Question: What era are ceremonial uniforms and royal attires of your country stuck in and why?

[The Banker]

Ok this is an abstract question and I will try to explain it as best as possible. You can answer it from perspective of your country or general.
What era are ceremonial uniforms and royal attires of your country stuck in and why?

Why does the British royal family wear a particular style of clothes from the Victorian era?
Why do the guards outside Buckingham palace wear uniforms from roughly the Napoleonic era or slightly later with those huge black fake hair? Why don't they wear something like late Victorian attire or maybe more medival clothes?
Why not a style thats earlier or later?

Why do Indian soldiers wear wear colorful turbans and half khaki?
Why don't they wear earlier uniforms of the British or Mughal era. Or why don't they wear the latest gear?

Basically what factors dictate which era a nation's ceremonial or royal clothes remain stuck in?
What causes ceremonial styles to be 'updated'?

Is it related to 'That time when our nation was at its peak'?
Or is it related to 'Last time we had an empire'

 

[RedSword12]

I'd say it's based on "When this attire became a ceremonial garment." Hence, the Swiss Guard still wearing Renaissance-style uniforms in the Vatican.

 

[The Banker]

I'd say it's based on "When this attire became a ceremonial garment." Hence, the Swiss Guard still wearing Renaissance-style uniforms in the Vatican.

But why don't they update it?
And why do they update it if they do?
Why one particular era?

 

[RedSword12]

But why don't they update it?
And why do they update it if they do?
Why one particular era?

They don't update it because it's traditional.
They update it arbitrarily, but especially if there's a major break in tradition elsewhere, e.g., form of government, or if fashion in ceremonial dress gets completely upended.
One particular era because that's when they decided to make it ceremonial dress.

 

[Look More Closely Later]

...
Why do the guards outside Buckingham palace wear uniforms from roughly the Napoleonic era or slightly later with those huge black fake hair?...

As far as I can make out, at the time of this post in December 2023, the 'foot guards' actually still employ real bearskins for their ceremonial duties hats. Online searches seems to indicate that the skins come from bears officially hunted in Canada (bear population control hunts I think, but sources unreliable?). Apparently the last time they had a trial of alternatives, synthetic materials were found to be inadequate on one or more counts, so they stuck with the real fur.
You'd have to ask a guardsman why they wear them; I'd guess it's on account of practicality (waterproof on rainy days) and looking impressive - but that's guessing on my part.

 

[flasheart]

As far as I can make out, at the time of this post in December 2023, the 'foot guards' actually still employ real bearskins for their ceremonial duties hats. Online searches seems to indicate that the skins come from bears officially hunted in Canada (bear population control hunts I think, but sources unreliable?). Apparently the last time they had a trial of alternatives, synthetic materials were found to be inadequate on one or more counts, so they stuck with the real fur.
You'd have to ask a guardsman why they wear them; I'd guess it's on account of practicality (waterproof on rainy days) and looking impressive - but that's guessing on my part.

Tradition and pride. The Grenadier Guards defeated the French Imperial Guard at the battle of Waterloo and took the bearskins worn by the French guardsman as trophies and ended up incorporating them into their own uniforms.
In terms of practical benefits the hats were designed to make the wearer appear taller and provide a degree of protection to the wearer (as a cavalryman slashing at the footsoldier would likely unwittingly instinctively aim higher than the footsoldiers actually head)
Since then even after the move away from bearskins and redcoats on the battlefield the bearskin has become too much a part of regimental identity, developed to strong of a tradition and become too much of a British icon for serious consideration to ever be given towards discontinuing.
Same reasoning applies for the redcoats worn by British Army regiments (not just the guards regiments) as formal dress.

