Category: 16th century

The Jersey Portrait & Katherine Parr

An Interesting History

In April 2023, Sotheby’s auction house, London, announced that the once ‘lost’ Jersey Portrait depicting Katherine Parr, sixth and final Queen of King Henry VIII is due to be sold at auction. Described as ‘the only known contemporary portrait of the Tudor Queen Consort in Private hands.’ The sale of this painting as caused a stir among the history and art communities, with posts concerning the portrait appearing on social media and in the news.  The portrait is estimated to fetch between £600.000 – £800.000 when auctioned off on 5th July 2023.[1]

As yet, Sotheby’s have not published the catalogue description for the painting, so little information concerning the portraits provenance is available online. As you all may have worked out by now, I am a bit of a fan of portrait provenance and the history associated with a painted image.  The Jersey portrait does have an interesting history, it was identified on at least two occasions as the wrong individual, and thought to have been destroyed by fire, however, was rediscovered in recent years. I briefly discussed the Jersey Portrait in 2019, along with another similar miniature portrait of Katherine Parr in my article on the Stowe House Portraits and Lady Jane Grey. As the Jersey Portrait is due to be sold from its private collection, I thought it would be a good idea to revisit what is currently known about the painting.

The Jersey Portrait
Katherine Parr
C1545
Unknown Artist
© Sotheby’s, London

The portrait is constructed with the use of three vertical panels.  It appears to be in relatively good condition for its age, however, some slight paint loss is visible down both sides of the panel joint on the top right- hand side. No inscription or artists signature is visible on the panel surface and no image of the back of the panel is currently available. It is worth noting that Sotheby’s should produce an up-to-date condition report regarding the painting prior to the sale, and this should be made available to anyone with an interest in purchasing it. A recent BBC article reported that scientific ‘analysis of the panels dates the portrait to the mid sixteenth century, suggesting that the portrait was painted before Katherine’s death in 1548’.[2] The painting is installed in an early nineteenth century frame, incorrectly detailing the sitter as ‘Queen Mary’ and the artist as ‘Hans Holbein’.

Katherine is depicted three-quarter length and facing the viewer’s left. She wears a black demask French gown, cut square at the neck, with large sleeves turned back to reveal a fur lining. Her kirtle, patterned with a raised looped pile is visible at the front opening of the gown and large undersleeves of matching fabric is also visible.  At her neck, she wears two necklaces of pearls and goldsmith work.  A large pendant of goldsmith work containing one diamond, one ruby, and one emerald with a large hanging pearl is suspended from the smaller necklace.  Attached to the front of her bodice is a large crown-headed brooch of goldsmith work constructed with one emerald, one ruby and sixteen diamonds.  Six gold rings are visible on the sitter’s hands and Katherine holds a girdle chain suspended from her waist.  On her head, she wears a black French hood with upper and lower billaments, and a black veil is visible hanging down her back. Her eyes are brown with fine fair eyebrows.  Her lips, full and pink, and a slight tint of red pigment has been used to accentuate the blush in her cheeks.

The early history of the portrait is unknown, however, an article published in 1845, concerning the large collection of historical artifacts in the collection of Thomas Baylis, at his London home Pryor’s Bank, does give us some clues about its previous owners.  Situated on the banks of the river Thames, Baylis commissioned the building of Pryor’s Bank in 1837 to house his vast collection of antiques.  Described in the article as hanging between the library and dining room is a portrait of ‘Queen Mary by Lucas de Heere, from the collection of Mr Dent’.[3]  

The ‘Mr Dent’ referred to is a John Dent of Hertford Street, London who had purchased the portrait as a painting of Queen Mary in 1810.[4]  On his death, his collection of paintings was sold by Mr Christie on 28th April 1827.  The Jersey portrait was listed in the auction catalogue for this sale as:

“Sir A. More …. Item 54…. Portrait of Queen Mary, Wife of Phillip” [5]

It was then purchased by Auctioneer Rod Horatio for the sum of twenty-eight pounds and seven shillings and was sold again in 1831, when it was then purchased by Thomas Baylis and described as

“Mary I, in a black dress, fur tippet, a profusion of pearls and jewels in her cap and dress, many rings on her fingers, by Lucas de Heere. Panel, 28 1/2 by 36 1/2, in gilt frame *A most curious and rare Portrait, from the Collection of the late Mr. Dent”[6]

The Jersey Portrait Taken When in The Collection of The Duke Of Buckingham
© Public Domain

The portrait’s association with Queen Mary is a strange one, especially due to the number of authentic portraits of this infamous Queen available during the nineteenth century.  It is highly likely that as we have seen with many other sixteenth century portraits the name of Queen Mary, along with those of the many previous artists attributed, was simply applied by a previous owner due to the fame associated with them or a slight resemblance.  Interest and the demand for a portrait of Katherine Parr began to decline with her death in September of 1548. By the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, if she was ever discussed at all in published material, then she was often described as the reliable older woman who spent her time nursing the King as his health began to fail. 

Henry VIII and Katherine Parr
William Henry Kearney
Circa 1830
© Public Domain

In recent years, the publication of fresh and newly researched biographies by Linda Porter, Elizabeth Norton and Susan James has begun to breakdown some of the myths associated with Henry’s sixth and final wife. The real Katherine was a twice married woman of thirty-one years of age at the time she married King Henry VIII.  She was well educated and was able to speak at least three languages, indeed, she was religious and devoted to learning, however she also appears to have enjoyed the finer things in life and had a love of music, dancing, and a strong passion for fashion. 

Unfortunately, today we still do not know for certain who the artist was that painted the Jersey portrait.  In recent months it has been tentatively suggested that it may possibly be by the hand of the artist simply known as Master John. However, until the portrait has undergone scientific investigation to establish any similarities to this artist, or any other known sixteenth century artist, we will unfortunately not know for certain who painted the portrait.

The Jersey portrait entered the collection of the Duke of Buckingham when it was purchased from the Pryor’s Bank sale on May 3rd, 1841.

Item 509. A panel painting, Queen Mary I., in carved guilt frame[7]

It was hung for a small period of time in the Private Dining Room at Stowe House.  It would be sold once again on March 15th, 1849, as part of the large thirty-seven-day auction of the contents of Stowe House facilitated by Messrs. Christies and Manson and again appeared in the catalogue as:

290 Queen Mary, in a black dress, with richly ornamented sleeves-(Holbein)[8]

An annotated catalogue for this sale stored in the Heinz Archive, London, records the buyer of the portrait as a Mr J. Oxford Ryman, and within that same year the painting ended up in the collection of Lady Sarah Sophie Fane Child-Villiers, Countess of Jersey.

The Jersey Portrait continued to be incorrectly identified as that of Queen Mary I until 1965, when the National Portrait Gallery, London, purchased NPG4451, as a portrait of Katherine Parr.  That same year the identification of the sitter in both portraits would be questioned. Information held in the registered packet for NPG4451, shows that almost immediately Roy Strong, Director of the National Portrait Gallery, compared NPG4451 to the Van de Passe engraving, thought at that time to be the only authentic image of Jane Grey, and a portrait almost identical to that of the Jersey portrait in the collection of Lord Hastings.  Due to the history associated with the Van da Passe engraving and the fact that the Hastings portrait had also been known as Jane Grey since at least the seventeenth century, Strong therefore concluded that all three images depict the same individual and this individual must be Jane Grey.[9]

Left: NPG4451 Centre: Van da Passe Engraving Right: Lord Hastings Portrait
© Public Domain

In 1969, Roy Strong published his book Tudor and Jacobean Portraits, in which he discussed the Jersey portrait under the section on Lady Jane Grey. At that time, Strong did report that the face seen in the Jersey portrait ‘is that of a much older woman”, however, he dismissed the identity of it being a portrait of Queen Mary I, and tentatively put this down to bad restoration.   Strong also noted that the Jersey portrait had been destroyed by fire in 1949, and that further research into the portrait was unable to take place due to this. [10]   

In 1949. The 9th Earl of Jersey donated his London residence Osterley House to The National Trust, however, prior to this he ordered some of the more valuable objects to be removed and auctioned off, whilst other objects would be used to decorate the family seat of Radier Manor on the isle of Jersey.  The remainder of the collection was held in storage on the isle of Jersey and on Friday, 1st October 1949, a fire broke out in one of the storage units resulting in the loss of some of the Earl’s collection. It appears that the Jersey portrait was once initially thought to be one of the treasures lost in the fire.[11]

Research produced and published by Susan James in January 1996 has now established without doubt that some of the jewels worn by the sitter in NPG4451 appear in inventories made of Katherine Parr’s jewels in 1550. [12]   By June of 1996, the National Portrait Gallery then opted to reidentify NPG4451 as a portrait of Katherine Parr and not Lady Jane Grey. This in turn allowed the other portraits connected with this pattern to also be reidentified as an image of Katherine Parr and the lost Jersey portrait would finally get an accurate identification.

In 2012, Art Historian, Hope Walker and Historian, John Stephan Edwards confirmed that the Jersey portrait did indeed survive the devastating fire and was at this point hanging on the walls of Radier Manor in Jersey.[13]   

It is now time for another chapter concerning the history of the Jersey Portrait to begin, and with a bit of luck the painting will hopefully be purchased by a buyer who is willing to put it on public exhibition and allow the portrait to undergo further scientific examination.

[1] Exceptionally rare portrait of Katherine Parr, sixth wife of Henry VIII, will be auctioned at Sotheby’s | Tatler accessed 28/04/23.

[2] As above

[3]Fraser’s Magazine, The Pryor’s Bank, Fulham, December 1845, Vol  XXXII,  Page: 637

[4] Getty Provenance Index

[5] A catalogue of a very choice and extremely precious cabinet, chiefly of high-finished Flemish and Dutch pictures : some of which were purchased in the sale of the famous Holdernesse collection … : the property of John Dent, Esq., deceased, and removed from his late residence in Hertford Street, May Fair … : which … will be sold by auction by Mr. Christie at his great room, no. 8, King Street, St. James’s Square, on Saturday, April the 28th, 1827 .. : Christie, James, 1773-1831 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive, accessed 08/05/2023

[6]Getty Provenance Index, accessed 08.05.23.

[7] Mr Deacon, Pryor’s Bank Sales Catalouge, 3rd May 1841, page33

[8] Foster, Henry, The Stowe Catalogue Priced and Annotated, 1848, Page176

[9] Heinz Archive, London, NPG46/45/33, Registered Packet 4451 

[10] Strong, Roy, Tudor and Jacobean Portraits, 1969, volume I, page 78-79

[11] ‘Art Treasures in Fire’, The Times of London, 1 October 1949, page 4

[12] James, Susan, Lady Jane Grey of Queen Katheryn Parr, Burlington Magazine, vol. 138, January 1996, Page 20-24

[13] Edwards. John Stephan, A Queen of a New Invention Portraits of Lady Jane Grey, Old John Publishing, 2015, page 35-37

Hever Castle: The Mould and Zouche Portraits

The Hever Rose Portrait is not the only painting of Anne Boleyn, based on the B Pattern, in the collection of her childhood home at Hever Castle.  Though undoubtedly, the Hever Rose Portrait is one of the castles prize possessions, a further two later copies are stored in the castles collection and both portrait’s feature strongly in the 2023 exhibition ‘Catherine and Anne, Queens, Rivals & Mothers.’ Organised by castle curator’s Alison Palmer, Owen Emmerson, and Kate McCaffrey.  This beautifully produced exhibition explores the complex connections between Catherine and Anne. It brings together for the first time in five hundred years two Books of Hours belonging to both these remarkable Queens of England and includes some never-before-seen portraits from private collections of Catherine of Aragon.  

When it comes to contemporary descriptions of Anne Boleyn, recorded during her lifetime or in the few months after her death, we have very little. What we do have provides a mixture of opinions, and some do appear to be embellished with a personal hatred towards Anne, due to the controversy that surrounded her relationship with the king.  One thing is for sure, Anne stood out among the people who were able to witness what she looked like for themselves. Her general persona appears to have caused debate even when she was alive, and this debate would continue for centuries after her death. The French scholar and poet Lancelot de Carles described her as

‘Beautiful with and elegant figure…. She became so graceful that you would never have taken her for an Englishwoman, but for a Frenchwoman born’. [1]

Carles would go on to note that Anne’s most attractive feature was:

‘her eyes, which she well knew how to use. In truth such was their power that many a man paid his allegiance’.[2]

In 1528, she was also described as ‘very beautiful’ by a Venetian diplomat, however, when described in 1532, by Francesco Sanuto, he appears less certain about Anne’s beauty. Sanuto was again observed to be captivated by Anne’s eyes.

‘Madam Anne is not one of the handsomest women in the world; she is of middling stature, swarthy complexion, long neck, wide mouth, bosom not much raised, and in fact has nothing but the English King’s great appetite, and her eyes, which are black and beautiful, and take great effect on those who served the Queen when she was on the throne’.[3]

What is interesting, about some of the above features detailed by her contemporaries, is that some of these features are seen within the B Pattern of Anne Boleyn. When comparing both the contemporary descriptions and some of the earlier portraits based on the B Pattern to the Mould and Zouche portraits. Both paintings demonstrate how the sands of time have manipulated the everchanging image of Anne, and how her features would be slightly altered or airbrushed to suit the perception of beauty during the period in which the later copies were created.

Both the Mould and Zouche paintings are, in fact, relatively modern acquisitions within the castles collection and little information concerning their provenance are currently stored in the archive at Hever Castle today.  As both portraits are held within a significant collection relating to Anne Boleyn, then what little is currently known about the history of these two paintings deserves to be documented.

The Mould Copy
Anne Boleyn
Oil on Copper
10 ½ inches in diameter
Unknown Artist
© Hever Castle, Kent

The first, and certainly the earliest portrait is what I refer to as the Mould Copy. This painting was acquired by the castle from the London Art Specialist, Philip Mould, prior to 2012, and it has continually been on exhibition since its purchase.  The Mould copy is most certainly derived from one of the earlier paintings based on the B Pattern. As the slight curvature is seen at the neckline of the bodice, and the lips and nose have been altered slightly to that seen in NPG668.  It would be tempting to say that the Mould Copy was based on a painting similar to the portrait of Anne Boleyn seen in the Royal Collection. Anne has been slightly cropped in the Mould version the painting stops just below the neckline of her sumptuous gown. Her trademark pearls and B pendant can clearly be seen around her neck. Anne’s features have been somewhat enhanced to achieve the raven-coloured hair and large dark expressive eyes she would undoubtedly become famous for.

