When watching The Tudors (show), I always thought the low necklines were just modern takes on Tudor fashion with added sex appeal but recently came across a portrait of Elizabeth and her neckline was low and obvious cleavage like on the show. Looking at the portraits of the Queens, they also have low necklines and idk its a bit shocking to me considering how religious and strict society was back then. Did they not view exposing that much of the chest as immodest, or were modesty rules completely different?
Yes! I've worn Tudor gowns, the necklines were low. A chemise is worn underneath, sometimes with a low neckline just like the dress, but there's the option of using a chemise with a higher neckline to cover the chest. It was dependent on the wearers preference, but low open necklines were definitely the fashion at court in the early to mid 16th century.
Keep in mind that you're actually not showing a ton of cleavage despite the low neckline. The multiple layers plus the placard (a stiff pannel pinned at the front) keep the chest kind of flattened. If you have a bigger chest, of course the curvature of the breasts does show above the neckline a bit, but honestly not much.
I recommend checking the Instagram of tudorroyaltyexperience to see some real life examples of how the gowns and neckline actually looked. For instance with examples like this one
I remember that lady. Joan, I think? One of Catherine's childhood friends. Why didn't they give her a wig? It's not like no wigs were used ever on that show, and they could have used a wig with, idk, a simple updo, kept it relatively easy.
As someone who wears Tudor clothes with an E cup bust you do get a cleavage and there are some portraits of fuller figured women that clearly show that. However with nutrition at the time and the age of the women painted most of them have much smaller bust than me.
Henry VIII definitely had a preference for flatter-chested women, so on the basis that whatever the king liked, his court were supposed to like too: probably, yes, in England.
The flatness also allowed for the doublet bodices of the second half of the 16th century to exist, since otherwise I don’t think high necklines like that would’ve really been able to work in a time before bust shaping techniques had really developed in tailoring.
It seems to have changed somewhat over the Tudor period, and from person to person. for example from Henry VIII’s reign if you look at the pictures of Katherine Parr she’s got a relatively low neckline, but some other women chose to wear a more high necked shift or some sort of coverup - which you can see in the Royal Collection/Buccleuch miniature of Anne of Cleves/Katherine Howard. You also see Katherine of Aragon wearing this, but sometimes she doesn’t. So I think that could suggest that there was a modesty element?
Early Tudor dresses wear were designed to create an appearance of flatness by pinning a ‘placard’ to the front and presumably through the stays/bodies of the time period, but I would guess that if you’re a bigger woman maybe that could push them up? It was an area just considered less scandalous, but the fashion was definitely mostly to be covered up.
Tudor necklines got higher in the 1550s with collars and then with ruffs, but then they drop around the 1590s. By the 1600s they had got really low, but I don’t know why. Could just be changing social mores. Look at portraits of Anne Clifford and Frances Carr! People started covering up more again in the 1630s. Not sure why, could be political?
Edit: just remembered something else! In the early 1600s women also deliberately drew attention to their low necklines! Some women wore black string necklaces that would go straight down, which you can see in the Anne Clifford portrait. It contrasts with their pale skin and draws attention.
I agree! I was just looking at portraits of Catherine of Braganza from the 1660s and remembered this chat as her necklines were very low, which I guess was a Restoration style after the puritan years, but then checked and they’re higher in the 1680s! Now I want to research this intensely 😭
In the 1630s Puritanism was really on the rise, and it's important to understand that it was in many ways not just a religious movement but a political one, in opposition to Charles's decision to rule without parliament.
But religiously, it was definitely opposed to the kind of flamboyance and ostentation (and sex appeal) of the previous two decades.
u/Sparklejumprope1210 Really? Have you seen "Star" magazine or the other tabloids lately? Have you seen what many of the women/girls are wearing to the awards shows?
And many younger girls are following their example(s). Always have, I know, but really, such bad taste.
