From Seventeenth-Century Fashion to the Modern Horsehair Legal Wig

Walk into the right courtroom in England and Wales today and you may encounter something that looks distinctly out of place in the twenty-first century.

The computers are modern.

The lighting is electric.

The proceedings may involve digital evidence, mobile phones, DNA analysis or events that occurred on the Internet.

And presiding over the proceedings may be a perfectly modern legal professional wearing a small white horsehair wig whose ancestry stretches back more than three centuries.

Why?

Was the wig invented to make judges look more imposing?

Does it represent judicial authority?

Was it originally some special uniform of English law?

Surprisingly, not really.

The legal profession began wearing wigs for a much simpler reason:

Everybody fashionable was wearing them.

The extraordinary part isn't that English lawyers started wearing wigs.

It's that they never completely stopped.

Before the Wig, Lawyers Had Plenty of Headgear Already

English judges did not spend the Middle Ages waiting patiently for someone to invent the legal wig.

Long before wigs appeared, judicial clothing and headwear already carried considerable tradition.

Judges historically emerged from the Serjeants-at-Law, whose distinctive head covering was called the coif (Modern French coiffe developed from that same family and can refer more broadly to a headdress or arrangement of the hair.). Other forms of judicial headwear developed over time, including a black skullcap and the pileus quadratus, a soft four-cornered black hat.

The Courts and Tribunals Judiciary traces formal judicial dress back centuries before wigs became fashionable.

So the legal profession already understood the idea of clothing that identified office and status.

But then something happened in seventeenth-century Europe.

Men discovered wigs.

And things got rather elaborate.

Enter Charles II—and a Lot More Hair

When the English monarchy was restored in 1660, Charles II returned to the throne after years spent partly in continental Europe.

French fashion had considerable influence on the restored English court, and fashionable European gentlemen were increasingly wearing wigs.

Soon, well-dressed English gentlemen followed.

And lawyers were gentlemen.

So lawyers followed too.

The Middle Temple Library describes the origins of the English legal wig very plainly: judges and lawyers initially adopted wigs because the rest of fashionable society was doing it. They weren't initially a peculiar legal costume at all.

The official history of the judiciary reaches the same conclusion: wigs first appeared in English courtrooms because they were fashionable outside them during the reign of Charles II. Judges actually resisted for a while; widespread judicial adoption appears to have taken until roughly 1685.

In other words:

The wig entered the courtroom through fashion—not jurisprudence.

Nobody seems to have convened a great constitutional conference and announced:

Justice shall henceforth be administered beneath several pounds of curls.

It simply became what respectable gentlemen wore.

And Those Wigs Were Not Subtle

The seventeenth- and eighteenth-century wig was not attempting to fool anyone into believing the wearer possessed unusually impressive natural hair.

Quite the contrary.

The grand full-bottomed wig could descend around the shoulders in elaborate rows of curls.

This was hair as spectacle.

Hair as rank.

Hair as fashion.

Hair that entered the room shortly before the gentleman did, and stayed in the room slightly longer once he left. 

😂

The modern hair-system industry generally strives for:

“Nobody should be able to tell.”

The great European wig era frequently operated according to a different principle:

“Nobody should be able to miss it.”

And for a time, the lawyers fit right in.

Then Everybody Else Stopped Wearing Them

This is where the story becomes genuinely funny.

During the reign of George III (1760–1820), wigs gradually disappeared from ordinary fashion.

By the end of the eighteenth century, according to the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, they were largely associated with three groups:

bishops, coachmen and lawyers.

Eventually even the bishops were permitted to stop wearing them.

The lawyers persevered.

The fashionable accessory had become professional tradition.

And once that happened, its meaning changed.

A wig no longer said:

“I am fashionably dressed.”

It increasingly said:

“I am part of the legal profession.”

That's how an ordinary fashion can become a uniform.

But There Was a Problem: Wigs Were a Nuisance

Traditional wigs weren't simply removed from a box, plopped onto one's head and forgotten.

They required maintenance.

Older wigs could require pomatum or ointment, powder and repeated attention to retain the appropriate appearance.

This created an opportunity for an English wigmaker named Humphrey Ravenscroft.

And here our story takes a surprisingly technological turn.

The 1822 Legal Hair-System Upgrade

In 1822, Ravenscroft patented an improved barrister's wig.

His great innovation?

It didn't require the same constant maintenance.

Rather than depending upon repeated powdering and dressing to maintain the traditional appearance, Ravenscroft developed a durable wig design using prepared white horsehair.

The Middle Temple Library records that his 1822 barrister's tie wig was specifically designed to avoid the daily ointment-and-powder treatment required by earlier versions. During the 1830s, he developed a similarly low-maintenance full-bottomed judicial wig.

And here is the extraordinary part:

Wigs based upon that pre-Victorian design are still being manufactured.

