The Jersey Portrait & Katherine Parr

An Interesting History

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] As above

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

[4] Getty Provenance Index

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

[6]Getty Provenance Index, accessed 08.05.23.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lady Jane Grey and The Longleat Portrait

Lost, Found and a Case of Misidentification

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

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

NPG Index Card

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

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

George Scharf

Drawing of the Longleat Portrait

©The National Portrait Gallery, London

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

Called Elizabeth I as a young woman

Oil on Canvas

30 x 24 inches

Called Queen Mary I

Oil on Canvas

37 inches x 32 inches

©NY Elizabeth Galleries

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

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

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

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

Jane Shore From the Collection of Dr Peter Peckard

1790

Francesco Bartolozzi

Unknown Lady

Previously identified as Anne Boleyn

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

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

The Agecroft Hall Portrait

Oil on Panel

Size Unknown

Unknown whereabouts

Detail of Agecroft Portrait

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investigating Jane: Part 3 – Queen Jane’s arrival at the Tower

By Tamise Hills and Lee Porritt

On 10^th July 1553, Lady Jane Dudley, entered the Tower of London as Queen of England. As we have previously seen in this series, contemporary sources do not mention what Jane was doing between Edward’s death on 6^th July and her official public proclamation on 10^thJuly. The only source we have for Jane’s whereabouts during this time is Jane herself, and this provides very little detailed information. Written in the weeks following her downfall in a letter to Queen Mary, Jane does not mention going anywhere else before the Tower, however, she describes her first public appearance as Queen of England with very little detail, simply referring to the event as:

‘… as everybody knows, the following day I was brought to the Tower.’[1]

Any further details could have been considered insignificant by her at the time of writing, in what, Eric Ives calls ‘the one written appeal… that would have been allowed.’[2] The only fact that can be ascertained from Jane’s own account is that the new Queen left Chelsea Manor to go to Syon on 9^th July 1553, and she was informed of the King’s death and her elevated position when at Syon House.[3]

Lady Jane Grey in Royal Robes
© Public Domain

In recent years, the detailed description supposedly written by Baptista Spinola, describing the small, freckled faced Jane, entering the Tower of London, decked out in her royal robes of green velvet, stamped with gold, has now been revealed as an early twentieth century forgery.[4] For many years this description was extensively used by historians and artists, when writing or creating imagery about this period of her life. Today this description cannot be relied upon, and the confusion this account has added to the real event is still being challenged by modern historians, who today are revisiting the original accounts to establish what exactly happened.

We do have number of contemporary accounts that describe the event that took place on 10^th July 1553. These accounts differ in several ways, regarding the starting point of Jane’s journey, the time of her arrival and the level of detail given about the event itself. None of these accounts describe Jane in great detail, and some appear to have caused some confusion around this event over the course of time. Historians have debated as to the exact journey the new Queen Jane took to the Tower of London, the time she arrived and who she was with.

Nineteenth Century Illustration
Lady Jane Grey Visits the Tower
© Public Domain

In her 2009 book, historian Leanda De Lisle writes that Jane ‘arrived by barge at Westminster from Richmond. In her rooms royal robes had been laid out for her…Having dressed, Jane returned to her covered boat and was rowed to Northumberland’s palace at Durham House, where she dined at noon…That afternoon, at two o’clock, the royal barges arrived at the Tower carrying Guildford and Jane, her father, Suffolk, the young couple’s mothers and other ladies of the court, attended by a large following.’[5] Eric Ives describes a slightly different version of the story, opting not to mention anything about Jane’s visit to Richmond, Westminster or Durham House and stating that ‘a procession of barges took Jane to the Tower with her husband, her parents, the duchess of Northumberland and ‘other ladies attended by a great following.’ They landed at the royal stairs which gave access by a bridge over the moat to the Byward Tower, but since she was ‘received as queen’ and there were spectators, it is more likely that Jane processed along the wharf and into the Tower by the main entrance, the Lion Gate.’[6] Nicola Tallis also reports that ‘about three o’clock on the afternoon of 10^th July, ‘Lady Jane was conveyed by water to the Tower of London , and there received as queen,’ this was the observation of Rowland Lea, an official of the royal mint….Lea’s valuable account explains that Jane was rowed from Syon across London in the company of her husband, parents, and other ladies attended by a great following’[7]

In this section of ‘Investigating Jane’, we will take a closer look at some of the contemporary information concerning the arrival, and public proclamation of the new Queen Jane at the Tower of London. We will also look at the newly discovered account, written in the July of 1553, and attempt to establish if this brings some clarity as to what specifically happened during Jane’s first public appearance as Queen of England.

As discussed above, we do have a small number of accounts, completed in the days or weeks following Queen Jane’s entry into the Tower. Apart from Jane herself, we do not know for certain if the writers of any of the surviving accounts, were actual witnesses to what they describe, or received details from other people, which may possibly be the main reason for some of the conflicting information.

The author of the sixteenth century manuscript‘The Chronicle of the Grey Friars’, reports that Jane ‘was browte that same afternone from Richemond un-to Westmyster, and soo unto the tower of London by watter.’[8] Another sixteenth century manuscript, entitled ‘The Wriothesley Chronicle,’ probably written in the first few years of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, has Jane being ‘brought by water from Grenewich to the Tower of London.’[9]

Unfortunately, neither of the anonymous writers of the ‘Advices from England’[10] or the ‘Chronicles of Queen Jane’[11] state explicitly where Jane’s journey started from, however they do mention the time the barges arrived, and neither state that Jane visited any other royal palace during the procession. The writer of ‘Advices from England’ hints that the procession started from Syon and he informs the reader that ‘On Saturday the Duke—and when I say “Duke” you are to understand “Northumberland”—went to Sion House, whither all the other members of the Council repaired on Sunday to a great banquet attended by the two Duchesses and the Lady Jane, daughter of the Duke of Suffolk, who was afterwards proclaimed Queen. The Council fixed upon their plan of action, and on Monday, at two o’clock in the afternoon, there came in the royal barges the Duke of Suffolk; my Lord Guilford, son of the Duke and husband of the Lady Jane; the Lady Jane herself, the two Duchesses and other ladies attended by a great following, and landed at the Tower where the Duke and the other Councillors were waiting to bid the Lady Jane, whose train was carried by her mother, welcome to the Tower.’[12]

The author of ‘The Chronicle of Queen Jane etc’ does not mention Jane visiting any other palace other than the Tower and puts the arrival of the royal barge an hour later, ‘The 10 of July, in the afternoone, about 3 of the clocke, lady Jane was convayed by water to the Tower of London, and there received as queene.’[13] The Spanish Ambassadors give the time as an hour later, writing to the Emperor, Charles V on 10^th July that, ‘At about four o’clock this afternoon the ceremony of the state entry was performed at the Tower of London with the accustomed pomp.’[14]

Unfortunately, we cannot say for certain the exact journey the new Queen took or the time the procession arrived at the Tower. The above quotations suggest that she arrived between 2pm and 4pm in the afternoon, and that Jane either started her journey from Syon House or one of the other royal residences listed. It does need to be remembered that both the writers of ‘The Chronicle of the Grey Friars’ and ‘The Wriothesley Chronicle’ are writing their reports at a later period, and the documentation written within days of Queen Jane’s entrance suggests that she started her Journey from Syon House. The anonymous writer of the ‘Advices from England’ also reports that the ‘great banquet attended by the two Duchesses and the Lady Jane, daughter of the Duke of Suffolk’[15] was held at Syon House on the evening of the 9^th July, which does suggest that the information provided in the‘The Chronicle of the Grey Friars’ and ‘The Wriothesley Chronicle’ could be incorrect.

Queen Jane Enters the Tower
George Cruikshank
© Public Domain

A more detailed letter thought to have been written by a member of the Venetian diplomatic embassy, in July 1553, and recently discovered in 2013, by John Stephan Edwards does give us more details. This appears to be the only reference we have that tells us where Jane started her journey, and this again strengthens the accounts written in the following days which suggest that Jane started her journey from Syon. In this, the writer reports that ‘Came this Lady Jane on the 10th of July from Syon to the Tower of London by water, accompanied by great Lords, men and women. Entering into the Tower with the men ahead, the ladies proceeded. The most near to her among the Lords was Northumberland, and among the ladies the mother, who as greatest in precedence held the train of the gown. Now you say to me that this seems to you a monstrosity. To see a child Queen, [who] by certain reason came from the mother, father and mother living, and neither [one of them] King nor Queen. To speak with her and to serve her on bended knee. Not only all the others, but the father and the mother! To have a good husband without gifts other than beauty, his father living, and fourth born. The husband stood with hat in hand, not only in front of the Queen, but in front of father and mother, all the other Lords making a show of themselves putting the knee on the ground.’[16]

The Imperial Ambassadors also mention that ‘the new Queen’s train was carried by her mother, the Duchess of Suffolk.’[17] What is interesting about the above quotations, especially that written by the Venetian Diplomat is that they clearly demonstrate disgust as to how this action caused confusion about the correct procedures of rank and inheritance. This was an unusual act in terms of sixteenth century etiquette, the mother would generally be followed by the daughter as the highest-ranking female, however, Frances, who’s claim to the throne was stronger than Janes, appears to have done all she could to support her daughter.

