During discussions for our recent article on clothing etiquette, I spent some time talking to my good, old friend Bruce Boyer. (Not that either of us are old, but rather that I have known him for a good few years.)
Bruce, as expected, was both eloquent and erudite in his thoughts, and rather than build them into the article, I thought I'd simply share some of them here, as a little coda to our discussion in last week's article.
-
Hello Simon,
Clothing etiquette and manners for me is wrapped historically in class distinction, sumptuary laws and economics.
Historically when the late medieval world shifted into the Renaissance in the 14th and 15th centuries, men went from being feudal warrior knights to courtiers in a polite society of court life, and we begin to see a 'civilising process', books of instruction about how a courtier should represent himself in this new world.
It's there that we get the first studies and guidance on manners. I think Baldessare Castiglione's The Book of the Courtier is not the first but the best book of the period.
Later it was the fluidity and porousness of class that occasioned more and more books of manners. The 19th and 20th centuries are awash in them, and what they show is the tension between what is considered elite and what is considered mass culture.
Sumptuary laws, whether written or unwritten, tell us what is both prescribed and proscribed.
All guide books can be said to be on middle class virtues in a bourgeois society. All of it caused when individuals move more freely up the ladder, between what Chris Breward calls "a controlled exercising of restraint and an abandonment to conspicuous consumption. Think of Donald Trump: the most derisive thing some of his critics say about him is that he's gauche and vulgar; that's his great sin to the upper class Republicans.
To be just a bit more specific. The old rule was that we should be appropriate to the occasion, the audience, and the purpose: you don't wear torn jeans to a fancy dress ball. You don't wear a business suit and shirt without a tie. Formal dress was of course shot through with rigid rules.
Today all those thoughts of appropriateness seem laughable, and I suppose that the history of dress will be seen in future as a democratic movement towards a homogenisation. Logically that will eradicate most of the rules regarding class, sexual orientation and ethnic concerns and we'll all be able to concentrate on sustainability.
Particular rules from my childhood:
1. Polished shoes. We were always told that was a sign of 'character' and that a personnel manager always looked at the prospective employee's shoes immediately.
2. Always carry a clean handkerchief.
3. Men's jewellery should not go further than a watch, wedding ring and perhaps cuff links, collar bar and tie clip for dandies.
4. Hats were never worn indoors, never.
5. It was expected that men would wear tailored clothing and tie to a place of worship, festive occasions such as dances and parties, weddings, funerals, and anywhere else you were expected to show respect.
6. If you were with a lady, you removed her outer coat first, then yours.
7. Shoes, whether being wore or not, were never placed on furniture.
I don't think any of those matter these days; many women resent them as patronising, and nostalgie de la boue has taken hold everywhere it seems; class is more and more determined solely by economic status, which makes the porosity of class even greater.
Dear Bruce, Interesting article. I have to say I think all the rules except 5 (which is a bit broad, depending on the specific occasion) still do matter. Although possibly on a sliding scale for some. I don’t think offering to help a woman who you know well, with her coat is patronising but I’m open to a different view.
I do think appropriateness matters mainly because is shows respect (which I concede is subjective) for others and the occasion.
I’m sure your piece will generate some comments which in my opinion is great.
Dear Bruce, thank you for the thought provoking article. Having good manners and dressing appropriately is about showing considering for others (and the occasion) and making people feel comfortable. Amongst the people who I know and frequent, this still matters.
I am 44 and I do agree with SSLDN that all of the above still apply but 5 is weakening. I find that rule is still mostly respected at weddings, funerals, baptisms, and first communions. For other festive occasions and parties, it is less likely to be followed or if it is in a more relaxed format (eg, a jacket without a tie worn to a dinner).
In my experience, having good manners and dressing appropriately may be rarer these days than it was in the past, but when one does it is almost universally appreciated.
Hi, There is nearly 30 years difference our ages (I’m not 14!) and yet our views on this are very close, which in itself is interesting. All the best.
I don’t fully agree with you on these Bruce, in particular the idea of women resenting chivalrous behaviour as patronising. I’m well into my 70’s and was taught from an early age the basics of good manners. These included standing when a lady enters the room, holding open a door or pulling back a chair. I still do all of this today, and am constantly rewarded with a compliment as a result.
