History HubΒ permalink
Peacocks?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Saturday, 30th April 2011
At the wedding I was very struck by the contrast between the outfits of the men with military ranks in their resplendent and uncomfortable looking uniforms and the mass of men in pretty dowdy civvies. Is it that we can only allow men whose occupation correlates with traditional concepts of masculinity to be so flamboyant? Thinking of other cases where men are permitted this degree of show but are not usually questioned as to their sexual orientation, I came up with Rap stars who also tend to emphasise their aggressive heterosexuality. Interestingly, it appeared that Beckam was the only man I saw there who had tweaked his morning dress a little. And what about the clergy? Where would they fit in?
In the past men were much more flamboyant in their attire, has the general change in style reflected differing perceptions of masculinity and if so why and how does that relate to the prevailing social climate, then and now? Is it also related to class? Are the Rap stars aping the status of their βbettersβ? -
Message 2
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 30th April 2011
ferval
The end of the peacock male was that period when England adjusted to being part of the United Kingdom and had a rather Puritan sobriety imposed upon its English playfulness..
This seems to have been connected with the emancipation of Nonconformists and Roman Catholics, and with the new more systematic electoral system that restricted the right to vote to the Middle Classes, who were often very keen to show "the working classes" that they themselves were men of sobriety, seriousness, industry and thrift ,who (as T.B. Macaulay wrote in 1828) were going to "put Britain right" and lead the world away from the foppery of the Old Regime and its lavish courts.
Disraeli was famously one of the few major politicians to really diverge much from this "men in grey suits" culture that Britain then spread around the world- with the result surely that these days you see a man in a grey suit and you are immediately suspcious about what he is after.
Much later the whole cause was taken up and fought by Oscar Wilde. But the Edwardian males seem to have largely restricted their display to facial hair.
Cass -
Message 3
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Saturday, 30th April 2011
I don't know if any of those reasons are the reason, ferval. I just don't know what it would take to get men out of suit and ties now. It seems so engrained that any suggestion of something different is just laughable. I didn't like the military uniforms much, since they are rather similar too, even if more colourful.
A New Zealand lawyer and former secretary for the Police Association used to wear kaftans and dresses (probably still does, but isn't in the public eye so much now), but he was very much an exception.
(The case mentioned here of the couple and the bridge was a shocking case of a large government department using its clout against the little man and woman.)
It doesn't seem to me to be particularly related to class. Men of all classes wear a very boring uniform of trousers and shirt; it's prettied up with ties for more formal occasions and dressed down to shorts and t-shirts for warmer climes and informal occasions (or by more courageous people like Sir Peter Jackson in NZ). But apart from the Scottish kilt, where in the English-speaking world at least do you see men in skirts? Even in the heat when they are so much more comfortable.
I was horrified when we were in Sydney, Australia in summer once - about 30 degrees celsius - and still businessmen were in suit and ties. A female friend who was in corporate work said she was expected to wear a jacket at all times. So it's not even just for men, though at least women can vary their dress more according to occasion.
When I read Georgette Heyers the men in them take at least as much care with their dress as the women, taking hours to tie cravats and working their way into tight pantaloons and colourful jackets. I can't really think that men are more concerned with heterosexuality now than in the 18th C. Perhaps they are - or perhaps they are more encouraged to be. When one of my sons tells his younger brother that 'lovely' is not a word to be used by males, I do wonder about this need to seem overtly masculine or feminine at present.
I suggested somewhere today that it would be good if men took a leaf out of the book of jockeys and trotting drivers; they sit on their horses and in their sulkies in bright silks with great contrasting colours and patterns. I suppose they and other sports which have uniforms (what soccer team did I see recently resplendent in pink? not an English one, I think) are also clearly differentiated as male. (But not necessarily heterosexual, surely.)
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 4
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 30th April 2011
Caro
I well remember my childhood/adolescent struggles with the History of Eighteenth Century England- whose hey-day and swan-song- was immortalised in Jane Austen, whose works are endlessly re-enacted and repeated because she chronicled a period in which an increasingly wealthy England had seen that wealth reflected in the display of the life at court and in the circles of the establishment.. Then not only were the "toffs" dressed up like peacocks, so were there staff-- hence the tradition of commanding officers providing "dress uniforms" for their men, who were expected to "do them credit" , as did the liveried retainers that were the public face of those great houses.
