Skip to main content

Historic Accuracy in Costume Design: The 16th century

I've never been a purist with historical accuracy as long as the changes made have a real reasoning behind (generally a narrative or symbolic one). I will always think that La reine Margot (1994) costume design is one of the most gorgeous and smart designs ever, even if said designs main premise is to purposely bend the period in regards to costume.

But there are certain things that bother me in regards to historical accuracy in costume which I realized when I found myself constantly irritated while watching The other Boleyn Girl (2008). This led me to post a question: when is it right to bend history? why is it interesting sometimes? whilst other times it's simply horrendous?

To me, when these changes are made for the narrative's sake, I'm usually on board (like the 2012's "Anna Karenina" designs, which mixed 1870's fashion with 1950's fashion in order to enhance the sense of theatricality and falsehood in Imperial Russia). But when these changes are done out of a purely modern aesthetic sensibilities, it irritates me beyond believe. In other words; when the changes are only done in order to pander more to the current fashion. These changes are really unbearable.

Unfortunately, one of the time periods that is mostly affected by this pandering is the 16th century fashion which had many aesthetic elements that by today's standards of beauty might be considered too ugly for a modern audience to deal with.

So let's go over those commonly changed elements of the 16th century fashion. These are ranked by how much they annoy me (from least annoying to God-please-kill-me annoying)

Should we do some sort of up-do?

Shakespeare in Love (1998)

Most people might not know, but up until very recently in the history of mankind (and by that I mean the 20th century) wearing your hair loose in public as an adult woman was actually frowned upon. Because of this, no decent woman in the 16th century would have worn her hair like that in public.

Yes, we've all heard that non-married women would wear it loose until married. It's actually a lie. CHILDREN did wear their hair loose, but no girl over 12 would have that hairstyle in polite society. Once you became a "woman" you would start using up-do's rather than loose hair.

But what about Elizabeth's coronation painting? She's wearing her hair loose there...

"Queen Elizabeth I" by unknown English artist

Well, the reason is very simple. The loose hair was usually used in art to depict saints and the Virgin Mary. Because of this, Queens (at least in England) were crowned sporting this look. The Queen of England was a saintly figure, and adopting this look turn her, at the eyes of the common people in a saint herself. Still, this was only done in CORONATIONS. Not as a regular style.

"Elizabeth I, The Virgin Queen" (2005) TV mini-series

By the time those collars came to be fashionable, Elizabeth had been queen for a decade, at least. By then, she wore WIGS, not her own hair. And definitely not loose.

Shakespeare in love is a repeat offender on the issue. Viola's character is shown almost every time sporting her golden locks completely loose, and she's definitely not a Saint nor the Queen of England getting crowned. So we'll sin that one.

We'll also sin The Tudors as serial offenders (they are very much present in this list, as you'll see) in this regard. At least in Shakespeare in love they tried to do a Renaissance style of loose hair (albeit only worn in paintings), here... they just go for fashionable 2000's. Good work.

 Even a movie that is generally good with historical accuracy such as is Anne of the Thousand Days (1969) falls for this one.

This is a very common mistake in movies. Mainly because they are trying to pander to a modern preconception according to which women who wear loose hair are prettier than those who don't.

"The Borgias" (2011) TV series

See? You can have a female character with an historically accurate hairstyle and still have her look gorgeous.

Who needs a chemise?

Her hair might be inappropriate,
but at least she wears a chemise

The chemise was a piece of underwear worn to avoid getting contact burns on your skin. The fabric of 16th century dresses was very heavy and generally rough on your skin, so, under the threat of not being able to enter in contact with anything for a week, you should better use a chemise. It was also used because most of these dresses couldn't be cleaned, so they needed to wear something underneath in order to avoid ruining them forever.

This is a mind-boggling common trend. Why is it so hard to have your ladies wear them? And there's even an easy way to make it look as if there is one, when there isn't...

The Tudors, once again, is trying to get the award for least chemises worn in a TV show or movie. In the picture below, can you see the skin on her arm? yes? that's where the chemise should be then.