RCIN 404742
Anne Boleyn
Unknown Artist
Oil on Panel
© The Royal Collection

The portrait is in excellent condition for its age, some slight craquelure to the paint surface is seen on close inspection, however, there does appear to be no evidence of paint loss.  At first glance, Anne appears to be missing the black veil attached to the back of the French Hood. On viewing the portrait in person, it does appear to have been part of the original composition.  However, the veil appears to have been painted out at a later period and some evidence of a slight touch up to the bottom and outer portion of the pearl billiment is also visible. No artist inscription or name was located on the painted surface.

Detail of The Mould Copy
© Hever Castle, Kent

Executed with the use of oil paint on a sheet of circular copper, the portrait has a name plate applied to the frame with an estimated date for its creation of ‘circa sixteenth century’. The use of copper as a surface to paint on, appears to have originated in Florence towards the end of the sixteenth century, however, surviving examples from this period are rare. This method of painting eventually spread to Rome, Antwerp, and other countries during the seventeenth century and was often used by artists for small paintings, as the smooth surface would provide an ideal support to create detailed images.  

Stylistically, the use of the blue pigment seen in the Mould Copy to achieve that porcelain skin affect when modelling the flesh, the handling of the eyes, nose and mouth are more consistent with the hand of a seventeenth century artist, when the use of copper as a support for portraiture was at its height. Copper began to wean off during the second half of the seventeenth century and by the beginning of the eighteenth century it would become almost obsolete when the use of canvas would again become the most popular support for a painting surface.[4]    

Reverse of The Mould Copy
©Hever Castle, Kent

When it comes to the documented provenance of the Mould portrait, we unfortunately have very little in terms of information prior to its modern purchase. The painting doesn’t appear to have been included in any of the major nineteenth century exhibitions relating to Tudor portraiture. We do have many auction records concerning portraits of Anne Boleyn sold over the course of four centuries, however, no direct record for this particular portrait has yet, been located.  Unfortunaly the back of the copper plate also provides no other details, other than the modern Philip Mould inventory sticker.

A search of the Getty Provenance Database has identified two tantalizing auction entries from the early nineteenth century that could possibly identify two of the previous owners of this painting. The first reference is a portrait described as being that of ‘Anne Boleyn on Copper’ which sold from the collection of a John Dent by Christie’s, London on 6th February 1802. The second, is another portrait described again as representing ‘Anne Bullen on Copper’ which sold some fourteen years later from the collection of a Reverend James Cradocke. Due to the poor content of these early auction entries and the constant demand for Anne’s likeness, no direct match has been made to truly confirm that either one of the references is, in fact, related to the Mould Copy or the B pattern. Until further information is obtained, then we cannot truly list either names as previous owners.[5]

During a recent trip to London, I was able to locate one positive reference about the Mould Portrait made towards the end of the nineteenth century.  George Scharf, then Director of the National Portrait Gallery London, viewed many significant Tudor related portraits during his career.  Scharf was noted to have an active interest in sixteenth century portraiture and would often seek out paintings to feed his own interests in the subject or as a possible purchase for the galleries collection. Unfortunately, Anne Boleyn does not appear to be at the top of his list when attempting to locate images, however, he does illustrate a small number of portraits that caught his eye in his many sketchbooks.

Drawing of Mould Portrait
George Scharf
©National Portrait Gallery, London

The Mould Copy portrait was viewed by George Scharf on 19th July 1872. During this viewing he took notes regarding his observations and made a drawing of the portrait in one of the sketchbooks stored in the galleries archive today.  Unfortunately, the notes given provide us with little information other than the size of the painting, materials used, and the fact that Scharf had a poor opinion of the portrait noting it to be a ‘a very poor fabrication ignorantly done from the Windsor Picture.’ Scharf does make one rather puzzling note along the far left-hand side of his drawing and lists the rather curious name ‘J.K Sepia Boleyn’. This could possibly be the owner of the portrait in 1872, however, for the moment I have unfortunately been unable to locate and information regarding a J.K Sepia Boleyn or a J.K Sepia [6]

The Zouche Copy
Anne Boleyn
Unknown Artist
15 ½ x 12 ¼ inches
Oil on Canvas
© Hever Castle, Kent

Unlike the Mould copy, the Zouche Portrait appears to have a rich history in terms of provenance and documentation. In this version, Anne is depicted to just above the waist, her famous dark hair has been lightened to an almost auburn colour, and her eyes have been enlarged. Anne’s features have been softened and appear younger in years to that seen in the earlier patterns, and the hint of rosy pink cheeks and red lips are also observed.  

The French inscription applied to the top of the panel gives us a clue as to the origin of the painting and it’s first acknowledgement to its past is seen on a label attached to the back of the stretcher. Written in French the label informs its viewer that the portrait is a depiction of:

‘Portrait de Anne de Boulon, femme de Henry VIII roy(al) de l’angleterre……Da Chateau de Thorigny’[7].

Located in Yonne, France, the Chateau de Thorigny was built for Alexandre Jean Baptiste Lambert on the same land as an earlier family property between the years of 1719 and 1726. On his death in 1726, the chateau entered a spiral of sales were its valuable collection of books, furniture and architectural features were unfortunately sold off. A shell of a castle was finally acquired by a wealthy Italian family; however, it was eventually demolished in 1806.[8]  

Detail showing the label fixed to the reverse of the Zouche Copy
© Hever Castle, Kent

By 1897, the portrait was in England in the collection of Robert Nathaniel Cecil George Curzon, 15th Baron Zouche of Perham Park. Curzon’s was an avid collector, traveller and writer who is known to have acquired a large collection of Biblical Manuscripts during his lifetime. Today, a large amount of his collection is stored in the British Library London. It may just be possible that Robert Curzon purchased the Zouche copy himself from one of the many sales taking place at the Chateau de Thorigny during one of his many excursions abroad.[9]

The Zouche Copy first appeared, publicly, when it was exhibited in the 1897 ‘Royal House of Tudor Exhibition’.  Situated in Manchester’s Art Gallery, the exhibition consisted of eight rooms containing thousands of Tudor related artifacts sourced from public and private collections across the country.  Seen in room two was item 32 in the exhibition catalouge:

Queen Anne Boleyn (1507-1536) Small half-length, to the left: square cut, low dark dress; black hood, edged with pearls; pearl necklace with a letter B. Canvas 15 x 12 inches. Attributed to Janet.[10]

The association with the sixteenth century artist Janet or Jean Clouet is an intriguing one. During the latter half of the nineteenth and early twentieth century many portraits were associated with the French artists Jean and Francois Clouet due to a significant amount of research being produced about both artists.  However, access to information, archival material, and any scientific investigation in terms of dating, paint analysis or infrared reflectography was non-existent.  Portraits were simply grouped together by style and associated with names of some of the more famous artists to work within the period the portrait was at that time thought to date to. It is safe to say that the Zouche Portraits has nothing in terms of the stylistic qualities seen in some of Clouet’s known works. The fact that the portrait is on canvas also indicates that it most certainly dates to a period after the sixteenth century and the attribution to ‘Janet’ in the exhibition catalouge was a simple mistake.  Today, the portrait is thought to date to the eighteenth century and may just have been commissioned by Alexandre Lambert to hang in the newly built Chateau de Thorigny.

The Zouche Copy was passed by descent to other members of the Curzon’s family. It appeared in a further two public exhibitions in 1902 and 1909 and remained in the family’s collection when Parham House and the estate was sold off in 1922. The portrait eventually appeared up for auction on 29th October 1986, when it was incorrectly described as being ‘English School’.  On completion of this sale the portrait then entered the collection at Hever Castle and remains part of the collection to this day.   

[1] Weir, Alison. The Six Wives of Henry VIII, 2007, pp 151

[2]Ibid  

[3]Calendar of state papers,  Venice: October 1532 | British History Online (british-history.ac.uk), accessed 12.02.23

[4] For more information on the history of the use of copper see: Komanecky. Michael K. Copper as Canvas: Two Centuries of Masterpiece Painting on Copper, 1575 – 1775, Oxford University Press, 1998.

[5] Getty Provenance Index & Getty Provenance Index accessed 10.02.2023

[6] The Heinz Archives, London. Trustees’ Sketchbook 18, 1871-1872, NPG7/1/3/1/2/18, pp.38 

[7] I am extremely grateful to Owen Emmerson, Kate McCaffrey and Alison Palmer for allowing me to see photographic images of the reverse of both portraits.

[8] Miller. Etienne, The Lambert de Thorigny Family, Bulletin of the Archaeological Society of Sens, Volume: VI, (2008), pp. 102-185

[9] Sidney lee. Dictionary of National Biography, Smith, Elder & Co, London, (1900) Vol 63

[10] Royal House of Tudor Exhibition Catalouge, 1897, P.12, item:32

Lady Jane Grey and The Longleat Portrait

Lost, Found and a Case of Misidentification

In 2015, John Stephan Edwards included the Longleat portrait among a small number of ‘lost’ portraits in his in-depth analysis on the iconography of Lady Jane Grey.  Edwards briefly stated that a portrait of Lady Jane Grey was ‘recorded at Longleat in the 1860s, seat of the Marquis of Bath.’  When attempting to locate the missing portrait for himself, Edwards noted that, unfortunately, the painting thought to be Jane was not uncovered at Longleat during the Courtauld Photographic survey, and that no portrait thought to depict Jane Grey was also included in a book detailing the artwork at Longleat published in the 1880’s.  As any reader of this website may appreciate, Edwards ‘lost list’ fascinated me from the moment I read it, and it was this list that started my very own little adventure into the iconography associated with Lady Jane Grey.

When undergoing my own research into this painting, I decided to start at the very beginning. I contacted the Curator at Longleat, in the hope that some new evidence or research had come to light since the publication of Edwards book.  Unfortunately, the response I received provided little information other than no portrait thought to depict Lady Jane Grey was currently in the collection of the Marques of Bath today. No reference was also located in any book concerning the collection of paintings at Longleat and a search of the nineteenth century visitor’s manuals that included detailed descriptions of Longleat’s collection was, unfortunately, unsuccessful in terms of any reference to a portrait of Jane Grey.  

NPG Index Card

© Heinz Archive, London

During a visit to the Heinz Archives in London, I was able to locate the original source material that informs us of the Longleat portrait’s existence.  Stored within the archive are thousands of index cards containing details of images, listed under various sitters that have been reported to the National Portrait Gallery over the course of one hundred and fifty years.  Some of these cards list existing portraits, whilst others list illustrations, exhibition entries, auction sales, and archive material stored within the Galleries collection.  A small number of these cards are filed under the sitter’s name of Lady Jane Grey, and It is among these that we get our first mention of a portrait depicting her at Longleat.  The card directs its viewer to a sketchbook in the archives collection produced by George Scharf, director of the National Portrait Gallery, however, the question mark seen next to Jane Grey’s name indicates that the portrait may possibly depict her, and some uncertainty was express at the time of writing. 

Thankfully, I was able to successfully locate the sketchbook indicated on the index card. In this, George Scharf records that he visited Longleat House in December of 1862, to sketch the collection of paintings then held in the collection of Thomas Thynne, 5th Marquess of Bath.  Among the many rough sketches seen within the small sketchbook is a drawing of a portrait that Scharf recorded to be hung in the Saloon at the time of viewing.  Scharf also notes that the sitter depicted has yellow hair and white sleeves. Under his drawing, he writes the words ‘query Lady Jane Grey’, suggesting that he thought the portrait to be a possible depiction of her.[1]

George Scharf

Drawing of the Longleat Portrait

©The National Portrait Gallery, London

In May 2021 and early December 2022, two interesting portraits came up for sale on two separate online auction sites. Both portraits, appear to match the drawing made by George Scharf in 1862 when viewing the Longleat portrait.  The first painting was described as a portrait of ‘Elizabeth I as a young woman’ and the second was referred to as a ‘Large English Old Master portrait of Mary Tudor, Queen Mary I of England’.  Both paintings were described as ‘circa 17th Century’ in date, and no information concerning either of the portrait’s provenance was provided on the lot listings for each of the paintings, other than both would be shipped from ‘London, England’[2] .

Called Elizabeth I as a young woman

Oil on Canvas

30 x 24 inches

© Public Domain

Called Queen Mary I

Oil on Canvas

37 inches x 32 inches

©NY Elizabeth Galleries

Though most definitely seventeenth century in date, both portraits are inconsistent with any of the surviving images of Queen Mary I and Queen Elizabeth I.  It is therefore highly unlikely that the images were based on any contemporary portrait of these formidable Queen’s, and their names may possibly have been simply attached to the paintings by a previous owner, due to the fame associated.  Longleat did confirm that they indeed still have a portrait matching both the paintings sold and the drawing produced by George Scharf in the collection today.  However, there version is known as Jane Shore, mistress of Edward VI and not Lady Jane Grey.  According to the information provided, the Longleat portrait was purchased in ‘Feburary 1685’ and has traditionally been identified as a portrait of Shore for a long period of time.[3] 

I am by no means doubting that the artist who created these portraits did in fact intend them to be a representation of Jane Shore, who as Thomas More once described was famed for her ‘yellow hair.’[4]  The seventeenth century date also appears to be consistent, as interest in the story of Jane Shore became hugely popular towards the end of the seventeenth century.  This was once again promoted even further when the popular play ‘The Tragedy of Jane Shore,’ written by Nicholas Rowe premiered at the Theatre Royal, London, on 2nd February 1714.

It is my opinion that when producing his drawing of the Longleat portrait, George Scharf was right to query the identity of the sitter.  From the images seen above, the artist who created the original version of this portrait appears to have used two separate earlier paintings as a source of inspiration, due to the lack of an authentic likeness of Jane Shore.  This explains the fact that a young Jane Shore is depicted wearing clothing that was fashionable decades after her actual death in 1527.

The first image used, appears to be a portrait which was thought to depict Jane Shore when engraved in 1790.  At the time the engraving was created the portrait was recorded as being in the collection of Dr Peter Peckard of the Magdalene College.  The costume, pose and jewellery seen is clearly very similar to a portrait once exhibited as a painting of Anne Boleyn in 1866, from the collection of the Earl of Denbigh.[5]  Though it cannot be known for certain if it was indeed these portraits used, the similarities between the images are striking.

Jane Shore From the Collection of Dr Peter Peckard

1790

Francesco Bartolozzi

© Public Domain

Unknown Lady

Previously identified as Anne Boleyn

© Earl of Denbigh. 

