Leaderboard

While out shopping today, I noticed these. Reduced in store to something like £120. The heel is not as high as I would like, but the sort of heel that could be worn all day (if the opportunity arose.) What attracted me to them was the narrow-ish shaft, and small spacing between the lacing eyelets. It suggested the boots could be tightened to fit my very slim legs. Better still if the were higher, and covered calfs.

I was given for Christmas a DVD collection of Bette Davis films. (Not sure why - I'm not really a fan of hers.) I watched one of them recently - The Virgin Queen (1955), which is all about the relationship between Queen Elizabeth I (Davis) and Sir Walter Raleigh (Richard Todd - who is excellent). Throughout the film (which had a fair amount of swashbuckling action), Sir Walter and most of the other 'men of substance' wear thigh boots in nearly every scene. Although the boots are flat, they are close-fitting and long (typically approaching crotch-high) and in black leather, brown leather or brown suede. Interestingly, Joan Collins also appears (as Sir Walter's lover and later wife) but wears no notable footwear. I don't know how accurate the costumes were. Thigh boots were certainly worn by men at this period, mainly for riding or as part of a uniform so perhaps not as frequently as in the film suggests for other activities. But it was good to see them 'in action'. Here are some stills which show Todd in his boots:

I think it's Melbourne based on the facebook posters profile. I should point out that the video is not mine, nor do I know the subject or the commentator. The commentator doesn't seem to approve, but many in todays West would simply shake their head and walk on, and some would be supportive. I have said before that what people wear and how they present themselves is up to them. People should be free to do and say what they wish so long as they don't infringe the rights and freedoms of others. However, society does have expectations, and if you push outside the envelope tooooo far, there are those who will take it upon themselves to push back. Society's norms change slowly, and I would argue that those who push the envelope are the main agent for change. the less stout of heart follow after? This young fellow is apparently attending a pride march. If 10% of western populations are gay, bi, or LGBT of some sort, you could argue that his outfit is really the male equivalent of a girl in hot pants or a mini? Having said that, I think the outfit is more appropriately clubwear than streetwear. So outfit critique, clothes and heels. Over to you.

There was recently a late 15th century skeleton found in a construction site near the Thames, still wearing the pair of thigh boots he had been wearing when, apparently, he drowned. It is believed, from evidence provided by his skeleton, that he was either a fisherman or a sailor. Several pair of thigh boots were also found in the wreck of the Mary Rose. The 15th century thigh boots found on that skeleton are the oldest thigh boots known. Although simply made, and unadorned, they would have been expensive at the time. At that point in time - late 15th century - boots in general were fairly rare. They came into their own over the next century or so.

To be honest Mr Fred I have two grandkids, a girl of the age 11, and a boy 7 and to be honest I have worn my heels every time I take them to the shops to buy sweets etc, and to be honest they have never noticed or said anything, but saying that granddaughter did say something about 4 years ago, why are you wearing nannys boots, but that was it, nothing since.

This is a critique part of the Forum, knock yourself out. "In the flesh" these looked taller, and the heel isn't exactly unpleasant. The real stopper is the price. Even reduced to £120, and assuming they had my size, I doubt I'd be making a purchase. That might change if I worked in an office and could wear these at work. That 4.25" is a very wearable height for my size 8 feet, and I'd like to wear heels for a work day or work week to get the experience of it. Ho-hum.

Nice boots - if you will permit me to say so! I agree that a longer shaft and a heel higher than the advertised 4.25" would be an improvement.

I'm trying to find an acceptable way to show my heels to my younger son (25) and his girlfriend. She's lovely and almost bound to accept them. I intend wearing my cowboy boots with 3.75 inch heels on Friday to meet up with them - and her mother! I've worn my concealed heels before, but that's just what they are - concealed. She might have noticed them and recognised them for what they are, but she didn't say anything. I have a dialogue with my wife at the moment who wants me to get rid of anything I wouldn't wear when family and church friends are around, so...

In your previous post, you referred to No. 1 grandson and (later) No. 2 grandson. Presumably the latter was a typo! I only have one grandson (so far) and he is 15 months! So, a little young to be interested in shoes of any type, but his mum does have a few pairs of heels so he may grow up in the right way ...! His dad (my son) is not so inclined and as, like me, he is a UK11 or 12, he has a disadvantage there anyway.

There is only the one, and he's 13. Lovely boy. We hope he stays that way.... He would certainly know about the 'heels' and Mrs Freddy. There was a time when her family and friends expected her to appear in very high heels every time they met her. (I may have had some influence there...) Been a little while since that was the case, but her shoe collection is still 'Legend'. While my heels are not left out for him (or anyone else) to stumble over, an inquisitive person (he is) might not have found it too difficult to find the rack with my shoes and boots on. If he had suspicions, he might ask. Since he hasn't asked, I have to assume he doesn't 'know'. I'd like to tell him, but it might create some 'influence' (normalisation) and that could draw him down a route he might otherwise not take. My concern, is this: If he knows men wear heels, he will try them on (his mothers.) If on trying them he both likes/enjoys them, that will never change. (Experience tells me.) That could in turn, lead him along the same line of 'interest' I have had for the wrong side of 50 years. I found a way to make it a pleasure for me for all that time, but it was a challenge to make it a pleasure. I was brought up in challenging times, so it wasn't something I felt was a hardship, as with everything else, you just 'got on with it'. Our current youth don't have this sort of environment (school of hard knocks) to toughen them up to the challenges they will experience in their lives. They are (frankly) soft of mind and body compared to those of the late 50's and 60's. Back then, people were still going hungry. Still struggling to own a car. Using a phone meant walking to a street corner to use a public phone. Televisions were often rented not owned. Dirty work often killed parents prematurely. So my concern is: My influence might lead a 'soft' (malleable) mind toward a path they ultimately struggle to cope with. If it (the mind) gets there without influence, then 'fate' (or DNA) is responsible, not me. If it (the mind) does get there, I can offer support and experience, provided either would be welcome. (As with all young people, they all know everything, so are usually unwilling to take guidance.) Why am I so sure this situation is a prospect? He is considered to be quite a 'genteel' lad. Not interested in sport because he is tall and slight, lacking 'strength' but is a very bright lad. Has more girlfriends than 'mates', though he does have mates too. In many respects, he has quite a worldly head on his shoulders. He has the intellect to cope with unusual situations, but I don't know he (yet) has (or will ever have) the strength of character to walk away from temptation ~ even when knowing there could be a precipice somewhere along the route. Coming full circle, my own experience suggests that's a challenge my family are not well equipped to deal with. I might have been in my mid-thirties before I realised I could be my own person. That's too late for some.