The trend of wearing white wigs was started by Louis XIV of France.
In the mid-17th century, a balding scalp was considered as a sign that someone had contracted syphilis.
By the 16th century, the sexually transmitted disease had reached epidemic levels across western Europe. Sufferers could endure rashes, joint pains, and fever, before eventually going blind, experiencing heart problems, mental disorders, nerve problems and eventually dying.
Hair loss is a rare symptom of the disease, which can occur in the secondary stage of the infection.
But to distance himself from any association with syphilis, the king disguised his scalp using a wig.
This trend quickly spread throughout the upper and middle-classes in Europe including to Britain where Charles II followed suit.
The courts, however, were slower to adopt the trend, with many continuing to sport their natural hair in their judicial portraits.
By 1685, full, shoulder-length wigs became part of proper court dress, because barristers were also considered as part of middle-class society.
By the 1820s, wigs had gone out of fashion but coachmen, bishops and those in the legal profession continued to wear them.
Coachmen and bishops stopped in the mid-1830s but again the courts kept the tradition.
In 2007, wigs were no longer required during family or civil court appearances or when appearing before the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.
Wigs are still worn in criminal cases and some barristers choose to wear them during civil proceedings.
There are a number of reasons why barristers still wear wigs.
The most accepted is that it brings a sense of formality and solemnity to proceedings. By wearing a gown and wig, a barrister represents the rich history of common law and the supremacy of the law over the proceedings. There have also been arguments that wearing a wig allows a visual separation between the law and those before it.
A judge is able to suspend court dress at his own disposal, perhaps where it may intimidate children in the court or during hot periods of weather. Therefore, it really is about symbolism more than any rule.
Source: The Lawyer Portal
