Kirtles and Petticoats and Skirts
“Than haue they Petticots of the best cloth that can be bought and of the fairest dye that can be made. And sometimes they are not of cloth neither, for that is thought to base, but of scarlet, grograin taffatie, silk, and suche like, fringed about the skirts with silk fringe, of chaungable coloure. But which is more vayn, of whatsoeuer their petticots be, yet must they haue kyrtles (for so they call them) eyther of silk, veluet, grogram, taffatie, saten, or scarlet, bordered with gards, lace, fringe, and I cannot tell what besydes.” (1)
Image 1 Fustian petticoat embroidered with a
scrolling flowers pattern in a black wool. First half 17th century. London Museum.
The Skirt
With few exceptions the word skirt, though it existed, was not used for garments in probate inventories, in wills, or in household accounts. Some of the confusion may arise from twentieth century costume historians using terms, not as they were understood in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but as they were understood in the mid twentieth century, the Cunningtons do make the distinction by writing of “under-petticoats (not to be confused with ‘skirt petticoats’).” (2 p. 64) Skirt at this point applies to the lower portion of a woman’s, or man’s, robe or gown, or the skirts of a coat, usually not a separate item. Pepys for example wrote that he rose and put on his “suit with great skirts.” (3 p. 1 Jan 1660) Skirt appears in probates when it is referring to part of something that is, or was once, larger. More than once, there are references to smock skirts implying that the rest of the smock is missing, for example in 1617 Anne Lloyd has “one smocke skyrte 18d” and in 1631, Frances Jodrell, a spinster, lists another “smocke skirt”. (4 pp. 297-8) (5 pp. 315-22) In legal cases there are references to skirts of gowns being stolen, in 1606 “the skirtes of a woeman's gown edged with golde lace worth ten shillings” was stolen. (6)
Kirtles and petticoats: origins
What is the difference between a kirtle and a petticoat in the early modern? Malcolm Davies and Mikhaila have pointed out that secondary sources tend to use them as synonyms, but probate and household accounts show women owning both garments, and therefore there must have been a difference. (7 p. 123) . In 1536 Lady Bryan wrote to Thomas Cromwell complaining that, after the execution of her mother, the young Princess Elizabeth "hath neither gown, not kertel, nor petecot, nor no manner of linnin for smokes.” (8 p. 209) The Oxford English Dictionary is not very helpful, it defines the Old English word kirtle as “A woman's gown [or] a skirt or outer petticoat.” The petticoat, a word which appears in the fifteenth century, it defines as a garment worn by both men and women, over a shirt or smock, and under a doublet or gown, only later being used for “an outer skirt; a decorative underskirt” and finally a woman’s “light loose undergarment.” Petticoats for men were common in the fifteenth century, the soldier Sir John Fastolf (died 1459) owned two, one stuffed with flocks, and the other without sleeves. (9 pp. 238-51) Men’s petticoats were still around in the sixteenth century, but as the Tudor Tailor has pointed out their database has less than 200 men’s petticoats to over 2,200 women’s. (7 p. 11) They had disappeared from menswear by the seventeenth century.
