Fashion Police: 16th Century Sumptuary Laws in Tudor England

[Rowland Lockey. Sir Thomas More and Family (1593), National Portrait Gallery, London]

Stacy and Clinton have made their way from Rome to the bustling city of London. Stepping through time, they arrive in the regal court of Henry VIII (r. 1509–47), the second Tudor king of England. Here, portraiture provides historic insight into Henrician fashion.

Fashion in this second industry had more rules than many of its contemporaries. Fashion was not expressive; it was political. Styles, fabrics, colors, and certain cuts of clothing declared one’s social status.[1] Through the fifteenth and early-sixteenth centuries landholding became the surest path to social, economic, and political influence.[2] England’s rolling hills, with farms and flocks of sheep, became a political landscape. The king was the most influential landowner. Beneath him fell the nobility, whom participated in parliament and martial order as justices, courtiers, and landholders.[3] Beneath them fell the gentry, those knights, squires, gentlemen, and wealthy merchants who received income from landholdings and worked in the city.[4] In addition, trade ports in the Netherlands, France, the Italian peninsula, and Spain adopted English fashion, and England thereby adopted international styles.[5]

Fabrics and colors became two of the signals of one's social status. Soft cambric, stiff canvas, two-faced damask, rich cloths-of-gold-and-silver, crushed velvet, and coarse wool all became popular during the Henrician period.[6] Black became fashionable in all circles. Blue was more popular in lower classes. Purple, violet, scarlet, and crimson all became symbols of power and royalty.[7] Fashion was mobile during this period too. It trickled down to lower classes who sometimes chased the mercurial fashion of the upper class. And social classes shared fashion tastes within its ranks. This was a monstrous system that lived and breathed of its own accord almost. In order to regulate the fashion industry, sumptuary laws were written to control the nobility.

---

Sumptuary Laws -

Fashion in Tudor England was not a fad; it was law. The Henrician parliament passed four sumptuary laws in 1510, 1514, 1515, and 1533.[8] They addressed social status, gender relations, and levels of urbanization in a growing metropolitan environment.

Sumptuary laws were linked to economics. These laws served to protect English wool trade and to prevent young nobility from spending over their means.[9] An impoverished nobility affected the entire economic system, and if the nobles learned their places, then the social structure remained stable.

Sumptuary laws were linked to religion. Thomas More, lord chancellor from 1529 to 1532, wrote that an unhealthy interest in fashion distracted the mortal soul.[10] Thomas Starkey, a humanist, wrote about the body politic, how each status knitted together to form England.[11] Henrician sumptuary law allowed for fashion to fit in this body politic; dressing out of status could corrupt the body, God’s temple. A man focused on vanity, pride, and ambition above all else lost his place. With God at the forefront of his mind, and his fashion regulated by the Crown, he could focus on higher pursuits.

Sumptuary laws assuaged worries about fashion but also provided consequences. Offenders could have their wardrobe’s seized, though this proved difficult due to the size of the court and the detail of the legislation.[12] Henrician sumptuary law came equipped with fashion police.

---

Here is an example of sumptuary law from 1514.[13] The materials listed are exclusive for that social class.

The Royal Household – purple, cloth-of-gold, purple silk

Dukes – cloth-of-gold, also for equine dressings

Earls – sable or black genette [fur]

Dukes, Marquesses, Earls, Barons – cloths-of-gold-and-silver

Knights of the Garter[14] – crimson or blue velvet, imported woolen cloth

Royalguardsmen, Royal Servants, Squires, Justices, Exchequer Members, Councilmen, Mayor of London – velvet or furs of marten [a vulpine animal]

Gentlemen[15] – satin, damask, and silk camlet; imported furs; silk points with gold, silver, or gilt aglets, buttons, and brooches

Knights, Sergeants, and Graduates – more than four broad yards in a long gown or three broad yards in a riding gown or coat; velvet gowns; guarded or pinched shirts or pinched partlets of linen or plain shirts embroidered with silk; collar or chain of gold or gilt worn about his neck or bracelets

Servant – more than three broad yards in a garment; no camlet and imported furs

Husbandmen, Shepherd, Laborer, or Craftsman – broadcloth costing no more than 2 shillings a yard; hose made from cloth costing more than 12 pence a yard

Exceptions were made for clergy, foreign merchants, mayoral staff, ambassadors, henchmen, heralds, and minstrels.[16]

---

[Hans Holbein the Younger. The Ambassadors (1533), National Gallery, London]

Take a look at Holbein’s portrait of two French ambassadors. The ambassador at left, Jean de Dinteville, wears traditional clothing for a courtier of his station. His pink silk doublet is slashed to reveal the linen undershirt. A massive black gown with puffy sleeves and ermine fur trim inflates his physical persona. A gold chain of office dangles down his front. He wears dark hose with square-toed slippers popular at the time. A thick beard grips a handsome face, and a little cap adorns his head. Ambassador de Dinteville molds himself in Henrician fashion to better fit into the court. The ambassador at right, Georges de Selve, wears a plum brocade cloak trimmed in sable. He clutches dark leather gloves. His tunic covers a cassock, and a white collar appears at his neck. De Selve was the bishop of Lavaur in France. A brietta is affixed to his head, and he too sports a fashionable beard. Surrounding them are trinkets, cartographic instruments, foreign possessions, and rich finery. Based on their rich dress and the objects that surround them, clearly these men are influential, wealthy, and well-educated. Yet it also shows how important sumptuary law was in Tudor England; these Frenchmen look like Englishmen even though they were omitted from the law.

