DinkinFlic
Is it true that historically people bathed 1 time a year? I find this difficult to believe because the smell would be so awful that I believe society would grind to a halt. I mean especially for women and our monthly cycle. Does anyone have any actual proof of this? I think it has achieved mythic proportions and that it could be an urban legend.
Answer
Bathing has been more popular at some times than at others. the Romans for instance had public baths which were visited by both men and women. In medieval times, people certainly bathed, there are pictures in medieval art of people bathing, and some palaces and great houses had privat bathrooms, with some with indoor plumbing (some monasteries also had indoor plumbing). Steam baths were very popular during the medieval period, especially in London, where they became notorious as places where people could meet prostitutes (they were eventually closed down for this reason by order of Henry VIII).
Wealthy people continued to have private bathrooms in their homes, Queen elizabeth I had bathrooms in her palaces for instance, and would certainly have used them more frequently than once a year. however, most people did not have indoor plumbing, and having a bath would have been much harder work then than it is now. Bathing would entail filling a tub by hand, with buckets of water which would have to be filled froma well or a pump. the water would also have to be heated if you wanted a hot bath. And of course the tub would have to be emptied afterwards. Quite an undertaking.
Therefore, it is likely that the common people did not bathe very often, if at all. Likewise, although people did wash their clothes, they would wash them less frequently than we would now, as washing by hand is very hard work. They probably lacked our abonormal sensitivity to body odour. People would wash from a basin, probably not washing themselves all over at once.
In the early history of America, for instance, bathing does not seem to have been a very frequent occurence. In 1798, a Quaker lady called Elizabeth Drinker, aged sixty-five, bathed in a shower box that her husband set up in the backyard of their house. "I bore it better than I expected, not having been wett all over att once, for 28 years past" she wrote in her diary. The occasion 28 years earlier when she had bathed had been on a visit to a spa, which seem to have been quite popular.
In the early 19th century, people were washing despite adverse conditions. In 'America's Women' Gail Collins writes:
' Lucy Larcom, the mill girl turned author, remembered watching her sister in 1835 taking a full bath before going to work, "even though the water was chiefly broken ice...It required both nerve and will to do this at five o'clock on a zero morning in a room without a fire."
Cleanliness, like msot of the transformations of the pre-Civil War period, was mainly a phenomenon of the larger towns and cities. Willima Alcott, the health reformer, estimated in 1850 that a quarter of new england's population bathed their whole bodies less than once a year, and the numbers of unwashed Americans in the south and western states must have been staggering (the girls at the Euphradian Academy in Rockingham, North Carolina, had to get special permission from their paretns to take a full bath.) But the people setting the pace - the prosperous urban families - had decided that cleanliness wasi, if not next to godliness, at least a sign of gentility. By midcentury, every middle-class bedroom had a water pitcher and washbasin.
Still the concept of real head-to-toe bathing was slow to catch on. by 1860 there were only about 4,000 bathtubs in Boston, which had a population of 178,000. Washing generally didn't icnlude soap: people stood in tubs and rubbed themsleves with a wet sponge, followed by a brisk towelling. Some women boasted that they could take a complete bath in a carpeted room without spilling a drop. The idea of washing one's body was still so novel that people believed in waiting two hours after eating for even a sponge bath.'
Writing about the post-Civil War period, Gail Collins goes on:
'Wealthier families slowly acquired complete plumbing systems. Real bathtubs, a rarity before the Civil War, became more common, and in the 1870s the nation embarked on a long debate about the benefits of baths as opposed to standing on an oilcloth mat in front of a basin of water. Some experts derided the idea of bodily immersion in "zinc coffins" but once Americans had the chance to actually experience a hot bath, their cause was lost.'
Bathing has been more popular at some times than at others. the Romans for instance had public baths which were visited by both men and women. In medieval times, people certainly bathed, there are pictures in medieval art of people bathing, and some palaces and great houses had privat bathrooms, with some with indoor plumbing (some monasteries also had indoor plumbing). Steam baths were very popular during the medieval period, especially in London, where they became notorious as places where people could meet prostitutes (they were eventually closed down for this reason by order of Henry VIII).
Wealthy people continued to have private bathrooms in their homes, Queen elizabeth I had bathrooms in her palaces for instance, and would certainly have used them more frequently than once a year. however, most people did not have indoor plumbing, and having a bath would have been much harder work then than it is now. Bathing would entail filling a tub by hand, with buckets of water which would have to be filled froma well or a pump. the water would also have to be heated if you wanted a hot bath. And of course the tub would have to be emptied afterwards. Quite an undertaking.
Therefore, it is likely that the common people did not bathe very often, if at all. Likewise, although people did wash their clothes, they would wash them less frequently than we would now, as washing by hand is very hard work. They probably lacked our abonormal sensitivity to body odour. People would wash from a basin, probably not washing themselves all over at once.
In the early history of America, for instance, bathing does not seem to have been a very frequent occurence. In 1798, a Quaker lady called Elizabeth Drinker, aged sixty-five, bathed in a shower box that her husband set up in the backyard of their house. "I bore it better than I expected, not having been wett all over att once, for 28 years past" she wrote in her diary. The occasion 28 years earlier when she had bathed had been on a visit to a spa, which seem to have been quite popular.
In the early 19th century, people were washing despite adverse conditions. In 'America's Women' Gail Collins writes:
' Lucy Larcom, the mill girl turned author, remembered watching her sister in 1835 taking a full bath before going to work, "even though the water was chiefly broken ice...It required both nerve and will to do this at five o'clock on a zero morning in a room without a fire."
