Shoulder Knots

[kass]

Hey all!

I've been looking at pictures of late 17th century dress and it occurs to me that shoulder knots (like this one worn by the Duke of Burgundy in 1700) may have had a purpose other than just decoration.

They are always worn on the right shoulder. It occured to me that that's the shoulder over which a man wear his baldrick. Could these elaborate shoulder knots actually function as a "holder" so the baldrick doesn't slip off your shoulder?

None of my costume books give a purpose to shoulder knots. They say they are purely decorative. Anyone ever heard anything different?

[Patrick Hand]

When I was looking up justicorps, I found a bunch of pictures that showed them ... I figured they were to keep the baldrick up also......

I also found a few piuctures that showed them folded back on themselves... making large loops......

[kass]

Yeah, that's what I'm seeing too, Pat. They just look so functional to me. But none of the costume texts talk about that functionality. Of course costumers wouldn't necessarily care about their functionality. I guess if you've worn something that tend to fall off your shoulder, you look at things differently...

[Patrick Hand]

I think that costume books just show the garment and their construction... but they never make and wear a copy of the garment.... That's what reenactors are for.....

I'm working on something from the 15th century.... and some of the stuff that I've found in "a History of Costume"....just don't work.... takes a bit of fiddling with.....

[kass]

Yeah, I think you're right, Pat.

Say, if you hit any snags with that 15th century stuff, drop me a line. My "first" time period was 15th century and I've handled some surviving garments from that period. My opnion of costume books for that period in particular is that they are unilaterally bad. Either they don't understand medieval construction at all, or they think they do but they're confusing costume construction with period clothing construction. The differences are actually vast...

[Fox]

In the GAoP era British army a simple shoulder knot was the badge of a corporal, and I believe that any civilian use of them came from the military. Officers, who were not bound by very strict uniform regulations sometimes wore them as a badge of rank, and there is some slim evidence that the practice spread to the navy.

It would be wrong to say that they were always worn on the right shoulder, I can think of a couple of pictures of them on the left, and I believe that was standard for corporals.

See, for example, this picture of Henry Avery from the GHP.

[kass]

Well, Mr. Foxe, the costume books say they were ALWAYS worn on the right shoulder!

Never heard anything about them being functional, huh? To be honest, most of the pictures I'm looking at are French. Do you know if they had any rank significance in the French Army. I doubt the Duke of Burgundy is only a corporal! Damned foreigners...

[Fox]

You see Kass, that's the trouble with believing everything you read in books... you'll learn

I'm not convinced by the baldrick theory for the simple reason that as the shoulder knot comes in the baldrick goes out, not impossible by any means though.

In terms of authority and tactical experise a French general and an English corporal are about on a par

Actually, I suspect that the military connotations of the shoulder knot led gentlemen with military pretensions to adopt them - much like the sash. If you look at the large shoulder knots worn by gentlemen they bear only a limited resemblances to the modest knots worn by soldiers, which suggests a kind of foppish exaggeration, whadda you think?

[Capt. Sterling]

Well, Mr. Foxe, the costume books say they were ALWAYS worn on the right shoulder!

Never heard anything about them being functional, huh? To be honest, most of the pictures I'm looking at are French. Do you know if they had any rank significance in the French Army. I doubt the Duke of Burgundy is only a corporal! Damned foreigners...

Yes I believe either Waugh, 1700 London, Restoration London states that at first shoulder knots WERE used to keep the baldrick in place so that it would NOT shift off the shoulder. Then they became fashionable as seen in many fashion plates (especially when waist carriage began to replace the baldrick). Even as late as the American Rev. War. the Epaulettes on many regimental coats for dragoons/cavalry even foot regiments, were use to keep the cross belts from falling off your shoulders. So it seems very, very likely that originally shoulder knots did tie the heavy baldricks in place.

It is common in the British army for a special epaulette to be worn on the left shoulder for lieutenants... as in England (at least during the Rev. War) they were actually called leftenants....

Hector

[Gentleman of Fortune]

edit

[Fox]

It is common in the British army for a special epaulette to be worn on the left shoulder for lieutenants... as in England (at least during the Rev. War) they were actually called leftenants....

