paintings as fashion evidence

 portraiture is a way of researching historical fashion, it is important to recognise that there are complex issues. Paintings are helpful, but they cannot be taken at ‘face value’, as there can be hidden motives, exaggerations and staging. If we wanted to use portraits to recreate historical garments, for instance, the fact that we only have a two-dimensional image means there is much that can’t be seen.

Portraits could also be a form of propaganda. They were created to impress, to show off wealth and to display power. These carefully controlled images would then be copied; most members of the nobility across the land would be eager to own a copy of the latest image of Henry VIII (1509-47) or Elizabeth I (1558-1603), as a way of showing loyalty to the monarch.

These caveats aside, there is still often much in a portrait that shows us how either the artist wanted the subject to be seen, or how the subjects themselves wanted to be remembered for posterity. The intriguing 1533 portrait, ‘The Ambassadors’, by Hans Holbein the Younger is bursting with clues about the sitters and their connection to the new Renaissance teachings of Humanism. It shows the French Ambassador and the Bishop of Lavaur (and sometimes Ambassador to the Pope). Their luxurious fur-lined gowns, black velvet and slashed doublets indicate their wealth and standing, while the books, musical instruments and globe point to their learned status. A distorted skull in the foreground and crucifix tucked away in the top left-hand corner hint at their mortality and religion.

Portraits of the Tudor monarchs were designed to send very specific messages. Most people will be familiar with the ‘power pose’ of Henry VIII, hands on his hips further emphasising the broad shoulders of his gown. This would have been read as a sign of his masculinity and strength. His daughter, Elizabeth I, is also instantly recognisable with her large opulent gowns adorned with strings of pearls and her elaborate lace ruffs. As a female ruler in a male dominated world, Elizabeth’s portraits – and her clothing portrayed in them – had to convey many messages including her ability and strength as a ruler, and her purity as a woman. Her mantle in the ‘Rainbow Portrait’, is covered with eyes and ears, suggesting that she sees all and hears all, while the jewelled serpent applied to her sleeve represents wisdom and the heart that it holds represents mercy.

Elizabeth was fond of black and white or silver clothes – she called them ‘my colours’, and they often appear in portraits of her, such as the ‘Armada Portrait’, which commemorates the English victory over the Spanish Armada in 1588.

Black, white and silver were not only expensive colours to produce and to maintain, they also would have contrasted with Elizabeth’s pale complexion, which was a sign of her elite status, and her auburn hair, which was a characteristic feature of the Tudor dynasty. It is no surprise then, that even as Elizabeth gets older, her portraits continue to contain these unmistakeably elite and Tudor features, shown on an eternally youthful face.

Elizabeth’s clothing and accessories also often contain meanings that would have been instantly recognisable to her subjects but are perhaps less familiar to us. The intricate lace cuffs and elaborate lace ruffs, for instance, are a sign that she was a woman who did not have to do any physical or manual labour, and the jewel-encrusted gowns are testament to her wealth.

Pearls in particular were a sign of virginity and purity, which became particularly important as the image of the ‘Virgin Queen’ began to dominate. In some portraits ornate and expensive jewellery signifies not just Elizabeth’s wealth but her purity and virtue: a pendant in the shape of a phoenix, for instance, could symbolise rebirth and the Queen’s chastity, while a pelican-shaped pendant could represent Elizabeth’s motherly love for her subjects.

Further emblems include the Tudor rose, which pronounced her legitimacy and dynastic heritage and was sometimes painted in the background. In other Tudor portraits greyhounds were a popular choice to symbolise faithfulness and white gloves were used to represent elegance. For the Tudors, the messages would have all been rather obvious – all the better for easily advertising the Tudor ‘brand’.

Portraits were painted for very specific purposes, and many would not have survived for us to view had the monarch not approved them. They are therefore an invaluable resource for debate, offering fashion and textile historians enduring opportunities to consider changing fashions, symbolism and the personal tastes of monarchs. The fabrics, the cut and construction of garments, alongside other influences on the costume, such as European tastes, climate and technology change, allow comparisons to other portraits and a rare colourful insight on royals and their wardrobes.

The ‘Ditchley Portrait’ of Elizabeth I was painted towards the end of her reign and is the largest surviving full-length portrait of the Queen. It was commissioned by Sir Henry Lee to mark a visit by the Queen and to thank her for her mercy, for although Lee had offended her by living with his mistress, Elizabeth came to offer him forgiveness.

The Queen stands in a jeweled gown of white silk woven with silver. She wears a wheel or French farthingale and an elaborate open ruff. As if the circumference of her gown was not enough to make a statement, she is depicted with her feet firmly planted on a map to represent her supremacy over others.

 portraiture can be a useful way to see how historic clothing appeared on the body, how it appeared in different spaces, and what form fashions might take. Portraits are therefore a valuable source for people who wish to recreate or reconstruct historic garments. Past Pleasures Ltd, the live interpretation company who work in partnership with Historic Royal Palaces, and who feature in the dressing videos throughout the course, often use portraits for inspiration and information.

They have recreated the ‘Ditchley dress’ for use in live interpretation. Where possible, authentic techniques and fabrics are used to make these garments but of course, Elizabeth’s royal household do not hold the purse strings any longer, so some small aspects necessarily differ – especially the precious diamonds, gem stones and pearls, which are replaced with glass and plastics.

royal clothing has functioned as a visible symbol of power and wealth. Tudor kings and queens utilised their wardrobe, weaving together fashion and art as a means of propaganda, awe and control.

Today, we have a variety of social media platforms at our disposal to help us shape our public image. Consciously or unconsciously, every photo or word we share helps to forge a facade of who we are as individuals. When you think about it, it is not too different to the strategies Henry VIII (1509-47), for example, employed to create his public persona.