by Alison Weir
That afternoon, the King, Suffolk, Dorset, and Essex were the stars of a tournament. Sagudino, watching, declared, “The show was most beautiful. I never expected to find such pomp, and on this occasion His Majesty exerted himself to the utmost for the sake of Pasqualigo, who is returning to France today, that he may be able to tell King Francis what he has seen in England, especially with regard to His Majesty’s own prowess.”42
During the days of jousting that followed, Henry singled out young gentlemen such as Nicholas Carew and his brother-in-law Francis Bryan to support him in the lists, lending them horses and armour, “to encourage all youth to seek deeds of arms.”43 Nicholas Carew was an outstanding jouster who practised constantly and was renowned for his fearless daring. He became so famous that the King provided him with his own tilt at Greenwich, and a hut in which to arm himself and store his equipment. Carew was an expert at the manage; once, after a tournament, he entered the lists with his horse blindfolded, so that the animal should not rear in fright when three men carried into the tiltyard a tree trunk twelve feet long and balanced it on Carew’s lance rest. Carew then rode the length of the tiltyard, “most stoutly” couching the tree like a lance, “to the extreme adulation and astonishment of everybody.”44 Two decades later, he was painted by Hans Holbein in full jousting armour, holding a lance. 45 Henry knighted him before 1517.
Francis Bryan was a clever and versatile young man who was to gain a reputation as a rake and a hell-raiser. He became one of the King’s closest companions, a fellow jouster, gambler, tennis player, and, it was rumoured, accomplice in extramarital affairs. He had come “to the court very young,”46 the son of Sir Thomas Bryan by Margaret Bourchier, a daughter of the scholarly Lord Berners. No portrait survives, so we know nothing of his appearance. Bryan was the typical Renaissance courtier, a poet47 and man of letters who was also to distinguish himself as a soldier, sailor, and diplomat. His irresistible charm disguised an incorrigible intriguer who was two-faced, manipulative, and promiscuous; once, on a trip to Calais, he demanded “a soft bed then a hard harlot.”48 He was full of pent-up energy, highly articulate, and viciously witty. Observers were astonished at the familiarity he used towards the King, both in speaking his mind and telling jokes.49 Bryan was no creature of principle: by altering his loyalties and opinions to conform to the King’s changes of policy, he managed to remain in favour throughout the reign.
In 1515, Bryan’s other brother-in-law, Sir Henry Guildford, was appointed Master of the Horse in place of Suffolk. Another rising young man was the King’s cousin, Henry Courtenay, Earl of Devon, who would become closer to him when Suffolk began to have responsibilities away from court.
The fate of Fray Diego Fernandez, the Queen’s confessor, was, however, an example of what could happen to those who fell out of favour. When several members of Katherine’s household went to the King to complain that the friar was involved in amorous intrigues with women at court, Henry summoned Fernandez and confronted him with the accusations. The friar angrily denied it, and pointedly added, “If I am badly used, the Queen is still more badly used.” This may have been a reference to Elizabeth Blount, but even if it was not it was still impertinent; the King, who was incensed, had Fernandez brought before an ecclesiastical tribunal, which found him guilty of fornication. Henry then had him summarily deported to Spain, with the friar indignantly protesting that “never, within your kingdom, have I had to do with women. I have been condemned unheard by disreputable rogues.” 50 He was replaced by the Spaniard Jorge de Atheca, another Observant friar who, through the Queen’s good offices, had been made Bishop of Llandaff. Atheca was a humanist and a member of Thomas More’s circle.
In May, Mary Tudor and Suffolk returned to England, and were warmly received by the King, at whose insistence they were married a second time on 13 May in the church of the Observant Friars at Greenwich, before the whole court.51 But the celebrations were low-key “because the kingdom did not approve of the marriage.”52 There were those among the guests who had pressed for Suffolk’s execution. Public feeling was evident in one of several copies that were made of a wedding portrait of Mary and Suffolk;53 it showed a court jester whispering to the Duke:
Cloth of gold do not despise
Though thou be matched with cloth of frieze;
Cloth of frieze be not too bold
Though thou be matched with cloth of gold.