Image 2: Crimson silk sation, embroidered petticoat.1610-20. Glasgow Museums
Kirtles
Throughout the first half of the sixteenth century, it was usually the kirtle that was worn over the smock and under the gown by girls and women of all ages. The kirtle was usually full length from shoulder to ankle. They could, like petticoats later, have the top half, the body, in a different textile. An example of this is in 1588 when Elizabeth Gouldsmithe owns “a worstyd kyrtle, with branched damask bodye and sleeves” worth £1 5s. (10 p. 378) Or they could have the same textile throughout, in 1558 Margaret Tretil left in her will, “to my brother's wife Tylbrey a worsted kirtle upperbodied with the same.” (11 p. 4) Huggett tracked the decline in the use of the word kirtle in the second half of the sixteenth century. (12) The term disappears by the middle of the seventeenth century. Analysis of data in the Stuart Tailor database of probate inventories and wills, shows that while the term was still appearing in the 1620s and 1630s, there are six petticoats mentioned for every kirtle, and the last mention of a kirtle is in the 1646 probate of a wealthy widow who owns “3 Gownes, 3 Petticoates, 1 curtle.” (13 p. 156) As has been pointed out, when a 1640 probate account uses the term kirtle, this is a grandparent using the terminology for garments that they might have used when they were young. (14 p. 192)
Petticoats: skirts
There can be a question over whether a petticoat runs from the shoulder to the ankle, or from the waist to the ankle, the later appears more common. William Kempe, who danced from Norwich to London in 1600 reported; “It was the mischaunce of a homely maide that, belike, was but newly crept into the fashion of long wasted petticoats tyde with points and had, as it seemed, but one point tyed before, coming unluckily in my way, as I was fetching a leape, it fell out that I set my foote on her skirts: the point either breaking or stretching, off fell her peticoate from her waste, but as chance was, though her smock were course, it was cleanely.” (15 p. 17) In his 1680s work The Academie of Armory, Holme describes a petticoat as follows: “peti-coat, is the skirt of a gown, without its body; but that is generally termed a peti-coat, which is worn either under a gown, or without it.” (16) In 1670 Giles Moore paid for his niece Martha to have a gown, bodies and petticoat made; making the gown cost 8s, making the petticoat cost only 1s, the total bill for the whole outfit including all materials was £3 9s 0d. (17 p. 76) When poor girls were provided with clothes it was often a waistcoat and petticoat. In 1633 in London a parish paid out “for a petticoat and for a wastecoate 12s 6d” and another parish they paid out in 1647 for “2 petticoats and a wastcoate £1 12s.” in neither case was the girl provided with a gown. (18 p. 23) In some probates the term petticoat skirt appears. In 1603 Elline Mores, owned the “skert of a pettecotte 2s” (19 pp. 35-6) In 1612 Ann Hodgesonne left, “one petticoate skirte being redd.” (20 p. 246) In 1619 Annis Smyth, a widow, had no less than five “petticoat skirtes”, among other clothing. (21 p. 132) This implies that a petticoat might have an upper portion.
Image 3: Silver tissue bodies and petticoat. 1660s. Fashion Museum Bath
Petticoats: bodies
If the petticoat had an upper body then, like the kirtle, it might be of a different textile. In 1604 Elizabeth Jenyson, widow of Auditor General of Ireland, leaves in her will, “to his [Francis Newby's] wief … my redd frisadoe petticoat with an upper body of crymson chomelett.” (22 pp. 3-6) In 1615 Margaret Farehurst leaves in her will, “my stammel peticote with murrey bodies, my stammel petticote with flaxen bodies.” (23 p. 30) Whether and how these bodies were attached to the petticoat is a matter of conjecture. Later in the seventeenth century the bodies are listed completely separately from the petticoat, for example in 1685 Thomas Hopkins, a weaver, lists his late wife’s clothes as including, “Three paire of Bodases, four old mantos, thre cloth petecoates, three Sarge petecoates.” (24 p. 140)
Petticoats: underpetticoats and quilted petticoats
Some petticoats are specified as underpetticoats, to be worn under other garments, and some as quilted, again probably worn as an undergarment, and for warmth. Evelyn mentions both, “Short under petticoats, pure, fine,…Another quilted white and red.” (25) An unusual mention of garments for a certain time of year was in Winifred Gallowaie’s 1627 will, where she left to sister her “winter gown, [and] both under petticoats.” (26 pp. 53-4) In 1631 Bridget Clarke left her daughter, “a gown, 2 under petticoats, [and] 1 red petticoat” (27 pp. 159-60) This continues through the century as in 1672 Millicent Grimley leaves, “my red petticoate, my greene petticoate, my tawnie petticoate, my best wastcoate... A greene apron and a red underpetticoate.” (28 p. 212) While many of these petticoats are red, the Hertford accounts for 1641 show, “paid to Clement Smith for 17 yardes of white flannell to make under petticoats for the three young ladies at 20d the yard.” (29 p. 16) A rare surviving quilted petticoat is that belonging to the 1690s doll Lady Clapham.
Image 4: Quilted petticoat of Lady Clapham doll. 1690s. Victoria and Albert Museum
Ready-made petticoats
The database has no records for kirtles being available ready-made, but by the end of the seventeenth century petticoats could be purchased ready-made from salesmen. In 1702 Robert Amsden in Canterbury had many petticoats in stock at a variety of prices, the most expensive were damask and serge at 5s 6d each, silk and worsted at 5s, worsted at 4s, and the cheapest were coarse petticoats at 2s. (30 p. 210)
Colours
Colour seems to be a major defining difference between kirtles and petticoats. The Typical Tudor analysis for the sixteenth century showed that the colours of Elizabethan kirtles were roughly 30% black, 30% red, and the rest a mixture of other colours, and that more than half of petticoats were red, with 40% being white or “sheep colour,” very few were other colours. (7 p. 126) In the Stuart Tailor database, there are far fewer kirtles, and even fewer mention the colour, with one exception they are black, the exception being green. For petticoats in the seventeenth century over 60% are reds (includes crimson, scarlet, etc.), with around 8% each for blues, blacks and greens, the remaining 14% includes, whites, greys, yellows, murrey, violet, tawney, etc.