Think about that.

The steam locomotive was still relatively new.

Queen Victoria wasn't yet queen.

Photography was barely emerging.

The telephone was more than half a century away.

Humphrey Ravenscroft looked at the English legal wig and essentially said:

“We can engineer this better.”

And approximately two centuries later, the basic solution remains recognizable.

That's a successful product redesign.

Why Horsehair?

For modern hair-system wearers accustomed to discussing Real Remy hair, synthetic fibers, lace and polyurethane, horsehair may sound peculiar.

But horsehair has useful properties for this particular application.

It is comparatively stiff and resilient and can hold the tightly structured form expected of a traditional legal wig. More importantly, the objective isn't to reproduce naturally growing human hair.

A legal wig is supposed to look like a legal wig.

Nobody looks at a barrister and says:

“Extraordinary density for a gentleman his age.”

😂

Its artificiality isn't a defect.

It's part of the uniform.

Are Legal Wigs Actually Still Made Today?

Absolutely.

This isn't merely an antique tradition preserved in museums.

Specialist legal outfitters still manufacture and sell wigs for practicing barristers and judges.

And traditional legal wigs are still substantially handmade.

Which means there remain craftspeople in modern Britain whose occupational expertise includes transforming prepared horsehair into an article of professional headwear whose design predates the Victorian era.

That is a wonderfully specialized profession.

Somewhere in England today, someone can quite legitimately answer the question:

“What do you do for a living?”

with:

“I make horsehair wigs for barristers.”

And no further explanation will make that answer less interesting.

Where Does the Horsehair Come From?

Before anyone becomes concerned about our worried horse pictured above desperately protecting his magnificent tail from an approaching bald gentleman carrying scissors, there is an important distinction.

Commercial horsehair is obtained as a material from horse manes and tails and enters numerous traditional applications besides wigs.

Historically it has been used for:

• upholstery;
• textiles;
• brushes;
• musical-instrument bows;
• decorative work;
• and other specialist crafts.

The legal-wig maker therefore isn't normally roaming the English countryside with scissors looking for a particularly well-endowed horse.

Our image may depict certain artistic liberties.

😂

Making a Legal Wig Is Still Skilled Work

The finished object may look amusing to modern eyes, but producing one properly requires genuine craftsmanship.

The maker must create a head-fitting foundation, prepare and arrange the hair, form the characteristic curls and construct the piece so it maintains its traditional shape through repeated professional use.

And unlike an inexpensive costume wig, a proper legal wig is expected to last.

Barristers may wear the same one for years.

Some are passed down or sold secondhand.

Over time, an individual wig can acquire considerable character.

Which raises an interesting possibility:

A brand-new barrister may occasionally be wearing a wig older than the barrister.

That seems entirely appropriate for English law.

Why Don't They Just Use Synthetic Hair?

Synthetic alternatives exist, but traditional horsehair remains closely associated with the authentic legal wig.

And this is where function and tradition become inseparable.

If the objective were merely:

“Put something white and curly on the barrister's head,”

modern manufacturing could certainly accomplish that cheaply.

But that's not quite the objective.

The object itself is part of a professional tradition.

Its materials, shape and method of construction contribute to its identity.

In that respect, the legal wig resembles many ceremonial objects.

Efficiency isn't the only consideration.

Continuity matters.

Do All British Judges Still Wear Wigs?

No—and this distinction is important.

Popular culture sometimes gives the impression that every British judge puts on a wig before doing anything judicial.

Modern practice is considerably more nuanced.

In England and Wales, reforms that took effect on October 1, 2008 eliminated wigs for judges sitting in most civil and family proceedings. The new civil court dress specifically dispensed with wigs, wing collars and bands.

Criminal proceedings largely retained traditional court dress.

For example, Circuit Judges sitting in the Crown Court still wear a short wig with their judicial robes, while senior judges may also wear short wigs in criminal proceedings.

The magnificent shoulder-length full-bottomed wig has largely retreated to ceremonial occasions.

So if you visit an English courtroom today, whether you encounter wigs depends upon:

which court,

what type of proceeding,

and who is appearing.

Barristers Still Wear Them Too

The wig isn't solely judicial.

Traditional court dress for barristers can include:

wig + gown + bands + appropriate formal clothing.

Current Bar Council guidance distinguishes proceedings where full court dress is expected from those where ordinary professional attire is appropriate.

That makes the wig something more than decoration.

It helps visually identify the professional role being performed.

And that brings us to the real reason it survived.

Why Keep Wearing Something So Obviously Archaic?

There have been many debates about whether legal wigs should remain.

Critics can reasonably argue that they appear:

• antiquated;
• intimidating;
• expensive;
• culturally remote from modern society;
• or simply unnecessary.

Supporters point to different qualities.

