What Color Did Brides Wear 400 Years Ago?

Gown by Designs From Time

What Color did brides wear 400 years ago?

In Elizabethan times, the color or style was any fashionable or current color and cut of gown, but it depended on the class or station of the couple.
Traditionally, brides (and grooms) wore the best they had. White gowns did not come into fashion until Queen Victoria in the 19th Century. Depending on the social status of the families, the bride might have a new gown made, or freshen up her best gown with new ribbons or flowers. She would certainly wear flowers in her hair. However, the wedding dress was simply a gown like any other. Unlike today, the dress was not a unique style specifically designed for a wedding. Even a specially-made gown would become part of the lady’s ordinary wardrobe.

In Renaissance Italy, in an attempt to control social climbing, sumptuary laws restricted the kind of clothing people wore.  These laws grudgingly allowed brides, “if they wish,” to have “borders of pearls on their wedding dress.”  But they were allowed to wear pearls only once—and only on their wedding gowns.

During the Middle Ages and Renaissance, colors had symbolic meanings and wedding dresses were made in a range of colors - however, in Spain and Italy the symbolism was often quite different from England.

REDS: During the Renaissance the color red symbolized high social status, but it was also symbolic of  the blood of Christ, martyrdom, crucifixion. It could also symbolize Satan and color of hellfire.

ORANGE: Peasants and middle ranked persons imitated upper class reds by dyeing their Renaissance clothes with cheaper orange-red and russet dyes. A woman of the middling class might choose orange for her wedding if she wanted to ape the upper classes.

YELLOW: In almost all Italian cities, a prostitute was required to wear yellow - So, if yellow was the symbol of prostitution, perhaps one might not want to wear yellow!

GREEN:  Green symbolized youth, especially in May.  In the secular sphere, it symbolized chastity. It also symbolized love and joy.

BLUE:   Blue was the most popular color for brides. Light blue represented a young marriageable woman. In England, blue was the traditional color of servitude. Servants or members of a City company were to wear bright blue or gray.  Indigo or deep blue symbolized chastity in the sacred sphere…but turquoise blue was a sure sign of jealousy! This is where the saying “green with envy” might have begun.

BROWN: The color of brown in the Renaissance symbolized modesty. Beige was the color of poverty. In England, dull browns were worn by lower classes.

GRAY: Symbolized modesty. It was also the color of poverty. Female slaves in 1400s Florence were constrained to wear course woolens and no bright colors. In England, servants or members of a City company were to wear bright blue or gray. Grays for the lower classes.

BLACK:   Symbolized seriousness. The puritan movement in the 16th Century found its followers wearing predominately black. Black was also a color of clothing for nobility and wealthy, representing refinement and distinction.

WHITE: White symbolized purity for women and chastity for men.  At the universities of Padua and Bologna, white was symbolic of the humanities.

Obviously, royalty could do as they please. When Mary, Queen of Scots, married for the first time, she wore “clothing as white as lilies.”  She also wore diamonds, rubies, and other gems.

Several years earlier, when Henry VIII’s daughter, Mary Tudor, married Philip of Spain, the two of them wore matching outfits of white cloth of gold (white cloth embroidered with gold thread).

This tradition, of matching outfits, later became a part of American culture as well.

 In 1780 a wealthy bride in New York wore a blue damask petticoat while her groom sported a matching

waistcoat. She and her groom then followed a common tradition by wearing their wedding clothes the next Sunday in church.

Research of London Marriage Licenses, between the years 1521 to 1896, reveals more than 25,000 weddings that took place over a 350-year period of British history. This research revealed that Brides in the 18th century also typically wore a variety of colored dresses, but again, blue gowns were most popular (symbolic for purity). 

Although today, we associate white with purity, white, along with black, was worn for mourning. 

In the Regency era, Red wedding gowns were extremely popular. Preferences for colors changed with the fashion of the day. 

Colors that were popular during the Regency included blue, pink, and green. 

Darker colors like black, dark brown and burgundy were practical for a bride from the middle and lower classes. 

For a while, yellow was popular in the early 19th century. Fads for choosing a wedding dress color changed as industrial-made fabrics became cheaper, dyes became brighter, and laundering became less arduous.

Colored Ostrich Feathers: Historically Accurate in the 16th Century? - - Yes!!

