Today’s post is an entertaining guest post by Anne Barnhill whose debut historical novel, At the Mercy of the Queen: A Novel of Anne Boleyn, will be released in January 2012!
Playing Dress-Up
While doing research for AT THE MERCY OF THE QUEEN, I became fascinated with the clothing of the period and decided to ask my high school buddy, Becky Thacker, if she would help me with an authentic (that is, as authentic as we could get) Tudor dress. She agreed to join me in my madness and now, I’m the proud owner of a complete set of Tudor underwear. The outer garments will be finished in time for the next book!
The first thing we did was find a pattern, after looking at lots of books about the subject. Since I wanted to dress like a lady at Court, we selected a linen blend for the shift. Ladies of the upper classes wore a finely woven linen called lawn, and the material we picked seemed to fit the bill. Some of the ladies also wore silk but we thought the linen blend would hold up better. It would also be easier to clean.
Anne Barnhill in a Tudor shift and familiar necklace...
First, Becky sewed the shift together. My arms are shorter than normal (something she didn’t believe until she saw how long those sleeves were!), and our first order of business was to get the sleeves the proper length. The square neckline was cut quite low, which was how these garments were worn. However, I couldn’t see myself wearing something that daring in public so Becky added about an inch of fabric to protect my modesty. I had visions of myself leaning over to sign a book and everything falling out–not a comforting thought. I knew I would be nervous enough at readings–I didn’t need to worry about my chest popping out!
Many shifts of the early Tudor period were embroidered with black thread. This was called blackwork and Queen Catherine of Aragon worked Henry VIII’s shirts with this technique. As the century progressed, blackwork fell out of fashion. My shift does not have any blackwork but the neckline, sleeves and hem are edged in lace with tiny pearls sewn at the seam.
Anne Barnhill dressed in a shift and stomacher
Next came the stomacher, a garment that laces up the back, front or even sides, and flattens the breasts and belly. To strengthen the stomacher, wooden staves are slipped into slots sewn in the fabric. Often, these wooden staves were gifts from admirers, carved with love symbols or romantic messages. In my case, we did not use wood because we both felt it would be too unforgiving; instead, we opted for plastic. I know, I know–we veered from being purists at that moment. But at least now I’ll be able to eat after a reading if the opportunity presents itself. Stomachers were usually heavily embroidered and often made of silk. Mine is a silk-like material with a raised pattern and is red and black. It is difficult to put on and taking it off is even more challenging. Though we have never pulled it very tight, the first time I wore it, I thought my husband and I together would never get it off. Thank goodness there was no camera catching us pulling, pushing, prying that stomacher from my body. Once that piece is on, it will stay on.
Anne Barnhill in her Tudor shift, stomacher and red petticoat
Though it seems odd to us to think of a slip or petticoat being red, that was often the color worn by Tudor women. It is also the color of martyrs and when Mary Queen of Scots was executed, she wore a red petticoat. So, mine is also red to match the stomacher.
The petticoat billows out with a row of hoops that get larger as they head for the ground. In my case, this piece of the costume is almost overwhelming. The waist, though cinched by a string, seems enormous–even for me. When Becky brought it to me from her front door, I thought she was carrying some sort of tent–it didn’t dawn on me what it was until she explained she was finally finished with it. Now, it hangs in my closet, the ties pulled as tight as possible just so it will fit on the hanger.
Tudor bum roll
The bum roll, which goes beneath the petticoat, is also red and is a pillow-like garment shaped like a crescent moon. It ties around the waist and lifts the skirts. I’m not quite sure why. The effect is to make one look like a tank, I think. At least, that’s how I look in it.
To top off the undergarments, Becky is making a French hood–I may be standing in my underwear but at least I’ll have a hat to cover my head! And, on my feet will be velvet slippers studded with jewels and pearls, which I will glue on.
You might have noticed I did not mention panties. That’s because women in Tudor England didn’t wear them. There was a fear that wearing cloth that close to the body might cause the women to become “overheated.” From all I can gather, for ‘that time of the month,’ women used neatly sewn cloth pads tied somehow to their waists. No one seems to have a definitive answer to how they handled those times.
