@ladycarlotta - well, we know clothes smelt, because people took great care to make them less smelly or to disguise the smell.
A lot of what people (especially aristocratic people) wore wasn't suited to washing. Burel, or coarse weaves such as ordinary people wear, would probably be good for many dips in the river. But furs or ornate fabrics wouldn't, and you'd really need to sponge off stains and leave them to air. They really would smell! You can tell this from descriptions of how people patched clothes, or treated them.
I think modern perspectives help us to understand here. Even well into the last century - even into the 1970s - people accepted that second-hand clothes might smell. I have read many accounts of people describing how to use vinegar or bicarb or whatever, to make clothes wearable. However, it's also clear that people sweated into their clothes and discarded them when they became less than fresh (because if you're very posh, why do you need to take time making your clothes smell nice again?).
If you look at Tudor clothing economics, you can see how this works. Yes, people absolutely do patch clothes, but rarely people who are very rich. They just donate them. And, because of sumptuary laws, it's clear they don't expect those donated clothes to be worn. They are intended to be used for the fabric value (or, as a niche possibility, to be sold to actors). I don't think patching had the same social connotations as it does today.