The Ketteringham Hall Portrait

Previously Called Lady Jane Grey
Watercolour on Ivory
45mm

On 25th 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 20th 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 10th 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 24th 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, 22nd 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, 22nd 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, 15th 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 24th 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 28th 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 24th 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 10th 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 10th 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 28th, 1856, Page 90, lot 960

[2] Christie’s, Sales Catalogue, 24th 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, 10th 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

The Beaufort Miniature Portrait

The Beaufort Miniature
Called Lady Jane Grey
Watercolour on vellum applied to card
(c) Private Collection

Sold at Sotheby’s auction house, London, on 13th September 1983 as lot 90, The Beaufort Miniature is one of the more recent paintings to be sold with the sitter tentatively suggested to be Lady Jane Grey.  The painting is associated with the artist Levina Teerlinc and is painted on vellum. The Sotheby’s sale included a second miniature attributed to the same artist, and both were formerly held in the collection of Henry Somerset, 12th Duke of Beaufort.

Before we study this miniature portrait in detail, we must first examine the artist associated with it and determine whether Levina Teerlinc would have had access to paint Lady Jane Grey.  Born around 1510, Teerlinc was the daughter of the famous Flemish illustrator Simon Benninck, and it is highly likely that she was taught to paint by her father.  By 1546, she was married, working, and living in England.  Teerlinc was granted a salary of forty pounds a year by Henry VIII, and she is documented as having worked for the English crown until her death in 1576.[1]  Teerlinc is a bit of an enigma.  Artists of the sixteenth century, even those with a large surviving output, are ordinarily not well documented today. But the reverse is true of Teerlinc. The State Papers of four separate Tudor monarchs include specific mention of her, yet no portrait reliably attributable to her is known to have survived today.[2]

In July 1983, a small number of miniature portraits were grouped together for the first time and exhibited as part of the Portrait Miniature Rediscovered Exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum. All were painted between 1546-1576, or during the period between the deaths of both Hans Holbein and Lucas Hornebolte in the 1540’s and the rise of Nicolas Hillard in the 1570’s.  All of the images were thought in 1983 to have been produced by Levina Teerlinc, though there is no surviving evidence to prove that assertion conclusively. [3] All of the miniatures do show some similarities in draughtsmanship.  The sitters do all have rather large heads and stick-like arms, and some similarities in the brushwork were also noted, including the use of loose wash work to create the features.  Since the completion of the exhibition, a number of other miniature portraits showing the same compositional mannerisms, including the Beaufort Miniature, have been sold at auction and have also been associated with Teerlinc.

Lady Katherine Grey
Watercolour on vellum applied to card
(c) Victoria and Albert Museum

Among the group of miniatures exhibited in the Portrait Miniature Rediscovered Exhibition and associated with Teerlinc is a portrait now in the collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum.  Purchased by the museum in June 1979, it is called Lady Katherine Grey due to an early inscription on the back that reads “The La Kathn Graye/wyfe of th’ Erle of/ Hertford”.  If the identity of the sitter and artist associated with this painting is correct, then Teerlinc most certainly had access to Jane’s sister. Teerlinc is also documented as producing several images of Elizabeth, including receiving payment in 1551 for a portrait of her as princess.  Susan James has also suggested that Teerlinc painted Catherine Parr, which suggests that Teerlinc came into contact with people that Jane would have known personally.  There is the slight possibility that she might have come into contact with Jane herself.[4]

The Beaufort Miniature depicts a young lady, seen to below the waist and facing the viewer’s left. Both hands are depicted in front, and she is holding a pair of gloves in her right hand, which has a ring on the fourth finger.  On her head, she wears a French hood with both upper and lower billaments made up of goldsmith work and pearls. A black veil is also seen hanging down at the back.  A black loose gown with a fur collar and fitted mutton leg sleeves is worn by the sitter. At her neck she wears a small ruff edged with gold thread. The sitter is depicted on a blue background with a gold border.

Unknown Lady
Called Lady Frances Grey
Watercolour on vellum
(c)Victoria and Albert Museum

As discussed above, the miniature had previously been in the collection of Henry Somerset, 12th Duke of Beaufort.[5]  In the auction catalogue at the time of the sale, the lot was officially titled “An Important Married Lady at The Tudor Court.” The suggestion that the sitter could possibly be Lady Jane Grey was made within the description that accompanied the lot.  The catalogue reported similarities in the facial features of the sitter depicted in the Beaufort Miniature and the miniature portrait of Lady Katherine Grey at the Victoria and Albert Museum. It then went on to suggest Lady Jane Grey is the sitter and that the image was “taken shortly before her death in 1554”.  The catalogue did rightfully record that there is no proof to back up this theory.  A second miniature also associated with Teerlinc and sold during the same auction was similarly suggested to depict Jane Grey’s mother, Lady Frances Brandon. [6]  When looking at the Beaufort miniature and the other thought to depict Lady Katherine Grey side by side, there does appear to be some similarities in the faces, but this cannot be used today as the sole reason to identify a sitter within a painting.  There are other clues in the painting that give us some indication that the sitter is not, in fact, Lady Jane Grey.

The ruff seen in the painting appears to be the only major datable aspect. The ruff was an essential part of the Tudor wardrobe by the mid sixteenth and early seventeenth century and was worn across Europe in a variety of styles.  In the case of the Beaufort Miniature, we see an example from the early stages of the evolution of the ruffs.  It appears to be attached to the sitter’s partlet rather than worn as a separate item that was starched and fixed in place, as was seen in later periods.

Called Catherine Howard (Detail)
Hans Holbein
(c) The Royal Collection

To trace the evolution of the ruff worn in Britain, we must first look at the fashion worn by ladies during the 1540’s.  It was during this period that it became more favourable for ladies to cover the chest rather than the previous fashion of the chest being revealed by the low-cut French gowns.  As seen in a portrait thought to depict Katherine Howard and now in the Royal Collection.  This was achieved with the use of a partlet.  Worn beneath the bodice and tied under the arms this would have been made from a fine fabric.

By the end of the 1540’s and early 1550’s, ladies continued to wear the partlet, however, this had developed slightly.  Surviving portraits from this period show that the partlet continued to be constructed from a fine fabric similar to what would have been used to create the chemise, though this had been fitted with a neck band to create a small frill or collar. The addition of a second partlet known as an outer partlet made with a v-shaped collar of a contrasting fabric to the outer gown could also be worn over this.

By the mid 1550’s, the small frill seen at the neck had again grown in size and had begun to surround the face, similar in style to what is seen in the Beaufort Miniature.  This ruffle would eventually develop into the ruff seen in the later periods after the 1560’s and would eventually become a separated from the partlet altogether. [7]

When compared to portraits painted during the later half of the 1550’s, including one of an unknown lady in the collection of the Fitzwilliam Museum dating to 1555 and another of Mary Neville in the National Portrait Gallery dating to 1559 the Beaufort Miniature appears to sit in the middle with the ruffle looking as though it is still attached to a partlet as seen in the Fitzwilliam portrait and without the use of wire or starch to create the defined figure of eight shape seen in the portrait of Mary Neville.

Though arguably there are some similarities in the facial features of the Beaufort Miniature and the V&A miniature of Lady Katherine Grey, this could be attributed to the artist’s style rather than to family resemblance. It is my opinion that the sitter depicted in the Beaufort Miniature is wearing a ruffle that is slightly too late in period to have been worn by Lady Jane Grey. The miniature is unlikely to have been painted prior to 1554 as the catalogue suggests.  Though a beautiful little picture, there is no evidence to suggest that it was thought prior to the 1983 auction to be an image of Jane Grey. This can now be removed from the list of any likenesses thought to depict Lady Jane Grey. 


[1] Strong. Roy, The English Renaissance Miniature, Thames and Hudson, 1983, page 54

[2]  James. Susan, The Feminine Dynamic in English Art, 1485-1603, Women as Consumers, Patrons and Painter, Ashgate Publishing, 2009

[3] Strong. Roy, Artists of the Tudor Court, The Portrait Miniature Rediscovered 1520-1620, Thames and Hudson, 1983, page 52

[4] James. Susan, The Feminine Dynamic in English Art, 1485-1603, Women as Consumers, Patrons and Painter, Ashgate Publishing, 2009, page 27

[5] Artist file for Levina Teerlinc, Heinz Archive, National Portrait Gallery, London, NPG50/21/250, accessed 2018.  It is not known exactly when the Duke acquired the miniature, but a photograph taken in 1983 lists the sitter as “Unknown Lady.” This suggests that the sitter was not thought to depict Jane Grey prior to the sale of that same year.

[6] Sotheby’s Auction Catalogue, 13th September 1983, page 31. Purchased by the Victorian and Albert Museum in 1983 this miniature is catalogued today as “unknown lady”

[7] For further information on the evolution of the ruff see Arnold. Janet, Pattern of Fashion 4, The cut and construction of linen shirts, smocks, neckwear, headwear and accessories for men and women c.1540-1660, Macmillan, 2008.

The Gibson Portrait

The Gibson Portrait
Size Unknown
Location Unknown

The information associated with many portraits thought to depict Lady Jane Grey is often fragmented. In the case of the Gibson portrait, only a letter and a photographic image submitted to The Connoisseur Magazine in 1911 exist to inform us that the sitter depicted was thought to be that of Lady Jane Grey.  This portrait has not yet been located and studied and I have been unable to locate any other information regarding the provenance of this painting. Neither has any information surfaced to show that this portrait was ever included in any public exhibition as a depiction of Lady Jane Grey.

Jane G. Gibson, the then owner of the portrait, submitted a request to the magazine’s readers for further information regarding the identity of the sitter and artist associated with this painting.  No published replies to her request have been located, which suggests that unfortunately Gibson did not get the information she was looking for. 

