RESEARCH - Medieval England - Post 16: Fashion

 Fashion

Phew, this could be a massive post. But I shall try to keep it concise.

I once heard it said on a history programme (sorry, I can't remember which), that there is a change of fashion along with a change of monarch. On the whole, this seems to be a pretty good rule of thumb. 

Now, the medieval era, as repeatedly stated, covers a very long time (500-1485). There were seven changes of king between 1422-1485 alone (although some were repeated)! And yes, this is applicable to both men and women.

Can I get the obvious out of the way? The main difference between rich and poor at this time was not in the style, but more the quality of material. 

Let us glimpse at Sumptuary Laws. Edward III, in the 14th century, seems to have been the first English monarch to impose such restrictions on what one was permitted to wear. His statute denied anyone under the rank of knight from wearing fur. And also forbade the import of textiles from outside of the British isle and the export of wool. Some surmise this was to put a cap on the cost of household liveries. 

In 1363, part of the laws determined that knights (and their families) with land worth 400 marks annually may wear whatever they wish, with the exclusion of weasel and ermine furs, or clothing of precious stones (except those worn in ladies' hair).

However, knights (and their families) with land worth 200 marks may not wear fabric over the worth of £4 in total. No cloth of gold, nor a cloak, mantle or gown lined with pure miniver, sleeves of ermine or any material embroidered with precious stones; women may not wear ermine or weasel-fur, or jewels except those worn in their hair.

In 1463, a further Act introduced by Edward IV, placed further clothing restrictions, determined by social class. 

Knights below the rank of lord were prohibited from wearing any cloth of gold, anything wrought with gold or sable fur, and no velvet upon velvet. Their wives and children must follow these rules as well, any person in this category caught with prohibited items will forfeit 20 marks to the King for each and every offense.    

People with an income of less than 40s per annum were not permitted to wear any item prohibited in the higher classes or fustian, bustian, any scarlet cloth (purple or red), nor any fur except black or white lamb. A fine of 40s would be issued to any disobeying this. 

A slightly more amusing section of this one was the legislation against the wearing of long-toed shoes. They had become longer than the entire length of the foot! This just sounds like a trip hazard to me, but they you have it. Those less than a lord were restricted to a 2 inch pike on their shoes or boots.

In 1483, they took this even further still. All persons in England except for the royal family were forbidden to wear gold or purple silk. Persons below the level of duke were not permitted to wear cloth of gold or tissue, and no one below a lord could wear plain cloth of gold. 

Servants of husbandry/peasants were not allowed to wear any material which cost more than 2s for the broad yard.

Eurgh! 

These were all fairly hard to enforce. People will always wear what they want, punishment be damned.

Whilst I'm discussing shoes, these beauties are patten shoes - worn over the top of other shoes so as to better avoid the deep mud and err... excrement in the roads.

From bottom to top...headwear

 

The conical hennin (pictured) is perhaps the most commonly associated with the medieval period, thanks to movie princesses. However, they really only emerged from around 1430, according to some sources.

However, from around 1250-1500, the escoffion was en vogue. A thick, circular woollen/felt/silk band was rolled and worn in a horn shape. Gauze or silk could then be draped over. This is also of the hennin family of headwear. 

Beehive (shorter, squatter) and butterfly hennins (wider, split horns) also had their time.

I rather like the crespine; fine netting worn either side of the head attached to a circlet (like the bottom left of the above image).

Whatever style of headwear a woman chose, whether rich or poor, one should always cover their hair. This was a pious, religious stipulation. In fact, in 1162, prostitutes were forbidden from wearing a veil lest they should be mistaken for someone with virtue!

As the Middle Ages continued, the hairlines grew higher. Ladies were known to pluck their hairline and wear their hats further back. 

From the 13th to 15th centuries, women wore wimples (or gorgets). This should be worn over the chin. Unlike today's nuns who generally wear it under.

The coif was worn by men and women. A simple, linen bonnet/cap, usually tied under the chin. The rich tended to only wear these as nightcaps. The poor would keep it as daywear under other headwear.

Oddly, ladies' gowns/dresses didn't undergo much of a change. It was more their headwear. There was usually a kirtle worn over a chemise. An overgown was then worn over these.

Colours could hold significance though. I may have used this symbology in my book 😉

Blue - fidelity (& represents the Virgin Mary)

Green - love

Grey - sorrow

Red (crimson) - privilege/power/blood of Christ

Yellow - hostility (but also certain saints days)

Men's clothing saw more variations. From short to long houppelanades. And who can ever unsee those hose, boys? With shorter styles, no wonder the codpiece was worn, otherwise one's family jewels would be on display! 

Knickers! Historians are very excited - the above items have been found and dated to around the 15th century. 

And that seems like a delightful note to end this series of research posts on! 😊

I hope you've found all this info useful. 

It's at least a starting point to show what you may want to delve into.

In some ways, the Middle Ages were very different from our modern world. But surprisingly, in many ways, not that much has changed at the same time. I guess humans will always been humans. 

Always in love and light,

TL

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My book, Love in the Roses is available for pre-order (click here).

To protect her family, she must marry the enemy!

The fictitious tale of a knight’s daughter, living life as it very well may have been in 1484.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

RESEARCH - Medieval England - Post 15: Time & Money

Time & Money

Time is money, as they say. So one shall look at both in the same blog post.

 

Time

How did one tell the time in Medieval England? Hmm…it depends which part of the Middle Ages we’re talking about, and to some extent, where.

Now, this can get a bit complicated, so I’ll try to be pretty basic here. After all, you’re probably not going to get too bogged down by hours.

However, for centuries, we followed Canonical Hours – which dictate prayer times. These were:

{  Vigil (eighth hour of night: 2 am)

{  Matins (a later portion of Vigil, from 3 am to dawn)

{  Lauds (dawn; approximately 5 am, but varies seasonally)

{  Prime (early morning, the first hour of daylight, approximately 6 am; added during the 12^th century)

{  Terce (third hour, 9 am)

{  Sext (sixth hour, noon)

{  Nones (ninth hour, 3 pm)

{  Vespers (sunset, approximately 6 pm)

{  Compline (end of the day before retiring, approximately 7 pm)

The three major hours were Matins, Lauds and Vespers.

The minor hours Terce, Sext, None and Compline.

Church bells would be rung to call the (seven or eight) hours. This was strictly regulated; woe betide any who rung bells outside the rules! They were also rung for celebrations, coronations, curfews, festivals, funerals, market openings, Sunday functions and weddings.

The breviary was created; a liturgical book for praying the canonical hours.

 

What did all this mean?

Essentially, people got up at the crack of dawn to pray (eurgh!). After which, the rich folk would have a little (white) bread and (red) wine for breakfast – still not compensation for such an early start in this author’s humble opinion. 

They did not generally have clocks. Although, some towns were starting to get fancy astronomical clocks (oooh!).

i.e. They wouldn’t ask their friends to come round to their place at two o’clock.

NB There were no minutes in the hours for most of the medieval era. The length of hours varied according to the amount of light.

e.g. in 12^th century London, Matins (first light) was rung at: 5am at the equinox, 6.40 am during midwinter but 2.30am at midsummer.

Similarly, vespers (last light), was rung at: 5pm at the equinox, 3pm during midwinter but 7pm at midsummer.

It wasn’t until the 14^th century that clocks, measuring equal hours, started to appear.

There were, of course, sundials. Apparently, some peasants even had them on the bottom of their shoes! They’d take the shoes off, face the sun and see where the shadow of the heel fell; clever! Sundials remained a stalwart of time-telling until watches, really. They are amazingly accurate, after all.

Ergo, one could not actually time cost you money in the Middle Ages (despite my tongie-in-cheek opening paragraph). Merchants were not able to charge fees on unpaid debt as that was akin to charging interest, which was illegal for most of the era. Time belonged to God!

