13 As Lussier has shown, the splendour of the trousseau served a range of interests in promoting French fashion and political magnificence. 12 This clothing, which has been expertly analysed by Suzanne Lussier, included a royal gown and its mantle, formal gowns and a host of other garments including separate over-gowns and sets of matching bodices and/or sleeves and stomachers with petticoats. At fifteen years old, she came with a trousseau that included a spectacular array of clothing for both formal and informal wear. The daughter of Marie de Medici (1575–1642) and King Henri IV of France (1553–1610), the Bourbon Princess Henrietta Maria arrived at the English court in 1625 as the consort of King Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland ( Figure 1 ). The focus is on the textual evidence of the accounts rather than the relationship between the accounts and the pictorial record or surviving garments. After a summary of the accounts, the article examines networks of supply and production, including details of major suppliers and artificers practical aspects of fitting, mending and delivering clothing gift-giving and garment types. Given that the accounts are complex, extensive and cover a lengthy period, the intention is to provide a taste of their richness and significance. 11 This article provides the foundation for such a study. While these wardrobe accounts have been cited by a small group of scholars, there has been no systematic study of the Queen's dress. 10 These accounts complicate the view that Henrietta Maria consistently wore specifically English dress, as they refer to a wide range of garments - including many gowns throughout the 1630s - as well as ensembles described as ‘French’ and ‘Italian’. 9 Yet there has been very little analysis of the documentary evidence of what Henrietta Maria's actual dress was.Įvidence - in the form of boxes of accounts - can be found in the National Archives at Kew relating to the Queen's dress from 1627 to 1639, those ‘halcyon days’ before the outbreak of the English Civil War. 8 Notwithstanding scholarly acceptance that Van Dyck generalized elements of dress, the conclusion has been that this is ‘usually firmly based on real costume’. 1682), whom he married in 1626, was the Queen's long-serving and generously remunerated laundress. 7 It has not previously been noted that Sanderson was a well-placed source about dress at the Queen's court his wife, Bridget (d. Such portraits invoke William Sanderson's (1586–1676) claim in his treatise on painting, Graphice (1658), that Van Dyck was ‘The first Painter that e’re put Ladies dress into a careless Romance’. Indeed, what Gordenker and others have stressed is the relative simplicity of the dress in Van Dyck's English portraits, especially the ones from the late 1630s. 6 The absence of a gown is certainly evident in most of Van Dyck's portraits of the Queen. 5 She explains that this ‘typical English costume’ is characterized by a bodice-petticoat combination without a gown. 4 Emilie Gordenker has argued that Van Dyck depicts Henrietta Maria in ‘English style’ dress rather than more formal French fashions. 3Įssentially, the discussion of Henrietta Maria's dress at the English court has focused on how it is pictured in Anthony van Dyck's (1599–1641) portraits. 2 But for Henrietta Maria (1609–1669), the French queen consort who married Charles I (1600–1649) in 1625 and created a sensation at court - sartorially, politically and confessionally - there has been limited engagement with the archival sources related to her dress after she arrived in England. In the cases of Henry VIII (1491–1547), Elizabeth I (1533–1603) and Anna of Denmark (1574–1619), the accounts have been read alongside the clothing depicted in portraits, with close correlations. Analysis of documentary sources, including inventories, wardrobe accounts and New Year's gift rolls, have also provided a wealth of evidence about dress and its central role in court display and diplomacy. 1 Given the low survival rate of garments, historians have traditionally looked to artworks, especially portraits, for evidence about clothing styles. In its intrinsic material value, meticulous craftsmanship and brilliant surface effects, the richly dressed body signalled social status, cultural discernment and gendered virtue, and could be marshalled to political ends. Dress was a powerful means for displaying magnificence at the early modern court.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |