I was actually more amused by the procession -- I had no idea that their vestments had retained the style of the church's founding days. They looked to me like the funeral procession in Orlando.

He just happened to have the costume handy, I guess?

The ultimate fusion of Church and State.

I also hope that the participating clergymen saw the incident as humour as well, and did not feel that it had ruined their procession.

It seems to me that the vestments of a number of the higher Christian churches retain elements of the medieval in their ceremonial garb, frozen in time like scholarly robes, British royal guard uniforms, and folk costume, to one degree or another. The ruffs are atypical, perhaps, but surely no more dated than miters, skullcaps, or floor length robes. Or do you find Catholic vestments funny also?

In a way it's a shame the Norwegian church gave up its collars. It always seems a shame to me when a market for quality hand work is lost. I always marvel at the quality (and quantity) of the cartridge pleating you get in scholars' robes, and continue to think that there is market potential for cross pollination of skills and products between the makers of ceremonial dress of all sorts and the really dedicated re-enactor class.

That was AWESOME. :)

I was going to blather a bit re: the "ceremonial garb" idea, but it was coming out like so much gibberish, so I cut it. But I would venture that it served to draw the eye to the person/people one was supposed to be watching, and does so even more now that common clothing has changed so much. Plus, of course, the whole if-the-tradition-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it idea.

Oh, dear. I seem to have blathered anyway.

I am probably not the person you want to be sitting next to at a historically-costumed movie.

Well, I find the word "capuch" funny. So did the Discalced Carmelite friar who taught it to me while wearing one.

It sounds like the noise a big boulder makes when dropped in a lake.

History probably reveals a population of pugilistic priests. Good to see they've mostly decided against the caped costumes.

I don't know if finances will permit me getting to WorldCon, but if you're driving, I'd certainly be on the way to or from, for you.

Texanne, seriously, I am but an egg compared to Genevieve Valentine. You should look at her LJ where she tears the costuming in "The Other Boleyn Girl" to shreds -- "Those dresses are twenty years out of date for the time period AND they're German! This is like wearing OVERALLS to a high fashion party!" And her diatribes against the costumers who leave off chemises... I stand in awe.

This sounds fascinating. Dare I ask for a link?

http://glvalentine.livejournal.com/46430.html

On the other hand, Rohanna regaled me with the tale of a bunch of SCAdians going to the old Plaza theater to see Robin of Sherwood (also known as "Yo, Merry Dudes."

The theater was an ornate building that had been built during the 20s and the decor inside was really fabulous. The bathroom entrances on the basement floor were wide and not screened.

And one of the females noticed that the decor inside the Men's room was really superior to the Women's room. So they huddled just outside and started making comments like, "Well, would you look at that!". "Oh My Ghod!" and "Look, there is a Calon Cross in that frieze!" etc.

They apparently wierded out a lot of men just trying to use the can.

Ironically, the most medieval Anglican vestments are actually innovations of a sort. As far as anyone knows, the first photograph of Anglican bishops in copes and miters was at the Fond du Lac "circus" in 1900 (the Russian bishop on the far right is St. Tikhon, later patriarch of Moscow). If you want to be archaic, you have to go for the hyper-Protestant stuff of the early reformation like Geneva bands (here's Fleming Rutledge in them: she gets extra points for being female and having a hyper-Anglican name). If you really want to max out you need a Canterbury cap, which you can see here sported by Cranmer. Surplice, tippet, bands, hood, and Cap gives you the Compleat Regalia for the passing Anglican academic-- just the thing to deliver the invocation at commencement. But you can't wear bands and a ruff together.

well, no! the "falling band" collar was what came into general fashion (not just clerical when it was new) after the ruff had gone Out. IIRC, Tilda Swinton's wearing one when she recites "When in disgrace with fortune and men's eyes" in Orlando. The clerics just kept it after other secular fashions had supplanted it.

That was part of my squee over the clerical ruffs. "Oh, look, THEIR clerical dress got established THEN, earlier than England, of course, that makes perfect sense!"

This brings me great geek-joy.

Thinking it through now though, I realise that I've not seen the ruffled collars on any priests in UK or American movies/tv etc. so I should have guessed.

The clip is hilarious though.

There's a new film version of Thomas Mann's Die Buddenbrooks that was released yesterday. Pre-release, it was getting good reviews. Looks like there's room for costume geekery -- official website and trailer here. Only in German so far, but I'm sure there will be subtitles and dubbing soon.

The oldest historical fencing manual in the world, 1.33, (so called because of the drawer in the Royal Armouries it was discovered in), shows a "sacerdos" (priest) instructing a "scholaris" (student) in the art of using a sword and buckler for self defence. It is highly stylised, yet practical, demonstrating many years, probably many decades of development. The priest has a tonsure, and the scholar a full head of hair covered by a hood.

