Bright Young Things discussion

I'm reading Thrones, Dominations by Dorothy L. Sayers and Jill Paton Walsh at the moment, where the nation is mourning the death of King George V in 1936. There is much discussion of having to wear black and Harriet goes out to buy several outfits as she will need to wear different things at different times of the day and on different social occasions.

When did this convention of the wearing of black stop, particularly for national mourning? Did it just peter out or happen quite suddenly?

Social customs seem to have changed a lot during the last 50 to 60 years and I wonder if it's all to the good or if any customs we don't follow any more are missed.

Interesting question Ruth. Most of these customs feel quite restrictive and unnecessary but perhaps we've lost something too?

I have no idea when wearing black passed into history. I seem to recall reading that a widow was expecting to wear only black for at least a year after the death of her spouse.

I think society as a whole has loosened up in most areas. I'm glad it has because I'm a disaster if you try and smarten me up but I do wish people in certain positions would remain sober and old fashioned. I'm thinking of politicians taking selfies and suchlike. I don't think the countries leaders should be cool and relaxed, I want them sensible and vaguely embarrassed about anything remotely "happening".
Wearing mourning for a year is pushing it but I do think modern life loses so much through being so laid back and we've tended to become thoughtless of others as a consequence.
But hey don't listen to me, I'm a frankly useless modern man!

I don't know for sure (I want to research this now!), but my guess would be during/after WWII. Casual dress started as early as the 20s and 30s, but really took off during and after the war when women went to factories or were working the land and had different dress codes, men coming back were used to different sorts of clothes, etc. I could see mourning dress/black being a part of this shift too.

I'm a bit like CQM, I'm hopeless at dressing up so I'm glad we don't have some of the rules we had, but I do think not dressing up has trickled into other aspects of life that are more casual now as well. Whether or not that's a good thing, I don't know...

Doing some quick research... I don't know how great these sources are, but it's something...

This says that after WWII ready-to-wear just didn't focus on mourning: http://fashion-history.lovetoknow.com...

This Miss Manners column suggests some of it was with WWI when there was just so much death: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/20...

This says it began to go away in the 20s: https://bellatory.com/fashion-industr...

The 20s sounds about right for the start of people becoming more relaxed. WW1 changed a lot of attitudes, as we know, and Queen Victoria's death also ended an era of great formality.

Talking of Victoria, and wearing black, when her husband Prince Albert died in December 1861, Victoria went into a deep depression, and she stayed in seclusion for many years, rarely appearing in public. More significantly for Ruth's earlier point, she mourned him by wearing black for the remaining 40 years of her life!

An interesting article here...
http://www.historyextra.com/article/s...

CQM wrote: "I think society as a whole has loosened up in most areas. I'm glad it has because I'm a disaster if you try and smarten me up but I do wish people in certain positions would remain sober and old fa..."

I'm the same CQM, I never dress smartly and don't have any formal clothes. But I have a sort of nostalgia for things like men wearing hats, or dressing up for dinner.

Bronwyn wrote: "I don't know for sure (I want to research this now!), but my guess would be during/after WWII. Casual dress started as early as the 20s and 30s, but really took off during and after the war when wo..."

I would have guessed at after WWII, Bronwyn. But I think all your references together show that the 20th century saw a gradual relaxation of formal customs which were sometimes somewhat accelerated by the two world wars.

Ruth wrote: "Bronwyn wrote: "I don't know for sure (I want to research this now!), but my guess would be during/after WWII. Casual dress started as early as the 20s and 30s, but really took off during and after..."

Agreed. I'm wondering if part of it isn't possible backlash (for lack of a better word) against the Victorian era and all its rules and strictures. Once Victoria died, all those customs could be let up a bit. Edward was quite the change from what I've read. Add in the Great War soon after, and then WWII, it probably just sort of snowballed, getting rid of all the trappings of old customs.

I know that in more conservative circles it is still common to wear black for a funeral. However, I'm wondering if there was a difference between the US and the UK as far as wearing black when an important figure died. Was it ever the custom for everyone to wear black in the US when say a president died? If not, could the difference be because we don't have kings and queens but only elected officials?

I also think we lost something when we relaxed our style of dress so much. I've actually felt sorry for the girls of my daughters generation. The guys looked like they just rolled out of bed in their grubbiest clothes and the pants down below the belt is just ridiculous. And I wish we had more occasions to "dress up special". Makes an occasion more festive.

I would also say that a lot of people have lost a lot of money because they don't know how to dress for the image they want to portray. Many don't even consider the image they portray and that can cost you a lot in the job market. In the 80's you still heard a lot about dressing for success and people knew how to dress for the job they wanted. Now all many seem to care about is comfort. They don't realize the power clothes have to portray power, authority or openness and friendliness. I say this from my experience in image consulting. Means money for me but it's sad how much in income and opportunities people lose because they don't know how to dress.

