From the early Middle Ages all the way through the Renaissance, it was traditional for the kings, dukes and other royalty and nobility of Europe to have their portraits painted in armor. During the 1600s, though, this tapered off as fewer and fewer portraits of monarchs and other nobles were depicted wearing armor in their portraits. The last Holy Roman Emperor to be painted in full armor is Charles VII, who was crowned in 1742. The last English monarch to have a portrait in armor is William III, crowned 1689.
The English, I think, were the first to abandon ceremonial plate armor in favor of “civilian” dress for monarchs and nobles; then France; the militaristic Habsburgs and assorted German states like Hanover and Saxony held onto it a little longer, as did the Northern Italian states, Savoy, and the House of Orange.
The portrait of William V, Prince of Orange - 1748-1806 - shows him wearing a full plate harness, with an old-fashioned visored close helmet at his side - probably in his early 20s, which would probably place that portrait at only a decade or so before the American Revolution! Imagine that!
Ha ha, good one. I have to say I really admire the fact that Harry is going out there and putting his hide on the line for the Queen.
Seriously though, if anyone can come up with a portrait of a European monarch or any other noble, in plate armor, later than 1770 - I would be extremely impressed. There may well have been some, especially among the nobility of Hanover, Saxony, Brunswick or other old German states who still hung on to a strong chivalric tradition.
Depicting leaders (political and military) in armour was by this time something of a convention rather than a true to life portrayal. c.f. the Walker portrait of Cromwell NPG 536; Oliver Cromwell - Portrait - National Portrait Gallery depicting atype of armour he was most unlikely to have worn.
Portrayals of leaders in what was considered ‘Roman’ armour were also common, as depicting a suitable classical setting.
aruvqan - believe it or not, I’ve seen that picture before. I was referring more to official portraits, as opposed to something from a propaganda poster.
As for that portrait of Cromwell in armor, it depicts a fairly standard, no-frills suit of cuirassier armor, with very long articulated tassets (leg protectors) that begin directly at the base of the cuirass. Even as late as that point in English history, when full plate was generally consigned to heavy cavalry only, an extremely important military leader like Cromwell would have probably had a full harness which he would have worn when at the site of a battle on horseback.
The English style of cuirassier armor at that time was stark and utilitarian, reflecting the Puritan values of the time. It was nothing like the heavily gilded and ornamented harnesses worn by the House of Orange, as can be seen in this painting of Prince Frederick Henry leading a regiment of heavy cavalry during the Thirty Years War. Again, at this point, heavy cavalrymen were the only ones who would ever wear a full plate harness - but monarchs and noblemen, requiring the utmost protection on the battlefield, would be attired as such, and were also depicted so equipped in their portraits.
.jpg){kind=link}