Thread by @dieworkwear

Very fair critique. I shouldn't be comparing the dress of different social classes. I should also note that I don't actually think the suit's rise is purely about British imperialism (that's too simple), but rather forces later described as liberalism. 🧵

https://twitter.com/KKriegeBlog/status/1855029668652413160

The elaborate dress you see on monarchs in portraits was a talisman for power. The point was to create an otherworldly image and convey a powerful, imposing presence, which helped legitimize both their role on the throne and the institution of monarchy itself.

But as you enter the 1600s, you see more people across England oppose absolute monarchy. Instead, they support constitutional monarchism, parliamentary government, and Protestantism. The royals were increasingly seen as clumsy, corrupt, and vice-loving.

After the execution of Charles I, the British monarchy learned that, in order to maintain power, they would have to exhibit more humility. Charles II opted to wear a more modest coat with his britches, instead of the traditional and more ornate doublet.

Queen Victoria, who was very much interested in clothes, understood the importance of looking modest. In a letter to her son, Edward VII, she once wrote:

To me, it's remarkable when you compare how British monarchs dressed centuries ago and how they dress now. King Charles wears patched up suits and shoes (ironically now a sign of Old Money status); Prince William sometimes looks like your average middle-class dad.

Someone did a thread on here once about the influence of Beau Brummell, who's often credited with giving us modern ideas about men's style. He famously said "If John Bull turns around to look at you, you are not well dressed; but either too stiff, too tight, or too fashionable."

Brummell was the prototypical dandy, a word that means someone who wears elaborate dress today but back then, was someone who advocated for simplicity. This was opposed to the more elaborate fop. Brummell believed in cut rather than color, and the appearance of effortlessness.

In that thread, the person credited Brummell with having pushed men's dress towards the "boring." But I'm always skeptical of theories that center on grand figures. IMO, there are often structural forces—institutions, economics, reshaping of power—that allow that rise.

Brummell's rise came during a period marked by the industrial revolution, rise of merchant class, continuation of parliamentary sovereignty, and embedding of Protestant values in political and social life. In that context, it's not surprising to me that Brummell became popular.

IMO, these same forces help explain the political, economic, and dress developments in France and the United States. It's not surprising that dress became less elaborate when monarchs are getting beheaded and there's an industrial revolution in the background.

So while I think the suit, as a specific garment, spread around the world partly because of British imperialism, I think there were already forces at play that pushed dress towards the simple. Monarchs started dressing down; merchant class attire became popular.

To end, the photos in my original thread were not from eBay but rather the Met Museum. They are original pieces from that period. There are a ton of eBay scammers nowadays using photos from the net to sell bad imitations of what they promise to deliver.

metmuseum.org/art/collection…

In any case, I really enjoyed this back-and-forth and welcome any further corrections or thoughts from Alex or others.