King Charles I (1625‒49) is perhaps most famous for his execution rather than his dress sense, but how did his clothing and fashion style contribute to his sad demise?
Images of the monarch were an essential part of Charles’ representation of kingship. They were important as they expressed his deeply held belief in the divine right of kings. This unshakeable Stuart belief in the monarch’s God-given powers meant that Charles felt himself unanswerable to the will of his people, or his parliament.
His reign was troubled by ideological battles between the King and his Parliament, which culminated in bitter civil war. Ultimately, Charles and his Royalist followers were defeated by the Parliamentarians. The King was tried for treason and executed outside Banqueting House on 30 January 1649.
However, during his reign and while the clashes continued between King and Parliament in the build-up to war, Charles used official portraiture, commissioned from the finest artists of the day, to reinforce his power and majesty, and in many cases, to suggest his superior military skill. Of course, he was not alone in using portraiture as propaganda.
Court portraits were a feature of European monarchies. It was important to capture a skilled and accurate painting of the face of the king and queen, as well as their wealth and splendour. Court painters were drawn from an international pool of artists, and Charles I’s early court painters included the Dutchmen Paul van Somer and Daniel Mytens. However, it was a Flemish artist, Anthony van Dyck, who transformed the portrayal of Charles and the image of his reign.
Van Dyck was a student of Peter Paul Rubens and, like Rubens, was inspired by the great Italian Renaissance painter Titian. His work went beyond what art historian Desmond Shawe-Taylor describes as the ‘need to show every detail of fine costume, coupled with the veneration for the fashions of the previous century [which] seems to have reduced portrait paintings to a stiff and mechanical activity’, which is seen in the work of Charles I’s portrait artists Paul van Somer and Daniel Mytens.
Van Dyck’s lively touch with the brush brought his subject to life more than the meticulous paintings of other court painters. His work is also full of symbolism: the crown jewels and regalia in the background of many of his paintings of Charles are a constant reminder of the King’s divine right to rule.
One striking portrait of Charles is Van Dyck’s Charles I in Three Positions (see image above), which was a study sent to the sculptor Bernini from which to carve a marble bust of the King. It shows Charles in profile, face on and three-quarters on – the angles needed to produce a three-dimensional sculpture. Charles wears the fashionable draped lace collar featuring intricate lacework, which was most likely imported from the Low Countries, demonstrating his good taste. The King wears luxurious silks, which seem to shimmer in the light and the badge of the Order of the Garter. This portrait shows the fashionable hairstyle of the day – the lovelock. You can see from the two side angles that his hair is longer on one side than the other. The longer side or lovelock was worn over the left shoulder to show devotion to a loved one.
Charles used equestrian portraits, showing him on horseback, as important public statements throughout his reign. The equestrian image is seen on his coins, as well as in sculptures such as the one which is now in Trafalgar Square in central London. Coins and public sculpture are public art and propaganda, as unlike the paintings, they were seen by many more people than the select court audience inside Charles’ palaces. Statues had a prominent presence in the city and coins circulated widely as currency in everybody’s hands.
The equestrian image is central to his expression of kingship as it paints Charles as a magnificent king with military credentials. Rulers and military commanders since the ancient Roman emperors had portrayed themselves in this way, and Charles was connecting himself to this long tradition. Van Dyck painted three equestrian portraits of Charles. The painting Charles I on Horseback shows Charles wearing a full suit of armour and seated on a powerful horse in the countryside. This was painted only a few years before the Civil Wars began and was calculated to show Charles as a strong military leader. He also wears the Order of the Garter to show his role as the military leader and the leader of the country’s elite military force.
However, Charles I in the Hunting Field shows Charles not as a military hero astride a horse but presents a more pastoral vision of the King in the countryside beside his horse and servants, as if resting while on a hunt. It shows his command over nature and man as Charles looks confidently at the viewer while the obedient horse bows its head and the servants and courtiers attend to it. Even while hunting, Charles is shown wearing a fashionable wide-brimmed hat, a pearl earring and a rich silks while surveying the countryside and lands he ruled.
Charles’ fashion sense, as brought to life by van Dyck and other artists, can be seen to reflect his beliefs in his divine right to rule, and his portraits were used to drive home the message that he was the consummate royal ruler. His clothing forms an integral part of this royal image: his portraits show him dressed magnificently and in the attire expected of a divinely ordained king. His equestrian portraits in particular show that he considered himself a powerful military leader. His representation as a man of extreme wealth and great military prowess was nothing new; many previous or contemporary European royals used the same imagery. As such we can conclude that Charles’ downfall was not due to his representation alone, but that it formed part of a complex political power struggle that ultimately led to his execution.
No comments:
Post a Comment