 

Carrying on from ponderings on time, I venture that when entertaining, guests would come to “dinner” at the midday/noon meal. People would have to travel long distances down poor roads without lighting. Therefore, it’s reasonable to assume they’d do so when there was daylight.

 

Calendar

When writing of Medieval England, don’t forget they were using the Julian calendar. The Gregorian calendar clattered into our lives in 1582.

The Julian calendar used the sun (noon) as the starting point. Leap years were 366 days; originally, 6 months of 30 days, 6 months of 31 days.

February was the last month of the year; 29 days in leap years, 28 in others. The 1 day taken from February was added to August.

The specific method applied, created a 1 day shist every 128 years.

 

There is a handy site to find the day of the week for any date: https://www.dayoftheweek.org/

And a dates converter (which I used to calculate Easter for 1484): http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/cal/medcal.shtml

And if you want a Julian date converter, I found: https://www.typecalendar.com/julian-date

 

Money

During my research, I came across this handy currency converter. You can select which year, and it will tell you the equivalent worth of modern currency:  https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency-converter/

Standard coins in use in the 15^th century:

{  Groat (four pence)

{  Half groat

{  Half penny

{  Farthing (one quarter of a penny)

 

Units used in accounting but not actual coins:

{  Pound (two hundred and forty pence/20s)

{  Mark (one hundred and sixty pence/two thirds of a pound/13s 4d)

{  Shilling (twelve pence)

 

l, s, d = pounds, shillings and pence (Latin = liber, solidus and the Roman denarius, hence the abbreviations).

The gold noble; before 1464 was valued at 6s 8d. However, after that, it became the rose-noble or ryal and was valued at 10s.

At the same time, the gold coin the angel was issued, valued at 6s 8d.

Later, Henry VII created a gold coin in 1489; the first sovereign, valued at 20s.

 

A few other coins appeared under different rulers, but I don’t want to over-complicate things.

Coins were hammered, therefore had a rough appearance. Milled/machine-made (smooth) coins didn’t appear until the 17th century.

So, what would all this buy you?

Part of my research looked at the wonderful book, “Medieval Gentlewoman” by Ffiona Swabey. In it, she explores the household accounts of Alice de Byrne (1360-1435). A fairly humble landowner; middle class, if you will.

In alignment with the 1388 Ordinance of Labourers, she paid her staff:

{ Bailiff – 20s (also received a 6s 8d bonus in the form of clothes allowance and faggots, as in bundles of wood)

{ Carter – 10s

{ Oxherd and cowherd – 6s 8d

{ Plough drivers – 7s

{ Swineherds and female labourers – 6s

{ Maidservant – 8s

Generally, a labourer may earn around £2 per year/2 pence per day. Carpenters could earn 4 pence per day. A knight could receive 4 shillings per day (48 pence/£73 per year) – presumably the non-landed kind . Whilst barons raked in £600 per year. 

Livery

Alice gave x24 householders eight yards of green cloth at just under 1s per yard. Lesser servants were given lesser amounts. But the total came to £8 for summer livery. But she once paid £36 for the annual livery.

 General Purchases (a rough guide):

      {  Rent; merchant’s house – L33-66 per year

{  Knight’s armour (complete) – L16 6s 8d

{  Gown (fashionable lady’s) - L10

{  Ready-made armour (probably from Milan) - L8 6s 8d

{  Mail – 100s

{  A book – L1

{  6 silver spoons – 14s

{  Gold brooch – 13s

{  An ox – 13s

{  Saffron – 12s per lb

{  A cow – 10s

{  Gold ring – 7s

{  Rent; cottage – 5s per year

{  Tunic – 5s

{  80 lbs cheese – 3s 4d

{  Spices – 1-3s per lb

{  A sheep – 1s

{  Linen – 1s

{  Wine (good) – 8d per gallon (1 gallon is 8 pints/4.5 litres)

{  Hat (posh) – 10d

{  Pair of gloves – 7d

{  Candles (wax) – 6.5d

{  A goose – 6d

{  Sword (poor) – 6d

{  Shoes (posh) – 4d

{  Candles (tallow) – 1.5d

{  Ale – 1d per gallon

{  A lamb – 1d

{  2 chickens – 1d

{  A dozen eggs – ha’penny

 

Almost half of one’s annual income may have been spent on maintaining the household (food, wages, livery).

