The Influence of Tudor Fashion during the Stuart Period

In Tudor and Stuart Britain, fashionable clothing was highly valued by both men and women and not just by monarchs; the people who comprised the court also took an interest as well.[1] As is the case with today’s generation, outfits, shoes, and accessories were worn to express a specific message to the public and represent some kind of social status. During these periods, the more elaborate and, arguably, over-the-top designs wealthy people wore, the more respect they earned. However, according to David Kuchta, the interest in men’s fashion decreased over time, creating a “masculine renunciation.”[2] Instead of the traditional flashy clothing and jewelry, men’s dress leaned more towards modesty.[3] Kuchta argues that the lack of interest in clothing was due to a number of factors: “… [The] changing political, economic and social orders from 1550 to 1850.”[4] In 1666, King Charles II attributed to this newfound modesty because of different coats and vests he wore that resulted in the popularization of the three-piece suit. While men’s styles certainly varied over the years, the appreciation for male fashions was still highly present throughout the period and was not entirely based on modernity. Similarities in men’s clothing between the Tudor and Stuart periods can be found through many paintings and portraits of this time; this source of documentation allows us to compare and contrast the style from different time periods. Continue reading

Advertisements

The Consequences of Ottoman Aspirations in Europe for Henry VIII’s England

The early sixteenth century saw the advance of the Ottoman Empire into Europe. Though the Ottomans remained far away from England to be considered a real threat, the English were still influenced by Ottoman actions. Ottoman technological superiority led to better military tactics, which facilitated raids and invasions in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean Sea. The Ottomans’ influence in the Mediterranean Sea also grew with their defeat of Venetians at the Second Battle of Leopanto in 1500.[1] By the time Charles I of Spain became Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire as Charles V in 1519, Ottoman pirates were raiding the French southern coast and disrupting trade routes.[2] It was with the reign of Suleiman the Magnificent that the Ottoman Empire reached its zenith and began various campaigns that would unequivocally threaten Christian Europe. The growing conflicts against the Ottoman Empire in Central Europe inadvertently aided Henry VIII in his efforts to reform the English church detailing and help to explain why the rest of Europe made little to no real effort to stop Henry. Continue reading

Punishments for the Pretenders

In fifteenth century England, following the War of the Roses, two “pretenders” challenged the newly-crowned Henry VII for the English throne: Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck. These men posed as Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick, and Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York, respectively. Both Edward and Richard were legitimate heirs to the crown, whose power intrigued Simnel and Warbeck.[1] Ian Arthurson notes that it is not clear what happened later in their lives, but we do know that Simnel and Warbeck were not treated as brutally as other traitors by the Tudor dynasty. The men were initially made servants, and then continued on to have their own careers. Thus, the questions remains: Why, after having pretended to be of royal blood and challenging Henry VII, were Lambert Simnel and Perkin Warbeck not put to death? Pretending to be legitimate heirs to the royal crown would appear a form of treason. So, why were they only made into servants and not put to death for their wrongdoings? Continue reading

15/35, Needed More Restriction

A king is, in theory, the figurehead for the kingdom he rules over. In him, outsiders can see the values the country he resides in and upholds. During times of conflict, he is a man who does not dwell in the safety of his castle, rather he fights with his knights on the front lines. In peace, he is a man of the people, always open to their suggestions and willing to negotiate, never resorting to using force or fear in order to control them. The king is righteous, justice incarnate, and a God-fearing warrior. He does not command respect; rather, he earns it.[1] These values were championed by Thomas More in his definition of a good king, though they would lead to his demise as Henry VIII reshaped those very definitions to suit his own goals. Continue reading

Sir Francis Drake: Naval Hero or Warmonger?

Sir Francis Drake, c. 1591.
Sir Francis Drake, c. 1591.

Was Sir Francis Drake a pirate or a privateer? Firstly, despite having actually delved into piracy early in his career, Drake has often been referred to as a privateer rather than as a pirate directly. Of course, the terms “privateer” and “pirate” are relatively interchangeable as both employ the same techniques in order to accomplish basically the same goal. In other words, both cases would use seafaring expertise to raid unsuspecting vessels whilst out in the ocean far from land or unwanted naval incursion. The only discernible contrast between both parties was the notion that privateers received private government funding to carry out their raids, especially during wartime.[1] Essentially, privateers are just pirates under the employment of a group that benefits in some way from their actions. Continue reading

Broadening the Scope: The Expansion of Imperial Aims from the Tudors to the Stuarts

The accession of James VI of Scotland as King James I of England after Elizabeth’s death marked a significant shift in the three kingdoms. Elizabeth’s choice of remaining without an heir meant with her death came the end of the Tudor dynasty and the foreign policy they employed for decades. With the Tudors, their intention of consolidating power over Scotland and Ireland meant their foreign endeavors ended at the isles themselves. With James’ acquisition of the English throne, he became, in theory, a figure head for unity and a symbol for hope that England, Scotland, and Ireland could unite and transform into “Britain.” With this transformation, “Britain” could turn its sights outward and adopt a new, more aggressive, foreign policy. James would later prove, however, that his plans differed. Continue reading