Guinevere's red dress breakdown

I don't know what was up with me in late February/early March 2019, I was starting projects left, right, and centre. This is opposed to the sewing drought of late 2018 where I sewed nothing....weird.

Anyway, Netflix has a lot to answer for and one of them is Merlin. I was still at home when this was on, so every Saturday I'd emerge from my cave of teenage angst and sit with my parents to watch it. We did that for the 5 years it was on TV. I loved the costumes back then, when I hadn't started my costuming journey, the first few seasons more Morgana's floaty goodness of chiffon and satin, and then Gwen's more vibrant and structured gowns of the final season.

When Merlin appeared on Netflix, I began to re-watch the final season because I kind of felt like it, and as soon as I laid eyes on Gwen's red velvet dress I was hooked, and I immediately began to move because inspiration is fickle. I devoured all the pics I could find, took screen shots whenever it was in an episode and collated them all into a pinterest board. Then I began the breakdown of construction.

I was a little stumped as to the construction of the bertha, but that was for the construction period. Let's break this down.

Let's start with the basics. Red velvet, but can you believe I was so unsure of what kind. To most people this is just velvet, but in reality this fabric has a few different incarnations. You have cotton velvet, which tends not to have a shine and is usually what curtains are made of. Stretch velvet, of infamous origins in the historical costuming community (thanks Braveheart), which I personally loathe. Silk velvet which I've never worked with but have handled samples and it's very thin, very soft, and has no body. To me it is very similar to silk satin. Then there is something I've variously seen called luxury velvet and mirco velvet, and to my eyes the fabric of Gwen's dress is very similar. Quite thick, has a bit of body, and a really nice sheen to it. This kind of velvet is polyester.

It was actually really easy to find a velvet of a similar colour to this. It's not as dark in real life as it looks in these pics, as you can see from the below screen shots.

It didn't really matter anyway because, just to be different, I didn't really want to do an exact reproduction. Others may like it, but I would always be comparing miniscule details between mine and the original and I'd never be happy. However, due to some bizarre psychology, if it's in a different colour it gives me more licence to fu*k up. All I mean by this is if it's not an exact replica structurally then I feel better because it's not the same colour. I know, weird.

We can dive into construction. Be prepared for the least technical and probably least accurate breakdown of a costume you'll ever read. I'm completely self-taught, and by that I mean I've never attended any kind of course about sewing, dressmaking, or anything of that ilk. Hence, I don't know all the terms. You may have to use your inner translator.

I call the seams on this dress princess seams, and to be honest I don't quite know what this means. To me, rather than darts at the front of the bodice giving it shape, the seams themselves are shaped. From what I could make out from this dress there's a front panel, possibly one single side panel, then side back panel, and finally a centre back panel where the lacing for this dress is. Whether or not the side panel has a seam exactly at the side is up for discussion since she never raises her arms. I'm pretty sure in the small pic below that the back is definitely a side back and a centre back.

The lacing at the back also doesn't close all the way, probably to make it fit like it does. To be honest, it looks spiral laced, and there's not a metal grommet in sight (Bollocks).

Gwen, or Angel Coulby the actress who plays Gwen, is definitely wearing some kind of corset underneath that gives her that silhouette, and obviously supports the ladies. I don't mind, I've got a few corsets that should do the job, but I'm afraid I'm not as well endowed in that area.

I was debating with myself about other under-structure. In episode 2 or 3 Gwen is dealing with a servant who's betrayed Camelot, and I swear when she steps forward it looks as though she's wearing a small crinoline underneath the dress to keep the hem out. When she sits back down there's definitely something white peaking underneath, probably a petticoat. I'm afraid I intend to go for a more natural look as I don't really want to make a crinoline that small.

Speaking of skirts, by Merlin, that's a lot of fabric. The dress has a train (like it couldn't be any more fabulous), but also has triangular gores at the front, but I'm unsure it if has any anywhere else. I'm not a big fan of triangular gores, I think they're an absolute pain to sew, and velvet will be difficult enough to work with.

The alternative is cutting the gores as part of the panels of the dress. You can see that there is no waist seam on this dress meaning the bodice and skirt are cut as one. I think in the original the front panel is cut with a straight skirt, and the gores are added in just at the hips to give the skirt some volume without adding bulk to the waist. A common method in garments from many historical periods. I could be wrong, of course, they could also have shaped panels and then add the gores in on top of that to make the skirt extra full. I'll have to see how full I can get the skirt panels because I really do hate gores.

The sleeves are definitely one of the best bits of this gown. I mean who doesn't love romanticised medieval gowns with those long pendant sleeves? I'm not sure what they're actually called. I typed in pendant sleeves to Google and it didn't know what I was talking about.

I already have an old MacCalls pattern somewhere with sleeves I can hack into the ones above. The only thing I am stumped on is the under sleeves, also of velvet, but embroidered with gold. Are they attached to the arm scye along with the over-sleeves? Are they attached to the over-sleeve just under the bertha? Are they just tied on with elastic? Velvet isn't that thin so I can't imagine it's a good idea to double up in the arm-scye. I prefer making the under-sleeves shorter and stitching them to the over sleeves, then hiding the stitching under the bertha. Perhaps they're attached in a method I can't fathom because I just don't have the knowledge, who knows?