Because you are an older man from a different generation which people recognize. If a younger man did all what you do, he would found weird or worse dateless.
I do pity the fact you think a younger man cannot and should not do these things. In my early 30s I do all these (except the standing) with my wife. And will never stop being polite because someone may think “it’s weird”. Degradation of society.
I am 44 and have not met a woman who considers good manners patronising. Perhaps I am out of touch with younger generations, but nobody in my social circle and age range would consider a man weird for doing what Paul wrote above.
I wonder where you are located Dan because I’ve never had a negative feedback when showing consideration to a woman, rather I’m more often than not awarded with acknowledgement and appreciation. Most women I know love being made feel special. I’m mid 30’s by the way but it was the same when I was in my 20’s.
I feel it would feel weird if one went severely out of their way to make the gestures but when it comes natural, no problem at all.
Some certainly will give some grace to older folk.
Standing when a woman enters the room is the exception, if someone truly does that in a busy restaurant you’ll look odd no matter your age. Somethings like holding a door is fine but then I’ll do that for anyone not just women.
Personally feel it’s the response when the tables are turned (she opens the door for you) or when she pushes back (says it’s her turn to pay) that is the make or break. Have seen guys refuse and that’s when it gets uncomfortable.
Of cause even good will acts can be poorly presented… bill (not check) comes and you can make a nice offer or give a patronising comment about you paying it. People can also be concerned
Bob I of course was not suggesting you stand up every time a woman enters a restaurant. The context here is obviously where a woman enters a room who is connected to you or the group you are with.
Sorry if I had to make that clear.
I think you guys are missing the point: if you do those things for all sexes then it’s good manners, if you only do it for one it’s not.
An enjoyable coda, which prompted me to google images of Norbert Elias given the mention of the civilising process. An impressive selection of cable-knit polos and jackets!
The 7 rules feel very controversial in 2026. I like 1, 4, 5 and 6. But I don’t like the remaining. My shoes are on a piece of furniture. Why woudn’t they be. It looks tidier this way than having everything on the floor. And while I myself don’t own any jewlery, without any doubt some men can carry some jewlery with style, while items like a tie bar often appear tasteless.
When you say shoes look tidier on a piece of furniture do you mean something like a shoe rack or are you putting them on tables etc? The latter seems very unhygienic and I think it’s very rude when people put their feet on seating on trains.
Yes, I mean a wardrobe for shoes. I interpreted the rule as a kind of superstition that forbids putting shoes on any furniture including shoe racks and wardrobes, which makes no sense for me. Considering that rules like “no white after labour day” exist, I can imagine anything.
My mother’s saying that I still adhere to today(she said it was bad luck not to); “ no hats on the bed, no shoes over your head”.
I think I do not agree with three of them:
2. Why should one always carry a handkerchief? Never heard about this before.
7. All my shoes are in drawers inside a cupboard. Why should they not be? Of course I would not put my shoes on a cupboard, when I am invited somewhere else, if that is meant.
6. This is a difficult one. I help my wife and my mother but no one else. It can be seen as patronising (but probably not with the generation older than 60-65).
The thinking re a handkerchief is “you never know!” You might have a sneezing fit in an inopportune place. Someone might get sick on a bus and you hand them your handkerchief. (I know this from experience!). It’s for emergencies but should always be clean.
I’ve read, not sure where, that men carry a clean handkerchief to give to a woman that may need one.
I think the handkerchief one stems from the idea you can give it to helpless woman who can’t control her emotions
Hi Markus
A few thoughts on your questions:
– a handkerchief is useful for cleaning stains, drying a sweaty forehead or wiping tears. I don’t always carry one but I am usually glad when I do remember.
– I assume that is what he means too. It is hard for me to believe that putting shoes on furniture could be considering acceptable now.
– I find Bruce’s comment that this one could be considered patronising a bit surprising. When friends (men and women) come to our house or leave it I consider it normal to help them take off and put on their coat, similarly when arriving at or leaving a restaurant or bar. This certainly has no romantic or sexual connotation. It is just a nice gesture with respect to another person and I don’t really see how this could be considered patronising.