Always in love and light,

TL

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My book, Love in the Roses is available for pre-order (click here).

To protect her family, she must marry the enemy!

The fictitious tale of a knight’s daughter, living life as it very well may have been in 1484.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

RESEARCH - Medieval England - Post 12: Kinghts, Armour, Weaponry & Wars of the Roses

Think of the Middle Ages, and you may well imagine grand displays of knights jousting in tournaments. However, it rather depends on which section of this long era you look at. 

Hm, this gets a bit complicated. And I'm going to state I'm not a weapons expert. This post aims to cover the basics.

So, knights first appeared around the 8th century, according to popular opinion. However, the Code of Chivalry, although maybe around in rudimentary forms even in Ancient Britain, was developed in the 11th-12th centuries. This was the code brought in to bring a sense of order to, let's face it, what had become thugs. To temper the fierce warrior with acts of valour - to bring a balance to the force, if you will 😉

With this aim, they were taught things such as poetry; composing and performing. He was also instructed in good manners, including those whilst at table. 

Chivalry is derived from the French word 'chavalier', and basically means 'one who rides and fights on a horse'. 

Point of interest; between 1358-1488, there were 68 women appointed knights in England's Order of the Garter.

I discussed previously, how feudalism was in decline. The severely reduced population needed farmers to grow food. But our lands also needed to be defended. Mercenaries were recruited in greater numbers - bought/hired soldiers as opposed to dedicated knights, brought up by nobles. Yes, these mercenaries were viewed as having dodgy allegiances, and could not be entirely relied upon. 

When Henry VII returned to England to fight the Battle of Bosworth, he landed with 5,000 - 8,000 men. It's estimated that 1,800 of these were French mercenaries and formed the core of his army. Others were exiles. He then gathered recruits from the Welsh/English borders, including deserters from Richard III's army. 

Add to all this, the sheer cost of knights. 

The price of the armour alone was high. 

One account says you could get really "cheap", probably ill-fitting armour for up to (the equivalent of) $30,000 (£22k). But, in the 15th century, a full suit of plate armour was more in the region of $500,00 - $3.5million. So, let's say, about £1million!! 

HOWEVER, I'm going to add some confusion here. A knight's full armour is often quoted at around £16 in medieval money, which works out to be approx. £11,000. The Milanese, ready-made set may be around £8 (£5,500 in today's money).

I don't know why there are such wide variances in these estimations. The £11k region sounds much more realistic, given their status and income, though.

So, knights were very wealthy. And their fathers were probably knights too.

Apparently, Richard III's armour

The cost of training was also high. It took many years. Let's look at the stages:

{  Page = aged 7-10 up until 13 (horses, hunting, mock weapons)

{  Squire = 14 to 18-21 (assistant to knight, weapons and armour, education, chivalry)

{  Dubbing = 18-21 (made a knight)

{  Service = from then on (guard for baron, fight in wars, tournaments)

If you want full details on the training of knights, go to this website here.

Weapons

The sword is probably the most associated weapon of the knight. There was the long sword, about 60cm long, for slashing. 

The second option was a falchion, a single-edged sword which came to a point. It was light and shorter but with the power of an axe, ideal for close combat. Powerful blows could be dealt as well as effective slashing. However, the longer sword would deal the most powerful blows.

A dagger would also be worn, their last resort choice.

All that posturing at jousting tournaments wasn't just to get laid! The lance was used from horseback in battle too. 

