Some of you may have heard me, at one time or another, speak the phrase, "Yo, the French court was wild." Well, it was, and I'd like to finally explain myself. I've also been sitting on this post, which I wrote for my own amusement basically, with some edits to appeal to a wider audience, for like, over a year. I totally get if you don't walk around with an undying need for content on the French court like some of us, but it's still really interesting, so I'm gonna just leave this obnoxiously long blog post here if anyone wants it. Please enjoy.
(TBH the second half, starting with "Flashy AF" might be more fun if you're not like, a big history person. I still think you should read all of it, but if you just want something quick(er) and fun, you might start there)
(TBH the second half, starting with "Flashy AF" might be more fun if you're not like, a big history person. I still think you should read all of it, but if you just want something quick(er) and fun, you might start there)
Some basics
Okay, so first things first: what is a court? I'm not trying to be patronizing here, I don't want you to think I think you're dumb, I just know for me when I started in on this area of research, the concept was pretty abstract, so I want to clarify. When I'm talking about the court (in this post, anyway), I'm not talking a court of law, although politics was often tied up in it; I'm talking about a royal court. This type of court is both a physical and social space. The most notable courts were those of the highest nobles in the land- the King and royal family- but lower nobles could also have courts. It was a place for interacting with people of a similar (or higher) social standing, and especially for the royal courts, of gaining favor with those in power. So, Versailles was this incredible palace that was created in large part for the sake of hosting Louis XIV's court. However, a royal court didn't have to have such a dedicated or decadent space. A court could be anywhere the central figure of the court was (and this was the case for most European courts, not just France).
I should also give you an approximate time frame, so, while courts existed both before and after, and it is still a pretty broad amount of time, we're going to go with the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries. This is, approximately, the Early Modern era, though the bookends of that era are a bit fuzzy and variable depending on what historian you're talking to.
Being a courtier
The people in the court were, as mentioned, usually nobles, and there was a dress code and unspoken social rules that were supposed to be followed. There were, in some cases, clothes available to rent at the door for those who didn't own the appropriate attire, but even this did require some level of wealth that lower classes tended not to have.
Other than clothing, there were all of these expectations put on the courtiers in attendance. The best courtiers had to be practically perfect in every way *sings Mary Poppins*. That sounds absurd, of course, and almost certainly no one fit all of the criteria, but there were a ridiculous number of elements that courtiers were judged on. Baldesar Castiglione famously wrote "The Book of the Courtier," which, through several small books of imagined dialogue, outlines the many qualities looked for in both the men and women of the court. From what I could gather, here is the approximate list of qualities a court gentleman is meant to have:
- Should be of noble birth and good family
- Has to be pretty to look at
- Has "a certain air that makes him pleasing and attractive to all who meet him." (I think this mostly means that he's personable and charming.)
- Kinda boastful, but not too boastful. Has to be confident without coming off as a tool.
- Is good at ALL the sports - all the popular ones then, anyway.
- Knows ALL the weapons. Can fight, fence, shoot a bow or, later, a gun.
- Is a good military man
- Is graceful and can dance (I just have this image in my head of a courtier in 17th century garb doing the moonwalk.)
- Is a good speaker and writer
- Is witty
- Doesn't show too much affection (none of those pesky emotions. This is the type of nonsense that's to blame for our current problematic ideas of masculinity vs. femininity.)
- Very educated, "more than the average scholar"
- Is a musician, preferably of multiple instruments (you know, with all that free time they have)
- Paints. Because what's another unrealistic expectation when you're already probably failing at this.
You know that part in Pride and Prejudice where Elizabeth is like (and I'm paraphrasing here), "No wonder you're single, Mr. D, your standards are so high IDK if anyone EXHISTS that meets them wtf?" Well, I suspect most people who have read The Book of the Courtier, assuming they don't have an over-inflated image of themselves, have had a similar reaction. Now, to be fair, you could still be an 'ideal courtier' if you were missing something like "noble birth and good family," and made up for it by being really hot and charming and still having all of the rest of this stuff. Even then, I suspect few 'ideal courtiers' were really to be found. Though I guess that's probably for the best because you just know that guy would be super annoying.