Cleanliness, like msot of the transformations of the pre-Civil War period, was mainly a phenomenon of the larger towns and cities. Willima Alcott, the health reformer, estimated in 1850 that a quarter of new england's population bathed their whole bodies less than once a year, and the numbers of unwashed Americans in the south and western states must have been staggering (the girls at the Euphradian Academy in Rockingham, North Carolina, had to get special permission from their paretns to take a full bath.) But the people setting the pace - the prosperous urban families - had decided that cleanliness wasi, if not next to godliness, at least a sign of gentility. By midcentury, every middle-class bedroom had a water pitcher and washbasin.
Still the concept of real head-to-toe bathing was slow to catch on. by 1860 there were only about 4,000 bathtubs in Boston, which had a population of 178,000. Washing generally didn't icnlude soap: people stood in tubs and rubbed themsleves with a wet sponge, followed by a brisk towelling. Some women boasted that they could take a complete bath in a carpeted room without spilling a drop. The idea of washing one's body was still so novel that people believed in waiting two hours after eating for even a sponge bath.'
Writing about the post-Civil War period, Gail Collins goes on:
'Wealthier families slowly acquired complete plumbing systems. Real bathtubs, a rarity before the Civil War, became more common, and in the 1870s the nation embarked on a long debate about the benefits of baths as opposed to standing on an oilcloth mat in front of a basin of water. Some experts derided the idea of bodily immersion in "zinc coffins" but once Americans had the chance to actually experience a hot bath, their cause was lost.'
How much would Windsor Castle be worth today?
Blake H
I don't know if anyone will be able to even estimate the value of Windsor Castle but I would really like to know. If anyone has read somewhere or been there and found out please let me know. Not that I could even afford the garage haha but I would love to know.
Answer
Windsor estate is valued at £166m (castle and grounds). That's not a guess the estate is actually valued every year by the "crown estate" management even though it is not going to be sold.
The Penthouse, One Hyde Park was sold for £100 million. It is the largest and highest of the penthouse suites at the Candy & Candy development has been bought with "funds linked to" Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani, the foreign minister and first deputy prime minister of Qatar. Overlooking Hyde Park, it is the most expensive flat in London.
If it is considered a private home, it would probably be the second most valuable such home in the world, after the skyscraper in Mumbai that is the private home of one of the richest men in the world. That is being constructed at a cost of over $1 billion.
The homes of Balmoral Castle and Sandringham are considered private property, while Windsor Castle is public property managed by a semi - public corporation (Crown Estate management).
In April the Queen was valued at a net worth of £270m (down £50m from the previous year).
Together Balmoral and Sandringham are valued at £120m, but they come with massive estates. Balmoral alone has 50 thousand acres, but even that estate is buffered by a national forest. They also contain numerous businesses from raising horses, raising dogs, farming, leasing vacation homes, tourism, and gift shop sales.
The Queen is not free to sell Windsor Castle, but in theory she (or her son) is free to sell Sandringham House to a Russian billionaire. They are also free to sell Balmoral, but it is a particularly prized home of Elizabeth and of her son. Charles intends to build a private home on a remote section of the land around Balmoral. The site was originally given to him and Diana as a wedding gift but Diana had no particular desire to spend a significant amount of time on the outer edges of civilization. Either that or she didn't want to be that isolated with her husband.
Sandringham and Balmoral were acquired by Prince Albert and Queen Victoria long after the agreement was made to give the crown estate over to the country.
Birkhall is a second 50,000 acre estate in Scotland near Balmoral that Prince Charles inherited from his grandmother.
Highgrove House is a 220 year old House with 9 principal bedrooms and 4 reception rooms (900 acres). It is another private home of Prince Charles.
Windsor estate is valued at £166m (castle and grounds). That's not a guess the estate is actually valued every year by the "crown estate" management even though it is not going to be sold.
The Penthouse, One Hyde Park was sold for £100 million. It is the largest and highest of the penthouse suites at the Candy & Candy development has been bought with "funds linked to" Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr al-Thani, the foreign minister and first deputy prime minister of Qatar. Overlooking Hyde Park, it is the most expensive flat in London.
If it is considered a private home, it would probably be the second most valuable such home in the world, after the skyscraper in Mumbai that is the private home of one of the richest men in the world. That is being constructed at a cost of over $1 billion.
The homes of Balmoral Castle and Sandringham are considered private property, while Windsor Castle is public property managed by a semi - public corporation (Crown Estate management).
In April the Queen was valued at a net worth of £270m (down £50m from the previous year).
Together Balmoral and Sandringham are valued at £120m, but they come with massive estates. Balmoral alone has 50 thousand acres, but even that estate is buffered by a national forest. They also contain numerous businesses from raising horses, raising dogs, farming, leasing vacation homes, tourism, and gift shop sales.
The Queen is not free to sell Windsor Castle, but in theory she (or her son) is free to sell Sandringham House to a Russian billionaire. They are also free to sell Balmoral, but it is a particularly prized home of Elizabeth and of her son. Charles intends to build a private home on a remote section of the land around Balmoral. The site was originally given to him and Diana as a wedding gift but Diana had no particular desire to spend a significant amount of time on the outer edges of civilization. Either that or she didn't want to be that isolated with her husband.
Sandringham and Balmoral were acquired by Prince Albert and Queen Victoria long after the agreement was made to give the crown estate over to the country.
Birkhall is a second 50,000 acre estate in Scotland near Balmoral that Prince Charles inherited from his grandmother.
Highgrove House is a 220 year old House with 9 principal bedrooms and 4 reception rooms (900 acres). It is another private home of Prince Charles.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Continue reading ...