"leftenant" is only the way we pronounce "lieutenant", and it's been that way since long before either shoulder knots or epaulettes.

[Hawkyns]

Two points here. I've word a sword baldric in all my re-enactments for 20 plus years, I much prefer it to a belt. I have *never* had the baldric slip off the shoulder, even when pursuing Parliamentarians at a dead run. On the other hand, it frequently slides inwards to catch on the neck. So 'experimental archeology' tells me that either there was something about their baldrics that is different from ours, or this was a theory put forward by someone who never actually wore a baldric.

Second, I have read (and I'm looking for the source but have not yet relocated it) that the shoulder knots of white cord in the British Army date from the days of the matchlock, when the corporals and sergeants would carry spare match for the musketeers. Whether this has anything to do with fancy knots for primping fops, I can not say.

Hawkyns

[Silkie McDonough]

this is a completely uneducated opinion and based on costumes not historically accurate garb. Once we rented a coat with a shoulder knot and baldric. There was a loop sewn to the baldric that looped over the knot, it could not bee seen unless closely inspected. Just a thought

[Capt. Sterling]

It is common in the British army for a special epaulette to be worn on the left shoulder for lieutenants... as in England (at least during the Rev. War) they were actually called leftenants....

"leftenant" is only the way we pronounce "lieutenant", and it's been that way since long before either shoulder knots or epaulettes.

Yes, I realize the spelling is the same and the pronuciation is different, just trying to figure out how to show that in type. Like I said At least during the Rev. War it was common for Lieutenants in the British army to wear a single epaulette on the left shoulder. What I was trying to say was that at least at one point the rank tied in with the name and could be used to distinguish that rank from others... ... and in the long run, was trying to say that shoulder knots or bands as Pepys refers to them may very well have been used to secure a baldrick on one's shoulder, just like epaulettes or just a shoulder strap with button were used on the regimental coats to hold crossbelts in place during the Rev. War. Research has only come up with "so fars" and "Maybes".

Hector

[Capt. Sterling]

So 'experimental archeology' tells me that either there was something about their baldrics that is different from ours, or this was a theory put forward by someone who never actually wore a baldric.

Many fashion plates from the late 17th century which show the large baldrick also show a number of them... not all, caught at the waist by a sash.

Also I can tell you, from experience when riding at a full gallop, a leather sword belt, not properly held in place by a shoulder strap or epaulette will slip off your shoulder...

So now comes the question, depending on the type of shoulder, the fabric of the coat or buff coat, or the type of shoulder carriage may all come into play...

Hector

[Hawkyns]

Aha! So we have different experiences, based on a similar item, but worn under different conditions. Never done the riding bit with a sword baldric, so my experience is ntirely that of the foot slogger. I've worn my unlined leather baldric over both a leather jerkin (flesh side out) and a wool doublet.

So, another *possibility* to consider. The people with the money to have their portraits painted and to have the fancy doublet, were more likely to be riders.

CAVEAT- I'm not making any hard points here. I'm kicking around vague possibilities, based on the artwork known to us, and the modern expereinces of re-enactors. DO NOT take any of this as anything but my ramblings. Enough of these odd opinions may steer us in the right direction, but without primary source material telling us the specific purpose of the knots, we are only guessing.

Hawkyns

[Capt. Sterling]

Aha! So we have different experiences, based on a similar item, but worn under different conditions. Never done the riding bit with a sword baldric, so my experience is ntirely that of the foot slogger. I've worn my unlined leather baldric over both a leather jerkin (flesh side out) and a wool doublet.

CAVEAT- I'm not making any hard points here. I'm kicking around vague possibilities, based on the artwork known to us, and the modern expereinces of re-enactors. DO NOT take any of this as anything but my ramblings. Enough of these odd opinions may steer us in the right direction, but without primary source material telling us the specific purpose of the knots, we are only guessing.

Hawkyns

Yes I agree with you on both points... I still have not found any rock hard evidence regarding shoulder knots except that they were a fashion... but the thing with fashion, NOT ALL, but there are many fashion items that come from practical use, especially for men...

Hector

[Fox]

It is common in the British army for a special epaulette to be worn on the left shoulder for lieutenants... as in England (at least during the Rev. War) they were actually called leftenants....