Unfortunately, the original Magdalene portrait, supposedly depicting Jane Shore has long since vanished. It was last recorded in the last will and testament of Dr Peter Peckard. Peckard bequeathed the portrait, along with his collection of paintings at the college to his wife Martha Peckard in 1798.[6] 

One final clue does give us a little more understanding as to why George Scharf may have questioned the identity of the sitter in the Longleat portrait. This come to us in the shape of an early photographic image of a portrait listed as being in the collection of Agecroft Hall held in the Heinz Archive, London. [7]   

The Agecroft Hall Portrait

Oil on Panel

Size Unknown

Unknown whereabouts

© Heinz Archive, London

Detail of Agecroft Portrait

This photograph appears to be a perfect match to the Francesco Bartolozzi engraving of the Magdalene Portrait and it also shows similarities in the facial features and hood, particularly, in the treatment and arrangement of the jewelled billaments to that seen in the recent sold copies and Longleat portrait of Jane Shore. The Agecroft Hall portrait is, in turn, very similar to the Norris, Houghton and Streatham portrait thought to be a representation of Lady Jane Grey.

Left: The Norris Portrait, Lady Jane Grey, Oil on Panel, Unknown Size, © Heinz Archive, London.  Middle: The Houghton Portrait, Lady Jane Grey, Oil on Panel, 30 x 24 inches, © Private Collection. Right: The Streatham Portrait, Lady Jane Grey, Oil on Panel, 33 ¾ x 23 ¾ inches, ©NPG, London

As discussed above the Longleat portrait was almost certainly created by the artist to be a representation of Jane Shore, however, the production of this particular image appears to be a little more complex.  What can be established is that the missing Longleat portrait of Lady Jane Grey can be removed from the list of lost portraits associated with her, however, the debate continues as to whether an image of Lady Jane Grey, rather than Jane Shore was used to create the Longleat portrait continues.

[1] Heinz Archive, London. NPG7/3/4/2/76, Page: 63, accessed Feburary 2022

[2] PORTRAIT OF QUEEN MARY I (1516-1558) OF ENGLAND OIL PAINTING – Dec 04, 2022 | NY Elizabeth in CA (liveauctioneers.com), accessed December 2022. Unfortunately, the eBay link for the portrait of Princess Elizabeth has expired, however, if anyone is interested in locating more information on this painting I do have paper copies of the description in my collection.

[3] Email communication between the author and Kate Harris, Curator, Longleat Historic Collections, November 2019.  Several of the nineteenth century tourist guides do mention a portrait of Jane Shore including a reference from 1798 in which William Fordyce Mavor discussed the painting in his British Tourist or Travellers Pocket Companion

[4] Thornton. Tim, Thomas More, The History of King Richard III, and Elizabeth Shore, Moreana, Volume 59, issue 1, Edinburgh University Press, Page 113-140

[5] Royal House of Tudor Exhibition Catalogue, 1866, item 140, Page. 48

[6] National Archives, London, Last Will and Testament of Dr peter Peckard, PROB 11/1302/249

[7] Agecroft Hall was sold by the Dauntsey family in 1926 and was dismantled and shipped to Richmond, Virginia. Email communication has confirmed that this portrait is no longer at the property today.

Investigating Jane: Part Two: Was Jane Really That Naïve?

By Lee Porritt and Tamise Hills

On 10th July 1553, the newly married, Lady Jane Dudley, entered the Tower of London as Queen of England. When it comes to Jane’s life, her brief reign and subsequent downfall are certainly the most documented in terms of contemporary information. We do, however have little information concerning the build-up to her public proclamation and first public appearance as queen.   

19th Century Engraving
Lady Jane Grey
© Authors own collection

In this article, we will look at some of the contemporary information concerning the build up to the reign of Queen Jane.  We will take a look at King Edward’s initial plans for the change to the succession, to try and establish if the myth that Edward wanted Jane to be queen is true.  We will also look at Jane’s own account of the events which took place during the summer of 1553, and some of the history associated with this document.  In the hope of once again trying to establish some of the facts from the myths and attempt to bring some order to what happened 467 years ago.

As discussed in our previous article on Jane’s marriage, suspicion regarding King Edward VI’s health, and that something big was about to happen started towards the end of April 1553. Jane had been hastily married off to one of the younger sons of the Duke of Northumberland and as early as May 1553, Jehan Scheyfve, Ambassador to the Roman Empire was informing his master that ‘I have certain information that the King is declining from day to day so rapidly that he cannot last long.’[1] 

By June 15th, 1553, we have one of our first pieces of documented evidence to inform us that a plan had been devised to disinherit both Princess Mary and Elizabeth in favour of Lady Jane Dudley.  Scheyfve was once again writing to his master informing him that:

‘Lord Rich, who was formerly Chancellor, the Lord Warden and other great lords and powerful men have been ordered to repair at once to Court, it is believed in order to deliberate and come to a conclusion on the same question of the succession. Their main object will be to make shift to exclude the Princess and the Lady Elizabeth, and declare the true heir to be the Duke of Suffolk’s eldest daughter, who was lately married to the Duke of Northumberland’s son, for according to the late King’s will the Duchess of Suffolk’s legitimate heirs are appointed to succeed if the present King and the two aforesaid ladies die without issue.’[2]

My Devise for the Succession
Petyt MS47 fo.317
© Public Domain  

Unfortunately, the final copy of King Edward’s last will and testament has not, yet surfaced, however, we do have a draft copy entitled ‘My Devise for the Succession’ which is written in the King’s own hand. Stored at the Inner Temple Library, London, this document consisting of 314 words, is a working draft containing numerous corrections that allow us to understand some of Edward’s thought processes at the time of its creation and subsequent corrections.[3]

We have no specific date as to when this document was actually written, however in its original format (without correction) Edward is noted to write ‘For lack of issue of my body: to the Lady Frances’s heirs male; for lack of such issue to the Lady Jane’s heirs male.’[4] The fact that Edward was still under the impression that he may produce an heir from his own body, and that the document is written in a hand that shows no signs of weakness suggest that this was first penned in the early months of 1553.  At a time when the Kings health was not so significant and there was still hope of survival.  The subsequent events in which Jane was hastily married off in the May of 1553, in the hope of her possibly producing a male heir also supports this theory.

When looking at the document in its original format, we can settle the myth that Edward actually wanted to leave the throne of England to Jane herself. Edward initially writes ‘the Lady jane’s male heirs’, leaving his throne to any possible male children she may have, and not to Jane Dudley.  What is clear from the document in its original format, is that Edward was attempting to by-pass both Mary and Elizabeth and secure an all-male succession, rather than the all-female line seen in the Last Will and Testament of his father, King Henry VIII. Jane’s own fate would eventually be sealed when a small but significant alteration was made to the original document.

The exact date in which these changes were in fact made is unknown, at some point between May and 15th June 1553, Edward crossed out the ‘s’ on ‘Lady Jane’s’ and adds ‘and her’, thus leaving the crown to Lady Jane Dudley and any male heirs she would produce. It is tempting to suggest that this small but significant correction was made when Edward’s health had worsened, and there was no hope of the king’s survival or Jane producing a child within the short period of time left.  As discussed above we have no way of knowing when the draft and changes were in fact written.  On 15th June 1553, Jehan Scheyfve was once again informing his master that ‘The Duchess of Suffolk visited the King yesterday.’[5] Although, Scheyfve gives no account of the details surround this visit, It may just be possible that it was during this audience that Frances Grey was informed of the change to the succession and the plans to make her daughter Queen of England. By 21st June 1553, the final draft was ready and waiting to be signed by the King and 102 leading figures of the country.[6]  Edward died on 6th July 1553, just two weeks after his ‘Devise for the Succession’ had been signed, sealed, and witnessed.

Another myth concerning the events around the proclamation of Lady Jane Dudley is that Jane, herself, was unaware of what was being planned and penned in her name.  The scene in which the innocent and unaware Jane, is informed of the Kings death and told that she is now Queen of England is often one that is portrayed in historical fiction, art, and movie adaptations. It is extremely hard to imagine that a young girl, who, according to contemporaries of her day was educated to the highest standard, was so naïve that she was unable to determine what was going on around her.

Sion House, 1553
Mrs Henrietta Ward
Oil on canvas
© Public Domain

A rather intriguing document from the sixteenth century gives us Jane’s own version of the story. Unfortunately, the original source material for this document has not survived, however their does appear to be strong evidence to connect the information stated in the secondary sources to Jane herself, and many of our modern historians have quoted from this account when writing biographies on the subject.

The earliest version of Jane’s own accounts comes to us in documents dated to 1554, which are now stored in the Library of the Monasterio de San Lorenzo el Real del Escorial.  These documents were written by Giovanni Francesco Commendone, a papal secretary sent to England by Julius III in the August of 1553. Commendone’s introduction to Jane’s account informs us that:

‘Before her death, Jane wishing to account to the world for her proclamation and how it had taken place without her fault or agreement made the following statement’.[7]

It does need to be remembered that Jane as a prisoner of the Tower, would not have been in a position to make a public statement ‘to the world’ other than the speech she was to make on the scaffold in the February of 1554. She would, however, have most certainly undergone some sort of interrogation by the Queen’s officials.  Mary would have certainly wanted to know the extent of Jane’s involvement in the plot to make her Queen and Commendone is reported to have had ‘unrestricted access’ to Queen Mary during his visit to England. [8] It may just be possible that Commendone had seen some sort of letter himself or was simply transcribing information heard first-hand from the Queen.

Today, we have no documented information to inform us that Jane ever came face to face with Queen Mary during her imprisonment.  A letter of explanation or appeal to her cousin would most certainly have been allowed.  The fact that by 16th August 1553, Queen Mary herself, was informing the Ambassador in England ‘As to Jane of Suffolk, whom they had tried to make Queen, she could not be induced to consent that she should die,’ suggests that this did in fact happen.[9]

A second translation of Jane’s own account, printed in 1591, by Fra Girolamo Pollini also backs up this theory. In his introduction to Jane’s account Pollini claims that he ‘used text obtained from London,’ and in the second addition of the same book he reports that:

‘These are the words that according to some she said in the hour of her death to the population. But according to others, this was a letter that she wrote to the Queen Mary when she was in the Tower’[10]

At the beginning of Jane’s account, she discloses that, yes, she had accepted the crown, however, she had never wanted it.  When writing about her earliest knowledge of what was about to happen, she reports that:

‘As the Duchess of Northumberland had promised me that I could remain with my mother, after she heard that news from her husband the Duke, who was also the first person to tell me about it, she did not allow me any more to leave my house saying that when God would be pleased to call the King to his mercy, not remaining any hope of saving his life, I had immediately to proceed to the tower, as I had been made by his Majesty heir to the Crown.’[11]

In the above quotation, Jane admits that she had some knowledge that she was to be made queen, prior to the Kings death, and the crown of England was not simply thrust upon an unsuspecting Jane, which is so often portrayed.

Lady Jane Grey Accepting the Crown
Thomas Jones Barker
1837
© Public Domain  

In her 2009 biography, Sisters who would be Queen, historian Leanda De Leslie reports the theory that it was the Duke of ‘Northumberland who gave Jane the shocking news that she was now the King’s heir.’[12]  Eric Ives states that Jane was ‘still living with her parents, as agreed with the Duchess of Northumberland. During a visit to the Dudleys, she was told by the Duchess that she had to stay,’ Putting the words firmly in the mouth of the Duchess of Northumberland that ‘Jane had to be ready to go to the Tower since Edward had made her heir.’ [13] Historian, Nicola Tallis, again, reports that it was ‘her Father-in-law, the Duke of Northumberland who informed her of the shocking news.’ [14]

Apart from Jane’s letter, there are no other sources, contemporary or otherwise, that tell us exactly who told Jane that she was Edward’s heir. In Jane’s own account, it is not clear whether it was the Duke or Duchess of Northumberland who told her the troubling news but the urgency to make sure that Jane remained with them is clear. The Dudley family would have certainly understood the significance and symbolic effect of Jane being called from a Dudley residence upon the Kings death, and if she was in their household then they would have control over what was about to happen. 

Jane then continues to provide the reader with her reaction on hearing this news:

‘Which words, which caught me quite unaware, very deeply upset me, (and) they made me wonder but much more aggrieved me. But I cared little for those words and refrained not from going to my mother. So that the Duchess (of Northumberland) got angry at her and at me also saying that if she wanted to keep me, she would also keep my husband by herself, thinking that anyway I would go to him’[15]

Her account of what she did next, gives us some clues as to some of the free-spirited reactions the Dudley family would receive from Queen Jane during her reign.  Jane ignored the advice from the Duchess of Northumberland and opted to visit her mother. This resulted in a quarrel between the Duchesses of Suffolk and Northumberland about where Jane should live. Jane would report that she eventually returned to the Dudley residence, however, she only ‘remained two or three nights, but finally I craved permission to go to Chelsea,’ and eventually ‘fell ill’[16]

Although the King died on 6th July 1553, his death was initially kept a secret, as a way of making the desired preparations to secure the new Queen’s position. Jane would eventually be informed of the Kings death on 9th July 1553. She was escorted from Chelsea to Sion House by her sister-in-law Mary Sidney to hear the news, however, on her arrival, the house was apparently empty.  Jane recalls that after a short period of time the Duke of Northumberland, other Lords and members of the Kings council arrived, and ‘were doing me such homage, not in keeping with my position, kneeling before me, that greatly embarrassed me.’[17]  A short time later, the Duchess of Northumberland and Suffolk, along with the Marchioness of Northampton arrived at the house, and Jane was then informed of the Kings death.  She was also given the news, that as Edward’s heir (which she had been informed about weeks earlier), that she was now Queen of England.  Jane documents her response to this as:

‘I was overwhelmed hearing these words, may bear witness those who were present, who saw me fall to the ground weeping bitterly, and afterwards avowing my own inadequacy I deeply grieved over the death of such a noble Prince and in the end I turned to God and prayed him that if what was given to me was rightly mine, His Divine Majesty would grant me such grace as to enable me to govern his Kingdom with his approbation and to his glory.’[18]

Later that evening, it is reported that the new Queen Jane attended a ‘great banquet’[19] in her honour.  It is highly likely that Jane, herself, would have certainly been advised about the events planned for the following day, in which she would enter The Tower of London as Queen and where she would continue to reign until her downfall on 19th July.

[1] ‘Spain: May 1553’, in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 11, 1553, ed. Royall Tyler (London, 1916), pp. 37-48. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol11/pp37-48 [accessed 23 June 2022].

[2] ‘Spain: June 1553, 1-15’, in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 11, 1553, ed. Royall Tyler (London, 1916), pp. 48-56. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol11/pp48-56 [accessed 23 June 2022].

[3] Inner Temple Library, Petyt MS47 fo.317, ‘My Devise for the Succession’

[4] Ibid.

[5] ‘Spain: June 1553, 1-15’, in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 11, 1553, ed. Royall Tyler (London, 1916), pp. 48-56. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol11/pp48-56 [accessed 1 July 2022].

