Sumptuary law in early modern England has been described as unenforced, subject to systematic non-compliance, and ultimately legally inconsequential. A return to the original texts of the Acts to examine the language and form of the legal preambles suggests that another explanation might be available. Studies of surviving artefacts and information from wills and inventories suggest that the trend among the populace was toward compliance, rather than unprosecuted violation. Through to the mid-sixteenth century, when petition-driven statutes were replaced by royal proclamation, the Acts were continually refined and made more precise, closing legal loopholes that were being exploited. Records of ownership, in the form of wills and probate inventories, show minimal signs of violation of the sumptuary laws, although more do appear the higher one looks in the ranks of the nobility. When the sumptuary laws were violated, some prosecutions and fines were levied, and records from the Star Chamber, Chancery Court and Hall's Chronicle all detail instances of punishment for violators. While the small numbers and limited descriptions in wills and inventories make it problematic to frame too sweeping a statement regarding the ownership of offending items, the combination of signs of enforcement, material evidence matching the legal requirements and the boilerplate nature of the wording of the petitions and statutes give new reason to re-evaluate our understanding of sumptuary law in England.