[Jan Gossaert. Mary Tudor and Charles Brandon (c. 1515), Wofurd Abbey, Woburn]

A fine example of royal sumptuary law is the portrait of Princess Mary Tudor and her husband, Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk, around the date of their secret wedding. Mary wears an ornate French hood, a jeweled necklace, and a black gown, all of which were staples in her mother’s wardrobe. (Catherine of Aragon will be analyzed later.) The gown is embroidered with pearls and cloth-of-gold thread, slashed at the sleeves to expose the white kirtle beneath it. Brandon wears a black coat with marten lapels; cloths-of-gold-and-silver embroidery line the sleeves and doublet. The golden chain of the Order of the Garter encircles his chest. Gold embroidery can also be seen on his undershirt, and a fashionable cap sits on his head. Pinned to that cap is a badge fashionable among men who fought in the Italian Wars. The two have dressed lavishly and well within their station. One could never question the royalty the two possessed.

---

Portraits to the Past -

[Hans Holbein the Younger. Portrait of Thomas Cromwell (1532–34), National Portrait Gallery, London]

Men’s fashion emphasized masculinity through broad shoulders, codpieces, and short gowns.[17] Of the three staples, codpieces were the least likely to be painted. Most portraits from this period were painted from the bust upward. Full-length portraits were expensive to commission. During the Henrician period, gowns, cloaks, coats, and jerkins became fashionable articles. The doublet-and-hose combination was a staple, as was the linen undershirt.[18] Cassocks were usually reserved for clerics, as seen in Ambassadors. Gabardine doublets were fashionable during war.

Take a look at Hans Holbein the Younger’s portrait of Thomas Cromwell, chief minister to the king from 1532 to 1540. Holbein painted this at the behest of the king, to memorialize his favorite minister. While it was a prominent position at court, Cromwell dressed in a dignified and Protestant manner. He wears a large black gown trimmed in marten fur. A black doublet peaks out from the slit sleeves, and a fashionable black cap sits on his head. This dark attire fits in the category of councilman and with the fashion of the time. And it also plays into the legend of Cromwell and the cheekiness of Holbein. His callous expression, hard eyes, and downturned mouth play into the image of Cromwell as a tart, taciturn snake.

[Hans Holbein the Younger. Jane Seymour, Queen of England (1536), Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna]

Take a look at Holbein’s portrait of Jane Seymour, Henry’s third wife. She wears a red gown with pearl and rubies studding the bodice. A golden French hood surrounds her head. Her voluminous sleeves have a gold etching to them, revealing white sleeves embellished with garnets and black embroidery. A pearl necklace wraps around her throat. It is a regal dress, one befitting her rank has Henry’s “favorite” wife. Contemporary audiences can easily recognize her as a station above other women at court.

While women were excluded from Henrician laws, their station of marriage dictated how they dressed.[19] Men’s fashion praised the body; women’s fashion concealed it. Bodices flattened chests, and skirts concealed legs and restricted movement.[20] The staple for women was the gown-and-kirtle combination, often times decorated with a jeweled or embroidered forepart over the torso, as seen in Jane’s portrait.[21] Sleeves were often attached separately, and a partlet could be buttoned over the bust to match the other fabrics.

---

The Tudors and Fashion Faux Pas -

[Promotional Photo of Henry Cavill as the Duke of Suffolk (Showtime, 2007)]

Sumptuary laws did not feature in Showtime’s hit drama,The Tudors (2007–10). Created and written by Michael Hirst, the series attempted to present to audiences a version of Henry VIII they were unfamiliar with. What audiences watched was not Renaissance England. Sumptuary laws corralled the nobility, allowed for the religious body politic of English society, and could fine offenders. None of this is present in the series. There can be little argument made for its omission; court fashion was dictated by sumptuary law. One dressed for one's station, and in the series, half of the cast wore whatever they wanted. The costuming department under Joan Bergin took artistic license with the wardrobe, meaning they tossed history out the window and spun modernity into antiquity

[Left: the manly Duke of Suffolk (Showtime, 2010); Center: promotional photo of Cromwell (Showtime, 2008); Right: promotional photo of Cromwell (Showtime, 2008)]

Henry VIII is a fashion travesty in the series, but he will be explored in the next blog post. Instead, readers should turn their attention to two men already examined in this blog post. The duke of Suffolk and Chancellor Cromwell were two of the king's closest ministers. In order to understand Henry's inaccurate costuming, audiences need to see the costuming of the men closest to him and a station below him. The duke (played by Henry Cavill) loosely appears like he does in his portrait with Lady Mary. Sex appeal overtakes his character though. In the promotional image above, he wears leather pants and a billowy undershirt. A hairy chest peaks out, alluding to the duke’s character as a burly, strapping sex god. In the first season, audiences can relish in Cavill's naked body as he parades across screen. As Henry’s right hand, he acts as lord commander of the king’s army in a campaign in France.[22] Here, he sports a fetching beard and hair pulled back into a man-bun. Hardly historic; certainly modern. However, Cromwell (played by James Fairn) appears like he does in his portrait. Black consumes his wardrobe, and he often wears his gold chains of office (omitted in Holbein’s portrait). While this might be a historic accuracy, the black costuming in the series addresses his role as a conniving politician in Henry's court. Villains wear black.

