This question is apropos of a notable scene in the film Cromwell where, on 4 January 1642, Charles I attempts to dissolve Parliament:
One thing that struck me about the scene is that pretty much everyone is wearing a hat indoors. I suspect that this aspect of the scene is historically accurate, or at least informed by historical portraiture, as it’s very easy to find contemporary engravings of the 17th-century English Parliament where everyone is similarly hatted.
So my questions are as follows:
Is it true that hats were worn in Parliament in the 17th century?
If so, was Parliament the only place hats were worn indoors, or was it common to wear them in most indoor places?
If wearing hats indoors was commonplace in the 17th century in the English-speaking world, then when did it come to be seen as rude to do so?
Does that movie also have the scene a few years later when Cromwell, in turn, brought armed men into the House of Commons, dragged the Speaker forcibly from his seat, and dissolved Parliament himself?
“You are no Parliament! I say you are no Parliament! … In the name of God, go! … Take away that fools’ bauble! [the Mace]”.
Cromwell then set up Barebone’s Parliament instead (named after the Honourable Member for the City of London, Praise-God Barebone). But that didn’t work out. He had swopped a parliament of ‘knaves’ for one of ‘fools’.
So he made himself Lord Protector instead, a dictator instead of a king.
To answer your question, it depended on the circumstances.
It seems that keeping your hat on was a matter of showing your importance or official position.
Samuel Pepys sitting on a government committee (17 January 1664/65):
… here it was mighty strange methought to find myself sit here in Committee with my hat on, while Mr. Sherwin stood bare as a clerke, with his hat off to his Lord Ashly and the rest, but I thank God I think myself never a whit the better man for all that.
On the other hand (20 October 1661):
…up to dinner and much offended in mind at a proud trick my man Will hath got, to keep his hat on in the house, but I will not speak of it to him to-day; but I fear I shall be troubled with his pride and laziness, though in other things he is good enough.
You can look for other entries in Pepys’ Diary here for yourself.
I don’t know what etiquette applied in this specific situation, but Miss Manners in writing about hats said specifically that men should not wear hats in a dwelling, i.e., someone’s home. There are other public spaces even though indoors where the rule would not apply.
I also don’t know about the customs in Parliament in those days but without context that could look like an orthodox religion’s church. Perhaps piousness somehow came into play in that situation.
I always assumed the etiquette in the US stemmed from the rules men learned in the military: covers off indoors (with specific exceptions) and you salute a superior when under cover as a sign of respect, which morphed into tipping your hat.
True, but it seems that legislative buildings are not one of them, as I don’t recall seeing any Miss Manners–era photographs of sitting congressmen in hats. (Of course, hats were already out of style by the time she began writing her advice column, but even earlier in her lifetime, when people actually did wear hats, I don’t think senators and representatives were wearing them in the Capitol.)
If that’s the same movie I saw years ago after Cromwell dismisses the Parliament, one of the parliamentarians notes: “We killed a King for that” (with the implication of course being “and you’re no king”).
Like may things in England, it seems like it was a class thing. You’re supposed to remove your hat in the presence of your social superiors, as a sign of deference. Oliver Cromwell, obviously, didn’t recognize anyone as his superior other than God, and as for Parliament, I guess no-one wanted to be the first man to take his hat off.
Hats were regularly worn indoors, the obvious exception being in church. But this depended on rank. Social inferiors were expected to remove their hats in the presence of superiors. Hence, the famous story about Charles II removing his hat when William Penn refused to take off his, on the grounds that by custom only one man should keep his hat on. For all its multitude of inaccuracies, that scene from the Cromwell film picks up on this. The MPs stand and remove their hats when the King enters. Except Cromwell.
I think ??? that at the time when it was abolished, the point of the hat was that nobody else was wearing one. The hat was the visible signal (in what was a large and noisy chamber), that the wearer was raising a point of order (signalling to the speaker/chair)
I can’t find any citations, but aren’t there games or other situations where the hat is used as the token?
As with the language you use, the way in which
you dress should also demonstrate respect for the
House and for its central position in the life of the
nation. There is no exact dress code: usual business
dress is suggested as a guide. Jeans, T-shirts, sandals
and trainers are not appropriate. It is no longer a
requirement for men to wear a tie, but jackets
should be worn.
I suppose this really leaves it up to the Speaker’s judgment—if they consider wearing a hat in the chamber to be disrespectful, the MP in question won’t get called on to speak and/or will be asked to leave. I doubt the issue has ever come up in recent decades.
Oh, and it seems as though the rules concerning hats were at one point quite complicated. According to one MP from 1900, quoted in the House of Commons Information Office’s “Some Traditions and Customs of the House”,
At all times remove your hat on entering the House, and put it on upon taking your seat; and remove it again on rising for whatever purpose. If the MP asks a question he will stand, and with his hat off; and he may receive the answer of the Minister seated and with his hat on. If on a division he should have to challenge the ruling of the chair, he will sit and put his hat on. If he wishes to address the Speaker on a point of order not connected with a division, he will do so standing with his hat off. When he leaves the House to participate in a division he will take his hat off, but will vote with it on. If the Queen sends a message to be read from the chair, the Member will uncover. In short, how to take his seat, how to behave at prayers, and what to do with his hat, form between them the ABC of the parliamentary scholar.
Catholic women wore supposed to wear hats to church until 1983 but not men. As a kid a woman must have forgotten her hat so she put tissue on her head. That was one rare example where Pope JP 2 relaxed a rule.
Ophelia was horrified when Hamlet came into her room without a hat.
“My lord, as I was sewing in my closet, Lord Hamlet, with his doublet all unbrac’d No hat upon his head, his stockings foul’d Ungarter’d and down-gyved to his ankle…”
Admittedly the lack of a hat wasn’t the only concerning aspect, but she obviously thought it worth mentioning.
The hat is more of an American thing. Women were required to cover their heads but in the Ireland of my youth they normally wore a scarf. In many Catholic countries a mantilla is the normal head covering, and I noticed that Japanese Catholic women were still wearing mantillas in church as recently as 10 years ago.
I wonder if perhaps it’s more of an English/Protestant influence, as against a continental thing? As I recall, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Amish (both of which had German rather than English roots) both tended towards scarfs.
Presbyterian church in Australia was definitely a Sunday-go-meeting hat rather than a scarf. (without the American phrase)
1983, really? I thought it was a Vatican II thing. My earliest memories of church (Roman Catholic) start around 1979-1980 and I don’t recall my mother wearing a hat to mass (nor do I remember them being common amongst the other adult ladies). Perhaps my parish more liberal than others.
