Hellacious

Hellacious (pronounced he-ley-shuhs)

(1) Horrible, awful, hellish, agonizing

(2) Nasty, repellent.

(3) Formidably difficult.

(4) In slang, remarkable, astonishing, unbelievable, unusual.

1930s: US campus slang, the construct being from hell + -acious.  Hell dates from pre 900 and was from the Middle English Hell, from the Old English hel & hell (nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions, place of torment for the wicked after death).  In the sense of “pour” it was cognate with the Old High German hella & hellia (source of the Modern German Hölle), the Icelandic hella (to pour), the Norwegian helle (to pour), the Swedish hälla (to pour), the Old Norse hel & hella and the Gothic halja.  It was related to the Old English helan (to cover, hide) and to hull.  The Old English gained hel & hell from the Proto-Germanic haljō (the underworld) & halija (one who covers up or hides something), the source also of the Old Frisian helle, the Old Saxon hellia, the Dutch hel, the Old Norse hel, the German Hölle & the Gothic halja (hell).  The meaning in the early Germanic languages was derived from the sense of a "concealed place", hence the Old Norse hellir meaning "cave or cavern", from the primitive Indo-European root kel (to cover, conceal, save).  In sacred art, Hell, whether frozen or afire, is often depicted as a cavernous place.  Hell is a noun & verb; hellman, hellcat, hellhound & hellfare are nouns and hellish, helllike, hellproof & helly are adjectives; the noun plural is hells.

In the sense of “the underworld”, it was cognate with the Saterland Frisian Hälle (hell), the West Frisian hel (hell), the Dutch hel (hell), the German Low German Hell (hell), the German Hölle (hell), the Norwegian helvete (hell) and the Icelandic hel (the abode of the dead, death). The English traditions of use were much influenced by Norse mythology and the Proto-Germanic forms.  In the Norse myths, Halija (one who covers up or hides something) was the name of the daughter of Loki who rules over the evil dead in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (from nifl (mist)) and it was not uncommon for pagan concepts and traditions to be grafted onto Christian rituals and idiom.  Hell was used figuratively to describe a state of misery or bad experience (of which there must have been many in the Middle Ages) since the late fourteenth century and as an expression of disgust by the 1670s.  In eighteenth century England, there were a number of Hellfire Clubs, places where members of the elite could indulge their “immoral proclivities”.  The clubs were said to attract many politicians.

The suffix –acious suffix was used to form adjectives from nouns and verb stems and produced many familiar forms (audacious from audacity, sagacious from sage, fallacious from fallacy etc).  There were also formations which became rare or were restricted to specialized fields including fumacious ((1) smoky or (2) fond of smoking tobacco), lamentacious (characterized by lamentation (sorrow, distress or regret)), marlacious (containing large quantities of marl (in geology, a mixed earthy substance, consisting of carbonate of lime, clay, and possibly sand, in very variable proportions, and accordingly designated as calcareous, clayey, or sandy), and punacious (an individual prone to punning (making puns).  The suffix was attractive also when coining fanciful terms such as quizzacious (mocking or satirical (based on the verb quiz (in the sense of “to mock”) and bodacious.  Bodacious remains probably the best known in this genre and seems to have begun as US slang, south of the Mason-Dixon Line and was (as bodaciously) documented as early as 1837 but may previously have been part of the oral tradition.  Etymologists conclude it was either (1) a blend of bold and audacious or a back-formation from bodyaciously (bodily, totally, root and branch) which seems to have been most prevalent is South Carolina where it was used in the sense of “the process of totally wrecking something”.  In the US the word evolved to mean (1) audacious and unrestrained, (2) incorrigible and insolent and (3) impressively great in size, and enormous; extraordinary.  In the early twentieth century, apparently influenced by campus use (presumably male students in this linguistic vanguard) it was a synonym for “a sexy, attractive girl” and this may have influenced users in the internet age who seem to have assumed first element came directly from “body”.

Of being hungry in the heat: Fox News, July 2006.

According to linguistic trend-setters Fox News, “hellacious” is the best word to describe the state of being “hot & hungry” so it’s not a portmanteau like “hangry” (one who is “hungry & angry”, the construct being h(ungry) + angry) but Fox News says it’s the best word so it must be true.  Hellacious was likely from the tradition of audacious, sagacious, vivacious etc and came to be a word with intensive or augmentative force.  Because it can mean something negative (horrible, awful, hellish, agonizing, nasty, repellent etc), something challenging (formidably difficult) or (used as slang) something positive (remarkable, astonishing, unbelievable, unusual), the context in which it’s used can be important in determining quite the sense intended.  Even then, if there’s not enough to work with, an author’s meaning can be ambiguous.  Fort the fastidious the comparative is “more hellacious” and the superlative “most hellacious” and the (rare) alternative spellings are helatious & hellaceous.  Hellacious is an adjective, hellaciousness is a noun, hellaciously is an adverb.

Google ngram (a quantitative and not qualitative measure).

For technical reasons this should not be taken too seriously but Google’s ngram appears to suggest use of “hellacious” has spiked every time the US has elected as president the Republican Party nominee, sharp increases in use associated with the terms of Richard Nixon (1913-1994; US president 1969-1974), Ronald Reagan (1911-2004; US president 1981-1989), George W Bush (George XLIII, b 1946; US president 2001-2009) and Donald Trump (b 1946; US president 2017-2021 and since 2025).  Political junkies can make of this what the will.  Because of the way Google harvests data for their ngrams, they’re not literally a tracking of the use of a word in society but can be usefully indicative of certain trends, (although one is never quite sure which trend(s)), especially over decades.  As a record of actual aggregate use, ngrams are not wholly reliable because: (1) the sub-set of texts Google uses is slanted towards the scientific & academic and (2) the technical limitations imposed by the use of OCR (optical character recognition) when handling older texts of sometime dubious legibility (a process AI should improve).  Where numbers bounce around, this may reflect either: (1) peaks and troughs in use for some reason or (2) some quirk in the data harvested.