Within her letter, Gibson reported that a scrap of paper was attached to the back of the painting identifying the sitter as “Jana Graia Holbein pinxit”.  She also noted that the painting was examined by Sir George Scharf, Director of The National Portrait Gallery, London, who, she explains “thought it to be a genuine portrait, by the School of Clouet.”  Gibson does not, however, recall any thoughts Scharf had regarding the identity of the sitter.  She appears to dismiss the identification of the sitter as Lady Jane Grey, reporting that the scrap of paper is a “manifest forgery” and noting that “Jane Grey was a mere child at the time of Holbein’s death”.  Gibson also dismisses Scharf’s opinion that the painting is associated with the school of Clouet noting that the work “resembles other painting’s produced by Holbein”.  She is correct when expressing doubt over the identification of the sitter, though the portrait’s association with Hans Holbein is also dubious[1].

A large number of portraits held in private collections or sold at auction were associated with Hans Holbein during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  That included a small number of portraits thought at the time to depict Lady Jane Grey.  Paintings sold between the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries where simply grouped and associated with the most famous artists working within the sixteenth century.  Little evidence to support the associations were given by the auction houses, and access to information and research into lesser known artists was limited.  A search of the Getty Provenance Database shows that a total of 1563 paintings associated with Holbein and sold at auction between the years of 1800- 1900. It is highly unlikely that Holbein would have had the time to paint 1563 portraits during his lifetime, and therefore not all could have been painted by his hand alone.  It is more probable that a number of the images sold between 1800-1900 were associated with him due to the fame attached to his name, some similarities in style or as a way of adding value to the paintings[2].

As stated above, Gibson is right when noting that the sitter seen in the portrait is too old to be a depiction of Lady Jane Grey, though this does not dismiss the fact that Holbein could have possibly painted a portrait of her.   Holbein did have access to and created a number of images of Jane’s family members including Margaret Wotton, Elizabeth Grey, Eleanor Brandon, and Charles and Henry Brandon.  This does suggest that he could have possibly had access to Jane Grey as well, though the likelihood of a portrait surfacing of Jane by Holbein today very slim.  Holbein died in 1543, and if a portrait was ever to surface painted by him then it most definitely would have to depict a small child rather than the fully developed lady seen in the Gibson portrait.      

Though the quality of the early photographic image submitted is poor and some of the finer details are lost, the costume worn by the sitter does give us some clues as to the period in which the portrait was created.  We can see from the image is that the portrait depicts a young female, painted to below the waist and facing the viewer’s left.  Both hands are depicted in front, and four rings can be seen on her fingers.  The sitter also holds what appears to be a flower in her right hand.  On her head she wears an early example of the French Hood, and her gown has a square cut neckline with large bell-shaped sleeves and fitted false undersleeves.  Two necklaces of goldsmith work are worn around the neck, and a circular brooch is pinned to the front of the kirtle and tucked into the bodice of the outer gown.

The exact date on which the French Hood was first worn in England is unknown, however, it is traditionally thought that this originates with Mary Rose Tudor, sister to Henry VIII, returning from France after the death of her husband in 1515[3].  The hood originated in France and was worn towards the end of the fifteenth century.  Prior to its arrival in England, ladies wore the traditional Gable Hood seen in the many paintings of Elizabeth of York and Katherine of Aragon.  The French Hood became more popular in England when King Henry VIII married Anne Boleyn, who was also noted to have spent a period of time in France[4].  It would eventually overtake the Gable Hood in popularity and was worn as a popular item until the end of the sixteenth century.  Slight changes in its appearance and construction occurred during its popularity that can help us to identify a possible narrow period in which a portrait was painted.

The hood worn by the sitter in the Gibson portrait has elongated side panels stretching to just beyond the jaw-line and is similar in style to the image seen above left.  This portrait of Isabella of Austria painted around 1515 shows the French hood in its early stages of development and around the time the hood is thought to have been introduced to England.  By the 1530’s, the front shape of the hood changed slightly, and the side panels became shorter in appearance, ending just below the ear.  Upper and lower billaments were also used to add decoration.  This can be seen in the famous image of Anne Boleyn above middle. By the 1540’s, the side panels of the hood were more concaved in appearance rather than the longer version seen in the Gibson Portrait which shows us that the sitter in the Gibson Portrait is wearing a hood that was still in its early stages of development when the portrait was painted. 

Though it cannot be known for certain until the portrait is located and studied further, the style of costume worn by the sitter is more consistent with that worn during the early part of the sixteenth century, prior to the 1530’s.  If the portrait is English, then it most certainly cannot be a depiction of Lady Jane Grey, as the costume seen is not something that would have been worn by her during her lifetime. The Gibson portrait can now be removed from any list of potential likenesses thought to depict Lady Jane Grey.


[1] The Connoisseur Magazine, vol XXXI, September-December 1911, page 250

[2] http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb

[3] Lynn. Eleri, Tudor Fashion, Yale University Press, 2017, page 80

[4] Ives. Eric, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, Blackwell Publishing, 2008, page 27

The Arkwright Portrait

Katherine De Vere
Oil on panel
18 1/2 X 13 3/4 inches
(c) Private Collection

Sold at Christie’s auction, London, on 9th December 2016, lot 151 was rightfully described as a portrait of Katherine de Vere, Lady Windsor (1540-1600) and associated to the artist known today as Master of The Countess of Warwick.   What is not commonly known about this painting is that prior to the 1960’s, it was thought to depict Lady Jane Grey. Due to this painting once being associated with Jane Grey, I have decided to discuss it on this website.  This portrait is a good example of how Jane Grey’s name was applied to a sixteenth century portrait, depicting a female sitter, even if the inscription detailing facts about the sitter did not match with what was known about Jane.   

The Arkwright portrait shows a lady, painted to just above the waist and facing the viewer’s left. She has auburn hair that is pulled away from the face, and her eyes are blue.  The sitter wears a black loose gown/night gown, with large puffed short sleeves and a high collar.  This style of gown was popular in England from the 1530’s onwards. It was worn as an alternative to the tight-fitted French Gowns with the low square necklines and large sleeves.  Generally worn over a kirtle by both the middle and upper class lady, this gown was easier to put on independently due to its front fastening and was a comfortable gown to wear during the day or when in the bedchamber as informal wear. During the 1560’s the loose gown became tighter and more fitted around the bodice, much like that seen in the Arkwright portrait.  An embroidered chemise is also seen worn under the gown. This is embroidered using black and gold thread and incorporates the use of an acorn within the design.  A small figure-of-eight ruff is worn surrounding the face.  This is also embroidered with black work and gold thread.  On her head, she wears a French hood with an upper and lower billament of goldsmith work containing gemstones and pearls. The traditional black veil is also visible falling from the back of the hood.  A small cross suspended from a pearl necklace is seen at the neck, and she holds with her left hand a large pendant suspended from a larger necklace of goldwork.  The sitter is depicted in front of a brown background, and a contemporary inscription in the top left-hand corner has been added identifying the sitter’s age as twenty-four and the year as 1567.

The artist associated with the Arkwright portrait is an anonymous painter who is known to have produced several portraits of female sitters during the second half of the sixteenth century.  We do know that he worked in England between the years of 1567-1569 and that he also painted a portrait of Anne Russell, Countess of Warwick, now at Woburn Abbey.  As a result, other works thought to have been produced by this artist are simply grouped under the attribution of “Master of The Countess of Warwick.”

Early photographic image showing Lady Jane Grey inscription.
(c) Heinz Archive

The only evidence I have been able to locate to date which shows us that this painting was indeed thought in the past to depict Jane Grey is an early photographic image stored in the Heinz Archives, London.[1] This photograph shows the Arkwright painting prior to modern cleaning and restoration.  What is seen from the above image is that an inscription was added to the panel surface on the left-hand side at some point to inform the viewer that this portrait was supposed to be of Lady Jane Grey.  This inscription no longer survives on the panel surface today.  This suggests that during the recent cleaning process it was identified to be a much later addition, and it was removed from the surface.   

As with many of the other portraits thought to represent Jane Grey, no information has been located about the Arkwright portrait to inform us, the modern-day viewer, when and why this painting was thought to depict her.  It is possible that her name was simply attached to the Arkwright portrait in the nineteenth or early twentieth century due to a high demand and need for a physical image of Jane Grey. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, Jane’s popularity was at its height. Many published biographies, plays, and paintings depicting various scenes from her life were created during this period.  This in turn made Jane’s story more accessible to the viewing public and in some cases captured people’s interest in her as a historical figure. Her popularity then created a demand for her image and allowed owners of various portraits that fitted with what was being recorded at that time to attach her name to their painting with no evidence to support this.  Today, some of these portraits are now being re-evaluated due to easier access to documentation, a better understanding of the progression of fashion during the sixteenth century, and new scientific techniques which were not available during the earlier periods.

What is clear from the early photograph of the Arkwright portrait is that the identification as an image of Jane Grey was made with very little thought.  The inscription clearly indicates the sitter’s age as twenty-four and the year as 1567.  Both the age and the date are inconsistent with Jane Grey. It may have been possible that the owner who had the Jane Grey inscription applied to the panel surface may have thought the earlier inscription to be false and a later addition.  This cannot be known for certain due to missing documentation.  Jane Grey’s birth has over the centuries been debated by various writers due to lack of documentation, and no exact date is known. It was commonly known and recorded, however, that she died in 1554 and was sixteen/seventeen years old at the time of her death.  This does bring about the question as to why her name was attached to a portrait with incorrect information.     

In a book published by Roy Strong in 1969 entitled The English Icon the provenance for the Arkwright portrait was briefly discussed[2].  Strong records that the portrait was once in the collection at Hampton Court, Herefordshire and that by 1969 the portrait was in the collection of David Arkwright Esq, who was noted to live at Kinsham Court.   

Hampton Court Castle, as it is known today, dates to the fifteenth century and was home to the Coningsby family from 1510 until 1810. The castle and estate were then purchased by John Arkwright (1785-1858), the great grandson of the cotton-spinning industrialist Sir Richard Arkwright.  The estate remained in the family until it was sold by Sir John Stanhope Arkwright (1872-1954) in 1910.  John Stanhope Arkwright then purchased Kinsham Court, Herefordshire, and it appears he had taken the portrait with him. David Lyndon Arkwright (1911-1983) inherited Kinsham Court from his father in 1954. He died without ever marrying or producing issue in 1983, leaving Kinsham Court and its contents to his mother’s great niece Mrs. Susan Wood.