"leftenant" is only the way we pronounce "lieutenant", and it's been that way since long before either shoulder knots or epaulettes.

Yes, I realize the spelling is the same and the pronuciation is different, just trying to figure out how to show that in type. Like I said At least during the Rev. War it was common for Lieutenants in the British army to wear a single epaulette on the left shoulder. What I was trying to say was that at least at one point the rank tied in with the name and could be used to distinguish that rank from others... ... and in the long run, was trying to say that shoulder knots or bands as Pepys refers to them may very well have been used to secure a baldrick on one's shoulder, just like epaulettes or just a shoulder strap with button were used on the regimental coats to hold crossbelts in place during the Rev. War. Research has only come up with "so fars" and "Maybes".

Hector

Sorry, I thought you were making a connection between "leftenants" and left-shoulders

That would be erroneous.

For the record then, lieutenant has been pronounced "leftenant" in England since at least the beginning of the 17thC, and still is today.

Does anyone else really want to know what GoF wrote?

[kass]

Yup!

Well, that sort of answers it for me. Shoulder knots were not worn for the purpose of keeping the baldrick on your shoulder, but they could help certainly just by their position.

You see, I wanted to know before I posited that they began as a stabilizer for baldricks.

[Patrick Hand]

I don't know..... if they were just a decoration, then why only on one shoulder, and why on the shoulder that a baldrick goes across ?

I don't ride horses, and like Hawkyns, I've never had a problem with my baldrick slipping off.......But Capt. Sterling's post about them for horsemen brings up an interesting point.....

[kass]

Oh definitely, Pat. I think they could have had a function. But Foxe posts that they were worn on the left shoulder by corporals, and I doubt they were all left-handed.

Seriously, I was trying to say, "These evolved from a need to keep the baldrick on the shoulder" and since I can't prove that, I'm not going to say it in print.

But I am certainly going to keep looking at the question. Because I agree with you that it couldn't have derived purely for fashion and be so conveniently placed on the shoulder where it's most useful.

[Silkie McDonough]

I find that a good massage usually takes care of shoulder knots.

...sorry, perhaps I should have resisted.

[kass]

I got a huge one on my right shoulder from all this pattern drafting, Silkie. A little higher please!

[Fox]

I'll sort that out for you next week Kass

Word eating time: one of the pictures I was thinking of, of a 1745 corporal, actually shows the knot on the right shoulder. However, I still stand by my original point that they were not always worn on the right shoulder. The Avery print I posted earlier is very clearly an example of a left shoulder knot, and I know I've seen others (when I was considering adding a shoulder knot to one of my justacorps last year I couldn't make up my mind which shoulder to put it on - if all the pictrues had shown the right there would have been no question). A print of the "Cavalry and Infantry at the funeral of Queen Mary" shows a cavalry officer with what looks like a shoulder knot (and I can't think what else it might be). Whatever it is it's on his left shoulder.

I think it's quite possible that the knot developed from a practical baldrick holding device, but I think you're very wise not to state it in print. In favour of the theory it seems unlikely that they were just suddenly invented one day, so it's reasonable to assume they originally had some function - whatever it may have been. Against the theory we must remember that baldricks had been around for decades, even centuries, before the development of the shoulder knot, and the knot developed only in the twilight of the baldrick - it actually became more common and fashionable the less baldricks were being worn. Personally without any definite link between knots and baldricks, or decent alternate theory, I'd be hesitant to make any claim either way.

[Capt. Sterling]

Yup!

Well, that sort of answers it for me. Shoulder knots were not worn for the purpose of keeping the baldrick on your shoulder, but they could help certainly just by their position.

You see, I wanted to know before I posited that they began as a stabilizer for baldricks.

Well my question for Foxe is are we speaking of a shoulder knot, like the more modern day cord that is used, for corporals, or are we still talking about the shoulder knots/bands, all those red or blue ribbons, that show in the fashion plates circa 1670-90s. I haven't seen this particular item on the left shoulder at all yet, but I have read that they were also worn at the knees and at the sleeves where the cuffs turned back... still haven't found an actual print to prove this though...at least not for circa 1675-1730...only modern day interpretations....

Hector