The Dulwich Portrait of Anne Boleyn

Stored within the large collection of paintings at the Dulwich Picture Gallery, London, and currently on long-term loan to Strawberry Hill House, is a rather unique collection of portraits depicting seventeen Kings and Queens of England. Today, the Dulwich Portrait set is one of the largest sets of portraits, depicting English Monarchs to survive. However, it has received little attention when it comes to the literature concerning the production of portraits sets during the latter part of the sixteenth and early seventeenth century. In this article, we take a brief look at the history of the Dulwich set, examine its formation and possible sources. We will also take an in depth look at the portrait of Anne Boleyn and try to identify its role in relation to her iconography.

The Dulwich Picture Set
© The Dulwich Picture Gallery

Though, not necessarily known for their artistic quality, the Dulwich Picture set brings with it the unique documentation that allows us to see how and when this collection of portraits was bought. Originally purchased as a set of twenty-six portraits, all close in size, and, unified visually by the depiction of a blue skyline and a draped curtain in the background. The collection was bequeathed in its entirety to the Dulwich College by its founder Edward Alleyn in 1626.[1]

Born on 1^st September 1566, Edward Alleyn was an English Actor who achieved ‘celebrity status’ in Elizabethan England. In 1592, he married Joan Woodward, daughter of Philip Henslowe, Groom of the Chamber. Alleyn and Henslowe would eventually go into business together and Alleyn would eventually become sole proprietor of several playhouses, bear pits and other rental properties across London. This made Alleyn a wealthy man, and on 25^th October 1605, he purchased the manor of Dulwich, made up of 1500 acres of land and farms from Sir Francis Calton and began to build the College. Completed on 1^st September 1616, God’s Gift College, as it was originally named, was granted a Royal Patent from King James I and, today, is more famously known as the Dulwich College.[2]

Though no inventory survives detailing the collection of Edward Alleyn, the college does have his original diary/account book in its collection. This account book details his expenditure and daily activities between the years of 1617 to 1622, and it offers the unique insight into the purchase and trade of paintings in seventeenth century England. It also shows us the exact sequence in which Alleyn purchased his portrait set of Kings and Queens of England and how much he paid for them.

In an entry written 29^th September 1618, Alleyn records that he spent 200 pounds and bought the first set of paintings. This entry notes that Alleyn started his set by purchasing the portraits of James I, Elizabeth I, Mary I, Edward VI, Henry VIII and Henry V.[3] Just nine days later on 8^th October, Alleyn returned to purchase another eight portraits of Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III and Henry VII, thus extending the sequence back to King Edward III.[4] A gap of almost two years is noted within the account book before Alleyn returned to purchase more paintings. On 25^th September 1620, Alleyn purchases the portraits of Edward II, Edward I, Henry III, Richard I and Henry II. [5] He again returns one last time to complete his set on 30^th September 1620, and purchases the portraits of Henry I, Stephan, William I, William II, the Black Prince, and Anne Boleyn. [6]

Alleyn’s handwritten account for the purchase of the portrait of Anne Boleyn
© Dulwich College, London

By the early seventeenth century, when Alleyn was purchasing his set of Kings and Queens, it had become relatively common for people of wealth to purchase paintings or engravings of political, religious, or influential figures. Artists workshops of the period were producing portrait sets of various qualities, quickly, with much focus on the authentic image and detail. These paintings were not only to decorate the home, but to also demonstrate loyalty to a specific cause. Today, only a small selection of portrait sets have survived, in some sort of entirety, however, many single paintings, which were once part of a set are now scattered among collections around the world. The publication of a variety of books containing written text and images of historical figures from many different sources began to be published in large quantities during the second half of the sixteenth century, and single-sheet engraved portraits were also becoming widely available for people of less income to collect and artists to copy.

Alleyn’s account book is unclear as to whether he purchased the set for his own home or to be displayed at the college, however, both places would have been a suitable dwelling for the set to achieve the impact it was designed for. It also needs to be remembered that around the time of purchasing the set, Alleyn was trying to obtain a Royal Patent for his college.

