Available Colors during the Tudor Dynasty:

There is a long-standing debate about the availability of colors during the Tudor dynasty.

The production of premium dyes, and dyed fibers such as wool, flax, or cotton was big business and caused a great deal of competition among dyers. Just as today we see knock-off's of premium clothing such as Guchi and Prada, etc., so it was during the time of the Tudors with certain dyes.

During the reign of Edward VI, son of Henry VIII & Jane Seymour, around 1553 - 1554, an Act was passed by Parliament for preventing frauds in the woolen fabric manufacture in England. In this Act, there was a statute set forth that the dyers must devote more time to studying their craft rather than making money.

According to another Act passed during the same period, English dyers were limited in the variety of colors they could use. These colors were restricted to Scarlet, red, crimson, murrey, pink, brown, blue, BLACK, green, yellow, orange, tawny, russet, marble-gray, "sad-new-color" - which was a darker tone of gray, azure, watchet (light blue) sheep's color, motley, and iron gray. While they may have been "restricted" to these colors, it bears mentioning that there were a plethora of colors that could be made from these particular colors! They would have been available in different hues and shades - and by this list it does not appear that they were limited to gray, brown, russet, golden yellow, or goose turd green! (Yes - That really was a color!)

Now, we may get the impression that the colors used for clothing during the Tudor dynasty were crude and rather dull, using the colors I just referenced, I would also like to turn your attention to the following facts for you to digest before we go any further:

During the years 1547 to 1158, the silk fibers used to weave 12 panels of tapestry for the Emperor Charles V of Spain, came from Granada gold came from Milan. The artist, Jan Vermeyen, along with 84 hand-picked weavers, set about to complete a masterpiece tapestry which took five years to complete! Fastidious documentation was kept for the dyes used in this tapestry that have survived the ages. When investigated by modern-day historians, they found 83 different tints of colors listed. Those 83 colors were each subdivided into a series of 22 colors in each shade; each of  which again compromised two to five other tones; making the total number of shades or colors used something like 8 thousand!   Numerous tints, subtle hues, and gradations of tone were used to dye the silk for the use of tapestries outside of England, if not inside of England, during that time period. Since nobility were exempt from many of the sumptuary laws, and they spent great fortunes on importing goods, it is not a long stretch to opine that they could have a diverse color pallet from which to choose from in dyeing velvet, satin, silks, and other cloth.

The colors of pale blue, deep blue, violet, peacock blue, rich deep green, rose, purple, wine, orange, gray, green, yellow, gray-blue, sandalwood, lilac, gold, and pink are some of the colors mentioned as being worn by those of higher stations in Ruth Turner Wilcox's "The Mode In Costume."  There are a small group among Elizabethan costume enthusiasts who disagree with this particular resource, because they almost exclusively follow the research of Janet Arnold, but Turner Wilcox discusses the beautiful combinations of colors and fabrics that her research has found to be available - and modern day fiber artists have now proven to be available.

Some may argue with Wilcox's research, however, it is difficult to argue with the actual color samples I have provided that have been rendered from authentic natural dye recipes from the 16th Century sources. Despite Wilcox's critics, I find her references about color helpful to inspire my client's who are planning their noble and middle-class costumes. I also find her sketches inspirational, as I do those of Norris. They offer unique style ideas for those who want something different than the same generic, cookie-cutter Elizabethan style bodice, skirt, and sleeves, i.e.. flat jacquard trim/ribbon sewn in an upside down triangle on the bodice and skirt edges; or geometrically placed trim on the forepart, and the typical hanging French sleeve with padded shoulder roll.

You will see also that those among the Commons were not reduced to wearing drab colors.  There was an assortment of colors obtained from the local plants, berries, and flora of England, as well as in France, Spain, Italy, Holland, and the surrounding countries that were both affordable and available during the Renaissance.

The people of the commons had a wide and vibrant variety of yellows, oranges, and golds, violets, pinks, greens, and blue-greens - - both bright and dark in all these shades, as well as black (Yes, I said BLACK) that has been mentioned in historical resources as being readily available from local plant materials. These colors, while not as harsh or as bright as our present day synthetic dyes, were every bit as vibrant and beautiful!

As more and more historical enthusiasts and fiber artisans attempt to recreate these natural dyes, you can now find resources available that showcase the actual colors that were rendered from vegetable and plant dyes used during the "Renaissance" period, as well as earlier centuries.

