(I recall having read that the average Dutch height has gone up several cm (about 10, I believe) since earlier this century, people are still growing. (10 years ago the average for girls was 170, and now it's 174, +- 5'9). The army measures the boys they get, and they are growing taller all the time. I used to have lectures in a really old hall, and everybody had problems fitting their legs between the fixed seat and the one in front. The benches were intended for turn-of-the-century midgets.)

This relative height would depend upon the region or country. According to most historians, the average has pretty much stayed the same for Americans and British (the height gain being not very much, shoe sizes also being not improved by much more than a half size or one up) which might have something to do with our relatively lower poverty levels (larger middle class, etc.) I cannot even begin to assume or suggest anything about Holland, not being familiar. But I would never assume that what is said in England is so said in Holland or any other country for that matter.

But have have read again and again that the belief that sizes have much improved (average-wise, which can change to even by a particular region of a county - in other words, a region of England which is said to be poor would likely produce relatively shorter people than a region which is richer economically) is always highly over-rated. (These remarks are only relative to England and the United States.) Also, there is the argument (from A Woman of Fashion) that most clothes are passed down rather than kept packed away to save for us to look at. Those which were too small would not easily have been passed down, and so would be more likely to have been kept packed away from our enjoyment now. For a review of this subject, there are posts of The Woman in Fashion, which covers sizes in the old archives. It might be worth looking up if you have not read them.

Patricia