I have been rereading the book "Quilts/their story and how to make them"
that I talked about in my recent post, or at least the history portion,
as I find that part very interesting.

One thing that it doesn't talk about directly, but is sort of alluded to
in several places is how embroidery/needlework is seen by the rich/
royalty and by lower economic classes.

The rich/royalty often live in opulent mansions that are very ornately
decorated and quite often part of that decoration is exquisite
embroidery, often made with gold or silver thread.

Houses of the lower economic classes are not as opulently decorated, all
the way "down" to those of peasants/surfs that may not be decorated in
any way at all.

The cothing of the very rich/royalty might be very opulent as well, and
could be essentially thrown out when it "wore out."

However, the clothing of the was probably not as opulently decorated, and
in many cases was purely utilitarian.

In many cases, when it "wore out," I imagine it was repurposed. That
repurposing might be cutting off the still usable parts for making
patches to repair those clothes that might not yet be worn out, or that
repurposing might be for bedding, equivalent to what today is considered
"patchwork quilting."

The reason that I put the term "worn out" in quotation marks is that how
the rich/royalty might define "worn out" is very different from how
peasants/serfs would define that term.

Rich/royalty might define "worn out" as having an itty bitty tear in the
sleeve, but the lower economic classes might define it as being no longer
repairable/wearable.

Some of this assessment was addressed directly in the book, and some was
my own interpolation and interpretation, but I think it is pretty clear
that while the uses for textiles/needlework might be similar (clothing,
bedding, stuff like that), the attitudes about it are different.

Brian Christiansen