Two years after Susan Wood inherited Kinsham Court, the portrait appears for the first time at auction on 19th July 1985, when it was sold by Christie’s Auction House, London as a portrait of Katherine de Vere. By 2016, the portrait was once again up for public auction, and it was again described as a portrait of Katherine de Vere, Lady Windsor[3]

Edward Lord Windsor and Family
(c) Marquess of Bute

It appears that prior to 1969 the Arkwright portrait was compared to an almost identical image thought to be by the same artist and now in the collection of the Marquess of Bute. That painting uses the identical individual portrait image seen in the Arkwright portrait, though the sitter is painted three quarter length and is incorporated into a family group.  The Bute Family Portrait includes a contemporary inscription made by the artist identifying the year in which the portrait was painted and the sitter’s ages.  A later inscription has also been added to the panel surface that identifies the sitter’s as Edward Lord Windsor, and his lady, daughter to the Earl of Oxford. Their children, Lord Frederick Windsor, Lord Thomas Windsor, and two younger brothers.  Though this inscription is a later addition, it does appear to be an early one.  In some cases, inscriptions that included the names of the sitters where applied to a portrait at some later period in time by other family members in hopes of fixing the identities of the sitters depicted before they passed from living memory.  This is very similar to what we do today with photographs of loved ones.  Though Edward Windsor’s lady is not named within this description, he did marry Katherine de Vere in 1555.  Katherine de Vere was the daughter of John de Vere, 16th Earl of Oxford, who is also noted in the inscription, it was then decided that the Arkwright portrait was mostly likely to depict Katherine de Vere and not Lady Jane Grey.


[1] NPG018643, Artist Box, Master of The Countess of Warwick

[2] Strong, Roy, The English Icon, Elizabethan and Jacobean Portraiture, 1969, page 108

[3] https://www.mutualart.com/Artwork/Portrait-of-Katherine-de-Vere–Lady-Wind/D25D6374F8362979 accessed, 10th April 2019

The Stowe House Portraits

During the early nineteenth century, a small number of portraits at Stowe House in Buckinghamshire were described as representing Lady Jane Grey.

Today, Stowe House is a Grade I listed building that is open to the public for tours and that also incorporates a private school.   It was the former home of the Temple-Grenville family and George Nugent Temple-Grenville, who was created the 1st Marquis of Buckingham in December of 1784.  The house passed through descent down the family line.  Various auctions of some of its contents took place due to financial issues, and the family eventually sold the property in 1921.

The Manuscript Room Miniature Portrait

Early in the nineteenth century houses across the country began to open their doors to visitors who were able to take a tour of the buildings for a small fee. A descriptive catalogue of Stowe House and Gardens was printed in 1817 and sold for the use of tourists.

Described in this catalogue and referred to as being displayed over the chimney in the Manuscript Room is a miniature portrait thought at that time to be a representation of Lady Jane Grey.  The Catalogue reports that the miniature, along with several other miniature portraits, including one thought to depict Jane Seymour and another of Thomas Seymour,

Came into the possession of Mrs. Grenville from the collection of her grandfather Charles, Duke of Somerset.[1]

The Mrs Grenville mentioned is Elizabeth Grenville (1717-1769), daughter of Sir William Wyndham and his first wife Lady Catherine Seymour.  Elizabeth married George Grenville (1712-1770) in 1749 and was mother to George Nugent-Temple Grenville 1st Marques of Buckingham. She had inherited a small amount of money from her grandfather Charles Seymour, 6th Duke of Somerset, and it is possible that she had also inherited the miniature portraits as well.

Called Lady Jane Grey by Robert Cooper
Taken From The Manuscript Room Miniature
(c)Heinz Archive London

No description of the miniature thought to depict Lady Jane Grey is given in the 1817 catalogue, but it was engraved by Robert Cooper (died 1828) in the early nineteenth century, along with the other two portraits thought to depict Jane and Thomas Seymour.  These engravings survive today, and inscribed on each engraving beneath the image is a statement that the originals are in the possession of the Marquis of Buckingham at Stowe.

What is clearly seen from this engraving is that the miniature portrait thought in 1817 to depict Jane Grey is based on the pattern used to create NPG4451, the Hastings portrait and the Jersey Portrait. The distinctive crown headed brooch is seen in the engraving of the Manuscript Room Miniature worn pinned to the front of the sitter’s bodice, and this brooch also appears in NPG4451, the Hastings portrait, the Jersey portrait and the Van de Passe Engraving.  The brooch was used in 1997 as the focus for the reidentification of NPG4451 as a portrait of Katherine Parr.  Today, all portraits relating to this pattern are now thought to be a depiction of Katherine Parr rather than Jane Grey, and therefore this rules out Jane Grey as the possible sitter in the Stowe House miniature portrait.    

It does appear that this miniature was sold on March 15th, 1849 as part of the large thirty-seven day auction of the contents of Stowe House facilitated by Messrs. Christies and Manson.  It appears in the original catalogue for this sale, under the miniatures section referring to Royal Personages.

Item 3. The Lady Jane Grey, in a crimson dress.[2]

An annotated copy of this catalogue in the collection of the Heinz Archive, London, records the buyer of the miniature as “Lagrange or La Grange.”[3]  I have been unable to locate any other information regarding the current whereabouts of this image.

The West Stairs Portrait

The second portrait to be discussed appears in the 1849 sales catalogue for the contents of Stowe House and is described as:

Item 372. A portrait called Lady Jane Grey[4]

This portrait was displayed on the west staircase and was documented in the sales catalogue as being purchased by a R. Berkeley, Esq, who also purchased several other paintings at this sale. As the portrait is documented as “called” Lady Jane Grey in the catalogue description, this suggests that some doubt was expressed in 1848 about the identity of the sitter.

Called Lady Jane Grey (c) British Museum

Robert Berkeley Esq (1794-1874) of Spetchley Park, near Worcester, was a descendant of an aristocratic family dating back to the Norman conquest of England in 1066. The Berkeley family owned a large amount of land including Berkeley Castle in Gloucestershire, which still belongs to living descendants today.

An engraving dating to the nineteenth century that is now in the collection of the British Museum depicts a portrait of a lady wearing clothing that dates to a period much later than that of Jane Grey’s lifetime.  This engraving is inscribed at the bottom in pencil. The inscription identifies the sitter as “Lady Jane Grey/ The Marquis of Buckingham/ Private plate”.  The Engraving was bequeathed to the British Museum in 1868 from the collection of a Felix Slade (1788-1868), who is known to have been a keen collector, acquiring a large collection of books and prints during his lifetime.

Called Lady Jane Grey (c) Private Collection

Email communication with the Berkeley estate has confirmed that a portrait matching this engraving and thought to represent Lady Jane Grey is still in their collection today and appears for the first time in an inventory taken in 1893. 

What can be seen from the photographic image of this painting is that the lady depicted most definitely dates to a later period than that of Lady Jane Grey’s lifetime.  The costume the sitter is wearing is not consistent with the style worn in England during the period in which Jane Grey was alive.  The portrait dates to the 1650’s when the large ruffs worn across Europe during the earlier periods were being replaced with the plainer broad lace or linen collar. The elaborate French fashions worn previously during the reigns of James I and Charles I were by this later period becoming more sombre in style and colour.

This portrait also appears continental in style and is probably Dutch in origin. The west stair portrait is close in comparison to a number of portraits by Netherlandish artists such as Rembrandt van Rijh (1606-1669) depicting female sitters in the same manner and a similar style of costume. Though difficult to see in the photographic image, the hood worn by the sitter is similar in style to that seen in several portraits of Dutch origin dating to the middle of the seventeenth century.  Catrina Hooghsaet wears a similar hood without the attached vail in her portrait by Rembrandt van Rijn in 1657. During the 1660’s, in England, Ladies began to embrace the fashion of wearing their hair curled and pinned up with the use of jewels as embellishment rather than wearing a hood that had been popular in the past.

How the West Stairs portrait became known as a portrait of Lady Jane Grey is unknown, and it is highly unlikely that this portrait was painted to represent Jane Grey in the first place. It is possible that her name was simply attached to the portrait due to the plainness of dress depicted or that the frame used for this portrait, which also includes the inscription identifying the sitter as Jane Grey, was simply reused from another portrait thought to represent her. It can now be removed from the list of potential likenesses as it dates to a period of some ninety years after her death and therefore cannot be an authentic likeness.

The East Hall Portrait

The third and final portrait to be discussed appears in the 1817 descriptive catalogue from Stowe House. This book records another portrait thought to be Jane Grey in the “passage of the east hall” at Stowe.  The portrait is simply referred to as:

Lady Jane Grey (original).[5]

No further description is given of the painting. Since some of the other portraits are explicitly described in the catalogue as “full length,” and this one is not, it does suggest the possibility that this painting was less than full length, perhaps three quarter, half, or bust length. The use of the term “original” also indicates that in 1817 this portrait was deemed to be old.

As yet, I have been unable to track the current whereabouts of this portrait.  I have been able to locate a further two references to a portrait of Lady Jane Grey in the collection of The Marquis of Buckingham that could possibly be this particular painting, however.  These do give us more details as to what the portrait actually looked like, and when investigated further, these also give us some indication as to whether or not this portrait was a painting of Lady Jane Grey.

The first reference appears in the appendix of Richard Davey’s 1909 biography on Jane Grey.  Davey describes an engraving of the portrait as:

Lady Jane Grey. From a portrait in the possession of the Marquis of Buckingham. She wears a velvet gown open at the throat to display a double chain with a pendant cross. On table, large gold chalice.[6]

Since this description is inconsistent with the West Stair portrait and Manuscript Room Miniature, also thought to be Jane Grey, it is possible that the source used by the unidentified engraver was the “original portrait in the passage of the east hall.”  The description given by Davey of the East Hall Portrait is of interest as he does give us a little more information as to what this image looked like.

