What do you think is wrong with them? I think they’re really interesting and surely a great record for anyone looking back at how they were to have different angles when all we had was drawings.
As someone who interacts with people wearing legal wigs on a semi-regular basis, it is very interesting to see the origins of wig wearing in the UK and the reduction in size over time. I love to see these sort of historical fashions; it shows both that people over time are very similar to us, but also, at least cosmetically, very different.
Somehow, I find legal wigs shocking. It feels like a reductio ad absurdum and makes whole legal system seem less legitimate. The disingenuous way they wear them make it even worse.
There's something Asimovian about the British legal system.
I get that tldr in principle. You can definitely go too far. At some point in the bizarreness scale, uniforms do the opposite. Makes it seem like these people probably don't know what they're doing.
Still in England, think of queens guards. Those red bear hat uniforms make them seem like silly tourist attractions that you can tickle for a selfie, not professional soldiers that you shouldn't mess with. In that case, maybe that's OK. For barristers, that's not what you want.
There's a case for uniforms, but it's doesn't extend indefinitely.
My take on legal wigs, as an ex-barrister, is that they are an anachronistic historical decoration. They mean nothing, they are not "Asimovian" or other twaddle like that. They are the vestiages of Office that were never modernised, nor was there any good reason to do so other than a desire to appear modern. Those who use the Bar would understand that the competence, or otherwise, of barristers was unrelated to whether or not they wore a clump of horse-hair on their head. I never minded, and quite liked, it as it separated us from other lesser legal wamabees like solicitor advocates.
There is a good Netflix series called Thieves Of The Wood that has a subplot about a social climber trying to "get his wig" (a symbol of the office he aspires to). Some very cool wigs. Takes place in 18th century Belgium.
> To my Lord’s by land, calling at several places about business, where I dined with my Lord and Lady; when he was very merry, and did talk very high how he would have a French cook, and a master of his horse, and his lady and child to wear black patches;
And [1]
> But my wife standing near her with two or three black patches on, and well dressed, did seem to me much handsomer than she.
I wonder why we don’t see more of this these days. Closest I can think of if Nelly with the band-aid.
14 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 44.1 ms ] threadThere's something Asimovian about the British legal system.
tl;dr it's argued that having a recognisable uniform, no matter how bizarre, levels the playing field and provides a sense of professionalism.
Still in England, think of queens guards. Those red bear hat uniforms make them seem like silly tourist attractions that you can tickle for a selfie, not professional soldiers that you shouldn't mess with. In that case, maybe that's OK. For barristers, that's not what you want.
There's a case for uniforms, but it's doesn't extend indefinitely.
A black toga[1] is traditionally worn in Dutch court cases by all the legal masters, but it does look rather stylish.
[1]: https://www.win-nieuws.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Student...
For example from 1660 [0]:
> To my Lord’s by land, calling at several places about business, where I dined with my Lord and Lady; when he was very merry, and did talk very high how he would have a French cook, and a master of his horse, and his lady and child to wear black patches;
And [1]
> But my wife standing near her with two or three black patches on, and well dressed, did seem to me much handsomer than she.
I wonder why we don’t see more of this these days. Closest I can think of if Nelly with the band-aid.
[0] https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1660/10/20/
[1] https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary/1660/11/22/