The Proclamation of Lady Jane Grey
©Society of Antiquaries, London

A short period after entering the Tower, the public proclamation detailing Jane’s claim to the throne was read aloud. The author of the ‘Advices from England’ recalls the reaction to Jane’s proclamation noting that:

‘The same evening, to the people’s small contentment and without shouting or other sign of rejoicing, she was proclaimed Queen, as you will have seen by a proclamation that was forwarded to M. Germino. I was present in person when the proclamation was made, and among all the faces I saw there, not one showed any expression of joy.[18] Jehan Scheyfve was also informing his master of the spectator’s reaction ‘no one present showed any sign of rejoicing, and no one cried: “Long live the Queen!”.’[19]

Although, from the above quotations, Jane’s proclamation doesn’t appear to have gone down well among the citizens of London, the Ambassadors in England were also writing to Emperor Charles V on the following day informing him of the astonishing acceptance of what had been witnessed on the previous day.

‘Several persons in this town of London have been amazed that no protestation had been entered against the proclamation and state entry (of the Lady Jane), and no demonstration in support of the Lady Mary’s right[20]

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

[2] Ives. Eric, (England, 2009) Lady Jane Grey a Tudor Mystery, John Wiley & sons, Ltd P: 19

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

[4] De Leslie. Leanda, (England, 2009) England’s_Forgotten_Queen_THE_FAKING_OF_LADY_JANE_GREY (leandadelisle.com) accessed 9^th July 2022

[5] De Leslie. Leanda, (England, 2009) The Sisters who would be Queen, Harper Press P:112-113

[6] Ives. Eric, (England, 2009) Lady Jane Grey a Tudor Mystery, John Wiley & sons, Ltd P: 186-187

[7] Tallis, Nicola, (England 2016) A Crown of Blood, Michael O’Mara Books Ltd P:155

[8]‘The Chronical of the Grey Friars: Jane, in Chronical of the Grey Friars of London Camden Society Old Series: Volume 53, ed. J G Nichols (London, 1852) pp.78-80

[9]Wriothesley. C & Herald. W (1857) A Chronical of England During the Reigns of the Tudors, From A.D. 1485 to 1559, The Camden Society. P:85

[10] ‘Spain: July 1553, 16-20’, in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 11, 1553, ed. Royall Tyler (London, 1916), pp. 90-109. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol11/pp90-109 [accessed 8 July 2022].

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

[12] ‘Spain: July 1553, 16-20’, in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 11, 1553, ed. Royall Tyler (London, 1916), pp. 90-109. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol11/pp90-109 [accessed 8 July 2022].

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

[14] ‘Spain: July 1553, 16-20’, in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 11, 1553, ed. Royall Tyler (London, 1916), pp. 90-109. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol11/pp90-109 [accessed 8 July 2022].

[15] ‘Spain: July 1553, 16-20’, in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 11, 1553, ed. Royall Tyler (London, 1916), pp. 90-109. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol11/pp90-109 [accessed 9 July 2022]

[16] Edwards, S. Some Grey Matter – Two Letters Concerning Lady Jane Grey of England, written in London in July 0f 1553 Date accessed: 8^th July 2022

[17] ‘Spain: July 1553, 1-10’, in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 11, 1553, ed. Royall Tyler (London, 1916), pp. 69-80. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol11/pp69-80 [accessed 9 July 2022].

[18] ‘Spain: July 1553, 16-20’, in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 11, 1553, ed. Royall Tyler (London, 1916), pp. 90-109. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol11/pp90-109 [accessed 9 July 2022].

[19] ‘Spain: July 1553, 1-10’, in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 11, 1553, ed. Royall Tyler (London, 1916), pp. 69-80. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol11/pp69-80 [accessed 9 July 2022].

[20] ‘Spain: July 1553, 11-15’, in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 11, 1553, ed. Royall Tyler (London, 1916), pp. 80-90. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol11/pp80-90 [accessed 9 July 2022].