[6] Nichols, J. G, The Chronicle of Queen Jane and of Two Years of Queen Mary and Especially of the Rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyatt, Written by a Resident in the Tower of London, Llanerch Publishers, 1850, page.99

[7] Ives. Eric, (England, 2009) Lady Jane Grey a Tudor Mystery, John Wiley & sons, Ltd P: 18

[8] Malfatti C.V, (Barcelona, 1956) The Accession, Coronation and Marriage of Mary Tudor as related in Four Manuscripts of the Escorial P xv-xviii

[9] ‘Spain: August 1553, 11-20’, in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 11, 1553, ed. Royall Tyler (London, 1916), pp. 162-176. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol11/pp162-176 [accessed 23 June 2022].

[10] Ives. Eric, (England, 2009) Lady Jane Grey a Tudor Mystery, John Wiley & sons, Ltd P: 18

[11] Malfatti C.V, (Barcelona, 1956) The Accession, Coronation and Marriage of Mary Tudor as related in Four Manuscripts of the Escorial P 45-46

[12] De Leslie. Leanda, (England, 2008) The Sisters who would be Queen, Harper Press P:104

[13] Ives. Eric, (England, 2009) Lady Jane Grey a Tudor Mystery, John Wiley & sons, Ltd P: 186

[14] Tallis, Nicola, (England 2016) A Crown of Blood, Michael O’Mara Books Ltd P:147

[15] Malfatti C.V, (Barcelona, 1956) The Accession, Coronation and Marriage of Mary Tudor as related in Four Manuscripts of the Escorial P 45-46

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid

[18] Ibid.

[19] ‘Spain: July 1553, 16-20’, in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 11, 1553, ed. Royall Tyler (London, 1916), pp. 90-109. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol11/pp90-109 [accessed 3 July 2022].

William Frederick Yeames Lost Masterpiece ‘Lady Jane Grey in The Tower ‘

Introduction

Between 1794 and 1877, a total of twenty-six paintings depicting scenes from the life of Lady Jane Grey were exhibited at the Royal Academy of Arts, London.  When looking at the various titles of each painting exhibited, there appears to be a pattern of four significant events in Jane’s life which were prominent themes chosen by artists who opted to promote her story.  Some of these events are, in fact, based on contemporary descriptions from her time, whilst others are steeped in the air of myth which began to surround Jane from the moment of her death. 

The first common scene often depicted is a promotion of Jane’s virtues as an exemplary pupil and her passion for learning. Many of the artists of the paintings based on this scene used the account published by Roger Ascham in 1570 as a source of inspiration.  In this account, Ascham recalls the day on which he encountered Jane alone at Bradgate Park, engrossed in Plato whilst the rest of her family were out hunting. The Victorian myth that both Jane and King Edward VI were educated together and were in fact childhood sweethearts is also depicted within this group of paintings. 

The second common theme is Jane’s initial refusal of the crown. Again, this is based on true events that took place at Syon House and were described by Jane herself in a letter to Queen Mary written during her imprisonment, after she lost her crown in 1553.  The final two common events are a promotion of Jane’s role as a martyr and innocent victim, either when imprisoned in the Tower of London or her final moments on the scaffold.

Of the twenty- six paintings exhibited, a total of nine depicted scenes were from Lady Jane Grey’s imprisonment in The Tower of London between 19th July 1553 and 12th February 1554.

In this article I intend to look at one of the more famous of these paintings, exhibited at the Royal Academy by William Frederick Yeames in 1868.  Until recently, the original painting was thought to have been lost to the sands of time, however as discussed later in this article, an interesting email from a viewer of this website brought some fascinating news to my attention.

When first exhibited, the painting entitled ‘Lady Jane Grey in the Tower’ received excellent reviews from observer’s who had visited the exhibition, with some reporting that

‘Mr. Yeames “Lady Jane Grey in the Tower,” is perhaps the best picture this young and hard-working artist has yet elaborated.’[1]

‘In 1868 was exhibited the picture which I should rank as the painter’s masterpiece thus far, ‘Lady Jane Grey in the Tower,’ wearily but gently listening to the exhortations of Feckenham, Abbot of Westminster. Of all the Lady Jane English painting’s, I know of none at once so touching and so true to historical character at this of Mr Yeames.’[2]

‘The little Jane is thoroughly well conceived and better executed by Mr Yeames than by Queen Mary’s executioner’[3]

William Frederick Yeames circa 1884
Joseph Parkin Mayall
© Public Domain

William Frederick Yeames was born in Russia on 18th December 1835, fourth son of William Yeames, a British consul in Taganrog and his wife Eliza Mary Henley.  On his father’s death in 1842, he attended a school in Dresden, and he began to study painting. By 1848, Yeames had moved to England where he studied anatomy and composition under George Scharf. He also visited Florence and Rome to continue his development in life studies, landscapes, and the old masters, eventually returning to England in 1858 and setting up his studio in Park Place, London.   In 1859, Yeames exhibited his first painting into the annual exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts and he was eventually made an associate of the Royal Academy in 1866.  Yeames continued to exhibit paintings within the annual exhibition and themed most of his subjects around historical events from British history. He along with other artists formed an artistic circle known today as the ‘St John’s Wood Clique.’ All enjoyed visiting historic houses, including Hever Castle in Kent and would often spend time sketching and painting interiors which would eventually appear as backdrops for their historically themed paintings.  Yeames died on 3rd May 1918, leaving behind a large portfolio of work inspired by some of the most prominent characters in English History. [4]

Setting The scene

The original painting displayed in the 1868 exhibition has not been seen or studied by any art or history academic.  Today, it is only known through the original exhibition catalogue entry and the small preparatory painting produced by Yeames which is now in the collection of Weston Park Museum, Sheffield.  Images of his preparatory painting have appeared in numerous publications over the years and this smaller version was initially in the collection of businessman and collector John Newton Mappin (1800-1883).  On his death, Mappin bequeathed a total of one hundred and fifty-four paintings representing many of the leading artists of the day to the Weston Park Museum. He also left the huge sum of fifteen thousand pounds for a Gallery to be built so that his collection of paintings could be viewed by the public. The Mappin Gallery eventually opened to the public on 27th July 1887 and Yeames preparatory painting for ‘Lady Jane Grey in the Tower’ as well as the rest of his collection could be viewed and admired for generations. [5]

Lady Jane Grey in The Tower Preparatory Painting
William Frederick Yeames
1867
Oil on Canvas
11×17 inches
© Sheffield Museums

The preparatory painting (above) produced by Yeames does provide some clues as to the exact scene depicted in the completed painting exhibited in 1868.  This version is signed and dated by the artist to 1867 and shows Yeames workings of the composition.  The exact event which he opted to depict is when Lady Jane Grey was visited by John Feckenham, Queen Mary’s personal chaplain, on 8th February 1554.  By this point in her story, Jane had faced trial and had been convicted and sentenced to death as a traitor for accepting the crown and signing herself as queen. Mary was prevented from issuing Jane with a pardon because the Spanish demanded that Jane die as a condition of the marriage between Mary and Philip of Spain. 

Mary was unable to save Jane’s life, however she did attempt to save her immortal soul, and she sent Feckenham to see Jane with that specific task, to try and convert her to Catholicism prior to her death. Jane’s execution was postponed for three days, and a debate was held between Feckenham and Jane which resulted in Jane staying strong to the Protestant faith rather than relinquishing it.  This famous debate was apparently recorded and signed by Jane’s own hand, however unfortunately the original document no-longer survives today.  The original documentation does appear to have been smuggled out of the Tower of London as within months of Jane’s death, it began to appear in printed format and was used to promote Jane’s strong belief in the Protestant faith.

The popular tradition of Queen Mary offering Jane a pardon if she was willing to convert to Roman Catholicism began to emerge shortly after Jane’s death.  In 1615, a pamphlet entitled ‘The Life, Death and Actions of The Most Chaste, Learned and Religious Lady, The Lady Jane Grey’ was published in London. This pamphlet again contained a copy of the earlier printed debate, and it was noted in the introduction that:

Even those which were of the best fame and reputation, were sent unto her to dissuade her from that true profession of the gospel, which from her cradle she had held. Each striving by art, by flattery, by threatening’s, by the promise of life, or what else might move most in the bosom of a weak woman.

There is no surviving contemporary evidence to prove that Jane was ever offered an actual pardon if she would convert, but as discussed above there was indeed an effort made to encourage her to convert to what Mary thought was the true religion and save her soul.

The preparatory painting also informs us that Yeames appears to have made every effort to try and keep his composition as accurate as possible.  In this version of the painting, his image of Jane is heavily based on the Wrest Park portrait which was once thought to be a contemporary portrait and was widely reproduced to illustrate Jane during the nineteenth century. Yeames does appear to have altered the facial composition slightly from the original portrait in an attempt to make the sitter in his version look closer to Jane’s actual age at the time of her death. 

The Wrest Park Portrait
Previously Identified as Lady Jane Grey
© Private Collection

The preparatory painting depicts Jane placed within a furnished room with a fire along with her books and writing paper which were objects often associated with her iconography. The myth that Jane was imprisoned in an empty prison cell was often portrayed by other artists of the nineteenth century. Although we have very little in terms of historical documentation to inform us what Jane’s life was like during her imprisonment.  The author of the sixteenth century manuscript ‘Chronicles of Queen Jane’ does provide us some signs as to her circumstances when in the Tower of London.  The writer informs us that Jane was imprisoned on the top floor of the house of Nathaniel Partridge, she was allowed at least three of her gentlewomen and a man servant. As a cousin of the Queen and a prisoner of high status, Jane would certainly have had some level of comfort during her imprisonment and Yeames has certainly captured this well in his image.

Yeames does appear to have followed the myth that Feckenham was an aged man at the time he met Jane.  John Howman or John Feckenham as he is better known was born in Feckenham, Worcestershire.  Though his exact date of birth is unrecorded it is traditionally thought to have been around 1515.  Initially educated by the parish priests he eventually received an education as a Benediction student at Gloucester Hall, Oxford.  Feckenham spent a lifetime in and out of imprisonment for his religious beliefs, however, he was described by a peer of the day as a ‘gentle person’. He was eventually freed from the Tower of London by Queen Mary in 1553, and he became personal chaplain and confessor to the Queen, and eventually Abbot of Westminster.  Feckenham died, once again in captivity in 1584.[6] 

If Feckenham had been born around 1515 as traditionally thought, then he would have been in his early forties at the time of meeting Jane rather than the man of a mature age who is portrayed in the preparatory painting and is so often depicted by other artists in visual depictions of Jane’s story.

Conclusion

In early 2020, I began to publish images alongside basic information on this website concerning the many paintings exhibited at the Royal Academy inspired by the life of Lady Jane Grey. One of the main reasons for doing this was firstly, to have a platform to record all the information currently known regarding each painting.  And to secondly, create awareness of these paintings, in the hope of some of the lost paintings finally resurfacing so they can be studied and seen.  

In 2021, I received an email from a follower of this site, asking several questions regarding the preparatory painting produced by Yeames and the dimensions of the painting listed under his name on my website.  I immediately responded, informing them that, unfortunately, the dimensions listed are for the preparatory painting as Yeames completed work had not been seen since the 1868 exhibition. The response I received greatly interested me and on opening the attachment I was surprised to see the long-lost completed painting of ‘Lady Jane Grey in The Tower’ by William Frederick Yeames staring right back at me. During several further emails, the current owner reported that he was unfortunately unable to give much information regarding the provenance of the painting, however, he did report that he had inherited the painting from his parents, who had purchased it from a gallery in Blakedown, Worcestershire in the 1970’s.  He also recalled a story in which his parents took the painting along to the BBC Antiques Roadshow in the 1980’s, however, the subject of the painting was deemed too depressing to be seen on television.[7]

Lady Jane Grey in The Tower
1868
William Frederick Yeames
Oil on Canvas
35×61 inches
© Private Collection

Unfortunately, for the moment we do appear to be missing that smoking gun to be able to determine if indeed the above painting was the final painting exhibited by Yeames in 1868 or another preparatory work.  No dimensions of the final version were listed in the exhibition catalogue, and unfortunately the only reference to its actual size is a comment from 1903, noting that the completed image was ‘bigger than the preparatory painting’[8].  The artists signature and date of 1868 can clearly be seen in the bottom right-hand corner of the above image provided and this second version is considerably larger than the preparatory painting, which certainly suggests that this was indeed the final version exhibited at the Royal Academy. 

Detail Image showing Yeames signature and date

There does appear to be some major adjustments made to the background and figure of Jane, when compared to the preparatory painting. However, Yeames certainly spent a lot of time and effort in working out the composition of his final image and this is to be expected when comparing preliminary drawings to final compositions.

During a search of the auction records, I was able to track one previous owner of either this version or the preparatory painting. On 9th July 1875, an auction took place at Christie, Manson and Woods, London.  The sale lasted two days and consisted of 280 lots belonging to the recently deceased W.E.J Roffey, Esq of Bloomsbury Square, London. Roffey was an avid picture collector, acquiring a large collection of paintings produced by modern artists of the day, particularly those who had exhibited within the Royal Academy exhibition. Listed among the 280 lots are four works by William Frederick Yeames, including

‘Item 237 W. F. Yeames, ARA, 1867 – Lady Jane Grey in the Tower – Exhibited at the Royal Academy, 1868’[9]

Item 237, sold for twenty-seven pounds, however, once again the important factor of measurements is missing from the catalogue.  The catalogue does state that this was the version exhibited in the 1868 exhibition, however the date of 1867 printed next to the artists name does raise the question as to whether this could possibly be the preparatory painting which we do know was indeed dated to 1867. 

Further research does need to take place to locate more information regarding the provenance of this newly surfaced version of Lady Jane Grey in The Tower.  And, to try and establish if indeed the painting sold in 1875 was the final version or the preparatory painting, possibly purchased by John Newton Mappin for his collection.  I would like to convey my thanks to the current owner of this painting for giving me the opportunity to see his version and publish it in this article on the missing Yeames painting so it can be seen by others with an interest in Jane.  This second version is truly beautiful, and I for one, can now see why Yeames received so much praise for this work when it was exhibited.  

I do hope to be able to fill some of these missing gaps and unanswered questions during future trips to the archives so please keep an eye out for further updates on this work.  