One woman in the UK (Jenny Dean) experimented with dyes available to the Celts in Iron-Age Britain (Circa 600 BC - 50 AD). Some of the results of her Celtic dye experiments are seen in the pictured left.

Look at the vibrant colors she has produced! Not at all what you would expect, is it?  I might add that they do seem to support Wilcox's opinions on the variety of colors and dyes available during the 16th Century!

In the additional pictures to the right and below to the left are some of the medieval dyes she's researched. We can see some of the range of possible colors. Notice the lemon yellow, blues, blue-greens, pinks, oranges, mauve, and purple?   The purples are accomplished with the use of "Lichens."

For those who don't believe vibrant dyes would have been available during the Renaissance era, it should be noted that in the Iron Age, the Romans commented on the brightness of the clothing of the native Britons. The result of Jenny Dean's experiments (seen in the pictures above), as well as other dyers, indicates that it was certainly possible to produce bright colors using inexpensive and readily available plants. If the Celts in 600 BC could produce these vibrant colors, they would most certainly be available during the 1500s to 1600s AD.

 MYTH:  "There were no pink dyes during the Renaissance."

Many websites from prominent Renaissance Faires in California and all over the US, as well as MANY amateur costumers (those who study and produce costumes as a hobby), and even some who are considered professionals, continue to erroneously claim there were "no pink dyes" during the Renaissance period. I see this myth proliferated time and time again!

One rumor I heard was that there WAS pink, but that it would only have been worn by those who lived near the ocean. I'm not sure I understand the reasoning for that particular claim, except to deduce that they were probably thinking of the colors rendered from sea snails, also known as Murex, the exhaust (weakened dye solution) of which could render a pale mauve or lavender - but not pink. This is simply an example of people relying on "word of mouth" rather than to investigate the validity of such claims. But more importantly, we really haven't had an accurate color reference available for many of the colors mentioned in historical texts from the time period. While fiber artists have replicated plant dyes, many of the names given to colors of that time period remain a mystery, but we do now have a visual reference to turn to for the color palette that would have been available.

One color that has caused confusion is Scarlet.  When we think of the color "Scarlet" we picture RED.  But it is now believed that "Scarlet" was actually a very bright purplish-pink as seen in the fabric to the left.  Many of the names of the colors in the 16th Century have no modern day reference in our color pallet.

 - Cochineal & Kermes - Though expensive, it was a popular source of Red. Cochineal will also render the pink shades seen in the pictures above.

The deep pinks and the lighter shades of those shown above, are rendered from what is known as "exhaust," which is the left-overs of a red dye bath, only a weaker solution, as mentioned previously. Once they achieved the desired bright red garment or red dyed yarn from a Cochineal dye bath, the left-overs would be used to render various shades of pink

Another artisan and historical dyer in the UK (Teresinha Roberts), used Cochineal to achieve these hot pinks shown in the pictures above to the left. She offers instructions and dye kits using authentic cochineal (made from crushed dried insects). A link to her website is available on my website.

Keep in mind, Cochineal and Kermes were an expensive commodity. Because it was expensive, it was considered to be a "premium" dye - which was why red clothing and dyes rendered from Cochineal and Kermes was restricted by a certain social and economical class.

Now think about it logically.  These dyes were very expensive! Do you really think they would have simply thrown out the exhausted dye because "pink" was a no-no?  Absolutely NOT! It makes more sense they would use every ounce until the dye bath was completely exhausted, which is why you see the various shades of pink - from dark vibrant hot pink to pale baby pink.

While people continue to proliferate the myth that there were no pink tints or dyes available in the Renaissance, there is simply too much evidence to show that pink dyes not only DID exist, but were rendered in both natural plant and insect dyes - as exhibited in the samples shown.

These pinks shown in the picture to the left were rendered by another dyer using blackberries.  While the dye renders an uneven appearance, and may not be as long-lasting as Kermes or Cochineal, it still offers us proof for a possible, and even plausible, economical resource for rendering pinks and purples.  Strawberries, cherries and raspberries were also used to produce the color of pink, as well as Brazilwood, Birchbark, and Lichens.

These beautiful shades of lavender, mauve, pale pink, and taupe  pictured to the right were rendered from Lichens - Available in the 16th Century.

The beautiful bright pinks pictured to the left were rendered with Brazilwood available in Portugal during the 1500s.

