A gown based on Holbein's portrait of the More family
 |
 |
 |
Made in 2005
I apologize for the wrinkliness of the dress, I really should have ironed it before taking the pictures, but it was 30 degrees both outside and in my flat (86F) and I didn't feel much like ironing anything. I also apologize for the tan. The unusually hot weather in combination with a toddler who wants to play outside has given me a for me very uncommon suntan.
As said in the headline, this dress is based on Holbein's sketch of the More family, a fairly early example of this style of women's dress. The transition from the softer medieval lines to the stiffer look of the later sixteenth century is evident. I like early or late versions of styles, when they are recently formed or when they are transmuting into something else. Of course this is constantly happening, so maybe one can't even talk about transitional styles. Anyway, though I admire the style in portraits of Jane Seymour, Katherine Parr or the young princess Elizabeth, (pictures from Tudor dress: a portfolio of images) it is the earlier style, which retain some of the flowing lines of the Middle Ages, that I like best.
Maybe you have noted that I don't call it a Tudor dress. Calling it Tudor style is Anglo-centric and hides the fact that this style also existed in other areas, like France and Flanders. It gets really funny when it's called "French Tudor" or "Flemish Tudor". I know it's just a common shorthand so that we don't have to describe what we mean all the time. But it is also misleading in another way, since Elizabeth also was a Tudor. So, while this particular dress could be called a Tudor dress, since the inspiration is a portrait of english nobility, I prefer to use a term that better defines the style; the a little more awkward, but more accurate term early 16th century western European gown. That tells us that it is a Western style, found mainly in England, France and Flanders, though varieties can be seen also in other parts of the Low Countries. It is distinctly different from the early 16th century Germanic gown, seen in the German lands, Scandinavia etc. and of course differs also from the Mediterranean styles.
Below you can see Holbein's sketch for the portrait of the More family. The painting itself is lost, but some of his sketches are preserved; one of the whole painting and several studies of individuals.
There are two styles of (female) gowns in this painting. One which is open and laced over a kirtle, or possibly a stomacher, and one that is closed. The open gowns are all worn by women with quite a bit larger belly than bust measurements, so it's quite safe to assume that they are pregnant.
The general theory about how the closed early 16th century gowns were closed is that they were laced together and then a stomacher, which hid the lacing was pinned to one side. This theory is based on the portraits of Jane Seymour and of Mrs Pemberton:
 |
 |
My theory is that all the women in the More family sketch are wearing the same type of gown, the pregnant women just don't have the pinned on stomacher. In the 16th century there were no special maternity clothes, one adapted one's normal clothing. Clothes were expensive so you didn't get a new gown just because you were pregnant. An easy way adapt your clothing would be to wear it without the stomacher.
The kirtle could be opened at the sides or back and thus accommodate a growing belly, but since the opening of the gown was in the front, no-one could see that it didn't close. Possibly you could also attach a nice fabric under the front opening in the gown, but that seems a little complicated since it then would have to reach almost to the knees of the wearer and you would have to pin it to the skirt too, which is more difficult since it's soft and not boned.
But to get the look from the sketches, with the edges of the open gowns on the pregnant women being almost parallel, the gown cannot have edges that were laced closed all the way under the stomacher, because when you're pregnant your belly grows much more than your bust. So the original opening, as worn when not pregnant, must have been open a little at the top, that is: V-shaped. When you open up a V-shaped opening to give room for a growing belly you end up with parallel edges, just like in the sketch. (This type of dress is also seen with a v-shaped opening and no stomacher in flemish art from the first half of the 16th century)
 |
 |
The gown is cut low, to show the trimming of the kirtle. That it indeed is trim on the kirtle on the gown can be seen for example on the portrait of (presumably)Katherine Parr, which was linked to above. Anyway, though it can't be seen in this small picture, in real life you can see that the entire gown, not just the sleeves, is fur lined (or at least edged with fur) and that hairs from the fur are protruding from the edges of the gown, over the trim around the neckline. The back of the gown is cut with the two narrow pieces that can be seen on Holbein's famous sketch of an unknown woman. I don't know if it makes any practical differnce, but it looks pretty. The gown is made from chocolate brown rayon twill, which looks and feels very much like silk twill I have. The sleeves are lined with printed cotton vlvet. My inspiration for that was a contemporary flemish illumination, seen below. The sleeves on her dress appear to be lined either with black brocade or with a patterned velvet; either cut or stamped with hot irons. The under sleeves are made from shot dupioni in rose pink and blue and are pleated, like Lady Guildford's or this Holbein portrait of Jane Seymour.
 |
 |
 |
In the portrait you can see that the lines of the women's torsos are soft, showing that they're not wearing stays, or a heavily boned kirtle. That is also true for the non-pregnant woman in the back at the right, the one with the chains across the chest. My kirtle is made from very soft wool and just a too soft linen lining. If I were to do it again I would use an interlining in heavier and stiffer linen, possibly even drenched in glue. It also turned out way too big. The first picture, where I'm showing the pregnant look with the help of a small cushion and a bad posture is taken while it was still too big,which can clearly be seen at the bust. The other, non-pregnant look is after I took in a couple of centimetres at each side.
 |
 |
The smock is narrow with a square neck line and very full sleeves gathered in to the armscye and at the wrists. The cuffs and neck opening are edged with a single row of stem stitch in black buttonhole silk, again inspired by both Jane Seymour and lady Guildford. The girdle/sash is made from two silk scarves sewn together.
The hood is simple. First there is a wired coif with a finely pleated rayon ribbon in white (a most excellent gift from Teddy). The coif is made after the pattern for the henrician coif in The Tudor Tailor. It really is a little small for me, I don't think it goes far enough to the front on my face; maybe my head is to big or my hair is too thick. Or maybe I'm wrong and it fits just as it should. Then there is a wired veil from black silk satin, partly lined in yellow silk dupioni and with a roibbon made from brass wire and small pearls attached to the front. I think there may be another layer in the sketches, another cap from yellow silk maybe, but I haven't gotten around to making one yet. It is a little unsteady, the heavy veil keeps dragging it backwards, despite the chin strap. Or at least it feels so. But if I pin my braids to the top of my head and then pin the coif and veil to them there will be no problems.
| Back to the Costume gallery | Home |