Textiles
The Typical Tudor shows later sixteenth century kirtles as being over 50% worsted and petticoats as being 70% russet. This changes completely in the seventeenth century. The Stuart Tailor database has only 1 worsted kirtle, and no one textile predominating. For petticoats there are forty different types of textiles used, with 40% being divided fairly equally between cloth, stammel and stuff. There are only 3% of petticoats in russet, a textile which dies out in the seventeenth century. If you had the money, your kirtle or petticoat could be of silk-based fabrics: satins, taffetas, and velvets appear as fabrics for both garments, as does the wool based serge (7.5% of petticoats) More debatable fabrics, used for both kirtles and petticoats, are camlet and grogram. Of camlet, Beck says, “In [the] production [of camlets], the changes have been rung with all materials in nearly every possible combination; sometimes of wool, sometimes of silk, sometimes of hair, sometimes of hair with wool or silk, at others of silk and wool warp and hair woof.” (31 p. 50) Likewise, grogram was a mixed textile usually of wool and silk. In his 1641 work Roberts refers to “Grograms, durettes, silk-mohers and other late new invented stuffs,” even though grogram had been around from the middle of the sixteenth century. (32)
Trims and decoration
While the assumption is that most kirtles and petticoats of the poorer classes were plain fabrics, those with money would add trims and decoration where possible. The quote from Stubbes at the start of this piece continues by saying that kirtles and petticoats would be “bordered with gards, lace, fringe, and I cannot tell what besides,” stating that “every poore Yeoman his Daughter, every Husband man his daughter, & every Cottager his Daughter will not spare to flaunt it out.” (1) In 1606 a widow, Margaret Pickering leaves in her will “my peticoat with redd fringe,” she also owns a work-day petticoat. (19 pp. 50-2) In 1620 Jane Aubrey, a gentlewoman leaves in her will, “my crimson cloth petticoat with three laces of black silk” (33) These laces were probably closer to what today would be referred to as braid, for example the braids on this 1630s man’s doublet would have been referred to as laces.
Image 5: Close up of laces on a 1630s man’s doublet. Victoria and Albert Museum
In 1646 Rachel, Countess of Bath pays “to Mr Dunsterfield for lace for 2 flowered tabby petticoat & one figuered satin petticoat & waistcoat £6 5s,” note that here the textiles themselves are patterned, one flowered the other figured. (34 p. 263) Some laces may well as been bone (bobbin) or needle made lace, as in the lace adorning the petticoat of the silver tissue outfit (Image 2) Pepys wife in 1662 had a “green petticoat of flowred satin, with fine white and gimp lace of her own putting on.” That is she put the lace on her petticoat herself. (3 p. 29 June 1662) From the 1670s on there was a fashion for putting a broad (10 to 12 inches deep) flounce of lace around the petticoat, as in Bonnart’s 1677 print La Dame du Grand Air, and some of these flounces survive as in this example of a French needle-made lace flounce.
References
1. Stubbes, Philip. Anatomie of Abuses. London : Richard Jones, 1583. https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/the-anatomy-of-abuses-by-philip-stubbes-1583.
2. Cunnington, C. Willett and Cunnington, Phillis. The history of underclothes. London : Michael Joseph, 1951.
3. Pepys, Samuel. Diary. [Online] https://www.pepysdiary.com/diary.
4. Jones, J, ed. Stratford-upon-Avon Inventories,volume 1, 1538-1625. Stratford-upon-Avon : Dugdale Society , 2002.
5. Phillips, C. B. and Smith, J H. Stockport Probate Records 1620-1650. Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire. 1992, Vol. 131.
6. Middlesex Sessions Rolls. Middlesex County Records: Volume 2, 1603-25. Originally published London: Middlesex County Record Society, 1887. [Online] [Cited: October 19, 2024.] https://www.british-history.ac.uk/middx-county-records/vol2/pp15-25.