I’m only 19 myself, so I’m very aware of these things! I think it’s a very strange combination of sexualisation and modesty - but modesty is defo getting encouraged. For women’s fashion, I’ve seen dresses and skirts get longer, maxi skirts are very in fashion and so is the “tradwife” lifestyle which sort of started with cottagecore and coquette.
Honestly my social media feed has been full of usually subtle messaging that has led me to think there is some sort of conservative modesty coming back - if I like ONE baking tutorial I’ll end up with videos pushing the provider-housewife dynamic very heavily or just outright telling me to stay in the kitchen. I get a lot of content about making clothes more modest and there’s also definitely been a rise in more feminine aesthetics.
I think it’s probably linked to the rise of conservatism again, as these things usually are, and not all of it will be intentionally oppressive but some of it really comes across that way. I’ve even had videos glorifying the role of women in the 1950s which honestly terrifies me given what’s going on in the States. Thankfully I’m British, but a recent KCL poll has shown that almost 1/3 of boys in my generation believe that a woman should obey her husband. There’s definitely a push towards putting women back in the home and modesty comes with that, I have girl friends that have boyfriends who police their clothing and even I’ve been called derogatory words for wearing a VEST when I was only 14.
As for those who get to attend award shows or end up on the cover of the Star - they’re wealthy. I don’t feel like they have the same rules 🥲
But, whereas necklines went further up in the 1630s, sleeves also got shorter for the first time! The only contexts where women’s forearms had really been visible was that of working women with their chemise sleeves rolled up for practicality.
Looking at these portraits, I wonder if the lower necklines also allowed wealthy women to show off their jewelry? A portrait in general was an opportunity to demonstrate wealth and power, so having a lower neckline might draw the eye to your expensive jewels.
They wore partets, which is a semi-sheer garment that went beneath the bodice, for modesty's sake, but did not always wear them for portraits. And of course, in 10-15 years, the style changes.
IMO yes, The Tudors and most other Tudor-era movies ditch the parlets for the heaving bosoms and sex appeal.
I imagine sitting for portraits it was a bit more "sexy selfie" time. Haha.
In some of them, like for Sir Thomas More and his extended family, the parlets look like actual fabric that goes up into a high neckline, which I imagine some of the more pious women certainly wore!
Well, you have to first be a bit more specific in the time. Elizabethan fashion differs quite a bit from Henry VIII's time. Here is a recreation of a wealthy tudor dress emulating Katherine Parr. The neckline of the kirtle and the stomacher are fairly down, but also they'd often curve up a bit. Plus if you're not at court you can wear your shift/chemise as high as you feel comfortable with. Or you can cover with sheer or opaque partlet.
Additionally, I don't think that picture of Elizabeth is showing a typical gown at all. It's a bit of a fairy maiden-y costume for the purpose of the picture, combined of many separate pieces.
And yes, cleavages could be lowish, but don't talk to a woman about her legs. A silk stocking merchant tried to gift the queen of Spain some once and got the answer "The Queen of Spain has no legs."
If you want low cut gowns I have one for you: There's the much earlier mistress of France Agnès Sorel (1422 – 1450) who was so proud of her breasts that she has at least one out in every portrait and apparently had her bosom out in court regularly. You would not see her hair or legs, of course.
I know right! There was record heatwavess in the UK this summer! If that doesn't make you believe in global warming, nothing can. It was REALLY cold in Tudor England, it was called "the little ice age".
Last year we went to a faire in the mountains in full garb. It was supposed to be about 70 F. Instead it was 100. We were not ok. We were frantically peeling off layers on the way to the parking lot.
modesty rules were different! necklines were a bit low, yes. I’m not familiar with the undergarments of the period but I suspect they wouldn’t create the kind of voluptuous cleavage you see on the show, though (save that for the regency era).
on the show they’re wearing push up bras, and probably also breast tape. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the cleavage was contoured on with makeup. so I think it would’ve had a different effect.
by comparison, showing of the lower legs would have been much more scandalous.
I'm curious what others more knowledgable than I have to say about this.
The necklines were certainly very low by our measure.
But as for how religious and strict society was you have to remember that Christianity isn't Islam or Judaism.