Plate armour posed a problem - it was tough to get through (hence the cost!). So, weapons advanced to counteract that. The pollaxe/poleaxe was used for this purpose, whilst on foot. 

Spiked, flail weapons could be used whilst on foot too, but they were difficult to aim effectively with.

The mace was also a close combat option. A club-type, blunt weapon with a flange or knob on the end to pierce armour. 

Then we have the other soldiers.

The longbow rose to prominence in the 13th century. About this time, laws were introduced in England, requiring every person to practice archery. Basically, the king wanted to be able to call upon anyone to go shoot his enemies. To be fair, it worked, as Henry V arguably won the Battle of Agincourt in 1415 on the strength of his bowmen.

It was cheaper to use archers. But the men-at-arms and knights were very useful in protecting those archers. Incidentally, some archers were also wealthy and wore good armour. 

Wars of the Roses (Key Battles)

{  The Battle of St Albans (22 May 1455) 

       - a Yorkist victory, and Richard, Duke of York was declared Protector (later overturned)

{  The Battle of Northampton (10 July 1460)

       - another Yorkist victory, and Henry VI was captured. The queen fled to Wales.

{  The Battle of Wakefield (30 December 1460)

    - a Lancastrian victory. Richard, Duke of York killed. Succeeded by Edward, his son.

{  The Battle of Towton (29 March 1461)

    - the Earl of Warwick led the Yorkists to victory; King Henry, Queen Margaret and the Prince of Wales flee to Scotland.

{  The Battle of Tewkesbury (4 May 1471)

    - the Yorkists are victorious. Prince of Wales killed and the queen captured.

{  The Battle of Bosworth Field (22 August 1485)

    - King Richard III killed. Henry VII crowned

{  The Battle of Stoke Field (16 June 1487)

    - Yorkist commanders killed. Tudor reign stabilised.

Above, I've listed the key battles of the Cousins War (Wars of the Roses). It's interesting as the battles were relatively few and far between. But much happened in between too. There were princes placed into custody and subsequently went missing. Kings & queens were captured, moanrchs fled, others came back to fight. Oh, such turmoil!

I'm a lover, not a fighter! 

Um, so there were ceremonies which were incredibly similar to marriage, where two men may commit themselves to one another. In theory, this was to ensure a bonding of brotherhood, particularly those about to go off and fight. But, come on, this was gay marriage! 

I've not got a specific post on sex, so I'll just drop in here... yes sodomy was highly punishable; you'd end up killed if anyone found out and snitched. However, just looking at the plethora of images within manuscripts and paintings from the time, there was plenty of male/male loving happening. I suspect female/female too, but it was the men doing the painting, so... (*shrugs*).

Let's leave that there. 

Really, I just wanted to point out the the numbers of knights were dwindling. 

Always in love and light,

TL

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My book, Love in the Roses is available for pre-order (click here).

To protect her family, she must marry the enemy!

The fictitious tale of a knight’s daughter, living life as it very well may have been in 1484.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 

RESEARCH - Medieval England - Post 11: Travel & Horses

 

Alrighty, let us turn our attention to transport. 

Roads were terrible! Dirt tracks which would get absolutely sodden in wet weather. They were also often overrun with bandits. 

The common man didn't have much need of travel. There may be servants going to market for their masters. But other than that, the roads were reserved for the merchants, peddlars, pilgrims, messengers, armies and the wealthy going between homes. Rich pickings for those bandits!

There were, of course, pedestrians. Going by foot was common for the pilgrims, for example.

However, the most common form of transport was the horse. 

Types of Horse

I created this handy reference to common horse types in 15th century England. 

The destrier was the crème de la crème of the horses. It was a warhorse, renowned for its supreme strength. Used also in jousting tournaments. However, endurance was not their best quality. They were certainly imposing, standing at around 15 hands, and were well-muscled. The destrier was rare and incredibly expensive.

So, the courser (or charger) was more commonly found in use by knights and men-at-arms. They had a slighter, shorter build, but maintained speed and strength. 