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

By Lee Porritt and Tamise Hills

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

19^th Century Engraving
Lady Jane Grey
© Authors own collection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid

[18] Ibid.

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

Investigating Jane – Part One: The Wedding

By Tamise Hills and Lee Porritt

In May 1553, the wedding of Lady Jane Grey and Lord Guildford Dudley took place at Durham House, the London residence of John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. Over the course of four hundred years, many myths have attached themselves to the life and events surrounding Lady Jane Grey. Details surrounding the events of her marriage are clouded with a mixture of fact, myth, confusion and in some cases the actual evidence of what truly happened is unfortunately missing.

Today, many of us have been introduced to the story of Lady Jane Grey through modern technology, fictional writing, and the 1986 Paramount movie ‘Lady Jane’. In many of these adaptations her wedding to Guildford Dudley is often mentioned, however, at times, the myths have clouded the true facts of what really happened during the build-up to the marriage, the celebration itself, and the few short months the young couple experienced of married life, before their lives would be turned upside down.

In this article, we will look at what contemporary evidence we have today and attempt to discover exactly what happened during this period of Jane’s life. We will also attempt to separate some of the facts from the large amount of fiction that has managed to spin itself around the events of May 1553.

In 2009, Historian Eric Ives briefly discussed the lack of surviving documented evidence surrounding Jane and Guildford’s wedding. Ives noted that ‘English observers do not mention the celebrations.’[1] We do, however, have a small number of reports written by foreign dignitaries who obtained details of the celebrations, and appear to have been very impressed by the extravagance and splendour of the events.

The first piece of contemporary evidence relating to the marriage of Jane Grey and Guildford Dudley, comes to us in the shape of a dispatch sent to Charles V by Jehan Scheyfve, Ambassador to the Roman Empire, dated to 28^th April 1553.

Scheyfve starts his letter by informing Emperor Charles V of the current issues relating to the health of the King of England. He notes that ‘the King had retired to Greenwich and there seems to be no improvement in his condition.’ Towards the end of this letter, he informs his master of a rather curious event that has taken place in the past few days in which John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland has ‘found means to ally and bind his son, My Lord Guildford, to the Duke of Suffolk’s eldest daughter whose mother is the third heiress to the crown.’ [2]

Scheyfve ends his letter with a rather intriguing word of warning that a ‘great quantity of money is being collected from every source and this could possibly be something to do with the forthcoming marriage.’ [3] Within sixteenth century England, the marriage of a female, especially one of royal blood was no easy task. Today, we marry for love, however, during the sixteenth century, marriage was seen as a way of gaining financial and social advancement for the entire family. As the first-born daughter of the Duke of Suffolk and Great Granddaughter of King Henry VII, Jane would have certainly been of high value during a time when any discussion about her marriage was left entirely in the hands of her parents. She would have brought to any marriage, the power of royal blood and a strong connection to other members of the royal family. The fact that she would become betrothed to one of the younger sons of the Duke of Northumberland and the social advancements only appeared to enhance the Dudley family, immediately raised suspicion among the Tudor court that something was about to happen.

Legend has it that Jane had to be forced into the marriage, and one cannot think of this event without the disturbing scene from the movie ‘Lady Jane’ in which her mother, Frances Grey beats Jane into submission with the use of a whip. Depending on which source you read it appears that her mother was for or against the match, and unfortunately, some of these sources have been used over the years as a way of turning Frances Grey into the cold hearted, power gaining female that has often been portrayed in fictional writing.

Until recently, the first mention of Jane being forced into the marriage was written by Giovanni Francesco Commendone, a papal secretary sent to England by Julius III in the August of 1553, to congratulate Mary on achieving the throne of England. Commendone notes that the Duke of Northumberland had

‘Made arrangements to marry his third son to the first-born daughter of the Duke of Suffolk, Jane by name, who although strongly deprecating such a marriage, was compelled to submit by the insistence of her mother and the threats of her Father.’[4]

A slightly earlier letter, thought to have been written by a member of the Venetian diplomatic embassy in the July of 1553 was discovered in 2013, by Dr John Stephan Edwards. Published in a book from 1577, this letter contradicts Commendone’ s account of events, especially the information surrounding Frances Grey.