The article is deeply philosophical and i enjoy reading something like that in the context of clothing and class. A couple of thoughts came to mind:
if we go towards a more homogenized society where people increasingly dress alike, why does judgement remain so strong? People still recognize what looks good, what is refined. Is that something innate or something that is acquired through experience? Secondly, what would be preferable at the end: a society that is giving us rules (but clear directions) or the freedom of choice (what to wear). The latter sounds democratic but gives more anxiety and uncertainty.
Thanks for an inspiring article!
Mr. Boyer, thank you for your insight. I agree with all 7 rules, especially #5. Wearing tailored clothing and a tie to a place of worship shows a sign of reverence, reflection, and dignity. Unfortunately, at least in the country where I reside, too many places of worship have essentially become a three-ring circus, and those attending dress and behave accordingly. Rule #7 should be common sense. Unfortunately it is anything but. It seems especially so in airport lounges where I consistently see flyers (they are certainly not travellers) place their feet (sometimes wearing shoes, often socks or bare feet) on tables meant for food, drinks or magazines. In these times, etiquette, clothing or otherwise, is a skill needs to be taught and reinforced. I encourage more of your insights. They are on point.
Dear Simon
The first thing which comes to mind when I see the first photograph is your recent judgment about eyeglass frame and skin color?
Ah yes, true. You mean the image on the homepage? I hope Bruce won’t mind me saying, but I think he looks a little better in the more mottled ones in the image at the top of the actual article.
There probably are other things going on here though. Perhaps the lightness of white hair?
Yes. Do you mean when your hair turns white you’ll try that frame again?
Perhaps, at least the beard.
Dear Simon
In case my reply was unclear, I meant the very first photograph of the gentleman greeting the lady, but also where he’s with you in the photograph at the top of the article.
I abstain from commenting from both your judgments [1] from the previous article about Mr Barbara and [2] this comment which brings to my attention you assert that he is wearing two different eyeglass frames – which is too subtle for my apparently weaker eyes to notice.
Your initial comment about the factor of skin color to be considered when wearing such a frame as Mr Barbara’s had already provoked my dormant aesthetic disposition which overlooked this particular aspect of combination. I presumed the frame design beautiful and wearable by those faces with sufficient nose bone at its root on which the frame bridge can rest.
i think Simon made this point before – even though some of the rules Bruce mentions are maybe not really applicable nowadays, their rationale is still valid and i think it still can give direction to how one dresses. most of the rules simply spell out how to show respect, or show that you “care”, through your clothes. polished shoes, hats off inside, suit in a church, don’t put your feet on the coffee table are all ways of showing respect to the place and the people around you. i think that underlying rationale is still alive and well, although since there is no agreed upon set of rules that’s meant to translate it into a dress code, there is much more subjectivity in interpreting how that respect is shown.
but i still think i need to dress a certain way for an interview (again, maybe today i would dress differently depending on the company), a wedding, or a funeral. and if i went to church i would pay attention to how i dressed even if i definitely wouldn’t wear a suit.
i don’t know much about sartorial history, but to me the fundamental change is moving from clothing as a class signifier to clothing as an expression of individuality. even 80 years ago it seems to me there were roughly speaking only a few “uniforms”, at least for men, like working class, professional class, intellectual, with some regional variations (and with plenty of rules about different occasions for the upper classes – your evening suit, your golf outfit, etc), and you wore those not to express your identity but to signify your belonging to a certain class (i think if we go back in history more, that’s even more true). nowadays (1) you have many many more groups, subgroups etc and (2) it’s considered ok to mix it up as a way of expressing individuality. (so in a sense a guy dresses in Gucci head-to-toe can be said to use clothes in a more traditional way – as a class signifier – than someone wearing a second hand suit with a funky shirt.)
to tie the two topics together, when clothes are used to express individuality there will be much more leeway and subjectivity in what counts as “clothes appropriate for the church”, so it might seem there are no rules.
Nice points Bogdan, particularly at the start. I think you’re right about signifiers, but those gestures still remain a little about showing respect too I think. Sometimes it shows by its rarity – when you turn up to a dinner and someone has clearly put thought into what they wore to meet you, for example. The gesture brightens things up immediately
I don’t think wearing Gucci head to toe is a class signifier. I think it more of a statement of wealth, thus the polar opposite of class.