Another clue appears in 1917, in a magazine article published in the Musical Courier, which discusses the discovery of the then lost Pryor’s Bank portrait thought to represent Lady Jane Grey.  The article reports:

A portrait somewhat similar, in which this same chalice figures, is in the collection of the Marques of Buckingham.[7]

From the above descriptions, we see that the East Hall Portrait was probably similar in look to the Pryor’s Bank portrait.  Since no image has as yet been located, I am unable to discuss the similarities in-depth.  However, what is seen from the descriptions is that both the Pryor’s Bank Portrait and the East Hall portrait included a depiction of a chalice within the composition.

It is possible that an authentic portrait of Jane Grey could have been painted that included the use of a chalice within the composition.  This does not, however, fit with the general style of other portraits produced of female figures painted during her lifetime.  A number of portraits from this period show that females where generally depicted by artists in front of a plain background or cloth.  This was done to enable the depiction of the sitter to be the most prominent part of the painting.  Latin inscriptions that identified the sitter age and date in which the portrait was painted were generally added by the artist, and in some cases a motto or coat of arms as well.  Some paintings do survive which also demonstrate that female sitters were also depicted within a domestic surrounding that included objects within the composition. These paintings including one of Princess Elizabeth, now in the Royal Collection, and another of Lady Mary Dacre.  They are rare and are not as common as those depicting a sitter in front of a plain background.

Since the description of the East Hall portrait mentions the use of the chalice, I personally err on the side of caution when looking at this information.  As discussed in previous articles, the iconography of Jane Grey is a difficult and complex subject due to the large number of portraits and the little information surviving about them.

It does appear that over the years several paintings once identified as being of Jane Grey have turned out to be representations of Mary Magdalene when studied further.  As discussed in my article on the Pryor’s Bank portrait, the use of the golden chalice in the iconography of Mary Magdalene was popular and was used along with other artefacts depicted in the paintings as a form of symbolism.  Mary Magdalene was commonly portrayed alone, in isolation reading, writing or playing the lute.  The chalice was commonly used to symbolise the jar of oil used to wash the feet of Jesus. The Symbolism used within depictions of the Magdalene is similar to the description given by Roger Ascham in his book The Schoolmaster of Jane sat alone at Bradgate reading Plato.  This description was commonly used during the nineteenth and twentieth century by authors and artists when discussing and depicting Jane to demonstrate that her love of learning had isolated her from her family, who Ascham notes were out hunting at the time of his visit.

Althorp Portrait Called Lady Jane Grey in 1817 Engraving appeared in Bibliographical Decameron by Thomas Frognall Dibdin

One possible reason for the number of portraits depicting the Magdalene being confused for that of Jane Grey is the publication in 1817 of the engraved image of a painting that is known today as the Althorp Portrait. That image appeared in a book entitled Bibliographical Decameron by Thomas Frognall Dibdin (1776-1847). That engraving was based on a portrait in the collection of Spencer family at Althorp house which at that time was thought to be of Lady Jane Grey. That portrait also incorporated the use of a golden chalice within the composition. Today, it is now thought that this painting is a depiction of Mary Magdalene. In 1817, Dibdin stated in the footnote of his book that,

This is the only legitimate portrait of Lady Jane Grey that has yet been made public[8]

This then allowed others who may have owned a similar portrait depicting a sixteenth century lady close to Jane’s age, reading and with a chalice, to then attach her name to their painting.    

Until the East Hall portrait is located, it cannot be known for certain whether It is a possible image of Lady Jane Grey or another portrait of Mary Magdalene that Jane’s name had been associated with.  

The Jersey Portrait

Stowe house had a fourth portrait in its collection that in time was to become associated with Lady Jane Grey. It is known today as the Jersey portrait.

The Jersey Portrait
Katherine Parr
(c) The Earldom of Jersey Trust

This portrait was purchased from the Pryor’s Bank sale on May 3rd 1841, where it was described in the catalogue as:

Item 509. A panel painting, Queen Mary I., in carved guilt frame[9]

The painting remained in the Stowe collection, where it was hung in the Private Dining Room. It is described in the Stowe auction catalogue as:

290 Queen Mary, in a black dress, with richly ornamented sleeves-(Holbein)[10]

The annotated catalogue records the buyer of this portrait as a Mr J. Oxford Ryman, and within the same year of the sale this painting ended up in the collection of the Countess of Jersey.  Initially it was thought to have been destroyed by fire in 1949, but recent research completed by John Stephan Edwards has confirmed that this portrait did indeed survive the fire. 

The Jersey Portraits identity as an image of Lady Jane Grey originates with the purchase of NPG4451 by the National Portrait Gallery, London, in 1965.  Newspaper clippings from the late 1960’s show that almost immediately Roy Strong, Director of the National Portrait Gallery, compared NPG4451 to the Van de Passe engraving, thought at that time to be the only authentic image of Jane Grey, and a portrait in the collection of Lord Hastings, which had been associated with Jane’s name for many years.  By 1969, Roy Strong published his book Tudor and Jacobean Portraits, in which he also discussed the Jersey portrait under the heading Authentic and Possibly Authentic Portraits. Strong noted similarities between the Jersey portrait and the other images connected to NPG4451 and tentatively suggested that the Jersey portrait was also related to this set and must therefore also be another image of Jane Grey.  At that time, Strong also reported that the “face is that of a much older woman.”[11]  He dismissed the identity of it being a portrait of Queen Mary I, however, and tentatively put this down to bad restoration.  He also noted that the Jersey portrait had been destroyed by fire and that further research was unable to take place.     

Research produced and published by Susan James in January 1996[12] has now established that some of the jewels worn by the sitter in NPG4451 appear in inventories made of Katherine Parr’s jewels in 1550.  By June of 1996, the National Portrait Gallery then opted to reidentify NPG4451 as a portrait of Katherine Parr and not Lady Jane Grey, as all evidence indicated that the sitter depicted was most likely to be Katherine Parr. This in turn allowed the other portraits connected with this pattern to also be reidentified as Katherine Parr.


[1] Stowe A Description of The House and Gardens, 1817, page 52

[2] Catalogue of The Contents of Stowe House, Messrs. Christie and Manson, 1848, page130

[3] Heinz Archive: NPG125400

[4] Foster, Henry, The Stowe Catalogue Priced and Annotated, 1848, page178

[5] Stowe A Description of The House and Gardens, 1817, page 36

[6] Davey, Richard, Nine Days Queen, Lady Jane Grey and Her Times, 1909, page 362

[7] Musical Courier, Namara Discovers Valuable Portrait, 8th November 1917, page 43

[8] Dubdin, Thomas, The Bibliographical Decameron, 1817, page 250

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

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

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

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

The Duff House Portrait

Among the index cards referring to portraits of Lady jane Grey in the Heinz Archive, London, is a card recording a portrait of her once in the collection of the Earl of Fife.  Until recently this portrait was thought to have been lost, and to my knowledge it has not been studied by historians or exhibited in any public exhibition as a representation of her.

The first record regarding this image located today was published in a privately printed book from 1798.  The book details the large collection of paintings and portraits belonging to James Duff, 4th Earl of Fife (1776-1854) across his various properties.  Recorded as being displayed in the large drawing room at Duff House, an eighteenth-century estate house designed for the family by William, Adam is a portrait of Lady Jane Grey.   The entry reads    

item 18. Lady Jane Grey – half length. This unfortunate lady was forced to accept the crown, 5th July 1553, and was beheaded 12th February, 1554. She was daughter to Henry Grey, Duke of Dorset, by Lady Frances Brandon, by Mary queen of France.  She was remarkable for her learning and virtue.  Her husband, Lord Guildford Dudley, was beheaded on the same day.  Zucchero.[1]

This description is vague and gives us very little detail about the actual painting itself. The description does give us our first clue that this painting was not a portrait of Lady Jane Grey, however.  The artist recorded as creating the painting is a “Zucchero,” which suggests the portrait was later in period than that of Jane Grey’s lifetime.

Federigo Zuccaro (c.1540 – 1609), as he is better known, was an Italian artist who first visited England in 1574.  During that visit he was commissioned by Robert Dudley (Jane’s brother in law) to paint an image of himself and Queen Elizabeth.  Compositional drawings for both portraits survive today in the collection of the British Museum.   If the Duff House portrait was painted by this artist, then it could not have been an authentic image of Jane Grey since she had died some twenty years earlier.

Duff House remained in the possession of the Earls of Fife until 1906.  The property was then gifted to the village of Banff Burgh in which the house was built by the then Duke of Fife, Alexander William George Duff (1849-1912).  Alexander Duff had inherited the property and its contents by descent, and when marrying Princess Louise in 1889, he no longer required the property as a principal residence.  Though he did donate the building for the use of the people of Banff, its contents were sold off through auction.  The auction was facilitated by Messrs. Christies, Mason and Woods and took place on 7th June 1907.  The auction catalogue for this sale records that all “pictures are part of a very large collection which was made by James, Earl of Fife towards the end of the eighteenth century and all were displayed at Duff House.”[2]  A portrait thought by the family to depict Lady Jane Grey in 1907 was also included in this auction, and the catalogue does give us our first detailed description.

item 43 Lucas De Heere, portrait of Lady Jane Grey, in rich flowered bodice with lace cuffs and collar, green skirt and crimson robe, lace headdress with red bows.  Holding a kerchief in her left hand and leaning her right arm upon the back of a chair.  On panel 41 ½ x 29 ½ inches[3]

Though the artist associated with this work had changed since the 1798 reference, it is possible that the portrait sold in 1907 was the same image as that described as being Jane Grey in the earlier book. 

I have as yet been unable to locate any reference regarding who purchased the painting at the 1907 sale.  Due to this, I am unable to track fully the documented provenance from this portrait, though I do have a suggestion.