Another offender in many categories is the Shakespeare adaptation The merchant of Venice (2004). A most abhorrent film in more ways than just the costume design. Still, the lack of chemise is rather disturbing.

I don't want to know how her boobs ended... really

And once again, The other Boleyn girl is also on the list. I know that for a modern audience this looks better, but it's a really necessary piece of wardrobe when it comes to these dresses.

The lack of chemise ranks low on the things that bother me only because generally it's hard to know if they are wearing one or not. But in the instances where it's perfectly obvious they aren't wearing one where they should... it really bothers me. It's a piece of dress that exists for comfort and it's not particularly strange looking to the modern audience, why then should it be so widely ignored?

How do you wear a French Hood?

The Six Wives of Henry VIII (1970)

This is actually a derivative trend from the "woman with loose hair" trend. And it's even more common than the previous one.

So let's step by step. First off: a French hood is not a diadem, it's a hood. So, if you remove the hood part, then it's not a French hood.

This is a French hood.

Painting of Anne Boleyn

The French hood consisted of a rigid coif with a black veil attached to the back, covering the back of the wearer's head. Because of this, the only hair visible was the one at the front.

So, with that clear, you can easily say that the following are NOT French Hoods.

Anne of the Thousand Days (1969)

I really don't know who first had the idea of having women with a hoodless French hood and loose hair, but it's pretty common and it always makes me want to gauge my eyes out.

The Tudors go further and wear them as if they were an Imperial Russian Tiara. And again, hoodless.

But it's The other Boleyn Girl that takes the prize for managing to use it directly as a headband. Well done movie. Really well done.

The French hood not only covered the hair, it also covered the ears. It was not structured as a headband. The coif covered the ears and part of the cheeks and laced beneath the chin. So this is how you should wear it:

Despite the lack of chemise, at least the Hood seems to be good enough
And it might seem stupid, but the veil was always black. Not whatever color matched your dress...

It's actually pretty fascinating to see a movie mess up with the French hood in a scene, then get it right in another and then get it wrong again, but in a different way. Usually movies stay consistent with themselves and whether or not they want to ignore historical accuracy.

No codpiece, for sure

The codpiece was a key element for any 16th century man, and it was popularized by Henry VIII. So then, why so many of his depictions for the screen are lacking a codpiece?

Henry VIII's portrait by Hans Holbein
The codpiece

This is Henry VIII most famous portrait. And as you can see, the codpiece is perfectly visible, and it's also a central element to the get-up.

But despite this, The Tudors, a show about this man, insist on not using it.

Definitely no codpiece

The only movie about Henry VIII where I've seen him wearing a codpiece is The other Boleyn Girl. It's there, but it's rather shy, and you can only see it peak out a moment or two. And no other male character wears it. Mysteries of life.

A similar thing happens in Shakespeare in Love; no character wears it except Colin Firth's villain. Apparently only bad guys and douches wore codpieces.

Will Shakespeare doesn't wear one
But Lord Wessex does

And in The merchant of Venice there is literally nothing to see (forgive the really bad pun, these movies give me a headache). Not one character wears a codpiece. It's a Shakespeare adaptation for heaven's sake! Everyone should wear codpieces.

After years of seeing 16th century set movies with no trace of codpieces, I've reached the conclusion than filmmakers think that their audience will be intimidated by the presence of codpieces and therefore don't use them. I think it's a rather stupid reason to remove such an iconic dress-piece, but whom am I to know...

Shoes are so NOT manly, let's give them boots

Portrait of Francis IX, mid 16th century

This was the standard footwear for men in the 16th century: hose and shoes. Not boots. But somewhere along the line, filmmakers and costume designers decided that hose and shoes were not manly enough, a rather funny fashion that should be changed, and started dressing in boots every single male character in their period pieces.

Every single one of the character in Shakespeare in love wears boots all the time. And they sure look manly, don't they?

Let's clarify something, boots were only used on hunting trips and war, as a way to protect your legs. So, as a gentleman in London, you wouldn't have worn boots to go to court. Am I making myself clear Anonymous?