My thinking about this- and I was reminded about this yesterday- was crystallised when I read of how c1923 the Reverend Dick Sheppard had written a letter of protest when the British Legion was planning a charity ball to raise funds for the veterans of the IWW.. He suggested a solemn service of remembrance and the selling of poppies, and his friend/biographer noted that more money was raised by the adoption of Dick's scheme (which we still observe) than would have been raised by the selling of tickets.
But neither was an economist.. and perhaps Dick was right in feeling that the kind of people who had gone to balls before 1914 would not go to one now..But I think that his letter was based upon ideas of class warfare and the way that such "extravagance" would have been exploited by Communists and Socialists inspired by the beginning of the World Revolution in 1917.
As anyone knows who gets involved in a prestigious ball- or gets an invite to a major wedding- getting the ticket/invite is just the start. A great London Ball would have been a huge cash and business injection into the local economy, as all of the "top class" dress-designers, tailors, habeerdashers, jewellers, hotels, restaurants, as well as the other servive industries would all have been revived, as the British economy badly needed reviving after the IWW.
London knew this because of what happened during the Commonwealth period when there was no Royal Court, and moreover the Puritan rule stamped out all manner of things like the theatre, music, dancing, and special festivals like Christmas. The Restoration of Charles II was a huge economic injection as the court returned, along with all of its courtiers, their attendants and those who served them.. London had been almost dead without the court, and this new life very quickly produced overcrowding and concomitant problems. Thus I believe the Plague in 1665 was not just accidental, and nor was the Fire.. But the Cathedral of St, Paul's was- and remains- a huge statement of intent and optimism.
On ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ the studio had some experts from the fashion industry who were exclaiming what a fantastic shop window this was for the whole British fashion industry.. and other "world class" industries capable of producing things that people all over the world may once more be prepared to purchase from Britain. Only when there is a layer in the economy earning money on the world stage can the national economy afford to pay people to produce things that no-one else in the world would- or perhaps could- buy, or afford to give "living allowances/unearned incomes" to people who contribute costs but no benefits to the GDP.
In recent years this has been the Finance Industry.. Hence the degree of our dependence and the imperative need to "bail out the Banks" by mortgaging our Future.
Interestingly I chatted last night to a neighbour who said how he and his wife had just driven around and seen first hand just in our part of South London the great feeling of just enjoying a day that was given for everyone to enjoy.. I commented on my pleasure at having seen the people claiming back the streets, with thousands just sleeping out on pavements, whereas London had become a place where people were out at night at their own peril, and parents bought their daughters cars to keep themselves safely locked away if they had to journey.
My neighbour whose mother came her from Jamaica said, what I don't understand is why we British do not just stand up and claim our country more often, rather than let foreigners in who expect to have a right not to embrace Britishness...
The problem, however, I believe, is that Britishness has been much too much focussed on managing Britain's "Decline and Fall"- squabbling over the "fair shares" of what was gained/earned by earlier generations, rather than seizing the excitement of being alive now and grasping the opportunities for Future achievements.
Cass -
Message 5
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 30th April 2011
The end of the peacock male was that period when England adjusted to being part of the United Kingdom and had a rather Puritan sobriety imposed upon its English playfulness.. Β
Around 1973? -
Message 6
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Saturday, 30th April 2011
Ur-Lungal
Presumably that was a joke, not a serious question?
Cass -
Message 7
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 30th April 2011
Ur-Lungal
Presumably that was a joke, not a serious question?
°δ²Ή²υ²υΜύ It was a reminder to you that there have been times, later than you postulate, when men wore bright clothing as a matter of copurse. -
Message 8
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Sunday, 1st May 2011
Good point Urn.
The 50's Teddy Boys, Hippies of the physadelic 60s, the 70's Glam Rock and Punk Rock. All were extremely flamboyant in style and the influences of past eras clearly evident. -
Message 9
Posted by mismatched (U14242423) on Sunday, 1st May 2011
Does this explain the tendency of some men to wear Hawaiian style shirts at informal events. I live in a holiday area and see some terrible shirts.