Ah, the bertha. You give me so much to think about. I call this a bertha because it reminds me of the berthas on Victorian gowns. You can see from the picture below that this is double-layered, with a smaller piece sticking out the bottom of the embroidered strip.

As of writing I've figured that it's definitely sewn on because there are no seams in the Bertha that correspond with the seams of the bodice. I'd thought for a moment they'd been cut as one with the dress panels, but then realised there would be seam lines visible, which there aren't.

So the Bertha is constructed separately and then mounted to the bodice, just like with Victorian Berthas. Issue solved. I think it's probably stiffened with something. I don't know what makes me think that but it just makes more sense to be, especially since it's got the embroidery on it.

And there we have it, a really amateur-ish break down of Gwen's red gown from Merlin. Thankfully my bodice pattern for my natural form era gown is quite similar to this one with respect to panels, so it was easy to tweak, with a plus that I know it fits over the corset I'm probably going to wear underneath.

As for a petticoat I couldn't wear it over the corset as normal because this gown is to form-fitting that the waistband would definitively be visible. Either wear it underneath, or fashion a petticoat that attaches to the bottom of the corset. No crinoline though, I've got too much else going on to faff about with designing that.

I don't know how long this gown will take me since, as I've said a hundred times, I've got a lot of other stuff going on at various stages of completion, so I wouldn't hold your breath.

History Sunday: Anniversary of the White Ship disaster

I always miss anniversaries of historical dates, I'm either a day late, or in this case almost a week.  I just happened upon this one and decided it wasn't too late to write a post (my first one in a while).

William Adelin, Duke of Normandy, isn't a common household name, is it?  Unlike Richard III, Edward Longshanks,Thomas Becket, he's barely a footnote in history books.  He deserves more of a place in history considering it was his death that began the infamous Plantagenet dynasty in England.

William Adelin was the eldest, and only, son of King Henry I of England, and his first wife Edith (Matilda) of Scotland.  Looking back through the patrilineal side, William's grandfather was William the Conqueror (part I, part II, part III), Duke of Normandy and first Norman King of England, and his grandmother was Matilda of Flanders.  Through his mother, Edith of Scotland, his grandfather was King Malcolm III of Scotland, and grandmother Saint Margaret of Wessex.  Some confusion with his mother's name, she was christened Edith (an Anglo-Saxon name), however when she became Queen of England she changed it to Matilda, however I prefer referring to her as Edith because she was Scottish, and there are far too many Matilda's in this era.  All in all, William Adelin has some lineage going for him.

He became Duke of Normandy (ish) in 1120 because his father was a little too proud to do homage to the King of France for Normandy, and so sent his son.  This all sounds very familiar, doesn't it?  Henry I is certainly not the last king to send his son to France for this reason.

It can safely be said that William Adelin was the future of England and Normandy for the period he was alive, as the heir of Henry I.  We can only imagine what the father's expectations for his son were, or those of the nobles and normal folks'.  However, they were never to be lived up to.

Now, my cultured friends, many of you will know what the White Ship disaster is considering you've found this blog post, however for those of you who are simply curious wanderers I'll briefly explain.

The White Ship disaster is one of those important moments in the history of England from which there spilled lots of "what ifs".  The year is 1120, Henry I is sitting comfortably on the throne of England, he and his only son and heir are across the sea in Normandy.  Wanting to test out a new ship, the guilty "white ship" of the title, it's offered to the King, who refuses and instead passes it to his son.  The young heir to the throne, along with a handful of Henry I's illegitimate children, plus a good few hundred people, march onto the ship and both set sail from Barfleur in Normandy, heading to England.  Only one party would arrive.

The white ship sunk, leaving only two survivors, and William Adelin, only son of King Henry I, was not one of them,

The rest is a very dark, cold, corrupt part of history, known aptly as the Anarchy.

The white ship disaster has the potential to spark a multitude of different what if scenarios.  What if William had survived?  What sort of king would he have made?  How would the rest of the history of England have gone?  What would an England without the Plantagenet dynasty at the head have looked like?

Probably quite dull.

I am joking, but you can't say the Plantagenet family didn't know how to kick up turmoil.

Getting back to it.....William Adelin was only 17 when he perished in the Channel with his wife.  As he was so young, and had almost no power in his own lifetime, he's been mostly forgotten by history except as a footnote at the beginning of the Anarchy.  I couldn't really find that much about Adelin, save from reading before he got in a lifeboat he went to fetch his illegitimate sister, and by doing this killed pretty much everyone in said lifeboat by overfilling it.  If it's true, at least we know he's wasn't selfish.

It's all well and good making what if scenarios about history, but the nature of the beast is to be chaotic and messy, even when there is an obvious heir.  If Adelin hadn't perished, and become King of England something else would have happened.  A war between him and his cousin William Clito for the throne, or for Normandy?  His sons would have rebelled, died, something else.  If one remarkable thing hadn't happened, then something else would.  No king's reign in England was not marked by some important date.

