Same people and same thought process that created one created the other.
It's about people wanting to control people and making them do what they think is "right".
I think I found your misunderstanding.
Etiquette, at a personal level, is only ever about showing control of yourself.
Varying degrees of etiquette can be a requirement for participation in some cultures and sub-cultures, but that participation is (in the civilized world anyway) voluntary.
The only thing society demands of you is that you follow the law, beyond that it's do as you wish.
But you can't say that a restaurant refusing to seat you without a jacket is controlling you, because they have no requirement to seat you at all.
You can't say that a group of people frowning at you as you sit through the national anthem wearing your 'Dale #3' cap is trying to control you because they have unless you believe that they have a requirement to be pleasant to you at all.
No one is suggesting laws be passed.
Edited to add:
2.) At the same club, Ms. Rockefeller is wearing a dress and big, Kentucky derby hat/'dinner' hat.
It's a hat. Why is hers for fashion and acceptable at dinner, but mine is not? Both are for fashion, however historic customs show most men didn't wear hats for fashion, which the factual majority does today (of those who wear hats).
Wide brimmed hats and other functional head coverings (like a winter pull-down hat) should not be worn to dinner and if having lunch indoors it should be removed and given to coat-check. A 'dinner hat' is, like a dinner jacket, intended for formal dining and is considered to be a part of the lady's outfit.
Historic customs actually show that men PRIMARILY wore hats for fashion for at least the last 200 years or so. Certainly this was the case during the Victorian era when so much of our image of etiquette was formed.