A portrait matching the above description does show up in 1908, one year after the Duff House sale. This painting is described as being in the collection of French collector and gallery owner Edward Brandus (1857-1937).  Brandus was well known for purchasing Old Master portraits at a low price and then selling them on to other collectors via his gallery in New York.   The magazine “American Art News” dated 28th March 1908 records the painting in his collection as a portrait of Lady Jane Grey by Antonis Mor Van Dashorst[4].  A photograph of the portrait was also included in the article, and though it is not clear from the poor quality image, when magnified this image does show a female sitter with a flowered embroidered bodice, holding a kerchief in her left hand and leaning her right arm upon the back of a chair as described in the 1907 auction catalogue. Various bows are also seen around the headdress and down the front of the bodice, like those mentioned in the catalogue of 1907. This then gives us the impression that this painting was the portrait sold from the Duke of Fife’s collection.

Lady Jane Grey by Antonis Van Dashorst-Edward Brandus Collection 1908

This painting was then sold by the Edward Brandus Gallery in April 1908. It eventually ended up in the collection of a “Mrs Flake” and was subsequently purchased as a portrait of Lady Jane Grey by John George Graves, an English collector, at Christie’s auction in July of 1930.[5]

In 1935 Graves gifted this portrait along with others from his collection to the Museum of Sheffield.  The painting remains in the museum’s collection today, though it is rightfully catalogued and referred to as a portrait of an unknown lady rather than its previous title of Jane Grey.

Unknown Lady
oil on panel
41 1/2 x 29 1/2 inches
(c) Museum of Sheffield

When looking at the colour photograph of this image, this portrait is closer in comparison to the description given in the 1907 auction catalogue that also refers to the green skirt and red robe. The measurements of the wooden panel used as the support for the painting also matches the measurements provided in 1907.

Due to the lack of documented provenance for this painting, it cannot be said for certain that this is indeed the portrait described as being that of Jane Grey at Duff House in 1798.  This is the closest image related to the description given in 1907, however, and this painting has also been identified in the past as an image of Jane Grey. 

The costume seen in this painting is again inconsistent with that worn by ladies during Jane Grey’s lifetime, and therefore this is not an authentic portrait of her taken from life or a panting which was created at later period which was meant to represent her.  From the style of clothing worn by the sitter, it appears to date towards the end of the sixteenth century or early seventeenth century.  There is some evidence to state that the embroidered jacket worn by the sitter was in use toward the later decades of Queen Elizabeth I reign, with several being documented in the inventory made in July of 1600 listing clothing stored within the royal wardrobe.  This style of jacket does appear to have become popular between the period of 1600-1620 where it appears in many paintings of female sitters from this time.

Elizabeth Cary?
oil on canvas
c.1610
William Larkin

The ruff also worn by the sitter gives us some indication that this was painted after 1600 as it no longer folds into the figure of eight pleats worn during the reign of Queen Elizabeth and is now seen as a flat collar which was probably heavily starched or suspended using a wire frame or “underpropper,” as it was referred at the time.  The style of headwear seen in the painting is also of interest and does not fit with anything worn by English sitters during this period. This suggests that the painting may possibly be continental in origin, though until testing is done on the pigment used and the painting is studied further this cannot be established.

What this painting does demonstrate is the extreme measures that people would go to when wanting to own a portrait of Lady Jane Grey.  The identification, given to this portrait was done with little research into the period in which she lived, and her name was simply attached to an image that did not really fit with what was known about her at the time.   It is now clear that she can be eliminated as the possible sitter due to the costume worn by the lady depicted.  If the portrait now in the collection of the museum of Sheffield is in fact the painting from Duff House, it can, however, be removed from the list of portraits that potentially depict Jane Grey.


[1]Catalogue of The Portraits and Pictures in The Different Houses Belonging to The Earl of Fife, 1798, page 15-16

[2] Catalogue of Pictures by Old Masters and Historical Portraits, The Property of His Grace the Duke of Fife, Messrs. Christie, Mason & Wood. 7th June 1907, page 2

[3] Catalouge of Pictures by Old Masters and Historical Portraits, The Property of His Grace the Duke of Fife, Messrs. Christie, Mason & Wood. 7th June 1907, page 10

[4] American Art News, Volume 6, No 24, March 28, 1908, page 24

[5] Electronic communication, Museums of Sheffield, 31st May 2018

Lady Jane Grey By Antonis Mor

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, a small number of portraits identified as being of Lady Jane Grey and attributed to the artist Antonis Mor Dashorst where sold through auction houses. Images of all but one have not been located today. Vague descriptions referring to the portraits, however, do survive in the auction catalogues.

Before looking at these, we must first examine the artist and identify whether Antonis Mor would have had access to paint Jane Grey in the first place. It must be remembered that little information was known regarding the various artists working during the sixteenth century during the period of sales for these paintings.

Paintings sold between the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries where simply grouped and attributed to the most famous names of artists working within the sixteenth century known at that time.  Little evidence to support the identifications was given by the auction houses, and access to information and research into lesser known artists was limited.

When looking at catalogues from this period, we see very few paintings attributed to an unknown artist, but a large amount attributed to Holbein, Clouet, and Mor. Today, with the use of scientific investigation taking place, most paintings are now being correctly re-attributed to artists that may be well known, or the artist is explicitly stated as unknown, rather than the name assigned at some earlier period.

Antonis Mor was born between 1516-1520 in Utrecht and worked for members of the Habsburg family in Brussels, Portugal and Spain.  He died in Antwerp between 1576 and 1577.  At some period between 1553-1554, he was sent by Charles V to London to paint a portrait of Mary Tudor, his future daughter in law, as part of the marriage negotiations taking place between her and Charles’s only son, Philip of Spain.

The exact date on which Mor arrived in London to paint Mary’s image is unknown. It can be established that it was between July of 1553, the time at which Mary ascended to the throne, and July of 1554, the month during which Mary married Philip.

During this period, Jane was locked away in the Tower of London.  In the November of 1553, she had appeared at trial and was thereafter classed as a convicted traitor.  It would have been highly unlikely that any artist would have been granted permission by the queen to paint Jane’s image.  Yes, security had been reduced in December of 1553, and Jane was allowed to walk in the gardens of the Tower.  During the period after her trial Mary granted some favour to her younger cousin, though Jane was still a prisoner and was heavily guarded.  Some still viewed her as a threat to Mary’s position due to the Device of the succession produced by King Edward VI that had named Jane as his heir.   

The Frick Portrait Called Lady Jane Grey By Antonis Mor (c) Frick Art Reference Library

The Frick Portrait

The first portrait to be discussed is known today only through an image stored in the Frick Art Reference Library, New York[1].  Notes stored along with the image inform us that this portrait came into public knowledge when it was sold at Christie’s, London on the 4th July 1927.  It was described in the auction catalogue as:

 “Lot 141 – Mor, Head of Lady Jane Grey, with embroidered dress. Oil on panel 10 x 7 ¾ inches”[2].

The notes also record the buyer as “Werthemier,” who purchased the painting for the sum of £15.   This painting appears to resurface again in 1953 when it was sold at Sotheby’s, but by this period the identification as a portrait of Jane Grey appears to have been downgraded. It was then described in 1953 as: 

“A portrait of a lady said to be Lady Jane Grey, in black and gold dress and braided headdress”[3].

During this sale the portrait was again attributed to Antonis Mor. It is also recorded to have come from the collection of Emile Wertheimer, probably the same person who had purchased the Frick portrait in the July of 1927.

This painting has not yet been examined by historians when discussing the iconography of Lady Jane Grey, neither does it appear to have been exhibited in any public exhibition as a representation of her. Its current location is unknown, and access to the actual painting is therefore not possible.

What is seen in the photograph is that the portrait depicts a young female sitter at bust length facing the viewers left. The image shows a lady wearing what appears to be a Spanish gown or coat (probably edged with gold) with a high fitted collar and small ruff.  This style of coat became fashionable in England after the marriage of Mary Tudor to Philip of Spain in 1554.  After this event English fashion was influenced more by the Spanish marriage.  The entry into England of Philip and other Spanish dignitaries allowed others of the court to view new fashions worn by the Spanish court. 

By the 1560’s, ladies had started to abandon the traditional loose gowns or night gown worn for decades.  These fell loosely from the shoulders to the floor and were usually worn over a fitted kirtle.  English Ladies instead embraced this new look influenced by the Spanish fashion.  This newer garment was generally cut to be fitted to the upper torso and was worn open, being fastened only at the throat, as seen in the Frick painting, to reveal an underdress or fitted bodice of a different colour.  It could also be worn completely fastened from the waist to the neck and slashed at the front to reveal a contrasting fabric.

The costume seen in the painting is more consistent with this newer style of garment that became fashionable after the death of Jane Grey. The false hanging sleeves seen in the painting attached to the gown at the sleeve head indicate a period toward the end of the 1560’s when this style of sleeve became favourable and was worn by both men and women.  The padded rolls also seen at the sitter shoulders were becoming more fashionable during this period as a decorative feature and would become larger in size during the 1570’s.

The style of hair is also of interest as the sitter is wearing her hair pulled back from her face and arranged into what appears to be some sort of decorative hairnet. This again indicates a later style worn by ladies during the reign of Elizabeth I rather than the style worn by ladies during the reigns of Edward and Mary, when ladies hair was parted in the middle and worn in an arrangement to surround the face. 

It is my opinion from viewing the photograph that this Image may have been painted over or is painted by another hand than that of Antonis Mor. The Frick portrait does not correlate with other paintings by Mor and is missing the finer details seen in other works produced by this artist.  The painted treatment of the hair, face and costume appears not to have been painted from life. This is missing the subtle shading and highlights seen in other works by Mor which identifies that he was of a higher skill when using paint to create the illusion of skin tones and falling fabric than the artist who created the Frick portrait.

To me, it is more characteristic of a painting based on an existing portrait, pattern, or sketch by another artist of the sixteenth century than that of Mor. This may then have been copied on multiple occasions within a workshop to create an image and fill the demand for portraits to be used as decoration within the home.  Workshop portraits were in high demand towards the end of the sixteenth century, and their creation required a lesser skilled artist than that of the great masters who may have painted the image in the first place.  This theory is pure speculation at this time and will not be known for certain until the Frick portrait is located and studied further, however, the survival of other images which are close in comparison do suggest this.  

