It is clear that “cross-dressing” along the axis of social class or gender could have a disruptive potential for the stability of Elizabethan society. It seems, however, that the magnificent laws that attempted to restrict clothing were neither as effective nor particularly enforced. Although pompous laws are in force in most parts of Europe, they are particularly common in England and are usually enacted for the assessment of social status or occupation. Courtesans, for example, had to wear striped hoods, while knights were not allowed to wear weasel skin. Squires were forbidden to wear clothing costing more than five marks, and an act in Parliament laid down requirements for the length of pike shoes. The pike shoe was a medieval phenomenon with surprisingly long and pointed front parts. The longer (and more irritating) the pike, the more grateful the wearer must have looked. For practical reasons, however, pike shoes were (perhaps ironically) completely useless. Sumptuary laws are of ancient origin, and many examples can be found in ancient Greece. The Spartan inhabitants of Laconia, for example, were not allowed to participate in drinking entertainment, and it was also forbidden to own a house or furniture that was the work of more elaborate devices than the axe and the saw. The possession of gold or silver was also forbidden to the Spartans, as their legislation only allowed the use of iron money.

A system of pompous laws was widely developed in ancient Rome; A series of laws that began in 215 BC. J.-C. regulated the materials from which clothing could be made and the number of guests during conversations, and prohibited the consumption of certain foods. Delving into the world of fashion history, the term “ostentatious law” will eventually appear, but what does it really mean and why is it important for us to understand it? The most basic definition of a lavish law is one designed to regulate consumption, especially when it comes to things like food, furniture, spending, and especially clothing. The objectives of introducing dress restrictions have changed over the years, but there are central issues that connect them, including restricting access to limited documents, promoting national interests, identifying certain professions, and representing class and nobility status. Some of the discriminatory diktats could be very specific. In 1397, Queen Maria ordered the Jews of Barcelona to wear only light green clothes with a circular patch of yellow cloth with a red circle in the center. The origin of the term “magnificent law” comes from the Latin “sūmptuāriae lēgēs”, and in ancient Rome, specific and detailed laws on clothing emerged.

The toga, probably the best-known Roman garment, was only allowed to be worn by the male citizen or the impuded woman; There were variations with colors, patterns or embroidery added depending on the position of official candidates, magistrates, priests, augurs, generals, mourners and children of the nobility. There were also very specific rules for the use of the color purple in clothing, because at that time purple dyes were quite difficult to obtain and therefore reserved for people with high status. The constraints of the Roman era became increasingly complex as they developed and influenced the Byzantine Empire and medieval Europe as a whole. Elizabeth I`s magnificent laws stipulated that only the royal family could wear purple silk, cold clothing, and obel fur. Photo credit: Donald Cooper From the time before Sparta to the present day and probably beyond, the nobility, cultures and peoples of the world were subject to lavish laws. These laws are regulations designed to restrict or prohibit extravagances in fashion, food and drink, activities, and things we want to own. In general, these laws have their roots in religious beliefs and moral codes and have sought to limit freedom of choice. Not surprisingly, many of these laws would be considered utterly ridiculous by today`s standards. The way in which our laws attempt to regulate unused and futile spending on meat and clothing seems quite contrary to the intended purpose.

For to decree that no one but princes should eat turbot, wear velvet or gold lace, and forbid these things to the people, what is it to bring them to greater esteem and to make them eat and wear at every agog? One of the earliest known Scottish ordinances on the marshes was issued in 1429 during the reign of James I of Scotland. The text written in Old Scots retains some medieval legal terminology concerning textiles, silk, certain types of furs (pine marten, pine marten) and other articles reserved for men of certain social ranks such as knight, lord, citizen and their families. As for the laws of Henry V. Silvering was reserved for the spurs of knights and the garments of barons or persons of higher rank. Blacksmiths caught violating these laws would be liable to the death penalty and all their land and property would be confiscated. Embroidery and beads were also restricted. Yeomen and citizens could not wear colorful clothes longer than the knee. The poke handle, which narrowed on the wrist, was allowed for the yeomen guard who lived in their master`s house and rode with the lords. Citizens` wives could not wear long-tailed hoods or side hoods, sleeves or caps made of rich textiles such as lawn fabric or rhyme (fine linen). [41] The term “ostentation” has been used as a derogatory term to describe any government control of consumption, whether for moral, religious, health or public safety reasons.

U.S. Justice Thomas M. Cooley generally described its modern form as laws that “supersede the legislative judgment of the owner as to how he should use and use his property.” [57] Policies to which the term has been critically applied include alcohol prohibition,[58] drug prohibition,[59] smoking bans,[60][61][62][63] and restrictions on dog fighting. [64] Recognizing who to bow to was, at least in part, the reason for the sumptuous laws of Elizabethan England. Queen Elizabeth I decreed that only people above certain noble ranks could wear such luxurious textiles as silk, satin and velvet. The Queen`s Law also regulated the size of neck necklaces and other fashionable fripperie. Such decrees were passed, the Queen explained, to prevent young men from going into debt after buying luxurious clothes, but a growing middle class that could afford to dress (and confuse) as their best may also have inspired the decrees.