Her Ladyship is often asked for the short and sweet rules of what to wear. Unfortunately her Ladyship is neither. When it comes to the so-called rules of formal attire, her Ladyship has confronted many opinions that state that any possible variation in sleeve length, lapel style, jacket style, etc. is perfectly acceptable. Of course, that’s the way our world is, everyone has a different opinion and the burning need to express it. So how do you decide who’s right, who’s got an agenda and who’s a pompous windbag?
Just goggling any issue on formal attire will bring up site after site giving you what the author seem to consider is the definitive rule but rarely is there concordance among them. One insidious trend seems to be some sort of postmodern sense of politically correct permissiveness. All manner of attire are encouraged as options for expressing one’s individuality. Curious is the fact that these authorities, who claim to be freeing us from the shackles of the past, all seem to think that if it’s black, it’s formal. If a black duster or Nehru jacket is permissible for a black tie event, why not red or puce? If you can ignore tradition in style why not ignore the tradition of black? This is what her Ladyship hopes her readers will understand, that there must be consistency in the reasoning used to arrive at a decision of what degree of variation or expression of individuality is best for a particular event.
Time and time again her Ladyship must point out that traditional is safest because a true gentleman does not call attention to himself. This standard evolved in the Victorian era and still applies. Think of this as the visual equivalent of the loud obnoxious party guest. If you show respect for your host and those around you by retaining a conservative, traditional look others will always see you as elegant. If you wear a garish cummerbund and tie set then your personality may be assumed to be garish as well. The phrase “timeless elegance” is what one should aim for and doesn’t this phrase imply retaining traditional values in dress and manner?
There is room for individuality and personal expression but it’s a matter of degrees and balance. Dictionary.com defines formality as the “condition or quality of being formal; accordance with required or traditional rules, procedures, etc.; conventionality”. If an event is one attended by traditional ceremony, that is, a set of behaviors and actions handed down through the ages, then so should attire be more traditional. The solemnity of an occasion is also a consideration. A solemn religious or state ceremony would imply greater formality. One wouldn’t wear a festive, brightly colored vest to a state funeral. The pomp and pageantry of the event should also be considered. The opening of Ascot comes to mind. One would not normally expect to wear a formal morning coat to a horse race but high pageantry is the norm at this event.
First and foremost you should follow the wishes of your host as stated in the invitation. It is only within these bounds that you can vary your attire but, the degree to which an event is governed by formal or traditional rules or standards, even expected behaviors and actions, is the degree to which one’s dress should adhere to tradition. For example, if one were to be invited to the awards ceremony for the Nobel Prize or the Medal of Freedom then one should wear white tie or a very conservative, peaked lapel tuxedo. (Shockingly, her Ladyship has never been invited to either so we don’t know if the invitation requests white tie specifically). If one is invited to a formal society wedding and the invitation states “black tie”, then one may get away with a notched lapel but peaked is probably a better bet. If one is invited to an event for which the invitation reads “fun formal”, as her Ladyship has seen recently, then those novelty shirt studs and cufflinks or powder blue tuxedo may have a reason to be seen in public.
If you know the crowd in attendance at an event and their sense of formality (some would say stuffiness) then the decisions about how far one goes in expressing their individuality are easy. If one is new to the social circle that will be attending an event then conservative and traditional will always be safe. At best, attempting to be noticed by dressing in attire that expresses your identity in a non-traditional way runs the risk of misinterpretation by a group of people that will be making a first impression of you. At worst one could brand one’s self a buffoon.
The simple fact that some web site or sales person or the office fashion plate has stated that something is acceptable doesn’t mean it’s always acceptable in all instances. There are no rules in formal attire or in dress in general, only traditions and customs. So, if some pompous windbag (her Ladyship knows what you’re thinking) starts quoting “rules” don’t listen. Educate yourself about what is traditional and how formal attire has evolved and make informed decisions. Her Ladyship makes every effort to avoid giving rules and rather attempts to educate her readers so that they can make decisions that display a classic elegance, an impression of ease with their choices and wear their attire with confidence.
It is her Ladyship’s opinion that this habit of quoting rules is why there is so much confusion about what to wear. There are so many conflicting opinions and indeed her ladyship’s advice may seem contradictory at times but this is because each situation demands different actions. It is only by learning how and why different styles evolve that one can make decisions that meet with the widest approval. Of course this learning takes time. One can look for short cuts but one should be mindful that there are pitfalls along this path. Then too, there are always the rebels that have philosophical (or is it psychological) issues with social customs who must follow guidelines her Ladyship cannot expound upon in this discussion. Formal attire is what we’re discussing and, coming full circle, formal by definition is an “…accordance with required or traditional rules, procedures, etc.; conventionality”.
No comments:
Post a Comment