 

[arctic warrior]

Regarding the Danish Guards to copy Napoleons formula for Grenadiers and Guardsmen was taken on for the Guards Regiment and some Life Regiments. That have lasted with the Guards only as a ceremonial dress.
Usual attire are battle fatigue's except for Officers when on some official duty where they wear a green jacket and trousers with tie or if ceremonial the Infantry dress of 1848/64 of black jacket and blue trousers the last colourful uniform prior to brown - green - camo.
Guards Hussar Regiment use for ceremonial duty a Hungarian Hussar dress in colour as the Guards - adopted when the Regiment was created as Hussars 1614 was the new exciting norm of Light Cavalry just as a Bosnian Regiment had been so when created 1791.
Army headgear - beret, most probably a british import following WW2. Combat troops Black, Support Services Green, MP Red, Jäger/Special Forces Maroon.
So developed tradition and import - though the usual attire today is as mentioned battle fatigue's - and not really stuck in. Traditional dress is upheld to make something instantly recognizable.

 

[Captain Seafort]

Why does the British royal family wear a particular style of clothes from the Victorian era?

They don't - or rather, no more so than formal dress in the rest of the western hemisphere

Why do the guards outside Buckingham palace wear uniforms from roughly the Napoleonic era or slightly later with those huge black fake hair? Why don't they wear something like late Victorian attire or maybe more medival clothes?

Some of them do - look up the Yeomen of the Guard.

 

[Gukpard]

Brazilian here. They are stuck in early imperial times since thankfully nobody was evil or distasteful enough to change them.

 

[The Banker]

Tradition and pride. The Grenadier Guards defeated the French Imperial Guard at the battle of Waterloo and took the bearskins worn by the French guardsman as trophies and ended up incorporating them into their own uniforms.
In terms of practical benefits the hats were designed to make the wearer appear taller and provide a degree of protection to the wearer (as a cavalryman slashing at the footsoldier would likely unwittingly instinctively aim higher than the footsoldiers actually head)
Since then even after the move away from bearskins and redcoats on the battlefield the bearskin has become too much a part of regimental identity, developed to strong of a tradition and become too much of a British icon for serious consideration to ever be given towards discontinuing.
Same reasoning applies for the redcoats worn by British Army regiments (not just the guards regiments) as formal dress.

does this means a nation's ceremonial soldierly clothes are from 'when we last defeated a major enemy that would have otherwise destroyed our nation'

 

[jlckansas]

French and Italian Alpine troops still dress the same, with a little updating.
Italian Bersaglieri look the same including the rooster feathers in the hat, they even wear it on their battle dress.
French Foreign Legion has parts of their dress uniforms dating back to the North African colonial time and earlier, example is the Engineer troops that wear a leather apron, carry an axe, and can grow a beard.
Spanish Foreign Legion has uniforms that date back to when they were founded.
In the US the navy personnel assigned to the USS Constitution in Boston wear dress uniforms from the War of 1812.

 

[RedSword12]

does this means a nation's ceremonial soldierly clothes are from 'when we last defeated a major enemy that would have otherwise destroyed our nation'

No. It's totally arbitrary and utterly dependent on circumstance. There is no specific one-size-fits-all explanation.

 

[flasheart]

does this means a nation's ceremonial soldierly clothes are from 'when we last defeated a major enemy that would have otherwise destroyed our nation'

Nope otherwise the guards would be wearing coalscuttle helmets and field grey uniforms taken from the defeated Werhmacht.
If anything it's a strong sense of tradition.

Its more more a continuous series of circumstances than any explicit decision or rule.
In the case of the guards and other military units formal ceremonial uniform are a result of the changing nature of warfare over the last two centuries.
Modern soldiers are issued with a number of different uniforms for different purposes ranging from smart and often brightly coloured ceremonial uniforms to camouflaged combat uniforms and lots of variations thereof depending on what environment the soldier is in and what sort of work they are undertaking.
The idea of having different uniforms for combat in different environments is actually a relatively new thing. The British army began the move away from red jackets to kakhi coloured uniforms after the disastrous first Boer War when due to the move away from tightly grouped formations of men firing volleys to individual riflemen firing aimed shots bright red uniforms had gone from being an asset to a serious liability.

Historically soldiers would be issued with two sets of the same uniform. One (the number 1 uniform) would be kept in immaculately good condition and only worn on parades and ceremonial events and the other (number 2) would be the one worn for actual working and in combat.
As combat and required uniforms evolved the working uniforms were constantly updated but the number 1 uniforms remained the same as being for purely ceremonial purposes there wasn't the same need for changes or breaking with long established traditions.
This same reasoning/explanation is applicable to pretty much all European military's.