Not only they wear boots, they also wear black leather (see below)

Nor would they have to wear boots to go to the theater. Right?

The Tudors is another repeat offender (isn't it always?). Henry VIII is always portrayed wearing high black leather boots, even when he's mostly at court.

The same goes for The merchant of Venice. The fact that they are cream colored and not black doesn't make it more historically correct.

There's one movie, though that get's it right. Every movie should look up to Orlando (1992) on that regard. Hose and shoes, that's how it should be done.

Leave it open, it looks better

Tom Hardy in Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen

That's not exactly how you wear a doublet. Just saying. A doublet did not serve the same purpose as jackets do today, even though it has a similar shape. It was not meant to open and close accordingly to how cold or hot where you. It was supposed to stay closed at all times. Here you have a couple of examples.

Portrait of Robert Dudley
Portrait of Sir Walter Raleigh

Wearing your doublet open back then would have been the equivalent of dressing up in a tuxedo and leaving your shirt unbuttoned.

The guiltiest movie in this regard is Shakespeare in love, because, if I'm not mistaken, it was the one that began the trend. Apparently they needed Will to be really, really sexy.

If I remember correctly, he doesn't close it not once in the movie. And he's not alone... Ben Affleck's sexiness couldn't be contained either.

And even Elizabeth, the Golden Age falls for this and has Clive Owen running around with a half open doublet, and boots.... At least it's not as open as the ones before. But this would still have been a big NO-NO if you were to see the Queen.

Colin Firth as John Smith in The new world spends the entirety of the movie running around in an open doublet. But in this case (and only in this case) it can be excused. It is true that explorers, once they were lost in the middle of whatever unknown place, would throw etiquette to the wind, and considered that he spends the movie exploring the coast of Virginia and running around through swaps and Indians... I do believe that he would be dressed like a beggar. I somehow doubt Indians cared for Court etiquette. And he's the first one to wear boots right! Explorers did wear boots in their voyages, as it was a way to protect their legs against vegetations, mosquitoes and whatever else that could kill them.

The trend to have the male leads go around with open doublets is purely there to try and pander to our modern canons of sexiness. And as you know, I don't like pandering.

Leather and Black, THAT'S sexy


For the last half a century, dressing your male character in black leather has become synonym of said character being cool, sexy, dark and generally broody. And that's alright if you are doing the costume design for a new Underworld movie. But it's a big, big NO-NO if you're doing a 16th century movie. Again, this is how a doublet looks like:

Portrait of Robert Dudley

So, it would be really good if they stop trying to make them look like biker gangs.

Yes, Anonymous likes the biker look very, very much. Why? That's actually beyond me.

Besides, considering the wealth of these characters, they wouldn't wear such simple doublets. They would wear embroidered doublets with color (wearing colorful clothes was a symbol of wealth) and jewelry sewn into the clothes.

The Tudors has also been recurrent in their insistence with leather. But that, somehow, never surprised me. He's not even wearing a 16th century style...

The Borgias, a show that is otherwise impeccable when it comes to costume design, also falls for this trope. At least they only do it with Cesare, and it's just the pants. Still, you can tell that they really wanted to make him look sexy.

Funny that the most historically accurate show I've ever seen in regards to this is the COMEDY Blackadder. Shame on you Hollywood.

That's how doublets look like.
Shiny and pompous and with as
much jewelry as possible

We've run out of necklaces, hurry, fetch a ruff!

Once more, let's run through the basics: a ruff is not a necklace. Easy. It needs to be attached to the dress. It can't just float around the actresses necks. Elizabeth I, the virgin queen is a repeat offender on the issue.

This is not how you're supposed to wear a ruff. This is how you wear a ruff:

La Conjura del Escorial

Mary, Queen of Scots (2013)

I guess they fall into the whole floating ruff as a way to have the character wear this very iconic piece of dress and still show some cleavage. Right Tudors?

And I don't even know what this is.

Even a quality show such as the TV mini-series Elizabeth I with Helen Mirren falls for this blaring historical inaccuracy.