‘The Duke of Suffolk, Jane’s father, was persuaded of it, and overcome by the inducements and effective methods of this man. But the Duchess of Suffolk with all her household would not have wished [it], and the daughter was forced there by the father, with beating as well.’[5]

By 19^th July 1553, Jane was a prisoner in the Tower of London, and the difference in accounts regarding Jane’s reluctance and her mother’s reaction could have been part of trying to place the blame for making Jane queen entirely on the Dudley family. Jane’s parents and possibly Jane herself had harboured hopes that their eldest daughter would wed King Edward VI. When Jane had become the ward of Sir Thomas Seymour, one of the alleged promises made by the King’s Uncle was that ‘he would marry her to the King’s Majesty’.[6] Whether this was one of the reasons why she and possibly Frances opposed the marriage cannot be known today, however as discussed above the fact that she was betrothed to the younger son of a Duke must have also caused Jane and her mother some disappointment.

Unfortunately, Guildford’s response to the betrothal has not been documented, however the scenes depicted in the ‘Lady Jane’ movie in which he is located in a brothel ‘sampling the pleasures of a lady of the night’ when he heard the news are probably untrue. As the three of Northumberland’s older sons were already married, Guildford was the best Dudley could offer. Like Jane, Guildford was educated and was probably just expected to fulfil his duty, after all, it was him who would benefit from the union. Unfortunately, Guildford Dudley’s date of birth is not recorded. Traditionally, his year of birth has been given as either 1534 or 1536, but recent research produced by Susan Higginbotham suggests that he may have possibly been born between 1537 and 1538, thus making him the same age as Jane Grey or possibly younger.[7]

Whether Jane or Guildford agreed to the match or not, preparations for the celebrations started immediately and on 12^th May 1553, Jehan Scheyfve noted in his report to the emperor that

‘This Whitsuntide the marriage of the Duke of Northumberland’s son to the eldest daughter of the late Duke of Suffolk is to be celebrated. They are making preparations for games and jousts. The King has sent presents of rich ornaments and jewels to the bride’[8]

We have no contemporary description of Jane on the day of her wedding, this, however, has not stopped some historians over the centuries from producing and publishing their own interpretations of what Jane and Guildford apparently wore. In his 1909 work, ‘The Nine Days’ Queen: Lady Jane and Her Times’, Richard Davey copied a detailed description of Jane on the day of her wedding from the earlier account written by Herbert Burke in his book ‘Tudor Portraits’, published in 1880.

‘Lady Jane’s headdress was of green velvet, set round with precious stones. She wore a gown of cloth of gold, and a mantle of silver tissue. Her hair hung down her back, combed and plaited in a curious fashion then unknown to ladies of quality.’[9]

Although, this description is intriguing, it does appear to be an entirely fictional account, and even Davey himself was noted to question the authority of the description. What we do know is that Jane and other members of the wedding party were provided with fine cloth and jewels from the King’s wardrobe. The Imperial Ambassador reported on 12^th May 1553 that ‘The King has sent presents of rich ornaments and jewels to the bride.’[10] An edited version of the original warrant, dated to 24^th April 1553 was published in a book by John Strype in 1822.

‘To deliver out of the King’s wardrobe much rich apparel and jewels: as, to deliver…to the Lady Jane, daughter to the Duke of Suffolk, and to the Lord Guildford Dudley, for wedding apparel, which were certain parcels of tissues, and cloth of gold and silver, which had been the late Duke’s and Duchess’s of Somerset, forfeited to the King’[11]

As part of the research for her biography ‘Crown of Blood’, Dr Nicola Tallis was noted to revisit the original document and has now provided us with the most detailed analysis of what Jane and Guildford wore during the wedding celebrations.

‘Among the materials were elegant ‘black silver cloth of tissue raised with roses and branches of gold’, cloth of gold tissues with white silver, purple and white cloth of tissue raised with roses and crimson cloth of gold branched with velvet…. The king had sent presents of rich ornaments and jewels to the bride. There was a magnificent billement containing thirteen table diamonds set in gold enamelled black’ a carcanet (necklace) of seventeen ‘great pearls and seventeen pieces of goldsmith’s work enamelled black with one flower of gold enamelled white and black with a fair diamond and one emerald’[12]

What is clear from the above lists of fabrics and jewels is that the wedding was certainly planned with the upmost attention to detail and celebrated in a splendid manner. Although Jane was to marry the fourth son of a Duke, there was to be no doubt over her status or her position as a member of the royal family and the guests would certainly leave the celebrations with the feeling that this was an extremely powerful union.