So far, dressing like a woman in the 1500’s has been quite a learning experience. It has become very clear why queens needed ladies-in-waiting and why it took Elizabeth I over two hours to get ready for her day. Though I love wearing my costume, I’m very glad I can change into jeans and a tee shirt once the show is over. And I’m glad I’ve written the novel–it’s the perfect excuse to play dress-up.
Follow Anne Barnhill on Facebook
This seems like an appropriate post upon which to pose this question: what is the difference between a corset and a stomacher? I was always under the impression that ladies of yonder years wore corsets to create shapely-ness, and I’d never heard the term “stomacher” until I started exploring the Tudor realm in depth.
I suppose I could just Google it, but I’d rather hear a detailed description from the experts, first. 🙂
A corset, strictly speaking, is the garment that a Victorian lady would wear. It is designed to reduce the waist size so the body is manipulated into an “hour glass” shape. It CAN be used for tight lacing but doesn’t have to be – I certainly do not tight lace and I have no requirement to reduce my waist through the wearing of a corset. However, I can still lace 1 to 2 inches smaller than my natural waist size with no adverse side affects at all (to reduce more than that, I would be uncomfortable).
During the 16th century, this type of garment did not exist. The nearest is the “stays” or more correctly a “payre of Bodies” (this eventually becomes our modern word “bodice”).
However, the “bodies” only became a separate garment (as modelled by the elegant Anne in this article) by the late 1580s or more likely 1590s.
There are only TWO extant garments like this. The “Dorothea” bodies which is almost the same shape as the one modelled is dated to 1598. Then there is Her Grace’s “Effigy” stays c. 1601.
There is a bodice which Eleanora de Toledo was wearing when she was buried in the middle of the 16th century but it is very different to the above two, in that it does not have a “V” waistline and is not stiffened in any way. It is possible that it has no relation in terms of function to the Dorothea and Effigy payre of bodies at all.
A Stomacher is the small item which in the EARLIER half the 16th century covers the unsightly lacing that keeps the gown (outer garment) bodice tightly in place over the kirtle. It will always match the gown fabric and colour making the entire bodice seem as one.
Best way to see this in practice in the period is to look at the portrait of Jane Seymour. She has a red stomacher pinned onto her gown. It covers the hidden lacing. You can see the pins heads on her left hand side.
I’m no expert, but when you think of a corset it lifts the breasts up whereas the stomacher flattens them down. I may be wrong, but the stomacher gave the women that smooth bodice line, with the cleavage visible above the dress, a different look to the hourglass shape of women in corsets
Leonie – you are close.
As I said above, the corset is a garment that is designed to reduce the waist and as you say, create an hour glass shape.
This was NOT the fashion in the Tudor and Elizabethan period. The bodice that was worn was actually what is termed a kirtle. In the medieval period this was a one piece garment (it had seams but not at the waist). It was closely fitted to the body and supported it. Even a lady of generous proportions can wear a closely fitted medieval kirtle and gown and be entirely supported around the bust – with NO STIFFENING or BONING at all. The shape that is achieved is very hour glass or natural body shaped and is created by very good tailoring.
The Tudor/Elizabethan kirtle was created by making up a fitted and lightly stiffened bodice. It was cut with a natural waistline (no “V”) in the earlier period and later with a light “V” shape. A skirt was made up as full as wished (though not ten yards in it) and this was cartridge or knife or box pleated and stitched to the bottom edge of the bodice so the two parts made one garment.
It was not the purpose of a kirtle to shape the body, but to support it. One could think of it as the 16th century version of the wonderbra! Though, the “ladies” were not on display as modern ideas of 16th century fashion would think.
The cleavage is seen but not overtly. One would not be worried that they would “fall out”.
The stomacher, as mentioned above, does not have any function in terms of bust support or body shaping. It is worn to hide a fastening which is usually a lacing in this context.
By Elizabeth’s reign, the fashions are for a “gown” with a decorative stomacher seemingly beneath it. This may have been stiffened to help keep the “V” waist down and not flip up so again, is decorative and not supportive.
