A Royal Proclamation On Elizabethan Ruffs, Cloaks and Concealed Weapons
- Dorothea Dickerman
- Jun 17
- 5 min read
“The new proclamation that’s clapp’d upon the court-gate.”
Henry VIII, I.iii
Although we’ve heard readers loved the recent fluffy posts on Elizabethan fashion, 🎀 5 Pieces of Elizabethan Ladies' Court Fashion We’re Secretly Glad to Leave Behind, and💘 5 Swoon-worthy Pieces of Elizabethan Men’s Fashion We Wish We Could Revive, some of you demand even more historical depth to your Elizabethan Sartorial Secrets.
You shall have it, with a little Elizabethan law to boot. Read on!
Specifically: what happened when Queen Elizabeth—and her ever-watchful Privy Council—thought those swoon-worthy Tudor men’s fashions had gone too far? The year was 1580, and what began as a style trend had spiraled into something more dangerous: a cloak-and-dagger culture, with real cloaks . . . and real daggers.
Her Majesty Has Had Enough 🎯
On February 12, 1580, Queen Elizabeth issued a proclamation that aimed to curb the escalating “my cloak is bigger than your cloak” competition among her noblemen. Measuring codpieces was one thing. But cloaked cloak competition - infinity more dangerous. The text reads like a royal eye-roll at the ridiculous lengths (literally) to which her courtiers were going:
“Concerning Cloaks and Ruffs of Excessive Length and Depth. No person shall use or wear such excessive long cloaks, being in common sight monstrous, as now of late are begun to be used … Neither also should any person use or wear such great and excessive ruffs in or about the uppermost part of their necks … All persons should… leave off such fond disguised and monstrous manner of attiring themselves, as both was unsupportable for charges and indecent to be worn.”
— Royal Proclamation, February 12, 1580
Monstrous? Indecent? Excessive? What gives?
And then, the kicker: also banned “swords, daggers, rapiers and bucklers of inordinate length.”
Fashion or Fight Gear? 🤺
Sure, it’s easy to laugh at ruffs the size of dinner platters and cloaks that sweep the floor with theatrical panache. But there was a deadly logic behind this regulation and one of the biggest untold personal secrets about Elizabeth herself and two of her courtiers.
But take a moment first to connect the dots: excessively long cloaks + excessively long weapons = concealed carry. Not only could a man hide a longer, more lethal rapier beneath a voluminous cloak, he could also get the drop on an opponent before a duel even began.
Shorten the cloak, and suddenly everyone’s armed status is on full display. The Queen wasn’t just meddling with fashion—she was trying to prevent surprise assassinations.
Ruffs: Ridiculous… or Brilliant Protective Gear? 🦢
What about those neck ruffs that made even the handsomest face look like a roast on a platter?
By 1580, ruffs had ballooned to absurd sizes—some were up to 12 inches wide, the width of a man’s shoulders – and were stiffened with wire and drenched in starch. But here’s the thing: those giant ruffs weren’t just a fashion flex. They were strategic armor.
A large ruff:
Made it hard for an enemy to reach your jugular.
Could hide a gorget, a metal neck protector.
Signaled status with defiance.
Unnecessary ruff-ness, indeed. Not to mention unsportsmanlike conduct.
The Queen’s order to shrink ruffs, just like cloaks, wasn’t about correcting sartorial bad taste—it was about disarmament.
Behind the Seams: Oxford vs. Leicester 💔⚖️
But here’s the secret twist: this proclamation didn’t emerge from a fashion vacuum. It followed Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford’s challenge of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester, to a duel by two weeks. In fact, this Elizabethan sartorial proclamation was issued on the very day Oxford was released from house arrest at Whitehall Palace where he had been confined for having issued the challenge.
The real cloak-and-dagger reason for the issuance of the proclamation? Both men were acclaimed swordsmen. Her Majesty was protecting her . . . “favorites” . . . because she didn’t want to lose either man to the other. (Did another Elizabethan Secret just slip and ping on the parquet floor of the long gallery?)
And Oxford? He had reasons for going after Leicester. Very good reasons. How many? How much time do you have?
3 Hidden Reasons Why Oxford Challenged Leicester ⚔️
Leicester raped Oxford’s wife, Anne Cecil, resulting in a bastard daughter born in July 1575. The Queen’s council pressured Oxford to accept the child, but he refused—insisting it wasn’t his. Curious for more on this hot super-secret secret? Details here on YouTube 👀
While serving as guardian for Oxford’s estates during Oxford’s minority, Leicester had financially gutted them – and he was Oxford’s godparent.
Leicester was suspected of poisoning not only the Earl of Essex to clear his path to marry Essex’s widow (he did marry her), but of poisoning someone a good deal closer to Oxford as well.
In other words, this wasn’t just a petty spat. It was a blood feud—between the Queen’s nearest and dearest. And suddenly, those oversized cloaks and hidden weapons became more than a fashion statement.
A Royal Wardrobe Reset 🧵👑
The Queen’s 1580 fashion crackdown reads like a subtle form of disarmament.
Cloaks: shorten them, and you reduce concealed weapon length.
Ruffs: shrink them, and you take away hidden armor.
Swords: regulate them, and you reduce impalements.
In a prior post, The Dudley Dynasty: Family Bonds Forged in Fire, we dropped more than an pin-sized hint that the 35-year vendetta between Leicester and Oxford was rooted in Leicester’s earliest military defeat at the sword of Oxford’s father – a deeply concealed historical thread that, once pulled, releases a cascade of Elizabethan political, personal and literary secrets.
The 1580 Proclamation on Cloaks, Ruffs and Weapons is but one. We will explore the others, one cryptic confidence at a time.
🎭 If you haven’t yet, catch up on our reader favorites:
If you liked this post, use the buttons below to share!
