Re: [Richard III Society Forum] Richard's fashion, was Re: Fifteent

Gilda Felt wrote:

> Speaking of dress, I seem to remember reading
(*where* is what I don't
> remember,) that Richard wore his tunic shorter than
most, enough to have
> drawn comment. Wouldn't that have been considered
less modest, as it
> would have shown off more leg...along with other
parts of him? That
> tends to fly in the face of any supposed
disfigurement, not to mention
> his supposed prudishness.

I'm glad you mentioned this, Gilda, I'd intended to
bring up this subject myself. There's at least one
painting of Edward's court in which the figure
identified as Richard is wearing the short doublet,
whil all the others wore the old-fashioned long one.

It was Edward himself who introduced the shorter
style, which isn't too surprising when you consider
his personality. Fashion followed the royals, and
England went from a monastic king to a young,
good-looking one who wasn't afraid to show off. Many
of the older men refused to wear the new, more daring
style, but the younger, sexier men (or at least, the
men who considered themselves young and sexy!)
adopted them quickly.

Considering the Plantagenets' reputation for good
looks, it's not too surprising that Edward's two
younger brothers took to the new fashion. I've often
wondered where the idea that Richard was
"puritanical" came from; he took a dim view of
adultery, but he liked fine clothes and jewels, and
was not exactly chaste before he married, as proven
by his illegitimate children. (Though considering he
was a teenager, a prince, and a war hero, what
surprises me is that there were only two!)

But it wouldn't surprise me at all if the hostile
Tudor historians chose to insult a handsome,
well-built man by saying he was malformed, especially
since Henry wasn't going to win any awards for looks. :-P

Take care,
Kat

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Audaces Fortuna Juvat

http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com

--- In , "Rogue" <roguefem@...>
wrote:
>
> Gilda Felt wrote:
>
> > Speaking of dress, I seem to remember reading
> (*where* is what I don't
> > remember,) that Richard wore his tunic shorter than
> most, enough to have
> > drawn comment. Wouldn't that have been considered
> less modest, as it
> > would have shown off more leg...along with other
> parts of him? That
> > tends to fly in the face of any supposed
> disfigurement, not to mention
> > his supposed prudishness.
>
> I'm glad you mentioned this, Gilda, I'd intended to
> bring up this subject myself. There's at least one
> painting of Edward's court in which the figure
> identified as Richard is wearing the short doublet,
> whil all the others wore the old-fashioned long one.

I think that is the Burgundian painting of someone presenting a book
to Edward IV. He seems to have been identified merely by the Garter
on his leg. Anne Sutton &LLivia Visser-fuches have cast some doubt on
whether we should take it seriously as a true likeness. Liva has
demonstrated that "the man with the big buttocks" - ie a figure in
identical pose and the same risque jacket - was a stock figure in
Burgundian art. So if it was meant to be Richard it was not a
portrait.

Marie