This afternoon I went to meet a business contact and walked past Chesterfield Street, in the area of London to the north of Piccadilly. The houses in the quiet street date back to the 18th Century and many of them, with their elegant Georgian front doors and understated proportions, have circular blue signs on the front, describing certain famous people who used to live there. One house states that Beau Brummell, “leader of fashion”, lived in one of the houses. Many foreign visitors who walk past the building and who wonder who this character was may have little idea of the man who rose rapidly to become at one stage the “most famous man in England”, setting new standards of dress and elegance for men. He lived the sort of life that puts modern gaudy celebrities in the shade. His life was a wild mixture of dazzling social success, fame and renown. But his later life was tragic, although the pain was partly self-inflicted: he eloped to France to escape from mounting debts and eventually died from disease.
A biography by Ian Kelly, now available in paperback, is an excellent story of how Brummell, descended from an upwardly-mobile civil servant and businessman, managed in a relatively short space of time to set the tone for Regency England. What I found so striking about the book was that although it showed that early 19th Century England was a very class-ridden place full of snobberies and harsh social conventions, it was also fluid and open to upward mobility to a degree that almost makes one wonder whether the age of George IV is in some ways more open than our own. Brummell’s grandfather was a servant; his father worked in the civil service and yet, by a mix of business acumen and a bit of sharp dealing in government contracts, amassed enough wealth to put his children through Eton and set his offspring up in the height of luxury. In some ways Brummell was the first person to be famous for being famous, for creating his own identity so well that he inspired people like Disraeli or, for that matter, Oscar Wilde (there is some debate on whether Brummell was bi-sexual). The Cary Grants, Errol Flynns or David Nivens are part of this suave tradition and so for that matter are such fictional characters as Sherlock Holmes and James Bond in his dark blue suits and evening dinner jackets.
Kelly is wonderful in how he describes how Brummell set about the task of creating a new style of dress that continues to affect tailoring to this day. Inspired in part by the sort of uniforms worn by Napoleon’s and Wellington’s armies, particularly the dashing cavalry regiments, and by the new-found enthusiasm for all things Greek and Roman, Brummell set about driving forward the elegant styles associated with the Regency period. The classic English male attire which he created has its echoes down the ages. Even those City financiers who now ply their trade in the Square Mile of London or the capital’s Canary Wharf financial district continue to wear suits and neckties that owe something to Brummell’s influence.
Of course, many people, including finance professionals, lawyers and the like, have adopted a more casual dress sense since the days when no man in London would be allowed to live if he was seen wearing brown shoes in the city during the week or to be seen without a hat and cane. Dress-down Fridays are now the norm, although I have noticed how people often look exactly the same on a Friday, as if Thomas Pink shirts, Dockers’ trousers and loafers are as much a uniform as the old products of Saville Row.
Anyway, in these times when scruffiness is in vogue, perhaps we need a new Brummell to ensure that the movers and shakers of global capitalism dress to do justice to the noble calling of making enormous amounts of money. London is a great town, whatever its faults, so perhaps we should do it the honour of dressing accordingly.
On the subject of the Regency period and the characters of that time, Paul Johnson’s book is definitely worth checking out.
As I recall, he was also responsible for the deplorable custom of having gentlemen appear in public on formal occasions without swords. I cannot forgive him for this. At the very least, he should have allowed us to substitute pistols.
For a truly entertaining survey of Regency England and Beau Brummel’s place in it: An Elegant Madness.
Jeff, thanks for the link to the book.
Mitch: the Kelly book makes no references to swords, sidearms or the wearing of weapons. It began to decline towards the end of the 18th Century, at least among those not in the serving armed forces. Attitudes towards the wearing of weapons changed not just for reasons of fashion. A sword could be quite cumbersome in walking down a narrow street and sitting down in a coffee house or entering a club. One has to think of the practicality of it, old chap.
Men continued to carry what are called “sword-sticks” for some time during the 19th Century, although these eventually fell out of use and are now banned.
These are thin rapier-like weapons carried inside a cane and of course was made famous by the Steed character in the 60s Avengers TV series. I always thought how cool that was.
I fully appreciate the utility of dress as a signaling mechanism for attitudes and success.
But does formal attire need to be so silly and impractical? I believe THAT is what is driving the race toward “scruffiness”. The obvious ridiculousness of formal attire engenders disrespect in individualistic thinkers, even while orur emotional buttons are being pushed. The cognitive dissonance is nearly painful.
Fashion sense is emotional. Rational thinkers and those who want to be seen as rational reject formality because of this.
