Contemporary Events The Protestant Reformation had ended. In many areas Protestantism was firmly established and found a way to more or less co-exist with Catholics. France and Spain are the major Roman Catholic powers. Britain, northern Germany, Scandanavia, and Holland... Continue Reading →
A Window into the Mysterious World of the 17th Century One of the most over-looked time periods in European and budding American history is the Cavalier and Puritan era– the 17th Century̵…
Contentment is a common word but sadly an uncommon experience. With Puritan precision Thomas Watson provides 5 marks of contentment.
Wenceslaus Hollar, Winter, 1643 Winter is one of the most recognized works of Bohemian engraver Wencesclaus Hollar (1607–1677). It is the final image in a series of etchings portraying each of the…
A Window into the Mysterious World of the 17th Century One of the most over-looked time periods in European and budding American history is the Cavalier and Puritan era– the 17th Century̵…
Small book from the part of 1653 that they called 1652, as the new year in this period came on Lady Day at the beginning of April. Not only lamenting the abolition of Christmas, but lampooning taxe…
Contemporary Events The Protestant Reformation had ended. In many areas Protestantism was firmly established and found a way to more or less co-exist with Catholics. France and Spain are the major Roman Catholic powers. Britain, northern Germany, Scandanavia, and Holland... Continue Reading →
My first attempt at a basic guide for new members. Let me know what you think. Part two is written, but I need pictures. Watch this space.... Introduction This pictorial guide is intended to show you the easiest way to look good in basic seventeenth century kit. It’s not a comprehensive description of all the clothes worn in 1640s. It can’t be. There is no such thing. There are so few remaining examples of clothes from this period and so little pictorial evidence to show what was worn by the soldiers and those women who chose to follow an army in the England of the 1640s that most conclusions can only be best guesses. However if you use these guidelines you will end up with a basic set of kit that is as far as we can tell accurate in the fashion of the times, method of construction and use of fabric. It will help you to look more like someone who has just stepped out of the past than a person in fancy dress. In the 1640s, the two fabrics mostly used for common clothes were woven wool, which was felted with a fuzzy nap on the surface and unbleached, natural coloured linen. Both fabrics are, at the time of writing available from suppliers so there should be no excuse for making or buying garments made from anything else. These natural fabrics are practical and hardwearing and will give you clothes that will last for years if you look after them. There were no detergents to wash clothes, and woollen garments were generally not washed at all but brushed occasionally to remove surface dirt. Most clothes would end up with a patina of ingrained dirt from campaigning, though it’s reasonable to assume that linens would be washed on a regular basis. Just make sure you don’t end up with the modern “whiter than white, neatly pressed” look. The range of colours available was quite broad, but the less well off (actually the best part of a seventeenth century army was less than affluent) made use of very few of them. Their clothes were also often so old and reused that they had faded to dull grey or brown or had been re-dyed several times. For the armies, the regimental colonels chose their soldiers’ coat colours, based on personal preference and whatever was available locally. You can find out from your commander or regimental goodwife which colour is correct for your coat and breeches. The following colours are suitable for general purpose: grey, brown terracotta/brick/russet reds, grey-blue or dark dull blues, dull shades of green, mustard yellow/ochre, heathery shades of purple, cream/undyed (remember it will get dirty and never come fully clean). Bright colours, plus black and white, are generally excluded for the lower classes as clear dye-shades cost more. Home-dyed cloth was muddier in tone and less colourfast than bought fabric. The most expensive colours were purple, royal blue, scarlet and black. Almost-black cloth was cheaper, but turned brownish in sunlight. It is better to avoid black altogether. Modern white cloth is too bright, due to the chemical bleaches used, so cream looks closer to 17th Century bleached wool and linen. Details and accessories are also important to create the overall look. Make sure any buttons conform to the 1640s style, small, round ball shaped buttons with a single shank or stalk to attach to the garment were worn, either metal, cloth or wooden beads wrapped with thread. Don’t choose wide belts with massive buckles. Seventeenth century belts were no wider than 3cm perhaps and the buckles were of a matching size. Belts were worn over the coat/doublet to hold a bag, not to keep your breeches up. Try and feel comfortable in your chosen clothes and act like a seventeenth century person would, always wear your hat, keep the top buttons fastened, don’t go out in your shift. Wearing just a shirt was just acceptable for a labourer working in the sun, but probably little else! Be proud of your clothes, they will provide you with protection and warmth. Don’t leave them to go ragged, patch them up when they tear, keep the linen clean and the wool brushed when it gets muddy. If in doubt