— FEATURED —
Last chance to enter the Armchair Taxonomist challenge!
Black Code: how spies, cops and crims are making cyberspace unfit for human habitation
We Can Fix it! - a graphic novel time travel memoir
The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek
— COMICS —
Tom the Dancing Bug
TOM THE DANCING BUG: Super-Fun-Pak Comix, featuring Caveman Robot, and MORE!
Brain Rot: The Statue
Real Stuff: Fatal Fellatio
— GUATEMALA SPECIAL SERIES —
Guatemala awaits Constitutional Court rulings, defense continues legal challenges to genocide trial
Victoria Sanford: "It’s Too Soon to Declare Victory in Guatemalan Genocide"
Xeni on PBS NewsHour, in Guatemala: Ríos Montt genocide verdict and aftermath
— RECENTLY —
Odd Duck: great picture book about eccentricity and ducks
Scatter, Adapt, and Remember: How Humans Will Survive a Mass Extinction
Illustrator William Stout's Legends of the Blues - exclusive excerpt
Hackers prepare for first "national holiday" in their honor
Review: Disunion, the VR guillotine simulator
Mousetronaut: kids' picture book about mouse in space, written by a Shuttle pilot
Review: Pebble e-paper watch
Nothing Can Possibly Go Wrong: YA graphic novel about robots, romance and school elections
Old School Dungeons & Dragons: Wizards of the Coast’s Problem Child
Jello Biafra and The Guantanamo School Of Medicine's "White People and the Damage Done"
— FOLLOW US —
Boing Boing is on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to our RSS feed or daily email.
— POLICIES —
Except where indicated, Boing Boing is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution
— FONTS —
Cory Doctorow at 5:50 am Sun, Jun 17, 2012
How very odd, considering the official campaign supports the wearing of lampshades as hats I would have imagined silly head-gear was desired.
Some of those hats are clearly designed to keep the rain off yourself and your closest friends.
/drops monocle on teacup.
I actually had to Google “fascinators” to find out what this post was about. Now I’m sorry I did…
you didn’t find it fascinating?
I’m reminded of Sgt. Colon’s conversation pieces. I’m fascinated that people are fascinated enough to wear the silly things!
This needs a new Monty Python sketch… Ministry of Silly Hats!
I assumed it was flashing LED nipple rings.
Those are titillators. Common mistake, though.
The rule could be summed up as “no hats with cat toys on them.”
Could someone please explain the need for Pashminas (note the capital letter…it’s a proper noun) at a daytime summer event?
Or is it merely a “requirement”? And if so, why?
(No, I will never understand the “rules” of fashion…or high society.)
Once you’re wealthy enough to have nothing to worry about … you have to invent a bunch of abstract rules to have something to worry about.
Do you see any patrons of Ascot voicing their worries here? The point is to worry and disorient the plebs.
I assume Ascot allows patrons to wear Ascots, because banning them would be far too hilarious.
Funny that you should ask that. I have been unable to fully parse that very part of the new rules, which says that men in the royal enclosure must wear a tie rather than a cravat. I imagine that someone in the UK could clear this up. But I’m pretty sure that the insistence on ties means no ascots.
Has nothing to do with wealth but everything with social peer groups. So called “white trash” or “Prolls” can be equally hostile towards people not conforming to dress rules and others.
Not wealth but class. It is a game of etiquette and manners. Etiquette says that conformity to rules makes everyone at ease because no one feels out of place, and those rules, despite being merely conventional, should conform to what makes your host (one person – in this case the Queen) feel at ease. Manners says that if someone commits a faux pas in etiquette then it should be allowed to pass to keep everyone at ease. This is a deeply class ridden and exclusive game which is unknown to the proles or trailer trash. Personally I think the best type of people go to those places without dress codes or the sexual apartheid of clubland. It is a class thing.
Granted, the “let it pass” is probably more common in upper classes, but as you can see, they are not above in spelling out the rules quite explicitly when standards slip.
Also, in this case (and many others) “letting it slip” doesn’t mean that the people are being let it. Instead, they get offered – politely – the means to correct their faux pax w/out making a scene out of it.
Not very different from restaurants and clubs offering jackets and ties.
But that is the catch 22. It may be a breach of etiquette to issue rules of etiquette but good manners says you let it pass. You must be happily subservient while basking in the sunshine of the Royal presence.
This is a deeply class ridden and exclusive game which is unknown to the proles or trailer trash.