So in those times the nuveau-riche set the fashion trends ? How different from our times, when “rich” is considered a filthy word, due to Marxism. The new trend in casual dressing is maybe influenced by the same ideology – trying to look like proles.
Also, there is a general trend in culture and the arts, of moving away from style and beauty, and towards the messy, absurd and ugly.
We have a swordstick at my mum’s house Jonathan.
It was my grandfather’s. He was born in 1870.
I seem to remember seeing a similar plaque in Bath saying good ol Beau lived here. But then there’s a plaque to everyone who was anyone in the 18th century and later in Bath, given that it was the Lourdes/Las Vegas of it’s day.
I must say though that what he is wearing in the illustration, doesn’t look much like a prototype for the 3 piece whistle and flute to me!
It wouldn’t be in the least surprising if social mobility was higher in Regency England than it is now.
After all, they had no state education or state-controlled social housing to keep the poor in their places.
The classic suit is not impractical at all during most weather, except in very hot climes. Of course styles vary and in some walks of life, suits are obviously not very sensible to wear.
You may have a point, but I think you miss something as well. When Brummell encouraged the wearing of dark suits, clean, simple lines and so forth, he was in fact moving away from the very flamboyant styles of his predecessors. Wigs were out. Natural hair, cut short, was in.
I also think that wearing a suit is practical as well as smart. I like the fact that I have pockets to put things in, and that I have a sense of confidence in going out and meeting people. With suits, you know what to expect. The “rules” of fashion can be arbritrary and even downright silly, but there is also a sort of utility; it is a bit like language in that it gives a certain structure to life.
My wife loves the chance to go to a function where the guys are in black tie and the women are dressed up. I personally detested Gordon Brown for refusing to turn up at the Mansion House in white tie and tails. That act, while presented as behaviour from a Scottish socialist, in fact was the opposite – an arrogant piece of inverted snobbery and one-upmanship. I distrusted him ever since.
I actually prefer a suit for many reasons; it is practical with enough pockets for my immediate needs so I don’t need a “manbag” (horrible portmanteau word), I can take it off when I get home, thus distancing myself form work (when I used to work from I wore a suit so the kids knew “daddy’s at work”, and did not disturb me), it saves thought first thing when I’m deciding what to wear.
As a slaphead, I also regularly wear hats; homburg or fedora with a suit and overcoat, flat cap with more casual dress and baseball cap with jeans.
They seek him here, they seek him there,
His clothes are loud, but never square.
It will make or break him so he’s got to buy the best,
Cause he’s a dedicated follower of fashion.
Ray Davies has seemed to muddle the Scarlet Pimpernel and Beau Brummell in his lyric, but the essence and period are right.
The 60s were a Beau Brummell period where class mobility was down to Talent style and flair.Not the class you were born into.
David Bailey alongside Lord Lichfield etc. Like the 18th century of Beau. Those that could did and more importantly were allowed to.
Not so now. Under Nulab social mobility and the recognition of raw talent is at a standstill.
Jacob- the trend of elites and their middle-class wannabes aping the proles is at least as old as Marie Antoinette’s Petit Hameau. The Rousseauian (Nostalgie de la boue) is an ancient concept.
One interesting thing about Brummel’s idea of fashion is that it is now distinctly opposed to the idea of “bling” so prevalent in hiphop and chav culture. The vulgar display of wealth in the form of jewel encrusted watches, gold tooth caps, and fur coats for men is nothing less than an inversion of Nostalgie de la boue. It is the realization of the uneducated and uncultured’s childlike idea of what being rich looks like.
The result is that one now sees actual rich people like Paris Hilton dressing in a manner that was created by poor people trying to imagine themselves as rich people. Contrast this with how actual rich people (Bill Gates, Warren Buffett) dress.
Jacob says: “there is a general trend in culture and the arts, of moving away from style and beauty, and towards the messy, absurd and ugly.”
That’s an old trend, since at least the start of the 20th century, and I believe the tide is turning.
I’ve been seeing more hats in the street here in Reading, UK – not baseball or bobble hats, but the proper Film Noir sort with a brim, such as a class warrior would scorn to wear. I wonder if it indicates a cultural drift?
Spot on, Jeff! For Brummel, clothes were never to attract attention, but make you look splendidly casual.
I remember the anecdote, when a guest in a party praised his tie. He thanked him, waited and then, threw it away as he mused: This won’t do…
I’ve never seen this color “Thomas Pink.”
