[ SECRET POST #5504 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5504 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 26 secrets from Secret Submission Post #787.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

OP

[(Anonymous)]

If it's not meant to be worn with something equally formal under it? a gown.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

I suppose my main point of confusion is why you only seem to be confused about robes on girls, when they're the same garment as robes on boys.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

It's in line with real world "robes" or "formal dress" that men wear some type of shirt and a pants under robes/jacket. So, I can assume shirts or like a robe that buttons up over any bodice with girls. But let's take the McGonagal pic above. Even assuming the shirt is a shirt or part of the robe....that doesn't explain if she's wearing pants or a skirt or nothing. And that makes three entirely different looks.

I've read fic where it was like the girls wore a dress with dress robes over it. And that makes perfect sense! That's like a pelisse! But a lot of fics, and the books, suggest dress robes as it own piece alone, that seems more revealing than I think is intended to be implied.

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

Why would it be more revealing if it's a full-length garment? If you wear a floor-length fully-closed robe with underwear underneath, how would that be functionally different from wearing a dress? And, as said above, this is the same for male and female. At least once in the books (Wizarding World Cup) it's more or less stated that several older-generation wizards do NOT wear muggle trousers under their robes, the robe is the main garment in their case as well. The robe is the primary garment for wizarding society, and things like trousers are optional extras often inspired by the need to blend in with Muggles.

I know the movies went with the modern 'academic overrobe' idea for the visual representation of wizard robes, but the books it seems more likely that they're closer to stereotypical fantasy wizarding robes and things like RL monks' cassocks. They could be a fully button-down garment, or possibly a pull-over garment, or both depending on styles, but they're almost certainly full length and fully closed in most cases.

OP

[(Anonymous)]

Probably a difference in the idea of robes that you'd have. Something that closes all the way down or is a pull-over isn't a robe, it's a gown, imo.

For the record, a pull-over or something that closes all the way down makes it closer to a dress than everyone has been saying it would be. There's very little distinct difference between a "floaty...material" pullover or enclosed "robe" and a "dress." Frankly, I'd still not see the difference in a robe like that and dress. Maybe the terminology changed with gender differentiation?

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

I mean, Wikipedia isn't necessarily the best source, but among it's list of things considered robes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robe) are:

A wide variety of long, flowing religious dress including pulpit robes and the robes worn by various types of monks.
A gown worn as part of the official dress of a peer or royalty.
A gown worn in fantasy literature and role-playing games by wizards and other magical characters.
Any long flowing garment; for example, a cassock is sometimes called a robe, although a cassock is close-fitting.

Robe is a relatively general term, and covers pretty much everything we've been talking about. The modern usage is narrower, but given the context of a) a children's fantasy novel, and b) an in-universe old-fashioned wizarding school, I think it's pretty clear that the fantasy wizarding robe is what she's aiming for. Basically, picture Gandalf, but more Victorian.

And yes, you can argue that a wizarding robe is pretty much functionally what we view now as a dress, only without the gendered attachment. This is again also brought up with the Wizarding World Cup example, since the older male wizard thought a modern female nightdress was entirely appropriate for an old man to wear, because to his society it would be. So the comparison between our female dresses and wizarding robes is brought up in the text, but explicitly for both genders. There's no difference between what male and female wizards wear, both in the case of the robes themselves and likely in what they consider appropriate to wear under them.

(This is also brought up in jokes regarding robes elsewhere in pop culture: see above regarding Kronk from Disney's Emperor's New Groove and his shoulder devil mocking his shoulder angel for wearing a dress. "Yeah. That's a harp, and that's a dress." "Robe." A lot of historical male dress is derided in modern media for looking like what we could consider female dress now)

Re: OP

[(Anonymous)]

If your question is more "what constitutes underwear in the wizarding world" I think that's a completely valid question, given what we've heard about historical toilet habits.