|
The King's New Clothes
Author: Carol Buckley Orders of the day, Volume 36, Issue 5, 2004
|
SubTitleHow successfully was Charles I’s clothing represented through portraiture? A comparison can be made between portraiture and the clothes actually described in the wardrobe accounts held in the Public Records Office and the Victoria & Albert Museum, which Roy Stone has published. To assess the accuracy of the clothing worn by Charles I in portraiture compared to these clothing accounts assembled by Stone, it is important to limit the number of images of the King, as it would be an enormous task to try and assess the ever-increasing extent of clothes represented within the portraiture of the time. The images of Charles that probably depict his changing self image and awareness of how he portrayed himself through posture can be illustrated by the painting ‘A la Chasse’ by Van Dyke, Honthorst’s representation of the King painted in 1628 and the Daniel Myten’s portrait, painted in 1631. These three paintings can be used to illustrate whether the clothing represented in them are real or fictional. According to Stone, the majority of clothing details held in the Public Records Office are associated with the masques which were performed by King Charles and Queen Henrietta Maria. These masques were intended to show the affections of the royal couple and they included many members of the court. The costumes made for the masques were elaborate in construction and design. Sadly, the actual garments no long exist; the only visual evidence that remains are the highly intricate drawings by Inigo Jones, some of which can be viewed at Chatsworth in Derbyshire. This is in contrast to the description by many historians of the Caroline court as ‘a sober place’. This was reflected in Charles’s coronation in February 1626, at which the choice of sermon was based on Revelations 2:10, “Be faithful into death, and I will give you a crown of life”. The new king disconcerted some people by wearing a white suit instead of the conventional purple. This was appropriate, since he chose to be crowned on Candlemas Day, the feast of the Purification of the Virgin. Both the white suit and the sermon were later interpreted as prophetic of his ‘martyrdom’, but it is probably better to see them as a fusion of religious seriousness and the behaviour of a romantic hero. The artist most associated with the Caroline court was Van Dyke, who as well as the royal family painted the majority of the courtiers and wealthy aristocracy. His interpretation of Charles and the royal court seems to transform the ‘sober’ image of court life described by C V Wedgwood into one of luxury and gaiety represented through silks and satins. These images are also demonstrated in the accounts published by Stone, as references to silk suits are numerous, including ‘a suit of black grogram with edge of sattin, lined with sattin the doublet cut in panes’. The cost of this particular garment was £44.15s.6d. Other garments, such as a ‘rideing coate of beazar cullor cloth trimed with gold and silver buttons lined with plush’ are typical of those found in the Van Dyke paintings of Charles such as ‘A la Chasse’ in the Louvre. This painting, according to Miller, creates “a classical representation of unstressed royal authority and for posterity the archetypal picture of the brave prince cavaliers”. The style of clothing Charles is wearing in ‘A la Chasse’ is typical of the fashionable dress of this period. In this particular painting Van Dyke depicts trunk hose, which seem to be of scarlet wool material, however there is no record of any scarlet woollen breeches in the accounts. The only entries for garments of woollen cloth are for riding coats: ‘a grey draptburie riding coate lined with Seagreene Taby the seams all drawne trimmed with silver and silke buttons’, which cost £13.1s.0d, and ‘a riding coat of grey draptburie cloth all drawne lined with tabie’, costing £18.6s.6d. This probably suggests that the breeches were painted in, as there is no documentary evidence that they actually existed. The scarlet colour of the breeches suggests wealth and luxury, as this particular colour was expensive to produce. The actual breeches, had they been a real garment, would have been of a high quality woollen fabric. Gerrit van Honthorst’s informal representation of the King painted in 1628 depicts an image not of power but one of contemplative, even scholarly tranquillity. This private image is warmer and more accessible than the echoing allusive grandeur of Van Dyke. and gives a strong depiction of his more reflective qualities. The painting only shows his upper half, however it gives the costume historian a great amount of detail. The doublet in the painting is one of high fashion of the time, with slashes on the upper body. The pose allows the deep red lining to show intermittently, while the panel sleeves reveal a good deal of the shirt. Despite the high fashion of the doublet, the falling ruff looks back to an earlier seventeenth century fashion. The ribbon of the ‘Lesser George of the Garter’ is also shown; this was a favourite accessory of Charles’ and can be seen in many paintings of him. The royal wardrobe accounts include the cost of the ribbon for this particular accessory at £32.12s.0d. The same kind of fashionable doublet with its slashing to the upper part of the body is also illustrated in the portrait of Charles by Daniel Mytens, painted in 1631. This is full length, showing the breeches, which appear to be of the same cloth as the doublet. This is a more formal representation of Charles than that of Honthorst. The pose is similar to a Van Dyke pose, a more powerful image than previously represented. The clothes shown in this painting are not as luxurious as Van Dyke’s interpretation. Mytens depicts a simple woollen fabric, rather than the increasing number of silk garments in the King’s wardrobe. Another difference between Honthorst and the Mytens panting is the neckline. In contrast with the old-fashioned falling ruff in Hornthorst work, in the Mytens painting Charles is shown in a collar or band, which was then fashionable. The royal wardrobe accounts indicate that ‘necklings and patterns’ were purchased at £2.3s.3d. It is difficult to assess whether the collar is actually French knot lace or Venetian bobbin lace, and the accounts unfortunately do not inform us of this minor detail. In Mytens’ painting lace is also shown on boot hose, a common feature of a gentleman of the period, though they are absent in Van Dyke’s ‘A la Chasse’. This may be due to the fact that the King is dressed in riding clothes for the hunt, and boot hose were only for decorative wear. According to the royal wardrobe accounts, Charles purchased three dozen boot hose for £28.16s.0d. The King is shown in both the Mytens and Van Dyke portraits as wearing boots; they seem to be of insubstantial leather and were probably worn inside or for gentle pursuits outside. These particular types of boots are probably those referred to in the accounts as ‘thinn bootes’ or ‘Spanish boots’, along with other types of footwear including ’90 pairs of shooes, 2 pairs of slippers; for spurleather this half the year’. The cost of these items came to £54.13s.10d. However the accounts also include ’20 pairs of strong ryding boots’. This indicates that Charles owned a considerable array of footwear for all types of occasions but these are not depicted in the paintings of Van Dyke or his contemporaries. The accounts collected by Stone suggest that Charles had a great interest in sport. There are several references throughout the accounts to clothing related to sporting activities such as tennis, e.g. ’27 pairs of socks for tennis and balloon’, which cost £4.1s.0d; ‘a tennis suit of crimson white sattin, with a stitch on all the seams; and loop taffaty’, costing £12.6s.3d. To conclude, any attempt to assess Charles I’s clothing through portraiture is problematic, as the documentary sources do not actually match the clothes depicted in the paintings. This may be due to the lack of original sources that still survive in the Public Records Office, as described by Stone. The accounts also do not give a detailed description of the garments, which makes it difficult to interpret how a particular item of clothing was meant to be seen. This discrepancy can also be associated with the artist; for example Van Dyke portrays silks and other luxury cloth, but many of the garments may have been acquired just for the painting, as there are no documentary records of the clothes shown in Van Dyke’s paintings. This means that Van Dyke and the other artists who painted Charles had ‘artistic licence’ when it came to painting clothes. It probably therefore unsafe to suggest that the garments depicted were representations of actual clothes. Even if they were, it would be hard to prove they actually belonged to the sitter and great care should be taken without documentary evidence to assume that these particular clothes existed. References
|
|
|