Wolsey, by saving Suffolk’s life through his intervention, had reduced his rival to the status of a client seeking patronage, and the Duke had to learn to cooperate and work more amicably with him. Yet now that he was the King’s brother-in-law, “much honour and respect” were paid him, and, after Wolsey, he had “the second seat in His Majesty’s Privy Council, which he rarely enters, save to discuss matters of importance.” 54 He was often busy elsewhere, looking after the royal interests in East Anglia, which of course suited Wolsey very well.
The King, out of affection for his sister and his friend, graciously reduced their fine, but paying the balance due still strained their finances, although not as badly as many modern writers claim. From 1515 on, Suffolk was able to spend “vast sums” on building and improving houses. 55 He raised a fine brick London residence, Suffolk Place, on his ancestral estate by the Thames in what is now Southwark High Street, and made improvements in the antique style to his country seat, Westhorpe Hall in Suffolk, where Mary spent most of her time, attended by fifty servants.56 He also maintained five other properties in East Anglia, Berkshire, and Oxfordshire. Of the two, Suffolk was far more frequently at court, although Mary did visit from time to time; as Queen Dowager of France, she took precedence over all other ladies save Queen Katherine.
21
“The Best Dressed Sovereign in the World”
In her wedding portrait, Mary Tudor wears a nimbus-shaped French hood with her square-necked gown. Her sister Margaret Tudor appears in a similar hood in a portrait painted around the same time.1 By 1515, French fashions were displacing Flemish and Italian influences at the English court; they would remain popular until the mid-1540s, when Spanish styles became the preferred mode. During the same period, court dress also reflected German and Swiss trends. In the sixteenth century, fashions changed far more slowly than today.
England was then entering a minor ice age that would last until the late seventeenth century. “It is always windy, and however warm the weather, the natives invariably wear furs. The summers are never very hot, neither is it ever very cold,” wrote a Venetian.2 To cope with the climate, people wore several layers of clothing: a shirt or chemise, a doublet or kirtle, and an overgown, the top two layers often in heavy materials, and always with sleeves to the wrist. The furs that lined the courtiers’ gowns were sable or lynx; the seriously wealthy used egret’s down.
In Tudor times it was the court and nobility that set the trends. Clothes played an important role in proclaiming the rank and wealth of the wearer, for they were extremely expensive. The richer the fabric and ornamentation, the higher the status. In an age that placed great stress on outward show, such things counted, and throughout the late mediaeval and Tudor periods, successive governments passed sumptuary laws restricting the wearing of certain materials and colours to persons above a certain degree. Ermine, sable, and miniver could only be worn by the nobility; no one under the rank of gentleman was allowed to wear any gold or silver ornament on his clothing; silk shirts were restricted to the knightly classes and above, and only earls and their superiors were permitted to sport embroideries; no commoner was to wear excessively broad-toed shoes; only dukes and marquesses might wear cloth of gold, while the colour purple was to be worn only by royalty. There were also all sorts of regulations governing the wearing of jewellery. These laws were aimed at the prosperous merchant and middle classes, who could often afford to wear the clothes reserved for their betters and frequently did so, defying the law and risking confiscation.
Dress could also be symbolic: embroidered emblems, flowers, badges, jewellery
, and colours all carried their own subtle messages conveying moods, sexual innuendos, and political loyalties. Detailing was crucial to the success of an outfit, and bright colours were greatly favoured.
There was a strict line of demarcation between male and female dress. Women wore long skirts, men hose and doublets. Both sexes wore elaborate headgear, indoors and out, and broad-toed “duckbill” shoes, sometimes with straps, while high, square-toed boots were worn for riding or hunting. Henry VIII’s shoes were of soft leather or velvet, sometimes decorated with cuts or embroidered with pearls in floral designs.3 Each pair cost about 18d (£22.50).4
During Henry VIII’s reign, men began to wear nightshirts and women nightshifts, or smocks, in bed, rather than sleep naked. Henry always wore a nightshirt, unless he was making love to his wife.5 Men and women also wore nightbonnets, or “biggins,” embroidered coifs of white linen, silk, or, in the King’s case, velvet.6 Older men, lawyers, and academics tended to wear these under their bonnets in the daytime. A “nightgown” was the Tudor term for a dressing gown or housecoat.