[1] Burk. Emily, The Annual Register: A Review of Public Events at Home & Abroad for The Year 1868, page 317

[2] Hamerton. Philip, The Portfolio an Artistic Periodical, 1871, page 83

[3] Thomas. Alfred & Lewis. Leopold, The Mask, Volume I, 1868, page 133

[4] Meynell. Wilfred, The Modern School of Art, W.R Howell & Company, 1886, vol I, page 206- 215

[5]City of Sheffield, Mappin Art Gallery Catalogue of the Permanent Collection and Other Works of Art, 1903, Page vi-viii

[6] Fuller. Thomas, The History of the Worthies of England, 1840, vol 3, page 375-376

[7] Email communication between author and owner, 2021-2022

[8] City of Sheffield, Mappin Art Gallery Catalogue of the Permanent Collection and Other Works of Art, 1903, Page 15

[9]Christie, Manson & Woods, Modern Pictures, 9th July 1875, page 24

The Hever Rose Portrait

Co-authored & researched with Dr Owen Emmerson

The Hever Rose Portraits
Anne Boleyn
Oil on Panel
22 3/4 x 17 1/4 inches
© Hever Castle, Kent

Object Description:

This painting is executed in oil on a wooden panel and measures in whole 22 ¾ x 17 ¼ inches.   The portrait depicts an adult female’s head and upper torso who appears sitting before a plain brown background.  She is turned slightly to the viewers left, and in her right hand, she holds a red rose. 

Her face is long and oval in shape, with a high forehead.  Her hair is brown in colour, appears straight, and is worn parted in the centre of the crown and pulled back over her ears and under her coif.  Her eyes are brown in colour, and her eyebrows are thin and arched.  The nose is slightly arched with a high bridge, and her lips are small and thin.  The use of a pink tone has been added to the sitter’s cheekbones and bridge of her nose. 

The sitter’s costume includes a French hood, ending just below the jawline.  This is constructed of black fabric that includes the use of an upper and lower billiment of pearls; thirty-four pearls can be seen in the lower billiment, and forty-three pearls have been depicted on the upper billiment.  A black veil is also seen hanging down at the back of the hood, and under this, the sitter wears a gold coif.  At her neck, she wears two strings of pearls with a large letter ‘B’ pendant of goldsmith work with three hanging pearls suspended from the upper necklace.  A gold chain constructed of circular loops is also seen at the neck, which falls and disappears into the front of the sitter’s bodice.  The gown itself is constructed of black fabric, cut square at the neck, and a chemise embroidered with blackwork protrudes along the entire bodice margin. The hint of a kirtle made of brown fabric and embellished with forty-four pearls and twenty-three buttons of goldsmith work is also seen around the neckline of the bodice.

Inscription:

An inscription applied across the top of the panel in a bright yellow pigment identifies the sitter as ANNA BOLINA. ANG. REGINA

Labels and other inscriptions:

Access to the back of the panel is unfortunately restricted due to the presence of a supporting cradle.  No assessment could be made of any other possible labels or inscriptions attached to the back of the panel surface at the time of writing.

Artist Association:

English School

Condition:

In 2000, restoration work was carried out on the painting by the conservator, Claudio Moscatelli. The most significant part of this conservation work was removing overpaint added at some point in the painting’s history. A series of three images held in Hever Castle’s archive, taken immediately before, during and after the restoration process gives us a lucid understanding of the works completed.

The Hever Rose Portrait, Before Restoration (Left) and With Overpaint Removed (Right)
© Hever Castle, Kent

With the overpaint carefully removed, it became clear that the overpaint had been likely applied because of past damage to the panels. Subsequently, significant alterations to the facial features had been made. Most of the revealed damage appeared to have occurred on the left of the three panels, with substantial losses evident along the joint between the left-hand and central panel. Indeed, it is likely that the left-hand panel had completely detached from the central one at some point in its history.  As this damage ran through the sitter’s face, it is perhaps not surprising that the overpaint was most heavily applied upon the chin, mouth, and nose. What became evident with the removal of this later overpaint was that it had also acted to ‘smooth’ out these features into perhaps more flattering ones than were originally intended. Indeed, it is evident that overpaint had also been added to areas without paint losses which contributed to this ‘beautification’. Claudio Moscatelli’s efforts to replace losses were subsequently much closer to the original pattern revealed when the overpaint had been removed.

The Hever Rose Portrait, Before Restoration (Left) and After Restoration (Right)
© Hever Castle, Kent

Thoughts:

Similar to NPG 668, The Hever Rose Portrait is arguably one of the more famous paintings of Anne Boleyn based on the B Pattern. Today, the painting is one of four significant portraits believed to depict Anne Boleyn hanging on the walls of Hever Castle in Kent.  The portrait has become a treasured artefact that holds a special place in both the hearts of the staff and the public who view it; however, despite its widespread popularity, we appear to know very little about it.  This is not uncommon when researching historical portraiture with a history of over four hundred years behind it. In many cases, almost nothing has survived in terms of historical documentation for most of our surviving Tudor portraits. In the past, the Hever Rose portrait has been mistaken for that once owned by Mrs K. Radclyffe.[1] A close study of the Radclyffe portrait against the Hever Rose portrait shows several clear differences, perhaps most noticeably in the size of the links that make up the chain around her neck (see below). Moreover, in his study of the portraiture of Anne Boleyn, celebrated art historian Sir Roy Strong noted that the Radclyffe Portrait had no inscription upon it, unlike the Hever Rose version.[2] When the Hever Rose Portrait was exhibited at Philip Mould’s Lost Faces exhibition in 2007, it was described as “… the finest and most probably the earliest” of the ‘corridor portraits’ of Anne Boleyn.[3]

The Radclyffe Portrait (Left) and the Hever Rose Portrait (Right)

No record of the Hever Rose Portrait has been located within any of the files relating to the iconography of Anne Boleyn in the Witt Library, Paul Mellon Centre, British Museum, or the Heinz Archive.  No scientific investigation has yet, taken place on this portrait to establish an accurate date of its creation. The exact date the portrait entered Hever castle’s collection has always remained a mystery. A date of c.1550 has been added to the portrait at some point in its history at Hever Castle, however, it is uncertain when this date was attached to it and by whom. We know via dendrochronological analysis that the NPG 668 portrait of Anne Boleyn was created in c.1584, during the reign of Anne Boleyn’s daughter, Queen Elizabeth I; a period when Anne’s image underwent a period of rehabilitation.[4] It is considerably less likely that a portrait of Anne Boleyn would have been painted in 1550 during the reign of Elizabeth’s brother, Edward VI, whose mother, Queen Jane Seymour, superseded Anne. It may be, therefore, that in lieu of any scientific analysis that date of c.1550 was added. This would have allowed for a period of approximately fifteen years on either side of that central ‘circa’ date; straddling the possibility, therefore, of it having been painted during Anne’s own lifetime, or during the reign of her daughter, Elizabeth.  

To truly understand the Hever Rose Portrait as an object, we first need to look at the castle’s history on which walls the portrait hangs today.  Located in the small village of Hever in Kent, Hever Castle has a long, rich history dating back to the twelfth century.  Arguably more famous today for being the childhood home of Anne Boleyn, the castle is a cherished time capsule that takes us, the public, closer to its most famous inhabitant than any other historic building associated with her.  

The Boleyn family purchased the castle in 1462, and by 1505, Thomas Boleyn, father of Anne Boleyn, inherited Hever and various other lands and properties on his father’s death.  Today, with the assistance of architectural historians, we are beginning to understand better how the castle was developed and added to across its history.  Unfortunately, we have almost nothing in terms of documentary evidence to inform us what was used to furnish the building when the Boleyn family were in residence.  No sixteenth-century reference to a portrait of Anne Boleyn at Hever castle has also been located.  

The castle subsequently passed through various owners, including the Waldegrave family from 1557 to 1715, the Humphreys family to 1749 and the Meade-Waldo Family from 1749 to 1903.  A rather run-down Hever Castle was purchased by an American billionaire, William Waldorf Astor, in 1903.  Astor had already been captivated by the story of Anne Boleyn and had already started to acquire a collection of objects related to her story; the fact that he now had her childhood home was the icing on the cake.  William Astor immediately started the restoration work to take the castle back to its former glory and use the building as his principal residence.  Much of what is seen today within the walls of the building is thanks to this restoration work which took place between 1903 and 1908.  Astor himself immediately set about acquiring period pieces and furnishing the rooms with artefacts connected to the castle’s rich history.  This period of development was also continued by his son, John Jacob, when he inherited the castle on his father’s death in 1919. His great- grandson, Gavin Astor, inherited the castle in 1961 and eventually opened the castle up partially to the public in 1963.

Hever Castle does, in fact, have a long history associated with the documentation of a portrait of Anne Boleyn. During the nineteenth century, it became popular for various tourists to publish detailed notes taken during their tours of the historic houses across England. In a small number of these publications, a portrait of Anne Boleyn is described as hanging on the walls at Hever Castle. However, it appears that several visitors were less than impressed by the image seen of this infamous Queen.  This sense of dislike, and other clues, suggests that it was not the current portrait seen by the visitors but another painting altogether.  

Our first positive archival reference to a portrait of Anne at Hever dates to 1801 when the Meade-Waldo family owned the castle.  In his study of The Beauties of England and Wales, Reverend Hodgson observed a portrait of Anne Boleyn at Rufford Abbey:

“In the attic story… a portrait of Anne Bullen on wood, but by no means as handsome as Holbein has painted her in which is preserved at Loseley in Surrey; yet as this one bears a great resemblance to a portrait of her at Hever Castle in Kent, the seat of her family, one is almost led to suspect that Henry’s taste for beauty would not have been much followed at the present day.”[5]

Similarly, a visitor in 1823 viewed the portrait that had been pointed out to him as an image of Anne; however, he was noted to be unimpressed with the picture seen.  He later recorded that:

‘At Hever Castle is still preserved a small picture in oil, which is an heirloom, and is said to be the Queen; it is a very stiff performance, and if a likeness of Ann Bolen, we look in vain for those captivating charms which are generally supposed to have enslaved the affections of the despotic monarch, and even urged him to overthrow the religion of his country, in order to compass the fulfilment of his ungovernable desires.’[6]

Writer James Thorne also appears to have viewed the same portrait supposed to depict Anne in 1847, and he was again less than impressed by the image he viewed:

‘One is pointed out as the family portrait if Anne Boleyn, and it’s added that it was painted shortly before her execution.  To us, it seems to bear little resemblance to the authentic portrait of her.  We do not believe it is even a copy of her portrait, we need barely add, it’s not an original.[7]

While no detailed description of this portrait of Anne Boleyn at Hever Castle exists, Reverend Hodgson’s observation that the painting he observed at Rufford Abbey was unlike that held at Loseley Hall – but like that at Hever Castle – is an intriguing one. A portrait of Anne Boleyn, which derives from the ‘B’ necklace pattern, still hangs at Loseley, and if it is the same portrait that Reverend Hodgson observed at Loseley in the early 1800s, the portrait of Anne at Hever Castle at that time most likely differed from the ‘B’ pattern model.  More intriguing still is the existence of a painting that is still in the collection of the Meade-Waldo family, and which was removed from Hever Castle when they opted to sell the castle to the Astor family in 1903. This particular portrait is painted with the use of oil on the panel and includes the inscription identifying the sitter as ‘Anna. Regina. AD. 1534.’

Loseley Hall Portrait (Left) & Meade- Waldo Family Portrait (Right)
© Private Collections

One of the main reasons for the uncertainty surrounding the purchase of the Hever Rose Portrait is due to the castle being flooded on 15th September 1968.  It does appear that the Astor family did keep detailed records of items purchased for display purposes, however, due to damage caused by the flooding, which overwhelmed the castle’s cellars and library, a considerable amount of the family’s archival information was unfortunately lost or destroyed.

Until recently, the first surviving document relating to the portrait’s actual existence at Hever castle was when it was listed among other paintings and furniture in a valuation catalogue compiled by Christie, Manson, and Woods in 1965.  No description of the portrait appeared in an earlier inventory made of the collection in 1919, at the time of William Astor’s death and it had always been presumed that the portrait was purchased between 1919 and 1965, however, no surviving documentation had surfaced to prove this theory. [8]

During a search of the current archive for this article, a pamphlet produced for an open day for employees of the Times Newspaper in 1939 was discovered. In this, an early image of the portrait was located and was listed as being among the collection at Hever Castle.  The discovery of this pamphlet pushes back the timeline in which the portrait was possibly purchased, and it appears that the painting was in the castle’s collection prior to 1939.

Times Pamphlet containing an early image of the Hever Rose Portrait
© Hever Castle, Kent

A very interesting description of a portrait, published in a book from 1908, may possibly give us a clue as to the previous provenance of the Hever Rose Portrait.  In 1904, Edmund Ferrer documented that he visited Assington Hall in Suffolk and came across a portrait of Anne Boleyn in that collection.  Assington Hall was the family estate of the Gurdon family, who had lived within the manor house at Assington since it was purchased by Robert Gurdon from Sir Miles Corbert in the early sixteenth century.[9]

Ferrer later published a detailed description of the portrait seen, and the details given in his description appear to be a perfect match to the Hever Rose Portrait.

‘Queen Anne Boleyn.  H(ead) and S(soulders). Body and face both turned slightly to the dexter, hair dressed in the pedimental style. Dress: Black, with pearls round the neck, supporting a jewelled B; there is also a gold chain; the hands are forward holding a rose. Above it “Ang. Regina”’[10]

During my research into the many portraits of Anne Boleyn associated with the B Pattern, I have only come across three surviving copies of the distinctive Rose pattern. Both the Rawlinson and the Radclyffe copy do not include the distinctive inscription identifying the sitter as seen in the Hever copy and, unless another unknown copy does exist, then the only plausible option is that the portrait seen by Ferrer in 1904 is now in the collection of Hever Castle.

One final piece of evidence to back this theory up is the auction catalogue for the sale of the contents of Assington Hall in 1937.  Unfortunately, no specific portrait identified as being that of Anne Boleyn is listed among the paintings sold on the 6th of October.  The descriptions give

n of the fifty-one paintings to appear in the catalogue are noted to be very vague and only a small number of portraits are identified by the sitter’s name are listed. Item 171, ‘portrait of a lady of the Elizabethan period with a black headdress and pearl necklace’ could possibly be the portrait of Anne and it is also noted that it was painted on panel and measures 22 x 17 inches.  If indeed the portrait was measured by the auction house in its frame, then this would be a perfect fit for the Hever Rose Portrait and would suggest that the portrait was presumably purchased by John Jacob Astor for display at Hever Castle[11]

Further research does need to take place to try and establish once and for all if the portrait of Anne seen at Assington Hall in 1904, is indeed the portrait we all see when visiting Hever Castle today. Moreover, the absence of any scientific analysis on this portrait leaves many unanswered questions. It is often stated that the are no extant painted portraits of Anne Boleyn that date to her lifetime. Yet few of the panel portraits which bear Anne’s likeness have been subjected to either paint or dendrochronological analysis which would help to determine a likely date of their creation. Considering that the Hever Rose Portrait was appraised and exhibited by art historians Philip Mould and Bendor Grosvenor as “… the finest and most probably the earliest” of the ‘corridor portraits’ of Anne Boleyn, the desire to satiate the unanswered questions surrounding this portraits age has never been more acute.[12]  What is clear from this article is that the Hever Rose Portrait is now, finally, starting to shed some of its secrets and we are now starting to find out a little more about such a treasured and renowned artefact.  

