From courtroom standoffs to tense encounters with highway robbers, hats in early modern England meant much more than simple fashion. New research has revealed that what people wear on their heads can indicate loyalty, rebelliousness, status, and even personal safety.
Nowadays, whether or not to wear a hat is a personal decision. However, about 400 years ago, there were strict social rules regarding “hats” and removing one was expected to be a sign of respect. A study published in The Historical Journal (Cambridge University Press) found that refusing to remove a hat (or “doffing”) can be a deliberate and visible act of protest.
One striking example occurred in 1630, when an outspoken oatmeal maker was brought before England’s highest ecclesiastical court. After being told that some of the judges were also privy councillors, he took off his hat for a moment in gratitude. However, he quickly put it back on and declared, “Since you are privy councilors…I have taken off my hat. I have taken off my hat.” But ye (bishops) are the rags of the beast, behold! –I put it on again.”
This kind of behavior became even more common during the turbulent reign of Charles I. As political tensions rose, refusing to remove the hat evolved into a widely recognized gesture of defiance, especially during the English Civil War.
From social customs to political protests
Historian Bernard Capp, professor emeritus at the University of Warwick, explains that hat etiquette once reinforced social hierarchies. “Long before the civil war, men and boys were expected to remove their hats whenever they met their superiors, whether indoors or outdoors,” he says. “It was about respecting one’s place in society, but in the revolutionary 1640s and 1650s, the honor of the hat became a real expression of defiance in the political realm.”
Prominent figures have used this law to make powerful statements. In 1646, the radical leveler John Lilburne, who had been imprisoned at Newgate, prepared to appear in the House of Lords, determined to “enter with a hat on my head, and stop my ears when my charges are read to me with disgust.” A few years later, in 1649, Digger leaders William Everard and Gerard Winstanley refused to take off their hats when brought before General Fairfax, insisting that they were “only fellow creatures”. Others, including Wentworth Day, the fifth monarchist, followed suit in later prosecutions.
The gesture crossed political lines. After losing power, the royalists also used it to signal resistance. Charles I himself kept his hat on during his trial in January 1649, rejecting the authority of the court. Similarly, when the Earl of Peterborough’s son was tried for treason in 1658, he refused to take off his hat or plead.
Sometimes the elite used hat etiquette backwards. Some Royalist leaders, including Lord Capel, removed their hats before their executions as a calculated appeal to the crowd. “This was a kind of populist political gesture, essentially inviting moral support from the crowd,” Capp explained.
Father’s unusual punishment
Not all disputes related to hats took place in public. Professor Capp will focus on a domestic revelation involving Thomas Elwood and his father in 1659. A father tries to control his 19-year-old son by confiscating all his hats.
Elwood later recalled: “If I wasn’t running around the country bareheaded like a madman, I would still be in a kind of captivity.” Due to the social stigma of going out without a hat on, he remained virtually confined to his home. His repeated interactions with Quakers, who were known to refuse to take off their hats, had already caused family strife and even corporal punishment.
Ellwood’s Memoirs, published in 1714, shows how deeply ingrained these norms were. Mr. Cap says: “It makes no sense to us today. But in 1659, father and son thought this was common sense. Thomas couldn’t leave the house without a hat; wearing one would bring too much shame on himself and his family.”
The reason why hat removal has declined
Some historians have suggested that increased handshakes replaced hat removal, but Capp disagrees. “The handshake evolved very slowly as a way of greeting and had nothing to do with hat honor as a sign of respect,” he says.
Rather, several factors may have contributed to this change. Social manners gradually became less formal. Wigs also grew in popularity, and hats became less important. In crowded cities, it may no longer be practical to always take off your hat. As Capp says, “practices change gradually over generations and usually have multiple causal relationships.”
Hats as protection and social necessity
Even after political tensions eased in the 18th century, hats continued to be highly valued. Old Bailey court records show that people often prioritized hats over money during robberies.
In 1718, William Seabrook was robbed by thieves on Finchley Common and lost about 15 pounds. When they took his hat, he begged for it back, but the robbers eventually threw it back. According to the record, “They also took away his hat, and then he begged them not to take it away and send him home without his head.” Then they threw his hat on the road and left it there. ”
Capp suggested there may have been an informal understanding between the robber and the victim. “There seemed to be an unspoken convention that if victims were willing to surrender their valuables, they would receive at least a small benefit,” he says.
Health concerns also played a role. Many men wore wigs with shaved heads, making them more vulnerable to the cold. Medical advice at the time emphasized the importance of keeping your head warm and warned that going out without a hat could lead to illness.
The events of 1733 clearly demonstrate this. Francis Peters handed over his valuables after he was robbed at gunpoint, but the thief protested, “Don’t take my hat and wig,” insisting that “it is highly unusual for a professional man to take such items, and it is so cold that it might harm my health.” The thief ignored him, but later apologized when confronted in prison.
The social meaning of being bareheaded
In 18th century England, showing up without a hat had serious social consequences. It was often associated with extreme poverty and mental instability. As a result, people were very concerned about being seen bareheaded, especially in legal situations.
Cap says, “Even in London’s seedy underworld, hats felt essential.” When Thomas Ruby was tried for robbery in 1741, he “vehemently begged” to have his hat returned, explaining that he “had nothing to wear.”
The importance of hats went beyond practicality. Cap concluded: “What you wear says something about how you see yourself and the world, and hats are very eloquent because they are so versatile. You can position them in many different ways, take them off, swing them around, and add a message.”
