Beggars Can’t Be Choosers. Really?

Someone needs a winter coat and is offered one for free. It fits, it is clean, warm and in good condition, but they don’t like it.

We have a saying for this: Beggars can’t be choosers. It belongs to a group of familiar expressions about accepting less than we might want: ‘something is better than nothing’, ‘make do with what you have’ and ‘don’t look a gift horse in the mouth’.

They are not quite saying the same thing, though. ‘Something is better than nothing’ makes a judgement about what is available. ‘Make do’ acknowledges limited resources. Beggars can’t be choosers shifts our attention to the person receiving. They are the beggar, and therefore their ability to choose is limited.

Sometimes that is simply reality. If I pay for the cheapest hotel room and discover it overlooks the bins, I might use the expression about myself. I got what I paid for.

But what happens when we apply the same principle to somebody who genuinely cannot afford what they need?

Would You Wear It?

Most of us do not buy clothes based purely on function. We choose between two equally warm coats because we prefer the colour or cut of one. We reject shoes that fit because we don’t like them. These are ordinary decisions when we can afford to make them.

So why does the person receiving the free coat make us hesitate?

Something that appears perfectly wearable to the giver may not be wearable to the person receiving it. NHS guidance recognises that fabrics, seams and labels can make clothing difficult for some children to tolerate¹.

Now consider a teenager who refuses a perfectly serviceable coat because they believe it will make them stand out at school. Scottish Government guidance recognises that financial difficulties obtaining school uniform can expose economic differences between pupils, potentially contributing to stigma, peer pressure and bullying².

What if there is nothing wrong with the coat at all and they simply hate it?

That is preference, not physical need. But preference is something we routinely accept as a legitimate part of choosing our own clothes. Why should having less money change how much that preference matters?

Even the Government’s measure of deep material poverty does not simply ask whether a child possesses clothing. One of its 13 items asks whether children have ‘enough clothes that they feel comfortable to wear’³.

It does not define ‘comfortable’ as fashionable or socially acceptable, nor does it establish a right to personal choice. But neither does it count the existence of clothes as sufficient on its own.

If clothing is technically adequate, how much say should the person who needs help have over what it looks and feels like?

When Someone Else Is Paying

Charities have limited money, stock, sizes, storage and volunteers. A clothing bank cannot produce a different coat simply because someone dislikes those available. Poverty restricts choice, but there is a distinction between having fewer choices and having choices that matter less.

Research into food support offers an interesting comparison. A 2024 UK study of social supermarkets, involving 111 questionnaires and 25 interviews, found that these models were more attentive to members’ diversity and agency than conventional food-support models, including by allowing people to select goods according to their circumstances⁴. Although this is food rather than clothing research, it raises a relevant question: who gets to choose what somebody else needs?

Writing for Clothing Collective, Lula Ashdown explored the same issue in From Charity Shops to Clothing Swaps: How Communities are Tackling Clothing Poverty. She argued that clothing poverty is not only about material need but also the ‘dignity derived from choice and access’⁵.

Clothing Collective’s gift-card model puts that principle into practice. Rather than providing a predetermined bundle of clothes, it limits the financial assistance available but leaves the recipient to decide what to buy. Its published 2026–30 strategy connects this approach with genuine choice, dignity and people feeling respected and in control⁶.

What Does Gratitude Require?

Christmas makes this particularly interesting because most of us understand the etiquette of receiving something we do not like. We thank the giver. We do not inspect the price tag or complain that we wanted a different colour. ‘Don't look a gift horse in the mouth’ seems entirely reasonable.

But an unwanted Christmas present and something a person needs but cannot afford are not quite the same. I can thank somebody for an ugly vase and put it in a cupboard. The recipient of a winter coat has to put it on their body and go out into the world wearing it.

When somebody depends on other people for something they need, gratitude can also begin to carry an expectation. If the coat was free, should they really complain? If the alternative was no coat, shouldn't they be pleased to have one?

Sometimes something genuinely is better than nothing. But people do not lose their taste, identity, sensory needs or awareness of how others see them when their bank balance falls. The things that influenced what they wore when they could afford to choose do not disappear when somebody else has to pay.

Beggars can’t be choosers has been around in some form for nearly 500 years. Its earliest securely recorded version, from 1546, was actually ‘beggars should be no choosers’⁷.

Having less money inevitably means having fewer choices. The harder question is whether we also expect people with less money to care less about the choices they have.

References:

1. Humber Teaching NHS Foundation Trust. Humber Sensory Processing Hub: Dressing. NHS guidance explaining how sensory sensitivities, including clothing fabrics, seams and labels, can affect a child's ability to tolerate particular garments.

2. Scottish Government (2024). School Uniform and Clothing: Guidance for Schools and Education Authorities. Examines affordability and inclusion, including how financial difficulties obtaining school uniform can expose economic differences between pupils and contribute to stigma, peer pressure and bullying.

3. Department for Work and Pensions. 'Deep Material Poverty: Financial Year Ending 2024'; 'Households Below Average Income: Background Information and Methodology Report, FYE 2025.' Explains the 13 essential items used in the deep material poverty measure, including whether children have enough clothes they feel comfortable wearing.

4. Ranta, R. et al. (2024). 'Access, Dignity, and Choice: Social Supermarkets and the End of the Food Bank Model in the UK?' [Food, Culture & Society, Vol. 27, No. 4, P, 1216–1233] UK research using 111 questionnaires and 25 interviews to examine how social-supermarket models accommodate recipients' needs, preferences, dignity and agency.

5. Ashdown, L. (2026). From Charity Shops to Clothing Swaps: How Communities are Tackling Clothing Poverty. [Clothing Collective] Explores community responses to clothing poverty and the importance of choice, access and dignity alongside material need.

6. Clothing Collective (2026). Introducing Our 2026–2030 Strategy: Scaling Impact, Fighting Clothing Poverty. Explains Clothing Collective's gift-card model and its commitment to preserving genuine choice, dignity and recipients' control over their clothing decisions.

7. Heywood, J. (1546). A Dialogue Conteinyng the Nomber in Effect of All the Prouerbes in the Englishe Tongue. Part I, Chapter X. The earliest securely established recorded occurrence identified in our research of the proverb, using the wording ‘beggers shulde [sic] be no choosers’.

Cover photo by Eugenia Pan'kiv from Unsplash