Category: History

The Hornby Anne Boleyn

NPG 4980 (15)
Anne Boleyn
Oil on Panel
22 ¼ x 17 3/8 inches
© National Portrait Gallery, London

NPG 668 is not the only portrait of Anne Boleyn owned by The National Portrait Gallery, London.  In 1974, the gallery purchased a set of sixteen portrait’s depicting Kings and Queens of England which also included a portrait of Anne.  Though inferior in technique, and artistic quality to that of the now infamous NPG 668, the Hornby portrait or NPG 4980 (15) as it is better known was undoubtably created with the use of the B Pattern.  

Executed with the use of oil on panel.  The panel support is constructed with the use of two oak boards, seven millimetres thick, and aligned vertically to create one panel measuring 22 ¼ x 17 3/8 inches. The portrait depicts the head and upper torso of an adult female, placed before a plain background with her head turned slightly towards the viewers left. Her face is long, oval in shape, with a high forehead. Her hair is straight in texture, parted in the centre, and pulled back over her ears, and placed under her coif of gold fabric. Her eyes are brown, heavy lidded, and are crooked in appearance. She has full pink lips, an aquiline nose, and her eyebrows are pronounced with a strong shape.  Anne is seen wearing her trademark French Hood, constructed of black fabric, ending just below the jawline, and the black veil is visible hanging down at the back.  An upper billament of thirty-nine white pearls is visible on the back of the hood, and a lower billament of thirty-one pearls is seen at the front of the hood. 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 string.  A chain constructed of loops of square goldsmith work is also seen at the neckline.  Anne wears a French Gown constructed with the use of black fabric, cut square at the neck, and a white chemise, embroidered with blackwork.  Sixteen square cut ouches, each containing a diamond, are attached to the neckline of her kirtle. A further sixteen ouches, constructed of goldsmith work, and five pearls, are also seen in between these.  The turned back sleeves of the French Gown are constructed of a brown fabric, rather than the fur sleeves seen in other depictions.

Detail showing inscription on panel surface.
© National Portrait Gallery, London

An inscription applied to the top of the panel in a yellow pigment identifies the sitter as ANNA. BOLLINA. VXOR. HENRICI. OCTAV or Anna Bollina wife of Henry Emperor. A handwritten label detailing The National Portrait Gallery registration number has also been applied to the back of the panel. No other inscriptions or labels are visible on the panel surface; however, it must be noted that the reverse of the panel was covered in a layer of balsa wood during early conservation treatment. I have been unable to obtain an image of the reverse of the panel prior to this treatment and I am unable to determine if any labels or further inscriptions lie below this.

Back of NPG 4980(15)
© National Portrait Gallery, London

When purchased by The National Portrait Gallery in 1974, the paintings had come from the collection of George Osborne, 10th Duke of Leeds.  It was recorded that the set had been on display at Hornby Castle, near Bedale. George Osborne died in 1927, and on his death his estate was broken up and eventually sold off.  The portrait set had initially been stored by the National Portrait Gallery in the 1930’s and was later offered for purchase by the 10th Duke of Leeds Trust.[1]

As with many of the portraits of Anne Boleyn seen in this study, documented information concerning them is scarce. In the case of the Hornby Portrait Set, we only start to see it appear in written documents towards the end of the nineteenth century. The first reference appears in 1868, when the collection of portraits was recorded as hanging in two rows in the Nursery Passage at Hornby Castle.[2]

Hornby Castle was originally built by the St. Quentin’s family in the fourteenth century and passed to the Conyers and Darcy families during the sixteenth century.  By 1778, the property then passed into the possession of Francis Osborne, 5th Duke of Leeds, through his marriage to Amelia Darcy.[3]

Due to lack of documentation, it is not exactly known if the set had originated in the Leeds collection and was transferred to Hornby castle from another property. Or, if it had originated with the sixteenth century owners of Hornby Castle and was commissioned for that specific residence.

When purchased by The National Portrait Gallery, a full condition report was undertaken on each of the sixteen portraits included in the Hornby Set. The condition reports held in the registered packet for the portrait of Anne Boleyn identifies that at the time of purchase the left-hand side panel of NPG 4980(15) was in a weak condition due to a splitting of the joint, flaking paint layers and paint loss was also noted to the sitter’s neck and chin, and extensive oil retouching was also observed throughout the portrait.  A thick layer of discoloured varnish was also viable on the panel surface.  

NPG 4980(15)
Before Conservation Work
© National Portrait Gallery, London

Conservation work was commenced immediately on the portrait, to stabilise the panel, secure the joint, and apply a thin layer of balsa wood to the reverse of the portrait. The flaking paint layers were secured with the use of wax resin, and adhesive, and the later overpaint and discoloured varnish was also removed from the panel surface. A gesso filling was applied to the large areas of paint loss, and retouching was completed. The portrait was then revarnished with a conservation varnish.[4]

Though not scientifically analysed until 2011, In 1975, Robin Gibson suggested that the Hornby set was created over a long period of time. He also suggested that the set was made up and purchased as two or three smaller portrait sets, much like that seen with the Dulwich Set.  Gibson separated the paintings into three distinctive groups in terms of date of creation, distinct differences in quality, and composition.

Group A: William I, Henry I, Stephan, Henry II, John, Edward II, was identified as being the later addition to the set, with Gibson estimating a date for creation as circa 1620-30.  

Group B: Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV, Edward IV, Edward V, Anne Boleyn. Gibson identified that Dr John Fletcher of Oxford University had completed Dendrochronology testing on the portrait of Anne Boleyn and Richard III, and a date of 1590-1605 was established as the most likely period in with both portraits were painted. 

Gibson identified Group B and Group C: Richard III, Henry VII, Henry VIII, Mary I, as a standard long gallery portrait set for this period. However, he also noted that Group C: contained a different characterisation in background and a higher quality craftmanship than that seen in the works of group B.  Robin suggested that although group B and C were created at the same time, group C was probably purchased from alternative workshops, and it was Gibson’s dates and theory that was applied by the National Portrait Gallery to the set.[5]

In 2011, the Hornby portrait set finally underwent significant testing as part of the Making Art in Tudor Britian project at the National Portrait Gallery.  During this, all portraits were dendrochronology tested, and it was identified that all panels were made from trees felled in the Eastern Baltic, between the 1580’s and early 1590’s.[6]  Test also carried out on the paintings identified that the portraits were produced by several artists, using different painting techniques, and working across multiple workshops. [7] This suggested that the set was either produced as a single commission, and not added to over the course of time as suggested by Gibson or was assembled at the same time using ready- made paintings from different sellers.

As seen in my article on the Dulwich Portrait set, printed material published at a similar time to the Hornby sets creation also appears to be the source material used by some of the artist when creating the portraits for the Hornby Set. The portraits of William I, Henry I, Stephan, John, and Henry III show visual similarities to the full sheet woodcuts produced by an unknown artist and published in a book entitled ‘A Booke, containing the true portraiture of the countenances and attires of the kings of England’.

First published in London in 1597, by John de Beauchesne, this book pre-dates ‘Bazliologia’, the book thought to have been the source for the Dulwich set, by twenty-one years. Its author, who was only named as ‘T.T.’ is now thought to be Thomas Talbot, who also produced what is now called the Talbot Rose containing similar images of the English monarchs some eighth years earlier in 1589.

Though the importance of accurate historical documentation was still in its infancy towards the end of the sixteenth century, some of the illustration produced for Talbot’s book can today be matched with contemporary source materials depicting the sitter illustrated, which does suggest that the artist who created the illustration at least attempted to reproduce what was thought to be an authentic likeness.