The fact that filmmakers feel that they need to disregard history in order to show cleavage is a pretty worrying fact in and on itself. People would not watch the movie if there was no cleavage?

How much do you say it takes to embroider the whole thing?

16th century gowns were heavily embroidered. So why so many costume designers insist on embroidering a random element and then say: "yes, that's good enough" is beyond me.

This is how costumes should look. Not this, Tudors.

The embroidery is not a random decoration. I understand that there's the budget factor and that embroidering takes a very long time and quite the number of resources. Still, It's better not to put any than just randomly embroidering a flower here and there.

What were they trying to do? This is not supposed to be a Sears Spring season T-shirt. Although, leaving it without embroidery is not an option when you literally use different colors in the exact areas where it should be embroidered. Doing that only highlights what's missing.

The whole green area should be embroidered

And then there's the other version: printing your motifs, a technic so anachronistic that when I see a printed fabric in these movies it makes me want to gauge my eyes out. Besides, if you are going to use printed fabric, you  might as well use a correct print, not jut giant flowers.

Haute Couture, much better than your run of the mill Tudor gown....

Dear Lord, give me strength. This section is especially dedicated to the show Reign (2013), because I honestly never thought there could be a show that disregarded historical accuracy even more than The Tudors. Unfortunately, I was utterly wrong.

The show is an historical/fantasy romance following the life and loves of Mary, Queen of Scotland, during her time in France. Note the fantasy side.

"Part of the reason McCarthy (the creator of the show) chose Mary Stuart 

as the subject is because of her life history and multiple husbands, 

which makes her story "sexier"

McCarthy added that the show is designed to be interesting to a 
contemporary audience, so viewers who aren't familiar with history will be 
able to watch and relate to the characters"

This is pulled from an interview with McCarthy about the show. I really think it speaks on its own. Of course, this attempt to be "interesting to a contemporary audience" meant altering the costumes to look nothing like 16th century gowns.

Are you scared yet? Let's look how Mary of Scots should look.

Portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots
Mary, Queen of Scotts according to Reign
This goes beyond historical inaccuracy. This is directly disregarding history and throwing it out of the window.

I wanted to finish this article by talking about Reign because I think that it's the final expression of all the thought processes that lead to this systematic historical changes in costume. Let's look again at the interview with the creator of the show:

"Part of the reason McCarthy (the creator of the show) chose Mary Stuart 
as the subject is because of her life history and multiple husbands, 

This is the reason behind many of these changes I mentioned before: the loose hair, the open doublets, the use of leather.... many creators consider that historical fashion is not sexy enough and needs to be changed so the audience goes: "wow, I'd bang this character". And that this, will make their movie more successful.

"McCarthy added that the show is designed to be interesting to a 
contemporary audience, so viewers who aren't familiar with history will be 

able to watch and relate to the characters"

"McCarthy described the show as deliberately taking liberties with history, 
and that it's more "entertaining" than history"

Here lies the REAL problem; the conception that history is boring, and that if it doesn't have tons of murder and sex, it's not interesting. That audiences won't like the movie if they see the character dressed in historical clothes, because it's not hip or cool or sexy.

We'll, as a fellow filmmaker, I regret to inform you that if the story is boring is not the history part that's the problem: the writing is the problem. What makes people love a movie is its characters, its humanity, without mattering if they are dressed in 16th century garment or the latest Alexander McQueen design.

These movies or shows that are so hell-bent on "updating" the costumes are, mostly, terrible products from every angle: from direction, to acting, to writing, to photography, etc. That's the reason why you notice how terrible the costumes are. The changes have no other reason than to make them hip and make an "edgy" show.

So stop worrying over the fact that audiences won't be able to connect with a character dressed with a real French hood or a true Ruff or a closed doublet, and start writing good characters into good stories.


  1. You are wrong about queens not wearing their hair down except at coronations. The rule was that they didn't wear their hair down unless they were wearing their crown. There were many, many occasions where the crown was expected or even mandatory attire for the Queen - investitures of noblemen and knights, receiving foreign monarchs and ambassadors, while acting as Regent, post-christening festivities, etc., etc., etc. It's said that Katherine of Aragon wore her hair down as often as she could.