These gorgeous rose-taupe shades pictured to the right were rendered using Birch bark.

Having now shown you proof that dyes ranging from Hot Pink to Pale Pastel Pinks and Mauve were available, I hope we can finally put aside the rumor and debate that there were no pink dyes available during the Renaissance. While dyes using Kermes and Cochineal were more probably only available to the nobility, gentry, and upper middle class, there were indeed dye materials that could be used by the lower classes.

Pink dyes - both inexpensive and expensive - were available to both the commons and upper class throughout Europe; but if you're still not convinced, I need only refer you to the portraits I’ve attached from that time period. These are only two!  There are plenty others available. 

Now. . . take a look at the following portraits of ladies from the 16th century wearing PINK gowns pictured left and below to the right.

I've anticipated that the argument might be raised that the portraits above are of Italian origin, rather than English. But keep in mind, England was a MAJOR player in the import and export trade, and imported goods from all over the globe. 

Despite the tensions with the Spanish during Elizabeth's reign, England imported an enormous volume of goods
from Spain - the chief among them being wines for which the English taste was legendarily insatiable. They also imported dried fruits (raisins, currents, figs), apples, pears, olive oils, silver, and even iron.

Sugar, indigo, spices and particularly ivory came from the Portuguese, although the Venetians and the Dutch also sold a great deal of eastern spices to England.

Venetians also sold the top-quality Chinese silks as well as the more widespread Ottoman silks to England - not to mention the import of velvet.

Timber, flax, hemp, pitch, tar, cereals (grains), fish and salt often came from the Northern European traders of Germany, Scandinavia and Poland.

Direct trade with Russia, established in the late sixteenth century fed England’s insatiable demand for furs, but also Indian spices of nutmeg, cloves, and Persian silks. 

Still not convinced? - - Well the picture left is an extant smock from the 16th Century displayed in the Museum of London. While the threads have faded to a pale pink, the embroidery work was once a brilliant pink! 

Indeed, as one can see, England imported vast quantities of goods from other countries and was unafraid of spending colossal amounts on eastern luxuries, both when they could not afford it (most of the 16th century) and when they could. Therefore, it is not inconceivable that Kermes and Cochineal were among these imports.

I believe it is safe to conclude that YES, there were pink dyes during the 16th Century in England.

 

16th Century Dyes:  The Color Blue

If we see blue mentioned as one of the three premium dyes included in the Sumptuary laws, are we to conclude that wearing blue was mainly for the wealthy?

This color is particularly confusing and controversial. There were said to be two main sources for rendering blue dyes: Woad - which was indigenous to England and readily available, and Indigo which was imported from Asia.

One source makes assertions that blue (from woad) was so expensive that, "...One barrel of woad could be used to dye three pieces of cloth. A burgher's (middle class) wife might pay as much for one dress as she might to buy a small house." (Dyes from Plants, Seonaid M. Robertson, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1983). Other sources I've found state that in England the color blue was so common it became known as the color of servitude (servants). I wonder how a dye can be both so expensive that one dress dyed from woad could cost the same as a small house, yet at the same time become so commonly worn among servants that it became synonymous or suggestive that one worked as a servant.

On a website in the UK dedicated to the history of Woad I found the following:

"Woad is native to the Mediterranean, originating in Turkey and the Middle East, from where it spread into Europe. As early as the Neolithic, 5 to 10,000 years ago, woad seeds were stored for future use. . . Blue-couloured bast fibre, presumed to be linen or hemp dyed with woad, was found in the French cave of l'Adaouste, Bouches-du-Rhone."

"Woad and indigo were used by the ancient Egyptians: dyes have been found on cloth of about 2500 BC, and later mummy wrappings, though they were apparently not in common use until 300 BC. Linen is a difficult fiber to dye, so color was used sparingly, mainly in the border of fabrics.

"Blue-dyed textiles were found in the Hallstatt chieftain burial sites of Hochdorf and Hohmichele, Bavaria (800 to 400 BC).

An Iron Age grave from the first century AD, located at Loenne Heath (Lønne Hede) close to Varde, Denmark, was found to contain a young girl wearing a blue dress, comprising a blue blouse and skirt, with edgings and borders in an intricate blue and red pattern. The blue colour is said to come from woad."

A box of woad seeds were also included in the 9th century (835 AD) Oseberg royal ship burial in Norway. The queen was dressed in a red dress of wool-muslin decorated with silk, but the second woman was dressed in a blue twill woolen dress dyed with woad."

(http:/www.woad.org.uk/html/britain.html)  

It seems that the discrepancy lies within what type of dye was used by those employed as servants, and perhaps even the date.

From my research, and what I've gleaned from the research of others, it appears evident that Woad dye was used more commonly due to the availability of the plant used to produce it. However, while it was indeed common and a lucrative business for England, it was a painstaking process to produce it.

One source I found states the process of producing blue dye from woad included fermenting for many weeks in manure which had to be constantly stirred. While another states it involved soaking the leaves from three days to one week in human urine, ideally urine from men who had been drinking a great deal of alcohol - which was said to improve the color of the dye.  Whether or not both processes are factual, remains unanswered, but urine was used in the 16th Century to produce "ammonia" to whiten linens; so it is not a far stretch to believe urine would be used in the fermentation process for woad, which would make it a rather smell affair.  Here are some samples of fibers dyed in Woad.

I have to consider whether or not the Sumptuary Laws instituted by Elizabeth was referring to dyes rendered by the use of Indigo or Woad rather than a blanket restriction on the color of blue.

Wikipedia (which is NOT a wholly accurate resource) states that blue became a common color for clothing during the Renaissance, just as we will read Pope Pius claimed. But how is that possible if the only reliable dye source in England was rendered from Woad, and one barrel could cost as much as a single house?

I think we have to assume that there were other dye stuff that was used to render blue dyes, and in fact, I will show you an example of one source that became very popular as a 'knock-off' for Woad.  However, it should also be noted that those employed as servants by the Landed Gentry, nobility, and royalty were not members of the lower or labor class (the poorest class), but were more often than not members of the middle or yeoman class. Also of note, if a servant was dressed poorly it reflected on the financial success of the family who employed them; therefore, it might be plausible that servants would have worn blue dyed liveries (uniforms) provided by their wealthy employers; which could account for blue being considered "too common" or synonymous with servitude.

Furthermore, it may be of interest to note that those who served the King or Queen (more specifically those assigned as ladies and gentleman of the privy chambers) - and were in closest proximity to them on a daily basis, would have been chosen from among the noble houses. Servants working in the King's (or Queen's) house, i.e., household, cooks, laundress, etc., would also have come from the upper middle class. They would have been better dressed than the poorer classes; while not in the same manner as those among the titled nobility or the untitled landed gentry, but they would not have been dressed in rags as it would reflect poorly on the Queen or King. While woad may have been too expensive for a commoner (a day laborer, shop-keeper, etc.,) or those among the lower classes to wear, there were many other plant sources from which blue dyes could be rendered.

For instance, while the following sources would not provide a dye that was as fast (long-lasting) as Woad or Indigo, plants such as dogwood bark, blueberries, logwood, cherry roots, and cornflower petals - just to name a few - could be used to render blue dyes.

I read one particular individual's argument that the lower classes would not use or wear clothing dyed from these types of natural sources because they faded too fast, and that the lower classes in the16th Century would not have "time" to redye their clothing - being too busy eeking out a living in the fields, etc.  Since there is more information available about the upper classes than those in the lower classes, this assertion is mere speculation; or in other words, "individual opinion" without any documentation to support it.

One dye that came into common use to render blue dye was Logwood. However, it wasn't used much until 1575. John H Munro's "Early Modern Techniques of Dyeing Black" states that in the early to mid 16th Century the Spanish discovered large stands of Logwood trees in South America. The importation of Logwood was banned in 1581 by Parliament. It has been suggested by some sources I found in the SCA that Logwood dyes and dyed materials were banned because it was competing with the Woad industry in England, and in some cases were being passed off as Woad, only to eventually fade to an ugly brown, and my research suggests there is validity to that claim.

The picture to the left is yarn and linens dyed with Logwood.

(http://www.georgeweil.com)

Depending upon the mordants used it rendered red, blue, or black. In "Color: A Natural History of the Palette" on page 98, the author states it was banned by Parliament "...because the colors produced from it [Logwood] were of a fugacious character [meaning it faded quickly], and pretended they were looking after the interests of the users, although the fact that it represented a profit for the Spaniards cannot have helped."

