Legally Blonde

On 11 January 1591/2, an attorney by the name of Kinge appeared before the Privy Council. Kinge was 'presumptuous' and presented himself before their Lordships 'in apparrell unfitt for his calling, with a guilt rapier, extreame greate ruffes and lyke unseemelie apparrell'. Presumably arrayed in his best, the unfortunate – or foolish – Kinge had dressed without regard for the acts and proclamations of apparel, and was in breach of the law. The Privy Council recommended that he be dismissed from his office and lose his job.

Such regulation by law of what a person may or may not wear is, within the broad outlines of 'decency', today in the West considered an unacceptable infringement of individual rights.…

—Susan Vincent, Dressing the Elite: Clothes in Early Modern England (New York: Berg, 2003), 117.

She can hem and haw as much as she wants, but Vincent still has this exactly wrong. If I testified before Congress or argued before the Supreme Court wearing, say, a t-shirt reading "U KNOW WHAT I SELL" or "STOP SNITCHING," I'm pretty sure they could pretend this was contempt and kick me out of everything. There's basically nothing strange or unfamiliar about the Privy Council's reaction to the "unseemly apparel," but Vincent, for the sake of a then/now comparative flourish "the past is a foreign country" etc. etc. riff, pretends that there is.

Just saying.