SUMPTUARY LEGISLATION
Was very
widespread in the 16th century, and in fact for many was carried
over into the 17th century.
The process was orchestrated by governments mainly to keep people in
their place. So in England you had to
wear a woolly hat if you were an apprentice, if you did not do so you could be
arrested. If you were not at the level
of Knight or Baron, then you could be arrested if you dared to wear purple.
The whole
Idea was to keep a ‘moral line’ so you needed to be able to quickly tell a
milkmaid from a countess, if you did not then the whole of society would
unravel.
For example:
Greenwich,
15 June 1574, 16 Elizabeth I
Wherefore her majesty willeth and
straightly commandeth all manner of persons in all places within 12 days after
the publication of this present proclamation to reform their apparel according
to the tenor of certain articles and clauses taken out of the said statutes and
with some moderations annexed to this proclamation, upon pain of her highness's
indignation, and punishment for their contempts, and such other pains as in the
said several statutes be expressed.
None shall
wear
Any cloth of gold, tissue, nor fur of sables: except duchesses, marquises, and
countesses in their gowns, kirtles, partlets, and sleeves; cloth of gold,
silver, tinseled satin, silk, or cloth mixed or embroidered with gold or silver
or pearl, saving silk mixed with gold or silver in linings of cowls, partlets,
and sleeves: except all degrees above viscountesses, and viscountesses,
baronesses, and other personages of like degrees in their kirtles and sleeves.
Velvet (crimson, carnation); furs (black genets, lucerns); embroidery or
passment lace of gold or silver: except all degrees above mentioned the wives
of knights of the Garter and of the Privy Council, the ladies and gentlewomen
of the privy chamber and bedchamber, and maids of honour.
None shall
wear any velvet in gowns, furs of leopards, embroidery of silk: except the
degrees and persons above mentioned the wives of barons' sons, or of knights.
Cowls,
sleeves, partlets, and linings, trimmed with spangles or pearls of gold,
silver, or pearl; cowls of gold or silver, or of silk mixed with gold or
silver: except the degrees and persons above mentioned; and trimmed with pearl,
none under the degree of baroness or like degrees.
Enameled chains, buttons, aglets, and borders: except the degrees before
mentioned.
Satin, damask, or tufted taffeta in gowns, kirtles, or velvet in kirtles; fur
whereof the kind groweth not within the Queen's dominions, except foins, grey
genets, bodge, and wolf: except the degrees and persons above mentioned, or the
wives of those that may dispend £100 by the year and so valued in the subsidy
book.
Gowns of silk grosgrain, doubled sarcenet, camlet, or taffeta, or kirtles of
satin or damask: except the degrees and persons above mentioned, and the wives
of the sons and heirs of knights, and the daughters of knights, and of such as
may dispend 300 marks by the year so valued ut supra, and the wives of
those that may dispend £40 by the year.
And so on
and so on...
So what
France has tried to do with legislation on Burkini’s and other countries are
trying to do in terms of legislating for dress, particularly woman’s dress is
really nothing new.
It’s all
about control, but let’s be upfront and know that this kind of legislation,
power, instructions, do not just come from the hands of government – religions
also use their power to try and control dress, again I say particularly woman’s
dress. It’s about power, control and I
think male chauvinism. I did read also
that the Burkini had been condemned by religious authority too, as you could
distinguish the outline of the female form – oh help!
Such laws
that control our dress are facile, and actually should be resisted; but let us
not think as has been widely published that the woman are free to chose how
they dress, that too is a facile view. Also do not think that it is just Islam,
or the French government that tries to control such things. My wife comes from a particular Christian group
that also tried to list such laws as to what to wear and particularly what goes
on your head – what is it with female
heads, maybe it’s me but I just don’t get the problem?
Anyway coming from a background of working in
the fashion industry, when I met my wife, and supplied clothes the family
definitely labelled me as the horror that had turned their daughter into
Jezebel, for those who know that meaning.
There’s that moral prerogative again got to keep those morals right and
its woman’s apparel that will do it isn’t it.
So back to
that simplistic statement that the women who want to wear the Burkini should be
free to do so. What does that ‘free’
mean? Now I do meet Muslim woman who
tell me that they wear it out of religious choice. Some maybe are doing so, but I really don’t
think the majority are.
I have travelled to the Middle East many times and
watched groups of giggling young woman on my flight, and just before landing
going to the toilets and coming back to their seat in a full Burka, western
clothes disappearing.
I watched the same
procession in the airport facility too; a lot of young ladies just disappear
and out comes women in black. Are they
free or what?
Let me tell
you a story, I was in Kenya working with some churches, a young 16 year old
helped me with translation, and came around with me. After working with me for a week he turned to
me one day and said Adrian, are you telling me I can be a Christian without
wearing a suit?
I was surprised, saying
I haven’t mentioned clothing, but although I had not mentioned it I had noticed
he was always dressed in a suit and tie, while I was my scruffy self. I then asked him, did your church tell you,
you had to wear a suit, he thought for a bit and then said no. I then said let
me come with you to your church, I did and as I expected I was the only one
without suit and tie. Freedom to wear
what you would like, I am not sure that I would call that freedom.
Of course in many Islamic countries they
would go one step further and you would be at the mercy of the clothing police;
who enforce Islamic dress-codes.
I once went
to visit a house, a young Muslim lady was there having her hair cut, as I
walked in she grabbed her head covering quickly covering her head, I asked in a
long conversation what was the idea of being so covered in the presence of a
male, her answer was well men need protection as they cannot control themselves,
I am sorry but I am insulted, and I think the majority of men would be too (or should
be)
So is it
true that the males have no control? Which if that’s what is believed to be true then of course males have no
responsibility regarding controlling one’s self. It can’t be done!
Again if
that is the belief I am more insulted. What this kind of thinking does it
transfers all responsibility to the woman actually that means those deciding on
the women’s covering are the ones allowing men to shirk the responsibility of
controlling their desires and behaviours. I do not for one minute believe that
men cannot control themselves but I do believe that allowing both men and women
to believe that men are not capable of controlling themselves then the
responsibility for sexual propriety lies solely with the women, making men
innocent of any sexual crime; Which is why I guess raped woman in some countries are then imprisoned for allowing
themselves to be raped. Are we free yet?
So freedom,
most of the time I think not, rather even if only symbolic the male chauvinism
is the controlling power, and I think that control needs to be undermined if
it’s coming from the national government of a country or the religious power
house, it’s wrong.
Not the freedom that I call freedom.
NB.A great book on Fashion if you can
get it is: Fashion and Style By Mike Starkey
ISBN 1854242385
Adrian Hawkes
Adrianhawkes.blogspot.com
W. 1275
Edited by Gena Areola