The Marriage of Lady Jane Grey
Archille Deveria (1800-1857)
© Public Domain

The actual event took place on 25^th May 1553 and the celebrations would continue over two days. Not only would Jane and Guildford be married, but the event was to be a triple occasion. Jane’s younger sister Katherine was to marry Henry Herbert, the son of the Earl of Pembroke and Guildford’s sister, also called Katherine, was to marry Henry Hastings, the son of the Earl of Hastings. Jane’s youngest sister, Lady Mary Grey would also be betrothed to one of her Grey cousins.

Surrounded by family and a large group of important guests, including members of the privy council and foreign ambassadors, Jane would have entered the chapel at Durham House. The only known drawing of the entire layout of Durham House was made in 1626, This includes a small drawing of the chapel which shows that the building was constructed with three large windows which would have allowed the light of springtime to shine through.[13] The sunlight would have certainly glistened from the jewels and fine fabrics worn by the bride as she walked toward the alter where Guildford would have been stood waiting for his potential bride. Formal wedding vows would have been exchanged and the newly married couples, as well as the guests would have then attended the great hall to enjoy the lavish array of dishes prepared in celebration. The two-days of festivities would continue with games, jousts and other entertainments organised by the Duke of Northumberland himself.

There does appear to be some debate as to whether Jane herself attended one of the banquets. The letters discovered by Dr John Stephan Edwards in 2013, do give us more details about the wedding celebrations. However, the translations of these letters by Edwards and Dr Nicola Tallis, who is also noted to have included them in her book, differ as to whether Jane dined in public or not.

Published on his website in 2013, Dr John Stephan Edwards translation of the letter reports the writer stating that ‘One of the days of the festivities, Jane not being out to dine in public, the Ambassador of France and that of Venice took her place, between two Marchionesses, one on the right and the other on the left.’[14] Dr Nicola Tallis quotes a slightly different version in her 2016 book reporting that ‘Jane, it was observed led to her table ‘the French and Venetian Ambassadors’ who were seated between two ladies.’[15]

Jehan Scheyfve wrote to the Bishop of Arras on 30^th May 1553, that ‘M. de Boisdauphin was invited to the weddings and banquets, to which he went on the first and second day. The new ambassador was not asked; but M. de L’Aubespine and the Venetian ambassador both went on the second day.’[16] From this letter we know that the Venetian Ambassador attended the wedding on the second day. Depending on which translation of the new letter is correct, we know that either Jane did not dine in public on the second day of the wedding celebrations or that she dined with the ambassadors.

The Marriage of Lady Jane Grey
Oliver Pelton (1798-1882)
© Public Domain

With the wedding ceremony over with, married life for Lord and Lady Dudley certainly didn’t get off to the best start. It is not exactly known if the next event happened at one of the wedding banquets or in the weeks following the wedding, however it appears that Guildford, his brother and possibly some of the other guests were struck down with illness. On 12^th June the Imperial Ambassador wrote that, ‘My Lord Guildford Dudley, recently married to Suffolk’s eldest, one of his brothers, the Admiral and other lords and ladies, recently fell very ill after eating some salad at the Duke of Northumberland’s and are still suffering from the results. It seems the mistake was made by a cook, who plucked one leaf for another.’[17]

Historians have debated over the centuries if the marriage between Jane and Guildford was ever consummated. Fictional writers have embellished the uncertainty around this, and in many fictional adaptations the relationship between Jane and Guildford has been portrayed as hate, lust and on occasion rape. The truth is, we don’t entirely know if the marriage was consummated or not. Jehan Scheyfve did report that ‘the marriage between the Duke of Northumberland’s son and the daughter of the Duke of Suffolk has taken place, but is not yet to be consummated, because of their tender age’[18]. This, however, may possibly be a misunderstanding by Scheyfve, as Jane was deemed to be of childbearing age, in terms of sixteenth century values, and it may just be possible that the couple were asked to hold off until the plans for their future could be secured.

Unusually, it does appear that Jane and Guildford were noted to spend much of the month of June living separate lives as Jane would initially return home with her parents for some weeks after the wedding. It does, however, appear that between then and when Jane went to Chelsea Manor to recover from an unspecified illness that she and Guildford had lived together at one of the Dudley residences. A rather intriguing comment made by Jane herself, in a letter to Queen Mary, during her imprisonment, indicates that by the time she was made Queen, she was at least sharing a bed with Guildford. When discussing an argument between herself and Jane Dudley, Duchess of Northumberland she was noted to report that Guildford’s mother ‘induced her son not to sleep with me anymore.’[19] If indeed the marriage was not to be consummated as Scheyfve reports, then would the couple’s parents take the risk and allow these two young individuals to share the same bed.

