Wigs are a staple of courtroom iconography, right up there with gavels and the blindfolded face of Lady Justice. This is especially true of the U.K., where they are still worn by many judges and barristers to this day. But where did this practice originally come from? 

Though it is difficult to imagine one without the other, wigs were historically not always part of English judicial system. Before the 17th century, judges and barristers were expected to trim their facial hair, signifying their dignity and discipline. 

The Rise of Wigs

All this changed during the reign of King Charles II, which lasted from 1660 to 1685. During this time, wigs became fashionable among the upper classes regardless of profession. At first, men wore them to hide traces of baldness— increasingly common due to Syphilis outbreaks—as well as lice. 

Over time, wigs turned into a symbol of wealth and status, giving rise to familiar expressions like “big wig.” 

Wigs became so common in England’s judicial system that, by the 1840s, common law prohibited barristers from addressing the court without one. One record from this period relates the story of a wigless barrister named Mr. Bodkin who, when speaking, was told by the presiding judge they could “neither see nor hear” him.

While English judges and barristers are no longer required by law to wear wigs, many still do. The practice has survived partly because of respect for tradition, and partly because of their utility. Aside from signifying formality, authority, and professionalism, they create a sense of anonymity—valuable to judges presiding over high-profile cases. 

According to an article from The Guardian, wigs (also called perukes) can even “help overcome racial, gender, and age-related prejudices” inside the judicial system itself. “If you don’t meet the physical stereotypes of a barrister,” one lawyer told the newspaper, “it is helpful to wear the uniform because it stops any awkward conversations.”

Changes Through the Years

That’s not to say that courtroom wigs have remained virtually unchanged since the days of Charles II. For one, they have shrunk considerably in size. Where 17th century wigs dropped all the way down to the shoulders, their modern-day counterparts are shorter, lighter, and therefore more comfortable to wear. 

There has also been a change in materials. Originally, courtroom wigs were made exclusively of horse or human hair. Recently, a graduate of the University of Law, Samuel March, refused to wear a horsehair wig on account of his being a vegan. Today, many specialty shops sell wigs made from hemp and other non-animal materials.

Though laws requiring wigs in civil and family courts were dismantled nearly two decades ago, they remained mandatory in criminal trials until as recently as 2025. This last holdover from the 17th century was finally done away with to reflect the racial and religious diversity of the U.K. judicial system. After all, wearing a wig is impractical enough as it is, but even more so when you, say, have an afro or wear a turban or headscarf.