So again we see some evidence that due to this dye source being imported by the Spaniards  it was regulated or banned, using the excuse that it was an inferior dye. In reality, it wasn't as color fast as Woad, but it was less expensive and because England did trade large quantities of goods from Spain, it is likely to have been available, which would compete with England's Woad trade. England appears happy to trade goods with the Spain, so long as those goods did not offer competition for items that were lucrative.

Summing it up, woad blue was used as far back as the First Century A.D. Its production reached its zenith in the 1500s. Since Woad and Indigo were considered to be premium dyes (premium as in expensive and highly desired), and blue mentioned was specifically in Elizabethan Sumptuary Laws, I think it wise to assume that the Middle Class and Upper classes were definitely wearing blue. However, if the commons did wear blue, the question remains: What dyes did they use, since Woad and Indigo were too expensive?  It appears by the reports of abuse of Logwood and passing it off as "woad" dyed, that blue was indeed commonly worn.Unfortunately, I cannot answer that definitively. Therefore, I would take my cues from the exact "fabrics" mentioned in Elizabethan Sumptuary laws, as well as recommend royal blue and dark indigo blue for those among the gentry and nobility, and other shades of blue for those portraying household among either of the aforementioned classes.

Was the color of Purple for Royalty only? - - And was it rendered from Sea Snails during the 16th Century?  

The Sumptuary laws of Queen Elizabeth I say:

None shall wear:

“Any silk of the color of purple, cloth of gold tissued, nor fur of sables, but only the King, Queen, King’s mother, children, brethren, and sisters, uncles and aunts; and except dukes, marquises, and earls, who may wear the same in doublets, jerkins, linings of cloaks, gowns, and hose; and those of the Garter [meaning those who were inducted into the *Knights of the Garter], purple in mantles only.”

*Incidentally, The Knights of the Garter, or The Order of the Garter, was founded by Edward III in 1348. The Order, consisting of the King and twenty-five knights, was the highest honor one could attain and was usually reserved for those who were either born into nobility, or were bestowed with titles of nobility, and reserved for those whose service to the King or Queen were considered to be exemplary, and usually held the rank of an Earl, a Baron, or a Knight.”

The above statute seems to be where we find the controversy. Is Elizabeth specifying the color purple - casting a wide net to restrict that color in any fiber, or, is she restricting silk dyed with purple?

To answer that, lets break down the statute sentence by sentence. In the first line Elizabeth specifically refers to silk that is dyed purple. She does not state, "No one except the King, Queen, Kings mother, children, etc., can wear the color of purple….rather she says silk dyed purple.  She also mentions cloth of gold (which was fine linen or silk fibers spun with real gold), and sable fur. The fact that she mentions these two other items in conjunction with purple dyed silk is also telling, as both were extremely costly.

If you were related by blood to the King or Queen, or held the title of Duke, Marquise, or an Earl, you were considered "royalty” and could wear purple silk, cloth of gold, or sable fur in a doublet, a jerkin, in the lining of cloaks, in gowns, and in hose [stockings]. But those who were members of the Knights of the Garter could wear any of these fabrics or fur only in their mantles, which was a kind of wrap or cloak.  So if you were a Baron or a Knight, and you were a member of the Order of the Garter, you could wear purple silk, cloth of gold, or sable fur ONLY in the lining of your cloak.

At any Renaissance Faire, or on the websites of Faire Boards, popular internet sites dedicated to Elizabeth, and on the websites of private reenactors and costumers, they proliferate the opinion that only the King or Queen could wear purple.  But Elizabeth doesn’t say you cannot wear purple! - She says purple silk. Did you catch that nuance? -  SILK. 

QUESTION: Has the assertion that only the “King” or “Queen” could wear purple  have stemmed from a misunderstanding or a “miss-interpretation” of these Sumptuary Laws?

It is worth mentioning, that some faire boards prohibit the use of purple in the clothing of the actors at Renaissance Faires so that the Queen or King will stand out from among the other reenactors for the patrons, who don’t always know enough about Renaissance history to be able to spot her/his majesty. My character at faire for many years was that of a baroness (Margaret Howard, Baroness Scrope of Bolton), and many times patrons have referred to me as “her majesty.” Because they see me dressed sumptuously they tend to assume I am portraying royalty. Therefore, there is an effort by faire boards to disallow purple so that those portraying royalty will stand out against those portraying wealthy nobles. But this seems to have fed the controversy that only royalty wore purple.