“Hellacious” appears in many lists of obscure words, often with an explanatory note with a parenthesized “rare” although nobody seem yet to classify it “archaic” and it’s certainly not “extinct”.  Improbably (or perhaps not), the word made a rare appearance when an E-mail from Sarah, Duchess of York (Sarah Ferguson; b 1959) to convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein (1953–2019) was published in England by the tabloid press and what was of interest was (1) her choice of words, (2) the date on which those words were written and (3) her previously expressed views on the man.  What prompted her in 2011 to write the E-mail was Epstein’s reaction to the duchess having a few weeks earlier, in an interview with the Evening Standard, publicly distanced herself from the disgraced financier, apologizing, inter-alia, for having accepted his gift of Stg£15,000, declaring she would “have nothing ever to do with him” again, that her involvement with him had been a “gigantic error of judgment”, adding “I abhor paedophilia and any sexual abuse of children”.  She promised never again to make contact.  Just to ensure she got the message across, she concluded: “I cannot state more strongly that I know a terrible, terrible error of judgement was made, my having anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein.  What he did was wrong and for which he was rightly jailed.”  He had been handed a three year sentence for soliciting prostitution from a minor.

The Duchess of York, who did not say the “P word”.

Despite that unambiguous statement, some weeks later she sent him an E-mail assuring the convicted paedophile she had not in the interview attached the label “paedophilia” to him: “As you know, I did not, absolutely not, say the 'P word' about you but understand it was reported that I did”, adding “I know you feel hellaciously let down by me.  You have always been a steadfast, generous and supreme friend to me and my family.”  As it transpired, “generous was a good choice of word.  Immediately details of the E-mail were published, the duchess’s office went into SOP (standard operating procedure) “damage control mode”, a spokesperson asserting the E-mail was written in an attempt to counter a threat Epstein had made to sue her for defamation, explaining: “The duchess spoke of her regret about her association with Epstein many years ago, and as they have always been, her first thoughts are with his victims.  Like many people, she was taken in by his lies.  As soon as she was aware of the extent of the allegations against him, she not only cut off contact but condemned him publicly, to the extent that he then threatened to sue her for defamation for associating him with paedophilia.”

Some might think it strange one would fear being sued for defamation by a convicted paedophile on the basis of having said “what he did was wrong and for which he was rightly jailed” but a quirk of defamation law is one can succeed in every aspect of one’s defense yet still be left with a ruinously expensive bill so the spokesperson’s claim the “…E-mail was sent in the context of advice the Duchess was given to try to assuage Epstein and his threats” may be true.  Epstein died by suicide while in custody (despite the rumours he may have been one of the many victims of “Arkancide” and murdered on the orders of crooked Hillary Clinton (b 1947; US secretary of state 2009-2013) there is no evidence to support this) and the duchess’s unfortunate communication was but one of the consequences of Epstein’s conduct, the ripples of which continue to disturb the lives of his many victims and, allegedly, the rich, famous and well-connected who may have been “supplied” with under-age sexual partners from Epstein’s “stock”.  Tellingly there appears to be much more interest in identities of the latter than concern for the former.

Peter Mandelson, 8 August 1988, cibachrome print by Steve Speller (b 1961), Photographs Collection, National Portrait Gallery, London.  In a coincidence, the duchess’s eldest daughter (Princess Beatrice, Mrs Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi) was born on 8 August 1988 and in the weird world of the astrologers, the date 8/8/88 is “linked with abundance and is one of the most powerful dates for manifestation in the calendar”.  The date 8/8/88 is also a rather tawdry footnote in Australian political history.  Early in October 1987, the National Party's embattled Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen (1911–2005; premier of Queensland 1968-1987) convened a press conference at which he announced he intended to retire on “the eighth of the eighth of eighty-eight”, the significance being that would mark 20 years to the day since he'd been sworn in as premier.  As things turned out, his support within the party collapsed as revelations continued to emerge from an on-going enquiry into corruption in the state and on 1 December 1987 he was compelled to resign, jumping while being pushed along the plank as it were.  Although he was in 1991 tried for perjury and corruption, the trial was abandoned after the jury was unable to agree on a verdict.  It soon emerged that while eleven jury members found the Crown's case as convincing as just about anyone else who heard the evidence, one did not and that was the jury foreman (Luke Shaw, b 1971) who was a member of the “Young Nats” (the National Party's youth wing).  In 1992, the special prosecutor announced the Crown would not seek a second trial on the grounds that, at 81, Sir Joh was “too old”.  Sometimes one gets lucky.

Claims the duchess's former husband (Prince Andrew, Duke of York, b 1960) sexually abused a woman he was introduced to by Epstein were settled out of court (with no admission of liability and the payment of an “undisclosed sum”) and recently, the UK government sacked its erstwhile Ambassador to the US (Lord Mandelson (one time New Labour luminary Peter Mandelson (b 1953)) after revelations emerged confirming his association with Epstein was rather different than what he’d previously disclosed (there has been no suggestion Epstein supplied Lord Mandelson with males younger than the statuary age of consent).  Quite what else will emerge from documents in the hands of a US congressional panel remains to be seen but there’s a groundswell of clamour for complete disclosure and the renitence of the authorities to do exactly that has led to much speculation about “who is being protected and by whom”.  Noting that, many of Epstein’s victims have been in contact with each other and are threatening to compile a list “naming names”; when that is leaked (or otherwise revealed), it will be among the more keenly anticipated documents of recent years.

