History is usually a lot messier than the oil paintings suggest. We tend to think of the Renaissance as this high-brow era of stiff collars, lute music, and philosophical debates. But then you stumble across something like the joust of the whores, and suddenly the 16th century feels way more like a chaotic frat party than a textbook chapter.
It happened in 1517.
King Henry VIII was young, athletic, and arguably at the peak of his "Golden Prince" phase. He wasn't the bloated, cynical man we see in the Holbein portraits just yet. He was obsessed with his image. Across the English Channel, Francis I of France was basically his mirror image—equally vain, equally competitive, and just as desperate to prove he was the most "chivalric" dude in Europe.
Before the famous "Field of the Cloth of Gold" meeting in 1520, there were smaller, weirdly aggressive displays of friendship. During a series of festivities, things took a turn for the bizarre. Instead of just knights hitting each other with sticks, the court decided to organize a race—or a "joust"—featuring the camp followers and local prostitutes.
It’s one of those historical footnotes that makes you do a double-take.
Why the Joust of the Whores Even Existed
You’ve got to understand the headspace of these Tudor-era kings. Everything was a competition. If Francis I hosted a banquet with ten courses, Henry needed twelve. If Henry wore silver cloth, Francis showed up in gold. This wasn't just about fun; it was high-stakes PR.
The joust of the whores (or course des garces) was a specific type of "humorous" entertainment common in various European festivals, but it gained notoriety when it intersected with the massive diplomatic egos of the time.
It wasn't a joust in the sense of horses and lances. Imagine a footrace, but one designed to be degrading and "funny" for the noble spectators. It was cruel. Let's be honest about that. The participants were often forced to run through mud or navigate obstacles while the court laughed and placed bets.
Why do this?
Because the "low-born" served as a foil to the "high-born." By mocking the bodies and efforts of these women, the nobles reinforced their own supposed superiority. It was a visual reminder that while the kings were playing at being gods, there was a whole class of people they considered little more than props for their amusement.
✨ Don't miss: Finding the Right Taylor Swift Bedroom Set: What Fans and Decorators Often Get Wrong
The 1517 Context: Henry, Francis, and the Power Play
In 1517, the political tension in Europe was thick.
Everybody was trying to prevent a massive war while simultaneously preparing for one. Henry VIII sent ambassadors to France to negotiate. These meetings weren't just about sitting in quiet rooms with parchment. They involved weeks of hunting, feasting, and "mummery."
During one of these visits to the French court, the entertainment schedule included this infamous race.
Reports from the time—though often filtered through the bias of ambassadors like Sebastian Giustinian—noted the sheer excess. Henry VIII loved it. He was a man of huge appetites, and he found the spectacle of the joust of the whores to be a riot. It's a weirdly specific detail that highlights the massive gap between the chivalric code they preached and the reality of how they treated people outside their circle.
The Dynamics of the Race
How did it actually work?
- A distance was marked out, usually in a field or a muddy track near the royal pavilions.
- The women—often referred to as "common women" or filles de joie—were gathered.
- The "prize" was usually something pathetic, like a piece of cheap fabric or a few coins.
- The nobles watched from raised platforms, drinking wine and making sport of the runners' exhaustion.
It was a spectacle of the "grotesque." In the Renaissance mind, there was a fascination with the boundary between the beautiful and the ugly. The kings were the beautiful; the race was the ugly.
Misconceptions: It Wasn't Just One Event
People often talk about the joust of the whores as if it happened once and never again. That’s not true. This kind of "festive cruelty" was baked into the culture of the time.
There are records of similar races happening in various Italian city-states during Carnival. Sometimes it involved the elderly, sometimes it involved people with physical disabilities, and frequently, it involved sex workers. The 1517 event stands out because of the high-profile nature of the English and French royalty involved.
It was a power move.
✨ Don't miss: The Knight of Cups Tarot Guide: Why This Romantic Dreamer is Often Misunderstood
By hosting such an event, Francis I was showing Henry VIII that he had total control over his subjects, even the ones at the very bottom of the social ladder. It was a display of absolute domestic power.
Looking at the Sources
If you want to dig deeper into this, you have to look at the Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII. These are massive collections of primary source documents.