But that is all perception. If a "comfort" person meets with another "comfort" person they connect and the relationship may prosper for that very initial reason. A "comfort" person in power (eg. ceo) meeting a "suit" person may not connect as well. But would not a wise human being ignore the clothes in the first place?

We are all hard wired to make judgments about other people within the first few seconds we meet them. This is part of our survival instinct. We can try to look past how a person is dressed but it will affect our perception to some extent regardless. As far as my comments about knowing how to dress, I was specifically relating it to the job market. There is a way to dress if you want an executive job. There is a way to dress if you want a human resources job and they are not the same. Your role is different and you want to portray a different image. An executive wants an authoritative look. An HR person wants to be more approachable. Unless you want to stay in a lower paid position, you need to know how to dress for the position you want. Yes, you can dress however you want when your off work but to succeed in your work, your clothes can have a lot to do with how much you succeed.

That's a good question, Lynaia, about UK vs US. I know that at least during the Civil War mourning dress was a thing. But in one of the links I found this morning, it was pointed out that it was out of the ordinary when Jackie Kennedy wore mourning. On wikipedia the entry for North America/US is much shorter than for Great Britain though. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mournin... vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mournin...)

Lynaia wrote: "We are all hard wired to make judgments about other people within the first few seconds we meet them. This is part of our survival instinct. We can try to look past how a person is dressed but it w..."

Yes, but it is such a game. A person that dresses the "right way" and gets the job can then completely shift gear. I.e. how he/she then dresses can be completely different compared to the initial interview. Besides, this goes for all of the interview. It is such a staged performance which is inane IMHO. I.e. there is not necessarily a correlation between the image of the candidate at the interview compared to what will follow.

Haaze wrote: "Lynaia wrote: "We are all hard wired to make judgments about other people within the first few seconds we meet them. This is part of our survival instinct. We can try to look past how a person is d..."

I'm not talking about just dressing for the interview, I'm talking about dressing for the job.

Gotcha!
It feels like being on stage....

Lynaia wrote: "Haaze wrote: "Lynaia wrote: "We are all hard wired to make judgments about other people within the first few seconds we meet them. This is part of our survival instinct. We can try to look past how..."

That is a good way to think about it. You need to dress for your part. There was recently a poll done of HR managers in the US which basically came out saying over 80% of people don't dress properly for their job. Especially among women. These people could be so much more successful in their jobs if they knew the proper way to dress. We used to be taught how to dress but not anymore. People will respond to you differently depending on how you are dressed. Whether this is right or not is beside the point. It's going to happen so why not take advantage of it.

Your comment about being on a stage though was actually part of my training as far as how you think about how you dress. What part are you trying to play? It may be somewhat artificial but it has a lot of power and it works.

When I was in high school in the '60s there was a fairly strict dress code. Not that strict but if it was violated you got sent home to change your clothes. In the '70s I worked for a while in the offices of Marshall Field in Chicago and there was a fairly strict dress code then.

And, when I started at a government law office in the '80s there was kind of a dress code. Then the day came when we had "casual Fridays". And, after a while, we were pretty much casual all the time. Unless, of course, we had appointments with the public or had to be in Court and then it was no more casual but regular work or court clothes. Court clothes being a bit more formal than just regular clothes. Some people kept a set of court clothes in the office and just changed into them when they had to. Others dressed for all day. I think I did both. Sometimes taking an extra set of casual clothes with me in the morning. But this would depend on how many cases were to be called in court or how many appointments were spread throughout the day.

Court clothes were usually gray, black or dark blue.

On the subject of mourning, When I was a young lad When a hearse passed by everybody on the street would puase and remove their hats. Now nobody has a hat to take off...

CQM wrote: "On the subject of mourning, When I was a young lad When a hearse passed by everybody on the street would puase and remove their hats. Now nobody has a hat to take off..."

The non-wearing of hats is a strange one isn't it! Presumably everyone originally wore hats to keep their heads warm, but then they somehow became either a fashion accessory or a mark of someone's status according to the type of hat they wore.

So they've been abandoned because of fashion or class issues - Now we keep our heads warm with non-descript woolly hats and hoodies!

Ruth wrote: "CQM wrote: "On the subject of mourning, When I was a young lad When a hearse passed by everybody on the street would puase and remove their hats. Now nobody has a hat to take off..."

The non-weari..."

My father usually wore a hat. However, my brother would be going out the door and my mother would say to put a hat on. And he'd always say he didn't need one. And he still doesn't wear hats. But my father wore one all his life.

So it may be as simple as that.