I see lawyers want to keep the wig and gown, whilst a majority of voters think its is very old fashioned.

Yesterday I went to Oxford to see the new Bishop enthroned in his cathedra in Christchurch Cathedral. It was a very English ceremony. The new Bishop had to hear his Mandate from the Archbishop. He had to pledge to follow only the approved forms of service laid down by the Anglican Church. We were reminded of the 39 Articles, in a part of the service clearly constructed for the difficult days of the sixteenth century when heresy mattered to both Church and State.

Present at this cermeony were academics??in colourful gowns and hoods,??Lords Lieutenants, Chairmen of Councils, Mayors, Sheriffs, and other ancient office holders showing their chains, jewels and fancy dress. The idea was to introduce the Bishop to the other leaders of institutions and communities, and to demonstrate how he would serve the diocese.

The Judges present wore their wigs and looked in keeping with the spirit of the ceremony. it meant they were instantly recognisable as emissaries of the legal profession.

Most of the people who now wear chains of office or special clothes do so because their role is ceremonial, as in the case of the Mayors and Chairmen of Councils, or because it is a special occasion. Academics no longer teach in gowns and hoods. Maybe the compromise position for the legal profession??is to keep the full regalia for parades, ceremonies?? and services. Maybe wearing the gown and wig for the most serious trials in the highest courts adds solemnity to the occasion and is also worthwhile.

MPs do not wear any special clothes or chains of office. Ministers of the Crown do not need such trappings to be taken seriously. The power of their office does that, unless they are bufoons and fail to live up to the potential of their position.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS