Hever Castle: The Mould and Zouche Portraits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Detail of The Mould Copy
© Hever Castle, Kent

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

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

Reverse of The Mould Copy
©Hever Castle, Kent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2]Ibid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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, 5^th 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 17^thCentury’ 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

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 2^nd 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

Unknown Lady

Previously identified as Anne Boleyn

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

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

Object Description:

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

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

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

Inscription:

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

Labels and other inscriptions:

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

Artist Association:

English School

Condition:

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

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

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

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

Thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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 23^rd 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 6^th 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 8^th 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 6^th 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, 4^th 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 11^th July 1814. William Ferrell-Skeffington moved to London that same year however died less than a year later on 26^th 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 20^th 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 23^rd 1807. It was purchased by the book collector Richard Heber Esq for the sum of eight pounds. No portrait described as Lady Jane Grey appears in the sales catalogues of Heber’s collection.

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

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

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

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

The Crozier Portrait – Is It Lost?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4] See National Portrait Gallery, Registered Packet764

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

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

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

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

The Brocklebank/Taylor Portrait

During a recent visit to the Heinz Archive in London, I came across a collection of letters written in 1917 concerning a portrait of Lady Jane Grey. All three letters were addressed to James Milner, the then director of the National Portrait Gallery and were written by a R. Brocklebank of Houghton Hall in Cheshire.

Upon locating these I instantly thought, “great, I have another new portrait search to get my teeth into.” Sadly, it turns out that the actual painting was sitting right under my nose all the time, and all I had discovered was some new provenance information regarding a portrait already known to us.

R. Brocklebank, or Ralph Brocklebank as he is better known, was a wealthy shipowner and art collector who purchased Houghton Hall in the nineteenth century and had it rebuilt between 1891 and 1894 to house his valuable collection of art. In his first letter written on 27^th July 1917, Brocklebank reports ownership of a portrait thought to depict Lady Jane Grey and suggests that he would like to leave it on his death to the gallery. He reports that he purchased the painting from a picture shop on Bond Street in 1892 and requests a meeting during his next visit to London so the gallery could view the portrait themselves. Brocklebank also informs the gallery that his portrait is oil on panel, measuring 10 x 7 ¾ inches, and is thought to be by the school of Clouet. A photograph of the actual painting is also supplied with the letter, but this was no longer stored with the documents in the archive.[1]

Fortunately, Ralph Brocklebank had a book published in 1904 documenting his collection of over 150 paintings and engravings held at Houghton Hall. Within this book is a portrait referred to as representing Lady Jane Grey by the school of Clouet. Item number 39 is discussed and a detailed description of the painting is also given.

Portrait of Lady Jane Grey

School of Clouet

Portrait (bust) of Lady Jane Grey, with face turned to the right. She is handsomely attired in the fashionable costume of the period. A high, close-fitting ruff reaches to her ears, entirely concealing her neck. Her hair is pulled back from her forehead, and covered by a jewelled net. The collar of her elaborately braided doublet reaches as high as the ruff, and spreads out on either side, showing a gold collar, heavily gemmed, from which a large jewelled pendant hangs on her breast. A portrait in The National Portrait Gallery, by Lucas de Heere (No. 764) confirms the truth of this likeness.[2]

It appears that the portrait remained in Broclebank’s collection until his death in 1921. No documentation has been located within The National Portrait Galleries archives to identify that his portrait was left to the gallery upon his death, as suggested in his first letter, and it may be possible that upon viewing the actual portrait it was decided that it was not something the gallery wanted in their collection. The portrait again appears in 1922 in the Christie’s auction catalouge for the sale of Ralph Brocklebank’s collection, but rather than being described as a portrait of Lady Jane Grey as seen in the earlier book, it is referred to as a portrait of a lady said to represent Lady Jane Grey. This suggests that the gallery may have informed Brocklebank that the painting may not represent Lady Jane Grey in the first place.