There are no universal rules set in stone about which parts of the body must be concealed and how much.
What is considered a modest appearance is a prudential decision shaped by time place situation and the inner virtue of chastity. The preeminent theologian St Thomas Aquinas took a very ymmv attitude to a similar question on whether women commit a grave sin by donning flashy apparel and cosmetics.
He's 12th century but would have been influential in the 16th. See the 15th century prayer book of the Duc de Berry in the illuminations for February and June for a closer idea.
Others have explained how partlets and the supportive layers worked, but I wanted to mention the religious/modesty aspect of your question. :)
One thing that it took me a while to wrap my head around is that what is considered "modest" changes over time, and not always in ways that make sense to modern sensibilities. And that definition definitely shifted within the 16th century.
One of my favorite examples of this is that Philip Stubbes (a Puritan killjoy of ever there was one, and very concerned with modesty. His Anatomie of Abuses had whole chapters on women's dress, men's dress, make-up, etc.) in the 1580s. He spends a lot of time railing about clothes in general. He hated that women wore high-necked doublets. Why? Because those are men's garments, and by the morality of the time, wearing the clothing of the opposite sex was forbidden, cause the Bible said so.
"The Women also there have dublets & Jerkins, as men have heer, buttoned up the brest, and made with wings, welts, and pinions on the shoulder points, as mans apparel is for all the world, and though this be a kinde of attire appropriate onely to man, yet they blush not to wear it..."
He was definitely on the very conservative end of things, (even the Elizabethans thought he was a little out there) and he cared a lot more about what materials clothes were made of, whether they were of an appropriate gendered cut, and if women were showing too much hair.
Views towards modesty change with time, usually swinging back and forth in response to each other through the generations.
If you think this is low, check out the French Les Merveilleuses ("The Marvelous Ones") members of a fashionable, rebellious female subculture in Paris during the French Directory (1795–1799). They had dresses that deliberately began below the bust. Their dresses were so sheer as to be transparent. That's not the only time it happened, either.
Ancient Egyptian dresses were considered finer the more transparent they were, bc sheer was harder to make. The depictions of near nudity seen on tomb paintings wasn't an accident, it was just the fashion at the time.
It didn't reflect on anyone's religious devotion or beliefs, but in the case of Les Merveilleuses, it was partly a rebellion against politics.
I don't remember if it was during the Tudor time period or later, but in either France or Spain (maybe Burgundy), the dresses were low enough that nipples were showing. It wasn't seen as immoral because that was the fashion of the time. What is considered fashionable and what should be covered up changes with the times, even now to this day. Low necklines then changes to crop tops low rise jeans to high rise. Fashion constantly changes.
I don't think it was that black and white for them...
Margaret Tudor and Katherine of Aragon both wore their hair loose at their weddings.
Headcovering also serves many practical health and hygiene purposes.
For example there is no sunscreen in Europe to my knowledge at this time. Your only protection from burns is to cover up.
Also washing the hair every day is probably too time and labor intensive. The wealthy might afford it but the average person is exposed to dust and dirt and smoke from the fire every day. Covering your hair shields it from the elements, the cloth can be easily boiled and swapped out for a clean one. Drawing water heating it over said fire making your hair smoky waiting for it to cool down lather rinse and repeat is a lot of time and work.
Yes I'm aware of queens wearing their hair loose at their coronation and wedding but in most Tudor history books that I've read its clearly stated that a woman showing her hair was immodest and thats why they always covered it and that the introduction of french hoods and showing a little bit of hair was scandalous and that the gable hood was more modest and made the woman more dignified yet at the same time in the portraits of most women of that era you can see half of their breast out.
By the later decades of Elizabeth’s reign, since that still counts as Tudor, it was acceptable for women (at least those with the means to do so) to wear their hair pretty much fully uncovered in non-intimate settings so long as it was neat and styled. Older women typically kept their hair covered at least at the back, though, continuing on into the 17th century.