 

[The Banker]

Nope otherwise the guards would be wearing coalscuttle helmets and field grey uniforms taken from the defeated Werhmacht.
If anything it's a strong sense of tradition.

Its more more a continuous series of circumstances than any explicit decision or rule.
In the case of the guards and other military units formal ceremonial uniform are a result of the changing nature of warfare over the last two centuries.
Modern soldiers are issued with a number of different uniforms for different purposes ranging from smart and often brightly coloured ceremonial uniforms to camouflaged combat uniforms and lots of variations thereof depending on what environment the soldier is in and what sort of work they are undertaking.
The idea of having different uniforms for combat in different environments is actually a relatively new thing. The British army began the move away from red jackets to kakhi coloured uniforms after the disastrous first Boer War when due to the move away from tightly grouped formations of men firing volleys to individual riflemen firing aimed shots bright red uniforms had gone from being an asset to a serious liability.

Historically soldiers would be issued with two sets of the same uniform. One (the number 1 uniform) would be kept in immaculately good condition and only worn on parades and ceremonial events and the other (number 2) would be the one worn for actual working and in combat.
As combat and required uniforms evolved the working uniforms were constantly updated but the number 1 uniforms remained the same as being for purely ceremonial purposes there wasn't the same need for changes or breaking with long established traditions.
This same reasoning/explanation is applicable to pretty much all European military's.

So can I rephrase and generalize this as 'When the last iteration of this army as an institution was made'

 

[flasheart]

So can I rephrase and generalize this as 'When the last iteration of this army as an institution was made'

Possibly if applied extremely broadly but even then it wouldn't be enough to be an absolute rule of thumb.
As mentioned earlier for most European militaries it will most likely be the point when ceremonial and practical uniforms began to diverge.
Making matters more complicated you have the US armed forces who in contrast to their older European counterparts change their formal uniforms every couple of years and younger nations who try to create traditions and uniforms almost completely out of thin air.

 

[yulzari1]

Essentially the dress uniform dates from the point when the parade and fighting uniforms diverged.

 

[ArtosStark]

Tradition and pride. The Grenadier Guards defeated the French Imperial Guard at the battle of Waterloo and took the bearskins worn by the French guardsman as trophies and ended up incorporating them into their own uniforms.

Sort of. The Grenadier companies of the British Army were issued bearskins from 1768. The Grenadier guards were only named as such following Waterloo (they had formerly been the 1st Regiment of Foot Guards. In keeping with the name they adopted the grenadiers bearskin. This was later also adopted for the other guards regiments. But it existed prior to 1815 in the British army and, as far as I know, was not brought about because the Guards regiment stole the French Guards headwear directly.

Supposedly, the Prince Regent renamed them the Grenadier regiment of the Foot Guards because he had been told (incorrectly) that they had faced the Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard at Waterloo. They had actually faced the Chasseurs, but since the Grenadier had basically become the standard shock troops in most armies by this point it’s unlikely it would have mattered.

Regarding the Danish Guards to copy Napoleons formula for Grenadiers and Guardsmen was taken on for the Guards Regiment and some Life Regiments

The first use of the bearskin I am aware of was actually by the Austrians against the Prussians during the 1740’s. Though the use of tall hats for grenadiers was pretty standard as the Prussian grenadiers of the time wore tall Mitre hats. The standard of the day had been the tricorne but this got in the way of throwing grenades so a cap closer to the head was used. Since you had to be pretty big and strong to throw grenades from those days, (as well as brave enough to deal with unstable explosive weapons) the Grenadiers became the shock troops of most armies. The idea of making them look taller and bigger yet was likely an easy sell.

In any case the Prussians seem to have picked up the idea of putting bearskin around their tall hats as the French picked it up from them a few years later. The British followed suit a few years after that.

Napoleons Imperial guard did not actually use bearskins for all its members, just the Grenadiers. But they are probably the most famous.