The surviving portraits of the Tudor Monarchs in the Dulwich set appear to be based on portraits completed by Holbein, Scrots and Antonis Mor, who as we know were all employed by the crown to produce an authentic likeness of the sitter. This demonstrates that the artist/artists who created the set were indeed looking and gaining access to authentic images of the more recent monarchs.

The surviving portraits of some of the earlier monarchs, from William the Conqueror up to Henry IV, show a close relationship in pose and detail to a set of engraved portraits by Renold Elstrack, published in Henry Holland’s ‘Baziliologia’ in 1618. The portrait of Henry V, purchased by Alleyn during his first shopping spree in the September of 1618, also appears to be based on the image printed in ‘Baziliologia’, which suggest that the workshop had obtained a copy of this book, or at least a single sheet containing the image of Henry V early in its publication.

Far Left: Elstrack engraving of William II Left: Dulwich Copy Right: Elstrack engraving of Henry V Right: Dulwich Copy
© Public Domain

We do not know the specific reasons as to why Alleyn opted to wait two years to purchase further portraits of the earlier English Monarchs. It is highly unlikely that this was due to a lack of source material or that he had to wait for them to be painted. At 6s 8d each, the paintings were not an expensive purchase for Alleyn, and money does not appear to be an issue as his account book demonstrates that he made larger purchases between buying the initial portraits of the more recent monarchs and completing the set in 1620. It may just be possible that he simply made the decision to extend the set further back and opted to revisit the seller years later to achieve this.

Alleyn died on 25^th November 1626, without any children, and left ‘hangings and pictures’ to the college in his will. The college later received a further bequest of two hundred and thirty-nine pictures from the actor William Cartwright, and it was then decided to put the entire collection on public exhibition. During the eighteenth century, the collection was displayed on the upper floor of the old college, however, by this point in time many of the portraits appear to have been in a state of disrepair. Art Historian Horace Walpole noted that the collection contained ‘a hundred mouldy portraits among apostle’s sibyls and kings of England’. The fact that the portraits received little attention in terms of conservation is possibly one of the reasons why the Dulwich portrait set is not complete today.[7]

Anne Boleyn
Oil on Panel
22 3/8 x 16 5/8 inches
© The Dulwich Picture Gallery

In terms of the portrait of Anne Boleyn, it is currently one of three portraits depicting Anne that has remained in the same collection for a long period of time and has not been separated from its original set.

As we have seen with many other portraits in the study, the Queen is seen painted to just below the bust and is facing the viewers left. Anne is no longer placed in front of a plain background, and in accordance with the rest of the set, she is depicted in front of a curtain. Painted with the use of green pigment, the curtain is covering a window and seen under this is the inscription ‘ANN. BOLEYN.’ Anne wears her familiar French Hood on her head, constructed of black fabric with an upper billament showing thirty-nine pearls and a lower billament showing thirty-four pearls. Her gown is constructed with the same black fabric, cut square at the neck, and decorated with eighteen ouches and thirty-four pearls. Under this, she wears a shift of white fabric, also cut square at the neckline, however the familiar blackwork embroidery around the edge of this is missing. Around her neck, is a long strand of pearls with the now infamous ‘B’ Pendant hanging from them. Instead of the looped gold chain seen in the many other portraits of Anne, the artist has opted to depict another string of pearls. The portrait does appear to have been painted quickly, lacking some of the finer details, form and shadows seen in other copies.

Constructed with the use of three uneven vertical panels of oak, cut to create one rectangular panel measuring 22 3/8 inches by 16 5/8 inches. The panel reverse contains two early labels detailing the sitters name and a small number of old inventory numbers has also been chalked onto the back.[8]

Image showing the reverse of the portrait of Anne Boleyn
© The Dulwich Picture Gallery

The portrait has been painted with the use of oil paint; however, the painted surface is thin and much of the dark wood grain from the rough panel surface below is showing through and obstructing the original image. This can be seen on several portraits throughout the set, and would suggest that the images were painted quickly, with little time of effort put into preparing the panel surface for the paint application. As discussed above, the use of a pattern was used to create the image of Anne, and evidence of under-drawing in the face, hair and jewels is observed through the painted surface.