Unfortunately, for William, the important date in his life to be contributed to history was his death.

I've read a few fiction novels about the 12th century, mostly because I'm obsessed with Henry II, who would never have became king if Adelin had survived. Just imagine, a red haired, energetic, intelligent man amounting to a measly Count of Anjou, forgotten by most.  What a waste.

Thankfully history was on Henry's side, however it certainly did no favours for the innocent people of England between the grandfather's death and the grandson's ascension.  From what I can imagine, and what history tells us in the famous quote:

"Christ and his Saints slept"

We can only have nightmares about what the anarchy was actually like for people living through it.  I don't know who had it worse, noble men and women who had to decide which horse to place their bets on, or the ordinary folk who were caught up in something that they probably didn't care much for.  Do you care who's Queen of England?  Does it affect you in any way?  I can't imagine it affected the people working the land much either, but maybe that's the ignorant part of my speaking.

The Anarchy all ended in Henry of Anjou, Matilda of England's eldest son, and Henry I's grandson, becoming King of England, hence beginning one of the most tumultuous dynasties in English history, the Plantagenets as they're known now, but that's another story.

And that brings to end this modest post about a very interesting figure of English history, one of the only few who's "what ifs" could have changed English history.  William Adelin, Duke of Normandy, only son and heir of Henry I of England.

History Sunday: Edinburgh

Last week I trekked most of the way up the country to go home.  What trip to Scotland is complete without another trek across to Edinburgh, the beautiful capital?  There is a traditional rivalry between Glasgow and Edinburgh, but I think rather than comparing them it's better to enjoy the unique experiences both have to offer.

Edinburgh is older than Glasgow, and has held a somewhat more important purpose in Scotland's history, and that's what this History Sunday post is focusing on.  When Glasgow was nothing but a settlement outside of the Cathedral, Edinburgh was home to Kings and Queens, and the government, a position it still holds today.

On my trip to Edinburgh, I went to see the castle, which I've actually only visited about once before.  I know, who goes to Edinburgh and doesn't see the infamous castle?  It's a bit of a tourist trap, obviously.  It's like going to the Tower of London, or Madam Tussaud's in the UK capital, for a lot of people the enjoyment is taken away by the sheer number of people being herded around.  I would love to wander around Edinburgh without having to navigate my way through a group of Americans, or avoiding the camera lenses of the Chinese tour.  Unfortunately I didn't have that privilege this time and so you also get to see the other tourists.

The Edinburgh Castle the world knows today is relatively modern, and still used as an army Barracks, but the sight has been used since the Iron Age.  It won't surprise people to know that the rock it's built on is volcanic, but fear not those who still want to go and visit, it won't erupt any time soon.  It's obvious from every picture you see of this grand castle that the rock is not just another Great Glen, and it dominates every picture of Edinburgh; the views are amazing.

The earliest source mentioning Edinburgh was Ptolemy's map in the 2nd Century, this area belonged to the Votadini tribe and is recorded as Alauna, which means rocky place.  As with many things from this early on his history there are many legends surrounding this piece of land, and the legendary kings, and if you're interested some quick Googling should be better then me.  I did listen to the audioguide but I'm afraid history this early in Scotland doesn't really interest me, so let's skip ahead.

The next recorded name of Edinburgh was in the 7th Century, and now this piece of land was called "Din Eidyn" in a Welsh poem.  The tale in the poem is about a King of Goddodin (what the Eastern part of Scotland was called during this period in time) and his warriors who feasted before riding off to battle with the Angles of what is now England, and being subsequently slaughtered in the act.  A cheery poem.  After the real defeat of the warriors of Goddodin Edinburgh became part of the lands of the Kingdom of Northumbria, one of the seven other kingdoms of the English heptarchy that came to be in the centuries following the Roman departure from Britain.  By the tenth century Northumbria had been united into England, and hence Edinburgh along with it.  According to the audioguide it was after the Goddodin defeat by the Northumbrians that "Din Eidyn" became Edinburgh, and has remained to this day.  To give you a better idea Burgh is an Anglo-Saxon word and doesn't originate from Scotland or any of the languages that has ever been spoken here.  "Gow" on the end of Glasgow, Linlithgow, etc, is a word with Scottish origins and means hollow, or dip.

Unfortunately information from this period comes from middens excavated on the site, and so is sparse, as you can imagine.  The next we hear from the castle is in the 11th Century after the death of the legendary King Malcolm III.  He was the first Scottish King I truly learned about during my travels, and his wife, the illustrious Saint Margaret.  I've briefly spoken about both in my post about Dunfermline Abbey, where she's buried.

Edinburgh Castle hasn't always been called this, and during St Margaret's lifetime it was known as the Castle of Maidens; she was here when she learnt of the death of her husband, Malcolm.  The origin of this name is a mystery that has a few origins in the various chronicles of history, but is was used frequently until the 17th Century.