It dates from somewhere around 1300, from central germany, somewhere around Gotha or wurtzburg.
The rest of the medieval period has a number of examples of monks getting involved in battles, usually with local townsfolk who are fed up with the monks opressing them and bothering their wives.

Mostly it doesn't even get odd looks (though the occaisional is to be expected, and at times I get questions).

'The Master' had one, when he was re-introduced as a villain during the Peter Davidson era of Dr Who.

National Geographic did an article about the Spanish Armada, with a photo of a portrait of Philip of Spain; it was the very image of the Master.

Peter Davidson's Dr Who was more British than portrayals previous or hence; not surprising that his adversary was the arch enemy of England.

Or you could throw prudence to the wind, get a fake beard, and start chopping heads...

One of my (now backburner) projects is making myself a nice curmudgeon's beard... I'm thinking something in the "ancient chinese secret" tradition, so long and narrow, rather than "father yule" bushy.

False beards seem to be an unexpectedly popular item on etsy. There are at least two ladies making them. I found this one out of felt, but I know I saw an article about another lady making them of yarn. (Can't find any that look like what I remember, unfortunately.)

I'm strongly tempted by the knitting pattern for the Dwarven Battle Bonnets*, which are helmets with an attached knitted beard, myself.

If RP is going to throw Prudence to the wind, may I suggest zhe choose a Prudence around two to four years old. They're not very heavy at that age, better for throwing, and they're more resilient in the landings. If you throw her to the wind in the direction of a large, soft bed, you may find yourself requested to do it "Again!" (If you don't use a large soft bed, you may find yourself never near Prudence again.)

*The name of that pattern is one that will not stick in my head, and defies my best guesses at searches. Helmet doesn't work, nor viking. I remember that they're named for the helmet part, not the beard, so I save the beard search for last, and it is the one that works. I have it theoretically saved, but every time I look for the pattern it requires more searching than it should. Darn it.

Great Harry was, in his youth, highly athletic; I am not sure if it is claimed of him what was claimed of Henry V, that he ran down deer afoot, but it wouldn't surprise me. Then he blew out a knee and didn't change his eating habits, and you can see the transformation in his suits of armor, which the Tower collection still has.

Not, let me hasten to add, that there aren't monumental other problems with that series in terms of historical accuracy (and I say this having seen naught by the subway ads!), but the young Henry VIII as an athlete is not itself objectionable.

"Thomas. I chose the right man for chancellor!"
"I should in fairness add that my taste in music is reputedly deplorable."
"Your taste in music is excellent. It exactly coincides with my own!"

Keith Michell in the 1970 BBC miniseries, The Six Wives of Henry VIII showed the change pretty well. I should see it again, Elizabeth R withstood recent rewatching.

Greedy, selfish, venal King tosses aside his wife for a greedy, selfish gold-digger whom he later murders (excuse me, executes on a trumped-up charge, but let's call a spade a fucking shovel) as soon as he tires of her...and their daughter becomes the greatest monarch in the history of Britain.

Much as I'd like to travel in time and throttle Henry in his crib, I could not deprive the world of Elizabeth the Great. And not just because she made my namesake such a bigwig.

Nope, tracking codes.

Thanks for the pointer. The errata is noted in the pattern notes at Ravelry, as well.

(That looks like it should be either "erratum is" or "errata are." Is there a preferred usage for this sort of thing? I mean, I doubt it is a single correction, so is it plural even if it is for one mistake? Hm.)

Now wait just one minute here -- Anne Boleyn was no gold-digger! She came to Court and fell in love with the Duke of Northumberland's heir, Henry Percy. Cardinal Wolsey scotched the betrothal (earning Anne's permanent hatred) at the bequest of Henry Tudor, who'd decided he wanted the toothsome Anne as his new mistress...

Anne wasn't having any of this, and left Court. When the idiot Tudor came wooing, Anne saw him as a way to get revenge on Wolsey...

Now I'll admit revenge is not a pretty motive, but Anne's family was well off, and had hoisted itself up the social ladder on the petticoats of the eldest daughter, Mary. So call Anne a scheming bitch if you like (I'll more than agree with that) but wealth wasn't the motivation.

She was a better person than Henry, but of course that's not exactly a high standard. My point is that Elizabeth was a flower that grew from two shitheaps.

I've always felt sorry for Anne, she was dealt a pretty lousy hand -- you know that betrothal Wolsey ended? Well, during the proceedings that led up to Anne's beheading she was forced to admit that that betrothal was valid.

So by Church and common law she was not married to Henry at the time she was supposedly committing adultery -- the worst she could be convicted of was being a harlot or committing bigamy not treason.

The penalty for these crimes* is not beheading. So Henry and the nobles who condemned Anne are guilty of murder.