7. Malcolm-Davies, Jane and Mikhaila, Ninya. The Typical Tudor. Lightwater : Fat Goose Press, 2022.
8. Hayward, Maria. Dress at the Court of King Henry VIII. Leeds : Maney, 2007.
9. Amyot, T. Transcript of Two Rolls Containing an Inventory of Effects Formerly Belonging to Sir John Fastolfe. Archaeologia. 1827, Vol. 21.
10. Harland, John (ed.). The House and Farm Accounts of the Shuttleworths ...1582-1621, Part 1. Lancaster : Chetham Society, 1856.
11. Emmison, F. G. Essex wills (England), vol 1: 1558-1565. . Washington : National Genealogical Society, 1982.
12. Huggett, Jane. Rural Costume in Elizabethan Essex: A Study Based on the Evidence from Wills. Costume. 1999, Vol. 33.
13. George, E. and S. eds. Bristol probate inventories, Part 1: 1542-1650. Bristol Records Society publication. 2002, Vol. 54.
14. Spufford, Margaret and Mee, Susan. The Clothing of the Common Sort 1570-1700. Oxford : OUP, 2017.
15. Kempe, William. Kemp's Nine Daies Wonder [1600]. London : Camden Society, 1840.
16. Holme, Randle. The academy of armory. [Online] 1688. [Cited: July 12, 2024.] https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A44230.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext.
17. Bird, Ruth, ed. The Journal of Giles Moore of Horsted Keynes, 1655-1679. Lewes : Sussex Record Society, 1971.
18. Saunders, Ann S. Provision of Apparel for the Poor in London, 1630-1680. Costume. 2006, Vol. 40.
19. Phillips, C. B. and Smith, J. H., eds. Stockport probate records, 1578-1619. Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire. 1985, Vol. 124.
20. Kaner, J. ed. Goods and chattels 1552-1642: wills, farm and household inventories from the parish of South Cave in the East Riding of Yorkshire,. Hull : University of Hull, Centre for Continuing Education, 1994.
21. Emmison, F. G. Jacobean household inventories. Publications of the Bedfordshire Historical Record Society. 1938, Vol. 20.
22. Wood, H. W. ed. Wills and inventories from the registry at Durham, part 4, [1603-1649]. Publications of the Surtees Society. 1929, Vol. 142.
23. Presland, M. ed. Angells to Yarnwindles: the wills and inventories of twenty six Elizabethan and Jacobean women living in the area now called St. Helens. St Helens : St. Helens Association for Research into Local History, 1999.
24. George, E. and George, S. Bristol probate inventories, Part 2: 1657-1689. Bristol : Bristol Records Society publication 57, 2005.
25. Evelyn, John. Tyrannus, Or, The Mode: In a Discourse of Sumptuary Lawes. London : G. Bedel and T. Collins at the Middle Temple Gate, and J. Crook at the Ship in St Paul's Churchyard, 1661.
26. Allen, M. ed. Wills of the Archdeaconry of Suffolk, 1627-1628. Suffolk Records Society. 2015, Vol. 58.
27. Evans, Nesta, ed. Wills of the Archdeaconry of Sudbury 1630-1635. Suffolk Records Society. 1987, Vol. 29.
28. Vaisey, D. G. ed. Probate inventories of Litchfield and district 1568-1680,. Historical Collections for a History of Staffordshire, Fourth Series. 1969, Vol. 5.
29. Morgan, F. C. Private Purse Accounts of the Marquis of Hertford, Michaelmas 1641-2. Antiquaries Journal. 1945, Vols. 25, 12-42, pp. 12-42.
30. Spufford, Margaret. The great reclothing of rural England: petty chapman and their wares in the seventeenth century. London : Hambledon Press, 1984.
31. Beck, S. William. The Draper's Dictionary. London : The Warehousemen & Draper's Journal Office, 1882.
32. Roberts, Lewis. The Treasure of Traffike, or, A Discourse of Forraigne Trade . London : Printed by E. P. for Nicholas Bourne, 1641.
33. Hampshire Record Office. Will of Jane Aubrey. Hants. RO 1620A/003. 1620.
34. Gray, Todd. Devon Household Accounts 1627-59. Part 2 . Exeter : Devon and Cornwall Record Society, new series, vol. 39, 1996.
