From standoffs at court to tense encounters with highway robbers, hats in early modern England held far more meaning than simple fashion. New research suggests that what people wear on their heads can signal loyalty, rebellion, status, and even personal safety.
Today, whether to wear a hat or not is a personal decision. But about 400 years ago, strict social rules governed “hat etiquette” and removing a hat as a sign of respect was expected. According to a study published in The Historical Journal (Cambridge University Press), refusing to take off a hat can be a deliberate and highly visible act of protest.
A notable example dates from 1630, when an outspoken porridge maker was brought to the highest Church of England court. After it was pointed out that some of the judges were also Privy Counsellors, he briefly took off his hat in acknowledgement. But he immediately put it back on and announced, ‘Since you are a Privy Counsellor… I take off my hat; but like you [bishops] These are animal rags, here! — I wore it again’.
This type of behavior became more common during the turbulent reign of Charles I. As political tensions increased, refusing to take off one’s hat developed into a widely recognized sign of defiance, particularly during the English Civil War.
From social customs to political protest
Historian Bernard Capp, emeritus professor at the University of Warwick, explains that cap etiquette once reinforced social hierarchies. He says, “Long before the Civil Wars, men and boys were expected to take off their hats whenever they met a superior, indoors or out.” “It was about respecting your place in society, but in the revolutionary 1640s and 1650s, hat-respect became a de facto sign of defiance in the political arena.”
Prominent personalities used this act to make powerful statements. In 1646, the radical Leveler John Lilburne, imprisoned in Newgate, prepared to appear before the House of Lords with a vow to ‘come with a hat on my head, and stop my ears when they read my charge, with contempt’. A few years later, in 1649, the Digger leaders William Everard and Gerard Winstanley refused to remove their hats when brought before General Fairfax, insisting that he was ‘but their fellow creature’. Others, including the Fifth Monarchist Wentworth Day, followed in subsequent prosecutions.
This gesture crossed political boundaries. After losing power, royalists also used it to signal resistance. Charles I himself retained his hat during his trial in January 1649, rejecting the authority of the court. Similarly, when tried for treason in 1658 the Earl of Peterborough’s son refused to take off his hat and plead guilty.
Sometimes, elite people used hat etiquette in reverse. Some royalist leaders, including Lord Capel, removed their hats before the execution as a deliberate appeal to the crowd. As Capp explains, “It was a kind of populist political gesture, essentially inviting the moral support of the crowd.”
A father’s unique punishment
Not all cap-related conflicts are played out in public arenas. Professor Capp highlights a revealing domestic story involving Thomas Ellwood and his father in 1659. In an attempt to control his 19-year-old son, the father confiscates all of his hats.
Ellwood later recalled: ‘I was still in a kind of captivity, until I ran through the country bare-headed like a madman.’ Since going without a hat carried social stigma, he was effectively confined to the house. His frequent associations with Quakers, who were known for refusing to take off their hats, had already led to family disputes and even corporal punishment.
Ellwood’s memoir, published in 1714, shows how deeply entrenched these norms were. As Cap says, “It means nothing to us today. But in 1659, father and son saw it as simply common sense. Thomas could not leave the house without a cap – it would have caused him and his family great embarrassment.”
Why did hat-doffing decline?
Some historians have suggested that handshakes have replaced hat-doping, but Capp disagrees. “The handshake as a form of greeting developed very slowly and had nothing to do with hat-honoring as a sign of respect,” he says.
Instead, several factors probably contributed to the change. Social etiquette gradually became less formal. Wigs also became more popular, reducing the importance of hats. In crowded cities, it may be impractical to constantly take off your hat. As Capp says, “Assumptions change slowly across generations and are usually multi-causal.”
Hats as a safety and social necessity
Even after political tensions subsided in the 18th century, hats remained of great importance. Court records from the Old Bailey show that people often prioritized their hats over money during robberies.
In 1718, William Seabrook was attacked by thieves on Finchley Common and lost about £15. When they took his hat, he pleaded for it to be returned and eventually the robbers threw it back. According to the record, ‘They also took away his hat, upon which he begged them not to take away his hat and not to let him go home bare headed; Then they threw his cap on the road and left him.’
Cap suggests that there may have been an informal understanding between the robbers and the victims. He says, “There seems to have been an unwritten tradition that if victims politely handed over their valuables, they were entitled to at least a small favor.”
Health concerns also played a role. Many men wore wigs over shaved heads, making them more sensitive to cold weather. Medical advice at the time stressed the importance of keeping the head warm, warning that going outside without a hat could lead to illness.
A case from 1733 illustrates this clearly. After being robbed at gunpoint, Francis Peters handed over his valuables, but protested when the thief ‘did not take my hat and wig’, arguing that ‘it was very unusual for men of their profession to take such things, and it being very cold it might endanger my health.’ The thief ignored him, although he later apologized when confronted in prison.
Social meaning of being bare headed
In 18th-century England, appearing without a hat carried serious social consequences. It was often associated with extreme poverty or mental instability. As a result, people, especially in legal settings, were very concerned about being seen bareheaded.
“Even in London’s dirty underworld, a cap felt necessary,” Capp says. When Thomas Ruby was prosecuted for theft in 1741, he ‘begged much’ to have his hat back, ‘for he had nothing to wear’.
The importance of hats went beyond practicality. As Cap concludes, “What you wear says something about how you see yourself and the world. And the hat is so great because it’s so versatile – you can put it on so many ways, take it off, move it around, and attach messages to it.”