Close up image of the hairline showing evidence of under drawing.
© Dulwich Picture Gallery

As we have seen from the entries written by Alleyn in his account book, the portrait of Anne Boleyn is the only image of a royal consort to be produced for the Dulwich set. It could be possible that this was simply an overhang from the reign of her daughter, Elizabeth, however the fact that this was painted almost fifteen years after her death is a mystery, and we will never truly know the reasons why Alleyn opted to include her.

Henry Holland did include an engraved image of Anne Boleyn in his 1618 book ‘Baziliologia’. Anne is again noted to be the only consort to be depicted in the book, and this may possibly be one of the reasons why she is depicted in the set. The Dulwich image is, interestingly, not based on Elstrack’s engraving of Anne, even though we know with some certainty that the artist/artists who created this image had used the Baziliologia engravings for other images produced in the set. The exact reason why the artist opted to use the B Pattern image of Anne, over the Baziliologia image is unknown. It may just be possible that the B Pattern had already gained acceptance as an authentic image of the Queen by this point in time and the artist simply opted to use this over the other image produced in Baziliologia.

Baziliologia image of Anne Boleyn
Engraving
Renold Elstrack
© Public Domain

Unfortunately, the Baziliologia image of Anne created by Renold Elstrack has caused some debate over the course of time, as some art historians have argued that the engraving was possibly based on Holbein’s depiction of Queen Jane Seymour in the now lost Whitehall mural. The reason for this is that Anne is seen in the Elstrack engraving wearing similar jewellery and hood to that seen worn by Jane Seymour in the surviving copies of the Whitehall mural [9]

To me this theory has been accepted far too easily, and there are another two images of Anne Boleyn which in my opinion are closely related to the Elstrack engraving. Both depict Anne wearing an English Gable Hood, and both are identifiable by the use of the monogram AR. The first of these is known today as ‘The Moost Happi’ medal which is stored in the collection of the British Museum, London. Thought to have been struck during Anne’s lifetime for the expected birth of her second child in the autumn of 1534, it features an image of the Queen with her face seen in three- quarter view, like that seen in the Elstrack engraving. Unfortunately, the medal has sustained some damage to the nose at some point in its history, however, enough does remain untouched to establish some sort of face pattern. The sitter depicted has a long-oval face, high cheek bones, a strong chin, and perhaps, a prominent nose. She also wears a large cross attached to her necklace, which again is noted in the Elstrack engraving.

The Moost Happi Medal
Anne Boleyn
1534
© British Museum, London

Unfortunately, little documentation has survived in terms of the household accounts of Anne Boleyn, and no complete Jewel inventory has, yet, surfaced to give us an in-depth view of the specific items held in her collection. Dr Nicola Tallis has recently published a fantastic book in which she takes a fresh look at what is known today as the ‘Queen’s Jewels’. In this, Tallis gives a unique insight into what is currently known about the personal jewellery belonging to Anne Boleyn and demonstrates how a collection of royal Jewels was passed down by Henry VIII to his wives. Tallis also notes that we do have at least three miniature portraits depicting Catherine of Aragon, Jane Seymour and Katheryn Parr wearing a similar cross to that seen in the Moost Happi medal and the Elstrack engraving, which does suggest that Anne Boleyn could have had access to one as part of the Queen’s Jewels.[10]

The second image is a panel portrait, formally in the collection of Nidd Hall, and now in a private collection. This image displays the Queen wearing and English Gable Hood, her face is three-quarter view, and once again she has that characteristic long-oval shaped face, high cheekbones, strong nose, and the firm chin as that seen in the Moost Happi medal and Elstrack’s engaging. Unfortunately, to date the Nidd Hall portrait has not undergone any scientific investigation to establish if the engraving could be based on this pattern or vice versa. [11]

The Nidd Hall Portrait
Anne Boleyn
Sixteenth Century
Oil on Panel
© Private Collection

It could also be argued that the woman depicted in the Nidd Hall portrait has similar features to that seen in the B Pattern portrait, and this could be a more mature representation of the same individual. As with the many portraits associated with Anne Boleyn, until a chronological date pattern is established, we will never know for certain, and cannot rule out the fact that one could be an authentic image.