It was Malcolm and Margaret's son, good ol' King David, that developed Edinburgh and planted the roots for its future importance in the fate of Scotland.  In my opinion it was the first call of anyone wanting to invade Scotland, due to its significance within the royal family.  Wallace and Edward III fought over it, Cromwell marched all the way across the border to destroy it; in fact it's been demolished and rebuilt so many times in its history I'm surprised it doesn't look more like Linlithgow Palace, nothing but a shell of its former glory, literally.

thanks to the panoramic mode on my phone

The oldest building still standing, intact, inside of the walls is St Margaret's chapel which dates from the 11th Century; dedicated to David's mother.  It is small, no more than ten people can fit inside at once, if I remember correctly, but is is lovely; and for those of you who're getting married soon you can have the ceremony in this little chapel, and then the reception at the castle as well.

The castle was destroyed by William Wallace during the Wars of Independence, his thought was that if the Scots couldn't storm and keep it, then the English couldn't have it.  It's been rebuilt since and King James VI and I of Scotland and England, respectively, was born in a tiny room here, which you can still visit today.  There is a War memorial inside of the walls which I didn't go in, and also the Scottish crown jewels (that's right, we have our own separate set) are kept here for people to take a look.

Edinburgh Castle has a long and bloody history that is just too rich to go through in this post.  Much blood was spilled, many buildings destroyed, and many births, deaths, marriages, romances, hatreds, and history came to pass here.  If you ever do get a chance Edinburgh is a must, although it's always busy and so hardly needs my ambassadorial skill.  I think the amazing Fudge Kitchen shop might, at the opposite end of the Royal Mile from the castle, but definitely worth the wander down (I don't like fudge but I eat the stuff they make).  A tour-guide, or even the audio-guide, will do a much better job than I have of informing you about Edinburgh's long history, or even just Wikipedia.

Sewing: 12-14th Century Kirtle

Dear me what a hash I made of this poor kirtle.  I actually tried to make it as period as I possibly could but was lazy with reading the pattern so many, many things went wrong.

To remind everyone when this all started (months ago) I intended on recreating the two dresses worn by Miranda in William Waterhouse's "The Tempest".  It was actually the inspiration for a story which I've now finished but have no intentions to publish (cause I can do that).  First step was to create the crimson red under dress, and I also paired this up with a chance to buy the Burda pattern,


I was really, really, really picky with the colour of fabric.  I had already decided on linen because it's period correct and because it has the best drape for garments like this.  Unfortunately the fabric of the perfect colour was actually a linen/cotton blend, so not so period correct but I could get away with it, sorry, could have gotten away with it if that had been the only thing I'd done wrong,

I wanted to line it, which I now regret because it makes the whole thing really heavy and bulky, the drape effect kind of disappears too because I chose a lovey sky blue cotton for the lining (cotton=quite stiff).  I still love the colour but unfortunately that is its only redeeming quality.  I've worked with 100% linen on the Italian Camicia, but I couldn't find the red I was looking for at my usual suppliers, and so the cotton blend won out.

Let's start at the beginning though.  I cut out the pattern...and didn't do a mock up.  I did a mock up of my 15th century Italian dress  and I personally found it a waste of time because the mock up actually fit worse than the finished product did and I didn't change the pattern from one to the other.  Unfortunately the Burda pattern was too short for me, and I didn't realise this until after I'd cut out all of the pieces and put them together. So yeah, still don't regret not doing a mock up but it would have been nice to know.  Instead I got resourceful, but more about that later.

The seams are running stitch, anchored at the ends by back stitch with all sew thread.  There are two side gores in place, and here's another mistake.

 You're supposed to cut gores on the fold of the fabric, I accidentally cut one on the other side, and so I had to sew the two pieces of gore together to get one full one.  I'm also not very good at reading instructions because when I do my thing never turns out the same way.  For fitting the gores I also had another reason to change the placing of them.  I have large hips, I'm talking about fashionable 50s small waist and large hips, but I hate them because they make me look disproportionate.  I placed the gores starting just at my waist so they fell over the bad area of myself.  I'll leave it up to you to decide if they're too high up, a part of me thinks they are but at the same time I like it...all very here-and-there.

When I tried on the dress with the two gores I just felt there wasn't enough swish to it.  So I took the remnants of my fabric, which wasn't a lot, and fashioned a special gore.  The leftover fabric wasn't big enough to the pattern gores so I had to make one.  I don't know if it adds anything but at least my dress is unique now, well because of that and what else I did to it.

As you can see from the main picture to solve the issue of it being too short I added a border of really nice soft blue cotton-linen blend.  I think the exact colour is "periwinkle" and it was more blue in real life than it was online which made me slightly nervous, but I think it looks ok, a bit of a stark contrast, I know, but look at how straight it is!  Pattern-less skill right there.  To be honest I could have ordered more red fabric but I think that would have made it look as though it was too short and I'd tried to fix it, at least this way people will think it's on purpose (it's our secret, dear reader).