And then, of course, there were the ladies. My boy Baldesar had plenty to say on this, too. Now, ladies had fewer necessary qualities, but the ones they needed had better be good. Since France was a sexist patriarchy (let's just be up front about this, honestly, and it applies to most of the rest of Europe, too) the ladies didn't need to be as educated or athletic, and of course military accomplishment was out of the question, but they did need to be pretty, they did need to be witty, they did need to be virtuous, and they should also be from a good family. If they were lacking in one of these qualities, they better be banger enough in one or more of the others to make up for it, and things like knowledge of language, art, and music were bonuses that could definitely help. Ladies were also expected to play a confusing coquettish game of love and affection with men of the court.
See, this is part of that "wild" bit I mentioned when we started off; the French had an oddly cavalier attitude towards affairs. Now, there was a double standard (of course) where ladies were still held to a purity standard that men were not, despite the fact that they were encouraged to play these games. They had to show interest, but not too much, give in a little, but not too much, flirt but not be too brazen, etc. If they didn't do enough, they were prudish and not an ideal court lady, and if they did too much, well, they were far worse than 'not ideal.' Does this sound familiar to anyone?
I will give Baldesar some props, though; he seemed at least aware of the obvious inequalities, and even wrote, in the midst of a particularly frustrating passage about the so-called "perfection of men and imperfection of women," through the voice of The Magnifico Giuliano, "The poor creatures do not wish to become men in order to make themselves more perfect but to gain their freedom and shake of the tyranny that men have imposed on them by their one-sided authority." PREACH GIULIANO.
Flashy AF
Now, this is already getting pretty lengthy, and I really want to get to mistresses and queens, but it'd be a travesty to talk about the French court without getting into their exorbitant, and frankly ridiculous, style- both in real estate and in fashion. At another point, remind me to mention the simultaneous genius/absurdity in the concept of 'manners,' the use of silverware, and the display of status under the Most Extra™ Louis XIV, too, because you will not regret it.
Chateaus/palaces:
You probably know this one, and it is by far the flashiest- Versailles:
But Fontainbleau is pretty nice, too.
Tuileries Palace, tragically, was mostly burnt down in the 19th century. Some people call it “the phantom palace of Paris,” which is a pretty cool nickname. If I understand correctly, it has at least in part been reconstructed, and the Louvre (which, if I understand correctly was part of it) is there today, but here are some drawings of the original:
Okay, so architecturally they kind of went off, which is super fun to see today. Palaces weren’t the only buildings that got such over-the-top treatment, of course, but since we’re talking about courts of the monarchs, there we go.
Now, ON TO THE FASHION. To be clear there are people who know WAY MORE about historic fashion than me, and you should definitely go check them out (I'll leave some links at the end) but for now, please enjoy these great finds:
Now, ON TO THE FASHION. To be clear there are people who know WAY MORE about historic fashion than me, and you should definitely go check them out (I'll leave some links at the end) but for now, please enjoy these great finds:
How even is this monstrosity accomplished? Is that a picnic blanket on her head? (18th c.)
For when Jaques’ advances are getting to be TOO MUCH so you need to enforce your personal bubble. Really though, how do you get through doorways? (18th c.)
ALL that fabric and hair decoration and her boobs are still like 90% out. For SFW reasons I won’t add a more explicit example, but just know that there was a whole trend where, despite having exorbitant petticoats for modesty, some ladies’ whole bosom was just totally exposed. I mean, the human body is a beautiful thing, and confidence is important, so you do you I guess, but also what is the point of even having a bodice at that point? Why not just a simple skirt and the usual 20 lbs. of hair accessories? (18th c.)
ALL HAIL THAT EPIC MUFF. This outfit is honestly not that over-the-top, comparatively (though, DANG SON those are some luscious locks), but I am living for the massive furry muff he possesses. I did check, though, and muffs do have a whole fashion history to go with them so if that’s your thing: https://fashionhistory.fitnyc.edu/muff/. Also, before anyone asks, yes, I am fully aware of how inappropriate all of this sounds, but muffs are fab so we‘re going to deal with it. (17th c.)
A lüük. This sassy minx also appears to have a muff, has a giant ruffle thing, but only on the one leg, some serious CALF ACTION happening, and sashes and bows for days. (17th c.)
HENRY II, KING OF BOOTY SHORTS. And those CALVES, my, my, my, give those poor courtiers a chance to breathe, will you?? (16th c.)
I hope you enjoyed this small sampling of some of my favorite French court styles. I certainly had a blast finding them.