It possibly explains why Prince William chose not to wear Royal Air Force uniform for his wedding, he is a serving officer. Instead he chose to wear the far more peacocky and glamorous scarlet guards officer tunic. -
Message 10
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 1st May 2011
You could still only say that some men wore colourful clothing then, Ian. Most men, sadly, still wore neutral or dark trousers and a shirt. Even when men could dress up more, like on a golf course, someone like Ian Poulter still stands out for his flashy interesting clothes. And no one talks about the men's gear at Wimbledom.
Yesterday I said that the royal bride's wedding dress was nearly as nice as mine, and my husband said, "But not as spectacular". My dress was red cotton with large white flowers, and over it was a red hooded cape lined with feathers. (My youngest son recently looked at the photo and said, "You were quite pretty then, Mum", which I thought was indeed damning with faint, or rather no, praise.) My husband wore a red and white shirt, red tie and a grey flared suit. No suggestion that he might wear some form of a skirt or pantaloons. This was right at the end of your timeframe, of course, late 1973. Maybe in 1972 he might have chosen something more psychedelic but I doubt it. And I doubt if you did either - though certainly those clothes your band wears for your music are quite startling.
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 11
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 1st May 2011
Well I did try to answer the initial question which was when the "peacock" man-who seems to have had some universality before the 1830's went out of fashion.. Oscar Wilde was associated with one revolt, and the Augustan sympathies of writers like Lytton Strachey after the First World War did seem to be reflected in a reaction against Victorian modes of both male and female dress in the "Roaring Twenties", when "flappers" dressed up like boys and effete young men- as described by Aldous Huxley and P.G. Wodehouse- could dress quite flambouyantly, and some men might even wear make-up..
Then after the 2WW there were further reactions including the ethnic fashions like the "Afro" look and Kaftans.
But thinking of those younger people (plus Elton John) who were the personal guests of the couple, I was thinking that for many of them their "star" persona is often involved more with being undressed than dressed, which was not really appropriate for this state occasion..
Just looking at David Beckam- one of the iconic males of his generation- his most famous look is not that of a peacock covered with glorious plumage, but that of a bird that has been plucked and stripped down to the skin (heavily tatooed) ready for stuffing.
As someone in the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ studio commented it was a great shop window for the fashion industry, but this was because they rose to the challenge of actually dressing people up, as opposed to sending them out in public as completely undressed as they can get away with.
As for military uniforms- did many people take up the Sergeant Pepper look? That might be due for a revival.
Cass -
Message 12
Posted by Papa Nopsis (U14479902) on Sunday, 1st May 2011
wear Hawaiian style shirtsΒ
I have always enjoyed wearing bright clothing, but the skirt seems to be out of fashion both for men and women. I noticed some school girls yesterday laughing at their friend for wearing a frilly skirt whilst they were wearing their school trousers.
Perhaps if men started to wear skirts more often they would be taken more seriously, but not something i have ever tried!
I did a wear a loin cloth to pariament once as a protest against Neil Kinnock's ascent in to European heaven, and nobody batted an eye lid, although on the way home the carriage was curiously occupied by seven women and....me.
I ended up clothed in a news paper for the rest of my journey -
Message 13
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 1st May 2011
Caro, pr0obably alone amongst the posters here, has seen a oic of me in full Samba gig gear. I'd scarcely say we wear inconspicuous John Major type grey apparel.
-
Message 14
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Sunday, 1st May 2011
Ah, but which one are you? The whistle blower, the silver fox, either of the bespectacled drummer boys or the percussionist? Or are you the person hiding?
Do tell. -
Message 15
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Sunday, 1st May 2011
I recken Urn is the Freddy Flintoff lookalike in centre front!
-
Message 16
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 1st May 2011
I might - just might - be on this one of the World Record Attempt, though I do tend to avoid getting photographed. Difficult to deny you were present when the evidence is on Flickr
-
Message 17
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 1st May 2011
I'm so peeved I didn't read your posts thoroughly enough and realise you were in Barnsley that day. I could have shouted, "Ya, boo" at the appropriate times. Almost as good as a royal wedding. I think you could try harder with the headgear though - where are the antlers, or floral arrangements on your hair, or six feet concoctions getting in everyone's way?
-
Message 18
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 2nd May 2011
I wonder if David Beckham might start a trend to wear the lower orders of chivalry at occasions like that? There must have been many people there with MBE, OBE etc but don't often see them worn.