    1. I was not aware of that. Thanks for the heads up! I'll fix it as soon as possible

  2. Even if the stories in the films and movies are good, I still wish the costumes were more accurate. The time period supposed to take place in the PAST, not a fantasy or modern day world. That's what it feels like when you see costumes and settings that are not accurate which is disappointing.

  3. You know, ruffs can be worn without being attached to anything. They use this for every ruff I've ever seen a tutorial on how to make. You know how? STRINGS ON THE BACK. THAT'S HOW. THEY JUST TIE THE STRINGS TIGHT ENOUGH THAT THE RUFF WON'T FALL DOWN, AND THAT'S IT. Stop making it sound like wearing a ruff seperate from clothing is defying the laws of physics and breaking the rules of your little anal worldview.

    1. Hi, first of all, we are weren't saying that it's wrong because it's impossible. We are aware that the ruff is a separate piece of clothing held with strings on the back. What we meant was that it was not worn as you would a necklace. The main reason why it became a separate piece was so that it could be cleaned without having to clean the entire gown with it. We know it won't fall down. It's simply not accurate at all to wear it as shown in the movies mentioned above.
      Secondly, we do our research, I won't deny that sometimes we get things wrong, but I don't believe is the case this time. We dedicate a lot of work to this blog, and we write out of deep love both for historical clothing and movie costume design. We do this because we love it. So we are truly sorry if this article offended you at all, but there is no need to be this rude.
      We are always open to corrections, what's more, we encourage them and always adreds them, we've always done it. We love to keep an open conversation with our readers because there is always something new to learn or improve. But in order to make this communication really work, there needs to be some level of respect on both sides.
      So, once again, sorry if we didn't explain ourselves clear enough or were offensive in some way. I hope we've clarified our stand on what we meant about the ruff.

    floating ruff

  5. Reign was a show geared towards teenage girls, who don't really care about historical accuracy. It was about the story of the women itself and old style clothing would have gotten in the way of being able to connect with the character. Perfectly acceptable to do this and Reign, I think went out of its way to break the mold, deliberately and without speaking down to the audience. The art of storytelling doesn't have to be bound by historical fact in all areas.

    It upsets you because you like watching historically accurate period films for the costumes themselves and for some reason you feel like they should cater to your needs only. These films and shows simply arn't geared to your demographic, yah nerd! They're to make money and connect with most other people on the planet.

    I would also prefer very realistic costumes but I am non-autistic enough to understand why the producers and directors do what they do. Remember even players in the middle ages wouldn't have worn AUTHENTIC clothes for the characters they played, they would have worn STAGE costumes that were perhaps a little more colorful, less rich and practical for the art of theatre!

    1. I would kindly point out that had you bothered to read any other of our articles in this blog you might have realized that we KNOW and LOVE the fact that Costume Design sometime chooses to put the story and intent before historical accuracy. But in the end, it's all about intent. And we do think that Reigns "intent" doesn't justify such an enormous deviation from historical accuracy.

      We perfectly understand the role that target demographics play in shaping a media product. We just believe that "it's just for teenagers" does not justify horrible visuals and cheap and lazy storytelling. And yes. What Reign does is talking down to the audience. Teenagers aren't stupid. Media treats them like they can't handle anything. Saying "It was about the story of the women itself and old style clothing would have gotten in the way of being able to connect with the character" is nothing but a cheap excuse that treats young girls as if they are stupid. If clothes keep you from connecting to a character, you have a serious problem with your empathic capabilities.

      Also, why bring up players in the middle-ages. I do not think is that much to ask that media evolves with time. People in the middle ages also put women in barrels and threw them in the river to see if they were witches. Do you also use that justification when someone mentions genre discrimination? Just wondering...

      P.D: really shows depth and maturity using the term autistic as an insult.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Burning Question: What's wrong with Belle's gown?