Why do the guards outside Buckingham palace wear uniforms from roughly the Napoleonic era or slightly later with those huge black fake hair?

Guards regiments tend to have a lot more ceremonial functions and often tend to be made up of people that are well connected. The result is often that they have more desire for the most famous accoutrements available when uniform changes are made, an attachment to them after they have been issued, and plentiful political clout to maintain them when later changes are made to other regiments.

In the case of the bearskins they were connected to the most famous recent victory of the Guards when the army moved to khaki service uniforms in the late 1800’s. As such uniforms were not considered very stylish for home use, many dress uniforms got frozen around this time. And the Guards have never felt the need to change.

 

[nandalf]

Dragons of Independance,the former imperial guard,wich still uses the red and white colors in it´s uniform,austrian colors due to Empress leopoldina have chosen or designed the uniform.

 

[Discernible]

I'm assuming The Banker means when we're ceremonial or dress uniforms (or their closest equivalent) last used in a significant conflict.

For the UK it can be mixed. Frrom memory I'd assume...

Guards bearskins. Adopted as another poster says because of their role against Napoleon's bearskin wearing Guards. Last use in combat I'm guessing would be the Crimean War.

Red jackets and black trousers. Worn by Guards and some other regiments (universally or by bandsmen). I'd say the 1870s Zulu war.

Probably similar with spiked helmets some wear.

Cavalry ceremonial or dress uniforms appears to follow those in the Crimean War or up until the 1880s (I'm guessing).

Some regiments do wear khaki dress uniforms with peaked caps which are probably closest to WW1 uniform sans puttees but with shirt and tie - which post-WW1 general fashion.

Kilts. Last really used in WW1 tho' some did individually use them in WW2. IIRC the last time a unit all used them was a commando squad at St Nazaire.

Jacket with kilt is closest to those used in latter half of 19th century by Highland regiments. Tho' then it was red not dark green.

Glengarrys were a field cap with some Scottish regiments up to WW1 IIRC tho' may have been used in WW2.

Hummel bonnets probably last used in combat until shortly after Crimean War.

Dress naval uniform? Can't really say but maybe up to 1950s?

RAF? Their dress uniform has largely remained the same and hasn't really adopted any of their past combat dress - which would be oily overalls for groundcrew and weighty leather flight jackers for aircrew...

Yeoman of the Guard? I'd say 16th century when they were the active guard at the Tower.

Then there's the Company of Pikemen and Musketeers who dress in 17th century uniforms.

From my perspective American military dress uniforms appear to reflect combat dress in the late 19th/early 20th century.

Russia appears to have really gone for the Napoleonic era whilst China seems to be going for just late 20th century smart formal.

What ceremonial dress the French Army uses appears to my humble eyes to be projecting the early 3rd French Republic.

Anyway, I'm sure someone will be along to correct me or expand on others...

 

[Mike D]

Some regiments do wear khaki dress uniforms with peaked caps which are probably closest to WW1 uniform sans puttees but with shirt and tie - which post-WW1 general fashion.

All units of the British Army have Number 2 dress (the khaki uniform), worn either with the peaked cap ("twat hat") or regimental headress, depending on your unit's dress regs. Some units have different trousers (the KRH wear the crimson trousers that earned their forebears their "Cherrypickers" nickname, for instance). All units also have Number 1 dress, based on late 19th Century blue Patrols, but other than if you wear it for your wedding the vast majority of soldiers will never wear it unless they're at a unit with a ceremonial role and most units don't even hold it in the clothing store - for example, in the Royal Signals the only unit that holds them is (or at least was in my time) 251 Sig Sqn who do the comms and ECM for ceremonial occasions in London so I had to borrow some from them for my wedding despite being based in Tidworth. The uniforms such as the Guards' red tunics or the armour and big helmets for the Household Cav are Full Dress and even rarer than Number 1s for most - I spent 14 years in green and the only people I ever remember seeing wearing our version was the band rats. Even on the couple of occasions we did Ceremonial at Buck House it was done in Number 1s.