Ruth Anne wrote: >But the article's comment "The kings of France adopted high heels, as
>did the aristocracy, which explains why poor people who couldn't >afford them were said to be "down at their heels." sounds fishy to >me. My understanding (gleaned where? the mists of time make source >uncertain) was that people "down at the heel" walked their heels into >nothing--and couldn't afford new shoes (or heels). So, Yes to poverty >but No to an inability to afford high-heeled shoes to begin with.... I agree. I've always understood "down-at-heel shoes" to be old ones with the heels worn, and perhaps the backs trodden down as well. Kate Bunting Librarian and 17th century reenactor _______________________________________________ h-costume mailing list [email protected] http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