Far Left: Hever Rose Portrait Left: Radclyffe Portrait Middle Rawlinson Portrait Right: Kentwell Portrait Far Right: Dulwich Portrait
© Public Domain

An overlay of the Dulwich and Hever Portrait

What is most intriguing about the Dulwich portrait of Anne Boleyn is that it appears to be the closest in comparison to the Rawlinson, Radclyffe, Kentwell, and Hever Rose Portrait. As discussed in my previous articles, two distinctive patterns appear to have been used when creating images of Anne Boleyn. It is highly likely that the pattern used to create these four portraits was also used to create the Dulwich copy, however the artist opted to leave the hands and rose out of this version. The depiction of the Jewels and pearls are rendered with a much less refined technique than that seen in the Hever Rose, Radclyffe, and Rawlinson version, which suggests that these examples could possibly be earlier versions, however, this will not be known for sure until one of the copies has been dendrochronologically tested. I have heard from a reliable source that the Hever Rose portrait is due to have this scientific procedure completed, so all the Anne Boleyn community are currently waiting in anticipation of these results.

[1] Though Alleyn purchased a portrait of James I to be included as part of this set, the portrait of James which is in the collection today appears to be of a finer quality than that seen in portraits of the earlier monarchs. Some further research is required to establish if this was indeed the original portrait purchased by Alleyn or a later copy that has been adapted in style to correspond with the rest of the paintings.

[2] G. F. Warner. The Manuscripts and Muniments of Alleyn’s College of God’s Gift at Dulwich, 1881, p. V-IIV

[3] Dulwich College, London. MSS 9,32r, Diary and Account Book of Edward Alleyn, September 29^th, 1617, to October 1^st, 1622. 29^th September 1618 ‘bought 6 pictures of K J(ames): Q E(lizabeth): Q M(ary): K E(dward VI): K H(enry) ye 8^th and K H(enry) ye 5^th’

[4] As above, ‘8 pictures off E(dward) ye 3: R(ichard) ye 2: H(enry) ye 4: H(enry) ye 6: E(dward) ye 4: E(dward) ye 5: R(ichard) ye 3: H(enry) ye 7.’

[5] As Above: ’25 September 1620 Bought 6 heds of E(ward) ye 2/ E(dward) ye 1/ H(enry) ye 3/ Jo(hn)/ Ri(chard) ye 1/ H(enry) ye 2/ Paid 6s 8d a peec’ .

[6] As Above. 30^th September 1620 ‘paid for six heds of H(enry) ye 1^st: Steven: W(illiam): Rufus: W(Illiam) conquer: black prince: an of bullen’

[7] The Athenaeum Magazine, Volume 1630, January 22^nd, 1859. P. 112

[8] My sincere thanks to the Dulwich Picture Gallery for providing me with an image of the back of the panel and the condition report for the portrait of Anne Boleyn.

[9]Philip Mould Ltd, Lost Faces Identity and Discovery in Tudor Royal Portraiture, 6-18^th March 2007, Page: 80

[10] Tallis, Nicola. All The Queen Jewels 14-45 – 1545 Power, majesty and Display, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2023 p.136-138

[11] The Nidd Hall portrait has recently undergone some cleaning and restoration work, however, no dendrochronology testing has, as yet taken place.