I agree with much of what you write Bogdan, except I find that the overall loosening of ‘the rules’ or guidance as to how to dress well in different situations has not led to a greater expression of individuality. Far from it. Most people I see still dress in a uniform of sorts, but it’s devolved into jeans/track pants/yoga tights, a sweatshirt and trainers. Rather than the liberation from the strict confines of formality giving rise to a renaissance of interesting personal expression in what people wear, it’s largely an uninspiring grey mass.
In terms of the linked but more important issue of the care and respect with which we treat each other in how we act (not just how we dress), both those we know and strangers in the street, sincere manners and courtesy need to make a comeback for all of our sake.
It’s funny, but I’m 66 and grew up with a Brooks Brothers-type dad in the hippie 1970s. I don’t have a problem with any of them.
He would have added that you never wear brown shoes with a blue suit, which I thought was arbitrary and cruel because brown and blue are so beautiful together but now i kind of agree, seeing how it’s been abused lately.
He also insisted on parting your hair on the left.
Manicures were essential but buff, no polish.
I was wearing shirts made from Mexican flour sacks in the day but now I’m on board with some rules!
Nice article as always and I always enjoy hearing from Mr Boyer. I do disagree though with the final jump to “class is more and more determined solely by economic status”. That seems overly simplistic and, depending on how you look at it, the opposite of what is happening. Class used to be determined almost solely by economic status. Only wealthy families had the resources to care about polished shoes and clean handkerchiefs and came up with sets of rather narrow rules to signal their upper classness to others. It may have taken a few generations / weddings for economic status to settle as overall status but without possessions class faded in the blink of an eye. Now more than ever, class seems to be determined by style, skills and ambition (think Popstars, actors, tech bros and football players). And money naturally comes their way. The old rules of the upper class have been reduced to some remaining (charming) habits of the upper-middle class and a random selection of intelligentsia and Permanent Style readers. I happen to like all those rules from your childhood as well and adhere to them 🙂
I guess it depends quite a lot where you come from, Jan (the UK and the US being the most different) but here class was not so connected to economic status – the new rich took a long time to be considered as part of the same class. It wasn’t about money. Of course, also depends how far back we go.
Separately, there is an interesting trend with lower classes that they cared more about things like obvious cleanliness, shined shoes etc, or at least put more emphasis on them, because it was a way to elevate themselves and show respectability. Also a trend where lower classes would put more emphasis on having a very good outfit/suit – for Sunday best at church, or among younger people for going out on a Saturday night.
Something worth an article on the social side of it at some point, perhaps
Simon I live in Australia and recently attended a funeral where many men including one of the speakers were dressed in T shirts and jeans. I was frankly appalled – it showed a complete lack of respect to the deceased, their grieving family, for the occassion and frankly themselves. I wore a dark blue suit.I appreciate it is a warmer climate and in many ways a less formal culture here than in the U.K. but even if one’s budget is tight surely the purchase of a modest/inexpensive collared shirt, tie and dark suit trousers would suffice. What are your thoughts Simon? Would you ever likely encounter such casual wear at a funeral in the U.K ?
I don’t think so, though hard to say what it would be like in different parts of the country.
I feel like most people would wear smart trousers and a shirt at least
What an excellent and surprisingly deep little piece by Bruce Boyer. Beneath the seemingly innocent layer of rules lies a fascinating glimpse into social structures.
Ciao Simon and SIgnore Boyer,
some good points here, albeit, almost so obvious to the seasoned, no ?
I believe wearing clothes to appear posh or classy, especially to ladies, is like having
a paper bag to carry water. It soon dissolves.
But I recognise a blog is not for training, to behave, to be a foundation to educate on kindness and being realistic.
Society influences the soul long before we cloak it in nice clothes , a cobbler and the means to drink fine wine yet forget to extend graciousness and respect in its most basic forms.
This, is a failing, no matter what tailor or situation.
Grazie, JR.
Bravo JR
So well put. Fundamentally, the clothes are unimportant – you’ll be remembered for how you treated others.