There are 38 hand sewn eyelets up the back, that's right, 38; nineteen on each side.  I'm not gonna lie here, whenever I read about people doing this on their garments I was like "how can you be bothered?" and yet here I am, doing the exact same thing.  I definitely didn't sew them right and they're so small I had to use a kirby/bobby pin to get the lacing through.  I used buttonhole stitch on them because that's what I'd done on the sleeves, and I still don't know if that's the right way.  As I said I don't read instructions very well, including the ones online.  The positions of the eyelets is also a little off and the closing doesn't match up; I can't figure out why so I'm going to breeze past this bit.

I also didn't know what to use for lacing.  I ordered some corset cord (I know, I thought it would be okay) but because the eyelets were so small the cord would just not go through.  When I was in Fenwick's haberdashery department looking for some white thread for my next project, I saw this rayon-like shiny ribbon stuff.  If anyone has a garment from Armstreet then it's the same stuff they use to lace up their gowns (that's right, I have one of their dresses).  A back closure was a mistake, but it was too late by the time I really thought about it.  Getting myself laced into it is, as you can imagine, a problem.  

The one thing I was really disappointed with was the neckline.  I scrolled through hundreds of pages of trim to see the one that would go well with the red and was nice.  Since it is technically a fantasy dress it meant there was no constraints and I found one that was perfect.  Unfortunately what I forgot is that round necklines are a b**ch.  I have found a way by a kindly SCA-er but I decided just to scrap the neckline trim on this project and save it for something else in the future.

A final mention for the main body of the dress is that there is very un-period iron-on interfacing around the neckline and down the sides of the back closure.

Now we're onto the sleeves.  As you can see from the pattern the sleeves actually lace up from the wrist to the elbow, but that's too little work for me apparently and instead I did buttons (see the gore mirror-selfie pic).  This was another point of surprise for me.  Whenever I read blogs about fabric buttons I thought "that's dedication", but I ended up making 24 of them.  Unfortunately I didn't use two and now I've lost the little things somewhere in my slowly growing messier room.

Being the Statistician I pretend to be I decided to make a little template so all my buttons were all the exact same size, and I've kept it in case I want to use it in the future....a long way in the future.  I attached them to one side of the sleeve opening from a way I saw online somewhere, but I don't have the link anymore.

Now we move onto the button holes.  I'll skip over the stupidity I went through briefly before I did it properly.  Cut/slice the fabric where the buttons should pop out, and buttonhole stitch around the slit with embroidery floss.  Simple, and time consuming.  One sleeve fits perfectly, and I mean really well (the one in the selfie pic), and the other is a little baggy, which is only to be expected when you self-measure.  And even then my measuring involved holding the fabric around my arm with the other hand and pinning it in place with my mouth.  Now that I'm typing it I should have just taken the circumference of my arm and then they both would have fit well.  Duh!

The buttons were hard to do, and despite my little pattern for them they all looked different.  The effect is the same though and I'm proud, especially for a first attempt.

Finishing a project is very bittersweet I've found, but I'm proud of this one, even though I made an absolute mess of it.

My next project is an entire woman's outfit from 1900.  This includes chemise, corset (but not from the right period I've found out too late), corset cover, blouse, petticoat, and skirt.  I'm currently doing a mock up for the corset (that's right, even I see the necessity of doing a mock up for something like a corset).  I have the material for the chemise as well, but no pattern.  I kind of want to do an all-in-one instead, or bloomers attached to a top, but I'm undecided.  Hopefully it won't take me as long as the above one did.

History Sunday: Isobel of Mar, and Elizabeth de Burgh

Quite a random History Sunday this week I'm afraid, folks; I was having trouble choosing a topic, just like I was last week.  I contemplated Henry II, but I get the feeling that will be a three post segment at least.

There are two women I will be focusing on in this History Sunday, both are the wives of King Robert I of Scotland, commonly known as Robert the Bruce.  Everyone (well almost everyone) knows Robert the Bruce, he was one of the only men I was actually taught about in my history class at school from the middle ages (William Wallace, of course, being the other one).  Both men fought during the Wars of Scottish Independence from England during the 13th and 14th centuries.  Wallace was killed, whilst Bruce managed to wrangle the Scottish throne away from the English and regain independence (ish).

I think history likes to give Wallace a reputation for being just an ordinary fellow, a classic average Joe turned national hero story to tell the children, but in reality Wallace was a landowner in his own right.  Unfortunately I've become bored of Wallace's place in history, he's just been so overused for everything Scotland orientated.  So has Robert the Bruce on some level, but not the women behind the glory and fables.

Isobel of Mar (commonly known in English as Isabella, in Gaelic as Iseabail).  I translated her name this way because Isobel is the modern Scottish spelling of the Gaelic for whatever origins that overused name has (and because in my mind the name Isabella will be forever placed at Isabella of France's feet, even though that wasn't actually her name either).  Isobel was the daughter of the Earl of Mar, Domhnall I, and his wife Helen, or Ellen, who was the illegitimate daughter of Llewelyn ap Iowerth, Prince of Wales.  There isn't really much to read about poor Isobel.  One of the interesting things is that she and Robert were apparently in love when they married, the reason for the match was that her father thought that Bruce was the rightful Scottish King, and so by making an alliance with him solidified his family's position in Scotland (he must have been confident Bruce could claim the throne from the English).  She was 18 at the time of her marriage (is it just me or is anyone else thinking this was quite old for a young woman of the nobility?  I'm so used to pre-pubescent brides).  Soon after she became pregnant and gave birth to her one and only child, a daughter, Marjorie, who would go onto have Robert II, the founder of the Stuart/Stewart Kings.  She died before Robert was ever crowned King of Scots and so Isobel never gained the title Queen, and her father's hopes were no doubt a little disappointed.