Also intriguing is whether Lord Mandelson (who has a history of "comebacks from adversity" to rival that of the Duchess of York), might wash up in Gaza as some part of the "interim governing body" Sir Tony Blair (b 1953; UK prime-minister 1997-2007) has offered to lead.  Pencilled-in as Gaza's "supreme political and legal authority" for up to five years, reports suggest Sir Tony would preside over a seven person board and a secretariat of two-dozen odd so, given how highly he valued "Mandy's" presence while in Downing Street, he might find somewhere to "slot in" Lord Mandelson.  Of course his Lordship would not be an ideal "cultural fit" for Gaza but as he'd tell Sir Tony, fixing that is just a matter of "media management".  Middle East politics is one thing but what's of interest to the English tabloids and celebrity gossip magazines is whether the (latest) downfall of the Duchess of York is this time “final”.  It was Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881, later First Earl of Beaconsfield; UK prime-minister Feb-Dec 1868 & 1874-1880) who famously observed “finality is not the language of politics” and on countless occasions he’s been proved right but so frequent have been the duchess’s indiscretions the press is (again) asking whether this time there can be no comeback.  The extent of Epstein’s “generosity” was illustrated by uncontested revelations the duchess accepted from him not only the Stg£15,000 to which she admitted but also a further Stg£2 million ($A4 million), needed at the time to stave off bankruptcy.  Despite it all, it still can’t be certain this really is the end of her remarkably durable career as a public figure which has survived many scandals including:

(1) In 1992 (while still married), she was photographed having her toes sucked by a man (not her husband) while enjoying some topless sunbathing.  Interestingly, sex therapists do recommend toe sucking (and other “toe & foot” play) because (1a) the nerves in the feet are sensitive and (1b) toe sucking is likely to be a novel sexual experience, something rare for most jaded adults.  They do however caution the feet should be immaculately clean, prior to beginning any sucking.

(2) In 2010 she was filmed (with a hidden camera) while offering to sell “access” to the Duke of York (for a reputed US$1 million in 2010) before departing the room with a briefcase filled with cash.

Sister Princess Eugenie (Mrs Jack Brooksbank; b 1990, left) and father Prince Andrew (right) looking at Princess Beatrice's soon to be (in)famous Philip Treacy fascinator, Westminster Abbey, London, 29 April 2011.  Until she appeared wearing this construction, most photographs of Princess Beatrice had focused on her lovely sanpaku eyes.  Opinion in the celebrity gossip magazines was divided on whether Eugenie's glance suggested envy or scepticism.

(3) In 2011, she did not prevent her eldest daughter attending the wedding of Prince William (b 1982) and Catherine Middleton (b 1982) while wearing a “distinctive” fascinator by Irish society milliner Philip Treacy (b 1967).  It was derided as a “ridiculous wedding hat” which seems unfair because it was a playful design which wasn’t that discordant upon the head on which it sat and was the only memorable headgear seen on the day, added to which it was symmetrical which is these days is genuinely a rarity in fascinators.  It was later sold at a charity auction for US$131,560 (said to be a record for such creations) so there was that.  Interestingly, some two years after the princess's fascinator made such an impression, the milliner gave an interview to the UK's Sunday Times in which he proclaimed: “The fascinator is dead and I’m delighted.”  Asked why his view had changed, he explained: “The word fascinator sounds like a dodgy sex toy and what’s so fascinating about a fascinator?  Mass production means that they became so cheap to produce that now they are no more than headbands with a feather stuck on with a glue gun. We’re seeing a return to proper hats.”  Clearly, association with a "cheap" product worn by chavs was no place for a "society milliner" although the journalist did suggest the Mr Treacy's change of heart may have followed Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of the UK and other places, 1952-2022) in 2012 banning fascinators from the Royal Enclosure at the Royal Ascot, meaning the creations were not just passé but proscribed.  If thinking back to that day in Westminster Abbey, the journalist may have been tempted to suggest Mr Treacy write a book called: The Fascinator, My Part in its Downfall but any temptation was resisted.  Despite the obituary, the fascinator seems alive and well and the fashion magazines provide guidance to help race-goers and others pick "a good one" from "a chav one".

Since the 2011 E-mail’s publication, charities, some of which have, through thick & thin, for decades maintained their association, rushed to sever ties with the duchess.  Whether this time it really is the end of her “public life” remains to be seen but if the worst comes to the worst, can always resort to a nom de plume and write another book.  A prolific author, she has published more than two-dozen, mostly children’s titles or romances for Mills & Boon and, despite the snobby views of some, those two genres do require different literary techniques.

Gaza

Nobody seems to have used the word “hellacious” in relation to the state of armed conflict (most having abandoned that euphemism and just calling it a “war”) which has existed in Gaza since October 2023 but, used in the sense of “horrible, awful, hellish or agonizing”, few terms seem more appropriate.  Over the last quarter century odd, the word “Hell” has often appeared in discussions of the Middle East and the events in Gaza have made terms like “Hell on Earth”, “Hellscape” and “Hellish” oft-heard.  In a sense, the war in Gaza is just one more rung on the ladder down which the region has descended ever since many wise souls counseled George W Bush (George XLIII, b 1946; US president 2001-2009) that were the US to invade Iraq, that would be “opening the gates of Hell”.  One can argue about just when it was since then those gates were opened but in Gaza it does appear they’ve not just been flung open but torn from the hinges and cast to the depths.  What has happened since October 2023 has provided a number of interesting case studies in politics, military strategy and diplomacy, notably the stance taken by the Gulf states but given the extent of the human suffering it does seem distastefully macabre to discuss such things in clinical terms.

What soon became apparent was that Benjamin Netanyahu (b 1949; prime-minister of Israel 1996-1999, 2009-2021 and since 2022) had grasped what he regarded as a “once-in-a-lifetime” military and political environment created by the atrocities committed by the Hamas on 7 October 2023; were it not for the historical significance of the term, he’d likely have referred to his strategy as the “final solution to the Palestinian problem” (which at least some of his cabinet seem to equate with “the Palestinian presence”).  The basis of that strategy is the basis also for the dispute which has to varying extents existed since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948: There are two sides, each of which contains a faction which holds a “river to the sea” vision of national exclusivity which demands the exclusion of the other from the land.  Both factions are a minority but through one means or another they have long been the conflict’s political under-current and, on 7 October 2023, they became the central dynamic.  That dynamic’s respective world views are (1) the Palestinian people will not be free until the eradication of the state of Israel and (2) Jews and the state of Israel will not be safe until the removal of Palestinians from the land.  Mr Netanyahu’s cabinet expresses this as “the dismantling of the Hamas” but what they do is more significant than what they say.

Donald Trump (left) and Benjamin Netanyahu (right), the White House, Washington DC, March 25, 2019.

In Mr Netanyahu’s cabinet there is a spectrum of opinion but what appears now most prevalent is the most extreme: That the Palestinians wish to see the Jews eradicated (or exterminated or eliminated) from the land of Israel and as long as they are here the Jews cannot in their own land be safe so the Palestinians must go (somewhere else).  The gloss on the “somewhere else” long has been the mantra “there is already a Palestinian state; it is called Jordan and they should all go and live there” but in the region and beyond, that’s always been dismissed as chimerical.  The “somewhere else” paradigm though remains irresistible for the faction in Israel which, although once thought cast adrift from the moorings of political reality, finds itself not merely in cabinet but, in the Nacht und Nebel (night and fog) of war, able to pursue politics by other means in a way never before possible, the argument being the Hamas attack of 7 October meant the IDF (Israeli Defence Forces) were fighting a “just war”, thus the Old Testament style tactics.

In political discourse, the usual advice, sensibly, is that any comparisons with the Third Reich (1933-1945) should be avoided because the Nazis were so bad (some prefer “evil”) that comparisons tend to be absurd.  Historians have however pointed out some chilling echoes from the past in the positions which exist (and publically have been stated by some) in the Israeli cabinet.  Much the same world view was captured in a typically tart Tagebücher (diary) entry by Dr Joseph Goebbels (1897-1975; Nazi propaganda minister 1933-1945) on 27 March 1942:

“A judicial sentence is being carried out against the Jews which is certainly barbaric but which they have fully deserved.  In these matters, one cannot let sentimentally prevail.  If we do not defend ourselves against them, the Jews would exterminate us.  It is a life and dress struggle against the Jewish bacillus.  No other government and no other regime could muster the strength for a general solution of this question.  Thank God the war affords us a series of opportunities which were denied us in peacetime.  We must make use of them.”

Mr Netanyahu and his cabinet understand what the Hamas did on 7 October created “a series of opportunities” they never thought they’d have and, as the civilian death toll in Gaza (reckoned by September 2025 to be in excess of 65,000) attests, the IDF has made muscular use of the night and fog of war.  Of course the “somewhere else” fantasy of some Israeli politicians remains very different to the mass-murder alluded to by Goebbels or explicitly described by Heinrich Himmler (1900–1945; Reichsführer SS 1929-1945) in his infamous speech at Posen in October 1943 but what Mr Netanyahu has called his “historic and spiritual mission” of “generations” is creating a poison which will last a century or more.  For what is happening in Gaza, there seems no better word than “hellacious”.

Beret

Beret (pronounced buh-rey)

A soft, visor-less cap, made usually of a soft wool material or felt, styled with a close-fitting headband and a wide, round top, often with a tab at the center.

1827: From the French béret (round, flat, woolen cap), from the dialectal form béarn, from the Occitan (Gascon) & Old Provençal berret (cap), from the Medieval Latin birrettum (a flat woollen cap that was worn by peasants), a diminutive of the Late Latin birrus (a large hooded cloak), a word perhaps of Gaulish origin but the ultimate root probably was the Proto-Celtic birros (short) and related to the Welsh byr and the Middle Irish berr.  The similar clerical variation is called a biretta and in Spanish, the spelling is boina.  Some military units are associated with the color of their berets (green berets; blue berets etc).  Beret is a noun; the noun plural is berets,

A rendering of the famous photograph of Che Guevara (1928–1967) at the La Coubre memorial service by Alberto Korda (1928-2001), 5 March 1960.

Long culturally associated with France, it may vary in popularity as a fashion piece but it’s never gone away, examples found by archaeologists in bronze age tombs and berets are common in art since Antiquity, notably especially in European sculpture from the twelfth century.  The floppiness certainly varied, apparently in something close to a direct relationship with size, suggesting all were made, as they appeared, from felt or some similar material with the same properties.  Felt was actually one of the oldest forms of processed cloth, a serendipitous creation by the shepherds who, for warmth and comfort, filled their shoes with tufts of wool; as they walked and worked, they sweated and felt was made.  Berets were adopted first by Basque peasants, then royalty, then the military and then artists but in the twentieth century, picked up an anti-establishment association, influenced by French existentialists and the famous photograph of Che Guevara.

Lindsay Lohan in beret, promotional image for Saturday Night Live, episode 37-16, March 2012.

