Do you think they were right to ban him?

I keep all my tiaras for special occasions. They can get a bit heavy to wear, must be the weight of all the diamonds.

High heels look lovely on a woman young enough to be able to wear them.

Tiaras are very nice too. I have never worn one, except a fairy one on Christmas Day.

I think if it had really been just the safety aspect, whoever runs the playgroup could have come to a reasonable arrangement with the parents of the wee boy, e.g. he could still have worn his dresses, just not traily ones, and his fancy shoes but not high heels.

It was you who mentioned 'in public' bags.

The main argument against the boy wearing his dressing-up clothes, at least on this forum, seems to have been the safety aspect, especially the shoes.

Think I'll leave you to it - things to do...

People often dress up in ridiculous/amazing costumes and show themselves in public.

I don't really regard a playgroup as public and the ban certainly smacks, to me, of an element of shock. Or perhaps disapproval and disgust as if the child had done something actually wrong.

Anyone, male or female, would be open to ridicule if they chose to wear high heels, a trailing, sparkly frock and a tiara in public! Don't know about it being 'shocking' though...

I don't like wearing high heels, although I must admit I tottered around in stilettos in my youth. (Stupid fashion)

Here's a controversial thought: if seeing a male, even a male child, wearing high heels and a tiara is so weird, what does that say about high heels and tiaras? Especially the high heels, I'm thinking. If it is so shocking to see them on a boy (in public [sarc]), to me that says a lot about high heels being idiotic things for women too, for anyone.

Likewise trailing gowns and trains.

That's why I like it!

Still. If you like it...... [shrug]

No. It's got 'vest' in it.

Vestments

Lovely word...

Gowns. But the clergy don't usually wear high heels and tiaras - at least not in public!

Bang on, roseq

Oh! but those are robes* (like what magicians, sorry, wizards at Hogwarts wear), not dresses. Aye, right.

*robes or other funny names that I can't remember.

Love it!!!

I think the church having banned him is more to do with them than him, or the other children. Sad attitude for a church.

Jinglebells - particularly when you look at what the clergy wear ....

Right. Sorry, missed that.

The story does say he wants to do ballet. That's why I mentioned Billy Elliott.

Not sure talent is necessary. I just mentioned the Austrian because clearly men dressing up as women might is perfectly acceptable sometimes. So why not at a playgroup? [rhetorical question]

Hmm...not sure what talent is lurking behind a little boy's wish to dress up as a fairytale princess, but no doubt time will tell.

And, in this story, "dressing" up is frowned upon. <thinks about winner of Eurovision...>

When (and where) dancing was regarded as a thing real boys didn't do!

It's still regarded like that quite often. The idiots who think so don't realise how athletic ballet (and many other forms of dance) is. Daft bats.

But Billy Elliott didn't dress up. He just liked dancing...

I've been thinking about Billy Elliott with respect to this story too. And yes, I agree about the banning being more about the banners than the banned (or the banned's mum).

"More banned against than banning"... no, that doesn't work but you'll see what I mean.