*In the case of Jane Shore, Edward IV's mistress, she was made to carry a candle through the streets to a church while wearing only a chemise to demonstrate her penitence.

It's interesting to think that Jane Shore would have been mortified at being outdoors in her underwear -- underwear which covered more than many women wear in total, today.

I do find that when wearing historical clothing, my notions of modest and appropriate coverage resets itself in remarkable ways, and strongly suspect that I'm not the only one.

I will say that Jane Shore's chemise may have put fabric over a great deal of her anatomy without actually concealing any of it, depending on how fine the cloth was.

True... but I rather suspect that she'd have selected her chemise with due care (given the option, at any rate), and aimed for something other than the finest linen...

I'm now wondering if there's any way to find out which chemise she wore :D

Well, yes, that being the real reason he murdered her. I wasn't aware that it was so blatant, though. He really was a King-sized pile of stinking shit, wasn't he?

Jane had spent the time after Anne was arrested preparing for the wedding. (For those who may not know it, Jane was one of Anne's ladies-in-waiting, the same service both Jane and Anne had rendered Queen Katharine, Henry's first wife.)

But the failure of Catherine and Ann to produce a male heir was probably the overriding reason, though certainly not the only one. If Mary or Elizabeth, either, had been healthy boys...

Elizabeth I (after whom I was named, and whom I deeply admire) had her father's hair, charisma, and temper, and also his brains and his ambition. But during her years in exile, when she never knew if the next day she might be arrested (as she was) and killed, she developed an iron self-control and a remarkable tendency toward caution which contributed greatly to the longevity of her reign. Her decision not to have children, wherever it sprang from, was incredibly smart.

Jane Seymour also died (post-childbirth) when she was 29.

And that Jane Seymour was a heartless bitch too, huh? Not a lot of nice folks hanging around court then, I gather.

Heartlessness was selected for in European royal courts. If you had any scruples you either left court for a more congenial environment in the country, or you lost them quickly and joined in the fray.

Elizabeth was a great ruler, in part because she had so much steel in her character. It takes a certain heartlessness to keep a spymaster like Sir Francis Walsingham, who used torture and probably covert assassination as standard tools, and who worked for a long time to obtain the execution of Mary, Elizabeth's sister. As I understand it, he temporarily lost favor with Elizabeth after Mary's execution, not because she regretted her sister's death, but because she was uneasy about the precedent the death of a fellow monarch might set.

I believe the film Ridicule deals with the courtly process of removing one's heart, like The Candidate does in a more modern political milieu.

Mary/Marie/Maria (in honour of Our Lady/Notre Dame, the BVM) was such a popular name in Europe for so long that there were combinations like Marie-Therese or Marie Antoinette (originally Maria Antonia) to help stop confusion.

But, Xopher (#73), weren't there any humans anywhere on the planet living reasonably Good lives around that time? Looking at history thru the lens of palace & political intriguers from Roman (or earlier) times onwards to today you'd see very little to give you hope for the species.

D'oh! That wasn't a slip of the mind; those wires have been crossed there in the back of my brain for a long time; for some reason I remembered the two Marys as being the same person. Thanks for straightening me out.

There may be a grain of truth to that. At least ounce in a while...

Bruce Cohen (StM): No probably about it. Walsingham used assassination, judicial murder, and every other thing he could think of to keep the state stable.

It did, but Fanny Ardant's character was shamed for what she did.

"I wonder if The Tudors will make that sexy bad boy up into the ugly greedy old schlumpf that Henry became...when the time comes?"

Rhys whatever his name has decidedly nixed that. He announced way back last autumn in the London Times Arts and Entertainment section puff piece on the new season of The Tudors that he will neither bulk up his finely buffed bod nor don a fat suit.

After all history is not the point of the series, as all have noted. Hot bodies interacting in fraught circumstances are.

I did find the characterization of Ann Boleyn in The Tudors engrossing, emphasizing as it did how difficult it was to keep Henry enthralled simultaneously without him finally turning that anger on her. A son and heir was what it was all about. As well as lust. Ann Boleyn was so used by her family, which from what I understand of the historical record was the case. What shits the men of her family were. All of that is in the series, as why not, since it is splendid dramatic material.

But what I liked most is that you can understand, as the historical has always told us, just what an exceptional person Ann was -- her charm plus her intelligence. Her family ordered her to play the King, but they couldn't tell her how. Woo.

The scenes early on when Henry begins to stalk woo Ann at the Court masks and balls are marvelous. It could have been like that, though of course we don't know.

I thought the character of Henry's Queen Catherine was also played brilliantly.

Henry himself and all the rest -- forget history.

Love, C

Humph. He didn't even bother taking me out for dinner first.

Perhaps he assumed you'd be at work.

Since we've all heard that the Serge is working...