Since the first promotional pictures of Disney's new Live-Action remake of Beauty and the Beast hit the internet, there has been a lot of discussion around Belle's iconic ball gown. And, even months after its release in cinemas, there still continues to be a lot of buzz around it. Why? Mainly, because a lot of people feel that it is just doesn't look that good.
The thing is, Belle's animated yellow ball gown is, at this point, an iconic staple of animated cinema. Everybody knows it and everybody loves it. And, as a result, everybody can see the new one and say "this is not the costume I know". Therefore, everyone can compare it down to the smallest detail and see that it just doesn't quite look right.
Today, our goal will be to try and dissect the design in order to answer the burning question everyone has been asking themselves: what's so wrong with the "new" dress? Or, to put it bluntly, why is it so incredibly underwhelming?

This might n…

The Huntsman: Winter's War. Untangling the mess. Part II

As we heavily remarked in our last article (click here to read), the Costume Design for the monstrosity that was The Huntsman: Winter's War wasn't really as good as everyone was claiming it to be. And because we are sort of unrelenting in our grudges and hates, we are going to continue hammering down this idea, this time focussing on the true stars of this movie: the two Evil Sister Queens.
So, without further ado, let's get into the madness. IV. FREYA, THE ICE QUEEN That tonal dissonance that we pointed out in the huntsmen characters becomes a cacophony the moment we consider the two Queens in this movie: Ravenna (because how could they do this movie without bringing back the only successful character in the last movie?) and her sister, Freya, who basically becomes Elsa from Frozen.
Before starting, I feel like I need to clarify that my main quarrel about both their designs has nothing to do with if they are pretty or not, which most of them are. But prettiness is not wh…

Creating the Seven Kingdoms. Part III: The Reach

In honor of the return of HBO's Game of Thrones to our screens this past summer, and as an apology for our extended hiatus, we are going to dive back into the complex visual world of Westeros once again. Previously in this series, we've focused on how the North (read here), the Westerlands (read here) and their respective cultures were represented and reinforced through the detailed Costume Design. And, today, we are going to do the same by looking at how Michele Clapton, the Costume Designer for HBO's multi-awarded show, builds the culture of the Reach and the Tyrell family.

The Reach, just like the Westerlands, it's a region that we've barely physically seen on the show until very recently. And, because of it, most of what we know about it has been inferred through their visual style and the sporadic dialogue exposition. Which, in turn, speaks very highly of the incredible work done by the Costume Design Department when it came to projecting information regardin…

Oscars Retrospective 2017: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is the first of the planned spin-off/prequel series of the Harry Potter Saga and the screenwriting debut of J.K.Rowling, the mind behind the Harry Potter Books.
This new installment is an ambitious attempt, both in scale and in narrative, as it tries to tell both a brand new story with brand new characters and also be linked to the original saga through the character of Grindelwald.
The problem is that this juggling act forces the movie to fit in together two stories that have little to do with each other. On the one hand, there's Grindenwald and the Obscurial's story and on the other, the bizarre adventures of Newt Scamander as he tries to fetch back his creatures. Separately, these two stories, could have made for two entertaining movies, but the problem is that, together, they just don't mix  very well. On top of that, the radical changes in tone throughout the movie only manage to drag the final product further down.

But, despite…

Disney's Cinderella(s) and the evolution of the "princess" aesthetics

Every girl, at some point in life, has wanted to be a princess. It has become undeniable that the concept of the "princess" is, for better or worst, inseparable from girlhood. We live in a "princesses" obsessed era, and we have for a long time now. And a lot has been said about it, with loud people yelling over the internet about the positive and negative aspects of it. So it was about time for us to join the yelling contest, I guess.
If we're going to talk about princesses, the logical place to go is to the Global Mogul Conglomerate that has led the trend and, in many ways, defined it: Disney. They have, undeniably, redefined the fairytale and have turned the term "princess" into a best selling Licensed Entertainment Character Merchandise.

The thing is, even though princesses have been part of the fairy tale canon for a very long time, they didn't become the central figure until Walt Disney placed them there.
In the tales that the Grimm Brothers…