I’ve heard, but never participated, in the debate about what feathers would or would not be worn by the nobility and gentry. I’ve perused several blogs, pages, and pictures on Pinterest pointing out what would be desirable and likewise undesirable. One particular post has over 450 repins on Pinterest! However, I very respectfully disagree.  I don't usually debate, or comment negatively on someone else's research. But so many of my clients and fellow reenactors have used this one particular "pin" on Pinterest to qualify the opinion that ostrich feathers - especially those that were dyed - were not historically accurate. It is for that reason that I respectfully add my voice in dissent of this erroneous opinion. I contribute these types of "rumors" to one main factor - Mainly, that much of the information passed on by well-meaning reenactors has not been properly researched or documented, but rather they hear it from someone, who heard it from someone, and so on. But once its out there it takes on a life of its own! There are plenty of examples of this - namely to do with colors. Many reenactors STILL think that pink was not a color that was available in the 16th Century, or that royal purple was derived from seashells or sea slugs during the Tudor dynasty. Both are incorrect.  Half truths, but incorrect.

For more info see my Tumblr Blog:

http://designsfromtime.tumblr.com/page/5 

While studying from one of my newest books I acquired, “Rich Apparel - Clothing and Law in Henry VIII’s England” by Maria Hayward, I ran across  a specific section that mentions Ostrich feathers, which seems to shed some light on this topic and opens the floor to respectfully debate the accuracy of the claims made by the Pinterest author and thousands of reenactors who proliferate this belief. I mean no disrespect. Please hear that! Out of respect, I'm not including the pinterest picture in my blog. 

In 1552, Edward VI, drafted a bill for the restraint of apparel - written in his own hand. He echos the statutes of apparel of his father (Henry VIII), but his draft was shorter, less detailed, and did not make any significant additions. However, Edward highlighted some small details of “NEW” items that were desirable - - and guess what it included?  Yes, that’s right! - - “Ostrich feathers.”

In this 1552 statute, Ostrich feathers, were “restricted to gentlemen and above.” The reference offered by the author is found in “The Literary Remains of King Edward VI,” written by J. G. Nichols, (1857-1964 New York: Franklin, II page 497).

To help sort out the social status of Gentlemen - - A “Gentleman” was a term that denoted a man of the lowest rank among the landed English gentry - which were untitled wealthy landowners, standing below an esquire and above a yeoman. An Esquire was the younger sons of the peerage, the male heirs of knights, esquires of the body, and officials such as judges, sheriffs, and officers of the royal household. A Yeoman, in this time period, was one step down from the landed gentry in social status, and were farmers who owned or rented the land and ran middle to large farms normally no less than 100 acres; many of whom were growing in wealth with an average income of £50-£100 per year.

In terms of social status in order of rank there was: Royalty, Nobility, then Knights, Esquires, Gentlemen, Yeoman, Husbandmen, Professionals, Merchants, with Day Laborers landing at the bottom of the social ladder.

"...Ostrich feathers were indeed a NEW and desirable commodity in 1552."

According to the references I’ve offered above, Ostrich feathers were indeed a NEW and desirable commodity in 1552.  However, Richard the III used ostrich feathers in his badges, as did other members of the royal family in the 14th and 15th centuries. The ostrich supplied feathers for medieval crests and 16th century fans, and their eggshells were turned into ornate cups. Ostriches are seen in medieval artwork in England as far back as the 12th Century.

Feathers are, together with palm and other big leaves, the oldest material used for fans. Big feathers like those from ostriches, or entire bird wings are “natural” fans. The Golden Season for feather fans in Europe started in the Renaissance era. From early 15th century to the end of the 17th century, feather fans were a fashion accessory of the European lady. Elizabeth I of England (1533-1603) had a special liking for fans. She declared that, “the only gift worthy a Queen are fans.”

The fact that the mention of Ostrich feathers are included in ANY sumptuary statute CAN, and MUST, be interpreted to mean that it was considered a sumptuous item - in other words, it was costly, and therefore subject to restrictions, and was not to be worn by the lower classes. Furthermore, the fact that they are mentioned in such restrictions at all means they WERE worn, and therefore, ARE historically accurate, despite the claims circulating on Pinterest and among the SCA, etc.