on any of these points, ask your commanding officer or goodwife for advice. It’s better to ask than buy the wrong kit and waste your money on something that is wrong. Part One: Women The universal undergarment is the SHIFT or SMOCK, a long-sleeved T-shaped garment of unbleached linen reaching to mid-calf. It is either cut loosely or has triangles known as gores added at the sides. Contemporary Dutch pictures show poorer women with high necklines, sometimes left unfastened whilst working. We can probably assume this fashion was popular here too. Tapes, attached to the neckband, were used to fasten the neckline whilst tapes, small buttons or thread toggles can be used to fasten cuffs. There is no evidence for drawstrings around the neck in this period. Any gathering would have been permanent and sewn to a neckband. Smocks were also used as nightgowns. This one made by Peggy's Necessities. Other traders are available. Over the smock you wear a SKIRT or PETTICOAT, made of wool or linen. If your cloth is thick, full and heavy enough, you can wear a single petticoat, though often more than one was worn, especially in winter. The length should be about a hand’s breadth above your ankle. Most women wore relatively short ones to keep hemlines well out of the muck. The fabric of the petticoat should be gathered with cartridge pleats into a waistband. This will provide more than enough fullness for a seventeenth century shape as long as the wool used is thick enough. The petticoat can be fastened either by a plain round metal or cloth shanked button, a large hook-and-eye or laces (through lace-holes or fixed at either end of the waistband). The bottom edge should really be hemmed for most roles ragged edges indicate abject poverty. Lots of images show lines of ribbon or braid decoration around the edges as a protection against wear. The choice is yours. A second petticoat (if you want one) is made identically to the first, though make sure that the top one is of reasonably thick or coarse wool or linen. If you want to lift or tuck this up, you must wear another petticoat underneath to avoid displaying your smock (that would be like going out with your skirt tucked into your knickers). Over the shift you wear STAYS, sometimes called a A PAIR OF BODIES, what we now know as a CORSET Your costume will not fit properly without them, unless your bodice is fully boned. Contemporary Dutch pictures show women doing strenuous manual work in stays, having discarded their bodice. The outer fabric can be plain/dyed linen or wool. A layer of stiff canvas as an inner lining with boning all round provides stiffening. Patterns are quite simple and can be obtained from various sources. Back-laced styles can be tricky to lace up by your self. Front-laced styles are easier to manage. Shoulder straps can be either integral to the stays or separate pieces/tapes laced in when worn. Stays are not meant to be uncomfortable they should just provide the outline, not constrict your breathing. Tabs at the back and side are tucked under skirt to take weight off your lower back and spread it through the boning. Over stays, a BODICE is worn. If you prefer, you can wear a boned bodice instead of separate stays. Both are made of wool, or linen and lined. A simple bodice may have a high or medium neckline, with full or close-fitting sleeves and tabs below the waistline. It can be fastened with buttons, tapes or laces. Some styles show the stays underneath or are laced over a STOMACHER, a flat boned panel that covers the stomach, made of the same or contrasting colour. If you wear a bodice over stays, you only need to bone the front edges to prevent puckering when you lace it up. Otherwise full boning needs to be sewn into the lining of the bodice. JACKETS are more old-fashioned, but common in contemporary paintings of lower class women from the 1640s. They are tied up the front by buttons, ribbons or hooks-and-eyes. Sleeves can be full or close fitting as for bodices. Jackets may have been collarless, they also generally accommodate the fullness of the hips by adding triangular gores, rather than the separate tabs used in bodices. The front edges can be boned or stiffened with a double thickness of heavy canvas strips sewn into the lining. You cannot go into or through public areas or the battlefield with only a smock covering your upper body (this is the 17th Century equivalent of going out wearing only your bra), so you must wear at least a bodice or jacket. The most important accessory is the COIF or CAP. This is made of unbleached linen and can be worn on its own or under a wide brimmed HAT. There are several styles shown in contemporary pictures, but the most common, certainly the best represented in museum collections comes in two parts. The CROSSCLOTH was tied on first, to a bun of hair gathered behind and the COIF was then pinned onto the cloth. Hair is hidden almost completely, although with coifs, part of the hair can sometimes be seen, combed back off the forehead. Serving women are shown, in contemporary pictures, apparently wearing a length of cloth wrapped turban-style around their heads, instead of a bonnet. Hats were often of felt or leather, sometimes fashionably high-crowned or else fairly shapeless. A KERCHIEF is worn around neck and shoulders. In its simplest form, it is a square of unbleached linen or hemp folded diagonally, with the underside slightly longer and fastened with brass pins at the front. The ends are shown sometimes tucked into bodice fronts in paintings. It protects the back of your neck from sunburn and, on cold days, keeps your chest warm. An APRON should be worn for general work. This consists of a simple rectangle tied around the waist. Posh ones can be decorated with braid or ribbon, but for the majority of living history tasks, plain linen or wool is fine. WOOLLEN SHAWLS or CLOAKS can be worn in cold or wet weather. Cloaks are probably less common than shawls among the poorest people, and some travellers may have worn leather ones. The simplest cloak is a semicircle of woollen cloth, worn around the shoulders with no fixing. 