I am asking two questions. One of them is historical and the other is your opinion concerning the interpretation and application of 1 Cor. 11 today (which, I guess, is in part asking about what falls within the realms of acceptable custom). The goal of the latter question was to determine what precisely was determined by cultural concerns and what precisely was mandated (if anything); this question was raised in my mind because of the analogy raised between head coverings and sitting at the table. We sit at the table in order to most appropriately fulfill the circumstances of worship regarding the Lord's Supper; it is most appropriate (it's the cultural posture we usually take when eating at a table) and less likely to lead to superstition because this is the way the Supper was originally observed. But what it means to "sit" at the table will vary across cultures.
The historical question was about the practice of men having their heads covered for some elements of worship and uncovered for other elements of worship. I was wondering whether the reason for not having the head uncovered for the whole service was practical, e.g., keeping from getting cold? I then noted that I may have answered my own question: From Poole's comments, it seems that if the custom was initially motivated by practical concerns, by Poole's time it was due to custom, not practical reasons that men did not have their head uncovered the whole time.
The question of interpretation and application is multifacted and is as follows. (1) Are you arguing that 1 Cor. 11 across all cultures requires that men ought (as a matter of decorum) always to uncover their heads and women cover their heads? And so, (2) Although men must always be uncovered and women must always be covered, do culture and custom determine what it means to be "uncovered" or "covered"? That is, the command to be covered or uncovered is always obeyed, but the intent of the command is fulfilled in different ways in different cultures: What is considered to be "covered" and what that "covering" consists of (cloth, hats, etc.) is determined by custom?
Furthermore, (3) could culture and custom ever reverse the situation, i.e., so that men wear something on thier heads while women wear nothing on their heads, or can this never be the case, i.e., culture and custom determine what "uncovered" or "covered" means, but "covered" must be relative to something being worn on the head? Finally (which, I guess, supposes that (1) is false), (4) could culture and custom ever determine that men and women are both to be covered (or both uncovered)? Similarly, could culture and custom determine that men and women are both to wear something on the head (or not wear something on the head)?