So why the restriction on purple silk in the Sumptuary statutes? 

I’ll dive deeper into this topic, but purple rendered from Sea Snails was not the method used during the Tudor Dynasty. Rather, royal purple was rendered by the use of such expensive dye materials as indigo blue dye overlaid with red dye made from Kermes or Cochineal dye; which would have rendered a deep royal purple. But because Indigo and Kermes were both very expensive dyes, AND required skilled dyers to create it, fabrics dyed purple using THESE particular ingredients would place them at a premium. But, there were many other cheap plant sources that could have been, and more than likely were, used to render many shades of purple, pink, violet, lavender, and mauve which I will address later.

In an article published by Stacey Leigh in 1996 entitled, “An Historical Overview of Dyes, Dying, and Fabric Colors in the Renaissance,” she opined that:

1)  “...from these glimpses of the factors influencing the coloring of medieval and renaissance garb, we can deduce that, although the lower classes may have had a variety of colors available to them, bright red, plum purple, and most shades of blue were not among them.

2)  “We must also remember that all dye processes were somewhat time consuming and labor intensive, and the results were often uneven and not well fixed. The lower classes were probably too overworked to attend to the dying and re-dying of their daily garb.”

I’ve highlighted those two sections for a reason. In terms of her first statement that bright red, plum purple and most shades of blue were not worn among the lower classes, the painting above (pictured LEFT) put that statement up for serious debate - as you see plenty of red, blue, black, and even LAVENDER depicted in the clothing worn in the painting. The only color not shown is “plum” purple. You can read more about blue dyes in another post, but let me dispel the rumor that tints used for paints were more varied than those used for wool and clothing.

The same materials were used for both oil paint tints and dyes.

In terms of the second statement highlighted in bold the section above, I respectfully point out that we really don’t have any proof, one way or the other, to say with any surety what the peasants did or did not wear, because there simply is a lack of written documentation for that class of people. History has focused on the upper classes and those of royalty; therefore, we are left to conjecture where the lower classes are concerned - which really is just a "guess” based on one person’s ideas, opinions, or thoughts.

We do NOT KNOW what their daily, weekly, or monthly routine consisted of; though we might feel we have a basic idea, we simply lack the documentation to support Ms. Leigh’s assertion about being too overworked to re-dye their clothing.  I do not feel that simply because the process would be time consuming is evidence enough to assert that this would prohibit re-dying clothing. Everything the 16th Century Tudors did was time consuming! I do not think “time constraints” would even be an issue; and I think to suggest it would, is based on modern day comparisons rather than an understanding of the Tudor culture. We live in an age where our transportation is motor driven; where microwaves, electricity, ready-made clothing, and the availability of food that takes minimal preparation time, by comparison, can make any replication of 16th century methods of ‘dying’ materials, yarn, or clothing seem excessively labor intensive.

As an example, for the 16th Century Londoner, buying bread from the baker was a luxury that many who lived in the country would not be afforded. Therefore, I am not convinced that those among the lower classes would avoid dying their clothing because it was too time consuming, or that they would avoid doing so because by comparison to our lives they were 'overworked.’ We must keep in mind that people in the 16th Century did not have the luxury of an 8 hour work day to which we are accustomed. Dying their own fabrics, spinning, and weaving, were simply a part of the Elizabethan lifestyle. Labor intensive work was all they knew. Therefore, I respectfully disagree, and suggest that while the author has experience in replicating the process of dying with period dye stuff, the opinion she offers is based on modern day comparisons rather than fact. The norms of the 16th Century Englishman/woman would seem extreme to those of us living today in the 21st Century; as we cannot conceive of living without modern day conveniences. But when you have nothing to compare, such chores would not be avoided due to inconvenience or hardship.

Returning to my point, it is my opinion that it may not necessarily have been the color of purple that appears to be prohibited…but rather it seems very possible that it is royal purple dyed “silk” using expensive premium dyes to which the Sumptuary laws apply. It seems plausible that someone of nobility could also wear purple worsted, silk velvet, satin, damask,  brocade, or wool using these expensive dyes  - if they could afford it.

The question that begs to be answered is: What did Royal Purple look like? How was it produced?

I’ll touch on both of those very shortly. The point I am focusing on at the moment is that there were dyes that were very expensive and would have only been available to the wealthy titled, but there were also dyes that were cheap and readily available and could possibly have been used by the lower classes - more than likely the Yeoman and Merchant classes.