Left: NPG 4980 (2), King Henry I ©National Portrait Gallery, London Right: King Henry I Statue York Minster © Public Domain

When looking for a possible source for the portrait of Henry I, it could be argued that the image seen in the Hornby set shows a strong resemblance to the fifteenth century statue depicting the King at York Minster.  Both the statue and painted image show similarities in the hair, the treatment of the beard, moustache, and the collar of the gown.

Left: NPG 4980 (3) King Stephan ©National Portrait Gallery, London Right: Miniature From Matthew Paris’s Historia Anglorum ©Public Domain

The portrait King Stephan also shows similarities to several contemporary illustrations showing the king with a bobbed hairstyle and beardless.  Stephan is also seen beardless in his profile image on a silver penny from 1136 and is depicted in a full-frontal pose in the illustrated image for Matthew Paris’s ’Historia Anglarum’ produced between 1250 and 1259. Unfortunately, Talbot’s book does not include an image of Anne Boleyn, and it appears that artist who created the Hornby portrait looked elsewhere when depicting this legendary queen.

Sadley, NPG 4980(15) provides little information regarding the evolution of the B-pattern. The portrait is, however, it is one of a small number of paintings created with the use of this pattern that currently has a scientific date attached to it. What we can establish is that both NPG 4980(15) and NPG 668 were produced around the same time, and that both images were seen as, and identified as, an image of Anne by contemporary viewers towards the end of her daughter’s reign.  This image would continue to be seen as a depiction of Anne Boleyn some thirty years later when Edward Alleyn purchased his portrait of Anne for the Dulwich set and continues to be reproduced as an image of Anne Boleyn to this day.

[1] Heniz Archive, National Portrait Gallery, Registered Packet NPG 4980(15)

[2] Catalogue of the Paintings and Portraits at Hornby Castle the Seat of the Duke of Leeds, 1868.  The portrait set of Kings and Queens of England also appeared in subsequent catalogues detailing the collection at Hornby Castle, published in 1898 and 1902, and are again described as hanging in the ‘Nursery Passage’.

[3] Anon, Hornby Castle, Yorkshire, The Seat of the Duke of Leeds, Country Life Magazine, 1906, P 54-64

[4] Heniz Archive, National Portrait Gallery, Registered Packet NPG 4980(15), Technical Examination Report 1974

[5] Gibson Robin. The National Portrait Gallery’s set of Kings and Queens at Montacute House, National Trust Yearbook, 1975, P81-87

[6] Tyers. Ian, Tree-ring Analysis of Panel Paintings at the NPG, Group 4.5. March 2011, Registered Packet NPG 4980(15)

[7] Picturing History: A portrait set of early English kings and queens – National Portrait Gallery (npg.org.uk), accessed October 2023

The Butler Portrait

A Tale of Two Sisters

In 2018, London art dealer Philip Mould acquired a rather unusual portrait of Queen Elizabeth I.  Though naive in its composition, the painting was immediately compared to a series of early portraits showing an image of the young Queen Elizabeth, known as the ‘Clopton Type’. 

I have discussed the ‘Clopton Type’, and its possible evolution in a previous article on The Philip Portrait, so I will not go into detail regarding this in this article. The Butler portrait, as I will call it in this study, does appear to reinforce my opinion that the ‘Clopton Type’ was derived from an earlier portrait known as the Berry-Hill portrait.  During my research, I have also managed to locate a possible ‘sister portrait’ and some provenance information regarding the Butler portrait.  As this painting is an important artifact in terms of the iconography relating to Queen Elizabeth I, I will use this article to document the discoveries.

The Butler Portrait
Queen Elizabeth I
Oil on Panel
© Philip Mould Gallery, London

Constructed with the use of three vertical oak panels, measuring 95.5cm x 65cm in diameter. Elizabeth is seen standing three-quarter length, full frontal, with her head turned, slightly, towards the viewers left. The young Queen is missing her trademark wig of long red curls, her hair is simply parted in the middle, pulled back, and worn under a coif and black hood.  At her neck she wears a large ruff that surrounds her face, she also wears a lose gown of damask cloth of gold, and a black velvet surcoat, with a large fur collar and hanging sleeves. In her hand, she holds a book, and three rings are visible on her fingers. The portrait is entirely different to the images of power, wealth and majesty that has become illustrious with one of England’s most famous monarchs.