Court dress can:

• identify professional roles;
• create visual uniformity;
• reinforce the seriousness of proceedings;
• reduce emphasis on personal fashion;
• and connect present-day courts with institutional tradition.

The wig that began as fashion therefore acquired an entirely different purpose.

It became symbolic.

A barrister doesn't wear it because fashionable London gentlemen still dress that way.

He or she wears it because barristers dress that way in particular courts.

The meaning migrated from fashion to institution.

The Wig That Refused to Die

That makes the English legal wig an extraordinary cultural survivor.

Consider its journey:

1660s: fashionable gentlemen wear wigs.

↓

Lawyers: “Very well. We shall wear wigs too.”

↓

1700s: everyone respectable seems to own one.

↓

Late 1700s–1800s: fashionable society gradually abandons them.

↓

Lawyers: “We're keeping ours.”

↓

1822: Humphrey Ravenscroft improves the technology.

↓

1900s: automobiles, airplanes, radio, television and computers arrive.

↓

2008: England and Wales significantly reduce wig use in civil and family courts.

↓

Today: Walk into the right criminal courtroom and...

there it is.

😂

Very few articles of men's fashion have demonstrated comparable institutional tenacity.

An Unexpected Cousin of the Modern Hair System

For True Tape, there's another reason this history is fascinating.

Strip away the cultural differences and compare the underlying crafts.

The traditional legal wigmaker asks:

How should the foundation fit the head?

What type of hair should be used?

How should that hair be prepared?

Where should it be positioned?

How much density is required?

How do we create the intended visual result?

How do we make the finished piece durable?

The modern hair-system manufacturer asks:

How should the foundation fit the head?

What type of hair should be used?

How should that hair be prepared?

Where should it be positioned?

How much density is required?

How do we create the intended visual result?

How do we make the finished piece durable?

Those questions sound remarkably similar.

The difference is what happens when the wearer walks into a room.

Two Hairpieces—Opposite Missions

The modern hair system attempts to disappear.

A fine lace front should become difficult to distinguish from the scalp.

An ultra-thin polyurethane base may be designed to become virtually imperceptible.

Hairline density can be graduated.

Hair direction can be carefully ventilated.

Color can be matched to existing hair.

A successful result causes the observer to think:

“That's his hair.”

The legal wig has precisely the opposite assignment.

Nobody is supposed to mistake those rows of white horsehair curls for the barrister's naturally occurring hairstyle.

The observer is supposed to think:

“That's a barrister.”

And therein lies perhaps the most delightful connection between two very different branches of wigmaking:

The modern hair-system maker succeeds when nobody notices the hairpiece.

The traditional English legal wigmaker succeeds when everybody notices it—and immediately understands what it means.

Same ancient human craft.

Completely opposite definitions of success.

A Wig With a Job

Perhaps that's why the legal wig survived when so many other wigs disappeared.

It stopped being merely hair.

It acquired a job.

It represents professional identity, tradition and the solemnity of a particular setting.

Whether that tradition continues another 200 years is impossible to know. English court dress has changed repeatedly and will presumably continue changing.

But for the moment, Humphrey Ravenscroft's peculiar nineteenth-century improvement remains alive.

A craftsman prepares the horsehair.

A barrister puts on the wig.

A modern courtroom comes to order.

And somewhere—at least in the imagination—a horse with an unusually magnificent tail keeps one suspicious eye on the scissors.

😂

Related Articles

How Long Have People Been Trying to Hide Baldness? A History of Wigs and Hair Systems  

How Is a Hair System Actually Made?  

Where Does the Human Hair Used in Wigs and Hair Systems Come From?  

What Is Remy Hair—and Does It Really Matter?  

How Is Hair Attached to a Lace Hair System?  

How Is a Poly or “Skin” Hair System Made?  

Sources & Further Reading

• Courts and Tribunals Judiciary — History of Court Dress. Official history of judicial clothing in England and Wales, including the adoption of wigs during the reign of Charles II, their decline as general fashion, and the development of smaller working wigs and ceremonial full-bottomed wigs.
• Middle Temple Library — “Wigs in the English Legal World.” Particularly useful history of legal wigs, including pre-wig judicial headwear and Humphrey Ravenscroft's 1822 low-maintenance tie wig and later full-bottomed design.
• Courts and Tribunals Judiciary — Modern Court Dress. Official explanation of the reforms introduced October 1, 2008, including removal of wigs for judges in civil and family proceedings while retaining traditional dress in criminal jurisdiction.
• Courts and Tribunals Judiciary — Examples of Modern Court Dress. Current examples of when judges wear short wigs, civil robes or ceremonial dress.
• Courts and Tribunals Judiciary — Circuit Judges. Current description of Crown Court dress, including the short wig, robes and ceremonial full wig.
• Bar Council — Guide on Court Dress. Current professional guidance describing where barristers appear in court dress and where business attire is appropriate.