17th Century SHOES are commonly known as latchet shoes. Reproductions are available from several traders Try and buy the best you can afford. You won’t regret it. They will be more comfortable and last for years. Many regiments will keep a small stock for new members, so you may have time to save up for your own. Low-heeled men’s styles are suitable for the poorest women, though even poor women’s shoes were a different shape to the men’s styles. For a lady’s shoe, with higher heels and narrower foot, prices are higher and they are usually made-to-measure. The remaining bits of the costume are more or less out of sight. You can buy or knit your own woollen HOSE. An acceptable modern substitute is plain woollen tights or unribbed knitted stockings in any of the colours mentioned earlier. Shaped linen or cloth hose are also worn. Hose should be held up by cloth GARTERS or strips of cloth. To summarise, you need a SHIFT, one or two PETTICOATS, STAYS, BODICE or JACKET, COIF, KERCHIEF, HOSE and SHOES for your basic costume. If you must carry things make a leather bag can be hung from a belt around your waist or you may carry a basket. Pockets for women at this time are still ‘little bags’ and (we think) carried under a petticoat on a linen tape around the waist. Information from “The Textile Group”. Thanks for all the help guys. Images courtesy of Rusty Aldwinckle and John Beardsworth. Women's shoes made by Sarah Juniper
Addicted to Trim: 17th Century Ribbon Loops If you could describe the 17th century in one word, “swag” probably wouldn’t be the first to come to mind, but the term– which is…
Giles Fraser: Loose canon: The Church of England's fear of conflict evolved to hold the nation together. But now it just breeds seething animosity
by Melissa Evans, MA candidate, V&A/RCA History of Design Some clichés are ubiquitous. Take ‘Home is where the heart is’ – it’s one of those sayings where, once you start to look, you find it...
Painting by William Dobson from around 1645, though it was probably finished by another artist after Dobson’s death. The painting is thought to be Richard Streatfield and his family. There ar…
Visit the post for more.
Visit the post for more.
Inigo Jones was a British painter, architect, and designer who founded the English classical tradition of architecture. The Queen’s House (1616–19) at Greenwich, London, his first major work, became a part of the National Maritime Museum in 1937. His greatest achievement is the Banqueting House
Few events in the history of nations can be as traumatic as civil war. Yet, the English Civil War in particular was a conflict with an outcome unprecedented in the history of the world: the public trial and regicide of a reigning monarch by rebel forces. Unlike similar disturbances in France or Russia, the English rebels who executed HM King Charles I actually made at least a haphazard effort to look like they were showing fairness and providing a legal validation for the murder of their archenemy, who happened to be their anointed sovereign. It seems like a theme that would appeal to Americans in particular; the idea of Parliament overthrowing and executing a powerful monarch. However, is the situation as simple as it seems? Not likely, and how fair was this trial and how accurate is the picture painted of the Stuart king? Certainly, few people if any could accuse King Charles of being a wicked or immoral man. Charles, son of King James I (of the Authorized Bible fame), never had a mistress, set an example of moral uprightness and required that his court follow the same high standards that he lived by. The method with which Charles led the British government is a bit more complex, but still does not seem malicious by any leap of the imagination. Nevertheless, he inherited an attitude and mindset that was not always good for his image or government function. S.R. Gardiner wrote that King Charles “looked upon the whole world through a distorting lens” and refused “to subordinate that which was only desirable to that which was possible”. King Charles believed (like his father) that the monarch was answerable to God alone, not the public and not both. He was afraid, not so much of rule by the people but rule by those who claimed to speak for the people. He felt that government was for kings and not meant for the public. There was no evil intent behind this, it was simply his sincere belief that republican rule would harm society. King Charles did not speak of himself as the divine personification of Britain, as Louis XIV of France might have been tempted to do, but instead spoke of himself as the guardian of his people and their place in society and status as free subjects. In fact, it has been argued that if King Charles had shown as much ruthlessness in fighting the war as he was accused of showing in government the royalist cause might well have prevailed. The King himself wrote, “It is a hard and disputable choice for a king that loves his people and desires