-
Message 19
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 2nd May 2011
I'm so peeved I didn't read your posts thoroughly enough and realise you were in Barnsley that day. I could have shouted, "Ya, boo" at the appropriate times. Almost as good as a royal wedding. I think you could try harder with the headgear though - where are the antlers, or floral arrangements on your hair, or six feet concoctions getting in everyone's way?Β I have three Samba hats for different occasions. A red, sparkly cowboy hat for rainy days, a yellow Dr Seuss style hat with lurex threads hanging out for sunny ones (it has a wide brim) and a red/green/blue Benny hat with a yellow pompom for cold weather. I did once wear a Pound Shop duck hat (at a Lord Mayor's Family Fun Day) and found many toothsome young persons of the Female Persuasion wanted to have their pictures taken with me, but others in the band felt that it was inappropriate.
-
Message 20
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Wednesday, 4th May 2011
Caro,
I suggested somewhere today that it would be good if men took a leaf out of the book of jockeys and trotting drivers; they sit on their horses and in their sulkies in bright silks with great contrasting colours and patterns. Β
What jockey or other athlete wears his "work clothes" away from the job? Most whom I've seen in interviews in television studios - i.e., away from the field/pitch/track - wear ordinary clothes no different from anyone else. -
Message 21
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Wednesday, 4th May 2011
Well, some people seem to wear their work clothes at all times - Bob the Builder and Postman Pat to name but two ...
-
Message 22
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Wednesday, 4th May 2011
You are so right, White Camry, and have just reminded me of another source of irritation. Why do people in Britain (well, England anyway, not sure we have seen television in Scotland) wear suits at all sorts of inappropriate places and times. Why does Sir Alex Ferguson, for instance, and Aresene Wenger (lovely Arsene Wenger!) have to wear suits to stand on the sidelines of a soccer match?
And when I am not peering round the pretty towns checking for black people on Midsomer Murders I am shouting at the police to get out of their bloody suits and put on suitable gumboots (wellingtons or something to you) and overalls and not go clambouring all over muddy paddocks in unsuitable gear.
I luckily live in a town without businessmen so don't have to see men in suits except at funerals, and even then plenty of people roam in in their jeans. In Dunedin you don't see many suits - students in black are the basic uniform there. And in Sheffield there were more businessboys than businessmen and they wore their suits in a rather loose fashion which was quite attractive. (Or was it just that they were quite attractive?)
Cheers, Caro. -
Message 23
Posted by glen berro (U8860283) on Thursday, 5th May 2011
(what soccer team did I see recently resplendent in pink? not an English one, I think)Β
Could have been, Caro.
glen -
Message 24
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Thursday, 5th May 2011
in Sheffield there were more businessboys than businessmen and they wore their suits in a rather loose fashion...Β
Ah yes, Caro, we have hordes of these suited office-boys here in Edinburgh too. They infest my local coffee-shop, talking importantly about "options" and "deals" into their mobile phones.
My friend has a good trick. In their vicinity he shouts "Fore!" or "Two pints, please!" - just for the benefit of whoever they're talking to.
He gets away with it because he's big and looks tough. -
Message 25
Posted by MB (U177470) on Monday, 16th May 2011
in Sheffield there were more businessboys than businessmen and they wore their suits in a rather loose fashion...Β
Ah yes, Caro, we have hordes of these suited office-boys here in Edinburgh too. They infest my local coffee-shop, talking importantly about "options" and "deals" into their mobile phones.
My friend has a good trick. In their vicinity he shouts "Fore!" or "Two pints, please!" - just for the benefit of whoever they're talking to.
He gets away with it because he's big and looks tough. Β
I did read one story a few years ago about a women on a train who got really annoyed about someone talking very loudly on his mobile so she leaned over close to his phone and asked (in a very sexy voice) when he was coming back to bed. -
Message 26
Posted by jenny (U14149730) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
Hello - I'm new to all this, but from what I understand it was Beau Brummel who started the trend of men dressing in black etc, rather than the peacock hues. Probably, to be cynical, becuase, just as black does for women, it slims down the figure, and when you are chums with Prinny, Beau's 'fat friend' anything that slims you down optically is going to be more flattering.
