That makes sense. I edited my reply to add on additional thoughts but I would be very curious to know if you saw this myth mostly in smaller/very local museums or if this was something being peddled like, at a national parks affiliated museum or other larger/more well known museums. I believe that you've seen people say this! (I have seen real crazy shit in museums, including cults doing a tax write off scheme and stuff I would personally argue with. Yes, I had to have a friend drag me away from getting into an argument with an elderly veteran docent at the US marines museum one time. Lmao).
I just kinda hope it's a flaw of like 1) really local/small institutions or 2) ones without a ton of funding who have labels that were decades out of date back in 2012, haha. I can only hope!!
Fwiw my pet theory for this myth: is the flammable clothing myth didn't just come from 1970's polyester recreations (which is what the above book suggests may have been a factor), but instead more from 19th and early 20th century dress fires, partly due to crinolines, but also: flannelette, tulle (on ballerinas dancing by gas or candle light), and possibly the fun toxic coatings of mourning crape/crepe (arsenic, lead, mercury, bromate, copper, iron, and palladium) which were often drapes in veils over the face, as well as worn with crinolines. It's a stretch but I doubt it's easy to navigate when you have black crepe over your face.
Like yeah, the 1970's polyester probably didn't help but I suspect it was moreso stuff like this:
I added the early 20th century mention due to flannelette and its coverage in The Lancet.
Brend, William. “The Mortality of Children from Burning.” The Lancet 182 (8 November 1913): 1321.
Based on statistical analysis, The Lancet] condemned girls’ clothing. Up to the age of 3, boys’ mortality rose sharply: Victorians and Edwardians clothed boy and girl babies and toddlers identically in dresses. Boys’ death rates dropped when they were put in male attire or “breeched” at around 4, and then fell to almost nothing. By contrast girls, who wore looser fitting clothing, died at twice the rate of boys between 4 and 5, and eight times as often L between the ages of 15 and 20.These are striking differences. For example, in the period from 1906 to 191 1, 389 boys aged 5 to 10 died of burns, whereas 1,427 girls of the same age perished. Dr. Brend noted how working-class girls were often bundled in thin layers of cloth:
The girls are worst off. First they wear a thick vest and bunchy flannelette chemise. Flannelette drawers over or under some sort of stays—often boned—follow. Then two or three petticoats gathered or pleated ... Over this is a bunchy frock, often kilted, and a pinafore... Probably no more flammable arrangement than this, consisting of layers of flimsy material separated by air, could be devised. The corner of a pinafore has only to become ignited and in a moment the little victim is a mass of flames. On the other hand, the inflammability of a boy’s costume consisting of cloth knickers and a jersey or coat is far less.
Quoted via Victorian web's excerpt from Fashion Victims: The Dangers of Dress Past and Present, which is reviewed in the Victorian Web. — George P. Landow.
The lancet supposedly also claimed some 3,000 women died in crinoline related fires, but a) I've yet to find the specific date and citation for this lancet article despite loads of people referencing it and b) I suspect those numbers are likely partly exaggerated.
Either way I think it's natural that fires would increase in general during the industrial revolution, especially with gas lighting, gas/electrical heat becoming more and more common indoors. I just think people confused crinolines with petticoats and 18th century with 1800's.
The disease STILL killed way more people though oh my GOD everyone should be vaccinated.
Every day we can just be so thankful we aren't dying of measles when vaccinated. 10/10 vaccinated experience tbh I love me an MMR immunization.
tangentwithtanner
areudirty
dailybridgerton
stormborns
