Dress as a marker of class in Britain

Politicians and social workers love to talk about how Britain is now a class-less society. This point, has, indeed, been belaboured so stringently that one wonders if they do protest and clamour too much. If you attend a wedding or a social function, or even just walk down the street of any part of Britain today, if you pay careful attention, you can spot a person's class without too much difficulty. If you listen to them speak, that together with dress will give you a fairly clear idea of their position in society, and thus, their attitudes, politics, even possibly buying patterns. So why do politicians want to promote the idea of a class-less society? Is it that they are afraid to admit that after all this time, the social institutions and practices have not done much to change the deep-rooted patterns of society. If that is so, then surely calling a spade a spade would not go amiss.

Class is a fact of life in Britain. We may not divide ourselves because of it. Peter Phililips, the eldest grandson of the Queen did marry Amber Kelly, a former model and the daughter of a Canadian electricity company executive. This does not however mean that class is not obvious. So here are some ways in which a keen traveller or social anthropology enthusiast can spot the different classes of Britain through dress.

The following of trends seems to be done much more slavishly and more extremely by the lower-classes. If for example the working-class Kevin cut his hair short and gelled it in spikes it is to the extreme that he would probably have had his hair almost entirely shaved off, leaving just a few milimeters of fuzz. Jamie, with his upper-middle class background may have it short and gelled, but nowhere near the extreme of Kevin.

Similarly, although both Tracey and Fiona have piercings, working-class Tracey is likely to have multiple piercings in her ears, her belly-button, her eyebrows, nose, tongue and possibly even nipples done. Fiona, on the other hand, might have multiple ear piercings, even her belly-button done if she is very adventurous, but no more.

Both Kevin and Jamie might wear lose 'gangsta' inspired baggy jeans, but Kevin's will most likely be a few sizes bigger and looser than Jamie's. He is more likely to start wearing this fashion at a much younger age than Jamie.

As a rule, middle-class children's and teenagers' dress tends to be both more restrained and somewhat more natural-looking than working class attire. If you see a pre-pubescent girl dressed up in sexy teenage fashions and make-up for everyday wear, she is almost certainly not middle-class.

Both classes of youth, meaning upper and non-upper might shop at the same highstreet outlet. They might both buy the same denim jacket. But the way in which they wear it will vary distinctly. Tracey might wear it with tight shiny tights, high heeled shoes, possibly a very short skirt. Fiona on the other hand might wear it with cords, something working-class people just don't seem to wear much off, boots and a big, soft scarf wrapped several times around her neck. Indeed, among females, the very nature of dress being flashy, over-elaborate is a sign of being lower-class. The upper echelons still manage to 'dress up' without looking fussy and overdone.

Layers. Indeed, it can be said that the upper classes as a rule tend to wear more layers than the working-classes. If you're out on freezing January nights, the working classes are more likely to be out in just a t-shirt under a leather jacket [Kevin] or a mini-skirt with thin, shiny tights. This is most common in the north of England where I live. This is not because of cost, indeed, most Kevins and Traceys spend as much, sometimes more on 'designer' labels. But if Fiona and Jamie have spent a lot of money buying designer labels, they will make sure they have discreet logos. If Kevin and Tracey buy designer wear, they will have flashy, obvious, ostentatious labeling to make sure everyone knows they are wearing designer clothes.

The middle- and upper-classes are more inclined to wear scarves than the lower-classes and generally more willing to wrap up warmly in cold weather. So when you're out in the town this winter, see if you can spot people's classes by observing their layers.

Hair is one of the most obvious ways of marking the difference between public and private school children. All upper-class public school boys seem to have a similar floppy hair cut. Upper-class public schoolgirls share this similar trend. They will have straight, shiny-clean, floppy hair, falling loose so that they can be constantly be pushing it back, running their fingers through it, flipping and tossing it, tucking behind their ears, pulling it into a rough twist or ponytail then letting it fall back again, in a sequence of apparently casual, unconscious gestures. This public-schoolgirl floppy-hair display is highly distinctive and rarely seen among working-class females.

Indeed, even adult hair of upper-middle and upper-class women shares this trait. It is more likely to be casually 'unstyled', but it will not be greasy, or display several inches of dark roots. Upper-class hair is generally less fussy. Over-coiffed hair, with more dye, gel and all in all appearance of it being a style will mark the hair as obviously lower-class.

Skirts. The class rule on legs are rather less clear-cut, as there are two factors to consider, namely fashion and the quality of the legs in question. Lower-class females and nouveaux-riches of working-class origins tend to wear short skirts, when they are in fashion and often when they are not, regardless of whether they have good legs or not. 'Respectable' upper-working, lower-middle and middle-middle women do not display much leg, even when both fashion and leg-quality would allow it. Among the higher social classes, the more youthful and fashionable women may wear shorter hemlines, but only if they have very good legs. The upper-middle and upper classes regard thick legs, and in particular thick ankles, not only as unattractive, but also working-class. I have heard them being referred to as milk-maid legs or farm-girl legs.