It is my opinion, that the dyes that were expensive were those that were regulated by the Sumptuary Laws, and I’m not alone in that assertion.

Ultimately, your guide to the wearing of purple at faire should be left to your individual guild and the faire board. If the faire board asks that only the Queen or King wear royal purple, there are many beautiful lilacs, lavenders, and mauve that COULD be used in your ensemble for both the nobility, gentry, merchants, and commoners and still be accurate to the time period.

Myth: Purple dye during the Tudor Dynasty was made with Sea Snails:

There is a belief circulating among Renaissance enthusiasts that the reason purple was set aside as a royal color during the Tudor Dynasty was because it was made of sea snails and was expensive to produce. This is only partially true.

The purple rendered from sea snails was known as Murex Purple, Tyrian Purple, Imperial Purple, or Greek Purple.

As you will see in the next section there were purple dyes made from sea snails and muscles that were very costly to make, but contrary to popular belief those dyes were not available during the Tudor Dynasty.

Murex “Tyrian” Purple 

Beginning in about 1500 BC, the citizens of Sidon  and Tyre, two cities on the coast of Ancient Phoenicia, (present day Lebanon), began to exploit a remarkable new source of purple; a muscle called the spiny dye-murex found around the Mediterranean.

This deep, rich purple dye made from this snail became known as Tyrian purple or imperial purple.

Tyrian purple was made from the ink sac and took thousands of shells to obtain enough dye to work with.

One ounce cost the equivalent of 3000 pounds sterling in today’s money, or $4,500 in US dollars.

Prior to 1464 AD, the most famous purple dye in the ancient world was Tyrian purple. A common belief is that purple dye during the Tudor Dynasty was made from these sea snails, and is believed to be the reason why it was so costly; thereby prohibiting this color for only the very wealthy - or rather those of royalty.

While sea snails and muscles were widely used to dye clothing at one time in ancient history, and it was a costly commodity, the use of sea snails to render purple dye was not used during the Tudor Dynasty. The reason was because the secret to the production of Tyrian purple was lost with the decline of the Roman Empire. The large scale production of this purple made with murex ceased with the fall of Constantinople in 1453 (29 May, actually). It was replaced by other cheaper dyes like lichen purple and madder, or indigo overlaid with kermes.

In 1464, Pope Paul II decreed that cardinals should no longer wear purple, and instead were to wear scarlet rendered from kermes and alum; since the deep Tyrian purple from Byzantium was no longer available.  Bishops and archbishops, of a lower status than cardinals, were assigned the color purple, but not the rich Tyrian purple or the purple made from sea snails. Rather, they wore cloth dyed first with indigo blue, then overlaid with red made from kermes dye.

It wasn’t until 1685 that a researcher named William Cole replicated Murex dye. He described in some detail how to use Nucella lapillus, a type of sea shell he found on the shores of the Bristol Channel, to obtain the purple dye, but Murex dye was not commonly used thereafter.

Henry Tudor, a.k.a. King Henry VIII, became king in 1509. Purple made from Murex was no longer available at that time period, and the secret to its production was also not available. So the myth about purple dyes being produced by sea snails in England during the Tudor dynasty can once and for all be put to rest.

So. . .What did Royal Purple truly look like?

Although purple made from Murex was no longer available during the time of Henry VIII, Queen Mary, or Queen Elizabeth-1, there is some controversy - or curiosity - about what true Royal Purple looked like.

Marcus Vitruvius Pollio a Roman writer, architect and engineer  in the 1st Century, stated  that Tyrian purple varied from a reddish to a bluish purple.

Pictured LEFT: Is a dye bath made from a type of murex; a sea snail known as Hexaplex trunculus.It appears bluish at this stage, but once the fibers are dried they turn deep purple as seen in the picture above.

The mucous secretion of the Murex brandaris  species produces a dye more red in color:  See PICTURED BELOW RIGHT  which shows a sea slug (snail) and its secretion. It turns this color in the sun or when it mixes with oxygen.

 The most valued shades of “Tyrian purple” were said to be those closer to the color of clotted or dried blood. Those of us who have worked in the medical field can tell you that clotted or dried blood is a very deep wine color - as seen in the ink secretions from the slug in the pictured above.

