Putting a king size duvet in sideways really does work

[Bringflowersofthefairest]

I read ages ago that a king size duvet is meant to go into the cover sideways rather than lengthways.
I thought this idea was a bit daft and forgot about it.
Yesterday whilst changing the bed I remembered it and decided to give it a whirl.
Ye Gods!
It bloody worked.
No more one freezing exposed arm because the duvet doesn’t quite fit over me when my husband hogs a lot of it unintentionally.
No more trying to hoick up the duvet that hangs over the bottom of the bed because of the length back on to the top for more warmth.
Plenty of spare duvet covering both of us and a lovely coziness all night long.
I was quite amazed.

Well OP I have today changed the duvet cover using your advice and I'm very impressed that it works 😁
I can't believe I've spent the last 40 years putting the duvet in the cover the wrong way and not noticed before 😳

Fair enough, I've never encountered one like that.

I always put the duvet in to match the size / shape of the cover. Been using this burrito method for a few years as much easier with a super king size.
https://www.idealhome.co.uk/bedroom/how-to-put-a-duvet-cover-on#section-the-burrito-method

@VermicularCanister thank you.
You’re right in saying we got used to putting the duvet in the cover first in a single then a double. I think it’s natural to just follow the process you have always used. Nothing to do with being thick or lacking in some way, it’s just what you have always done.
I’m so pleased it has made a difference for you and other posters. Me too.

Nor me

Or just turn the duvet and cover round so that the buttons are on the left or right of the bed.

Yes. When styling rooms we always use the next size up. It means the duvet hangs down the sides nicely.

No. You upsize the duvet and the cover.

Bearing in mind the difficulty some people on this thread have with fitting a duvet into the correct cover, squishing a king size duvet into a double duvet cover would be madness.

Yes, I agree. I'm mystified by this thread and have come back to it again to see if I can make any sense of it today. Still no.

I'm sitting on my bed as I type this, with my kingsize duvet in its cover with zero fitting issues and zero mystery as to how it got in its cover so fittingly.

Not for aesthetic reasons - just so that there’s plenty of overhang for nighttime coverage, esp. if you share the bed with a duvet hogger!

Aren’t they square?

No.

If they were square then this thread wouldn't exist.

Yes, I agree. I'm mystified by this thread and have come back to it again to see if I can make any sense of it today. Still no.

I'm sitting on my bed as I type this, with my kingsize duvet in its cover with zero fitting issues and zero mystery as to how it got in its cover so fittingly.

To try to clear up the mystery. King size duvets are very very nearly square, but one edge is 5cm longer than the other edge. Because 5cm is a small amount in the scheme of overall duvet size, they still fit inside a cover the wrong way round, just not as nicely as the right way round.

So for optimal fitting inside the cover, you have to know that they are a few centimetres off being square and/or be on top of some stitching/label placement conventions that are not even obvious to everyone on this thread, never mind the world at large.

Sorry I didn't read this properly. On a king size bed you use a supering duvet and cover. On a double bed you should use a kingsize duvet and cover.

Some have stitching going across and some have squares.

This thread is eye opening, the amount of people who have been sleeping in beds with flappy empty duvet covers on the sides is hilarious. Did it really not occur to any of you to try turning the duvet around?

Well, no, because it was 2.5cm (about 1 inch) of empty duvet cover on each side. In my head the duvet was square, like a double duvet, and the 2.5cm could be explained by the sizing of either the duvet or cover being a little bit off.

It wasn't hilariously wrong, like several inches of flapping empty cover, and it did not occur to me that it might be intentionally very very nearly square, instead of being actually square. But now I know!