Portrait of a Lady

(Said to represent Lady Jane Grey)

In white dress, with high collar and linen ruff, richly jewelled necklace and head-dress

On panel – 10 in. by 7 ½ [3]

On completion of the sale, the portrait was purchased by a E. Brock for the sum of £28.8 shillings and thus, I thought the trail ran dry.

When discussing the various portraits associated with Jane Grey, one of my main goals is to locate an image of the portrait so that the painting can actually be seen by the person reading this article. Unfortunately, in some cases a photographic image may not have been taken or, as with the Brocklebank portrait, the image may have been lost during the passage of time. Many thousands of photographs of portraits are held within the various boxes at the Heinz archive, and it would literally be like attempting to find a needle in a haystack when looking for the missing Brocklebank photograph. In all honesty I had come to terms with just adding this particular portrait to the Auction/collections page on this website. I did, however, manage to find the photograph, and as discussed above it had been sitting under my nose all the time.

After reading Carter’s 1904 description and attempting a frantic internet search in the hope of a portrait matching this, it suddenly came to mind that I had seen this painting before. It is discussed in Stephan Edward’s book A Queen of a New Invention Portraits of Lady Jane Grey as the Taylor portrait. Edwards concludes that this image is unfortunately not a portrait of Lady Jane Grey, but a portrait probably of Elizabeth of Austria and that the provenance discussed in the 1998 sales catalouge for this painting contributed nothing useful.[4] As Edwards reports, this portrait was sold by Christie’s, London on 12^th November 1998 and was described in the catalouge as a portrait of a Lady, previously identified as Lady Jane Grey. The catalouge also records that the portrait was once in the collection of A.M and B Taylor, but nothing more is mentioned regarding the provenance for this image during the sale.[5]

The Taylor Portrait
Called Lady Jane Grey, Perhaps Elizabeth of Austria
Oil on Wood Panel
10 x 8 inches
© Private Collection

Upon accessing my own file on the Taylor Portrait, I came across a photocopy of an old image of the portrait located in the artist box for Francios Clouet at Heinz Archive. Over the years, the gallery have used the back of this image to scribble various notes regarding the portrait in pencil and seen in the centre of this is writing made in ink identifying the sitter as supposed to be Lady Jane Grey, written in the same handwriting as the letter from Ralph Brocklebank.

It appears that this is the lost photograph which accompanied the Brocklebank letters sent to James Milner in 1917 and though most definitely not a portrait of Lady Jane Grey these letters do provide more provenance for this painting and its one time association with her.

[1] Heinz Archive, NPG 104/8/2, Correspondence Received 1917, accessed July 2019

[2] Carter. R. Radcliffe, Pictures & Engravings at Houghton Hall Tarporley in The Possession of Ralph Brocklebank, 1904, Item 39. My sincere thanks to the staff at the library of the University of Dundee for assisting me with gaining access to this book.

[3] Christies Auction Catalouge, 7^th July 1922, lot 80. My sincere thanks to Simona Dolari of Christie’s auction house for providing me with the information regarding this sale.

[4] Edwards. John Stephan, A Queen of a New Invention Portraits of Lady Jane Grey, Old John Publishing, 2015, page 99

[5] Christie’s Auction Catalouge, 12^th November 1998, lot 4

History of The IANE Inscriptions

After watching the recent channel 5 television programme ‘inside the Tower of London’ that focused on the story of Lady Jane Grey, I noted that the famous Dudley carvings on the walls of the Beauchamp Tower were discussed as part of the programme. Not discussed within this interesting documentary were the two other carvings associated with Jane’s story also carved into the walls of the same room.

In 2018, I finally got the chance to visit the Tower of London as an adult. Upon seeing the two small carvings in the Beauchamp Tower in person, I was instantly struck with an air of sadness. To me, these two carvings symbolised so much of the history that had interested me for most of my life, and I knew so little about them. Over the years, my interest in the story of Lady Jane Grey has led me to read a lot of printed material about her. I was aware of the survival of the carvings, though I had read very little about the history that surrounds them.

My initial thought had been that the inscriptions had always been known about and that the tradition that they were associated with the story of Jane Grey had travelled down through the centuries. This in turn prompted me to dig a little deeper in the hope of gaining a better understanding.

The aim of this article is to establish what is known about the two IANE inscriptions and to document some details regarding the history of these important artefacts, as so little has been written about them since their discovery.

During my research for this article I have been unable to locate any reference regarding the two carvings of Jane’s name prior to the eighteenth century. According to John Foxe’s Acts and Monuments, first published in 1563, Jane was supposed to have written the following two verses into the wall of her apartment with the use of a hair pin.

“Do never think its strange,

Though now I have misfortune,

For if that fortune change,

The same to thee nay happen.”

“If God do help thee,

Hate shall not hurt thee;

If God do fail thee,

Then shall not labour prevail thee.”

Fox makes no mention of any other carvings showing Jane’s name within the walls of the Tower of London in his book. Various searches over the years have been made at the Tower in the hope of locating the above inscriptions noted by Fox, but the house in which Jane is recorded as being held was demolished in the eighteenth century. It was replaced with the existing building today which stands between the Queens House and the Beauchamp Tower.[1]

The two inscriptions were first discovered in 1796. During this period, the upper room of the Beauchamp Tower was being converted for the use of officers of the garrison. Prior to this, the room had been used for domestic use, and the walls had been plastered over and painted, thus eliminating any traces of earlier inhabitants.

During the renovations, the plaster was removed from the walls, which in turn revealed a large number of inscriptions etched into the stonework. On discovery of these, it was immediately noted that a lot of the carvings where associated with prominent figures in history who had been imprisoned within this room at the tower.

Reverend John Brand, Secretary to the Society of Antiquaries, was the first to discuss the carvings in a meeting held on 17^th November 1796. Notes from the meeting were published in the Archaeologia Journal in 1800, and this also gave us our first visual view of the inscriptions found.

Within this meeting, Brand discussed the discovery of the inscriptions, referring to them as ‘undoubted autographs made at different periods.’ Brand was also noted to firmly claim that the IANE inscription was made by Lady Jane Grey herself, reporting that this had been done ‘as a statement that not even the horrors of prison would force her to relinquish her title as queen.’[2] This in turn led to a number of artists creating images of Jane either making the inscription herself or depicted within the room containing an inscription of her name.

It is not known how or why Brand had come to this conclusion as the exact place in which Jane was housed when prisoner at the Tower was documented within the Chronical of Queen Jane and of Two Years of Queen Mary. This book was thought to have been written by a resident at the Tower of London who notes that Jane was imprisoned in Partridge’s House and not the Beauchamp Tower. [3]

This claim was eventually corrected with the publication of a book in 1825 by John Bayley. In this, Bayley discussed the fact that Lady Jane herself was imprisoned in the house of the Gentleman Gaoler on Tower Green, also known as Partridge’s House. He reports that due to this, the inscriptions could not have been made by her hand, noting that it’s highly unlikely that Jane would have been allowed to spend time in the prison cell allotted to her husband. Bayley then suggests that the inscriptions were actually made by Guildford Dudley himself or one of his brothers in memory or honour of Jane Grey.[4]

It is Bayley’s theory that sticks today. It could be argued that if the inscription was made by one of the Dudley brothers, then it might not in fact represent Lady Jane Grey but their mother, who was also called Jane Dudley. The face that two inscription of the same name survives may represent the two Jane’s within the brothers lives, though it is up to the individual viewer to decide.

[1] Treasures of the Tower Inscription, Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, page 14

[2] Brand. John, An Account of The Inscriptions Discovered on The Walls of An Apartment in the Tower of London, Archaeologia, XIII, Page 68-91

[3] Nichols, J. G, The Chronicle of Queen Jane and of Two Years of Queen Mary and Especially of the Rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyatt, Written by a Resident in the Tower of London, Llanerch Publishers, 1850, page.25

[4] Bayley, John, History and Antiquities of the Tower of London, 1825, page.162

The Ketteringham Hall Portrait

Previously Called Lady Jane Grey
Watercolour on Ivory
45mm

On 25^th April 1912, Prince Frederick Duleep Singh visited Ketteringham Hall in Norfolk. Singh visited a large number of properties across Norfolk where he documented the art collections seen and published a book in 1927 detailing his findings. In the book, entitled Portraits in Norfolk Houses, Singh recorded a portrait thought in 1912 to represent Lady Jane Grey.

Ketteringham Hall was built in the fifteenth century and was home to Henry Grey of Ketteringham. By 1492 the property had passed to the Heveningham family. It was purchased in the nineteenth century by John Peter Boileau, archaeologist, Vice-President of the Society of Antiquaries, London, and collector of antiquaries. The hall was dramatically remodelled during the nineteenth century when it was purchased by Boileau to house his vast collection of antiques and collectables.

In the past and today, Ketteringham Hall has laid claim that it was once the childhood home of Lady Jane Grey, and it is only fitting that it should have housed a portrait of her. As discussed above, the house was no longer in ownership of the Grey family during the sixteenth century, and there is no documented evidence to state that Jane Grey ever visited the property.[1]

At the time Prince Frederick Duleep Singh visited the property, it had passed by descent to Sir Maurice Colborne Boileau, grandson of John Peter Boileau. The Hall would eventually be used as an active US Air Force base, and by 1948 the family opted to sell Ketteringham off, when it was then purchased by the Duke of Westminster.

Singh provides a detailed description in his book of the portrait thought to depict Lady Jane Grey seen in 1912. The entry reads as follows.

Lady Jane Dudley, H(ead) and S(houlders). Body, face and blue eyes all turned towards the sinister (viewers left), fair hair parted and flat, roll over each ear, and small row of rolls over the head, black cap on the head falling at one side and behind. Dress: black with white fur round the neck and down the front, also on each side of the arms. Blue background, min(iature) square. Age 18.[2]

No other information concerning this portrait has surfaced, and it appears never to have been exhibited as a portrait of Lady Jane Grey. The painting was initially thought to be lost due to the contents of Ketteringham Hall being sold off over the years at auction.

During his own research into the many portraits thought to depict Lady Jane Grey, John Stephan Edwards was the first to acknowledge and create awareness of the Ketteringham Hall portrait in modern times. He briefly discussed it in the appendix of his book concerning lost portraits once thought to be Jane Grey. Edwards compared Singh’s description of the painting to a portrait also thought to depict Lady Jane Grey at the Bodleian Library, Oxford. He expressed uncertainty as to whether the portrait was still at Ketteringham Hall today.[3]

Further research into the Ketteringham Hall portrait completed by myself suggests that it was actually sold in 1947. By this point the portrait had lost its identity and no connection was made at that time that the portrait was ever thought to depict lady Jane Grey.

In 1947, a large four-day auction took place of the contents of Ketteringham Hall. It is highly likely that the portrait once seen by Singh and given a detailed description in his book as a portrait of Lady Jane Grey was sold on the first day of sale as part of one lot containing three items.

Lot 357. Miniature, Lady with a white lace collar, ditto fur collar and silhouette.[4]

It appears that this lot was purchased, along with several other lots from the 1947, sale by Rev William Hall and his son Bryan Hall. Both father and son were avid collectors of antiques and frequent visitors to sales of county house collections. Bryan Hall would eventually acquire a large collection of more than 2,200 antiques during his lifetime and all where held within his home of Banningham old Rectory, which on occasions he would open for public viewing.

The miniature portrait remained in Hall’s collection until 2004. By this point, the elderly Bryan Hall put his entire collection up for auction, facilitated by Bonham’s Auctioneers. This consisted of a three-day sale of the contents of Banningham Old Rectory. The Ketteringham Hall portrait, along with another miniature close in comparison to the 1947 catalogue description of ‘a woman in a lace collar, and a large quantity of silhouettes were sold during this sale. The provenance for these items could be traced back to Ketteringham Hall.[5] Lot 89 of the Bonham’s sale is of particular interest when looking at the lost Ketteringham Hall portrait of Lady Jane Grey. It is referred to in the catalogue as

Lot 89. Bernard Lens III (1750/6-1808), A portrait of a lady dressed as Mary Queen of Scots, in black dress slashed to reveal white fur, pearl necklace and black cap Water colour on ivory rectangular 45mm, in a gilded wood frame.[6]

Though the provenance for lot 89 was not fully documented in the auction catalogue, Singh’s description was included in the literature accompanying the lot. The auction house commented that this portrait does not conform to other known portraits of Lady Jane Grey and lists the sitter’s identity as Mary Queen of Scots.

When comparing Singh’s description to the photograph of lot 89, there does appear to be a match. If this picture is the lost Ketteringham Hall portrait, then this brings about the question as to why an eighteenth-century portrait of Mary Queen of Scots became known as Lady Jane Grey by 1912.

NPG764
Previously Called Lady Jane Grey
Oil on Panel
(c)NPG

One possible reason for this is the purchase of NPG764 by the National Portrait Gallery, London. By 1912, this was being exhibited as a portrait of Lady Jane Grey, and this does share some similarities in style and composition to the Ketteringham Hall portrait. It may just be possible that the Boileau family or Singh himself concluded that, due to the similarities, the portrait at Ketteringham Hall must also depict Lady Jane Grey. During the early 20^th century, several books were written and published concerning the iconography of Mary Queen of Scots, including one written by Lionel Cust, who briefly discussed the similarities in costume between both images.[7]

The portrait on which the Ketteringham Hall image is based was widely copied during the eighteenth century as an image of Mary and would generally be referred to as the Okney type by art historians. It appears that the copy produced by Bernard Lens in vast quantities was based on a sixteenth century miniature portrait once in the collection of the Duke of Hamilton prior to 1710.

George Vertue discussed this in his notebooks, having seen the original miniature in person.

“This duke of Hamilton that lived at the manor house at East Acton had great collections of Indian work and china and many curious limning portraits some of them excellent and rare in number about fifty or sixty… so many as was exposed to sale in 1745. No. 28 Mary Qu. Scots, this is the original limning which the Duke of Hamilton had recovered and valued most extremely – showed it at court and everywhere for a true genuine picture of the queen everywhere from thence it was copied in water colours enamel many and many times for all persons pining after it thousands of illuminated copies – spread everywhere – this picture itself – tho amended by or repaired by L. Crosse who was ordered to make it as beautiful as he could – by the duke. Still is a roundish face not agreeable to those most certain pictures of her – but his attestation of its being genuine, later part of Qu. Anns time it took and prest upon the public in such an extraordinary manner”[8]

The fact that Vertue himself expressed doubt in the eighteenth century as to whether the original miniature portrait was a representation of Mary Queen of Scots is interesting and today doubt as to the true identity of the sitter continues.

Called Mary Neville, Lady Dacre
Watercolour on Vellum
Size Unknown

The above image was sold through Phillips Auctions of London, on 10^th November 1998 and was associated with the court painter Levina Teerlinc. Painted on vellum and applied to card, a faint description on the back was recorded in the auction catalogue identifying the sitter as “Queen Mary”. The painting was officially sold as a portrait believed to be that of Mary Neville, Lady Dacre, with the auction house noting similarities to other known portraits of this sitter.

The provenance for this miniature is recorded as being in the collection of the Duke of Buckingham at Stowe house. It appears in the 1849 sales catalogue were it was again described as a portrait of “Mary Tudor, Queen of England”[9]. The portrait was then purchased by John Webb who was a prominent collector of antiques in the mid nineteenthcentury and on his death in 1880, it then passed to his daughter Edith Webb and was eventually sold at Christie’s Auction, London, on the 24^th June 1925.

When looking at this miniature it does appear to be too much of a coincidence to suggest that the similarities to the Okney Type is purely chance. The similarities between this portrait and early copies made by Bernard Lens are exceedingly close, though Lens’s later copy has been altered to portray a younger and thinner sitter and some slight differences are seen with the gold coif worn under the hood. Due to the similarities seen it is my opinion that this may just be the original miniature owned by the Duke of Hamilton and reported by George Vertue to have sold in 1745.

The fact that the Teerlinc miniature also includes an early inscription identifying the sitter as “Queen Mary” does give this opinion some back up. It may just be possible that the identification as to which Mary it was meant to represent may have just got lost during its history. What is for certain is that the Teerlinc miniature neither represents Mary Tudor or Mary Queen of Scots and the similarities to portraits of Mary Neville as discussed in the auction catalogue is striking.

The ketteringham Hall portrait most certainly was created during the eighteenth century and therefore cannot be a portrait of Lady Jane Grey painted from life. The portrait was originally painted as an image of Mary Queen of Scots that was mislabelled by 1912 when seen by Prince Frederick Duleep Singh. This can now be removed from any list of potential likenesses of Lady Jane Grey.

[1] https://www.bidwells.co.uk/assets/properties/commercial/pdfs/256-786-1.pdf accessed July 2019

[2] Singh. Prince Frederick Duleep, Portraits in Norfolk Houses, Jarrold and Sons, Ltd, Vol I, Page 361

[3]Edwards. John Stephan, A Queen of a New Invention Portraits of Lady Jane Grey, Old John Publishing, 2015, page 189. Electronic communication, David Adams, Property Manager suggest that no portrait matching Singh’s description is currently in the collection at Ketteringham Hall today.

[4] K.H Fielding Auctioneer. Ketteringham Hall, Norwich. Catalogue of Antique Furniture Old Silver, Glass, oil Paintings and other Effects, 22^nd July 1947, Page 9. My sincere thanks to Mary Parker for the assistance with the location of a copy of this catalogue and information regarding the Ketteringham sale.

[5] https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/11166/ accessed July 2019. A total of twenty-four items sold in the 2004 sale were provenance could be connected to Ketteringham Hall and the Boileau Family including https://www.bonhams.com/auctions/11166/lot/90/ which could be identified as “miniature, Lady with a lace collar” seen in the 1947 auction catalogue.

[6] Bonham’s auction catalogue, Bannigham Old Rectory, 22^nd March 2004

[7] Cust. Lionel. Notes on Authentic Portraits of Mary Queen of Scots, 1903, page 137

[8] Cust. Lionel. Notes on authentic portraits of Mary Queen of Scots, 1903, page 137

[9] Collection of the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, Stowe House, Christie’s sale, 15^th March 1849, Lot 4.

The Royal Collection Miniature Portrait

RCIN420944
Called Elizabeth I
Watercolour on Vellum Applied to Card
5.2 cm in diameter
©Royal Collection

Purchased as a portrait of Mary Tudor when Princess on behalf of Queen Victoria during the Christies sale on 24^th May 1881, RCIN20944 has caused much debate among art historians over the years. The sitter has been identified as at least three different members of the royal family from the Tudor period, and for around twenty-six years the sitter was thought to be Lady Jane Grey. Two artists have been associated with its creation, though no proof has surfaced to establish a known creator. Due the sitter once being identified as Lady Jane Grey, I have decided to discuss this painting on this website.

RCIN420944 depicts a young lady facing full frontal, with grey eyes and light red hair. She wears a bodice of gold damask fabric cut square at the neck and a partlet of contrasting fabric with small figure-of-eight ruff that surrounds her face. A black loose gown with small puff sleeves and false hanging sleeves is also seen worn by the sitter and is fastened at the front with the use of gold aglets. The sitter wears two chains around her neck of goldsmith work and pearls, and suspended from one is a large jewel containing five square cut diamonds and a large hanging pearl. On her head she wears a hair net which again consists of goldsmith work, and a pink and white flower is also arranged within the sitter’s hair. She is depicted on a blue background within a gold boarder. The beginning of an inscription stating “AÑO” is also seen on the left-hand side.

Nothing is known regarding the early provenance for this painting or how the image became identified as a portrait of Mary Tudor when Princess. The first documented record concerning the provenance of this portrait located to date is the sales catalogue for the collector and poet Samuel Rogers. Following his death in 1855, his vast collection of art and antiques were sold as part of an eighteen-day sale commencing on 28^th April 1856 at Messrs. Christie and Manson, St James Square. RCIN420944 was sold on the eighth day of sale and is officially recorded in the catalogue as “lot 960. Princess Mary, daughter of Henry VIII, after Holbein.”[1]

The portrait was purchased by collector Charles Sackville Bale, who appears not to have questioned the identity of the sitter or artist associated with it. An early photographic image of the portrait appears in a book published in 1864 by Amelia B Edwards, and the portrait was also submitted to The Miniature Portrait Exhibition of 1865 at the South Kensington Museum. Both the book and exhibition catalogue again refer to the portrait as “Queen Mary I of England, by Holbein,” with the exhibition catalogue also noting that the portrait was purchased from the collection of Samuel Rogers.

Upon the death of Charles Sackville Bale in 1880, the miniature sold from his collection and entered the Royal Collection. The auction took place on 24^th May 1881 and again the miniature was noted as “lot 1420 Mary Tudor, Queen of England, by H. Holbein”[2] within the catalogue for the sale.

Within years of entering the Royal collection, the sitter’s identity and the artist associated with its creation was challenged. Lady Jane Grey was put forward as a possible candidate and the miniature would continue to be described as a portrait of Jane for the next two decades.

An article written by Richard Holmes, librarian to Queen Victoria, and published in 1884 in the English Illustrated Magazine does give us some clues as to the reason for the change of identification. This article appears to be the first time the portrait was publicly published as an image of Lady Jane Grey, and the article also included an engraving of the painting noting Jane as the sitter in its title. Holmes reports the reasons for the change in identity as follows

Engraving From English Illustrated Magazine 1884

“of the painters who must have worked in England between the time of Holbein and Hillard, a capital specimen has within the last few years been added to the number of royal portraits. It is that of Lady Jane Grey, of which we give an engraving. It had passed for many years as a portrait of princess, afterwards Queen Mary, but it is unlike her in every feature. That it represents a Tudor Princess is undoubted, as in her hair are the red and white roses. It corresponds with all that is known of the characteristics of the unfortunate Lady Jane, and fills an important gap in the series of portraits of the Tudor Line”[3]

What is interesting about the above statement is that Holmes reports that the sitter depicted in the miniature was thought at that time to correspond with all that was known of the characteristics of Lady Jane Grey. This then brings about the question as to what was actually known about Jane’s characteristics at that time. This article was written prior to the publication of Richard Davey’s biography on Jane in 1909, which contained the only detailed description of a small, freckled and red haired, Jane Grey entering the Tower of London as Queen on 10^th July 1553, known to date. Today, this description has been discovered to be a mere forgery.[4] No other description documenting the details of Jane’s features has surfaced, which suggest that almost nothing was known regarding what Jane looked like, other than vague references referring to her as pretty which were made at a later date.

The miniature portrait was publicly exhibited in 1890 at the Royal House of Tudor Exhibition held at the New Gallery, London. Within the exhibition catalogue, the portrait is recorded as coming from the collection of Her Majesty the Queen and referring to as “1068. Lady Jane Grey. By N. Hilliard, formerly in the collection of Charles Sackville Bale.” It was probably around this point in time that a red leather label was attached to the back of the frame noting that the sitter depicted was “Lady Jane Grey/Born 1537-Died 1554/Hilliard”

The portrait continued to be displayed as an image of Lady Jane Grey and was Exhibited in the New Gallery exhibition of 1901 as a portrait of her. In 1906, Richard Holmes again discussed the miniature in an article written for the Burlington Art Magazine on Nicholas Hillard.