That said, I don't think Beau ever managed to get Prinny to dress in black etc, because Prinny was too vain and too much of a born peacock to bear anything so dull, dull, dull as black.
I probably learnt this by reading Georgette Heyer books (which I'm glad to see get a mention here!) so no idea if it's actually true or not. But certainly, from Regency times onwards for the next century and a half really (until the famous Seargent Pepper album cover!), male attire is dull, dull, dull in civvy street.
PS, at the Royal Wedding, who had the yellower frock, the Queen or the Dean? (Or was he a bishop - chap in brilliant gold yellow gown.
-
Message 27
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
Jenny
Welcome to the MB.. It is nice to have some new energy.. I am interested in what you say about Beau Brummel because he is more famous for being the most peacock like of the Regency Set..
But perhaps things had to change when public opinion shifted against the Regent once he was finally King, and people became aware of the terrible way that he mistreated his wife.. from whom he wished to separate. And of course during the depression years 1815-1821 people might well have resented ostentation at court. As he would have had to also go into mourning for his father perhaps it was at this moment that a more sober attitude was adopted and Brummel might well have set the new trend.
Cass -
Message 28
Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
I am interested in what you say about Beau Brummel because he is more famous for being the most peacock like of the Regency Set..Β
He is famous for being the best-dressed. Not peacocky. He (all accounts seem to agree) led men's style in sobriety - only dark colours for coats, very little jewellery or other decoration. -
Message 29
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
Peggy
Thank you.. I looked at a few books to try to see where I had gained my previous impression..
And then turned to Wiki which says:
"Beau Brummell, born as George Bryan Brummell (7 June 1778 β 30 March 1840(1840-03-30) (aged 61)), was the arbiter of men's fashion in Regency England and a friend of the Prince Regent, the future King George IV. He established the mode of men wearing understated, but fitted, tailored clothes including dark suits and full-length trousers, adorned with an elaborately-knotted cravat.[1]
Beau Brummell is credited with introducing and establishing as fashion the modern man's suit, worn with a tie.[2] He claimed to take five hours to dress, and recommended that boots be polished with champagne.[3] His style of dress is often referred to as dandyism[4]."
***
I think that for me a "dandy" is peacockish. but clearly not for those more fashionably informed.
Cass -
Message 30
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
Actually perhaps the thread is the place to note that Princess Beatrice's outlandish "hat" had bids on Ebay of over Β£80,000 by mid-day today with 5 hours to go... Sticking up for the peahens.
Cass -
Message 31
Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
I think that for me a "dandy" is peacockish. but clearly not for those more fashionably informed.Β
I think that in the twentieth century it has had that connotation, because male clothes did become so VERY boring. -
Message 32
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
Peggy
I am still not clear, however, whether this trend was not associated with the Regency Period, and the particular circumstances: not least because the King's disapproval of the frivolity and wildness of his son social circle had been one factor in early Regency Crises. .
But Steven Watson makes the point re fashion that- in accordance with Wordsworth and the Worship of Nature- there was a trend towards a more natural look than those excesses of the French court shortly before the Revolution, when the elevation of Princess Beatrice' s hat would have been lost amongst the wigs piled that high with various "fantasies" like sailing ships etc..
For women corsets were out for more simple Jane Austen dresses, but with deeply cut bossom-lines (to show those heaving Austen bossoms so well), while Brummel pioneered the trouser rather than the breeches.
I wonder whether these were conscious expressions of the passing of an Old Regime, and the demand for a more sober ruling class in order not to enrage the "masses".
Cass -
Message 33
Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
The original "dandies" were men who were correctly dressed not flamboyantly. I suppose it was meant to be a sign of nobility that you had the leisure time to devote yourself to making sure your clothes were exactly right.
The poet Hugo Williams writes a column in the TLS in which he has several times mentioned that his father (the actor Hugh Williams) used to say that you know a man is well-dressed if you don't notice how he is dressed until you have been speaking to him for 10 minutes. That way of thinking is the true heir of the original dandies
But, over the centuries since Beau Brummell, 'dandy' has come to mean someone who is flamboyantly dressed.
Possibily the change in meaning does begin with the above mentioned Disraeli who came out of the dandy tradition and whose early novels were associated with 'silver fork fiction' (Vivian Grey was originally anonymous and attributed to a "man of fashion") but did dress to be noticed. -
Message 34
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
Daniel K
Thanks for that..