Hey Simon ….
I know this is a total reach, but did Bruce ever share who cut his Navy Jacket in the first photo ?
He did not, sorry, but I can speak to him about it next time I hear from him and drop it in here as a reply. If you’re subscribed to this conversation between us you’ll get an alert
many thanks
I think it’s Liverano, as per an old photo posted from a trunk show at the Armoury
Makes sense …. can’t spot front darts and the shoulder looks fairly spot on.
Well done, J. Thank you.
Wonderful to hear from Bruce again!
I think his seven rules still do matter, but I understand his point: not many men seem to care or follow them any more even though they still matter.
Carry a handkerchief for all the reasons mentioned by other commenters, but it also serves as a makeshift serviette at restaurants that only give you a flimsy paper one.
And I can’t begin to tell readers the number of weddings I’ve been to where guests seem to think denim is appropriate attire – even when the invitation explicitly requests “no denim”.
Sigh. I’ve always considered the decline of manners and etiquette to be less about the breakdown of the classes (one other commenter noted that the lower classes tried to have at least one good outfit to elevate themselves – and good manners cost nothing) but an increase in narcissism and a “me first” culture, ergo denim at a wedding: “No, I’m more comfortable in jeans”, he said when someone offered sympathy that the airline had lost the suitcase his tux was packed in.
Very nice.
“(Not that either of us are old, but rather that I have known him for a good few years.)” Reading this, I immediately thought: Bruce Boyer seems to be timeless, just like his clothing style. I enjoyed these thoughts, as I always do while reading Bruce Boyer. Especially, his thoughts about ‘dressing up for the occasion’, which returns here in other words.
Maybe it is worth noting that clothing and style as a cultural phenomenon behave like other ‘cultural languages’. In other words, they are context dependent in the expression of their meaning. In a society like ours, (I am talking about the Netherlands), which is quite informal, a proper jacket is usually understood as quite a statement in terms of style (‘dressing up’), whereas it used to be rather informal in former days (dressing up meant wearing a proper suit and tie). That seems to me part of the explanation why the rules of Bruce Boyer don’t apply in the same way as they used to do in former days. If that is correct, our question could be how to maintain style, without ‘overdoing’ it.
Just so good.
Dear Bruce
I’m not sure if this is written in a spirit of scarcasm. If not it really is too sad and something of a miserable surrender to the barbarians at the gates. Indeed if what you say is true, then really I see no point in Simon continuing with this venture!
Hi Simon,
Long shot, but any idea what the cloth brand/merchant is for Bruce’s light brown glen check jacket in the thumbnail photo?
Thanks
Mark
No, sorry Mark
Rules are not to be followed blindly. The point is we must understand the reasons why, and judge how these reasons resonate with the lives we live.
Keep every garment, accessory and belonging as pristine as possible is still as important as it ever was, as cleanliness walks along health and well-being. The never-ending march to a “healthier society” brought us new materials to the shoes and handkerchieds, and many of them doesn’t need polish. However, in almost every scenario, clean equals good. This also explains the thing with shoes on the furniture. As long as a shoe is clean enough not to dirty the furniture, I personally don’t see a problem. There are specific furniture objects to store shoes in most houses of the world these days.
I object to the third rule, not because I’m personally into striking accessories, but because accessories are where the man can be most daring. Accessories are what give most uniqueness to a male look.
To know how to “read the room” might be the most useful skill to live in society, and does good to explain the two following rules. Hats doesn’t belong inside because they usually warm the head and stick out like a sore thumb, and one doesn’t attend a funeral in striking, bold clothing. Dress codes exist for a reason, and when it is not enforced, the better is always be subtle and of good taste.
The sixth rule, on these days, seems to be more about courtesy than necessarily about being patronising. Of course a woman can take of her coat, she has a pair of hands just as capable as the hands of every man. It’s simply a question of asking “would you mind me helping you with the coat?” If she refuses, well, that’s it, there’s no need to complain that this is the end of the western society, the degradation of moral values or whatever the overkill thinking en vogue says.
Bruce’s views, while I respect them, are a reflection of his longevity and I think his style is borderline frumpy now and it has leaked into some elements of PS’s content as well. Just sayin’.