their love either to kill his own subjects or be killed by them”. His enemies were successful, especially in the Irish campaigns, because they were willing to be more cruel than the King was who seemed to only want to use his military force to persuade his enemies to surrender and frighten the rebels into submission. An impartial look shows that the philosophy of the forces of Parliament and the Puritans was even more terrifying than the principles of Divine Right Monarchy. Their warrior-hero, Oliver Cromwell, expressed the belief that Charles was wrong simply because he had lost and in effect stated the very dangerous belief that ‘might makes right’. Also, as much as His Majesties’ Puritan opponents, Charles I was a man of great faith who was extremely devoted to the Anglican communion of the Christian religion. Part of this faith was his belief that it was his right and duty to rule England as best he could, not as Parliament saw best or advised him. He made it clear that he could never be king if he did not have the power to rule as he saw fit. Even after his defeat Charles remained convinced of the righteousness of his cause. He wrote, “If I must suffer a violent death with my Savior…it is but mortality crowned with Martyrdom”. This prophetic statement undoubtedly rung in the ears of many when the event that seemed so unthinkable to most people, the regicide of the King of Britain, actually occurred. However, it was not a thing that happened by sheer accident. Before the second war had even started Cromwell was stating that Charles had to be destroyed and his people should not deal at all with the monarch as to negotiation a peaceful settlement. Cromwell’s son-in-law, Henry Ireton, was advocating that the army occupy London, remove all dissenters from the House of Commons, arrest the king and abolish the monarchy by sheer military force. Eventually this was taken to even greater extremes to propose that Parliament should be dissolved altogether and an entirely new voting system be established for entirely new elections and representations. This is important to remember since the rebels claimed to be on the side of popular opinion and called themselves the forces of Parliament. In fact, the Parliament had already declared that the king could not be legally deposed. It would also be a mistake to claim that the rebellion against the King was the masses against the upper class. In the end all of the results of the war and the regicide were to the advantage of the merchants and gentry class. The forces of the rebellion were anything but popular or democratic. When rebel troops marched into London and seized Parliament they were acting to prevent the democratic process by turning away close to 200 members who tried to take their seats. When these men protested against this tyrannical, police-state action, many were arrested. Even before the “legal” process began Cromwell told the remaining 150-man ‘Rump’ that was to judge Charles I, “I tell you, we will cut off the King’s head with the crown on it”. So much for a fair trial. This is not to say, however, that there was even a great deal of popular support for putting the king on trial at all. Had this been the case the rebel troops would not have feared a fair vote by the Parliament. The prosecution for “treason” (legally defined as encompassing ‘the death of the King or the overthrow of the King’s legitimate governments’ -which was exactly what the rebels were doing) of a reigning monarch was opposed by the Presbyterians and the Levellers, both of whom opposed Charles I, who believed that the trial was a trick to divert public attention away from the issues of what they regarded as much-needed social reform. Both Chief Justices and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer all boycotted the proceedings; all of whom were opposed to the King’s policies! The House of Lords likewise was absent, not recognizing the act of putting a monarch on trial. However, had they wished to take part, it is unlikely they would have been allowed to. Even for his enemies, trying a reigning monarch was too much for most people. Far from being an upright quest for justice, the trial of King Charles is seen by many as perhaps the greatest act of deceit in British history. Author C.V. Wedgwood wrote that, “Cromwell’s faction was determined to kill the King mainly because this symbolic act of revolution would satisfy discontents that might otherwise be directed toward the more fundamental and more farsighted constitutional changes sought by Lilburne’s Levellers”. Nevertheless, just or not, King Charles I was taken before what was left of Parliament to stand trial for his actions. To say that such an act was unprecedented is a vast understatement. The King was accused of making war against Parliament, not the actual nation, and no effort was made to show how this “Rump” (which had been purged by military force) was a true representation of the English people. Realizing this, His Majesty protested that this left his accusers with no legal right to judge him saying, “you never asked the question of the tenth man in the kingdom, and in this way you manifestly wrong even the poorest ploughman, if you demand not his free consent”. Because of this principle, King Charles refused to enter a plea and demanded to know by what authority was he, a reigning monarch, called to trial? The head “judge” John Bradshaw said he stood accused by “the people of England” at which time Lady Fairfax (wife of the Parliament’s military commander of all