The argument is that “dyed” ostrich feathers were not historically accurate; however, in researching the history of Ostrich feathers it should be noted that in the 16th Century, Italy was renowned for coloring (dyeing) ostrich feathers into all fashionable colors (a tradition that became popular again only at the end of the 19th century). I also found a resource that states dyed ostrich feathers were a staple of the Medici family’s decoration in their coat of arms, which included a diamond ring and three colored ostrich feathers, signifying the three theological virtues, hope (green), faith (white), and charity (red).

http://italianrenaissanceresources.com/units/unit-5/essays/the-special-case-of-the-medici-experts-in-self-promotion/

Dying feathers is not so different than dying fabrics - in terms of the dye bath - so it would not be a stretch of ones imagination to find colored feathers being used in apparel during the 16th century - especially since, as I’ve stated, Italy was renowned for dying ostrich feathers, AND dyed feathers have been depicted in art dating back centuries - As I will show at the bottom on this post.

Dating back to the time of the Romans, including the 16th Century, Italy was one of the largest importers of goods from India, China, and other countries. Italy was usually the first to import new spices, cloth, and other consumable goods. England was not as quick to adopt new modes of apparel, but England imported a wealth of goods from Italy. Since Italy was renowned for dying ostrich feathers - assuming that’s where England  imported from - then I think it is safe to conclude that wearing colored ostrich feathers, or ostrich feathers of any kind, would indeed be something that the nobility and the gentry would (and did) wear.

The following are just a sampling of portraits painted of royalty and nobility featuring ostrich plumes:

There are PLENTY of other portraits that show ostrich plumes. The following shows DYED plumes in his flatcap. The portrait below is of Charles IX, roi de France en 1563 (1550-1574).

And just another sample of ostrich plumes seen in this famous portrait of what is believed to be of Helena Snackenborg, one of Queen Elizabeth's favorite Ladies. As you can see in this portrait she is wearing both a white and a BURGUNDY colored feather!!

 

Portrait of Cosme de Pascarenges by Francois Clouet, c. 1570.  he's wearing DYED ostrich plumes.

The following portrait in miniature was painted by François Clouet (1510 – 1572, French miniaturist and painter, known for his detailed portraits of the French ruling family.  Notice - - BLACK DYED OSTRICH FEATHERS!

The Violin Player (below) painted in 1626 by Dutch artist Gerrit van Honthorst (B1592-D1656). Oil on canvas. While technically the 17th Century, this painting by this Dutch artist is further evidence that DYED ostrich plumes were used even within 23 years of Elizabeth 1st death. 

Taking into consideration that MANY portraits from the mid to late 16th Century depict women (and men) wearing ostrich feathers in their bonnets (as seen in the samples above), as well as the MENTION of ostrich feathers in the Sumptuary statutes during Edward VI's reign (which is definitive evidence that it was an expensive luxury item restricted to the upper class), I believe, therefore, we can conclude that ostrich feathers are/were indeed historically accurate for the Elizabethan time period - including those dyed in bright colors!

So DO wear dyed ostrich plumes in your 16th Century hats, and know that they ARE historically accurate.

- Christine

www.DesignsFromTime.com

Italian Over-Partlet Pattern: Alter an Early Tudor pattern into a Medici Style Collar

Italian Over-Partlet Pattern: 

Hello Time Travelers!  

Today I'm going to show you how to make alterations to the early Tudor over-partlet by Margo Anderson, into an Italian  over-partlet with a Medici style collar. 

Here's what you'll need: 

 - Margo Anderson's Tudor Lady Pattern 
 - French Curve (see picture below) 
-  Tracing Paper 
-  Pencil or ballpoint pin. 
-  Paper Scissors

 You can use this same technique to alter the doublet pattern, but that's another tutorial - as the collar pieces are a bit different than the over-partlet.

 
Step One: 

 

First of all, you will notice that I leave "all" of the sizes of my patterns intact - in other words, I don't cut out individual sizes. I leave them and trace the size I need. These patterns run about $45 so rather than having to buy a new pattern, or cut and paste them back together, I leave them intact and only cut out around the edges.

Start with your front over-partlet piece.

Lay it on a stable flat surface - not on carpet, or your paper will rip when you try to trace.

If you have a hard time finding your lines, you can color-code your sizes on the original pattern, or just trace YOUR size in red or blue or whatever color you like.


Part Two: 

Lay your tracing paper over the pattern.  Trace the shoulder, armhole, and the bottom edge.