The military, the counterculture and the fashionistas have shared the once humble cap since.  One aspect of it however proved as vulnerable as any object of mass-manufacture to the arithmetic of unit-labour costs and world trade.  In France, early in the post-war years, there had been fifteen beret factories in the district of Oloron-Sainte-Marie in the Pyrénées where most French berets were made yet by the turn of the century there was but one and it catered for only for the upper reaches of the market, catering for those few who simply didn’t wear clothes made east of Suez and Laulhère is the last remaining historic beret-maker still operating in France.  Dating from 1840 when the Laulhère family opened its first factory, such was the struggle to survive the national textile industry crisis as well as the erosion of its market by low-priced products of dubious quality that in 2013 the decision was taken by Laulhère finally to end production.  However, just as Charles de Gaulle (1890-1970; President of France 1959-1969) had une certain idée de la France, upon hearing the news of the closure, the industry decided there was une certaine idée de la mode française and a rescue package was organized by the Gascon based Cargo Group and its sister company, Blancq-Olibet.  In a press release issued almost immediately after the new broke, Cargo Group confirmed they had acted because the beret was “…such an important part of our history and patrimoine (cultural heritage).  Clearly, the beret is as important to the French as the baguette.  Cargo’s business model was simultaneously to use Laulhère’s expertise and skilled workforce to introduce new, more modern lines but maintain the availability of the traditional styles and it appears to have been successful, the classic berets still on sale.  It’s one of those dependable industry staples which can every year be promoted by a label, a magazine or a stylist as one of the trends to watch in the next season.  Unlike something like the polka-dot which tends to be cyclical with sometimes a decade between spikes, the classic, timeless beret is always there, running the gamut from revolutionary chic to French-girl accessory, something able to be worn in all four seasons and the ultimate mix & match fall-back; stripes, spots and vivid or dark solids all available.

Bridget Bardot (b 1934) in beret.

The beret certainly has a long history, floppy head coverings appearing in archaeological record of the Early Bronze Age (circa 3300-2000 BC) and they have remained a feature in European clothing ever since.  At least partially, this was technological determinism in action: felt was the material constantly used and, being non-woven, it is one of the easiest materials to produce without complex machinery or skills.  Felt is made by matting and pressing wet natural fibres (classically wool) and its is famously versatile and durable, peasants favouring it for the linings of jackets, footwear and of course hats, as valued for its warmth as its capacity to resist moisture.  By the seventeenth century, black felt hats (less a fashion choice than it simply being the most simple colour to produce) were virtually an item or uniform among the working class, farmers and artisans although it wasn’t until 1827 the French coined béret, from the Medieval Latin birretum (a flat woollen cap that was worn by peasants).

Bridget Bardot and Andre Bourvil (1917-1970) in Le Trou Normand (Crazy for Love, 1952); it was her first feature film.

This being pre-EEC (European Economic Community (1957), the predecessor of the European Union (1993)) Europe, the beret of course became a political statement and as tensions grew in the mid-nineteenth century between France & Spain, the fashion lines were drawn: French berets were blue and Spanish red although in a gesture which might have pleased the Marxists, the working class everywhere continue to wear black although they were drawn by the price rather than international solidarity (and that too vindicates Marxist theory).  However, it’s from the early twentieth century that historians of fashion trace the ascent of the black beret as an essentially classless chic accessory which could be worn by men & women alike although such are the memories of Bridget Bardot and Catherine Deneuve (b 1943) that about the only men remembered for their berets are revolutionaries, Che Guevara, the Black Panthers and such.  One political aspect of the beret definitely is a myth: it’s not true the Nazis banned the hat during the occupation of France (1940-1944).  The origin of that tale seems to lie in the publication in the 1970s of a number of propaganda suggestions by the SOE (Special Operations Executive, the UK government's department of “dirty tricks” with a mandate to “set Europe ablaze”), one of which was to spread in France the story the Germans were going to “ban the beret”, something with some basis in fact because there was, briefly, a local campaign to deprive Alsatians of the hat, on the basis it was a (Basque) manifestation of Frenchness.  Strange as it sounds, such things had been done before, the UK parliament in 1746 responding to the failure of the Jacobite rising of 1745 by passing the Dress Act which restricted the wearing of tartan in Scotland.  Quickly, Berlin put a stop to the wacky scheme and there's no evidence the SOE's plan was ever used although the organization remained active in the disinformation business.  One curiosity of the crackdown on berets was it didn't extend to onion sellers although that wasn't enough to save Robert Wagner (1895–1946; civil administration of Alsace during the Nazi occupation) who, an unrepentant Nazi to the end, was sentenced to death by a French court and executed.  

Tartan

Tartan (pronounced tahr-tn)

(1) A wool or worsted cloth woven with stripes of different colours and widths crossing at right angles, worn chiefly by the Scottish Highlanders, many clans now having its own distinctive design.

(2) A design now often identified by the name of the clan wearing it and most associated with the kilt.

(3) A generalized descriptor for any similar (sometimes called plaid) design.

(4) A single-masted vessel used in the Mediterranean, usually with a lateen sail (also spelled as tartane).

(5) The trade name of a synthetic resin, used for surfacing tracks etc.

1490-1500: Of uncertain origin, apparently a blend of the Middle English tartaryn (rich material) from the Middle French tartarin (Tartar cloth) and the Middle French tiretaine (strong coarse fabric; linsey-woolsey; cloth of mixed fibers) from the Old French tiret (kind of cloth), from tire (oriental cloth of silk) (and as the French tartane from the Italian tartana, of uncertain origin) from the Medieval Latin tyrius (material from Tyre), from the Classical Latin Tyrus (Tyre).  The origin of the name as applied to the small ship most associated with the Mediterranean, dates from seventeenth century French, probably the Provençal tartana (falcon, buzzard), it being common practice in the era to name ships after birds.  As an adjective meaning "design with a pattern of bars or stripes of color crossing one another at right angles", use began circa 1600.  The etymology of the fabric is certainly murky.  Most agree about the influence of the Old French tertaine but some trace the origin of that not to Latin via Italian but rather the Old Spanish tiritaña (a fine silk fabric) from tiritar (to rustle).  The spelling of tartan must have been influenced in Middle English by tartaryn from the Old French tartarin from Tartare (“Tartar," the people of Central Asia).  Tartan & tartanization are nouns, tartanize & tartaning are verbs and tartaned is a verb & adjective; the noun plural is tartans.

