Why British judges wear wigs?
Wigs people invented in ancient Egypt. They received the second birth thanks to the European monarchum, in particular the English queen Elizabeth I, the owner of 85 wigs, which she covered the graying hair, and the French "King Sun" Louis XIV, in which this item of the wardrobe became the official headdress of the aristocracy (we recall, with Hygiene in Europe was still 200 years ago, wigs partly solved them, giving them the owners a blessing appearance. – approx. Red.).
In addition to purely aesthetic functions, wigs wore a masking function. So, in 1660 in England, the struggle for the power between the supporters of the monarchical rule and parliamentary. The royalists (fought on the side of the king) wore long hair to the shoulders, and those who support the parliament were hairstyle were short, for which they received the nickname "round-head". With the restoration of the monarchy, the latter had to mimic, hiding the recent political orientation.
Now fashion for wigs passed, but their mandatory wearing was preserved in the UK for some posts in parliament and for participants in court hearings. Who, when and where should we carry a wig, what color and how long – is regulated by the Special Regulations.
The reason for the reform was the high cost of the wigs: a wig from a white horse-hairy with curls to a belt, designed for judges, costs £ 1500, a short wig for a lawyer – £ 400
Three times in the history of English courts, lawyers were allowed to remove the wig during the meeting because of the heat. The judges at the same time remained in the wigs, thereby demonstrating persistence. The last time it was July 19, 2006.
Now wigs in the UK gradually pass positions. In 1992 lost the right to wear a wig of the Speaker of the House of Commons of Parliament. According to the law of July 19, 1994, half of the lawyers lost, whose activities are aimed at working with clients. In 1998, released from wearing a wig Lord Chancellor.
According to reform 2008, a legally, a wig has ceased to be mandatory, except for criminal cases and solemn cases. This accessory is left to the judges and part of lawyers participating in the lawsuit. The reason for the reform was the high cost: a wig from a white horse-haired woman with curls to a belt, designed for judges, costs £ 1500, a short wig for a lawyer – £ 400. Payments to english workers of the law, obliged to wear wigs to wear wigs, as a result of reforms were significantly reduced.
The main argument of supporters: A wig and mantle create an anonymity atmosphere, because they hide natural hair and ordinary clothing of the law of the law, thanks to which it is more difficult to know them in ordinary clothes on the street
People in gowns and wigs can now be seen only in the Royal Palace of Justice. Master members and world judges operate in conventional clothes – costumes and ties.
In British society, there is no consensus regarding wigs. Polls among judges show that two thirds of them against the wigs in civil processes. Part of the citizens see in an ancient tradition of an anachronism, requiring considerable investments, others believe that the wig not only increases the status and strengthens the authority of judges and a lawyer, but also helps to avoid bias. The main argument of supporters: A wig and mantle create an anonymity atmosphere, because they hide natural hair and ordinary clothing of the law of the law, thanks to which it is more difficult to know them in ordinary clothes on the street.