Trailer parks have their own rigid rules of etiquette. I’m pretty sure that you’d be in far greater danger wandering into a trailer park in morning dress than into Ascot in a tee shirt and Beaver Patrol hat.
Possibly the distinction between etiquette and manners has always existed and their function is to maintain equality and classlessness. The catch 22 is that in honouring or dishonouring them they allow for the development of the law, criminality and distinctions of wealth. Their proper function becomes inverted to maintain class and wealth distinctions. Somehow that irks me.
I am sure that there is a class of people whose chances of being victims of crime is so remote that they can dismiss all criminality in terms of ill-breeding, breaches of etiquette and a lack of manners, distancing themselves from their ‘criminal’ pasts and the majority of the population.
And don’t forget the Brit pronunciation of waistcoat should be weskit.
Which brit pronunciation? Glaswegian? Liverpudlian? South London? Aberdonian? Manchunian? Brummie? Generic Scots? Bristonian? Northern Irish? Welsh? RP? [...]
There is a set of sartorially concerned individuals some members of which are part of the set of racegoers and Royal enclosure invitees for whom weskit would indeed still be considered correct. This is not restricted to RP speakers – other forms of English can be acceptable.
I’ve never heard anyone refer to it in that way – where I come from it’s pronounced – ‘waist-coat’, or sloppily ‘wais-coat’.
“Weskit” is the first pronunciation given in the dictionary.
The dictionary of imaginary pronunciations?
I can’t find a dictionary of Geordie English to check.
You shit me not. What’s that all about?
I can’t imagine that the word comes up in conversation that often. Except among people who pronounce house as ‘hice’.
I imagine that if I ever started pronouncing waistcoat as weskit I would soon find myself without friends. You never know where it might lead. Luckily it is not a word I need much.
There are people who do still use that pronunciation, though.
In Bristolian (or any of the similar West country accents), it could be pronounced waast-coat. Normally pronounced to rhyme with waste though.
This is England, a famously wet country, with all that that implies for the likelihood of cool days in the summer.
The forecast for this week has highs in the mid-60s and raining every day.
Around here it was actually dry and warm for the past couple of days. Last week was quite surprisingly cool, though. And very wet.
Ahhh….thank you! That makes sense, then.
(Used to live there, but I guess I’ve mentally blocked out all memory of the weather. Probably a good thing.)
Pashmina is a fancy term for lightweight woolen shawls, needed to cover bare shoulders or sleeveless arms while within the Royal Enclosure, my dear chgoliz.
I know what they are, which is why I couldn’t imagine why they’d be needed in the middle of a summer’s day. nelc has put me right.
Or are you saying that bare shoulders must be covered for modesty’s sake, not the weather’s?
Modesty is the reason that they’re doling out pashminas.
I am gobsmacked.
Of the many fashion crimes at Royal Ascot, immodesty seems fairly minor.
Are fascinators too ridiculous or not ridiculous enough to be worn in the Royal Enclosure?
I think the name should be banned. Who are they intended to fascinate, magpies?
Well, they don’t.
You’re honestly saying that you don’t stare at those things, thinking, “WTF is that on her head?” That sounds like fascination to me.
I don’t think “morbid fascinators” would sell as well.
I’m confused. The article says “In the less formal grandstand, which is open to the public, it will now be compulsory for women to wear a hat or fascinator.” Why would they ban fascinators from one area and require them in another?
In the Royal Enclosure, fascinators are forbidden, and only proper hats are allowed. In the grandstand, proper hats are still allowed – indeed, preferred – but fascinators are allowed as well.
Wow, what’s with all the fascinator-hate? I think they’re cute!
Seems the purpose of a fascinator is to say “Look at me, look at me, not the face I’m perched above!”
Fascinators are for British women who hate hats but have to wear something on their heads or be mistaken for Americans. It’s just an un-hat. That’s why they’re being deprecated.
Come on! Americans aren’t always bare headed. The girls could wear a Caterpiller ball cap or a John Deere stocking cap!
I would much prefer we adopt the lovely stargate-on-the-head thingy than export baseball caps.
I do love that, as an American, I can still read a popular news article from the UK and not understand what they’re talking about. Yay for linguistic and cultural diversity!
Preposterous! This will not stand!
It’s worth noting that the fascinator ban and the generally strict dress code is for the royal enclosure, not Ascot in general. The royal enclosure is rather a private club of sorts, with applications, sponsorships, and the whole thing, and is significantly stricter as far as dress.
Fascinators aren’t really appropriate daywear to begin with. Ascot is not a ball.