Anne Boleyn & The Romney Portrait

A Tale of Too Many Thomas’s

The Romney Portrait
Anne Boleyn
Oil on Panel
10 inches in diameter
© Earl of Romney

The Romney Portrait is among a small group of paintings associated with the Iconography of Anne Boleyn which has rarely been seen or studied by any academic. Much has been written about NPG 668 and the Hever Rose Portrait, and in terms of a published image these two portraits tend to be the most popular when an illustration of Anne Boleyn is provided.

The Romney portrait has made a few public appearances. It was first exhibited in 1890, when it was featured among eight other portraits supposedly depicting Anne Boleyn in the New Gallery, ‘Royal House of Tudor Exhibition.’[1] The portrait appeared again in 1902, when it was displayed among portraits of other British Kings and Queens in the ‘Monarchs of Great Britain’ exhibition.[2]

According to tradition, the portrait has been in the collection of the descendants of the Wyatt family for over four hundred years and was claimed by members of the family to be an authentic likeness of the doomed queen. At first glance, everything appears to add up, and for the first time in this research we have a portrait with a long family tradition, inscription, and artists name, however, are things too good to be true?

Painted with the use of oil on a singular wooden panel, the portrait depicts the image of Anne Boleyn, which over the course of time has become ingrained in the mind of any viewer familiar to her story. The Queen is seen painted to just below the bust, facing the viewers left, and is placed in front of a plain dark background. On her head, she wears the French Hood constructed of black fabric with eighty-eight pearls visible. Her gown is constructed with the same black fabric, cut square at the neck, and decorated with twenty-four ouches and forty-three pearls set in gold. Under this, she wears a shift of white fabric, also cut square, with blackwork embroidery around the edge. Around her neck is a gold chain and a long strand of pearls with the now infamous ‘B’ Pendant hanging from them.

The Romney Portrait Reverse The Romney Portrait
© Earl of Romney

Generally, the portrait is in relatively good condition, however, surface dirt and discoloured varnish has obstructed the image slightly, and the portrait would most definitely benefit from having some restoration work completed. Some large areas of paint loss around the edge of the panel are also noted which may possibly suggest that the painting has been cut down at some point in time. A small area of lifting/flaking paint can also be seen above the sitters left breast.

As seen in the image above, the portrait contains an inscription completed in a yellow pigment. This informs the viewer that the sitter is ‘ANNE BOLEYN. B. 1507. BEHEADED 1536’ and that the artist is ‘LURAS CORNELLI.’

The association with Lucas Cornelli or Cornelisz de Kock, as he is better known, is a tricky one. Cornelisz was a Dutch painter born in Leyden in 1493, he is today one of the more obscure artists from the Tudor Court. According to the seventeenth century biographer, Karel Van Mander, Cornelisz moved to England with his wife and seven or eight children and was eventually employed by King Henry VIII as the Kings Painter.[3] Unfortunately, no work that can be reliably identified as being by his hand, has yet, surfaced and the exact date in which he arrived in England is unknown. A set of nineteen portraits depicting the office of constable of Queenborough Castle in Kent, was once associated with him during the eighteenth century. Today, this set is now known to date to the1590’s, and the association with Cornelisz was made due to the wrong interpretation of the monogram ‘LCP’ on one of the portraits.[4]

Having undertaken a large amount of research into the iconography of Lady Jane Grey, I am personally very sceptical when it comes to portrait inscriptions. I am only one hundred percent convinced when the inscription has undergone rigorous investigation to identify if the inscription is authentic to the artists hand or not.

Left: Thomas Wyatt the Elder Right: Thomas Wyatt the Younger
Oil on Panel
© Earl of Romney

Two further portrait’s depicting Thomas Wyatt the elder and his son Thomas Wyatt the younger, are also in the collection of the Earl of Romney. Both are of similar size and constructed with the use of a circular oak panel. Both also contain a similar inscription completed in yellow pigment as that seen in the Boleyn Portrait, and the portrait of Thomas Wyatt the elder is also associated with the artist Lucas Cornelli. Both these paintings contain an earlier inscription which indicates that all three portraits had inscriptions added to the outer area at a later period, rather than by the artist who created them.