people) shouted from the audience, “Not a quarter of them! Oliver Cromwell is a traitor!” At this the officer of the guard actually ordered his troops to fire into the crowd, but relented when the lady’s identity was made known. She was, however, forced to quit the proceedings. This is a good example of how unfairly this rebel trial was conducted. King Charles conducted himself superbly by all accounts. When told that the court operated in representation of the Commons Charles said, “Show me one precedent” in which it was the King who was answerable to the Commons rather than the reverse. In any case, this was a moot argument since the Commons had been purged by force of arms. Previous cries among the crowd calling Cromwell a traitor led to the court’s order to immediately arrest anyone who “caused a disturbance”. On His Majesty’s charge that the court had no authority Chief Justice Bradshaw brazenly said that the court was convinced of its own authority and that the king and the country must submit to their judgment. When Charles began to refute this statement he was cut off by the judge. This seemed to be rather typical for this court. When making a speech that came out too logical for the court’s comfort, rebel troops promptly dragged him from the courtroom amid cries of “Justice!” but also of “God save the King!”. Finally, Bradshaw pronounced the King guilty for refusing to plead. In response, Charles requested that a full Parliament, the Lords and Commons, be called to hear him. His Majesty said, “If I cannot get this liberty, I do here protest that so fair shows of liberty and peace, are pure shows and not otherwise, since you will not hear your King”. The court recessed after Charles’ request, though not so much for a consideration but so that calm could be restored. For while Bradshaw was accusing the King of delaying tactics a man in the audience began to call out, “Have we hearts of stone? Are we men?”. It was becoming ever more clear to all that this court was not interested in justice at all but vengeance and the idea was a profoundly disturbing one. When the court did reconvene, the King’s request was denied on the basis that it was a ploy to delay his execution, or as they termed it, “justice”. Charles admitted it would cause delay, “but a little delay of a day or two further may give peace, whereas a hasty judgment may bring on that trouble and perpetual inconvenience to the Kingdom, that the child that is unborn may repent it”. In his closing Bradshaw referred to the ridiculous notion that the King was elected and even went so far as to compare him to the Roman Emperor Caligula (who was murdered by his guard). He cited the removal of Edward II and Richard II, neither of which was lawful, the Magna Carta, which was forced by and for the lords and not the common people and all in all his argument was high-sounding but full of holes, half-truths and blatant lies. In fact, when King Charles tried to reply to this Bradshaw silenced him and arrogantly declared, “And the truth is, all along, from the first time you were pleased to disavow and disown us, the Court needed not to have heard you one word”. In effect, he was saying that even if the King had not been given a fair trial, he deemed if undeserving of one anyway. His Majesty was sentenced to death by beheading. He was refused permission to respond and was taken out by troops while saying, “I am not suffered to speak; expect what justice other people may have”. On January 30, 1649 King Charles I was taken to a scaffold outside the palace of Whitehall for his execution. He dressed warmly for fear that shivers of cold would be mistaken for a sign of fear. He addressed his enemies one last time saying, “I must tell you that the liberty and freedom [of the people] consists in having of Government, those laws by which their life and their goods may be most their own. It is not for having share in Government, Sir, that is nothing pertaining to them. A subject and a sovereign are clean different things. If I would have given way to an arbitrary way, for to have all laws changed according to the Power of the Sword, I needed not to have come here, and therefore I tell you…that I am the martyr of the people” His final words were, “I go from a corruptible to an incorruptible Crown, where no disturbance can be”. A boy in the crowd who witnessed the execution wrote, “The blow I saw given, and can truly say with a sad heart, at the instant whereof, I remember well, there was such a groan by the thousands then present as I never heard before and desire I may never hear again”. King Charles was buried in secret at Windsor Castle. In the end, Parliament itself was its own worst enemy. Rather than pointing out the merits of their case (dubious though they were in the best cases), they resorted to strong-arm tactics that only made them look all the more like the disloyal demagogues that they were. King Charles never looked better than when he was seen by all the world as the pious victim of treasonous force. Due to the forceful tyranny and the unjust murder of their anointed king, Parliament also provided the Royalist forces with a martyr in the person of King Charles I. The monarch’s gentle and passive conduct impressed his friends and infuriated his enemies. He was himself no less aware of the course history was taking, and showing both mercy and foresight; Charles told his son in Eikon Basilike, “Let then no passion betray you to any study of revenge on those, whose own sin and folly will sufficiently punish in due time”.