Emma, I’m not sure what the difference is, except the name. Later corsets had hooks and eyes, but they had those in Tudor times, I believe. I’m not sure corsets had those little flaps all around the bottom. Does anyone know what those are for?
Anne,
I assume you are referring to corsets worn by Victorian ladies that have metal loops on one side and metal posts on the other? If so, these did not exist until the mid 19th century.
There is a bodice that does hook up the centre front with common or garden hooks and eyes but it looks like this garment is not a “corset-like” garment at all. It is made of velvet and is not stiffened in any way whatso-ever. It looks like it is simply a garment to ensure the wearer is nicely insulated from cooler weather!
As mentioned above, the “corset” as we know it does not exist in the 16th century. There are two extant “corset-like” garments which would be termed “payre of bodies”. Both these have “tabs” around the waistline. One has the tabs made up separately and then stitched into place and the other has integral tabs.
In both cases, the tabs are functional – they are there to ensure the skirts worn over the bodies do not dig into the fleshy waist and hips.
Believe me – it hurts when that happens.
Pre 1598 (when the first of these corset-like garments is dated to), ladies wear the “kirtle” which is a stiffened upper body with a pleated skirt attached (the pleating being box, knife or cartridge). The skirt in this instance, does the same job as the tabs in the later garments.
Anne you are adorable! Love the red! 😀
Here here! So ravishing in red. 😀
Leonie, That is an excellent point. The stomacher does sort of flatten and press upwards one’s, well, chest. It gives you more of a triangle look (well, in my case, more of a square but that’s not the fault of the stomacher!) And corsets pull in the waist more. What is amazing to me is that you have a stomacher and then on top of that, you have the bodice which also has staves. Talk about double-trouble!
No wonder ladies were always fainting! (or is that just in films!) Great insight Anne, thank you.
u looked so funny that i almost laughed my head off-funny but beutiful
your oldest (literally) granddaughter
Bess, thank you so much for sharing your expertise! I would love to see all the things you are talking about. I have a hard time imagining–is there a book you can recommend? or several? Thanks so m uch!
The best book I would recommend is The Tudor Tailor written by Ninya Mikhaila and Jane Malcolm-Davies.
Ninya has done a lot of work on costume over the years, particularly for Hampton Court Palace.
You can see her beautiful clothing here
To illustrate some points I made in my comments above:
Kirtle
Probably worn for most of the 16th century in some form or another, beneath the outer layers of the gown. The neckline and the front of the skirt may well have been visible through the inverted “V” of the over skirt or peaking out above the neckline of the gown bodice.
Reproduction: second two sets of photos. The first two are the over gown.
For Gentry/Nobility this would be made in finer fabric such as silks.
Stomacher
Early period – Henry VII through to end of Mary I:
Original example:
Jane Seymour
Reproduction: Green 1530s Gown
This green gown c. 1530s has a green silk stomacher or plackard over the top of the kirtle which you can just see peeking out above the green neckline.
Later Period – 1590s in Elizabeth’s Reign:
Original: Elizabeth Buxton, Norwich
Reproduction: 1600 Gown with embroidered stomacher
“Corset”-like Garments
Late Elizabethan “Corsets”:
Original: “Dorothea Stays”
1590s Stays based on the Plaszgräfin Dorothea Sabina von Neuberg, d. 1598:
Reproduction: 1590s Stays
1601-ish Queen Elizabeth I “Effigy” stays:
Original: Effigy Stays
Reproduction:
Effigy Stays – first two images – the other images show it worn with a “wheel” or French Farthingale which was fashionable in the very very late 1590s and through the first 10 to 15 years of the 17th century.
Bess, you are amazing! THank you so very much for all this information. I am going for materials for the outer garments on Friday and can’t wait. I’ve got The Tudor Tailor and it is quite informative. I get much more from your examples, though. AGain, thanks!
There are videos on Youtube that talks about the various stages of dress
The following is on Anne Boleyn
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZk9zLSzfPo&feature=related
Thanks for sharing Cindy! I hadn’t seen these before.