Before we look at the provenance and documentation relating to the Romney portrait, we first need to take a brief look at the history of the Wyatt family and the properties associated with them. Allington Castle in Kent was the seat of the Wyatt family during the first half of the sixteenth century. It was purchased Sir Henry Wyatt as his principal residence in 1493, and the castle is less than twenty miles away from Anne Boleyn’s childhood home of Hever Castle. Much debate, myth and exaggeration has been had over the centuries as to the exact relationship between Thomas Wyatt the elder, son of Sir Henry Wyatt and Anne Boleyn. We do know for certain that both families knew of each other and most definitely mixed in the same circles. No record of a portrait of Anne Boleyn within the Wyatt family’s collection has yet surfaced, and no inventories listing the possessions at Allington Castle has survived. The castle remained within the Wyatt family until 1554, when it was confiscated by the Crown due to Thomas Wyatt the youngers involvement in the plot against Queen Mary I. His wife, Jane Hawte was left destitute after the execution of her husband, however, some of the Wyatt lands, not including Allington, were restored to her in 1555. In 1568, Allington Castle was granted by Queen Elizabeth I to John Astley, and it eventually passed through marriage into the hands of the Earls of Romney.

In 1570, Queen Elizabeth I restored further Wyatt lands, including Boxley Abbey and Wavering to Sir George Wyatt, son of Thomas and Jane Hawte. George became heir to all the Wyatt estates in that same year and he became fixated on the history associated with his family. He began a conscious effort to rehabilitate his family name and fortune by collecting family stories, papers, writing pamphlets, and he even wrote what would be the first biography on Anne Boleyn.[5]

On George Wyatt’s death in 1623, his collection of family memorabilia and the remaining Wyatt lands passed to his son Sir Francis Wyatt, then onto his son Edwin Wyatt in 1644.[6]

By 1725, we have our first piece of documented evidence concerning the Romney Portrait. This comes to us when the portrait was viewed and documented in the notebook of the eighteenth-century engraver and antiquary George Vertue. Vertue viewed the portrait on at least two separate occasions, and when seeing it he simply wrote a few lines noting that the portrait was:

‘In poss. Mr…. Wyatt in Charter House Yard. Picture of Q. Anne a Bolene. In a round (Frame) painted on Board.’

George Vertue’s Notebook detailing the viewing of the Romney Portrait of Anne Boleyn
© Public Domain

Thomas Wyatt, son of Edwin Wyatt, also presented the portrait, along with a small prayer book to the society of Antiquaries in 1725. This viewing is again documented, and notes taken at the time indicates that Thomas Wyatt believed the portrait to be ‘original’. Also documented is the tradition that Anne gave the prayer book on the day of her execution to a member of the Wyatt family.

There does appear to be a tradition that Margaret Wyatt, sister of Thomas Wyatt the elder, attended Anne Boleyn on that fateful day in 1536. This appears to stem from an early manuscript regarding the life of Thomas Wyatt the elder, copied and published in the eighteenth century by Thomas Gray. Sadly, we know very little about the ladies who served Anne in her final hours. Contemporary descriptions of this event do not provide the detail of their names, and if discussed at all then they are simply referred as ‘her ladies’, ‘her women’, or ‘four young ladies’. No description of Anne giving out gifts when on the scaffold is also known to exist and Sir George Wyatt makes no mention of the prayer book or Margaret Wyatt supporting Anne on the scaffold in his biography on Anne Boleyn.