The mistresses and queens
FINALLY, we are getting to my very favorite part! I won't go too much into detail, because as I said, I've been rambling for a bit already, and this part could honestly be its own whole post, but I can't mention the French court without talking about mistresses and queens! Ya'll. The thing with this situation is that being the king's mistress, was an actual POSITION you could have! And everyone knew about it! Now, being a mistress and merely sleeping with the king were different situations. The king could, and did, sleep with whoever he wanted to and could get away with. But a mistress... a mistress had influence over the king, and often when the king was busy or away, she was the one who ran the royal court. If you wanted to be on the king's good side, you made sure you were on his mistress's good side. Queens were important and powerful, but not so much when they were married to the king as when they were mother to the king, so mistresses played a really big part in the French court, and as a result, in French policy.
One of the most famous mistresses was Diane de Poitiers, mistress to Henry II, and Henry cared about her so much that he gave and remodeled chateaus for her! Plural! She counseled him and he gave her anything and everything he could. There are textiles and architectural features we still have that display a conjoined H and D; she was that important in Henry's reign, and he was in no way ashamed to flaunt it. At the time, the king was married to Catherine de Medici, who is honestly a really powerful woman in her own right (though more so after Henry II died), and Diane actually counselled the king about how he should be sleeping with his wife more so they could have more sons. Like. What kind of relationship is this where the king's literal mistress, is like "look this is cool but also don't forget to put some babies in our girl Cathy?" It was for a very good, continue-your-line-and-provide-a-future-king, reason, but still.
Somehow this became just, part of the life of the French court. The queen was for babies and for political reasons, and the mistress was for social and emotional reasons. The mistress had power over the king like no one else, and simultaneously built up the king's reputation by being beautiful and clever and his, even if they were both married to someone else.
WHY THO
Kay, so why did they do all of this? What was the point? Just to be rich with your other rich friends and sit around and laugh about your richness? I mean, yes, partially.
It is truly astounding how totally separate the court was from the rest of society. They created this world for themselves that was so over-the-top and wasteful, partially as a way to display their wealth and status to one another, while the larger majority of France lived in poverty. They might not even have known how out of touch with reality they were, that's how far gone they were. It's like... first world problems but taken to an entirely new realm of existence. I suppose you could say the richest people in the world now have a similar environment- and I'd agree that in many ways they do- but with social media and news outlets, it would be truly impressive is someone didn't even have an inkling. Some courtiers did understand; some were lower nobles or were just holding on by their fingertips to this higher precipice of life, maybe believing their presence there would benefit those under their legal care. With that whole 'let them eat cake,' thing, though,(which I do have to mention was not an actual, real things Marie Antoinette said so much as an assumed mindset of the upper classes, but still) it might have genuinely not registered that someone could have literally nothing to eat, rather it was like 'they ran out of this one thing, so move onto the next.'
It wasn't just that, though. So much of the French court was wrapped up in custom and intrigue and outward appearance and influence. Influence especially. The people here were the people who ran France, or who had a voice in the decisions being made (which genuinely sucked because of that whole detached from reality issue). They might be there to gain favor- in the form of cash, land, positions, anything the king could reasonably give- but they might also be there to exert their own power on those slightly lower than themselves, or if they thought they could get away with it, over the rulers of France.
So anyway, French court was a whole thing. I’m simultaneously fascinated and appalled by it (same applies to rich people culture nowadays, really). The mistress/queen dynamic especially is one that just baffles me, mostly in the way that it was just what was done, ya know? The king one day decided he wanted the royal mistress to be a position in court and everyone was like “Yeah I guess that’s fine, here are our wives and daughters.”
Anyway, there’s tons more that could be discussed, but I’ll stop here. I wasn’t kidding about the manners thing, if you are interested please ask because that is another thing that just kills me, and same goes for the mistresses and queens.
Okay, bye for now!
Sources
(Here are my sources, if you’re interested and want to read more! This isn’t academia though, so for most of it you’re just getting links. No one’s got time to make a whole bibliography around here.)
Castiglione, Baldassar. The Book of the Courtier. Penguin, 2003. Origianally published 1588
Wellman, Kathleen Anne. Queens and Mistresses of Renaissance France. Yale University Press, 2013.
Also a couple fashion histories if you want:
Comments
Post a Comment