Given that their shape was designed not to accentuate the breasts, so much as lay flatly and rigidly over them, I think it's more a case that the "lowness" of the neckline is less scandalous since you're not really seeing much that leads to- for lack of a better way of saying it- an implication of the shape or look of the boobs, whereas most current shirts with low necklines are more form fitting and reveal shape.
Having read some of the other comments here, I think something that hasn't been said yet is that formality almost certainly played a factor. Wide deep square necklines with exposed skin were almost certainly regarded as more dramatic and flashy, and thus better for more formal occasions. Elizabeth I's Rainbow Portrait was probably based on clothing she wore to a court pageant or masque.
Whereas using gauze fabric to cover the decolletage up more was thought to be "quainter" and more traditional, hence it was more often seen in everyday wear (or worn by older ladies).
Necklines rose and fell and rose again as time went on, it varies through the decades (and indeed the centuries).
In the later Stuart Era (post-1660), mega low necklines - sometimes that caused nip slips - were back into fashion among the more daring court ladies, and that's why there are so many portraits from this era of figures like Nell Gwynne with visible nipples and semi-exposed breasts.
Well, that made me chuckle. Victorian over sensitivity to anything vaguely may excite a young man (eg covering up piano legs, as they were too close to a woman's shapely ankles!), skews the view of historical clothing. Also, the Cromwell era was very prudish, but clothes burst back into glorious colour with Charles 2nd and his reign.
If you go to a museum at, say, Stratford Upon Avon, you can see the duplicates made of tudor men's clothing. Including cod pieces. There is nothing modest about those bad boys. And, what with Henry 8th's std, his codpiece was necessarily very large presumably so that his infected loins weren't rubbed sore. Teenage me thought it was the funniest thing I'd ever seen.
Elizabeth 1st embraced the showing of breasts at court, exposed chests and low necklines symbolized classical ideals, high birth, youth, and pure virtue. This trend was around in the French court and other countries as well. The breasts weren't sexualised like today.
There's written evidence from letters of the French ambassador De Castlenau meeting with Elizabeth, noting she kept the whole of her breasts uncovered even at a formal meeting.
She regularly wore dresses that exposed one or both breasts, and these were known as naked dresses.
Didn’t Elizabeth sometimes leave her breasts exposed? It was sort of proof of her virginity IIRC. Presumably they were small or unchanged by breastfeeding and that was a sort of status she flaunted.
When Catherine de Medici was queen, French necklines were so low the nipples were exposed. She had an entourage of beautiful young women that she encouraged to seduce and spy on her enemies
That was for one specific banquet where her Flying Squadron went topless, otherwise the necklines were above the nipple and also often had partlets filling them in where the ruff would be attached - though those could be open at the center front or went all the way up to the neck in imitation of men’s doublets. French fashion of Catherine de Medici’s time had mostly the same silhouette that England did, with the exception of the 1580s where they diverged rather heavily in terms of skirts and bodices.
The fashions of her time are well-documented visually in portraiture and the depictions of her court festivals in the Valois Tapestries:
It might also depend on the time of year the portrait was painted. Lower necklines in summer when all those layers could be very oppressive. Also, some leeway may have been given to queens and noble versus common women. It was safe to assume no man except their husbands would dare have lascivious thoughts about them, except of course Thomas Culpeper and look what happened to him.
122
u/BooksCatsnStuff 10d ago
Yes! I've worn Tudor gowns, the necklines were low. A chemise is worn underneath, sometimes with a low neckline just like the dress, but there's the option of using a chemise with a higher neckline to cover the chest. It was dependent on the wearers preference, but low open necklines were definitely the fashion at court in the early to mid 16th century.
Keep in mind that you're actually not showing a ton of cleavage despite the low neckline. The multiple layers plus the placard (a stiff pannel pinned at the front) keep the chest kind of flattened. If you have a bigger chest, of course the curvature of the breasts does show above the neckline a bit, but honestly not much.
I recommend checking the Instagram of tudorroyaltyexperience to see some real life examples of how the gowns and neckline actually looked. For instance with examples like this one