested) about ten years ago, delivered by a specialist in Social History. A few weeks later I attended another dealing with the impact of football and organised sport on society and social mobility, which was equally fascinating.

I find the whole subject interesting, and the views since I posted show there are lots of other theories out there. ‘‘Twas ever thus. My dissertation was deliberately provocative - asserting (in simple terms) that the US forced Japan into the attack at Pearl Harbour because they wanted a war to destroy an increasingly strong rival. There was much debate about that at the time (early 90s). There’s an argument for it, but plenty of arguments against it. It’s only opinion based on interpretation of particular facts, and that’s what I love about history!

[Phil xxkr]

2 hours ago, LenT said:

Waste not, want not!

Here’s something to impress the neighbours:

Forty Four Fun, Frivolous and Formal Fabrications Formed From Fallen Foliage.

https://www.countryliving.com/diy-crafts/g1899/fall-leaf-crafts/

Len I have a problem with your seventh word. It sounds too much like another Biblical referenced human activity 😉

[Phil xxkr]

2 minutes ago, First_Lexus said:

As with many things in history, there are likely numerous causes as there are numerous theories. My specialist field isn’t (well, wasn’t) social history, it’s political history. My post was simply articulating views from a lecture I attended (voluntarily because I was interested) about ten years ago, delivered by a specialist in Social History. A few weeks later I attended another dealing with the impact of football on society, which was equally fascinating.

I find the whole subject interesting, and the views since I posted show there are lots of other theories out there. ‘‘Twas ever thus. My dissertation was deliberately provocative - asserting (in simple terms) that the US forced Japan into the attack at Pearl Harbour because they wanted a war to destroy an increasingly strong rival. There was much debate about that at the time (early 90s). There’s an argument for it, but plenty of arguments against it. It’s only opinion based on interpretation of particular facts, and that’s what I love about history!

So what you are saying Ed is; impress your neighbours by authoritarialy speaking on a subject where, if challenged as to its veracity you would defend your position by stating there's a definite possibility of a firm maybe 😊. Are you a politician moonlighting as Ed I wonder 😎