Lindsay Lohan in Royal Stewart tartan, Freaky Friday (Walt Disney Pictures, 2003), costume test photo.

Despite the perception of many (encouraged by the depictions in popular culture), tartan in the sense of specific color & pattern combinations attached to specific clans is something of recent origin.  Tartan (breacan (pɾʲɛxkən) in Scots Gaelic) is a patterned cloth consisting of criss-crossed, horizontal and vertical bands in multiple colours.  The word plaid is now often used interchangeably with tartan (particularly in North America and when not associated with anything Scottish (especially kilts)), but technically (and always in Scotland), a plaid is a large piece of tartan cloth, worn as a type of kilt or large shawl although it’s also used to describe a blanket.  During the disputes between England and Scotland, the wearing of tartan became a political expression and, after the failure of the of the 1745 Jacobite rising, the UK parliament in 1746 passed the Dress Act which restricted the wearing of tartan and displays of other aspects of Gaelic culture in Scotland; it was one of a number of laws designed to suppress the warrior clans north of the border.  Perhaps inspired by this weaponization of fashion, during the Nazi occupation of France (1940-1944), the administrators of Alsace made an attempt to "ban the beret" on the grounds it was a "political symbol of Frenchness" (onion sellers curiously exempt from this crackdown) but the bizarre scheme quickly was ended by Berlin.  The Dress Act was repealed in 1782 and tartan was soon adopted as both the symbolic national dress of Scotland and in imagery more generally.  The Royal Stewart was the personal tartan of Elizabeth II (1926-2022; Queen of the UK and other places, 1952-2022) and historically associated with the royal house of Stewart (or Stuart), the dynasty which ruled Scotland from 1371, in 1903 uniting with the English crown in 1603 under James VI of Scotland (1566–1625) who thus became also James I of England and Ireland as James I.

Paired with a denim jacket, Lindsay Lohan in her screen test wore the dress in something of the way in the 1970s it became part of the punk sub-culture but for more conventional types there are also scarves, ties, sashes and such.  There was a time when the convention was it could be worn in Scotland only with the permission of the sovereign but those days are gone and it has long been a most “democratized fabric” to the point where it’s now something of a “universal tartan”, one widely seen in commercial fashion and in that sense is used in parallel with the clan affiliation.  Commonly, it’s worn to formal events such as weddings, ceilidhs, or Burns Nights (readings of the poems of Robert “Rabbie” Burns (1759–1796)), the modern trend to pair a kilt with a Prince Charlie or Argyll jacket, traditionalists adding a sporran (pouch), hose (kilt socks) & flashes, Ghillie brogues (traditional shoes) and even a Sgian dubh (a small dagger tucked in the sock) although carrying the last item may be unlawful in some jurisdictions.  Historians of the fabrics deconstruct the Royal Stewart as: (1) red background (boldness, power & visibility (thus a very “royal” color)), (2) blue & black (lines strength & dignity) and (3) white & yellow stripes (light, honor & distinction).  Remarkably, in the age of identity politics and sensitivity to cultural appropriation, the etiquette guides note there is no objection to non-Scots folk wearing their tartan of choice except when an event is clan-specific in which case only those in the lineage should don the fabric.  That said, even then, the consequence of a tartan faux pas will likely be less severe than wearing a Rangers shirt in a Glasgow pub filled with Celtic’s hoops.

Car seat covers in Clan Lindsay Tartan.  The Clan Lindsay motto is Endure Fort (Endure bravely).  Think about it.

Although there’s now an industry devoted to the tartans of the clans, the specific association of patterns with clans and families began only in the mid-nineteenth century.  This history was both technological and economic deterministic.  Unlike some fabrics, tartans were produced by local weavers for local sale, using only the natural dyes available in that geographical area and patterns were just designs chosen by the buyer.  It was only with a broader availability of synthetic dyes that many patterns were created these began (somewhat artificially) to become associated with Scottish clans, families, or institutions wishing to emphasize their Scottish heritage.  The heritage was usually real but not often specific to a particular tartan, the mid-nineteenth century interest in the fabrics a kind of manufactured nostalgia.  There are many modern tartans on sale, the color combinations and patterns of which are chosen for market appeal rather than any relationship to clan identity or any other historic link: Among the purists, these collectively are called "the clan McGarish".  The phrase "Tartan Tory" does not refer to Scottish members of the Conservative Party (a once prolific species which has for decades been listed as "threatened" and may already be functionally extinct) but to the faction of the Scottish National Party (SNP) which is associated with cultural nostalgia rather than radical nationalist politics.

1976 Porsche 914 2.0 with factory-fitted heckblende in Nepal Orange over black leatherette with orange & black plaid inserts.  All the mid-engined 914 built for public sale had a targa top although for use in competition the factory did a few with a fixed roof to gain additional rigidity.  The 914 was the first of a number of attempts by Porsche’s engineers to convince customers there were better configurations than the rear-engine layout used on the 911 & 912.  The customers continued to demand 911s and, the customer always being right, rear-engined 911s remain available to this day.