But going back to the Royal Wedding and Royal Court theme, there is surely some indication of change in the fact that Beau Brummel- an aristocrat- could become the dictator of British fashion at the top of society by dressing as befits someone of the nobility..
Surely for many centuries, since probably the Renaissance, it had been important to know about "courtly dress" .. The ridiculous extremes of Georgian dress would appear to have been exploited by the fifth "Pirates" film, according to the much repeated extract: but this was still very much in the tradition of those great pageants of the Italian Renaissance when the "top people" put on a show for the masses, and provided feasts to keep them "amused" and entertained. .. And at Kenisngton Palace you can still see "court shoes" and "court gloves" of the kind that had (have) to be warn by debutante who "come out" by being presented at court.
Of course the Prince Regent had been famous for his friendship with Charles James Fox, free-thinking Liberal and man of the people: and it looks like there was a process of "closing of the ranks", with the Royal Court becoming less distant and different from respectable classes (Pride and Prejudice).
Perhaps this is shown by the monarch who finally decided to show his face in Scotland in the late 1820's (William IV) who shocked the good people of Edinburgh by turning up dressed in some garish (peacock?) tartan, under the (false) impression that this was the dress of the Scottish people.
Cass -
Message 35
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
Afterthought- as you mention Disraeli. His entry into political life is almost exactly at the time when the restrictions and disadvantages of the Nonconformists were lifted, and as a consequence there was a gradual increase in the impact of Nonconformists firstly on local affairs- and therefore resistance to "Big Government" from London, and eventually after 1870- into national politics.
In many cases these people came from a more Puritan tradition and were quick to launch accusations of lavishness and inappropriate conduct in dress as in other things.
Cass -
Message 36
Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
Beau Brummel- an aristocrat- could become the dictator of British fashion at the top of society by dressing as befits someone of the nobility.Β
Beau Brummell was not an aristocrat - he went to Eton and Oxford, he became a friend of the Prince Regent but was not from a titled family.
I'm not a historian of fashion or a social historian of fashion. And I'm not sure I understand fully your different points.
But from what I know it seems that the style set by Brummell was among other things in reaction to the "Macaronis" with their absurd wigs and clothes. He did not, apparently, manage to influence the Regent, and famously fell out with him and was very rude about his clothes.
Brummell's style was not "court style". Court dress was old-fashioned, women still wore hoops and ostrich feathers, men knee breeches. Court dress for debutantes remained relatively old-fashioned until Court presentations were abolished in the mid-20th century.
Courtly dress (and sumptuary laws) date from the Middle Ages.
There iwas obviously social and cultural evolution that made silks, velvets and jewels become unacceptable notably for male dress. IThe French Revolution and the "Romantic" period did give a greater value to "naturaliness". People from non-aristocratic or landed gentry classes began to become wealthy through the agricultural and industrial revolutions. There were political changes (suffrage, popular democratic movements). The 1828 Test Act removed discriminations against Nonconformists. But how these different factors interplayed in relation to male fashion I don't know. -
Message 37
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
George IV, under the influence of Sir Walter Scott, surely? I don't think Sailor Bill was a tartan wearer
-
Message 38
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 22nd May 2011
Ur
Yes. That sounds right on reflection.. Kings and Queens history has never been a strong point of interest.. I thought one of the IV's.
As for the Emancipation of Nonconformists. . The 1820's were a period of "moral revolution" spearheaded by the Clapham Sect, in which people like Wilberforce, Macaulay and Stevens (?) were evangelicals. I think the order was trying to prevent cruelty to animals, then children, then slaves, then women, and then criminals.. As several historians have pointed out Wilberforce had managed to unleash or rather harness the force of "moral indignation" and it became increasingly obligatory for public figures to make a public show of their puritan virtues, sobriety, thrift etc
Cass -
Message 39
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 23rd May 2011
Peggy
Thanks for another correction.. I thought one of the brief refences I found involved a title- Obviously another person..
But the Eton Oxbridge ladder was really becoming useful in this period, as is brought out in the life of George Canning, who overcame the disadvantage of his birth (something like being born to an actress out of wedlock), to rising through the educational ladder enough to impress such people as the Younger Pitt, who knew that this was an age in which what you know was becoming more important than who you know. No-one would have expected the boy Canning to rise to cabinet office, and even be in contention for the top job.