We have very little information to inform us as to how Jane and Guildford Dudley spent the early months of their married life, and how their relationship developed as the young couple became more acquainted with each other. The couple’s married life would unfortunately last less than nine weeks and by 19^th July 1553, both were imprisoned separately within the Tower of London and this young relationship would be cut short in the saddest of ways.

[1] Ives, E. (2009) Lady Jane Grey: A Tudor Mystery, Wiley-Blackwell, p.185.

[2] Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, Calendar of State Papers Spanish, Vol XI, p.36

[3] Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, Calendar of State Papers Spanish, Vol XI, p.36

[4] Malfatti, C.V (translator) (1956), The Accession Coronation and Marriage of Mary Tudor as related in four manuscripts of the Escorial, Barcelona, p.5

[5] Edwards, S. Some Grey Matter – Two Letters Concerning Lady Jane Grey of England, written in London in July of 1553 Date accessed: May 2022

[6] Haynes, S. (1740) A Collection of State Papers relating to Affairs In the Reigns of King Henry VIII, King Edward VI, Queen Mary and Queen Elizabeth: From the year 1542 to 1570, Bowyer, p.76. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=YitDAAAAcAAJ&hl=en_GB&pg=GBS.PA76 [Date accessed May 2022]

[7] Higginbotham, Susan. How old was Guildford Dudley? https://www.susanhigginbotham.com/posts/how-old-was-guildford-dudley-beats-me/ accessed: May 2022.

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

[9] Davey, R. (1909) The Nine Days’ Queen: Lady Jane and Her Times, Methuen & Co, p.23

[10] ‘Spain: May 1553’, Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 11: 1553 (1916), pp. 37-48. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=88480 Date accessed: May 2022.

[11] Strype, J. Ecclesiastical Memorials Relating Chiefly to Religion and the Reformation of It, and the Emergencies of the Church of England Under K. Henry VIII., K. Edward VI., and Q. Mary I., with Large Appendices Containing Original Papers Google Books, p.111-112. Date accessed: May 2022

[12] Tallis, N (2016) Crown of Blood, The Deadly Inheritance of Lady Jane Grey, p. 136 – 137

[13] For more information of the history and layout of Durham House see: Durham Place | British History Online (british-history.ac.uk) accessed: May 2022

[14] Edwards, S. Some Grey Matter – Two Letters Concerning Lady Jane Grey of England, written in London in July of 1553 Date accessed: 20 May 2022

[15] Tallis, N (2016) Crown of Blood, The Deadly Inheritance of Lady Jane Grey, p. 14

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

[17] ‘Spain: June 1553, 1-15’, in Calendar of State Papers, Spain, Volume 11, 1553, ed. Royall Tyler (London, 1916), pp. 48-56. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/spain/vol11/pp48-56 [accessed 20 May 2022].

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

[19] Ives, E, (2009) Lady Jane Grey A Tudor Mystery, p.186

Lady Jane Dudley – Forget What You Know!

Co- authored by Tamise Hills & Lee Porritt – Published in The Historian Magazine April 2022

Lady Jane Grey Going to Her Execution
Edward Harrison May
1864
Oil on Canvas
59 x 80 inches
(c) Woodmere Art Museum

On a cold morning in February 1554, the seventeen-year-old Lady Jane Dudley left her apartments within the Tower of London. Dressed entirely in black and reading from her prayer book, Jane walked towards the newly erected scaffold, placed at the north side of the white tower. Climbing the steps, Jane made a speech, and took her last look at the world before laying her head on the block.

Almost from the moment the axe fell, Lady Jane Dudley was overshadowed by the story of Lady Jane Grey. When it comes to the life of Lady Jane Dudley, little contemporary documentation and no authenticated portraits survive. This has allowed others to invent stories to fill the gaps in our knowledge and unfortunately some of these inventions have persisted.

Modern historians such as Eric Ives, Leanda De Leslie, Nicola Tallis and Stephan Edwards have recently published biographies on the life and times of Lady Jane Grey. All take a fresh look at her life and the contemporary evidence known to exist. It is these biographies that have started to challenge some of the many myths about Jane and for the first time we are starting to get a better understanding as to what this remarkable character was truly like.