Six years after the death of his first wife Bruce married his second and final wife, Elizabeth de Burgh.  She was the daughter of Richard Og de Burgh, Earl of Ulster, and his wife, simply referred to as Margarite.  Elizabeth married Bruce in 1302 when she was 13 years old (she was actually born on Scottish soil in Dunfermline, Fife).  In 1306 Bruce had a good control of power in Scotland and was crowned King of Scots in 1306, Elizabeth was crowned Queen at this point as well.  Bruce did this despite the fact that the English hadn't given up their claims to Scotland (typical Scottish f***k you to the English if you ask me).  Unfortunately, as with most victories during a warring period, this triumphant patch was short lived.

The women of the Bruce family had a hard time during the Scottish wars of independence, whether they were born into it or married.  I always find reading about what happened to them awful.  The Scottish army was defeated by the English force at Methven in 1306.  The Queen, Marjorie Bruce (her stepdaughter), and her husband's two sisters Mary and Christine/Christian fled to Kildrummy castle where they came under siege by the English army.

When the castle fell (due to a blacksmith with fragile loyalty when it came to money) all men, including Bruce's brother Nigel, were hanged and killed; the women had already fled under the escort of the Earl of Atholl.  The ladies were eventually found by the English, or rather handed over by another traitor sensing the tides were changing.  Mary Bruce and Isabella MacDuff (Countess of Buchan) were put in wooden cages which hung from the walls of Roxburgh and Berwick castles.  Marjorie Bruce and her Aunt Christine were sent to separate nunneries, and Elizabeth was placed under house arrest.  The Earl of Atholl, the ladies' escort, was killed and his head was displayed at the Tower of London (as they usually are during this time).  She was moved around castles and other properties for eight years until in 1314 she was returned to Scotland.

Elizabeth bore Bruce four children, only three of whom survived to adulthood.  Margaret, married the 5th Earl of Sutherland, and had issue.  Matilda, married Thomas Isaac and had issue (two daughters).  John (b.1327) died the same day he was born,  Finally, David, King of Scotland until 1372, married Joan of the Tower, a daughter of Edward II and Isabella of France.

Elizabeth died in October 1327 and is buried in, come on you can guess, Dunfermline.  Bruce died a mere 18 months later.

To tell you the fates of the other Bruce women captured by the English:
Mary Bruce (Robert's sister) was released back to Scotland during an exchange of prisoners after the Battle of Bannockburn where the English were defeated.  She married twice, once to Sir Neil Campbell, and had a son, and secondly to Alexander Fraser, but had no recorded issue.

Christine Bruce (Robert's other sister) was released back to Scotland, no doubt at the same time as the other women.  She married firstly Sir Christopher Seton, who was executed in 1306, and then Sir Andrew Murray.

Marjorie Bruce was released at the same time as Elizabeth, she had been kept at Watton Priory since her capture.  She married Walter Stewart, 6th High Stewart of Scotland, who had distinguished himself.  After David II of Scotland died childless, her son, Robert, became King of Scotland after him, beginning the Stewart dynasty of Scottish, and subsequently English, Kings.

That's it for these unfortunate Bruce women, and Isobel of Mar.  I'll need to think hard this week about what my next segment is going to be about, it's been very Scotland orientated for the last few ones, maybe I'll tackle the illustrious Henry II.

History Sunday: a brief overview of 11th-14thC fashion

I was stumped on what to do for the first History Sunday of 2015.  I'll admit that sewing 19 hand sewn eyelets onto the closure of my kirtle was inspiration (and also why I wanted to write a quick post with minimal research).  It's only in recent years that I've become interested in historic fashion, and there are outfits I've seen that survive or that I like that I add a note in my mind that one day I'd like to make one.  The only historic clothing I have under my belt is one very non-period accurate sideless surcote in cheap purple satin (yes, that's right, satin), my semi-accurate 15th Century Italian gown, and now my 12-14th Century gown based on Waterhouse's The Tempest which is perhaps a week or two from being completed depending on how much time I get this week to sew it.

I'll begin in the obscure-ish 11th century.