I've included the lyard. It's not really a horse type, to be honest. But I'm rather partial to a dapple grey, and that's pretty much what these were. Incidentally, favelle was the medieval name for a chestnut (brown) horse, and bayard was what we now call a bay (reddish brown with black points).

With a lighter weight than the coursers, mild manner and a smooth gait, the palfrey was a highly sought after riding horse. They could amble over long distances. So, naturally, they were expensive. 

Palfreys were a trotting horse. They could be ridden long-distance by knights or noble ladies.

Jennets, not listed in the image, seem to cause contradictory opinions. Some say the name was interchangeable with palfrey, whilst others regard it as slightly less desirable as them. 

Rounceys were an everyday horse. The least expensive of these types. Fast and agile, they could still be seen ridden into battle or used as pack horses.

Then you had draft horses for pulling ploughs and heavy loads, and started to replace the ox. Large and muscly! 

Workhorses as a type covers pack horses (aka sumpters) and cart horses. The shorter, stockier breeds.

Please note: these are all shorter than the horses we see today. They would be considered small riding horses now. The shorter types were more akin to ponies.

The saddles had a high front and back; the cantle wrapped around the rider. Comfy and secure! Well, yes, until your horse fell - oops! Yeah, you could be crushed to death. The inability to twist may have caused life-threatening internal damage too. Jumping obstacles would have been incredibly difficult too, as one needs to lean forwards in order to do so. 

The Modern History TV chap is joyous to watch, and he has a whole video on the saddle!

He also has a video on horse types and what a warhorse could do. But honestly, browse his channel. So many wonderful videos!! I was absorbed for HOURS doing my research! 😍

And whilst we're talking saddles, ladies were more likely to sit astride. The first true, single-rider, side-saddle in England seems to have appeared in the 16th century. 

Women would, however, sit to the side if they were mounted behind men.

We've seen the saddle; when a lady became heavy with child, this was somewhat limiting. Yes, she could sit behind her husband. But the option of a litter was there. Although, these were most frequently used by the frail and elderly.

A litter is a sort of carriage carried between two wooden poles, carried between two horses.

So what speed did they travel at?

A horses' walking pace is around 3-5mph. They could travel up to around 40 miles per day. 

Horses trot at a speed of around 8mph, canter 15mph and gallop 30mph. But these take energy and are not sustainable for extensive periods. You're looking at about 2-3 miles at a gallop, tops.

People walk around 3mph.

So, when looking at how far Isabel travels in a day, I looked at the old A-roads (obviously not motorways). And calculated the walking time on GoogleMaps. I did also reference old maps on the UK to check road routes.

Covered wagons were around, but do not seem to have been popular. Well, the wheels could easily become stuck and they halved the distance to around 20 miles per day. Nor were they comfy - the lack of spring-loaded suspension would have made the ride very bumpy. And they were very expensive. 

So, carts were more appropriate for pulling goods than people.

By the way, if you had oxen pulling your cart, the distance would be halved again to 10 miles per day!

Our wondrous canal system had yet to be built. You could maybe get a barge on the River Thames, but that's not much good to the rest of the country. 

Inns

Inns have been in existence for a very long time. But, as travel increased during the 15th century, so too did the number of inns. Prior to this, they were more of the alehouse variety. Inns sought to accommodate the traveller with their horses (in stables) and wares. As such, they attracted the wealthier type of traveller.

The bedchambers may be private or house a few beds, which several people could share.

A dining room and common area would be provided.

The innkeeper may be involved in trade himself, and was often quite a wealthy personage of good standing. I say he; only about 10% of innkeepers were women, likely widowed.

 

So, there you have it, the limited, unpleasant medieval travel methods.

Always in love and light,

TL

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My book, Love in the Roses is available for pre-order (click here).

To protect her family, she must marry the enemy!

The fictitious tale of a knight’s daughter, living life as it very well may have been in 1484.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------