Why all the negative comments on Flat Caps?

[timseh]

Again, you are more than entitled to wear or not wear whatever style of cap you want, but I have to question the justification behind it. You say you do not like the Balmoral or Glengarry because they have military connotations, but like the caubeen, even though it is a military cap, because it has common (civilian) origins....

...but the same is true of the Balmoral and glengarry.

This article of mine details some of that history:
http://albanach.org/hummel.htm

Basically, the Balmoral and Glengarry both derive from the old broad bonnet, which itself derives from an even older style of bonnet once common across much of Europe (which is likely the origin of the caubeen, as well).

Point is, though all of these styles of cap are worn, or have been worn, in a military context, they are all civilian in their origin and none have ever ben restricted to military use.

I don't mean to speak for anyone else, and I'm not discounting what you're saying, but at first glance, I think you may have misunderstood the statement. I read his original statement on the matter to mean the Balmoral and Glengarry 'look' more military or may be connected with the military in the minds of the general public than the Caubeen.

I guess I viewed it kind of like choosing to wear (not with a kilt of course) a Pea Coat or a Camo Field Jacket. Both have their origins in the Military, but people don't look at a Pea Coat in quite the same way (in general) as they do the field jacket.

[DWFII]

One aspect of "flat-cap" wearing that has not yet been explored is its association with the class system, the British (particularly southern British) obsession with classifyiing people according to their upbringing, employment, place of residence and their accent. Broadly speaking this comprises:-[snip]

This makes me uncomfortable on so many levels...

First it is a form of "class-ism" that is every bit as egregious as the "elitism" that you are imputing to the British upper classes...only in this case it's in reverse. I see this everywhere now...as if there is something inherently wrong with people who, by accident of birth, are wealthier than the common and ordinary run of citizens. It strikes me as envious at its heart and a whine/rant of little real substance.

It's also a broad generalization that upon closer inspection doesn't have all that much meaning that I can see. I am a working man. I make things...of real and tangible value to others. My fingernails are black 30 days out of every month (except February and then only 29). I work 8-10 hours a day at a job that has left me, after 35+ years, with a bit of a humpback and unrelieved pain in many of my joints.

Yet I am a bit of a stickler for order and structure and all "forms of behaviour" and traditions.

And yes, to my mind, people who have the resources and time to scrape the black out from under their fingernails on a regular basis, do project a slightly more appealing aspect than those of us who find the black so ingrained as to be impossible to remove. Would I prefer to have clean fingernails when go out with to dinner with my wife...who wouldn't? I mean really? There are lots of things about a more prosperous and leisurely lifestyle that I would eagerly embrace. Who wouldn't? Really?

Having said that, I would wear, and have done, flat caps. I like them.

Despite being all too boringly familiar, none of these three characterizations really rings true to me. None of them really bear up under closer scrutiny. In my opinion...

[Phil]

So, if I understand:

1. Upper class are/were bad because they inherited money/property, but they probably don't care about flat caps.

2. Middle class are just a bunch of social climbers who wouldn't be caught dead in a flat cap because they might be mistaken for the next group.

3. Third Class are the most virtuous of all because (by an accident of birth) they didn't/haven't inherited money/property. The flat cap, therefore, is a proud symbol of having to work for a living because they're not like the evil rich people (who do nothing) or the social climbing middle class (who are simply trying to appear to be something they're not).

Your post is insulting on so many levels. It could be, Phil, that it has nothing to do with class envy and is simply a matter of taste.

An interesting take on my post but, sadly, quite erroneous. I am assuming, of course, that you are quite unaware of the social divisions that exist within British society and which are defined by such trivial characteristics as one's accent or choice of clothing. Sadly such divisions do continue to this day and individuals still find that their progress within certain professions and, in particular, the armed forces can be inexplicably barred as a result. My post has nothing to do with good or evil, having to work for a living or not. It has to do with the attitudes of men towards their fellows based on the most superficial of appearances, an attitude that can and has blighted many lives.

