People once risked everything just to keep their hats on
Science News
from research organizations
People once risked everything just to keep their hats on
Date:
May 7, 2026
Source:
Cambridge University Press
Summary:
Centuries ago in England, hats weren’t just accessories—they were statements of power and rebellion. Refusing to remove a hat could challenge authority, even in courtrooms and before kings. People valued their hats so deeply that robbery victims sometimes begged to keep them over money. In a world where going bareheaded signaled poverty or madness, hats shaped identity, respect, and even family discipline.
Share:
FULL STORY
In 17th-century England, a hat wasn’t just worn—it could defy authority, protect your reputation, and even keep you out of trouble. Credit: Shutterstock
From courtroom standoffs to tense encounters with highway robbers, hats in early modern England carried far more meaning than simple fashion. New research reveals that what people wore on their heads could signal loyalty, rebellion, status, and even personal safety.
Today, choosing whether to wear a hat is a personal decision. But about 400 years ago, strict social rules governed "hatiquette," and removing a hat was expected as a sign of respect. According to a study published in The Historical Journal (Cambridge University Press), refusing to doff ("do off") a hat could serve as a deliberate and highly visible act of protest.
One striking example comes from 1630, when an outspoken oatmeal maker was brought before England's highest church court. After being told that some of the judges were also privy councillors, he briefly removed his hat in acknowledgment. But he quickly put it back on, declaring, 'as you are privy councillors ... I put off my hat; but as ye [bishops] are rags of the Beast, lo! -- I put it on again'.
This kind of behavior became more common during the turbulent reign of Charles I. As political tensions grew, refusing to remove a hat evolved into a widely recognized gesture of defiance, especially during the English Civil War.
From Social Custom to Political Protest
Historian Bernard Capp, Emeritus Professor at the University of Warwick, explains that hat etiquette once reinforced social hierarchy. "Long before the civil wars, men and boys were expected to doff their hats, indoors or out, whenever they met a superior," he says. "That was about respecting your place in society, but in the revolutionary 1640s and 1650s, hat-honor became a real gesture of defiance in the political sphere."
Prominent figures used this act to make powerful statements. In 1646, the radical Leveller John Lilburne, imprisoned in Newgate, prepared to appear before the House of Lords by resolving to 'come in with my hat upon my head, and to stop my eares when they read my Charge, in detestation'. A few years later, in 1649, Digger leaders William Everard and Gerrard Winstanley refused to remove their hats when brought before General Fairfax, insisting he was 'but their fellow Creature'. Others, including Fifth Monarchist Wentworth Day, followed suit in later prosecutions.
This gesture crossed political lines. After losing power, 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, the earl of Peterborough's son refused both to remove his hat and to enter a plea when tried for treason in 1658.
At times, elites used hat etiquette in reverse. Some royalist leaders, including Lord Capel, removed their hats before execution as a calculated appeal to the crowd. As Capp explains, "This was a sort of populist political gesture, essentially inviting the moral support of the crowd."
A Father's Unusual Punishment
Not all hat-related conflicts played out in public arenas. Professor Capp highlights a revealing domestic story involving Thomas Ellwood and his father in 1659. In an effort to control his 19-year-old son, the father confiscated all of his hats.
Ellwood later recalled: 'I was still under a kind of Confinement, unless I would have run about the Country bare-headed, like a Mad-Man'. Because going without a hat carried social stigma, he effectively remained confined at home. His repeated association with the Quakers, who were known for refusing to remove their hats, had already caused family disputes and even physical punishment.
Ellwood's memoir, published in 1714, shows how deeply ingrained these norms were. As Capp notes, "It makes no sense to us today. But in 1659, father and son just saw this as common sense. Thomas couldn't leave the house without a hat -- it would have brought too much shame on himself and his family."
Why Hat-Doffing Declined
Some historians have suggested that the rise of handshaking replaced hat-doffing, but Capp disagrees. "The handshake evolved very slowly as a mode of greeting and had no bearing on hat-honor as a gesture of deference," he says.
Instead, several factors likely contribu