So the reference to using Queen Anne's lace for cow parsley (in a book set in the UK) in the 1500s was, as I suspected, incorrect. My instinct that is was incorrect was because lace hadn't been around long enough, and called 'lace' as a generic term, for the word and concept of it to have seeped into general usage enough for unrelated things it to be commonly compared to it.
The next book in the series, starting in 1638, has the govenor of VIrginia wearing some 'worn, gold lace' which is fine, but elsewhere something is described as lacey/lacelike. Now, if it's an author's description that's OK, but if it's the thought of a character it might not be; it depends on how much that character might have been aware of lace. It is a man watching a fire, seeing the twigs burn to leave a "skeletal lace of dried ash"; perhaps a "skeletal cobweb" might have been be a better comparison to use. This example is borderline I know, and I am being a pedant to have spotted it, but it illustrates the way my mind was working when I saw Queen Anne's lace a couple of weeks ago. Anyway, thanks to Bridget, Bev and Robin for the historical input. Jacquie, in Lincolnshire - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