Male fashions were more flamboyant then. Shirts were loose-fitting with a drawstring at the neck; early in the reign necklines were low, but later on they became high with a small frill that would later develop into the Elizabethan ruff. Hose were divided into upper and nether stocks, or breeches and stockings. Henry’s hose were usually of silk, leather, velvet, or satin, and were dyed in various colours such as green, white, or crimson to match his shoes.7
The doublet was a kind of wide-shouldered waistcoat or jacket with a skirt, or “bases,” attached at the waist and separate sleeves tied with laces, or “points,” to eyelet holes on the shoulder. The skirt was parted in front to reveal a prominent decorated flap called a codpiece, an overt symbol of virility, which was tied with points. Over the doublet was worn the open-revered gown, which became shorter and wider as the reign progressed and the King’s bulk increased. A cloak or mantle was worn above this in colder weather. Men’s bonnets were flat caps with plumes and brims ornamented by jewels or emblems; the King’s hats cost 15s (£225) each, and were embellished by his plume maker, Gerard van Arcle. Hair was worn in a long page-boy style, and most men went clean-shaven.
“Slashing” was a fashion peculiar to the age. It is said to have originated after the Battle of Nancy in 1477, when the victorious Swiss tore up rich materials plundered from the vanquished Burgundians and used them to patch their torn clothes. Their makeshift attire was copied by German mercenaries, and became fashionable in Germany and then France and England. Slashing involved drawing puffs of material from an undergarment through slits in an overgarment, and it was used most commonly on doublets, sleeves, and breeches.
Contemporary records provide tantalising glimpses of Henry VIII’s clothes. The splendour of his wardrobe reflected his regal status and left commentators striving for superlatives. “He is the best dressed sovereign in the world: his robes are the richest and most superb that can be imagined, and he puts on new clothes every holy day,” gushed a Venetian, while Badoer was stunned at the vision of the young King dressed in a long robe of white damask glittering with diamonds and rubies.8 Henry’s Flemish tailor, Stephen Jaspar, made him doublets of blue and red velvet, lined with cloth of gold, and purple satin embroidered with gold, as well as long gowns of Venetian damask, silver tissue, and cloth of gold. Some of Henry’s garments were so heavily encrusted with gems and goldsmiths’ work that the material beneath could barely be seen. The King was fond of making dramatic appearances in the costume of other lands, and on various occasions wore Hungarian, Turkish, Russian, German, and Prussian dress.9 His clothes were perfumed with lavender and orangeflower water, or with his own mixture of musk, ambergris, sugar, and rose water.10 In 1541, he received a pair of rare perfumed gloves from Italy. Normally, his gloves were ordered by the dozen.
The King spent £8,000 (£2,400,000) a year on clothes, not all of it usefully. He would order cloth of gold, which was cut out for a new outfit, but then decide he wanted something different, so the material was wasted.11
In 1517, James Worsley, the Keeper of the Royal Wardrobe in the Tower of London, listed some of the items of Henry’s clothing in his care, including “mantles, gowns of cloth of gold and velvet, coats, jackets and doublets, glaudkyns (surcoats), bases, girdles, belts, furs and sables, powdered ermines, cloths of gold of divers colours, velvets, satins, damasks, sarcanets and linen cloths.” There was a mantle of purple tinsel lined with black lambswool, a gown of green velvet lined with green satin, a surcoat of white cloth of silver lined with yellow cloth of gold, and a girdle set with Tudor roses and portcullises.12 Henry’s Inventory of 1547 lists forty-one gowns, twenty-five doublets, twenty-five pairs of hose, twenty surcoats, sixteen frocks (loose surcoats), seven jerkins, four tuckers, ten cassocks, eight cloaks, fifteen Spanish capes, twenty-three girdles and swordbelts, three purses, numerous bonnets, shirts, gloves, and “slops” (drawers), and the robes of the Orders of the Garter, St. Michael, and the Golden Fleece.
