SC - Removes and Feastocrat

[Catherine Deville]

Alys Katharine
> "Remove" doesn't fit, though.  You aren't "removing" anything, which is
what
> a "remove" is.  It _is_ a real, food-related term, but 100 years
post-period,
> which is why a number of us object to it.  It NEVER referred to a
"course".  A
> "remove" was a single dish of a multiple-dish course which, when served,
was
> physically _removed_ from the table and replaced by a second dish.  You
will
> see this in period table setting pictures... It may say something like "A
Pottage,
> for a Remove Wesphalia Ham & Chickens".
>
> If "remove" is accepted as being "medieval" (which is patently is not),
then there
> sould be no problem with "feastocrat" or other -crat words which are also
patently
> non-period.

o.k... I'm confused.

If it is not medieval, then how does it show up in period table settings?
I'm sure it's just the way I'm reading it, but to me these two statements
contradict each other.  Clarification, please?

And just for clarification, what *we* called a "remove", a group of courses
which went out at the same time, *was* "removed" when the next "remove"
came out.  (That's why I understood that it was _called_ a "remove".)

Oh!  and I saw your article in my research, that's why I knew that folks
were calling it a "remove" less often.

I remain, in service to Meridies,
Lady Celia des L'archier