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


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A look into Star Wars: Padme's Dresses. Annex A

As I'm sure I've mentioned before, the size of Padme's wardrobe is leaning towards big. One might even say gigantic. Because of this, we are forced to choose which ones we review and which ones we don't. Otherwise, we would still be reviewing the costumes from Episode I. Thanks to this selection process, right now, in our Padme series' we are reviewing costumes already from Revenge of the Sith. But lately, we've been thinking a lot about those designs that got "lost in the selection", as we call them.
WHY WEREN'T THESE SELECTED? Generally, those that we did not select for our series were considered "not interesting enough". But what does that mean? Well, it means two things; either they pulled from the exact same influences as any of the dresses we had already addressed (which would make for a very repetitive article) or were considered too simple and basic to talk about them at length.
And then, of course, were those that we simply did …

A look into Star Wars: Padme's Dresses. Part II

Let’s continue with our thorough examination of the designs of Padme Amidala’s dresses. This second post in the series will be dedicated to the also terribly famous “senate” gown from “The Phantom Menace”. She wears this dress during her plea at the senate in Coruscant, and it has grown to become a terribly well known gown.

This gown has several layers to it. The base layer is a bright orange silk dress, with a high collar decorated with ornate gold stitchwork and beads. Over this, she wears a dark red overdress with orange hems decorated with gold brocade. This overdress has big sleeves and its embroider with rosettes. Above this, she wears a dark and thick faux fur cloak with shoulder pads that make her look twice her size.

Although what really made this dress iconic, is the headdress that accompanied it. Amidala's hair was dressed in a wide arc centered by a golden headpiece with golden hairbands to keep her hair's shape. This arc was decorated with dangling orichalc suspens…

Creating the Seven Kingdoms. Part I: The North

As we promised a few weeks backs, we are going to cover more tv shows from now on, mainly because there is just too much awesomeness in our TV's these days to ignore it. And for the last 5 years, the crowning jewel of TV costume design has been, without a doubt, HBO's Game of Thrones. So it was only logical to start there.
The downside is that there is so much to talk about that it becomes really difficult to decide where to start exactly. G.R.R. Martin's sprawling epic covers many characters and many places, and therefore there's really a lot to pick up from. In the end, we decided that we would take a page out of the author's tactics and split it in several different series of articles to be published gradually. And so, this is going to be the first of many. And we probably should warn you, there will be spoilers ahead. CREATING THE SEVEN KINGDOMSGame of Thrones, from an adaptation standpoint, faced many of the same problems that Peter Jackson had to face when b…

A look into Star Wars: Padme's Dresses. Part I

I’ve decided to start this blog by dedicating the first posts to the designs of Padme Amidala’s dresses in the first three episodes of Star Wars. Although  I’m not particularly fond of these movies, I have to give some credit to their wardrobe design and the thought and creativity that went into it. 
We will look into the most iconic dresses of Padme Amidala and do a breakdown of the influences behind them. Each post will be dedicated to one of these dresses.
The first one of these series is the one I like to call the “Red Invasion” gown. It’s featured the first time we see Natalie Portman’s character in The Phantom Menace, and it’s probably one of the most iconic gowns she has.

This gown is made of embroidered silk and faux fur that lines the double collar, tabards, double sleeves and hem. The alien-like touch is given to the dress by the electric lights placed on the skirt, that are made to resemble ladybugs.
The head piece that accompanies this dress is also pretty iconic in and on it…

A look into Star Wars: Padme's dresses. Part X

The last design from Episode II which we are going to be covering is the wedding gown, which happens to be the literal last outfit worn by the character in the movie.

She wears this dress in the final scene of Episode II, during her wedding with Anakin. It's a brief scene, but somehow people really remember this gown.
The design consists of an intricate gown made of lace and beads that goes with a lace veil. The gown is long and flowing, and has a small tail. The white fabric is decorated with an off-white delicate embroidery. The sleeves reach her elbows and are hemmed with scalloped lace. The entire gown is studded with pearls.

This gown takes from various historical sources, most of them pertaining to the early 20th century. The basic one with which it work are Edwardian fashion (1901-1911) and the 1920's.
The basic structure, with the gown and the laced overdress, is clearly taken from late Edwardian fashion.

These dresses (dated 1912) are quite similar to Padme's gow…