The women in the Henrician court have worse costumes. Thin sleeves from the Elizabethan (and twenty-first century) replace voluminous Henrician sleeves. Jane Seymour once wore an orange dress with an Elizabethan collar as if she were a high school prom queen. Margaret Tudor wore an off-the-shoulder gown when meeting Emperor Charles V; the historic Margaret would have never dared.[23] Catherine Howard once wore an ostentatious blue-and-gold dress with a satellite-dish ruffle. Anne of Cleaves once wore an “ethnic” outfit that seemed to misappropriate plenty of cultures and failed to enhance her character.

[Top Left: episode still of one of Anne Boleyn's authentic costumes (Showtime, 2008); Top Right: episode still of Jane Seymour in the orange dress (Showtime, 2009); Middle Left: Margaret Tudor's off-shoulder gown (Showtime, 2007); Middle Center: one of the few historically accurate costumes from Season 4 (Showtime, 2010); Middle Right: Anne of Cleves in the ethnic hat (Showtime, 2009); Bottom Left: episode still of Catherine Howard's Halloween gown (Showtime, 2010); Bottom Right: Henry in an equally hideous orange doublet (Showtime, 2008)]

The icing on the cake? The masquerade outfits from the series’ third episode, where Anne Boleyn (played by Natalie Dormer) wears a ballerina’s leotard-turned-corset with gold embellishments.[24] Henry wears a black jerkin and doublet embroidered with gold; except this costume looks as if it came from a high school drama closet. Not to mention the corsets are inspired by a Balenciaga runway outfit from 2007.[25] There is no question that The Tudors cared more about sex than fashion.

[Left: the masquerade (Showtime, 2007); Right: the Balenciaga corsets (Balenciaga, 2007)]

---

Conclusion -

Henrician sumptuary laws corralled the wild and vast court Henry VIII maintained. Status became as simple (or ornate) as the clothes on a courtier’s back. Unless of course you’re a Tudor in a Showtime series. In which case, status is as simple as screwing someone new at court, and fashion will help you achieve that goal. The tighter the clothing, the more revealing the dress, the billowier the shirt, the more likely that character will end up naked before the episode ends. There are details lost in the show that are important to history, but this costume drama has plenty of entertainment to keep viewers hooked. The costumes are modern, with off-shoulder gowns, designer corsets, translucent shirts so audiences can eye hairy chests, and garish colors like orange, yellow, and chartreuse. These would never have been seen in the historic court of Henry VIII. The goal of sumptuary laws was to control the lawless. Hirst wanted lawlessness. His dramatization has capitalized on sex and scandal more so than silks and sumptuary laws.

---

Notes:

[1] Maria Hayward, Rich Apparel, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011), 3.

[2] There were the landed, largely rural elite that fit into a hierarchy; those of urban context; and marginals, or those subservient to the first two. Hayward, 42.

[3] Ibid., 49.

[4] The Henrician gentry was climbing in size during the sixteenth century. Hayward, p. 50.

[5] The ebb and flow of fashion during the sixteenth century often followed politics. Eleri Lynn, Tudor Fashion, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2017), 19.

[6] Hayward, Rich Apparel, 86 – 88.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., 17.

[9] Italy and England shared a trade partnership in fashion. The city states purchased bolts of English wool, and the Lombards (what the English called Italians) had shops in London. Italian silks became fashionable during Henry’s reign. See Hayward, Rich Apparel, p. 18, and Lynn, Tudor Fashion, 20.

[10] Hayward, 23.

[11] Ibid., 43.

[12] Ibid., 24.

[13] Ibid., 29 – 39.

[14] The Order of the Garter is an order of chivalry founded by Edward III in 1348. It is the senior-most order of knighthood in England. Ibid., 30.

[15] This accounted for men with lands and annuities to the value of £100 a year. Ibid., 31.

[16] Ibid., p. 38.

[17] Ibid., p. 45.

[18] Ibid., p. 115.

[19] Ibid., p. 21.

[20] It should be noted that men and women both loved hats in the Henrician period. Ibid., p. 46.

[21] Lynn, Tudor Fashion, p. 47.

[22]The Tudors. “Sixth and Final Wife.” Directed by Jeremy Podeswa. Written by Michael Hirst. Showtime, May 23, 2010.

[23]The Tudors. “Wolsey, Wolsey, Wolsey!” Directed by Steve Shill. Written by Michael Hirst. Showtime, April 15, 2007.

[24] Ibid.

[25] Fernandes, “The Tudors: 10 Hidden Details About the Costumes You Didn’t Notice.”