These days, a designer might, for the right design, for a certain target market use orange paint or orange & black plaid but it's unlikely they'd be seen in combination; it'd be sort of like mixing spots & stripes.  The 1970s however were different and, for better and worse, there was more adventurism on the color charts although, regrettably, polka-dot upholstery never caught on.  The last Porsche 914s (1969-1976) were sold in 1976 but because the new 924 (1976-1988) wasn’t ready for production, to create an “entry-level” model for the vital US market, the factory resurrected the 912.  The original 912 (1965-1969) was essentially a four-cylinder 911 (1964-) with less elaborate appointments and fitted with a version of the 1.6 litre flat-four used in 356 (1946-1965) but the 1976 912E used the 2.0 litre Volkswagen unit from the 914 because the older engine had never been modified to comply with the new emission control rules.  The single-season 912E was an unexpected swansong for the 912 and although some 30% cheaper than the contemporary 911S, it sold in only one fifth the volume, a telling comparison with the mid 1960s when the 912 initially out-sold the 911.  So barely more than 2,000 912Es were built and the aftermarket was for decades subdued but the survival rate was high and although the prices realized don’t match the 912s of the 1960s (let alone the six cylinder cars), the 912E is now appreciated as a practical, well-built and surprisingly economical machine so prices have been rising.

High-priced plaid

1955 Mercedes-Benz 300SL Gullwing (W198) trimmed in blue-grey plaid.  The factory option codes for the plaid were L1 Blaugrau (blue-grey), L2 Rot-Grün (red-green) & L3 Grün-Beige (green-beige).

Buyers of the Mercedes-Benz 300SL Gullwing (W198, 1954-1957) had the choice of seats covered in leather or plaid cloth.  In the years since, many Gullwings originally fitted with plaid upholstery were re-trimmed in leather during refurbishment or restoration, partly because the leather was thought to have more of a allure but also because for decades fabrics exactly matching what was available in the 1950s had become unobtainable (unobtainium thus the preferred industry term).  However, in 2018, in what was said to be a response to "demand", Daimler announced bolts replicating exactly the original three designs (L1 Blaugrau (blue-grey), L2 Rot-Grün (red-green) & L3 Grün-Beige (green-beige)) would again be available as factory part-numbers.  Manufactured to the 1955 specification using an odor-neutral wool yarn woven into a four-ply, double weave twill, it’s claimed to be a “very robust material”.  In the era, the blue-grey fabric was the most popular, fitted to 80% of 300SLs not trimmed in leather while the red-green and green-beige combinations were requested respectively only by 14 & 6% of buyers.  The price (quoted in 2018 at US$229 per yard) was indicative of the product’s niche market but for those restoring a 300 SL to its original appearance, it's a bargain.  The fabric may be ordered from the Mercedes-Benz Klassisches Zentrum (Classic Centre).

1955 Mercedes-Benz 300SL Gullwing (W198; chassis 5500428; Engine 198.980.5500455 & body 5500411 and factory-fitted with the Rudge Wheel option), refurbished by Paul Russell & Company, Essex, Massachusetts (Leder rot (red leather) 1079 (left) and non-original Rot-Weiß (red-white plaid) (right)) .  Note the strapped-down luggage in the "head-rest" position.

Now bolts of fabric replicating the construction and appearance of the originals are available, restorers are able even more closely to replicate the appearance of seven-odd decades ago.  With chassis 5500428, Paul Russell & Company re-painted and re-trimmed to the original factory specifications (Graphitgrau (Graphite Grey) DB190 over Leder rot (red leather) 1079) but also included an interchangeable set of seat cushions and squabs in a non-original red-white plaid.  Additionally, the company fabricated a reproduction of the matching luggage set and while restorers have long been able, at a price, to recreate just about anything constructed from metal, timber and metal, in recent years the industry has been transformed with the advent of large scale 3D printers meaning even plastic parts can be formed from either specifications or scans of an original.  The 1955 design for the location of the luggage was thoughtful and a fine example of space utilization but, cognizant of Sir Isaac Newton's (1642–1727) laws of motion, today's regulators would be less than pleased.  In April, 2025, the car was offered for sale on the Bring-a-Trailer on-line auction site.

The part-numbers for the bolts of fabric: L1 Blue-Grey (A 000 983 44 86 / 5000), L2 Red-Green (A 000 983 44 86 / 3000) & L3 Green-Beige (A 000 983 44 86 / 6000).

Polka

Polka (pronounced pohl-kuh or poh-kuh)

(1) A lively couple dance of Bohemian origin, with music in duple meter (three steps and a hop, in fast duple time).

(2) A piece of music for such a dance or in its rhythm.

(3) To dance the polka.

(4) As polka-dot (sometimes polka dot or polkadot), a dot or round spot (printed, woven, or embroidered) repeated to form a pattern on a surface, especially textiles; a term for anything (especially clothing) with this design.

1844: From the French polka, from the German Polka, probably from the Czech polka, (the dance, literally "Polish woman" (Polish Polka), feminine form of Polak (a Pole).  The word might instead be a variant of the Czech půlka (half (půl the truncated version of půlka used in special cases (eg telling the time al la the English “half four”))) a reference to the half-steps of Bohemian peasant dances; it may even have been a merger of both.  The dance first came into vogue in 1835 in Prague, reaching London in the spring of 1842; Johann Strauss the younger (1825-1899) wrote many polkas.  Polka was a verb by 1846 as (briefly) was polk and notoriously, the fabric pattern sometimes is mispronounced as "poke-a-dot".  Polka is a noun & verb, polka, polka-dot & polkabilly are nouns and polka-like is an adjective; the noun plural is polkas.

Lindsay Lohan in polka-dot dress, Los Angeles, 2010.

Polka-dot (a pattern consisting of dots (usually) uniform in size and arrangement) is used especially on women’s clothing (men seem permitted accessories such as ties, socks, scarves, handkerchiefs etc) and is attested from 1851 although both polka-spot and polka-dotted are documented in 1849.  

