In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
, bevw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>I googled "Brilliana Lady Harley" and her dates are c. 1600 - 1643. Does
>that help identify the sort of lace she might wear - if she wore it? 

1600-43 translates to last three years of Elizabeth I, all of James I,
and then to Charles I, and at this time the fashion changed from the
stand up ruffs of Elizabeth to the falling collars of the Stuarts. A lot
of the portraits of the time were, I think, a 'from the stock painted by
the apprentices' body with a 'snapshot' portrait of the head added by
the artist - if you look at old portraits, you will see an awful lot of
unrelated women wearing the same dress, in more or less the same
position! Lace was a sign of rank, and she would have been 25 when
Charles I came to the throne.

In J R Planche's History of British Costume (published 1836), he writes
"At the commencement of the civil war, when the royalist party began to
be denominated Cavaliers, and the republican, Round-Heads, the costume
of England was as divided as its opinions; but the dress of the Cavalier
was gallant and picturesque in the extreme. It consisted of a doublet of
silk, satin, or velvet, with large loose sleeves, slashed up the front;
the collar covered by a falling band of the richest point lace, with
that peculiar edging now called Vandyke; a short cloak was worn
carelessly on one shoulder. The long breeches, fringed or pointed, as we
have already mentioned, met the tops of the wide boots, which were also
ruffled with lace or lawn...." and that was only the men! 

It would appear, a few pages later, when talking about the female
costume, that fashion changed greatly over the years, quoting from a
play "Rhodon and Iris" first acted May 3 1631, part of the florists
feast at Norwich - about half way through the (long!) quote about a
fantastical lady of fashion, "Now she commends a shallow bande so small,
That it may seem scarce any bande at all; But soon to a new fancy doth
she reele, and calls for one as big as a coach wheele: ..." (almost as
fickle as the 20th Century!) followed by a quote by another play from
1659, and then "And at this time accordingly we find a change in the
female costume, which renders it equally elegant with that of the other
sex. The hood and vardingale disappear, and with them the yellow
starched ruffs and bands". He goes on to say that it was apparently the
case of a Mrs Turner who went to the gallows for her part in a
poisoning, wearing a yellow ruff, which resulted in that particular
fashion falling from favour - Mrs Turner had been the one to introduce
it from France in the first place.

In contrast, "The ladies of the republican party were chiefly
distinguished by the plainness of their attire and their adherence to
some of the more staid and sober articles of the old dress, such as the
hood, the high-crowned hat, etc."

Being a noble woman, I suspect that she would have worn the bande
(falling collar) with lace trim until approaching the years of the civil
war, when if hers was a Parliament family, she would have dressed
plainly to avoid being mistaken for a Royalist. I'm not sure when
Puritanism first came into being in England; certainly up to a
relatively short time before anyone not Church of England would have
been executed for heresy and despite Elizabeth's tolerance, freedom of
religion wasn't gained until the 1700s. The first we heard of it in
history at school was with the reign of Oliver Cromwell - and that began
five years after this lady died. 
-- 
Jane Partridge

-
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line:
unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to