Other Natural Dye Sources for Purple:

From the Middle Ages onward, purple and violet dyes for the clothing of common people were often made from blackberries or other red fruit of the genus rubus, or from the mulberry. Currants were also a plant source used for dyes.

Examples of dyes using blackberries and mulberries can be seen in the picture of yarns shown in PICTURED LEFT.

PICTURED BELOW RIGHT is a shade of deep purple rendered from a concentrated dye bath using blackberries.  

As I have shown you, there were many methods to dyeing fabrics in shades of purple, the least expensive of which was using natural plants and berries that were both inexpensive and readily available to even the poorest commoner. However, it has been suggested that these dyes would not be as color fast as the more expensive dyes, which would make them less desirable, even among the commons.

Whether or not those among the commons would use these inexpensive dyes, remains unanswered. I think it is plausible, but there’s no definitive answer. The one thing of which I am questioning, is whether or not the actual color of purple was what was reserved just for the King or Queen, or whether it was simply the expensive dye itself? I ponder if Tyrian purple was, in fact, no longer considered to be the Color of Royalty during the Tudor dynasty and purple dye was NOT rendered by sea snails any longer, then would the dyes used to counterfeit the color of true "Royal Purple" more than likely be available to the wealthy nobility? - because the ingredients to render this purple were cost prohibitive to anyone other than the clergy and the nobility. Things that make you say, "Hmmmm?"

Again, to recap, Scarlet (purplish pink) and Crimson replaced purple as a Royal color. They were expensive to produce, as they were made with cochineal or kermes.

But just as having cloth dyed with true Tyrian purple was once considered to be valuable, so was using cochineal or kermes; but it was not just the color that made it desirable,  it was the status of owning a garment dyed with these specific dye sources.

Cochineal: Replaces Purple as the New Royal Color

Recapping, as I mentioned earlier, the Sumptuary laws of Elizabeth I, states “velvet” of Crimson (Deep Red), *Scarlet (bright purplish-pink), or Blue, could only be worn by Knights, Barons or Baronesses, or anyone of higher rank. However, like purple silk, it was Scarlet and Crimson (and blue) Silk Velvet that appears to fall  under the purview of the Sumptuary Laws.

In 1543, the first samples of cochineal from the new world (South America) imported by Spain, arrived in Venice, which was the major silk producing and dying center in Europe. Master dyers tested the dye on silk and found it superior to the European dyes available at the time.

By 1560 cochineal had become the second most valued export (after silver) from New Spain (South America); however, the Spanish maintained strict control over cochineal exportation. With the decline of Tyrian purple, gradually deep reds, made with dye from the cochineal insect, became the new royal color in Europe, replacing that of purple.

At first the fabrics dyed with cochineal were cheaper and in less demand than the traditional kermes dyes but that soon changed. Cochineal proved to be powerful, fast and could yield colors ranging from delicate pinks to vivid reds. In addition the cochineal proved to be 10 to 12 times stronger per pound of dye than kermes. This dye was obtained by crushing the bodies of female cochineal insects, producing colors ranging from red, purple, orange, gray, and black dyes depending on the mordants used.

PICTURED LEFT: Shows wools dyed with Cochineal. Here you see the vivid red and deep wine color that became the new Royal Color replacing Murex purple - which was no longer widely available during the Tudor Dynasty.

The antipathy Queen Elizabeth had for the Spanish is well documented. Because they maintained a monopoly on the importation of Cochineal until late in the 1600s, one has to wonder if Elizabeth’s feelings about the Spanish may have had something to do with her placing restrictions upon its use?  Of course, silks dyed with Cochineal were largely imported from Italy and
Italian silks would be considered a premium.

 So...the bottom line is that the dyes used to produce purple was very costly; which was more than likely another reason why purple dyed silk was listed in the Sumptuary Laws, and usually worn by the wealthy titled, because SILK was an expensive textile in and itself.

If cochineal or Kermes and Indigo blue were used to render purple dyes on these expensive Italian imported silks, I question if THIS is what Elizabeth was addressing when she wrote this particular statute:

None shall wear:

“Any silk of the color of purple, cloth of gold tissued, nor fur of sables, but only the King, Queen, King’s mother, children, brethren, and sisters, uncles and aunts; and except dukes, marquises, and earls, who may wear the same in doublets, jerkins, linings of cloaks, gowns, and hose; and those of the Garter [meaning those who were inducted into the *Knights of the Garter], purple in mantles only.”