In creating a name for a hypothetical 17th-century Royalist commander, we should consider the cultural and historical context of that period, especially referencing the English Civil War where the term "Royalist" (supporters of King Charles I) was commonly used. Typically, such a figure would have a given name that is common for the era, followed by a family name with potential inclusion of a title reflecting their status or the name of their ancestral lands. Here are some examples: 1. Sir Edward Montague 2. General William Cavendish 3. Lord Thomas Fairfax 4. Colonel Henry Wentworth 5. Captain Arthur Capell 6. Sir George Lisle 7. Major Richard Talbot 8. Baron Robert Stuart 9. Sir John Gage 10. Captain Francis Hawley 11. Lord Algernon Percy 12. Brigadier Anthony Van Dyck 13. Lieutenant Colonel James Stanley 14. Sir Geoffrey Clarendon 15. Charles Radclyffe, Earl of Derwentwater Each of these names includes an element of military rank (e.g., General, Colonel, Captain) and noble title (e.g., Sir, Lord, Baron), which would have been typical of Royalist commanders during that period. Surnames are chosen to sound plausibly of the era, with some referencing real Royalist families for added authenticity. Keep in mind that in actual 17th-century England, not all commanders would have had noble titles; some could have risen from the ranks of the gentry or have been knighted for their military services.

If we imagine a scenario where a woman dressed in the early 1970s progressive fashion were to somehow arrive in the 17th century during the English Civil War, her reception would depend significantly on various factors, including the specific location and the prevailing attitudes of the people she encountered. However, it's safe to assume the experience would be profoundly jarring for both the woman and those 17th-century individuals due to the stark contrasts in culture, social norms, and clothing. Here are likely reactions she might encounter: 1. **Shock and Confusion**: The 17th-century society would be bewildered by her appearance, as her clothing would be drastically different from anything they had seen. Women in the 17th century were expected to wear modest dresses with corsets, full skirts, and covered shoulders. In contrast, clothing from the early 1970s could include mini skirts, bell-bottom pants, tie-dye shirts--all of which would be revealing and unconventional to the 17th-century eye. 2. **Suspicion and Fear**: People from the 17th century might be suspicious of her intentions and origins, possibly thinking she's a witch, a foreign spy, or a harbinger of ill omens due to her outlandish attire and unfamiliar behavior. 3. **Moral Outrage**: Given the conservative nature of society, particularly among Royalists who often adhered to traditionalist views, many would find her dress deeply inappropriate and offensive. Morality standards of the time dictated modesty for women, and deviation from those norms could provoke harsh judgment or even punishment. 4. **Curiosity**: Some might be genuinely curious about her and the world she comes from. Forward-thinking individuals or those with a keen interest in innovation and the outside world might wish to learn about her clothing materials, the design, and what societal changes led to such fashion. 5. **Hostile Action**: Depending on the context, she could face arrest or detainment for indecency, or they might insist she covers up with more appropriate clothing of that era. She would certainly be encouraged--if not forced--to conform to their norms to avoid public disorder. 6. **Protective Hospitality**: Perhaps a few sympathetic individuals might be inclined to shelter her from the public's potentially volatile reaction, offering her refuge and guidance in navigating this dangerous anachronistic environment. It's worth noting that the way a person from the 17th century interprets her appearance would be framed by their knowledge and worldview. Without any understanding of time travel or future cultural developments, they would likely try to fit her into their understanding of the world, possibly seeing her as a visitor from a foreign land with unusual customs. The progressive sociopolitical attitudes that her clothing might imply--greater gender equality, freedom of expression, and individualism--would be nothing short of revolutionary and incomprehensible to most 17th-century folks.

It's conceivable that if a woman from the early 1970s with a less feminine hairstyle--such as a short pixie cut, which was fashionable at the time--were wearing clothing that obscured her figure, she could be mistaken for a teenage male, especially if she had on attire that resembled breeches and a tunic or shirt. During the 17th century, men's fashion did include breeches, doublets, and the like, so a particularly androgynous outfit from the 1970s--perhaps flared trousers and a loose-fitting shirt--might not be immediately recognized as women's clothing by people of the era. However, several factors would still raise eyebrows: 1. **Fabric and Patterns**: The materials and designs used in 1970s clothing, such as synthetic fabrics and bold patterns, would be noticeably different from the natural fibers and more subdued colors or brocades of the 17th century. 2. **Fit and Cut**: The cut of 1970s clothing was significantly different, even for men's fashion. While 17th-century breeches were more snug, flared trousers from the 1970s would be loose at the knee and flare outward, a style unfamiliar to that era. 3. **Accessories and Details**: The lack of 17th-century appropriate accessories, such as hats, ruffs, cloaks, and the proper shoes, would add to the peculiarity. Details like zippers, buttons in unconventional places, or modern branding would also be giveaways. 4. **Mannerisms and Speech**: Even if her clothing allowed the woman to initially pass as a male, differences in her mannerisms, speech, and behavior would likely quickly reveal her as a woman, or at the very least as someone not from their time and place. 5. **Social Interaction**: While women in the 17th century had certain restrictions on their behavior and movements in public, teenage males would also be expected to follow societal norms and etiquette. If this woman from the 1970s did not behave as a 17th-century male should, her gender disguise might be seen through quite quickly. It should be noted that someone who did not conform to gender norms of the period could face serious consequences, as non-conformity could be interpreted as subversion or even an affront to the natural order and divinely sanctioned gender roles. Nonetheless, assuming the best-case scenario in which she is mistaken for a young man, she may encounter less hostility or moral outrage than if she were immediately identified as a woman in men's clothing.