So if you see an English woman with thick ankles and legs in a short skirt, she is probably working-class, but a woman with elegant legs in a short skirt could be from either the bottom or the top of the social scale. In this case you will have to look at the hair, the amount of cleavage on display, make-up, matching, shininess, fussiness, jewellrey, shoes and visible bulginess to decide on the social standing.

Skin. If a deep, over-baked tan is on show, the person is probably lower-class. Moreover, the amount of skin on display can definitely indicate class. For example, the amount of cleavage on display is inversely correlated with position on the social scale - the more cleavage revealed by a garment, the lower the social class of its wearer (a daytime garment that is - party dresses and ball gowns can be more revealing). For the middle-aged and over, the same rule applies to the upper arms.

Skimpy, skin-tight clothes clinging to bulges of fat are also lower-class. The higher classes have bulges too, they just hide them under looser or more substantial clothing.

Shirts. If wearing t-shirts, it is hard to judge, but the upper-classes tend to prefer polo shirts, or t-shirts with rich cotton content as opposed to more synthetic fabrics. However, there is the same inverse correlation between amounts of visible flesh and the social class of the person. Shirts unbuttoned to display an expanse of chest are lower-class - the more buttons undone, the lower the class of the wearer (and if a chain or medallion round the neck is also revealed, take off another ten class points). Even amounts of arm on display are significant.

Among older males, the higher classes tend to prefer shirts to t-shirts and would never go out in just a vest or singler, however hot the weather. These are strictly working-class garments, bare chests, anywhere other than on the beach or swimming pool, are lower-working class.

If wearing a shirt, the divide seems to be at the elbow. On a warm day, lower-class men will roll their shirt-sleeves up to above the elbow, while the higher ranks will roll them to just below the elbow, unless they are engaged in some significant physical activity, such as gardening.

The visible flesh rule also applies to shorts. Upper-middle and upper-class adult men are rarely seen in shorts unless they are playing sports, hill walking or perhaps gardening at home. Middle-middles and lower-middles might wear shorts on holiday abroad, but only working-class males exhibit their legs in public in their home town.

Matching of accessories. As with furniture and home decor, too much twee, laboured matching of clothes or accessories is also a lower-class marker, particularly if the scheme involves a bright colour, say a navy dress with red trim, red belt, red shoes, a red 'handbag' and a red hat. Take off two points if any of these items are shiny as well. This kind of overdressing is often seen at working-class weddings or other special occasions. The same over-careful matching but with a more muted 'accent' colour such as cream, would be lower-middle class, reducing the number of matched accessories to just two or three might raise the whole outfit to middle-middle status. However, it would still be an 'outfit', still too fussy and Sunday-best, still too obviously dressed-up for the upper-classes.

Jewellrey, especially too much jewellrey, particularly gold, necklaces spelling out one's name or initials is a sign of the lower-classes. If worn with too much make-up it is clearly working-class.

For men, size is important. Large, bulky, ostentatious metal watches, especially gold ones, are lower-class - even if they are very expensive Rolexes. Upper-middles and above tend to wear more discreet watches, usually with a simple leather strap. A similar principle applies to cufflinks. Big, flashy, show-off cufflinks are lower-class, small, simple, unobtrusive ones are higher. Again the cost of the items are irrelevant.

Rings, other than plain wedding rings indicate that the wearer is probably no higher than middle-middle. Some upper-middle and upper-class males might wear a signet ring, engraved with their family crest, on the little finger of their left hand, but these are also often sported by pretentious middle-middles, so they are not a reliable guide. A signet ring with initials on it rather than a crest, and worn on any other finger, is lower-middle.

Shoes - the higher and the more uncomfortable the shoes appear, the more like the lower the class of the woman wearing them, especially if they are being worn for more casual occasions. Shiny tights, with high heels are a very definite lower-class marker. If they are shiny, stretchy boots being worn by a mature woman, they are probably lower-middle or lower.

Fabric, colour and pattern. The more matte the fabric, the more likely it is to be worn by someone from the middle-classes or above. The working-classes prefer the more shiny, synthetic fabrics and weaves. The upper-classes tend to prefer natural fibers like cotton, silk and cashmere.

The colour, fabric and pattern of ties is also a clue when it comes to men.Very brash, garish colours and loud patterns (especially cartoony/jokey ones) are lower-class. Ties in a single, solid colour (particularly if pale, bright and/or shiny) are no higher than middle-middle. The upper-middles and above wear ties in relatively subdued, usually dark colours, with small, discreet patterns.

As a rule, the upper-classes tend to wear tweedy greens and browns in the country, sombre greys and dark blue pinstripes in town. Wearing inappropriate 'city' clothes in the country, for both males and females is a serious breach. In some very old and grand upper-class country circles, this taboo extends to the wearing of anything even remotely fashionable: the more frumpy and out-of-date you look, the higher your social rank.

You can also spot a working-class man on a bus or train simply by the way he sits. Only working-class men sit with their legs wide apart.