The Frick portrait does show some similarities to a group of paintings depicting unidentified female sitters wearing similar clothing, including one once thought to depict Anne Boleyn. That painting is now identified as a portrait of an unknown woman and is in the collection of the Musee Conde in France.

The Musee Conde portrait is dated to the second half of the sixteenth century, according to the museum’s website records.  Like the Frick Portrait, it is painted on wood, which does indicate that it may have been painted at a similar period.  It is highly likely that the artist who created the Frick portrait used an image or pattern similar to this painting as a source of reference when creating the portrait and that the identity of the original sitter and artist who painted it have been lost, allowing Jane’s name to be associated at a later point in time.

Until the Frick portrait is located and dendrochronology testing is done to establish a date of creation, we cannot know for certain whether this is a genuine sixteenth century painting or is instead one of the many produced during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries when demand for sixteenth century portraits was at its height.  Further research and testing also needs to take place to establish more information regarding the possible artist and subsequent related images in order to understand the Frick Portrait better.  Whether or not this portrait is deemed important enough to have this done is also debatable as all evidence supports a conclusion that it is not an image of Jane Grey and that it was not painted by Antonis Mor.

Double Portrait

On 14th July 1820, a portrait was sold by a Mr Bullock of London, and that was formerly in the collection of a Mr David Holt Esq of Manchester.  The catalogue describes the painting as being by a Sir A. Mor. The entry for the lot is as follows:

A portrait of lady jane Grey and Lord Guildford Dudley in one frame, the latter portrait is the only one known to exist of Lord Guildford[4]

This pair of portraits has yet to be located, and little information is known about them.  The painting does appear to have been auctioned again in 1833 by Edward Fosters of London, when it was again referred to as:

 “Portraits of Lord Guildford Dudley and Lady Jane Grey by Antonis Mor”.

In an attempt to locate this image, I have managed to locate three portraits in collections today that have in the past been associated with Lord Guildford Dudley, in the hope of one possibly being the double portrait indicated in the Catalogues.   None of the paintings located contain another image in the same frame and supposed to represent Lady Jane Grey, which suggests that the portrait sold in 1820 must be treated as a separate image that is unfortunately lost today.

Until located and studied further it can not be known whether it was indeed an authentic likeness of Jane and Guildford or another image with those names incorrectly attached. 

Hewitt Portrait   

In an auction that took place on March 11, 1910 at Mendelssohn Hall of the collection of the late American collector Frederick Charles Hewitt, a portrait referred to as a depiction of Jane Grey by Mor Van Dashorst was sold. 

The catalogue for this sale describes the portrait in detail:

“No. 206 – Portrait of Lady Jane Grey- 42 x 30 ½ inches, the figure is shown three-quarters length, standing against a dark almost black background, very slightly inclined to the left, while the eyes gaze full to the front.  The blond hair is softly frizzed and decorated with three jewels and a hoop of pearls and garnets.  The eyes are hazel-brown, the lips daintily curved and the flesh tones delicately warm.  The lace ruff, erect at the back, is drawn down in front, revealing a little of the neck, on which lies a necklace, composed of two loops of gold hung with pearls and pearl drop.  A geranium-coloured rosette of four petals, stubbed with an amethyst and pearls, is fastened at the stomacher.  The latter is carried down to a point and bordered with tabs.  Its material is the same as that of the skirt – pearly silk damask with roses and green leaves and tendrils. Over this dress is a robe of geranium red with slashed sleeves”[5].

As with the double portrait discussed above, this painting has not yet been located and only the sales catalogue exists to report that it was ever thought to be a portrait of Jane Grey.

The detailed description does give us some clues that allow us to rule out Lady Jane Grey as the sitter depicted in the portrait, however.  This description mentions the ruff as being “erect at the back.” This indicates that the portrait depicts a young female painted towards the end of the sixteenth century when ruffs worn by both men and women where larger in size than the small ones seen in the 1560’s that surrounded only the face.  As the ruff grew and became wider during the 1580’s, support was required to keep it upright.  This consisted of a wire frame that was attached to the back of the garment and that held the ruff high at the back, giving the “drawn down in front” look that is described in the description.  A good example of this is the many portraits painted of Queen Elizabeth during the later period of her life.  In these, she often wears a full ruff that surrounds the whole neck and is high at the back and low at the chest.  In other cases, such as the Ditchley portrait seen at the NPG London, the ruff is supported at the back though does not surround the entire neck and is pinned to the neckline of her dress allowing the chest to be revealed.

Since the description mentions the use of a ruff that is “erect at the back,” it is more likely that this portrait was painted after the 1580’s rather than as a portrait of Lady Jane Grey from life.


[1]Frick Art Reference Library,  https://arcade.nyarc.org:443/record=b1324033~S6  accessed 02/03/19

[2] https://rkd.nl/en/explore/excerpts/record?query=lady+jane+grey&start=2 accessed 02/03/19

[3] https://rkd.nl/en/explore/excerpts/record?query=lady+jane+grey&start=0 accessed 02/03/19

[4] Catalogue of pictures of David Holt Esquire of Manchester, 14th July 1820

[5] https://archive.org/details/franklyv00amer/page/n10 accessed 02/03/19

The Tempest Portrait-Lady Jane Grey

Tempest Portrait -Location Unknown (c) NPG Archive

Exhibited as one of four portraits including the Bodleian, Houghton and Althorp portraits identified as representing that of Jane Grey in the National Portrait Exhibition of 1866 at the South Kensington Museum.  The catalogue for this exhibition survives in various archives today and describes the portrait as:

“Lot 184 Lady Jane Grey – Mark Garrard-bust, fair hair, dark turban-shaped hat with a large sapphire, open collar to the bodice, fastened with jewel. Canvas 23 ½ x 17 ½”[1]

At the time of the exhibition the portrait was catalogued as being in the collection of a Colonel Tempest.  The Colonel Tempest discussed is presumably Thomas Richard Plumbe-Tempest (1795-1881) who inherited the tempest estate including Tong Hall in West Yorkshire.  Tong Hall remained in the Tempest family till 1941 where it was then used as a school, museum and is currently used as office space.

As discussed above the portrait was attributed to the artist Mark Garrard or Marcus Gheeraerts the younger (1561-1636) as he is better known.  We now know that he did not in fact come to England until the reign of Queen Elizabeth and was not born until after the death of Jane Grey so therefore could not have painted a portrait of her prior to her death.

Today this painting is only known through the black and white photograph produced in an illustrated manual of the exhibition where it is again described as “lady Jane Grey”[2]and as far as I’m aware this painting has never been discussed or published in any publication relating to Jane Grey.   When viewed by George Scharf the then director of The National Portrait Gallery as part of the exhibition, this painting along with the other two were dismissed as authentic likenesses with Scharf noting that only the Houghton portrait was “probably a genuine picture”[3].

From the early photograph it can clearly be seen that the painting appears to be based on two other portraits once thought to represent Jane Grey during the early 19th century.  The dress, jewels and shawl worn around the shoulders appear to be based on Wrest Park portrait and the face hair and hat worn by the sitter is reminiscent of the Elliot/Fulbeck portrait.

As the description in the catalogue states that the image is painted on canvas this also indicates that it was probably painted after 1600 unless the image was transferred to canvas at a later period.  Due to its similarities to the other images once called Jane Grey it is highly likely that this painting was produced during the late 18th or early 19th century to represent Jane Grey and not taken from life.

Unknown Lady (c) Bonham’s

One possibility for this the painting not surfacing today is the fact that it may possibly have been destroyed or painted over as it appears to have disappeared after the exhibition. 

A portrait which recently came up for auction at Bonham’s auctioneers on 2nd May 2012[4] and described as a “portrait of a Lady” by “a follower of Daniel Mytens the Elder” may possibly be connected to the Tempest Portrait. 

What is interesting about this other painting is that the catalogue for the sale also reports that two labels where attached to the back of the stretcher supporting this canvas which state that the portrait was in “the collection of Colonel Tempest of Regent Street” and that it was “exhibited as a portrait of Lady Jane Grey in the National Portrait gallery, London 1866.”[5] 

The dimensions recorded for this portrait are more or less the same as those documented for the Tempest portrait in the 1866 exhibition catalogue. It may just be possible that the original image of Jane was painted over this image or vice versa at some point in time or that the canvas was removed, and the stretcher reused for the present image, the facial features of the sitter depicted do look incredibly similar to that seen in the early photograph.


[1] Catalogue for the first special exhibition of national portraits ending with the reign of King James the second, published 1866, Strangeways & Walden  

[2] A series of historical portraits selected from the National Portrait Exhibition of 1866, photographed from the original paintings. By Arundel Society for Promoting the Knowledge of Art. 

[3] Scharf. George, notebook, NPG XXXVI, page 29,30

[4] http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/19685/lot/165/?category=list&length=100&page=2

[5] As above

The Streatham Portrait Revisited

NPG 6804 (c) National Portrait Gallery, London

Lady Jane Grey – NPG 6804

By Unknown Artist

Oil on oak panel, circa 1590-1600

33 ¾ x 23 ¾ inches

The Streatham Portrait Revisited

“It’s an appallingly bad picture and there’s absolutely no reason to suppose it’s got anything to do with Lady Jane Grey. But if the National Portrait Gallery has public money to burn, then so be it.”[1]

The above quote reportedly the opinion of historian David Starkey was published in the January of 2006 when the National Portrait Gallery, expressed the interest in using money raised through their 150th anniversary gala to purchase this newly discovered portrait thought to represent Lady Jane Grey.  This painting was eventually purchased by the gallery to mixed reviews and even today uncertainty regarding the identity of the sitter is still evident and debated.

In February of 2019 author Alison Weir produced an article for History Revealed Magazine in which she discusses the various portraits relating to Lady Jane Grey. In this Weir states that the Streatham inscription “LADY JAYNE was added at a later date[2]and that “the inscription is almost certainly incorrect, as the sitter wears a distinctive pearl carcanet that appear in portraits of Parr, notably one inscribed CATHERINA REGINA UXOR HENRICI VIII” [3].

