Who is Kingshouse? Are they Orthodox? Are they popular on Facebook? Are they Non-denominational? Why do you cite their citing of them especially when they post a 21 page treatise on headcoverings (your print preview results may vary based on Browser, margins, etc.).
It does not matter. They QUOTE Jewish, Patristic, Catholic, Protestant and Orthdoox authors liberally. That is all that matters. Read very carefully what I and PetertheAleut have already written to you before posting ANYTHING else in this thread.
Sez you. It seems to me that SOL has asked a legitimate question. It might not matter to YOU, but it matters to him (and to some of us). So please answer his question. Who is Kingshouse? They may "quote" Jewish, Patristic, Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox authors liberally but so what? Our concern is ONLY with Orthodox scholars. We are, after all, Orthodox believers.
As for your academic question, I quote from Fr Stanley Harakas ("The Orthodox Church: 455 Questions and Answers") a well-respected Orthodox scholar.
"There is no doubt that in the time in which this was written (1 Cor. 11:3-15), it was felt that a woman should always have her head covered in public. Thus, it was seen as a real impropriety for a woman not to have her head covered in worship.
The passage is very difficult to understand, in any case. It has been a subject of much controversy. Probably, St John Chrysostom is right when he says that St Paul, in trying to clarify the basic question of the appropriate relations of men and women, 'resorted in this place to common custom.' The passage deals primarily NOT with hair, but with the need to keep clear the distinction of roles of men and women. The bible gives to the husband a leadership role in the family. He has, as one Orthodox commentator on this passage says, a 'certain primacy of leadership and honor, in his household.' In THAT culture and according to the custom of the day, as the 6th century biblical commentator Oecumenios interprets it, to uncover the hair 'shows her to be an escapee' from her relationship with her husband. Another interpreter does not refer this passage to the husband, but to the woman. 'This is equal to proclaiming publicly and officially that she no longer wished to be a woman, but desired to change sex and be a man. Such an attempt would be interpreted according to the customs of that time as an effort to assume a role and responsibility which was not hers. Each of the sexes should remain in the appropriate role, which God has given... to try to violate this is equivalent to trying to destroy order and create confusion.'
If these interpretations of 1 Cor. 11: 3-15 are correct, then it is clear that though Paul's message remains the same, the significance of covered and uncovered hair is lost to people who live in a totally different cultural setting. To enforce this as a rule now would be just legalism - for it would not illustrate St Paul's meaning at all. Only, if you were to hold that women should never have uncovered heads in public would it make sense, today, to demand it also in church."