[1] https://www.arthistorynews.com/articles/894_Anne_Boleyn_regains_her_head

[2] Strong, R, Tudor and Jacobean Portraits, Volume 1, 1st ed. (H. M. Stationary Office, 1969), p.6.

[3] Grosvenor, B, Lost Faces: Identity and Discovery in Tudor Royal Portraiture, 1st ed. (Philip Mould Ltd, 2017), p.12.

[4] https://ladyjanegreyrevisited.com/2021/01/16/anne-boleyn-npg-668/

[5] Hodgson, R, The Beauties of England and Wales, or, Delineations, topographical, historical, and descriptive, of each count, Volume 12, Part 1, 1st ed. (Vernor & Hood, 1801), pp.389-90.     

[6] Bell. J, Belle Assemblée or, Court and Fashionable Magazine, 1829, page: 29

[7] Thorne. Thomas, The Land we Live in, 1847, Vol III.

[8] Christie, Manson & Wood, Valuation for Insurance of Pictures and Furniture, 1965, Hever Castle Archive

[9] Burke. Bernard, History of The Landed Gentry of Great Britian and Ireland, 1875, vol I, Page. 555

[10] Farrer. Edmund, Portraits in Suffolk Houses (West), 1908, Page. 4

[11] Garrod, Turner & Son, Assington Hall, Suffolk A Catalogue of The Remaining Contents of The Mansion, 6th October 1937, page: 5

[12] Grosvenor, B, Lost Faces: Identity and Discovery in Tudor Royal Portraiture, 1st ed. (Philip Mould Ltd, 2017), p.12.

The Philip Portrait – Does it Change Anything?

When it comes to the iconography of Queen Elizabeth, we have a plethora of surviving portraits from the sixteenth century. In today’s modern society, it must be hard to find an individual who is not familiar with the many images of the pale faced, Queen, decked out in her red wig and trademark pearls.

Many of these portraits are ingrained in the minds of many history lovers as the images of the confident virgin Queen, however these all relate to a period later in her reign when there was a huge demand for her likeness.  It is well documented that during the latter part of her reign Elizabeth herself, became more aware of the power connected to the use of her image.  The painting’s viewed today in galleries and stately homes across the globe are a symbol of royal authority, and in many cases were produced with the use of symbolism to demonstrate that, despite being a woman, Elizabeth was the natural and legitimate ruler of England. Rarely, do we get a glimpse of the human Elizabeth, stripped of all the makeup and regalia, who ascended to the throne in 1558 at the young age of just twenty-five years old. The iconography relating to the early part of her life and reign is a complex subject and portraits of the young Queen are scarce.  In terms of pictorial evidence there is very little available to inform us what the young Queen looked like.

The Philip Portrait was discovered in the late 1970’s, by London art dealer Richard Philip, little has been discussed or documented regarding the history of this painting and its significance as an early image of the young Queen Elizabeth.  In this painting, Elizabeth is depicted as the young fresh-faced monarch, who, by this period had not established the pomp and regalia associated with her later images but, was being represented by artists as the plainly dressed queen, devoted to the matter of religion.   Does this rarely seen portrait tell us anything about the young Elizabeth and does its possible connection to a small number of other paintings, in which the sitter has for many years been debated, tip the balance in favour of these also depicting the young Queen?

The Philip Portrait
Queen Elizabeth I
Oil on Panel
32 x 24 1/2 inches
©Private Collection

The Philip portrait was originally discovered leaning against the back wall in a picture shop in Cheltenham.  Due to significant overpainting the sitter in the portrait had lost its identity altogether and the painting was simply referred to as a portrait of a 1920’s flapper girl.  Art Dealer, Richard Philip recalls its discovery in a later article on the portrait.  He informs us that ‘upon examining the painting he noticed that a small section of the paint on the bottom left-hand side of the panel had begun to fall away. On closer examination he then noted that the exposed underpaint was harder and much older than the modern paint coving the rest of the panel’. Philip then opted to take a gamble and purchased the portrait immediately[1]

On returning to London, Philip sent the portrait to a picture restorer who immediately began cleaning tests. What was revealed beneath the modern paint layers both astonished Richard Philip and the restorer.  Once fully stripped of its modern overpaint the image of a sixteenth century lady, standing full frontal and seen three quarter length appeared.

The portrait was immediately thought, by Philip, to be a painting of the young Queen Elizabeth, however, as with all portrait research, evidence was required, and he began his research to attempt to prove his theory.  The portrait was first sent to Doctor John Fletcher, a pioneer in the use of dendrochronology, who attempted to establish a date of creation. Though, dendrochronology testing was in its infancy in the 1970’s, Doctor Fletcher was able to establish that the panel was constructed with the use of four boards: one board was of similar pattern to two of the three boards used in the portrait of Richard Wakeman by Hans Eworth which was inscribed with the date of 1566.  On further research Doctor Fletcher confirmed that the boards seen in both these paintings were ‘almost certainly’ from the same tree, and he dated the creation of the Philip portrait to the 1560’s. [2]

With an estimated date of creation Philip then approached Roy Strong, Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum.  Strong had published a book in 1963, entitled Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I, in which he documented a lifelong interest in the iconography relating to Elizabeth I. According to later reports by Philip, Roy Strong was ‘impressed and astonished’ by the discovery referring to it as ‘a major find in the art world’.[3]  Similarities were immediately recognised between the Philip Portrait and other iconography related to the early part of Queen Elizabeth’s reign and this apparent similarity has continued to be referred to during subsequent sales of the Portrait.[4]   

As for what specific iconography the Philip Portrait relates to is anyone’s guess. As discussed above, very little has survived in terms of portraiture of the young queen.  Unlike her predecessors, who had employed artists of immense talent such as Hans Holbein, William Scots and unofficially, Hans Eworth to produce portraits.  Elizabeth never officially employed a court painter during the first period of her reign, other than continuing the service of miniaturist and illustrator Levina Teerlinc.  The most famous painted image of the young Queen depicted full-frontal, similar to that seen in the Philip Portrait is known as the Coronation miniature.  In this, Elizabeth is depicted wearing her coronation robes and holding the royal regalia, however, recent research into this miniature and the subsequent larger copy, now in the collection of the National Portrait Gallery suggests that both were painted circa 1600, towards the end of Elizabeth’s life and possibly in celebration of her long reign. 

  • Coronation Miniature
    Queen Elizabeth I
    ©Private Collection
  • Coronation Portrait
    Queen Elizabeth I
    ©National Portrait Gallery, London

In 1978, the costume Historian, Janet Arnold suggested that both the coronation portraits were, in fact, based on a ‘now lost’ portrait depicting Elizabeth at the time of her coronation in 1559.  Arnold’s evidence for this theory was derived from the fact that the artists representation of the clothing worn by Elizabeth in both images matching contemporary documented evidence describing the items in Elizabeth’s wardrobe.  It was therefore suggested that either the portrait was related to an earlier portrait pattern or that the artist was given access to the clothing worn by Elizabeth on the day of her coronation.[5]

The fact that Elizabeth did not employ an official court painter does not necessarily mean that the demand for her portrait had declined.  Documentary evidence suggests that her image was in high demand from the period of her accession.  Elizabeth herself, appears to have been rather embarrassed about the production of her early images.  For this reason, her secretary, Sir William Cecil drafted a proclamation in 1563.  The draft proclamation announced that a portrait of the new Queen would be made by ‘some special cunning painter’ and that this image must be used when producing copies of the Queen’s likeness. Cecil also acknowledges that the Queen ‘hath bene allwise of her own right disposition very unwilling’ to sit for a portrait and asks that all ‘painters, printers, and engravers to cease production’ of her image until a portrait displaying ‘the natural representation of her Majesties person, favour or grace’ can be completed.[6]

Over the years it has been suggested that the 1563 proclamation refers to a particular portrait known as the ‘Clopton type’ however, it is possible that it could relate to an entirely different version of this portrait altogether. The proclamation suggests that due to a lack of access to the young Queen, artists, printers and engravers were creating images of Elizabeth to an unsatisfactory standard.

  • ©Private Collection
  • ©National Portrait Gallery, Ireland
  • ©Private Collection
  • ©National Portrait Gallery, London
  • ©Private Collection

Named after Clopton Hall, the previous location of the largest version known to exist.  In this portrait, Elizabeth is depicted in a simple black gown with ermine trim and holds a pair of gloves in one hand and a prayer book in the other, a gold pendant containing a large cut gemstone is suspended from a chain of goldsmith work around her neck.  Several versions of this pattern exist, and those that have undergone scientific investigation have all are dated to the 1560’s.[7]  

The recent discovery and research into an early example of this pattern by London Art Dealer Philip Mould, brings about some very interesting questions.  Mould acquired a copy of this portrait in 2010, and, during scientific investigations on his copy he discovered that hidden under the painted surface was an entirely different image. An x-ray of the portrait was taken that revealed that the composition of this copy had been changed from full frontal, like the Philip portrait, to the image facing the viewers left.  Changes in the position of the sitter’s hands, ruff and sleeves where also noted.  Mould’s copy was also dendrochronological tested, and the most plausible date of creation was established as 1552, which does suggest that his copy was probably the first example of this pattern to be created.[8]

  • The Mould Portrait
    Queen Elizabeth I
    ©Philip Mould Gallery, London
  • X-ray of The Mould Portrait
    ©Philip Mould Gallery, London

It is hard to ignore the similarities in the features depicted in the Philip portrait and the small number of other paintings associated with the young Elizabeth. The most prominent of these paintings are known as the Soule and Hever portraits and much debate regarding the identity of the sitter depicted in both these painting has been had over the course of time.[9]

Both the Soule and Hever portraits display striking similarities to the Philip Portrait, especially in terms of the face pattern used by the artist. Both paintings also display a similar costume as that depicted in both the Philip and Clopton portraits.  The sitter in the Hever Portrait is also shown holding what appears to be a pair of gloves which again is seen in the Clopton Pattern.  The hoods worn by the sitter do appear to be similar in style, however the hood worn in the Philip portrait is of a different colour and a billament of goldsmith work and pearls has been added.   

Left: The Hever Portrait © Hever Castle, Kent Middle: Philip Portrait (detail) ©Private Collection Right: The Soule Portrait ©Private Collection

In preparation for the publication of his book A Queen of a New Invention Portraits of Lady Jane Grey/Dudley Historian, John Stephan Edwards complied intensive research into both the Soule and Hever Portrait’s.  As the Philip portrait had never actually been associated with Lady Jane Grey, Edwards was noted not to mention this copy in his book   During his research, both the Hever and Soule paintings underwent dendrochronology testing, and it was again established that both portraits dated to the late 1550’s. Edwards also suggests the theory that both the Hever and Soule portraits derive from an earlier, finer detailed painting known as Berry-Hill portrait and that all depict the same individual.  Unfortunately, the Berry-Hill portrait is currently listed as lost and was last seen in 1956, when it was purchased by the Berry-Hill Galleries, New York. Edwards rules out the identification of the sitter being that of Elizabeth in favour of Lady Catherine Grey. During his research he notes that no other potential sitter had been discussed and that the possibility of the portrait representing Elizabeth would have been of greater interest to potential buyers.[10]

The Berry-Hill Portrait
Unknown Lady
Oil on Panel
12 5/8 x 9 Inches
© Metropolitan Museum of Art

Roy strong was also noted to refer to the portraits as ‘Borderline cases’ in terms of fitting in with other iconography relating to the young Queen Elizabeth in his 1963 book, and it perhaps these painting in which Strong refers to on viewing the Philip portrait in the 1970’s . Many illuminated documents relating to the first period of her reign have also been discussed when suggesting Elizabeth as the possible sitter in the Berry-Hill, Soule and Hever Portrait’s. Though yes, some similarities can be seen in these manuscript illustrations It must be remembered that the figures of monarchs created on these documents were meant to be a representation and not a direct likeness. [11]

The first pictorial image we have available today, relating to the period when Elizabeth first ascended to the throne is an illustration produced on a document related to the Michaelmas Celebrations of 1558.  This illustration has been associated with artist Levina Teerlinc and in this, the figure of Elizabeth is inconsistent with the figure depicted in the Philip portrait.  The young Queen is not, yet, crowned and is depicted with the crown suspended above her head.  Her face is turned to the viewers left and, on her head, she wears a black French hood similar in style to that worn by her sister, during her reign.

Detail: 1558 Michaelmas Document
Queen Elizabeth I
© The National Archives, UK

A small number of other illuminated manuscripts produced after Elizabeth’s Coronation in 1559, are, again, all associated with Levina Teerlinc, show an image of the full-frontal young queen, with a small figure-of-eight ruff surrounding her face, very similar to that seen in the Philip, Berry Hill, Soule and Hever portraits.  This may suggest that there was some sort of full-frontal pattern produced of the young Queen which may have been the initial source for these representations during the early part of her reign.

Selection of Early Illuminated documents showing the Full-Frontal Image of Elizabeth as Queen.
© The National Archives, UK

It is my theory that the Clopton portrait type did, in fact, evolve from an earlier image depicting the young Princess Elizabeth, placed full-frontal like that seen in the Berry-Hill, Soule and Hever portrait’s.  The Philip portrait appears to sit directly in the middle of both the Berry-Hill and Clopton portraits, and it could be argued that Clopton portrait was an altered version of the Philip portrait.  The x-ray of Philip Mould’s copy, which shows a slightly altered full-frontal version beneath the painted surface only strengthens this claim.

It may also be possible that the Philip portrait was in turn a ‘pimped up’ version of the Berry-Hill portrait, created by an artist from an early portrait, possibly taken when Elizabeth was still Princess, to make Elizabeth look more regal due to a lack of access to the new Queen and a high demand for her image. If indeed all the sitters in the Berry-Hill, Soule and Hever portrait are the same individual then this would most defiantly tip the scales towards them all depicting Elizabeth.  It could also be argued that 1563 proclamation refers to the Philip and Berry-Hill type rather the Clopton pattern. If Stephan Edwards theory is correct, and the Berry-Hill portrait is the earliest example then there does appear to be a dramatic decline in artistic detail with the subsequent later copies. The 1563 proclamation may possibly be the reason why so fewer copies exist of the full-frontal pattern.  Further research and discussion is most definitely needed into this small group of portraits to identify once and for all if there is any possible connection to Queen Elizabeth and the true identity of the sitter in the Berry-Hill portrait.