Through this Weir is indirectly claiming that the Streatham portrait was in fact another depiction purchased by The National Portrait Gallery thought to be a portrait of Jane Grey however turning out to be another image of Henry VIII’s sixth queen Catherine Parr.

Due to the speculation surrounding this image this article will take a fresh look at what is known regarding the portrait to date and look at some of the facts found from scientific investigations on this portrait both prior to and after the galleries purchase.  This in turn will attempt to resolve some of the myths which have surrounded this painting in hope to once and for all discuss the galleries reasoning for its purchase and the portraits importance as a historical artefact when looking at the iconography of Lady Jane Grey.

When discussing the complex subject relating to portraits of Lady Jane Grey one must first establish if there was a need for a painting in the first place. For her time she was not initially seen as a public figure of any importance with no strong claim or intention of inheriting the throne due to the last will and testament written in 1546 by Henry VIII claiming in what order his children should inherit.

The period in which she became a prominent figure, the time between her marriage in May of 1553 and the end of her reign in the July of 1553 is a very short window of time for which a life portrait is most likely to have been created with the exception of personal miniature portraits which may possibly have been produced and held by close family members or associates.  Jane was known for her education and there is some evidence that portraits of her where being produced during the sixteenth century which include at least three references to individual paintings.

The first reference is an inventory of the possessions of Elizabeth Cavendish (Bess of Hardwick 1527-1608) taken in 1566 indicates that Elizabeth held a portrait “of the Lady Jane on a table”[4] in her chamber at Chatsworth House. 

The second reference is in a group of inventories documenting the extensive collection of paintings, sculptures, furniture and books collected by the 1st Baron of Lumley (John Lumley 1533-1609) across his residences of Lumley Castle, Nonsuch Palace, and Hart Street. In these inventories a picture referring to “The Lady Jane Graye, executed[5] is described in the section relating to paintings identified as “pictures of a smaller scantling”. 

The third and final reference is a letter written towards the end of Queen Elizabeth’s reign by Arbella Stuart when she intended to marry Edward Seymour (Lady Jane Grey’s grandnephew). 

During the investigation into this matter a letter was discovered written in Arbella’s hand instructing Edward to visit Hardwick Hall in disguise and stating that he was to identify himself by carrying “all the testimonies they can, as a picture or handwriting of the Lady Jane Grey who’s hand I know, she sent her sister a book at her death which the best they could bring, or of the Lady Katherine, or Queen Jane Seymour or any of that family, which we know they, and none but they have[6].

The above three references do tell us that portraits of Jane Grey where at least in production during the second half of the sixteenth century and possibly one of these may have been a life image or based on an existing portrait pattern when her image as a protestant martyr was being constructed.

Though none of these paintings have been reliably discovered today the above references are discussed in detail in the 2015 book by J. Stephan Edwards “A Queen of a New Invention: Portraits of Lady Jane Grey Dudley” the fact is that Lady Jane Grey remains faceless with regards to an authentic likeness.  

Provenance and Background

The portrait is documented as passing by descent through the Codner family where it was reported that it was first purchased by William Squires Codner, a keen collector of sixteenth and seventeenth century furniture and antiques from an antiques shop in Ipswich between 1890 and 1904.  The family held the tradition that this was in fact a portrait of Lady Jane Grey and various members of the family appear to have worked with specialists of there time in an attempt to prove this.

The first written documentation known to date regarding the painting and the identity of the sitter being that of Jane Grey is a letter written in 1922 currently stored in the sitter file associated with this painting at the Heinz Archive and library connected to the National Portrait Gallery.  This is written by Sir Charles Holmes onetime director of the gallery and expresses his view that the portrait “is of period and probably represents Lady Jane Grey but is not the work of the finest rank and condition is bad”[7]. 

It appears from various letters stored in the same sitters file that the family contacted various members of staff at the gallery and other institutions including Roy Strong over the years to inform them of the portraits existence and sending various images of the panel in its current state in hope of coming to a definite conclusion or locating documentation to support that the painting did indeed depict Lady Jane Grey.  Some of the main findings of the family which were reported to the Gallery in these letters are as follows:

The costume and headdress dates from c.1550

The sitter seen is aged between 12 and 15 years of age

The sitter holds a book hinting to Jane’s religion and learning

The inscription reads Lady Jayne and seems to be of period

The sitters face has been vandalised which may possibly be due to the unpopularity of the Grey Family during the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

The discovery of an identical image within the galleries archives which was called Lady Jane Grey in the 19th century and exhibited as her in the 1866 South Kensington Exhibition and was also mentioned by George Scharf as a possible genuine image

NPG 6804 before conservation (c) NPG Archive

The above information resolves the myth that the portrait was in fact not a new discovery in 2006 and shows that it was actually known to the gallery as a potential image of Jane Grey for many years prior. The fact that the family had also managed to locate images of an alternative portrait based on the same pattern which was submitted to public exhibition in 1866 as a portrait of her also gave good support to this.

It must be remembered that the above information stated by the family was pure speculation at this period and though the portrait had been viewed by many specialists of the time in hope of assisting the family with their findings no scientific investigations had taken place at this point in time.

As noted by Sir Charles Holmes in the letter of 1922 the portrait was in rather bad condition prior to the galleries purchase with thick blue overpaint probably applied in the eighteenth century to the background and paint loss to the sitter’s costume, face and inscription, no other inscriptions or labels where located on the back of the panel during this period to indicate any provenance.

Scientific Investigation / Findings

By 2005 Christopher Foley the director of the Lane Fine Arts Limited in London was invited to visit the current owner of the portrait in hope of once and for all resolving the matter of identity and date and to deal with the potential sale.  Upon viewing the painting Foley was noted to report that “within a moment, I knew it was right”[8] and rushed the painting away to undergo various testing and further research.

It appears from the report submitted by Foley to the gallery that conservation work immediately took place on the painting.  From this the we can see that the panel was secured and splits where filled, fire damage to the bodice of the gown was repaired, overpaint and discoloured varnish was removed, and retouching done to the surface of the panel.

The inscription on the top left-hand corner also underwent paint analysis to establish that this was of period and was not applied at a later date which is common with other images thought to represent Jane Grey. This was facilitated by Dr Libby Sheldon of the University College London and pigments of paint used within the inscription and other similar parts of the painting where analysed.

Dr Sheldon’s findings where that the inscription clearly reads “LADY IAYNE” and that the colour used is known as

“a lead-tin-yellow which was a pigment that became obsolete in the early eighteenth century and was widely used before this date within paintings for bright yellow highlights and is found on numerous original inscriptions dated to the second half of the sixteenth century.  The same pigment was also found within the painting used to create the yellow of the costume decoration[9].

The above information tells us that the inscription is in fact in date with the painted image and was actually added to the surface by the artist who painted the portrait intending the image to at least represent a “Lady Jayne” and not as it has been quoted added at a later period.

The next step for the painting was then to undergo Dendrochronology testing to establish an exact date for its creation.  This investigation was facilitated by Dr Ian Tyers at the University of Sheffield. The three panels which made up the surface on which the images were painted on where tested and tree rings counted too establish at date.  Dr Tyers findings where as such:

“the latest growth rings datable on the panels are (A) 1584, (B) 1585 and (C) 1580. Allowing time for the removal of the sap-wood, the earliest dating for use of painting is 1593.”[10]

From this we can see that unfortunately the painting does not date to the period of Jane Grey’s lifetime though to the later period of the sixteenth century this then brings into question as to why a portrait of a lady was painted in the 1590’s wearing clothing from the 1550’s.

The only apparent reason for this is that the painting was in fact meant to be a commemorative image or produced as part of a set of paintings relating to public or religious figures from the past which was fashionable at this time as a means of decorating homes and public spaces.  The fact then arises as to which “Lady Jayne” would have been well enough known at this point in time for people to want to have a portrait of in their collection.

From the moment the axe fell in the February of 1554 Jane Grey became a public figure and there is some evidence to suggest that Jane herself wanted her death to be remembered especially in the world of religion.  Some of her writings produced within the tower in her final months including her debate with Dr Feckingham, letter to her sister and scaffold speech where printed in pamphlet form within months of her death.  Jane was also discussed in John Foxe’s “Book of Martyrs” first published in 1563 which was a popular book for its time and various accounts relating to her life and times where produced including an appearance in “The School Master” written by Roger Ascham and first published in 1564 and an “Elegy on the Death of Lady Jane Grey” written by Thomas Chaloner though not published until 1579. 

The above indicates there was at least some popularity surrounding the story of Lady Jane Grey in the second half of the sixteenth century and that there was probably a need and demand for her likeness rather that the other alternative candidates also referred to as “Lady Jayne” from the 1550’s who may not have achieved as much popularity and public image.

The Houghton Portrait (C) NPG Archive

Other Versions

The Houghton Portrait

Private collection

Oil on panel

30 x 24 inches

Previously in the collection of the Rodes Family at Houghton Hall where it was then moved to Fryston in 1789 when the family opted to change residence.

When in the collection the portrait appears to have been identified as an image of Jane Grey where as noted by the Codner family it was exhibited in the 1866 South Kensington Exhibition as a portrait of her.  By 1973 the painting eventually passed to the collection of Sir John Colville however by this time it appears that the sitter was then re-identified as the Princess Elizabeth due to similarities with the portrait of her as princess in the royal collection. 

This portrait appears to be an identical copy of the Streatham portrait with some minor alterations especially around the Jewels depicted.  What is clear from the image is the sitter appears to depict the same lady wearing an almost identical costume and seen in the same position though the painting is missing the inscription in the left-hand corner.  From the image this portrait appears to have been created by a different artist than that who produced the Streatham portrait, the shading and definition of the facial feature appear to be of a finer quality than that seen in the NPG copy which suggest a possible pattern used within a workshop to create multiple copies by different artists.

The Norris Portrait (C) NPG Archive

The Herbert Norris Portrait

Oil on oak panel

Size unknown

Whereabouts unknown

Previously in the collection of Herbert Norris scholar and costume designer from the first half of the 20th century who produced an in-depth collection of books relating to the history of costume. 