A woman dressed in the conservative, professional fashion of the late 1940s arriving in New York City of 1929 could potentially blend in quite well, despite the subtle differences in style between the two decades. Fashion from the late 1940s was influenced, in part, by the austerity of World War II, with more structured and tailored garments, while the styles of the late 1920s were a bit more relaxed and embellished, reflecting the prosperous "Roaring Twenties." Key fashion elements of the late 1940s include padded shoulders, knee-length skirts, modest blouses, and perhaps a hat for a professional woman. This was also a time when women increasingly participated in the workforce due to the war, leading to more practical and tailored clothing that still maintained elements of femininity. As for whether she would be mistaken for being part of the Temperance movement, it's unlikely for a few reasons: 1. **Professional Wear**: Professional-looking attire would not necessarily be an indicator of Temperance affiliation. Many women, particularly those working in more conservative fields like law, education, or business, would wear similar styles. 2. **Tailoring**: The tailored look of late-1940s clothing would not be out of place in 1929, as women were donning more shaped and styled clothing after the looser fashions of the early 1920s. 3. **Temperance Association**: The Temperance movement was known for advocating the prohibition of alcohol and was linked with moral and religious overtones which went beyond mere clothing. A woman would more likely be associated with Temperance based on her behavior, activism, and outspokenness on the issue, rather than her dress alone. 4. **Period Transition**: By 1929, fashion was on the cusp of transitioning from the flapper styles of the mid-1920s into a slightly more conservative look that would characterize the early 1930s due to the oncoming Great Depression. This shift in style would make her less conspicuous. That said, assuming she carries herself with a certain level of austerity and conservatism in her demeanor and avoids typical '29 social practices like visiting speakeasies, she might be seen as someone with traditionalist sensibilities. Also, given the importance of accessories and minor style differences in period fashion, if she wore clothing that was anachronistically late 1940s, some New Yorkers, particularly those with an eye for fashion, might note the discrepancies and find it unusual or out of place. However, if her clothing was conservatively styled but not hitting specific late 40s signature trends (like the extreme shoulder padding), she could very well pass without significant comment as a professional woman of her supposed time in 1929.

Indeed, if "The Traveller" is a character who journeys through different periods in time (akin to characters like Doctor Who or the protagonists of books like "Outlander"), it would be plausible for her to make adjustments to her clothing to fit the era she's visiting, while maintaining certain personal style preferences or restrictions, such as not wearing feathers. This helps solidify her character consistency and also can be a plot device to distinguish her from the era's natives. Here's how "The Traveller" might approach blending into various time periods while respecting her no-feathers rule: 1. **Research**: Before traveling, she may research the period-specific fashion trends to ensure her attire is appropriate for the era she's going to visit. This could be done through books, images, or perhaps even a "virtual fitting room" if she has access to advanced time-travel technology. 2. **Period Wardrobe**: She might have a wardrobe of period-appropriate outfits to choose from, catering to various historical eras, including the late 1920s, as in your example. These outfits would be designed to fit the general style of the time without including elements she doesn't wear, like feathers. 3. **Neutral Basics**: "The Traveller" could use neutral, timeless basics that can blend in across multiple decades. A simple blouse, skirt, and a coat could be accessorized differently to match various periods. 4. **Custom-made Garments**: If "The Traveller" has been time-traveling for a while, she may have garments custom-made to her specifications, avoiding unwanted elements like feathers and perhaps using futuristic materials that mimic the appropriate fabrics of any given period. 5. **Accessorizing**: She can use period-appropriate accessories to complement her look, making subtle adjustments while still following her no-feathers rule. For instance, instead of a feathered headpiece common in the 1920s, she might opt for a cloche hat or a ribbon. 6. **Character Story**: "The Traveller," if questioned about her slightly out-of-time attire, could have a backstory as an eccentric or a forward-thinking individual from the current era she's visiting, allowing for some minor deviations from strict historical accuracy in her dress. By considering the cultural norms and styles of each period but also maintaining her personal fashion principles, "The Traveller" can respectfully and sensibly navigate through different points in history. This creates a flexible framework for the character that serves both narrative consistency and the need for historical adaptability.