The place of inherited position and power- monarchical and aristicratic- was being challenged by both the "merited" wealth and power of the owners of intellectual and material Capital- the Middle Class, and perhaps one might say also those who were prepared to live and die for an artistic vision in that age of Romantic Poets and painters starving in garretts. Lord Byron used his position in the Lords to comment on public affairs.
I note that Brummel died in poverty in 1840.
Cass -
Message 40
Posted by Jak (U1158529) on Monday, 23rd May 2011
... the monarch who finally decided to show his face in Scotland in the late 1820's (William IV) who shocked the good people of Edinburgh by turning up dressed in some garish (peacock?) tartan ... Β
As Ur-Lugal says, this was George IV, under the influence of Walter Scott.
There's a cast-iron crown set into the quayside at Leith, where he first set foot in Scotland on 15th August 1822.
There's also a statue of him at a crossroads in Edinburgh, looking improbably slender - if all those cartoons are anything to go by. Large letters on the plinth proudly inform us that he
"Visited Scotland in 1822".
Which, whenever I pass it, makes me think: "Big deal!" -
Message 41
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 23rd May 2011
Thanks Jak
I think that there is some suggestion that it was the Duchess of Sutherland- infamous for the clearances after 1815- who had made her tall handsome kilted domestic staff such a feature of London life that, along with Sir Walter Scott's novels, the prominence of the Scottish Highlander in the "Sassenach's" image of Scotland was cemented if not created.
What is interesting- or perhaps not so in this age when marketing and image if everything- is that the marketing of Scotland- as in the Scottish rugby team for example- has embraced the look too.. In the global village of grey suit uniformity any marketing guru is bound to look for something a bit different.
Cass -
Message 42
Posted by Catigern (U14419012) on Monday, 23rd May 2011
Interestingly, the original 'Sassenachs' ('Saxons) were those speakers of Old English with whom the Scottish Gaels had most dealings - ie the Angles of what's now south east Scotland...
The London establishment had been increasingly falling in love with 'tartanry' as supposedly representative of Scotland since the mid 18th century. A slow start was made with the raising of the Black Watch and its subsequent inclusion in the mainstream British Army, but the rapid romanticisation of the Jacobites in the wake of their defeat in 1746 gave the process a great boost, partly because the rebels had consciously tried to project themselves as a 'highland army', eg by encouraging the adoption of highland dress by their recruits from the Anglophonic lowlands of the north east. The older 'North British' cultural label that had been in vogue for southern Scots since 1707 rapidly fell out of fashion, and, by the 1770s, 'lowland' Scots regiments included kilted pipers.
More modern 'Celtomania', partly a reaction to the decline in the fashionability of Britishness in the post-Imperial era, continues to impose the trappings of Gaeldom on the Anglo-Saxon south of Scotland - see eg bilingual signs and display boards at railway stations in Edinburgh and Glasgow. Gaelicisation in the south remains a top-down, often state-sponsored process, eg southern police forces and fire brigades all have tartan-kilted pipe bands, while the ordinary 'folk' produce fiddle/accordian bands.
Thus, bizarrely, the age of Union has seen the Tweed-Solway line actually become *more* of a cultural departure point, rather than less, than was the case when Scotland was independent and its southern culture less influenced by London fashions...
-
Message 43
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 23rd May 2011
Catigern
I enjoyed that post.. It put me in mind of the year I spent in Cardiff in the late Sixties when people like my Italian Welsh landlady had very little interest in the current vogue for Welshness and Welsh language TV.
Cass -
Message 44
Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Monday, 23rd May 2011
-is that the marketing of Scotland- as in the Scottish rugby team for example- has embraced the look too.Β
The DScottish rub-gby team dresses in kilts? In tartan trews? I've never seen that! -
Message 45
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Tuesday, 24th May 2011
Peggy Monahan:,
-is that the marketing of Scotland- as in the Scottish rugby team for example- has embraced the look too. Β
The DScottish rub-gby team dresses in kilts? In tartan trews? I've never seen that!Β
I am shocked, shocked to find that there is nothing on Youtube about this.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ iD
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ links
ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.