Most foreigners were of the opinion that English women dressed badly and immodestly, yet evidence from portraits suggests that necklines were no lower in England than elsewhere. Although English fashion did lag behind the rest of Europe, ladies of the court dressed sumptuously in gowns made up of at least ten yards of material. This allowed for the mandatory long trains, which were either looped up at the back to expose the kirtle, or carried over the arm.13 Bodices were tight-fitting to the waist with wide, square necklines trimmed with goldsmiths’ work or jewelled borders and tapering to a V at the back,14 where they were laced up. Hinged corsets or “bodies” with metal bands, covered in velvet, leather, or silk, were introduced around 1530. In the 1540s, the square neckline began to give way to a stand-up collar. When pregnant, women wore bodices with front lacings that could be let out to accommodate their increasing girth.
By 1530, the farthingale had become popular, and skirts grew stiffer and wider; they were now worn open at the front to expose the kirtle beneath. Around the waist, ladies wore a jewelled girdle, from which hung a scented pomander on a chain. Sleeves were separate items; early in the reign they were tight to the wrist with furred or embroidered cuffs.15 Later they became increasingly elaborate, having wide slashed interchangeable undersleeves with scalloped edges beneath long hanging oversleeves, turned back to expose the rich fabric or fur of the lining. Most women wore black knitted worsted stockings held up by garters.16 Their only other undergarment was the chemise or smock.
Only unmarried girls were permitted to wear their hair loose, and queens on state occasions. Married women wore hoods of “various sorts of velvet, cap fashion.”17 The gable hood was a peculiarly English fashion that was popular from around 1480 to around 1540. Inspired by the fivepointed arch of late Perpendicular architecture, it framed the face and completely concealed the hair. Earlier versions had long front partlets resting on the bodice, and the twin lappets of the black veil hanging down at the back. By 1515, it was fashionable to loop up the partlets, and by 1536 they were above chin level, with one lappet draped over the crown of the hood in the “whelk-shell fashion” seen in Holbein’s portrait of Jane Seymour.18 Gable hoods were made of layers of velvet lined with silk, decorated with rich embroideries and goldsmiths’ work, stiffened with metal or wire and fixed with decorative pins.19 They invariably had black veils attached. The method of construction of these hoods is still not fully understood, and it is believed to have had a symbolic significance that is only hinted at in the surviving art and literature of the period.
In the 1520s, the French hood favoured by Anne Boleyn began to be worn by ladies of fashion. This was a crescent-shaped contraption made of similar materials to the gable hood, and was worn on the back of the head over a coif of pleated linen, exposing the hair, which was parted down the middle, plaited, and coiled into a bun. A black, tubular veil hung down the back. By 1540, the French hood had overtaken the gable hood in popularity, and was to remain in fashion for the ne
xt fifty years. Towards the end of Henry’s reign, women also wore plumed hats resembling men’s bonnets, often over coifs.
Most formal clothes were made to order by professional tailors, using fabrics and trimmings supplied by mercers and haberdashers, who usually imported their wares from overseas. They were often more expensive than the best designer clothes of today: one doublet or gown would be worth the equivalent of a labourer’s annual income.20
The most costly, and therefore the most sought after, materials were silk in its various forms—velvet, damask, brocade, and satin—and cloth of gold and silver, which were woven with warps of precious metal, sometimes with a weft of coloured silk. These fabrics, which came mainly from Venice and Genoa, were often richly patterned with pomegranates, artichokes, pinepples, rosebuds, and wreaths, in brilliant dyes. Velvet often came with a raised pile; the purple velvets worn by royalty cost a staggering 41s.8d (£625) a yard, while silk damask cost about 8s (£120) a yard. The most expensive material was cloth of gold, at the equivalent of £2170 per yard. Tinsel was an inferior form of cloth of gold used for trimming garments, while tissue was a filmier type of cloth of gold, like taffeta.
Lace had traditionally been made in England for church vestments, and was sometimes imported from Flanders. Katherine of Aragon is said to have established a cottage industry in embroidery and lace-making in the Fens in the 1530s, encouraging the local women to follow her example in making Spanish black-work, cutwork, and what is now known as Buckingham lace. Lace became fashionable at court after 1533, when Catherine de’ Medici introduced the Italian mode of lace making into France.