Does Patagonia offer any of its fleece in that color? It sounds very daring…maybe some “Thomas Pink” and “Rainier Red” would be ooh la la.
I’ve never seen this color “Thomas Pink.”
Does Patagonia offer any of its fleece in that color? It sounds very daring…maybe some “Thomas Pink” bordered by “Rainier Red” would be ooh la la.
Seattle Man: Thomas Pink is a manufacturer of shirts and ties common in the UK. I do not know if its products are sold in the States.
“I also think that wearing a suit is practical as well as smart. I like the fact that I have pockets to put things in, and that I have a sense of confidence in going out and meeting people. With suits, you know what to expect. The “rules” of fashion can be arbritrary and even downright silly, but there is also a sort of utility; it is a bit like language in that it gives a certain structure to life.”
Where I find suits confining and annoying. I prefer a t-shirt and cargo pants.
That sense of confidence comes from societal signaling, not anything inherent in the suit’s design. Some subcultures find onfidence in gang tattoos or gold-capped teeth.
You’re absolutley right that it is like a form of language. presentation communciates certain attitudes non-verbally. These attitudes and signals are set by cutsom, not necessarily rationally. Like anything, it can be taken too far.
The only utility I can find in wearing a suit is the non-verbal communication of social status.
“The sense of confidence comes from social signalling, not anything inherent in the suits design.”
Ben Elton in a suit
Cary Grant in a suit.
Need I say more?
As far as I know the last Prime Minister to regularly carry a sword stick was Lord Palmerston (up to his death, at the age of 80, in 1865). However, later Prime Minister’s may have done so.
Winston Churchill sometimes carried a pistol – and long before World War II. He had made many enemies in his political life and so sometimes carried a pistol even as an ordinary British subject in periods of the 1920’s and 1930’s.
Of course Churchill was very much a Victorian (born in 1874) and up till after the First World War it was quite lawful for a British person to own and carry a firearm if they so wished.
As for B.B. – I once heard a story that he was he who made wigs unfashionable. If so this was an (unintentional) good thing for the health of many men – as the powder used to make the wigs white contained arsenic.
For example, George III had porphyria – but his attacks were set off by the build up of arenic in his body. It is true that some of the pills and potions that the doctors insisted he take contained arsenic, but the original build up came from wig powder. Over the years every time he worn a wig for a formal occasion he was expossing himself to the poison that would one day set off his attacks.
Of course judges and lawyers continued to wear wigs in the 19th century. I wonder when (indeed if) the powder stopped being used.
Certainly the fashion for wigs to be very white no longer exists. Legal wigs start off white (when they are new) but lawyers do not like to be seen in a white wig (as it implies that they have little experience) – hence the trade in second (or more) hand wigs for court use.
Well my having had experience of the rancid nasty things in the legal context, you are the man to ask this Paul.
Why on earth were wigs ever fashionable in the first place?
Was there a plague of alopecia in the 18th century or what?
I know people (even the Quality) didn’t wash much then, and were half pissed all the time because you couldn’t drink the water, but that’s no reason for something so stupid and uncomfortable to last so long!
RAB, I don’t have the full answer but one reason was that for many people, it was considered more hygienic to cut off natural hair completely and wear a wig. Head-lice and other nasty skin conditions were common for women and men. In the evenings, a person would take the wig off, clean it and put on a small cap (rather funky!). Many people had sexually transmitted diseases, vestiges of smallpox and other horrors that scarred the face and head. Wigs, if they were kept fairly clean, were seen as a way to look smart and cover up some problems.
What Brummell did was to get rid of the wig and also push the whole habit of washing every day in a bath. This was still considered radical even by those wealthy enough to afford servants who could convey tubs of hot water. Instead of wearing expensive and pungent perfumes, Brummell popularised bathing. It caught on among the rich and then into the wider population.
In many ways the early years of the 19th century set the habits not just of dress, but of things like interior design, bathrooms, the fashion for exercise, etc. that is still around today.
Reading the final chapters of Brummell’s life was a distressing experience. Anyone who ever makes a comment questioning modern technology or science should read about how he died, and then give up a prayer for the people who gave us things like antibiotics, innoculation against disease, etc. His death was terrible.
Thank you Johnathan. We tend to forget how appalling people’s health was right up to the 20th century.
Presumably wigs were also an indicator of social standing, being expensive items. The poor would be wigless.
The popularity of Bath Spa must have been a big factor in changing personal hygene habits. Taking the waters by day and partying and gambling all night.
Good for Beau! I shall read the book.. but I’m not looking forward to the ending.