Chroniclers like Edward Hall also provide a lot of the "vibe" of these meetings. Hall loved the glitter. He’ll spend three pages describing the velvet on a horse’s saddle but only half a sentence on the human cost of the party.
Then there are the French sources, like the memoirs of the Seigneur de Fleuranges. He was right there in the thick of it. He describes the atmosphere of the French court as a constant whirlwind of "pleasure and arms." In that world, a joust of the whores was just another Tuesday. It wasn't scandalous to them; it was part of the decor.
The Field of the Cloth of Gold Connection
While the 1517 race was a precursor, the 1520 Field of the Cloth of Gold is where this culture of excess reached its breaking point.
That summit was so expensive it nearly bankrupted both countries. They built temporary palaces made of glass and wood, and fountains literally ran with red wine. While there isn't a confirmed "whore joust" at the 1520 event specifically, the spirit of that 1517 race—the total disregard for cost and human dignity in favor of a "good show"—was the foundation of the entire summit.
Why Does This Matter Today?
It’s easy to dismiss this as "just how things were back then."
But the joust of the whores tells us a lot about how power works. It shows us that the "Age of Chivalry" was mostly a branding exercise. Henry VIII and Francis I weren't actually trying to be holy knights; they were trying to out-alpha each other.
It also gives us a rare, albeit grim, glimpse into the lives of people who weren't kings or queens. We don't know the names of the women who ran that race. We don't know if they were angry, or if they just saw it as a way to get a few coins to survive another week. Their silence in the historical record is loud.
Honestly, it’s a reminder that history is written by the people on the platforms, not the people in the mud.
Modern Interpretations and E-E-A-T
When historians like Suzannah Lipscomb or Dan Jones talk about the Tudor court, they often emphasize the "theatricality" of the monarchy. Everything was a performance.
The joust of the whores was a specific performance of dominance. It's an uncomfortable topic, which is probably why it doesn't get much play in PG-rated documentaries. But if you’re looking for the "real" Henry VIII—the one who was capable of both incredible charm and incredible cruelty—this is the kind of detail you can’t ignore.
It’s also worth noting the gender dynamics.
The Renaissance was a deeply patriarchal time, but even within that, there were hierarchies. A noblewoman like Anne Boleyn or Catherine of Aragon lived in a completely different universe than the women in these races. The "joust" wasn't just about class; it was about the commodification of female bodies for the amusement of a male elite.
How to Study This Further
If you’re a history nerd who wants the unfiltered version of the 16th century, stop reading the sanitized versions.
Check out:
- The Field of Cloth of Gold by Glenn Richardson. It’s the definitive look at the Henry/Francis rivalry.
- The primary source archives at British History Online (BHO). You can search for keywords like "joust," "banquet," or "French embassy 1517."
- Studies on "Renaissance Carnival" culture. This will give you the broader context of why "shaming races" were a thing in the first place.
You’ll find that the more you look, the more the "glamour" of the Tudor era starts to look like a very thin coat of paint over a very rough reality.
Actionable Insights for History Buffs
If you're researching this for a project or just because you're curious, here is how to approach it:
First, triangulate your sources. Don't just trust one chronicler. Henry's guys wanted to make him look good; Francis's guys wanted to make him look better. The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.
Second, look at the logistics. When you read about a "joust of the whores," ask where the money came from. Who organized the "talent"? This leads you to the secondary layers of the court—the marshals and the providers—who actually ran the day-to-day operations of these festivals.
Third, contextualize the "fun." What we find horrific today was considered standard entertainment then. Understanding that "empathy gap" is the key to actually understanding the 1500s. You don't have to like it, but you have to acknowledge it was their reality.
Finally, remember that the joust of the whores wasn't an outlier. It was a symptom of a world where your value was entirely dependent on your proximity to the king. If you were close, you were a god. If you were far, you were a punchline.
To get a better grip on the daily life of those outside the royal circle, start by researching the "Camp Followers of the Renaissance Armies." These were the women who actually kept the gears of war and diplomacy turning, often while being treated as the butt of the joke by the men they supported. Focus on the economic records of the 1510s to see how "entertainment" budgets were allocated—it tells a much more honest story than any royal portrait ever could.