Hat wars of early modern England reveal how manners make the rebel

Gaby Clark

scientific editor

Meet our editorial team
Behind our editorial process

Robert Egan

associate editor

Meet our editorial team
Behind our editorial process
Editors' notes

This article has been reviewed according to Science X's editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content's credibility:

fact-checked

trusted source

proofread

The GIST
Add as preferred source

From refusing to doff hats in court to resisting hat-snatching highway robbers, England's relationship with hats goes far deeper than fashion, new research shows.

"Hatiquette" is a matter of personal choice in modern Britain, but 400 years ago social conventions were very different and refusing to doff ("do off") one's hat could be a potent act of political defiance, according to a new study published in The Historical Journal.

In 1630, a feisty oatmeal maker hauled before England's supreme church court was informed that some of his judges were privy councilors as well as bishops. Unimpressed, he replied, "as you are privy councilors ... I put off my hat; but as ye [bishops] are rags of the Beast, lo!—I put it on again."

He was just one of many hat-wearing rebels to emerge during the turbulent reign of Charles I. Refusal to doff one's hat became a widespread act of political defiance throughout the civil war era and beyond.

For the aptly named Bernard Capp, Emeritus Professor of History at the University of Warwick, and an expert on the Civil War period, such episodes reveal an important transformation in the meaning of "hat-honor."

"Long before the civil wars, men and boys were expected to doff their hats, indoors or out, whenever they met a superior," Professor Capp says. "That was about respecting your place in society, but in the revolutionary 1640s and 1650s, hat honor became a real gesture of defiance in the political sphere."

When the radical Leveler John Lilburne, jailed in Newgate in 1646, was ordered to appear at the House of Lords, he resolved to "come in with my hat upon my head, and to stop my eares when they read my Charge, in detestation."

In April 1649, the proto-communist Digger leaders William Everard and Gerrard Winstanley also refused to take their hats off when brought before General Fairfax, commander of the New Model Army, telling him he was "but their fellow Creature." Fifth Monarchists, including Wentworth Day, prosecuted for sedition in 1658, similarly refused to doff their hats.

But these acts of hat defiance were not exclusive to radicals. Professor Capp points out that once defeated, eminent royalists adopted the same tactic. Charles I kept his hat on when he appeared before the High Court of Justice in January 1649, refusing to respect a court whose legitimacy he rejected. And the earl of Peterborough's son, tried for treason in 1658, similarly refused to remove his hat or to plead.

Elite men could also choose to reverse conventional practice and strategically doff their hats to social inferiors. Some royalist leaders, including Lord Capel, theatrically removed their hats when they were on the scaffold waiting to be executed. "This was a sort of populist political gesture, essentially inviting the moral support of the crowd," Professor Capp says.

Grounding a teenager 17th-century style

Professor Capp's favorite discovery relates to a very different battlefield: the home of a father and teenage son. In 1659, shortly before the restoration of the monarchy, Thomas Ellwood's father took drastic measures to ground the 19-year-old: he confiscated all of his hats.

Decades later, Thomas recalled, "I was still under a kind of Confinement, unless I would have run about the Country bare-headed, like a Mad-Man." Thomas had repeatedly flouted his father's command to stay away from the Quakers, a group well-known for refusing to remove their hats for people on principle.

Thomas' behavior provoked bitter family quarrels and a beating, until his father realized the power of hats. Thomas' autobiography, published in 1714, reveals that he spent months trapped in his house merely by the power of cultural convention.

Professor Capp says, "It makes no sense to us today. But in 1659, father and son just saw this as common sense. Thomas couldn't leave the house without a hat—it would have brought too much shame on himself and his family."

Handshakes not responsible for demise of hat-doffing

Some have argued that the rise of handshaking was responsible for the decline of hat-doffing but Professor Capp questions this.

"The handshake evolved very slowly as a mode of greeting and had no bearing on hat-honor as a gesture of deference," Capp says. He argues that the decline of hat-doffing was partly a consequence of manners becoming more informal but suggests other likely factors:

"The rising popularity of wigs made hat-wearing itself less ubiquitous, and repeatedly doffing one's hat to acquaintances in increasingly busy urban streets may have become too irritating. Conventions gradually change over generations and are usually multicausal."

Discover the latest in science, tech, and space with over 100,000 subscribers who rely on Phys.org for daily insights. Sign up for our free newsletter and get updates on breakthroughs, innovations, and research that matter—daily or weekly.

Subscribe

Take anything apart from my hat

Delving into the relative stability of the 18th century, Professor Capp discovered that an Englishman's hat remained a powerful symbol and highly-prized layer of personal protection. Examining Old Bailey court records, he found startling evidence of highway robbery victims prioritizing their hats over valuables and large sums of money.

One evening in May 1718, for example, William Seabrook was crossing Finchley Common when he was attacked by three thieves, who robbed him of all the money he was carrying, amounting to about £15. The court record notes that "they also took away his Hat, upon which he begg'd of them not to take away his Hat and make him go home bare-headed; then they threw down his Hat in the Road and left it."

"There seems to have been an unwritten convention that if victims meekly surrendered their valuables, they deserved at least a small favor," Professor Capp says. "So some highwaymen were willing to let men keep their precious hats."

"The behavior of robber and robbed might seem bizarre today, but it's got a lot to do with health concerns. Men wearing periwigs often had their head shaved, so they were more susceptible to the cold. And eighteenth-century medical guides were obsessed with keeping the head warm and warned that going outside bareheaded risked illness."

When Francis Peters, a gentleman, was robbed at gunpoint in Westminster in 1733, he handed over his money, an expensive watch, and a ring. But when the highwayman "snatch't off my Hat and Wig," he protested that "it was very unusual for Men of his Profession to take such Things, and that it being very cold it might indanger my Health."

The highwayman took no notice and rode off, leaving Peters to tie a handkerchief round his head to provide at least some protection. Peters later confronted the highwayman in prison and told him "he had used me hardly, in taking my Hat and Wig." The highwayman apologized.

Looking poor, mad or both

Professor Capp's study points out that being seen bareheaded in the eighteenth century was associated with abject poverty and madness. Court records reveal that suspects were desperately anxious not to be hatless when they appeared before a magistrate or jury.

"Even in London's seedy underworld, a hat felt essential," Professor Capp says. So when Thomas Ruby was tried for burglary at the Old Bailey in 1741, he "begged very hard" for the return of his hat, lost at the time of his arrest, "for he had none to wear."

"What you wear says something about how you see yourself and the world," Professor Capp says. "And the hat is so eloquent because it's so versatile—you can position it in so many ways, take it off, wave it around, and attach messages to it."

More information

The Cultural, Social, and Ideological Role of the Hat in Early Modern England, The Historical Journal (2026). www.cambridge.org/core/product … type/journal_article

Provided by Cambridge University Press