[macwilkin]

I don't mean to speak for anyone else, and I'm not discounting what you're saying, but at first glance, I think you may have misunderstood the statement. I read his original statement on the matter to mean the Balmoral and Glengarry 'look' more military or may be connected with the military in the minds of the general public than the Caubeen.

I guess I viewed it kind of like choosing to wear (not with a kilt of course) a Pea Coat or a Camo Field Jacket. Both have their origins in the Military, but people don't look at a Pea Coat in quite the same way (in general) as they do the field jacket.

But the caubeen is connected with the military as well, namely the Irish regiments of the British Commonwealth forces, as well as the Irish Defence Forces.

Regards,

Todd

[Phil]

This makes me uncomfortable on so many levels...

First it is a form of "class-ism" that is every bit as egregious as the "elitism" that you are imputing to the British upper classes...only in this case it's in reverse. I see this everywhere now...as if there is something inherently wrong with people who, by accident of birth, are wealthier than the common and ordinary run of citizens. It strikes me as envious at its heart and a whine/rant of little real substance.

It's also a broad generalization that upon closer inspection doesn't have all that much meaning that I can see. I am a working man. I make things...of real and tangible value to others. My fingernails are black 30 days out of every month (except February and then only 29). I work 8-10 hours a day at a job that has left me, after 35+ years, with a bit of a humpback and unrelieved pain in many of my joints.

Yet I am a bit of a stickler for order and structure and all "forms of behaviour" and traditions.

And yes, to my mind, people who have the resources and time to scrape the black out from under their fingernails on a regular basis, do project a slightly more appealing aspect than those of us who find the black so ingrained as to be impossible to remove. Would I prefer to have clean fingernails when go out with to dinner with my wife...who wouldn't? I mean really? There are lots of things about a more prosperous and leisurely lifestyle that I would eagerly embrace. Who wouldn't? Really?

Having said that, I would wear, and have done, flat caps. I like them.

Despite being all too boringly familiar, none of these three characterizations really rings true to me. None of them really bear up under closer scrutiny. In my opinion...

I fear that you miss the whole point of my post, whether by accident or on purpose. I do understand why none of these "characterizations" rings true, however, as I assume you have been born and brought up in a country where none of them apply. You may aspire to be the President of your country, I have to rely on an accident of birth for that. You may wish to join an elite branch of your armed forces and rise to the top in it. I can only aspire to advancement within the catering corps as the Household Division is a closed shop to officers without a privileged background. I won't go on but I do wish you would not place an "envy of wealth" slant on my comments without a true appreciation of the circumstances that I attempted to describe. Some of the "let them eat cake" responses from the "shooting, fishing, beagling, cub hunting, various other blood sports" camp are entirely predictable, of course because what vested interests do you think they are trying to defend?

[Bigkahuna]

removed

[Bigkahuna]

My life is to be "Blighted" if I wear a flat cap??????:hide

[dfmacliam]

I'll just doff my Andy Capp, and take pride in my role in society. England is much more class driven than the States, and unless you lived there you really wouldn't understand the concept.

[cessna152towser]

It is a sad fact of life in Britain that people do discriminate as to class, despite much official exhortation that racism and classism are no longer politically correct. Government pays lip service to abolishing classism yet does not practice this in its appointments procedure. Phil cited the army as an example, my own experience of the judicial system entirely accords with this as I have seen time and time again people receiving top appointments on the back of cronyism rather than merit, which ultimately was one of my own reasons for quitting the legal profession.
Flat caps have traditionally tended to be associated with the working classes here. As I see it there is nothing lowly about being born into the working classes, one can take a pride in having to earn one's living. FWIW the gentlemen whom I illustrated wearing a flat cap with a kilt is a retired Military Policeman who is very proud of his past career, a job to which he would not have worn a flat cap. I am sure Phil meant no offence or insult to anyone, it is perhaps unfortunate that it may have come over that way to those who live in a classless society.

[Phil]

Something a bit more light-hearted about flat caps - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0DUsGSMwZY