Pre-Norman conquest fashion is a bit of a grey area for me as there isn't much artwork or sources that survive from the period.  This was made apparent to me when I was researching for one of my series of short stories set in post-conquest England.  From what I could pick up it seems as though fashion is a very liberal word because there wasn't really any.  Things like buttons, hooks, clips, etc, hadn't come into use then and so the only thing to fit clothes to the form was belts usually placed at the waist.
There was a shift, sark, chemise, there have been a lot of names for them over the centuries and I don't know the 11th century word for it, and that was usually made of linen, homespun for the lower rungs of society.  Over this would be a kirtle, what I'm currently busting my ba**s to make.  Colours were also different during this time, they would be drawn from natural sources, some would be imported and only available to the rich, so none of your cobalt blue or cerise pink.  I have seen a few pictures an sources of a sort of tunic over this, a little shorter than the kirtle, with loose sleeves (but not the ridiculous ones of decades later that the Normans brought over).  As well as materials and fabrics being a sign of status, colours were also, as well as layers.  Personally (maybe even factually) I think this draws from previous centuries where layers meant status because fabric was expensive and the more you clad yourself in, the richer you were.

Now come the Normans and the age of the famous bliaut which has been the inspiration for many a medieval fantasy movie costume (I'm looking at you Lord of the Rings, and Game of Thrones). I'm afraid the bliaut actually edges more into the 12th Century than the 11th, but the Normans wore tight fitting clothes which the Anglo-Saxons didn't (reportedly).

Apparently Norman women just liked excessively long everything because this was also the time when the really long plaited/wrapped hair came into fashion.  As with women all throughout the centuries to keep up with the trend those who couldn't grow their hair the desired length would add ornaments to the ends of the braids to lengthen them, or wear what we would call extensions today.  I really like the series of drawings pictured on the right, I can't remember who drew them but on behalf of all history clothing buffs I would like to thank you.
These bliauts were not as tight fitting as some other dresses would become through the centuries and so women belted it, usually twice wrapped around, like the lovely lady pictured right.

Moving on nearly a century we come to the rather obscure 13th century.  I don't know why it's obscure but people don't seem to make many clothes from this time period, at least not what I could find when I was researching.  What I could conclude was the drawing pictured on the left.
Gone are the wrapped belts.  Sleeves are tight fitting, and over it is what I assume to be the very early ancestor of what would later become the sideless surcote.  Long, bared hair came into fashion (I wonder what the church felt about that) worn with a barbette and fillet (different spellings of those).  I've sometimes seen this referred to as a pie crust which I love.  This will be the early 13th century because by the end of the 1200s the sideless surcote was popular in Europe.

Finally coming to the 14th Century, and the one I hope I know the most about.  The sideless surcote, or fondly nicknamed by the church as "Gates to Hell", was a staple fashion of this century.  It was called by this loving name because it showed off the figure of the wearer, which of course the sexually oppressed church members thought was a "temptation into sin".  They should count small blessings, hair was once more covered during this period by the templars.

Phillipa on the right

In my opinion the church should have been more against buttons which came into use during this period.  After making 24 fabric buttons, 24 handstitched button holes, and soon-to-be 38 eyelets I wonder at the trouble women went through to make tight fitting clothes.
Now that women could be laced, or buttoned, into their garments a whole new medieval version of "on show" came into being.  Buttons were common as the closure of garments but also on the sleeves (and don't I know it) to make them as tight fitting as possible as well.  Over which could be the sideless surcote.
Another fashion in this period was tippets, pictured again on the right.  These are usually pictured as white so probably made of linen and were attached to the sleeves and just kind of..hung there.  I personally don't know the point of these so if anyone could inform me that would be great.

14th century territory would be the Burgundian gowns and the emergence of high/empire waisted garments, but that's beyond this post.  I feel as if I've butchered this whole topic by being so brief but I never have been a very detailed person.  Hope for a better organised History Sunday next week, and to end this post a pretty peacock from an illuminated manuscript that I've been waiting to use, so yay!

History Sunday: William the Conqueror, Duke of Normandy (III)

Welcome to the third and final post about William the Conqueror, the first Norman King of England.  So you don't get confused here is part I, and part II.

Before I go into many, many paragraphs about William's battle prowess and his take-over of England I want to talk about his appearance.  We're actually very lucky in that there were a few contemporary descriptions of him, and the only bone of his not to be lost to the ravages of time, his femur, has been examined using modern techniques.  Another side note here the first King of England to actually sit for a portrait was the infamous Richard II who I've briefly mentioned in my John of Gaunt posts.  His reign was during the 14th century, so during our period in the 11th it just wasn't the done thing.  The only images to survive of people during this time, kings and queens usually, are coins, seals or illuminated manuscripts.  I'm actually surprised I haven't had room to mention the Bayeux tapestry in this series of posts because in my mind you can't think about William I without it.  Unfortunately seals, coins and the tapestry aren't likenesses of a historic figure, usually just a generic one.

From contemporary sources it is said that William was well-built, strong, and had a guttural voice.  From his femur his height is estimated to be about 5 feet 10 inches.  According to a source this was tall for the time but I respectfully disagree with this.  It is a common misconception that our ancestors ere smaller than us, but studies that I've read and other sources I've browsed show that there isn't actually much of  difference between the average height in previous centuries and now.  I think women have grown an inch perhaps, and men are close to that.  It is above average height, regardless.  Unfortunately there is no colour descriptions, his eyes or his hair, but I think it's most probable, given his northern European lineage, that he had dark hair and possibly light-ish eyes, I'm not going to venture a colour.

Now the Bayeux tapestry.