Mould purchased the portrait when it was sold by Tennants Auctioneers on 18th November 2017. Described in the catalogue for the sale as ‘English School, follower of Hans Eworth, portrait of a young lady, reputed to be Queen Elizabeth I’, the confirmed connection to Elizabeth had not been established at this point.  The auction house did note some similarities to the ‘Clopton Type’, however, also noted some ‘notable differences, including handling of brushwork, the portrait length, positioning of the hands, costume variances and the omission of the large jewel worn on a double chain known as the Mirror of France’.  Almost nothing was provided regarding the provenance of the painting, other than it had come from a private English collection and had been purchased by the then owner from Oakham Fine Art in 1996.[1]

Mould immediately sent the portrait to be cleaned, restored and dendrochronology tested, to establish a date of creation. The right-hand side panel had come adrift from the other two and this was once again secured. Discoloured varnish and overpaint was removed and a date of ’circa 1559’ was established for the portrait’s creation. Mould immediately noted that the Butler portrait was indeed related to the ‘Clopton Type’ and was, in fact, an earlier example. He concluded that the portrait was painted early in her reign, before Elizabeth, herself, truly understood the power of art, and noted that it was possibly one of the portraits Elizabeth attempted to eliminate with the draft proclamation of 1563.  Mould would later put the Butler portrait on public display in his gallery, identifying the huge significance of the portrait being one of the earliest representations of Elizabeth as Queen of England in related news stories.[2]

When looking for the possible provenance of this painting, I initially returned to the sketchbooks of Sir George Scharf in the Heinz archive, London. A valuable resource for anyone interested in art history, the gallery holds a total of two-hundred and twenty-three sketchbooks in its collection today.  These are separated into two categories, the first being the sketchbooks created in a personal capacity and second being Trustee sketchbooks, created to document possible acquisitions for the Galleries collection.  Due to their significance and fragility, the originals documents are closely guarded; however, in 1978, the archive opted to put the entire collection on microfilm, and it is this that the public view when requesting to see the sketchbooks.[3]

Unfortunately, the index system for the sketchbooks can be a little confusing, and in some cases, I have found it is best to just jump straight in and see what can be found. In the case of the Butler portrait this was successful, and it appears from one of the Trustee sketchbooks that Scharf, himself, viewed the portrait or a similar copy in 1867.  Scharf made a rough sketch of the painting, however, provided little information other than it was seen at ‘Foster’s, Pall Mall. 19th November 1867’. [4]

George Scharf Sketch
NPG100/1/1
© Heniz Archive, London

Edward Foster’s, or Foster and Son as it was better known was an auction house in London, which was established in 1833.  Unfortunately, to date, I have been unable to locate the auction catalogue for the sale mentioned by Scharf, however, this has been added to my list and attempts will be made to locate this on my next trip to London.

The portrait appears again when an image was published in The Illustrated London News in 1938.  The photograph seen, shows the painting prior to some of the restoration work removed by Philip Mould, and the article notes that the portrait was in the collection of Ewart Park in Northumberland.[5] The identification of the sitter, at that time, was incorrectly thought to be ‘Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scotland’ and the portrait was also incorrectly dated to the fifteenth century.  Size and materials used was also listed among the information provided.[6] 

The Butler Portrait 1937
© British Library Newspaper Archive

Built in the eighteenth century, and home to the St. Pauls and Butler family, the portrait and property was inherited by Horace Butler on the death of his father George Grey Butler in 1935.  George Grey Butler had begun selling some of the family’s possessions off in the 1920’s due to financial issues. [7] On his father’s death, Horace Butler was unable to maintain the cost of the upkeep for Ewart Park, it was briefly occupied by the military during World War II and was eventually sold by the family.  At present, no auction catalogue has been located for the contents of Ewart park, it may be possible that what little was left in the property, the family opted to take with them and was sold at a later date.