Indeed, it's not uncommon for people to retain the fashion sensibilities of an earlier period, especially if those styles coincide with their formative years, professional environment, or personal preferences. An Edwardian style in 1960s London wouldn't be the norm given the major shifts in fashion that took place post-WWII, but it wouldn't be entirely out of place either, particularly for a certain demographic. By the 1960s, fashion had become a form of personal expression and cultural change, with trends like the miniskirt, bold patterns, and psychedelic colors coming to the forefront, particularly among the youth and in settings associated with the Swinging Sixties movement. However, in certain contexts, traditional styles persisted: 1. **Conservative Dressers**: There were still individuals who preferred a more conservative or classical style of dress, particularly among older generations or those in formal professions like law, banking, or government. 2. **Formal Events**: Even during the 1960s, certain occasions--such as formal dinners, operas, or receptions--would call for traditional evening wear, which had changed very little since the Edwardian era. 3. **Cultural Preservation**: There would be groups and individuals who took pride in wearing or preserving traditional British attire, which could include elements of Edwardian fashion. 4. **Vintage and Retro Trends**: Vintage and retro clothing began to be appreciated as fashionable during the 60s, particularly among the bohemian crowds and those who frequented antique and second-hand stores. If Grenfell's First Traveller, dressed in an Edwardian manner, were to appear in 1960s London, there could be a few typical scenarios: - In professional or conservative circles, her fashion sense might be seen as somewhat outdated but still within the bounds of acceptable dress. - In trendy areas like Carnaby Street or King's Road, her attire would stand out more, but it might be chalked up to an eccentric personal style or a statement, since individual expression was highly valued. - In settings like a theatre or a classical concert, her clothing might attract attention but wouldn't be completely out of place, especially if it were an upscale event. For a character like Grenfell's First Traveller, who likely has a rich backstory and a developed personal style, navigating different periods would involve a delicate balance of blending in while retaining distinctive characteristics. Her attire could become a conversation starter, allowing her to engage with people from the era under the guise of being a collector or aficionado of Edwardian fashion, which could be a strategic advantage for her adventures.

Jacques, being the 2nd Traveller from a late-1960s contemporary setting, would indeed generally have an easier time blending into many time periods, especially if her travels are predominantly through contemporary (relative to her own time) or futuristic settings. The late 1960s was a time of great diversity in fashion, with both the presence of more traditional attire and the emergence of radically new styles, reflecting the social and cultural revolutions of the period. Given this flexibility, here's how Jacques could navigate various timelines: 1. **Contemporary Settings**: Late 1960s clothing would not be out of place in any setting from the 1950s up to the early 1970s due to overlapping fashion influences. Jacques' attire might be viewed as stylish or even slightly avant-garde, but not jarringly out of place in the context of the era. 2. **Futuristic Settings**: Jacques' late 1960s fashion could be seen as retro in futuristic environments, evoking a sense of nostalgia or timeless charm. Since we can't predict future trends with certainty, retro styles often become popular again in cycles, and her look may be appreciated for its classic appeal. 3. **The Jacobite Era**: In historical settings like the Jacobite era (the time of the Jacobite rebellions, mainly 18th century), she would stand out significantly. She would likely need to don period-appropriate attire to avoid drawing unwanted attention. It's interesting to note that someone from the 1960s would bring a perspective shaped by themes of resistance and counterculture, which could provide an intriguing lens through which to view the Jacobite struggles for the restoration of the Stuart monarchy. 4. **Cultural Adaptability**: Jacques could adapt her style as needed to blend in better with specific eras. The late 1960s saw a revival and appreciation of historical clothing styles--medieval, renaissance, and victorian--which she could use to her advantage when dressing for past eras. 5. **Character Interaction**: Contemporary and futuristic scenarios would allow Jacques to interact more freely with individuals from those periods, where her fashion sense may be viewed with curiosity, fondness for the past, or even trendsetting in a cyclical fashion world. 6. **Historical Knowledge**: Provided she has a good understanding of the times she visits, Jacques could modify her attire to align with the prevailing styles, thus avoiding the pitfalls of anachronism and ensuring smoother navigation of her travels. Jacques potentially embodies the spirit of the late 1960s, with an emphasis on exploration, openness to new ideas, and adaptability. Just like the era she represents, her approach to travel and fashion might be marked by a willingness to embrace change, learn from different cultures, and perhaps leave her own distinct mark on the timelines she visits.