UPDATE: 16th November 2021

After being missing for over a decade, the Berry-Hill portrait has finally resurfaced and is due to be sold by Butterscotch Auctioneers, Bedford Village, New York. The sale is to take place on Sunday 21st November at 10am. Item 209 is listed as a portrait of Mary Queen of Scots from a private collection in Scarsdale, New York.

The Berry Hill Portrait
Oil on Panel
12 1/2 x 9 inches

UPDATE: 22nd November 2021

Lot 209 sold for 120.000 dollar’s to an unknown buyer. The portrait was by far the most successful item in the auction and appeared to have sparked a lot of interest from potential buyers. Unfortunately, for now we will just have to wait and see if the new owner is willing to have the portrait scientifically tested to once and for all solve the riddle of the sitters identity.

Both myself and Stephan Edwards differ in opinion as to who the sitter is, however, this is not uncommon within the field of art history. Click the link below to view his most recent article on the Berry Hill portrait.

http://somegreymatter.com/berryhill.htm

[1] Philip. Richard, De-frocking a Flapper Girl, De-Frocking a Flapper Girl | Richard Philp, accesses June 2021

[2] Christie’s Auction Catalouge, Friday March 23rd 1979, lot 155, page 103

[3] Philip. Richard, De-frocking a Flapper Girl, De-Frocking a Flapper Girl | Richard Philp, accesses June 2021

[4] The Philip Portrait first appeared at Christie’s auction in March of 1979. It was subsequently sold again by Sotheby’s in December 2008.  Both catalogues for the sales list similarities between the Philip Portrait and other early iconography of Queen Elizabeth I.

[5]Arnold. Janet, The Coronation Portrait of Queen Elizabeth I, The Burlington Magazine, Vol.120, No. 908, Page 727. See also Golding. Elizabeth, Nicholas Hilliard Life of An Artist, Yale University Press, 2019, Page :244-247

[6] O’Donoghue. Freeman, A Descriptive and Classified Catalogue of Portraits of Queen Elizabeth, Dryden Press, 1894, Page ix-x

[7] NPG 4449; Queen Elizabeth I – conservation research – National Portrait Gallery, accessed July 2021

[8] Grosvenor. Bendor, Philip Mould Fine Paintings Catalogue, London 2010

[9] Edwards. John Stephan, A Queen of a New Invention The Portraits of Lady Jane Grey/Dudley, old John Publishing, Page: 157-167

[10] Edwards. John Stephan, A Queen of a New Invention The Portraits of Lady Jane Grey/Dudley, old John Publishing, Page: 157-167

[11] Strong. Roy, Portraits of Queen Elizabeth, Oxford Press, 1963, Page: 53-54

The Curious Case of Henry Grey’s Head

Until recently, I have avoided using social networking websites as I am always concerned how much personal information is, at times, unconsciously posted.  To complete the creation of my website, I once again thought I would challenge my beliefs and create an account on two of the more popular networking sites as a way of promoting my articles and to connect with people who share the same interests.

If anything, social media definitely brings people together.  During the month of February, it was nice to see how social media was used by many individuals as a way of commemorating the 466th anniversary of the execution of Lady Jane Grey, Guildford Dudley and Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk.

One post from a well-known Tudor history website sparked my memory and interest about a rather ghoulish and macabre relic with a supposed connection to Lady Jane Grey. The relic discussed was the supposed mummified head of Henry Grey discovered in the Church of Holy Trinity Minories, next to the Tower of London, during the nineteenth century.[1]

Supposed Head of Henry Grey

In a book published in 1889, Reverend Samuel Kinns tells the story that apparently Henry’s body was buried in the Chapel of St Peter after his execution.  However, his head was somehow smuggled out of the Tower and was buried in a vault at the Church of Holy Trinity Minories.

Kinns writes that Henry’s head was apparently discovered in 1851 by William Legge, 5th Earl of Dartmouth.  Legge was inspecting the vaults of his ancestors under the church, and according to reports, he discovered a basket in a small vault near the altar of the chapel.  On inspecting it, he noted that the basket was filled with sawdust, and it also contained the decapitated head of a male in a perfect state of preservation. [2]

The Church of Holy Trinity Minories was established from a nunnery that was surrendered to the Crown in 1539 during the Dissolution of the Monasteries.  The land and buildings were apparently given to Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk by King Edward VI in January 1552.  The nun’s chapel then became a parish church, and by 1706 the original church had fallen into disrepair and was rebuilt using brick material.  The upmost care and attention was given to keep as much of the church’s original features as possible. The church was eventually closed in 1899, and the building was eventually destroyed by bombing during World War II. [3]  

Church of Holy Trinity Minories

At thirty-six years old, Henry Grey was charged with high treason and executed on the morning of 23rd February 1554 for his involvement in Wyatt’s rebellion.  His final moments were documented in the book Chronical of Queen Jane and of Two Years of Queen Mary.  This book was thought to have been written by a resident at the Tower of London at that time, and it provides a detailed description of Henry Greys actions when on the scaffold.  What is most relevant in this description is that the writer informs us that, fortunately for Henry, his head was taken off with one stroke by the executioner. The entry stops with the fatal blow of the axe, and no other written account has survived to inform us exactly what happened to his body and head after this event. [4] 

As Samuel Kinns noted in his 1898 book, it is traditionally thought that Henry’s body was buried in the Chapel of St Peter Ad Vincula within the walls of the Tower of London. The Chapel of St Peter was not only used as a place of worship for residents of the Tower, but it was also a place where the bodies of those accused of treason and other crimes could be buried in great obscurity and simply forgotten about.   

Due to Henry’s high birth and status, it is thought that his body was probably buried somewhere on the left-hand side of the chancel, close to the altar, alongside his daughter and son-in-law. The altar was the focal point within a church, and people of high birth were buried close to this due to Christian belief and the hierarchy of the social order.  Documentation survives to inform us that other prominent figures of high social status also executed during the sixteenth century and buried in the Chapel of St Peter were buried close to the altar. 

1886 Plan Showing Probable Burial Spot For People of High Status

During restoration work on the Chapel between 1876 and 1877, the above plan, was made using contemporary descriptions to identify the most probable place of burial for some of the Tower’s most prominent victims. Henry, Jane and Guildford where all included on the above plan but, bones discovered during the work on the altar floor were not associated with any of them.

Bones showing signs of decapitation were discovered, and every effort was made to identify the specific individuals.[5]  These bones were eventually re-buried under elaborate marbles slabs detailing the possible identifications of the individuals, and a large white marble slab was placed at the front of the Chancel listing the names of victims buried in the chapel whose remains where unfortunately not identified.

Final Design For Memorial Slabs Commemorating Individuals Buried in The Chapel of St Peter Ad Vincula

The only contemporary documented information regarding the discovery of the head I have been able to locate is a book written in 1851.   In the same year the head was apparently discovered by William Legge the books writer, Reverand Thomas Hill, notes that

in the church is placed the head, taken from the body which evidently had suffered decapitation, although it is impossible to discover now the name of its possessor.[6] 

The above quote suggests that no other information was discovered alongside the head that could be used to positively identify the male and no mention of the heads association with Henry Grey is mentioned in this book.

In 1877, the head was examined by Dr Fredrick John Mouat, the same individual who also examined the bones found in the Chapel of St Peter during the 1876 restoration. He concluded that

The head was removed by rapid decapitation during life admits of no doubt. A large gaping gash, which had not divided the subcutaneous structures, shows that the first stroke of the axe was misdirected, too near the occiput, and in a slanting direction. The second blow, a little lower down, separated the head from the trunk below the fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae. The retraction of the skin, the violent convulsive action of the muscles, and the formation of a cup-like cavity with the body of the spinal bone at the base, prove that the severance was effected during life, and in cold weather.[7]

Dr Mount appears to have been very careful in his analysis not to put a name to the individual, though he is noted to report that the head was decapitated during life and that it took at least two blows to remove it from the body. 

On 17th March 1877, George Scharf, Director of the National Portrait Gallery, also viewed the decapitated head and took detailed drawings and notes in one of his sketchbooks.

George Scharf Sketchbook
© The National Portrait Gallery, London

Scharf is the first person I have been able to locate who actually documents the tradition that the head is supposed to be of Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk.  He also makes several notes recording the heads condition and that it was that of a person beyond the prime of his life. Scharf alsonotes the two cut marks seen at the base of the neck, but makes no mention that the two cut marks differ with the contemporary description of the execution of Henry Grey and that the signs of age are also inconsistent with the age of Henry Grey at the time of his death.[8]

Doyne Bell, a royal official who is recorded as being with Scharf at the same viewing, recalls that Scharf added ‘the arched form of the eyebrows and the aquiline shape of the nose, corresponds with the portrait engraved in Lodge’s series from a picture in the possession of the Marquis of Salisbury at Hatfield.[9] 

George Scharf’s own opinions regarding the similarities between the mummified head and portrait appears to have only strengthened the claim that the head was in fact that of Henry Grey, Duke of Suffolk.  The writer and artist Lord Ronald Sutherland-Gower was noted to have said that Scharf was

no better judge of an historical head, whether on canvas or in a mummified state, that ever existed.[10]

The story that the head was in fact smuggled from the Tower of London and buried within Holy Trinity Church appears to have surfaced from this.  I have been unable to locate any sixteenth century reference concerning the separated burial of Henry Grey’s head and body.  The only published material reporting this story appears after Scharf and others had viewed the head.

The portrait discussed by Scharf was exhibited on many occasions towards the end of the nineteenth century as a portrait of Henry Grey. The painting was engraved and published in Edmund Lodge’s Portraits of Illustrious Personages of Great Britain as Scharf notes. This book was published in 1814 and widely circulated. The National Portrait Gallery also purchased an identical copy of the same painting in 1867 which was again identified as Henry Grey.  

Robert Dudley
(previously identified as Henry Grey)
Oil on Panel
© The National Portrait Gallery, London

Modern research has now identified that this painting is in fact a portrait of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester painted in the 1570’s, debunking Scharf’s theory. 

It is my opinion that it needs to be remembered that the head was viewed and studied over one hundred years ago.  Yes, these individuals where in a prominent position to make an analysis at that time, using the scientific methods known at that time.  Today, with modern scientific methods, the riddle surrounding the identification of the head could possibly be solved once and for all.  Though difficult to obtain, DNA testing could be attempted on the head to identify any possible connection to Henry Grey if a living descendant could be found.  If a living descendant could not be found, then we do know the burial location of two of Henry’s daughters, though permission would have to be granted to allow the opening of the tombs.   

According to reports, the head was supposedly buried in the churchyard of St Botolph, Aldgate in 1990.  I have heard from an impeccable informant that this is not the case, and that the head is held in a safe and appropriate place, the location known to only a handful of people who need to know its whereabouts. If this is the case, then there is some possibility that this riddle could possibly be looked into further at some point in the future.[11] 

[1] My sincere thanks to Claire Ridgeway of the Anne Boleyn Files for reminding me about this.

[2] Kinns, Samuel, Historical sketches of eminent men and women who have more or less come into contact with the abbey and church of Holy Trinity, Minories, from 1293 to 1893, with some account of the incumbents, the fabric, the plate, 1898, page 182-184

[3] Kinns, Samuel, Historical sketches of eminent men and women who have more or less come into contact with the abbey and church of Holy Trinity, Minories, from 1293 to 1893, with some account of the incumbents, the fabric, the plate, 1898, page 139-184

[4] Nichols, J. G, The Chronicle of Queen Jane and of Two Years of Queen Mary and Especially of the Rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyatt, Written by a Resident in the Tower of London, Llanerch Publishers, 1850, page.63-64

[5] For further information on the restoration of the Chapel and the search and discovery of the bones of executed victims see: Bell, Doyne. C, Notices of The Historic Persons Buried in The Chapel of St. Peter Ad Vincula in The Tower of London, 1877.

[6] Hill. Rev. Thomas, The History of The Parish of Holy Trinity, Minories, London, 1851, page 16

[7] Bell. Doyne. C, Notices of The Historic Persons Buried in The Chapel of St. Peter Ad Vincula in The Tower of London, 1877, page 184-185

[8] Heinz Archive. NPG7/1/3/1/2/21, Trustees Sketchbook 1876-1877, page 17-20

[9] Bel. Doyne. C, Notices of The Historic Persons Buried in The Chapel of St. Peter Ad Vincula in The Tower of London, 1877, page 185

[10] Bell. Walter George, Unknown London, Page 13

[11] http://www.hobleysheroes.co.uk/round-ups-and-articles/la-round-ups/67-london-archaeologist-1990-vol-6-10 accessed March 2020.

The Skeffington Portrait

Research into sixteenth century portraiture is a complex but fascinating subject. In many cases, the search starts with the surviving painting itself and then continues with the search for any written documentation concerning its provenance and any clues to the possible identification of the sitter.

When discussing portraits that have a history of approximately four hundred and fifty years behind them, it must be remembered that it is hard today to discover a portrait that has not been altered in some shape or form.  Over the years the original painted surface of a portrait may have been repainted due to bad restoration or over cleaning.  Inscriptions and coats of arms may also have been added at a later period in time, and in some cases the composition, original inscriptions and signatures may have been cut down to enable the portrait to fit in a new frame.

In the case of the Skeffington portrait, much of the above has happened.  This portrait has also been identified as at least four separate individuals during its modern recorded history.  Three out of the four sitters suggested have all faced execution, and today the portrait is now identified as an unknown lady.  

Our first documented record regarding this portrait’s survival is a book in the collection of the Society of Antiquaries, London.  This book contains copies of minutes of meetings held by the society during the nineteenth century and records that a portrait thought to depict Lady Jane Grey was presented to the Society by Sir William Skeffington on 6th February 1806.[1]

The portrait presented depicts a lady, seen to just below the waist and facing the viewer’s left.  Both hands are clasped in front of the sitter, and four gold rings can be seen on her fingers.   The sitter has grey eyes and auburn hair that is parted in the middle.  On her head, she wears a French hood constructed of crimson and white fabric with both upper and lower billaments of goldsmith work.  A black veil is also seen hanging down from the back of the hood, and under this she wears a gold coif.  A black loose gown with a fur collar and mutton leg sleeves is worn by the sitter and is fastened to the waist.  Under this the hint of a crimson kirtle is seen, and at her neck and wrists the sitter wears a figure-of-eight ruff which is embroidered with red thread.  The lady also wears a pendant of goldsmith work containing three square cut gemstones and three pearls suspended at her neck.  She is depicted in front of a plain background, and the image is painted on wooden panel.