I use "Swedish" Tracing paper in widths of 29 inches.  You can also use the tissue paper used on medical examining tables, but if you don't draft alot of patterns, you may not need that much bulk. It also does not come in widths wider than 21 inches. I prefer a wider paper.








You can purchase "Swedish" Tracing Paper at this website. I have not purchased from them specifically. If you aren't comfortable buying from an un-vetted source, then just go on Ebay and search "Swedish Tracing Paper."

 
Part Three: 

For the collar, use your french curve - the "curved" part, and flare our your collar front as shown in the picture to the right.






Part Four: 



Remove the pattern from underneath the tracing paper to reveal your "tracing."

You're not done!  You'll want to add a little "flare" to the left side of the collar.



Part Five: 

Using your french curve, trace a little triangle as shown in the picture to the right.

Now cut out your traced pattern with your paper scissors. You will need it to help trace your back piece, namely to draft the collar.

Part Six: 

Now for the back piece.

You'll want to add a little "flaired" line to the back collar piece, unless you want it to fit snug.

Here's where it might get a  little tricky.

Rather than trace your back piece to the exact size you're using, you are going to take your line ALL the way to the top most line or the largest size. See the picture to the left.

The shoulder seam is trace at the proper size. Here I'm using a size 20 just for an example. But I've drawn the line all the way up to the largest size.

Now, you're going  to add a little triangle on the right.

  You are only going to add a triangle on the right. NOT on the left, as that is your fold - - you cut the back piece on the fold.



So that's it!

You've now altered an early Tudor partlet into a Square Medici Collar, and here's the finished work!













Let me know how it turns out for you!

-  Christine.

Elizabethan Wedding Gown:  

I've had this project on the back burner for two whole years!  Finally going to have the opportunity to finish it for the photoshoot I have planned in a few months. Working on finishing the beading on the forepanel.



Bodice is hand-quilted, and beaded.

Overskirt:  Matching embroidery with beading.

 Upper-sleeves: Worked in a braided-smocking technique.

Forepanel:  Hand-quilted and beaded.

Prepping to Make 18th Century Stays

There has been a lot of debate about using plastic boning - such as Baleen (synthetic whalebone), and cable ties - vs steel. If you haven't read the article, here's the link published by Foundations Revealed. I found it thought provoking!

http://foundationsrevealed.com/index-of-articles/corsetry/fabricsmaterials/557-why-plastic-is-better-than-steel


Let me segue for a moment and talk about "historically accurate stays." By the fourth quarter of the 19th century (late 1800s) baleen (whale bone) was growing increasingly more expensive and more difficult to acquire; due excessive whaling. Whale fat was used in mass quantities for oil, and of course the bones were turned into corset stays and busks. The unavailability of baleen encouraged experimentation with other types of materials used for boning. Some of the most popular alternatives were cork strips, cording, watchspring steel, Coraline, and Featherbone. Coraline was manufactured from the straight, stiff fibers of the Mexican ixtle plant, bound together by two strands of thread wrapped in opposite directions. Featherbone was manufactured from the quills of feathers. 

More  historical costumers, and reknowned historical corsetiers, are slowly beginning to rethink their previous judgments about metal as an "accurate"and more desirable alternative to plastic for 16th, 17th, and 18th Century stays. To be precise, as I mentioned above, metal stays were not historically accurate until the late 19th Century.  So if your goal is for "historical accuracy," metal stays would be out for an 18th Century corset - as well as for an Elizabethan and 17th Century. So, if you're using metal thinking it's "period" then you might as well use another type of boning, because INDUSTRIAL CABLE TIES for a 16th, 17th, or 18th Century corset/stays/pair of bodies is just as historically accurate as metal -- So why not be comfortable?

