To Farthingale or not to Farthingale?

As I mentioned previously, I'm working my way through the creation of a complete Mid-16th century Elizabethan outfit. The end goal is an as-accurate-as-possible "Flanders" gown ensemble. I am particularly inspired by Lucas de Heere's drawing of "Three Gentlewomen and a Countrywoman" from the streets of London. (Shown upper left.)

Janet Arnold in Queen Elizabeth's Wardrobe Unlock'd classifies the Flanders gown under the grouping of "loose gowns"- i.e. gowns wore over a kirtle. These can be loose from the shoulders, fitted at the front and side seems and loose in the back, or fitted around the torso to the waist. One of the defining features of the Flanders gown seems to be the high neckline, and the short, poofed sleeves. de Heere's Gentlewomen are wearing gowns which fall into this category.

I've already completed the shift and paire of bodys, and now the question is "Farthingale? Or no farthingale?" A spanish farthingale is a cone-shaped skirt with stiffened "hoops", designed to hold the weight of skirts and provide the correct "fashinonable" silhouette. Some of period portraits, like the paintings of Lady Anne Penruddocke and Margaret Audley, Duchess of Norfolk, clearly show a Flanders-like gown with the wide, cone-shaped skirt created by the spanish farthingale. But the skirts in de Heere's drawing are much narrower, as are several of the gentlewomen's skirts in Hoefnagel's "Fete at Bermondsey".

I suppose one can rationalize that the women would wear their best when sitting for a formal portrait, and that would include the full spanish farthingale, to enable the lush skirts to be seen to full advantage. But when going about their daily business, on the streets of London or at a village fair, the full farthingale would be somewhat excessive, and they would instead use petticoats to enhance their skirts' fullness.

Hmmm....