No one knows who comissioned this, there's debate about where it was even created.  I think Odo of Bayeux, and William's wife Matilda are the most popular contenders for the comissioners; I've heard somewhere that it may not have been made in Bayeux at all but in England because English women were famed for their needle skill.  Because it was found in Bayeux I think people will naturally assume that Odo of Bayeux, William's half-brother and the Bishop of Bayeux, was the one who ordered it to be made; unfortunately it's a mystery.  To see a video of the Bayeux tapestry click here.

To understand why William wanted or rather stole, the crown of England we first have to look firstly at the validity of his claim, and secondly the precarious situation in England at the time.

Edward the Confessor

William's great-grandfather, Richard I of Normandy, had two children; Richard II and Emma.  Emma married Aethelred the Unready, King of England and had Edward the Confessor.  England at that time was not the England we know today, half of it was England, the other half now known as the Danelaw where the viking settlers remained.  Cnut, the King of the Danelaw, managed to conquer England and this sent Edward the Confessor, and his younger brother, into exile in Normandy.  Things happened in England that I'm not all that knowledgeable on the details but eventually, as we know, Edward claimed back his throne and became King of England.
Edward never married, and is the only English King to become a Saint.  I don't understand why he never married, especially when during later periods so much focus was placed on producing an heir.  Perhaps it was because of his struggles with the Godwin family, the powerful Earls of Wessex, I'll never know.  No one knows what he intended about the succession because there were many candidates.

William claimed that he had been promised the throne of England by Edward himself, and that he was always supposed to be his heir, but there has never been any proof of this found in any sources.  I don't know if it's true or not, but from what we've seen of William's ferocity and ambition I think he saw an opportunity and took it.  Edward the Confessor died sometime in January 1066, and so started the events that would change English history.

Harold Godwinson claiming the throne

There are a lot of details surrounding the Norman invasion, ones I have tried to read during research for a series of short stories of mine set in England in 1072.  I'm not going to recount them here, only in brief.  After Edward's death Harold Godwinson, Earl of Wessex, claimed the throne for himself.  This apparently enraged William who thought he was the rightful heir.

Having fought all of his life to win control over Normandy, William gathered a great force and set sail for England after a delay crossing the channel due to bad weather.

Eventually he landed in Pevensey in September of 1066 with an army and a determination that no man could withstand.  By October of the same year he had defeated Harold at the never to be forgotten Battle of Hastings and claimed England for himself, becoming one of the most powerful men in 11th century Europe.

Oh dear, if only it were that easy.  People usually leave this story at the Battle of Hastings but wars are rarely one during one battle.  This is the thing, it's in the name, the Norman conquest of England.  Anglo-Saxons were the inhabitants of England during this time, they spoke a variant of old english, Normans spoke Norman French.  This would literally be like French people coming over to England now and taking over,; your boss is French, he demands and expects you to be fluent in French as well, he's going to change the way things work, the law, to the French laws.  That's not particularly true in this case, Anglo-Saxon law was well developed, even better than the Norman one, and so for the most part William changed nothing like that.  What he did do was pull down prominent Anglo-Saxon magnates and nobles and replaced them with his Norman followers.  This enraged the populace and for many years following Williams coronation he had to fight remnants of the Anglo-Saxon nobility.

The most pungent of these events, for me, was the harrying of the north.  This was literally destruction on a mass scale, ethnic cleansing if you will.  William marched an army to York and then ravaged everything north of that point, burning villages, towns, killing people; it certainly sent a very loud message to the rest of England but it was brutality on an awful scale.  Although I admire William I loathe him for this; mass punishment for only a few perpetrators is illogical and barbaric.

Unfortunately even up until the end of William's life he faced opposition from the Anglo-Saxons. It didn't help any that he commissioned the Domesday book in 1085/1086 that recorded everything he owned in England, every property, every village, town, home, castle, etc.  Although it was despised at the time it has now become an invaluable resource about the geography of England, and the history of the largest cities and towns.

William died in 1087 probably from a fall from his horse although it's a bit unclear what actually happened.  He wasn't a very respected king because as soon as his last breath had left him everyone scurried away to prepare for the aftermath his death would bring, and when his body was eventually found most of the things in his residence were stolen by servants and his body was lying naked on the floor.  I act shocked about things like these but it also happened to Henry II as well.

Slowly after his death the great empire he had clawed and scraped together disintegrated until roughly 1100 when Henry I managed to regain most of it.  He left England to his son William Rufus, and Normandy to his eldest son, and possibly most disliked, Robert.  Over the remaining decades until Henry I's reign the brothers bickered terribly for control over the other's domain, until eventually the youngest son, Henry, became eventual heir to William's empire.

Queen Elizabeth II, the current monarch, is descended from William, as are many other people around the world.  He brought Norman French, which merged over hundreds of years with Anglo-Saxon to give our modern day English.  Beef is actually a Norman word, cow is Anglo-Saxon.  He brought many things to England, even Scotland, Wales and Ireland, although indirectly.  I personally think the Norman Invasion is a definitive pivotal point in English history, not the most important, but definitely in the top 5.