Several early photographic images of this painting survive within the Heniz Archives and where again discussed by the Codner family.  Writings on the back of these images do give us a little information about what was actually known about the portrait and who Norris thought the portrait to be of.  On one of the images the writing indicates that Norris “acquired the painting from an unnamed friend who had purchased it in 1870 in a picture shop”[11] and that the painting had undergone some restoration.

Norris also gives us a detailed description regarding the colouring used within the painting in his book “Tudor Costume and Fashion” and identifies the sitter as Lady Jane Grey.

 ‘Her dress is of nasturtium-red velvet with sleeves turned back showing a deep peacock blue lining. The yoke and false sleeve are of the same blue in satin with a cornflower design worked in gold. Spanish work decorates the inside of the open collar to match the wrist frills and above it is a second collar of white gauze embroidered in red silk’[12]

Though the description is vague it does give us some understanding of the colouring of the sitter’s costume which again is described as red with a cornflower design embroidered with gold thread which again is similar to the colouring of the Streatham portrait.

Though the portraits current whereabouts is unknown the fact that it is painted on panel indicates that this is probably an early copy.  The portrait also includes an inscription which reads “LADYE IANE GRAYE, DIED 1553, AET 17”.

The spelling used within the inscription again gives us an understanding that it probably is an early image and the date given for Jane’s death does suggest that the inscription pre-dates September of 1752 the year in which the Calendar Act of 1751 was initiated.  Prior to this Janes death would have been 12th of February in the year of 1553 rather than what is today thought of as 1554. The fact that her death is mentioned at all again demonstrates that this image was made after her death.

Francesco Bartolozzi Engraving (C) NPG Archive

The Magdalene portrait

Unknown size

Unknown whereabouts

Once in the collection of Dr Peter Pickard the master of the Magdalene College in Cambridge. Only known through an engraving produced in 1790 by Francesco Bartolozzi and some written references made in the late 18th and early 19th century regarding the college. 

The inscription on the engraving indicates that the sitter in the portrait was thought at this time to be that of Jane Shore (1445-1527) the mistress of King Edward IV and the inscription reports that it was taken from “an original picture in the possession of Dr Peckard master of the Magdalene college Cambridge”.  The phrase original indicates that the painting on which the engraving was based on was thought to be old for that time.

From the image seen the sitter portrayed does look remarkably like the sitter seen in the Streatham, Houghton and Norris portraits though the identification as a portrait of Jane Shore is a puzzling one as the sitter wears clothing dated to some twenty years after her death.  This may just be down to the fact the original identity of the sitter in the painting had been lost at this point in time and the painting was simply referred to as a portrait of Jane Shore.

The Dauntsey Portrait (c) NPG Archive

The Dauntsey Portrait

Only known through an early photograph in the Heinz Archives this portrait is listed as being in the collection of from Mr Robert Dauntsey at Agecroft Hall, Manchester in 1886. No identification is known for this sitter however the image does look similar to that seen in the Francesco Bartolozzi engraving. 

This painting is no longer in the collection of Agecroft Hall today which was sold by the family in 1926 and dismantled and shipped to Richmond Virginia.  It may just be possible that the Magdalene portrait and Dauntsey portrait are one in the same as the portrait at the Magdalene college does appear to vanish from the collection after the death of Pickard.  Though hard to tell from the image stylistically this painting does appear to be more eighteenth century in approach rather than sixteenth century however this may possibly be due to over painting and re-touching.

Ieanne Gray Engraving (c) Royal Collection

IEANNE GRAY Engraving

Ink on paper

Currently in the Royal Collection this engraving entitled Ieanne Gray was probably produced during the early eighteenth century for some now unknown publication. The sitter depicted is a similar female to that seen in the other paintings though her position has been flipped.  

It appears that a portrait similar to the Streatham portrait was used for the basis of this image where identical jewels are seen especially with the scooped necklace.  The incorporation of the sitter’s name in this image again identifies that images of this composition where actually thought to represent Lady Jane Grey prior to the identification of the Streatham portrait.

Frustratingly all but two of the five images associated with the Streatham portrait have not been located to date and without further study taking place on these paintings to establish dates and order of creation we are unable to know for certain if one may be a possible life portrait or that they were all produced within the same time period. 

What is for certain is that with the existence of these further images we can at least establish that the Streatham portrait was based on an early pattern used to depict Jane Grey whether fictional or taken from a pre-existing life portrait and no other ‘Lady Jayne’ which in its self is an interesting historical artefact.   

CATHARINA REGIINA Portrait (c) Private collection

CATHARINA REGINA PORTRAIT

As discussed above Alison Weir did recently discuss the Streatham portraits similarities with a portrait representing Catherine Parr purchased by the Philip Mould Gallery in 2005 and exhibited in the “Henry Women Exhibition” of 2009 at Hampton Court Palace.  

Weir is not the only person to discuss this theory, Stephan Edwards also noting similarities in his 2015 book regarding the portraiture of Jane Grey and it also appears from documentation held in the sitters file at the gallery that Susan James the historian who produced the evidence regarding the Jewels seen in NPG 4451 which led to the re-identification of the image as a portrait of Catherine Parr in 1996 was also noted to have viewed the portrait and made comparison with the Regina portrait.

Though undoubtedly a portrait of Catherine Parr as seen from the inscription applied to the top of the panel the painting underwent dendrochronology testing in 2005 revealing that the panel on which provided the surface for the painting dated to the “latter half of the sixteenth century”[13] this ruling out the possibility of it being a portrait taken from life. 

Some similarities are noted within both images especially around the clothing and jewels worn.  This to me is not enough evidence to prove that the Streatham portrait was in fact based on this image and there does appear to be some differences between both portraits.

Called Lady Mary Dudley (c) National Trust Collection

Though similar in period and shape the clothing and jewels worn are painted differently in both paintings especially the large brooch seen at the front of the bodice.  The pearl necklace seen worn around the neck of both sitters does appear to be of the same scoop design and construction however a similar necklace is also seen in the full-length portrait supposed to represent Lady Mary Dudley in the National Trusts collection which also demonstrates that this maybe down to the style of the period rather than a unique necklace belonging to Catherine Parr. 

There also appears to be some differences between facial features and hair colour seen as the lady depicted in the CATHARINA REGINA portrait appears to be more mature than that seen in the Streatham portrait and especially the Houghton version.  Differences are also observed in the treatment of the embroidery work of the collar seen in both paintings and Catherine is also missing the lower billiament of jewels attached to the front of the French hood seen in the Streatham portrait and its various copies.

One possible reason for the close comparison is the use for the portraits in the first place.

If indeed the Streatham and CATHERINA REGINA portraits were produced as part of a set of paintings and not as an individual one-off likeness, then some similarities in costume composition and jewels may be expected.  Due to the survival of multiple copies of both paintings this does suggest that this was indeed the case and some of the paintings have been inscribed with the name of the sitter suggesting that the viewer may not have readily known the person depicted and therefore they were not produced for immediate family members or associates who may have met the individual in person.

Portrait patterns where generally used by artists within the various workshops producing portrait sets in the second half of the sixteenth century.  These where in fact used to create the basic outline of an individual to produce a likeness.

One good example of this and probably produced around the same period as the Streatham portrait is the survival of the multiple copies of the famous portrait of Anne Boleyn wearing her B necklace. All similar in composition, colouring and style and the sitter is seen wearing an almost identical costume within each portrait.

Sets of portraits where produced quickly and cheaply within these workshops and where designed to be viewed from a height or in some cases fixed into the panelling of a room which in turn required less skill and the fine detail seen in the paintings produced by Hans Eworth and Holbein.  Patterns which may have contained notes on the sitters appearance where required as process of transferring an image to the panel quickly and without having to take the time painstakingly drawing it from life. 

Recent research into the production of portrait sets taken place by the National Portrait Gallery and Dulwich Gallery has indicated that in most cases these patterns where in fact based on authentic likenesses of an individual including pre-existing images, woodcuts, engravings and tombstones from the period.  This indicates that workshop artists went to extreme measures to produce a representation based as close as possible to the individual depicted. 

This does not necessarily mean all images are based on authentic likenesses and in some cases alternative portraits or depictions of a sitter represented within a set of paintings have not been located today which suggest that they may possibly have been made up.  It could be argued that these images including the Streatham portrait where in fact based on a now lost source or description known at the time rather than the use of one individual to represent another.

Due to the differences seen between the Streatham and CATHERINA REGINA portraits this does suggest that the Streatham portrait was in fact not based on a portrait of Catherine Parr but may have been based on some now lost image or source.

This article has not been written to identify that the portrait is in fact an image of Jane Grey but to show that the identification of the image is up for debate however, all the scientific analysis and information regarding the paintings provenance and subsequent copies does indicate that Jane Grey is the strongest claimant for the identity of the sitter.

It must be remembered that it was in fact painted some forty years after her execution and therefore is not an authentic likeness of her though in terms of the iconography relating to this sitter it is most certainly the closest and earliest image we have at present that gives us the viewer any idea of what she may have looked like.


[1] Higgins. Charlotte, “rare portrait of Lady Jane Grey or just an appallingly bad image, The Guardian, 16th January 2006

[2] Weir. Alison, History Revealed Magazine, February 2019, page 40

[3] As above

[4] Lovell.S Mary, First Lady of Chatsworth Bess of Hardwick, 2005, page 193

[5] Walpole Society, Volume VI, 1918, Page 26

[6] Lovell.S Mary, First Lady of Chatsworth Bess of Hardwick, 2005, page 432

[7] NPG Sitters File, registered packet 6804, accessed February 2018

[8] Zarin. Cynthia, Teen Queen Looking for Lady Jane, The New Yorker, October 15th 2007

[9] Electronic communication with Christopher Foley, 8th October 2017

[10] Tyers. Ian, Dendrochronology Survey, 2006

[11] Lady Jane Grey, sitters’ box, Heinz Archives, London

[12]Norris. Herbert, ‘Tudor Costume and Fashion’, published 1938, page 426

[13] Tyers. Ian, Dendrochronology Survey, 2005