Just what % of the population actually wore those clothes back then? Are we comparing ourselves to what the 1% or 0.1% wore?
The point would be that a mainstream man in 1750 wanted to be wearing colorful frilly things with high heels, even if he couldn't afford any of it because he was just a servant. Whereas starting in the 1800's, that stopped being an aspiration, whether you had money or not.
Also, while this clothing wasn't accessible to servants and laborers, some of it would have been to the growing middle class that consisted of merchants, professors, lawyers, and so forth. Just look at paintings depicting coffeeshop culture in the 1700's:
https://www.sylviaprincebooks.com/blog-list/2021/coffee-hous...
And coffeehouses were not reserved for the 0.1%, not at all.
In the case of wigs, there were holdouts; barristers and judges in the former British empire have in many cases only really started abandoning them over the last two decades.
Current court dress guidance from the BSB: https://www.barcouncilethics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/1...
Though, if he was a _senior_ servant, he probably would be wearing some variant of it. There was a tendency for a while for high-ranking domestic servants in large houses to wear what was in effect a _previous version_ of what the upper class wore; AIUI this did indeed lead to a period where the upper class were wearing prototype modern suits while the butler was still wearing colours and frills.
> In England, which in this respect was typical of Europe, from the reign of Edward III in the Middle Ages until well into the 17th century, sumptuary laws dictated what colour and type of clothing, furs, fabrics, and trims were allowed to persons of various ranks or incomes.
That said, I would wonder how strictly these were enforced. Samuel Pepys' Diary would imply not very, at least towards the end; Sam's a rich commoner, but doesn't seem to hold back when it comes to fancy clothes (anyone who doubts that men were into fashion back then should give it a read...)
If you read Samuel Pepys' Diary, from the mid-17th century (highly recommended; it's a fascinating view into the surprisingly familiar/alien world of the past), you'll notice that as Sam goes from a middle-class civil servant to the upper-middle-class (largely through taking bribes, as was the fashion at the time), he starts going on more and more about fabrics.
In fact, I'm certain that one of the French revolution trigger was notables who saw those productivity increase improve their life, then being taken away to found wars or whatever.
In essence, if we want some sweeping generalizations and be generous, then assuming 1%/9%/90% for upper/middle/lower class is roughly in the ballpark for most societies until the 20th century.
So while the noble families are nowhere near 10%, it's not entirely wrong to assert that the top 10% including all the non-noble bourgeoisie, the merchants, doctors, lawyers, officers, etc, would have the means and desire to care about fashion.
In France it was down to less than 1% at the time of Revolution, but some countries like Spain that had centuries long wars, was closer to 6-8% range.
But now that we're at it, would you prefer to compare yourself to the bottom 1%?
Wigs, stockings and heels were associated with being of the aristocrat class. Which, as the article states, could make one wearing such things a target.
> During the French Revolution, wearing dress associated with the royalist Ancien Régime made the wearer a target for the Jacobins. Working-class men of the era, many of whom were Revolutionaries, came to be known as sans-culottes because they could not afford silk breeches and wore less expensive pantaloons instead
_Prior_ to the revolution, the Jacobins (who were largely bourgeoisie) would have been wearing that dress, distinguishing themselves from the working class (who _didn't_ wear the stockings). The revolutionary period is being used to illustrate a change here, not the norm.