Unknown Lady Called Anne Askew
Oil on Panel
27 x 21 inches
Associated with Hans Eworth
©The National Trust

Sir William Farrell-Skeffington adopted the Skeffington name in 1786 and inherited the fifteenth century manor house Skeffington Hall in East Leicester.  Prior to his death he began to sell objects off from the estate and eventually sold the house, land and contents in July 1814.[2]

Skeffington presented the painting for sale to the Reverend John Brand, Secretary of the society of Antiquaries. He informed the Society that the portrait represented Lady Jane Grey and was painted by Lucas de Heere.  No information is provided in the minutes of this meeting to inform us why Skeffington thought the portrait was a depiction of Lady Jane, and no information concerning the paintings provenance was recorded.  It appears that Mr Brand immediately challenged Skeffington’s identification as a painting of Jane Grey, noting that a fragment of an inscription can be seen on the top left-hand side of the panel surface which identified the date that the portrait was painted as 1560.  Brand rightfully recalled that the date painted on the surface did not coincide with the death of Lady Jane Grey and suggested that the portrait must in fact represent Jane’s mother Lady Frances Brandon, with Brand noting that she died in 1563.[3]   

One possible reason for the misidentification as a portrait of Lady Jane Grey is the inscription seen on the right-hand side of the panel surface.  This inscription reads ‘Rather deathe / than false of Faythe,’ which suggest that the sitter depicted would rather die or may possibly have died as a result of religious conflict.  The inscription itself appears to have been painted in a slightly different shade of yellow than the other one detailing the year and artists initials on the left side.  This suggests that one of the inscriptions was possibly added at a later date, though scientific testing would be required to establish if this theory is correct.

There is a popular tradition that Queen Mary offered Jane a pardon if she was willing to convert to Roman Catholicism. The tradition appears to have emerged shortly after Jane’s death as a way for Protestants to promote Jane’s dedication to the Protestant cause even when faced with death.  There is no surviving evidence to document that Jane was ever offered an actual pardon if she would convert, but there was indeed an effort made to get her to convert

Jane was visited by John Feckenham, Queen Mary’s personal chaplain, on 8th Feburary 1554.  By this point in her story, Jane had faced trial and had been convicted and sentenced to death as a traitor for accepting the crown and signing herself as queen. Mary was prevented from issuing a pardon because the Spanish demanded that Jane die as a condition of the marriage between Mary and Philip of Spain. Her execution had originally been set for the following day.  Mary was able to try to save Jane’s immortal soul, however, and she sent Feckenham to see Jane with that specific task, to try and convert Jane to Catholicism prior to her death.

Jane’s execution was postponed for three days, and a debate was had between Feckenham and Jane which resulted in Jane staying strong to the Protestant faith rather than relinquishing it.  This debate was recorded and apparently signed in Jane’s own hand. Within months of her death it appeared in printed format, along with a letter written by Jane to her former tutor Thomas Harding in which she condemned him for his change to Catholicism, thus promoting Jane’s strong belief in the Protestant faith.  In 1615, a pamphlet entitled ‘The Life, Death and Actions of The Most Chaste, Learned and Religious Lady, The Lady Jane Grey’ was published in London. This pamphlet contained a copy of the earlier printed debate and it was noted in the introduction that:

Even those which were of the best fame and reputation, were sent unto her to dissuade her from that true profession of the gospel, which from her cradle she had held. Each striving by art, by flattery, by threatening’s, by the promise of life, or what else might move most in the bosom of a weak woman.[4] 

It is quite possible that the inscription seen on the right-hand side of the portrait and the myth that Jane had been offered the promise of a pardon if she was willing to change her faith led Skeffington or a previous owner to believe that the painting must in fact depict Jane Grey. 

The Skeffington portrait was purchased by the Society of Antiquaries and remained in their collection where it was last recorded in 1847.[5]   How the portrait left the Society remains a bit of a mystery, but it was officially recorded as a ‘missing painting’ in one of the more recent publications on its collection.[6]

As discussed above, the portrait disappeared sometime after 1847, but it reappeared again in 1866 when it was exhibited as a painting of Anne Askew in the National Portraits Exhibition from the collection of a Reginald Cholmondeley.[7]  Reginald Cholmondeley’s principal estate was the sixteenth century Condover Hall in Shrewsbury.   On his death the contents of the Hall were sold at auction on March 6th 1897.  The identification of the sitter appears to have changed once again, and by 1897 the portrait was then referred to as:

Item 43. Lucas de Heere, Queen Mary (of Scots), in black with pink-edged ruff and cuffs, cap with gold chain and jewelled badge. Inscribed “Rather Deathe than false of Faythe,” dated 1560.

The portrait was purchased at this auction on behalf of Wilbraham Egerton, Earl Egerton, brother-in law of Reginald Cholmondeley, and was then displayed at Tatton Park.  In 1958 Tatton Park and its contents were bequeathed to The National Trust by Maurice Egerton, 4th Baron Egerton of Tatton, and the portrait remains on exhibition there today. 

It is my opinion that until scientific investigation has taken place on this portrait to establish if the inscriptions are original or added later then the true identity of its sitter may continue to be unknown.   The portrait is currently listed today on The National Trust collections website as an Unknown Lady, called Anne Askew.  As discussed in detail in other articles on this website, the size of the ruff worn by the sitter and the date inscribed on the left- hand side are both inconsistent with the date of both the deaths of Jane Grey and Anne Askew.  The Skeffington portrait can now be removed from the list of any potential likenesses thought to depict Lady Jane Grey

[1] Proceedings of the society of antiquaries of London, volume 1, page 47

[2] A large fifteen-day sale of the contents of Skeffington Hall commenced on 11th July 1814.  William Ferrell-Skeffington moved to London that same year however died less than a year later on 26th January 1815

[3] Proceedings of The Society of Antiquaries of London, vol 1, page 47. John Band appears to have inaccurately listed the date of Frances Grey’s death.  Frances died on 20th November 1559 and not 1563 as listed in these minutes. One interesting point is that John Brand also owned a portrait thought to depict Lady Jane Grey.  The portrait sold on his death at Stewards Auctions, Piccadilly on June 23rd 1807.  It was purchased by the book collector Richard Heber Esq for the sum of eight pounds.  No portrait described as Lady Jane Grey appears in the sales catalogues of Heber’s collection.

[4] The Life, Death and Actions of The Most Chaste, Learned and Religious Lady, The Lady Jane Grey, Printed by G. Eld for John Wright, 1615, page 22

[5] Electronic communication, Lucy Ellis, Museums Collections Manager, Society of Antiquaries, September 2018

[6] Franklin. J. A, Catalouge of Paintings in the Collection of The Society of Antiquaries of London, 2015, page 411-412

[7] Catalogue for the 1866 National Portrait Exhibition page 21.  Anne Askew was burnt as the stake as a heretic in 1546 for refusing to acknowledge that the sacrament was the ‘flesh, blood and bone of Christ’.

The Crozier Portrait – Is It Lost?

In his book A Queen of a New Invention Portraits of Lady Jane Grey Stephan Edwards discussed a portrait recorded in the collection of Robert Crozier and once thought to depict Lady Jane Grey.  Edwards added this particular painting in the appendix section which lists a number of portraits once associated with Lady Jane Grey that have over the years vanished from public knowledge.  His entry concerning the Crozier portrait reads as follows: 

The painter Robert Crozier of Manchester owned a bust-length portrait of Jane on wood panel that was recorded in 1857, but it too has vanished.[1]

Edwards also records that the existence of this painting is only known through a collection of index cards held in the Heinz Archive and Library at The National Portrait Gallery.  These cards contain details of portraits listed under various sitters that have been reported to The National Portrait Gallery over the course of 150 years by various researchers.  A small number of these cards are filed under the sitter’s name of Lady Jane Grey at the archive, and this does include a portrait on panel thought to have depicted Jane Grey in the collection of a R. Crozier.  

Robert Crozier was born in Blackburn, Lancashire in 1815, son of George Crozier, a saddler. Robert moved to Manchester in 1836 and remained there for the rest of his life. He attended the Manchester School of Design in 1838 and studied portraiture under William Bradley. His work was exhibited at the Royal Manchester institution and The Royal Academy of Arts during the nineteenth century, and he was one the founders of the Manchester Academy of Fine Arts, set up in 1859. Crozier died at his family home in Manchester on 7th February 1891[2]

The index card concerning the Crozier portrait discussed by Edwards also notes that the portrait was seen by Sir George Scharf, director of The National Portrait Gallery between 1857 to 1895, and is recorded in one of his sketchbooks.  George Scharf was a prolific sketcher and produced hundreds of sketchbooks containing notes and drawings of portraits and exhibition seen by him over the course of his career.  Today, these sketchbooks are held in the Heinz Archive and Library at The National Portrait Gallery and are listed under two separate heading.  The first are his private sketchbooks which contain various notes and drawings from his personal life including images of paintings and exhibitions seen by himself. The second are known as Trustee sketchbooks which contain notes and images concerning paintings and research related to the gallery made during the course of his directorship.

During my last visit to the Archive, I managed to get the opportunity to view some of Scharf’s private sketchbooks.  Unfortunately, the original sketchbooks are closely guarded due to the significance of these items, however the Gallery have made copies on microfilm for public viewing.  During my search I was able to locate the actual entry in which Scharf discussed the portrait thought to depict Lady Jane Grey from the collection of Robert Crozier.  Scharf produced a two-page spread on which he records the date in which he viewed the portrait as 28th February 1887 and the name and address of the owner as Robert Crozier of 47 Sydney Street, Oxford Road, Manchester. He also produced a detailed drawing of the actual painting and made several notes concerning the size, materials used, and colours seen upon viewing it.[3]

Upon seeing this entry, I must admit I instantly became a little confused and called a member of staff from the archive over to discuss what I was seeing.  The drawing made by Scharf in February 1887, appeared to be a perfect match to NPG764, purchased by The National Portrait Gallery in March of that same year.  My initial thought was that the Crozier portrait must in fact be NPG764 and that there may possibly have been some mix-up with the provenance of the painting when the Gallery purchased it.  Further research into NPG764 and the way both portraits had been catalogued in the archive initially suggest the possibility that they were two separate paintings.

Scharf also notes the size of the oak panel on which the Crozier portrait was painted as 6 ¼ inches in diameter.  When compared to NPG764 which is 6 ½ inches in diameter, the Crozier portrait appears to be slightly bigger, if Scharf’s measurements are correct.  This and the provenance information for NPG764 suggests that Scharf was actually viewing two separate painting of the same individual in the February of 1887.

Sketch of the Crozier Portrait
George Scharf
1887
©National Portrait Gallery

For every portrait within The National Portrait Gallery’s collection, The Gallery maintain an individual file known as a Registered Packet.  These files contain all the relevant information concerning the provenance, condition and in some cases x-rays and dendrochronology testing that has taken place on an individual painting. 

The file for NPG764 clearly states that this portrait was purchased from a Miss Amelia Coulton in the March of 1887 for the sum of £20.00.  The file also contains several letters, mostly written by Mr George Wallis, Director of the South Kensington Museum, though some from Amelia Coulton herself to George Scharf.  These letters give us a little information regarding the provenance of NPG764 and report that Amelia Coulton was under the impression that her father had purchased it as a painting of Mary I by Hans Holbein at a broker’s shop in Stalybridge.  She also recalls the tradition that the painting had come from Ashton Old Hall and that the portrait had been in her father’s possession for approximately twenty to thirty years prior to her inheriting it which suggest the earliest period of purchase by the Coulton family would have been the 1850’s.[4]

NPG764
Unknown Woman Formally Known as Lady Jane Grey
Oil on Panel
6 1/2 inches in diameter
©National Portrait Gallery

No mention of an individual portrait owned by Robert Crozier has been located within the registered packet for NPG764, and as discussed above the only documented evidence for its existence is the index card and Scharf’s sketchbook.[5]  Nothing is known regarding the provenance of this image or how, if and when Crozier purchased his portrait.  A thorough search of the Heinz Archive has also produced no other photographic image matching NPG764. [6]

It appears that The National Portrait Gallery used the existence of a similar, but not identical portrait thought to depict Jane Grey as the focal point of its re-identification of NPG764 as a painting of Jane Grey.  This then brings about the question as to why the Crozier portrait, which was also known as Jane Grey, was not used by the Gallery in 1887 to reinforce the theory that NPG764 was also Lady Jane Grey?

A letter written by George Wallis and dated 25th February 1887, two day before Scharf viewed the apparent Crozier Portrait, is again stored within the registered packet for NPG764. This letter discusses the similarities between the portrait in the collection of Amelia Coulton, and a portrait thought to depict Lady Jane Grey in the collection of the Bodleian Library, Oxford.   Wallis discussed that the Bodleian portrait had a long history as a portrait of Lady Jane Grey and that the Bodleian portrait is ‘a very ugly edition of the same person’.[7]  Part of this is in fact correct, as the Bodleian portrait was gifted to Oxford University by Richard Rawlinson in 1751 and information concerning the sitter’s identity was handed over to the University by Rawlinson himself.[8]

The Bodleian Portrait
Called Lady Jane Grey
Oil on Panel
11 ½ x 14 inches
©Bodleian Library Oxford

One possible reason for the Crozier portrait not appearing in any information concerning NPG764 is that it was simply forgotten about or did not exist in the first place. Another more probable reason is that letters written to Amelia Coulton held in the registered packet for NPG764 list her address as 47 Sidney Street, Oxford Road, Manchester, the same address in which Robert Crozier is listed as living.  Amelia Coulton actually lived at 22 Whitley Street, Manchester and it appears that she may have used Robert Crozier to sell the portrait on her behalf. 

It is more than likely that Scharf listed the incorrect individual as the owner of the portrait in his sketchbook rather than Crozier owning another identical portrait in his own collection.  If the second theory is correct, then the Crozier portrait is no longer lost and has been hanging in front of our faces all along at The National Portrait Gallery.  

[1] Edwards. John Stephan, A Queen of a New Invention Portraits of Lady Jane Grey, Old John Publishing, 2015, page 190

[2] For further information of the life of Robert Crozier see: Letherbrow. Thomas, Robert Crozier A Memoir, JE Cornish, Manchester 1891

[3] NPG7/3/4/2/129, George Scharf Sketchbook 1886-1887

[4] See National Portrait Gallery, Registered Packet764

[5] A search of the electronic archive of Manchester University containing the personal papers of Robert Crozier has proven to be unsuccessful in producing any information concerning a portrait of Lady Jane Grey.

[6] A small Victorian copy referred to as oil on board 17 x 13 cm was sold at Cheffins Auction on 23rd May 2019 however this was painted square panel rather than circular as Scharf describes.

[7] Letter from George Willis to George Scharf, 25th February 1887, Registered Packet NPG764

[8] Bodleian Library Records, e.556, books fetched for readers 1848-1855