Many costumers or reenactors have had negative experiences with plastic boning - but in those cases it is often the "type" of plastic boning used.  The pre-covered plastic boning you purchase at JoAnns, for instance, has a tendency to warp from body heat, but in my experience, a corset crafted using all-metal stays - while considered to be the ONLY option for the more corpulent figure - is uncomfortable! - - That's my personal opinion and personal experience. It may not be yours. :)  

Another thing to consider is that an Elizabethan and 18th Century corset or stays were not made for tight lacing or reduction. I've been a reenactor since 2001. Far too many of you ladies out there at Renfaire and historical reenactments are buying or constructing corsets 3, 4, or 5 inches too small and tight-lacing yourself into them. Of course you would need metal stays to accomplish that! - but the true, historical purpose for a pair of bodies in the 16th Century or Stays in the the 17th and 18th century, were to smooth out the torso, flatten and lift the breasts; but not to make your waist or torso appear smaller!  You should not be so tightly laced up that you can't breathe or are in pain! I see this year after year! For one thing, it makes it very difficult to get accurate measurements when I'm draping a pattern for a gown.  Depending upon the person who laced you up, your measurements will fluctuate! I need exact measurements. Your stays should only be snug enough so that your breasts don't slip down. As a general rule, I only leave about 2 to 2.5 inches of allowance for my corsets and bodices to ensure that every time you put it on, your measurements will be the same.

My point is that, there are options to using all metal for stays, and if your corset is properly fitted and constructed there isn't a need to be laced into a steel cage! I personally use a mixture of plastic and metal.

I am a pragmatist rather than a strict purist. It all boils down to what my clients prefer, what they find individually comfortable, and what they can afford! I try always to lead with kindness and be polite; therefore, I just don't make a habit of criticizing anyone's choices, or involve myself in debating or imperiously announcing what is and is not historically accurate about someone's choices. My opinion is this: frankly, no one will see it but you! - So wear what is comfortable! Whether it's metal, Baleen, cable ties, or Reeds, use whatever works for you personally!  I tell my clients, and anyone who will listen, not to get caught up in stressing over what is or is not considered "acceptable" by other costumers. Make it your personal choice, not a choice you make in an effort to feel or be "accepted" by a hand full of people.


  
Take Your Measurements.

When taking the measurements, wear a tight-fitting T-shirt with straight side seams. It replaces the shift, which will have to fit underneath the stays, and also gives you a guideline as to where your side line is.

Because there aren't any "cups" in this style of corset, and you won't need waist reduction, it isn't necessary for some measurements.  To avoid confusion let's just focus on what you DO need: 

Circumferential:
OB = Overbust - Just above the bustline. 
BF = Bust at it's fullest. 
UB = Under bust or ribcage circumference.  
WW = Waist Width


Vertical measurements:
CF = Navel to top of corset.
FL = Front Length  - Press and compress breasts up how they would sit in the corset. Measure from just above where the nipple sits to your waist.
SL = Side Length - Taken at the side from your waist to the under arm - about 2.5 inches below the flesh part of your arm pit.
BL = Back Length - Taken waist to top of the corset - below the bottom of the shoulder blade.

Now, fit the pattern pieces together and pin them. Compare your measurements to the pattern.

If the circumference measurements differ only a bit, you can add/subtract that in the side seams when altering the pattern.

If your bust is larger, then you will need to add to the "FRONT" piece - but not both front and back pieces; otherwise, it will be too lose.

This blog explains sizing in great detail: 

http://www.marquise.de/en/1700/howto/frauen/18coranp.shtml

 However, this video is another good resource to show how to take your 

measurements for a pair of stays: 

CUTTING ON LENGTHWISE GRAIN vs CROSSWISE: 

Before you cut out your pieces, let me give you some more tips I've learned! 

On polyblend fabrics such as crepes, or satin, or stretch lace, they have a tendency to ripple or pucker on the seams if you cut them on the lengthwise grain. 

You can find the lengthwise and crosswise grain of your fabric by looking at the diagram to the right. 

While most patterns tell you to cut on the lengthwise grain, for poly blends this can spell disaster! 

Have you ever noticed when using poly blend fabrics how when you sew your seams they ripple and gather and no amount of pressing with a steam iron will smooth them?  Even if you pull or tug on your fabric as it feeds through your machine it will still ripple and pucker! You try changing your machine needle, adjusting the thread tension, and nothing helps!

The reason this happens is because you've cut out your pattern pieces on the lengthwise grain and your seams are following that grain as well. 

Instead, cut them on the crosswise grain.

My crude little diagram shows you what I'm talking about.  The top diagram is cut on the crosswise grain so that your seams will also be on the crosswise grain.

When you stitch down the seams there WILL be some rippling with the type of fabrics mentioned above, but once you press your seams with the steam iron they will press flat!


On silk, like the red Dupioni I am using, you will want to make sure your pieces are cut on the crosswise grain  like the top diagram.