Society of Antiquaries Notes on viewing the Romney Portrait and Wyatt Prayer Book © Public Domain

The direct Wyatt line died out in 1746, with the death of Thomas Wyatt, and it appears the small collection of family portraits and papers then passed to his aunt, Margareta, who was grandmother to the 1^st Earl of Romney. The painting continued to be passed down the Romney family line and today, the portrait hangs on the walls at Gayton Hall, seat of the Earl of Romney.[7]

As this article demonstrates, the tradition associated with the Romney portrait of Anne Boleyn appears to be a rather complex one, and although once claimed to be an authentic likeness, this is not exactly known for sure. None of the Romney portraits have undergone any scientific investigation or dendrochronology testing to establish a date of creation, and the portrait of Anne Boleyn has not been seen in public for over one hundred and twenty years. The portrait itself probably dates to the end of the sixteenth century when descendants of the earlier notorious Wyatt’s were attempting to restore the family fortunes and lift the association of treason which had been applied to family name.

One clue does support this theory, stored in the Wyatt papers is a rather curious tale concerning Thomas Wyatt the elder, documented toward the end of the sixteenth century by his grandson Sir George Wyatt. According to Sir George, he was informed of the story from two sources: ‘One a gentleman, a follower of Sir Thomas and another a Kinsman of his name.’ Sir George then goes on to document the tale noting that when in Rome, Thomas ‘Wyatt stopped at an inn to change horses. On the wall of his chamber Thomas drew a ’Maze and in it a Minotaur with a triple crown on his head, both as it were falling’ and above this he placed the inscription ‘Laqueus contritus est et nos liberate sumus’’[8]

The Wyatt Maze
Oil on Panel
© Earl of Romney

Once attached to the back of the Romney portrait of Thomas Wyatt the elder, was a separate panel painting depicting the image supposedly drew by Thomas on the wall of the inn. As George documents this story at a later period and notes that he was informed of this by two other individuals, it is highly likely that George Wyatt had this painting created himself. This would also suggest the possibility that George had some of the Family portraits, as well as the portrait of Anne Boleyn, copied from available images as a way of promoting his family history.[9]

If indeed all three portraits date towards the end of the sixteenth century it would be tempting to suggest that since a portrait of all three sitters was recorded in the collection of John, 1^st Baron Lumley in 1590, then it may just be possible that these portraits were used as the reference images for the Romney portraits. Unfortunately, until further examination is completed on the paintings, we will not know for certain the year in which all were create. However, since Sir George Wyatt went to much effort to rehabilitate the family name, it is highly likely that they all date to his lifetime.

[1] Exhibition of the royal house of Tudor : New Gallery (London, England) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive accessed 28/05/2023

[2] The monarchs of Great Britain and Ireland : Winter Exhibition, the New Gallery, 1901-2 : New Gallery (London, England) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive accessed 28.05.2023

[3] Het leven van Lucas Cornelisz. de Kock, Schilder van Leyden., Het schilder-boeck, Karel van Mander – dbnl, accessed January 2023

[4] Daunt Catherine, Portrait set in Tudor and Jacobean England, University of Sussex, 2015, Vol I, Page: 80 – 87

[5] Goeorge Wyatt’s book entitled ‘The Extracts from the Life of the Virtuous, Christian and Renowned Queen Anne Boleigne.’ Was published towards the end of the sixteenth century. 27 copies of the book were privately printed, and six copies are held in the British Library today.

[6] Edwin left his estate to his eldest son Francis, who died without children, leaving the estate to his brother, Richard, who also died without issue and was the last in this line of the Wyatt family. Richard left the land to a relative, Robert Marsham, Lord Romney (son of [Margaret] (Bosvile) Marsham.

[7] I am extremely grateful to the current Earl of Romney for providing me with the colour photographic images of this painting.

[8] Loades. David. The Papers of George Wyatt Esquire of Kent Son and Heir of Sir Thomas Wyatt the Younger, 1968, Royal Historical Society, PP: 28 – 29

[9] The Wyatt Maze is no longer attached to the back of the Thomas Wyatt portrait as it was removed at an earlier period and now hangs directly next to the portrait of Thomas Wyatt the elder.

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 6^th 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 19^th 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, 15^th 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 29^th 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

The Hever Rose Portrait

Co-authored & researched with Dr Owen Emmerson

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 15^th 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 6^thof 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, 1^st 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, 1^st 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, 6^th October 1937, page: 5

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