Sadly, for now, the provenance trail stops with Ewart Park, however, I do have one final interesting piece of information to share, connected to the Butler portrait.  Stored within the Icon Notes relating to Mary Tudor in the Heinz Archive London, is a rather interesting collection of letters and photographic images concerning a portrait of Queen Mary, and it could be argued that both portraits of the two sisters are related.[8]

Mary Tudor
Unknown Artist, previously attributed to Clouet.
© Heinz Archive, London

Dated to the early 1980’s, and from a private collector in France, the letters reports that she had inherited her portrait from her sister, who had purchased the painting in the in the 1950’s from Tours in France. She also notes that the portrait has a label on the back stating that it was transferred from panel to canvas, and the artist associated with its creation was French artist Francois Clouet.  

What can clearly be seen from the image above is that both portraits show the same characteristic approach when it comes to composition, style, and approach.  Unfortunately, the portrait of Queen Mary is currently missing, and it is hard to establish form the photograph if some later restoration work and overpaint has taken place.

As we have identified in many of the articles concerning the B Pattern of Anne Boleyn, the creation of portrait sets within the sixteenth century, stems a lot further back than initially thought.  Portrait sets were often unified using a curtain, pillow, or background colour.  As both portraits of Elizabeth and Mary include the unique pattern work seen on the gold demask fabric of the gowns, it may just be possible that both were part of an early set of portraits displaying the Tudor monarch.  Unfortunately, until the portrait of Queen Mary is located and tested to establish possible overpaint and date of creation, we may not know for sure.  The incorporation of the pattern in both portraits cannot be put down to coincidence and some further research will need to take place to identify any possible connection between both paintings.

[1] Tennants Auction Catalogue, Autum Sale, 18th November 2017, lot 66

[2] Moufarrige. Natasha, earliest full-length portrait of Queen Elizabeth I revealed – Showing her as studious and shy young woman, Daily Telegraph, June 17th 2018.

[3] National Portrait Gallery. The Notebooks of Sir George Scharf (1820-95), World Microfilm Publications, 1978, P.1 

[4] Heinz Archive. NPG100/1/1, Sketchbook of George Scharf (1886-1888), P. 11

[5] Clarification is currently needed to identify if the black ribbon and ring seen around the sitter’s neck and the object seen in the sitter’s right hand is original to the painting or later overpaint. Both items can clearly still be seen in the portrait today after restoration work had taken place, however, it may possibly have been deemed not to take the portrait back to its original state and the overpaint was simply left in place. interestingly, the same black ribbon and ring can be seen in the ‘La Royne D’Angleterre’ drawing of Elizabet discussed in my article on the Paine Miniature. See https://ladyjanegreyrevisited.com/2021/05/12/the-paine-miniature-is-it-elizabeth/ for more information

[6] Illustrated London news, Personalities of The Tudor and Stuart Period, 29th October 1938 p.30

[7] I have been able to locate eight Sotheby and Co auction catalogues from the years on 1928-29 that all include property from the estate of Mr George Grey Butler of Ewart Park, Northumberland

[8] Heinz Archive, London. NPG49/1/11, Notes on Sitters: Mary I, Queen of England. 1515-1558

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 1st 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 25th 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 1st 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 29th 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 8th 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 25th 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 30th 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 25th 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 29th, 1617, to October 1st, 1622.  29th September 1618 ‘bought 6 pictures of K J(ames): Q E(lizabeth): Q M(ary): K E(dward VI): K H(enry) ye 8th and K H(enry) ye 5th’

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

[7] The Athenaeum Magazine, Volume 1630, January 22nd, 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, 6-18th 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 1st 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, 1st 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.

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 has 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.

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 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’.