Add embroidery and beading to that blue dress and you've got it. If they're going to Court, they're dressing to whatever their pockets can afford. Add blackwork embroidery to the ruffles of the chemises, too. Either the girls themselves are doing the embroidery or they're paying a servant to do it.

Color is not an issue, no. There were attempts at sumptuary laws, but primary those laws exist to show you what the upstarts are wearing that the nobles are annoyed about. The middle class has a lot of money then, and they weren't afraid to wear it.

Embroidery and beading? Kewl! Now to find the precise names of the various pieces of that costume, since I'm going to memorise the terminology as needed. I won't be using a lot of it, mind you, except to confirm that everyone saw the same thing when they saw it (simultaneous dreaming by the people who were on the site at the same time), but I want to know it.

Here's another site that might help, Deb -- [link]

terminology: kirtle describes a dress about 200 years earlier than Tudor period. Let's see ... bodice, overskirt--I don't think there are specific terms for the pieces. Stomacher! The highly decorated bit right at the front of the bodice, often moved from garb to garb depending on fashion and fortune. Pearls are the jewel of choice. Bodices are separate from skirts, and often the sleeves are detachable. And Elizabethan corsets are very straight, designed to give a very flat front, not trying to make a narrow waist a la Victorian.

Also, those fantastically embroidered skirts are two skirts. The underskirt often only had embroidery on the part that would show at front. The overskirt would sometimes have flaps that could be worn closed over a plain underskirt or tied back to show the fancy.

But now I'm wondering if I'm conflating Tudor and Elizabethan, because Elizabethan was a lot more ornate than Tudor.

(marking posts like a mad thing)

See, my first word in dress is always kirtle, because I specialised in the Plantagenets. 1545 is just about two hundred years beyond my main period.

Oh, and y'all ROCK.

Everything you've said matches my experience, Connie.

Pearls are the jewel of choice.

Yes, and I'm pretty sure that faceting hadn't been perfected yet; most jewels will be cabochon.

Oh! The canonical jewel is an ornamented chain around your waist with a pomander hanging from it -- I think Elizabeth has one in that portrait I linked you to. The pomander is down at knee level.

Yeah, this home topic has really got the creative juices going. I wrote 1700 words on it today. Go, read, if you're interested.

Ugh.

Help a writer for whom blocking action scenes is not a natural gift.

In the scene I'm attempting to write, Jack and Anna are fleeing, on foot, having escaped from a village where they were being held prisoner by the French. Between them, they have two rifles and a pistol, though Jack is the only one who knows how to shoot. I'm figuring Anna has the pistol as a point-and-shoot weapon of last resort, while Jack manages both rifles. Bear in mind that these are rifles that fire one shot at a time and take at least a minute to reload. They have a good eight hours' head start on their (mounted) pursuers, so it's not like they're against inherently impossible odds--I can limit how many of the searchers get anywhere near them at will.

I need a scene that accomplishes the following:

1. Some pursuers need to actually see and threaten them. Shots must be fired, and Anna must actually need to use the pistol. For a later plot point to work, she needs to be motivated to learn to shoot, and I figure there's nothing like botching it now to make her want to take lessons at the first opportunity--this is my Act I placement of the gun that must be fired in Act III, if you will.

2. They can't be captured, so there can't be more pursuers discovering them than they're capable of dispatching. I'm thinking at least 3, no more than 5-6.

3. After this, they need to hide (in a tiny cave I'm conveniently creating for that purpose) until they're confident any further danger of pursuit goes away.

Simple enough, right? Except I suck at action sequences, and want to make sure I don't write anything unforgivably stupid. I've been thinking this through as I've written, and I think I know how to handle it, but please tell me if there's anything that would completely wreck your suspension of disbelief here:

1. I need to revise the bit where they flee in the predictable direction, south, straight back toward the British army--they'll need to bear east or something, so it'll actually make sense only to encounter token pursuit, the main pursuers all being off to the south. This will mess with my carefully calibrated timetable a bit, but I can work around that--maybe they're able to catch one of the French horses and make up for some lost time that way, but then it pulls up lame or something so they leave it with a farmer somewhere and don't make up for too much lost time.

2. I think four is the right number of pursuers for them to actually encounter--Jack can shoot two, and while he's reloading the other two get close enough that Anna shoots one with her pistol, with Jack reloading just in time to get the other one.

3. They then hide the bodies as best as they can, hurry away in case there are other searchers nearby who might've heard the shots, happen upon the cave, and decide to hide there for awhile. And then when they come out, perhaps finding that convenient horse roaming about unsaddled.

So. Any holes in all that?

No holes, but do they need to kill all the pursuers? If they kill two and one rides off, possibly shot, then you add a layer of tension. Is he coming back? Is he laying in wait? Should Jack go look to see if he is out there? In the morning, if you want, they could find the wounded man's horse and then find him dead, so that mystery is solved--or you could leave the question open as to where he is and have him show up later.