Curious about the "rules"

**Jock Scot** · 14th November 10, 12:32 PM

Kiltedwolfman.

Sometimes we have to accept things as they are, The Royal Enclosure at Ascot, some operas, a formal ball all require one to conform to partake in the event and that is just the way of life and that choice is available to each and everyone of us. My wife for one, really enjoys these events and the fact the we dress up is part of the event for her and she is hardly in the minority.

No the clothes do not improve the music, racing,etc but they do help make that undefinable thing "the sense of occasion" "ambiance" that some people very much enjoy. What we wear does not make any of us better than anyone else, wealthier perhaps, more cleaver perhaps, luckier perhaps , but most certainly not better. We all have our own choices in life and if one wants to partake in certain events, then that is what we have to do-----conform. If we choose not to, then some options in life are shut to us. Is it right to happen that way? Probably not. But welcome to the real world, because that is the way it is!

kiltedwolfman · 14th November 10, 12:54 PM

Why does he think he doesn't have to conform with policies and traditions? Why should he be the "hero" and those who follow the polite customs of society and "decency" be the villains?

I think this statement helps me boil down what I'm asking the most. At what point did the modes of formal dress become the policy and tradition, and why? There have been many times when I've been at mid point of a double windsor and thought to myself, who came up with this thing? And why did it become so popular? I'm not thinking if the knot, but moreover the whole formal idea. How did certain types of style become the benchmark for formality, and then after time become the most right and acceptable level for it.

I am not attempting to say that formality should be done away with and we should all adopt the most casual and be joyous in it. I am however trying to understand how certain things, like a PC, or Doublet etc came to the forefront as proper attire for certain occasions. The opera has been alluded to and the type of dress required for it. I think it serves as good example in asking at what point did someone, or group of people state that all those attending can only attend if dressed in such and such as that is what is proper for the occasion? Dress codes are fine and I have little qualm with them, I am however trying to discover how the codes came to be? What criteria were used to established proper formal wear as opposed to casual or semi formal. Another example is sporrans, as it has often been said that day or casual sporrans should be brown, and evening ones black. Why? How does the colour of the sporran matter to the level of formality? This is the thing that poses the greatest curiousity to me, how did all the formal things become so formal?

**Jock Scot** · 14th November 10, 01:00 PM

Plain and simple evolution, good marketing by the tailors and a willingness for their cutomers to want to conform.

**ForresterModern** · 15th November 10, 10:50 AM

Well put, Scott. It is often a difficult concept to grasp and convey but you did it well. Too often I think people believe that dress "codes" for events are somewhow meant to separate the haves from the have nots, when in fact they are, as you said, more designed to put everyone on equal social footing, at least for the duration of the event, regardless of percieved overall social standing.

**macwilkin** · 15th November 10, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by ForresterModern

Well put, Scott. It is often a difficult concept to grasp and convey but you did it well. Too often I think people believe that dress "codes" for events are somewhow meant to separate the haves from the have nots, when in fact they are, as you said, more designed to put everyone on equal social footing, at least for the duration of the event, regardless of percieved overall social standing.

Not to go too far off-topic, but that is one of the reasons for liturgical and academic garments.

T.

**Paul Henry** · 15th November 10, 12:02 PM

Originally Posted by cajunscot

Not to go too far off-topic, but that is one of the reasons for liturgical and academic garments.

T.

Actually I don't think that is the case, Academic gowns are worn to show a qualification, or a position within the college, or one of learning.
Liturgical garments are almost always worn to show the postion or status of the wearer.
Both of these types of garments are worn precisely to show the wearer is different from others, they do show some sort of status within the respective organisations, with I would suggest some suggestion that the wearer should be looked up to and respected.

**macwilkin** · 15th November 10, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by paulhenry

Actually I don't think that is the case, Academic gowns are worn to show a qualification, or a position within the college, or one of learning.
Liturgical garments are almost always worn to show the postion or status of the wearer.
Both of these types of garments are worn precisely to show the wearer is different from others, they do show some sort of status within the respective organisations, with I would suggest some suggestion that the wearer should be looked up to and respected.

I'm sorry, Paul, but I have the proof. I am a member of the International Order of St. Vincent, which is a guild for those who serve at the altar in the various Anglican churches. The Order, which was established in the 1880's, is well-respected in the Episcopal Church for its knowledge of all things liturgical. The reference I made comes from its booklet, Serving Basics. My copy is at home at the moment, but I will be happy to provide a page reference when I return later this evening.

While you are correct that there are different forms & items in liturgical dress that distinguish laity and clergy and their roles, the wearing of liturgical garments makes all serving at the Altar equal, and allows the congregation and other observers to focus on the Mass rather than the individual garments of said servers (my summary of the OSV's arguement).

T.

**thescot** · 15th November 10, 11:07 AM

The question[s] has been posed and answered quite well. There is no "point" at which traditions and conventions become such; they evolve and change slowly.

Any further discussion of the topic is akin to beating a dead horse. One doesn't decide to change convention, one only chooses to comply or not. And if choosing not to comply, one may well be asked for direstions to the toilet. Or to check one's hat. Or to bring a glass of water.

I begin to wonder if this wasn't fising expedtion to get everyone worked up to begin with.

**MacLowlife** · 15th November 10, 11:42 AM

I am assuming that Kilted Wolfman really wants to know and, since he alluded to tying a double Windsor knot, some of his questions were designed to give us thought and talking points, not to wax revolutionary. I would like to thank all who contributed to this thread. Lately, this forum has been a little quiet and I am grateful for any discussion. Who else has a great topic?

Thanking in advance, I remain,

m'll

**Bugbear** · 15th November 10, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by MacLowlife

I am assuming that Kilted Wolfman really wants to know and, since he alluded to tying a double Windsor knot, some of his questions were designed to give us thought and talking points, not to wax revolutionary. I would like to thank all who contributed to this thread. Lately, this forum has been a little quiet and I am grateful for any discussion. Who else has a great topic?

Thanking in advance, I remain,

m'll

I'm working on it, MacLowlife; hatching a new thread for you, that is.

Just remember, I was not raised with these traditions, and feel very much out of place in this forum and discussion.
I blame it all on that chrome plated goose...