Monogramming History?

I know that monogramming and "marking" were done to signify who was the wearer, or who owned what. This at a time when it was not uncommon for extended family to live together. I have a little baby shirt that is in fine white linen with the most delightful stitching (made by hand) and marked with teeny cross stitch in red. Made in the late 1800s. I would rather think the color made it easier to see readily.

I have no idea if this statement is factual, but I rather doubt it. Colored threads were harder to come by, if I remember my history correctly, for the common man. Dianne

I know that there is a Jewish superstition that you need to put a red ribbon or a string on a baby's crib to ward off the evil eye. I believe that's something from the ancient Kaballah. I wonder if this has something to do with using red for a monogram?

Lucille

We also have a saying "Red thread and Rowan tree, keep from witch and warlock free."

My rowan tree is arriving tomorrow, so I`d better find a red ribbon! I`ve just discovered that the other tree/bush I`ve planted at the other end of the same bed (Spindleberry) is used for making wands in Wicca! That should be a bit confusing!

Pat

Jeanine,

I have found some information about monogramming in the book The Book of Fine Linen by Francoise de Bonneville.ISBN: 2-08012-557-0. Pages 29 - 34 address monogramming. From my quick look the acceptable monogramming colors for table linens were white and red with red for luncheon only.

Marking linen was done in red so it was easier to see who the garment belonged to. During the Middle Ages marking was done with dye made from grease, oil, vinegar, boiled together and applied with the aid of a seal or stamp. In France, only the king's linen was actually embroidered. In 1380 during the reign of Charles V the marking was with the fleur-de-lys and a sword.

Anyway, that is a bit of what I found on a quick look at the book. I would have to do some more research to find more. This book had a bibliography which may be of some help to you.

Alice in Utah

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote: Jeanine,

Thanks Alice, I'll see if the Guild's library has this book...

--Jeanine in Canada

Jeanine! even if I can't help - this is a neat thread to read.

Cheryl

Mirjam, So.... red was prohibited to be used by the poor instead of white being prohibited by the poor as I've heard? Is this information to be found in this book? I've ordered an inter-library loan so eventually I should see it.

Thanks so much! Jeanine in Canada

Alice & Jeanine i wanted just to write that the info was to be found in this book , one of my most beloved , useful and informative books. i have quoted much from this book in many of my lectures,, One should alosi rememer that using re, Any red , was at ceratin times prohibited to people under ceratin social status. mirjam

Jeannine , the prohibition of using red by the poor doesn`t not come in this book , but i have read it in various books about clothes, books which sources were different... \you might be surprised at other prohibitions at other times , Still this book is a treasure , i love the many ART pictures. and the anecdotes ,,, mirjam

I thought that at some time, with the introduction and costliness of indigo, that the true, deep blues, purples were not to be used by the general public. But, I can't cite details. I'll also do some looking.

Ellice

Sorry forgot to tellyou that i read the reason for the prohibition was mostly Cost [ and of course showing off that one is rich, is easier reached by usinng something that is costly] , Both red and blue , were costly to make, thus they were allowed only to the rich , to High church persons.White and off whilte are Natural colors , they don`t cost as much to manufacture . mirjam

Thanks Ellice! I'd appreciate it!

Jeanine in Canada