Why the name came to be associated with the then widely popular dance is unknown but most speculate it was likely an associative thing, spotted dresses popular with the Romani (Roma; Traveller; Gypsy) girls who often performed the polka dance.  Fashion journals note that, in the way of such things, the fad faded fast but there was a revival in 1873-1874 and the polka-dot since has never gone away, waxing and waning in popularity but always there somewhere.

In fashion, it’s understood that playing with the two primary variables in polka-dot fabrics (the color mix and the size of the dots) radically can affect the appeal of an outfit.  The classic black & white combination of course never fails but some colors just don’t work together, either because the contrast in insufficient or because the mix produces something ghastly.  Actually, combinations judged ghastly if rendered in a traditional polka dot can successfully be used if the dots are small enough in order to produce something which will appear at most angles close to a solid color yet be more interesting because of the effect of light and movement.  However, once dots are too small, the design ceases to be a polka dot.  It’s not precisely defined what the minimum size of a dot need to be but, as a general principle, its needs to be recognizably “dotty” to the naked eye at a distance of a few feet.

Why Men Like Straight Lines and Women Like Polka Dots: Gender and Visual Psychology (2014) by Professor Gloria Moss.

There’s also the sexual politics of the polka dot, Gloria Moss, Professor of Marketing & Management at Buckinghamshire New University and a visiting professor at the Ecole Superieure de Gestion (ESG) in Paris exploring the matter in her book Why Men Like Straight Lines and Women Like Polka Dots: Gender and Visual Psychology (Psyche Books, 2014, pp 237).  An amusing mix which both reviews the academic literature and flavors the text with anecdotes, Dr Moss constructs a thesis in which the preferences of men and their designs lie in the origins of modern humanity and the need for hunters to optimize their vision on distant horizons while maintaining sufficient peripheral vision to maintain situational awareness, threats on the steppe or savannah coming from any direction.  So men focus of straight line, ignoring color or extraneous detail unless either are essential to the hunt and thus survival, perhaps of the whole tribe.  By contrast, women’s preferences are rooted in the daily routine of the gatherer those millions of years ago, vision focused on that which was close, the nuts and berries to be picked and the infants with their rounded features to be nurtured.  From this came the premium afforded to responsiveness to round shapes, color contrasts and detail.  Being something of an intrusion into the world of the geneticists and anthropologists, reaction to the book wasn't wholly positive but few can have found reading it dull or unchallenging.  Of course, it won't surprise women that in men there is still much of the stone age but, for better or worse, Dr Moss concluded some of them belong there too.

Singer Ariana Grande (b 1993) and her equally famous “snatched high ponytail” in Fendi polka-dots, 2025 MTV Video Music Awards, UBS Arena, Elmont, New York, September 2025.

Over the last few decades, although the popularity on the catwalks would come and go, in the high streets shop-fronts or the on-line catalogues, polka-dots have never disappeared.  Despite that, in April 2025 Vogue magazine announced polka-dots were “making a comeback” for the (northern) spring & summer season by which it seems to have meant the look was returning to designer collections, having apparently been of late consigned to “Holland Park mums on the school run or brunching on the King’s Road”.  Thoughtfully, the magazine included the now obligatory trigger warning, this time urging caution on the trypophobic (those suffering from trypophobia (an obsessive or irrational fear of patterns or clusters of small holes)).  Noting the design’s history of association with the “prim and proper”, Vogue suggested the fabric could be “toughened up with leather” or “mixed with bold colour”, suggesting the striking juxtaposition of “a floaty polka dot dress with your most worn-in leather boots.”  In such matters, Vogue’s editors are the pros and say however it’s done, the trick is “fully to commit”.

Vincent Siriano's Spring/Summer 2026 Ready-to-Wear Collection at Macy’s Herald Square, New York City, September 2025.

US designer Vincent Siriano (b 1985) doubtlessly well knows fashion's classic maxim (one of many): “Don’t mix spots and stripes” but clearly he’s not afraid to disrupt what had become something of an orthodoxy.  It wasn’t always that way and in the 1950s and 1960s when houses often would introduce their lines in the well-upholstered surrounds of up-market department stores, it wasn’t unknown for spots & stripes peacefully to coexist, sometimes in quite striking color combinations.  Whether coincidental or not, Mr Siriano chose to debut his Spring/Summer 2026 Ready-to-Wear Collection at Macy’s Herald Square, now thought a hub more for tourism than fashion.  According to the designer, the nostalgic nod reflected his fondness for such places (or at least what they used to be) and his “ethos of inclusivity and accessibility in the fashion industry.”  Presumably, the store’s sponsorship money made it an especially good place to put a catwalk.

Vincent Siriano's Spring/Summer 2026 Ready-to-Wear Collection at Macy’s Herald Square, New York City, September 2025.

Whether or not with stripes, the black & white polka-dots were eye-catching but what attracted some were the gigot sleeves.  Variously implemented, gigots were billowingly full at the shoulder, diminishing in volume around the elbow before gradually becoming tight at the wrist; the French gigot translating literally as “leg” (and used usually of livestock), in industry slang they were known as the “leg of mutton sleeve”.  In the nineteenth century, the puffy style came and went several times before a few revivals in the 1960s & 1970s were thought to have forever buried the look.  One of the reasons for the sudden “extinction of 1896” was that stylistically it had nowhere to go but “bigger” and the gigot by then truly could be monstrous, some garments demanding 2½ yards (2¼ metres) of material.  The most extreme could retain their shape only with the use of internal whalebone hoops but the development of lightweight plastics and synthetic fabrics meant the gigot’s post-war resurrection was more manageable for both makers and wearers although their impracticality rendered the most voluminous a catwalk item with all that implies.  Mr Siriano including them in 2026 in a “ready-to-wear” collection shouldn’t be taken too literally but he's serious about the polka-dots and indications are they're back in numbers for another season.  It's a welcome return.