Lionel Cust, director of the National Portrait gallery, London, appears to be the first to question the identification of Lady Jane Grey as the sitter in RCIN420944. In 1910, he produced a privately printed catalogue for the Royal Collection regarding the miniature portraits held within the Royal Palaces at that time. In this, Cust dismisses the identification of Jane Grey and suggests Elizabeth I as an alternative sitter, noting that the miniature may have been produced by Levina Teerlinc and not Nicholas Hilliard. Nothing is documented in the book to inform us as to why Cust came to this conclusion, though it would be tempting to speculate that he noted the costume worn by the sitter was a little too late in period to be an authentic portrait of Lady Jane Grey.

RCIN420987
Called Elizabeth I
Watercolour on Vellum
4.5 cm in diameter
©Royal Collection

The Identification of the sitter as Elizabeth was further strengthened in 1962 when the Royal Collection purchased another miniature portrait similar in composition and style to RCIN420944 at Christie’s auction. This miniature is recorded in the catalogue for sale, taking place on April 10^th at Christie’s auction house, London, as “A Lady, probably Princess Elizabeth, Later Queen Elizabeth I.” A description also noted that the miniature was painted on a playing card, and seen on the reverse of is blind stamp consisting of the letter C and a Crown. [5] This was immediately associated with a description made in 1637 of a miniature portrait seen by Abraham Van der Doort, Surveyor of the Kings Pictures and described in an inventory made of the collection of King Charles I.

“Item don upon the right lighte in a white ivory box/ wthout a Christall a Certaine Ladies Picture in her haire/ in a gold bone lace little ruff, and black habbitt/ lined wth furr with goulden tissue sleeves/ with one hand over another supposed to have bin/ Queen Elizabeth before shee came to the Crowne. By an unknown hand”[6]

Upon the purchase of the second miniature by the Royal Collection, both were thought to depict the same individual. Due to the early Van der Doort description it was therefore thought that both miniatures represented the young Queen Elizabeth in the early years of her reign. Both images continue to be catalogued as Elizabeth I today.

Author Roy Strong was noted not to include either miniature in his 1963 book entitled Portrait of Queen Elizabeth. He was observed to briefly discuss them in the 1987 revised version Gloriana The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I. When discussing both miniatures, he interestingly notes that “of the two miniatures, one is more certainly of her than the other.”[7] It could be argued that both images depict separate individuals rather than a portrait of the same person. There does appear to be significant differences in the composition and costume worn by both individuals to identify that one is not a direct copy of the other.

Whoever RCIN420944 depicts will continue to be debated among art historians, but Lionel Cust was right back in 1910 to question the identity of the sitter being Lady Jane Grey. There appears to be nothing within the image to suggest that the portrait was painted of her, and no detailed description survives today that tells us anything about what she looked like. This image can now be removed from any list of potential likenesses thought to depict her.

[1] Messrs. Christies and Manson, Sales Catalogue, April 28^th, 1856, Page 90, lot 960

[2] Christie’s, Sales Catalogue, 24^th May 1881, Page 109, lot 1420

[3] Holmes. Richard, The Royal Collection of Miniatures at Windsor Castle, English Illustrated Magazine, July 1184

[4] For more details on the new finding regarding Davey’s description of Jane see: Edwards John, Queen of a New Invention, Old John Publishing, 2015, page 177 and DeLisle. Leanda, Sisters Who Would Be Queen, Harper Press, 2008

[5] Christie’s Sale Catalogue, 10^th April 1962, Page 20

[6] O’Donoghue,F.M, A Descriptive and Classified Catalogue of Portraits of Queen Elizabeth , 1894, page 27, no 7

[7] Strong. Roy, Gloriana The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I, 1987, Page 55