Part of the myth of ‘Jane Grey’ is why Jane is commonly known today by her maiden name? At the time of her death, she had been married to Lord Guildford Dudley for eight months, and signed her name ‘Jane Dudley’ in two of the messages in the prayer book she carried to her execution. There does appear to have been a conscious effort to try and separate Jane from the Dudley family after the events of 1553, especially within the Grey family circle. All blame for placing Jane on the throne was directed to John Dudley. Jane herself, is often referred to as ‘Jane of Suffolk, the Lady Jane or the usurper’ within contemporary descriptions of the events surrounding her reign, imprisonment, and execution. By the end of the sixteenth century, Jane’s married name is almost completely obliterated from modern text, and although many ballads and plays were written during the seventeenth and eighteenth century portraying the couple as separated lovers, Jane would continually be referred to by her maiden name.

Jane is also often referred to as the ‘nine days Queen’, again however this is a common misconception, created during the Victorian period to portray her reign as a ‘nine days wonder’. Like with all monarchs, Jane’s reign officially started at the death of her predecessor. From Edward VI’s death on 6^th July, the Privy Council were working to secure the succession and the new Queen may have been given time to come to terms with the shock of her new elevated position. Accounts differ as to when the new Queen was actually told. Jane’s short reign has been counted from when she was publicly proclaimed on the 10^thJuly and not from the official date of the 6^th, thus making her the thirteen days queen instead of nine.

Jane’s appearance is another myth to be recently challenged. For many years a detailed account of Jane’s arrival at the Tower of London as Queen on 10^th July written by the merchant ‘Sir Baptist Spinola’ has been extensively reproduced within art, biographies and any discussions concerning the portraiture of Jane. The account, which describes the young Queen as ‘small and thin with freckles’ appeared in the 1909 biography ‘The Nine Days Queen, Lady Jane Grey & Her Times’ by Richard Davey.

During research for ‘The Sisters Who Would Be Queen’, Leanda de Lisle discovered that Davey’s book was the sole source for Spinola’s account and that no other mention of this description of Jane could be located before 1909. De Lisle also noted that Davey had probably made the description up using some contemporary descriptions of the event, a description of Queen Mary I and a Victorian costume illustration depicting Jane in royal robes.

In recent years, possible new portraits, a re-discovered letter, and the re-evaluation of sources have allowed Jane Dudley to start to emerge from the shadow of ‘Jane Grey.’

List of recommend books:

Eric Ives, ‘Lady Jane Grey a Tudor Mystery’, 2009

Leanda De Lisle, ‘The Sisters Who Would Be Queen’, 2010

John Stephan Edwards, ‘A Queen of a New Invention Portraits of Lady Jane Grey Dudley’, 2015

Nicola Tallis, ‘Crown of Blood The Deadly Inheritance of Lady Jane Grey’, 2016

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

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William Frederick Yeames circa 1884
Joseph Parkin Mayall
© Public Domain

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

Setting The scene

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Detail Image showing Yeames signature and date

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Philip Portrait – Does it Change Anything?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coronation Miniature
Queen Elizabeth I
©Private Collection

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

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

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

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

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

The Mould Portrait
Queen Elizabeth I
©Philip Mould Gallery, London

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: 16th November 2021

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

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

UPDATE: 22nd November 2021

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

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

http://somegreymatter.com/berryhill.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Twitter Portrait – Is It Lady Jane Grey?

In the autumn of 2020, a rather interesting photographic image of a portrait appeared on social media. The photograph was originally posted as a portrait of Lady Jane Grey on the website of the restoration company Fine Art Conservation, Columbia. Sadly, the actual image did not show the portrait in its entirety but was a detailed shot showing the neck and chin area of the sitter before and after restoration work had taken place.[1]

Detail Image
Before and After Restoration
©Fine Arts Conservation, Columbia

On seeing this image, I instantly became intrigued: firstly, because this was a portrait that had gone unnoticed by myself and others who have studied the iconography of Lady Jane Grey. Secondly, because the brief glimpse that we had been given initially filled me with a little hope that this painting may indeed be an authentic likeness or one of the many lost portrait that have been associated with Jane in the past.

I immediately contacted the restoration company and requested further information and a photographic image of the full portrait. The company responded quickly and informed me that due to client confidentiality they were unfortunately unable to fulfil my request.

Thankfully, I did not have to wait long before an image of the full portrait appeared on the social networking site Twitter. The tweet displayed an image of the painting in its unrestored state and reported that the portrait had been associated with the sixteenth century artist William Scrots. The writer also raised questions as to who the sitter in this painting could possibly be. It was very quickly identified that the portrait posted on Twitter matched the portrait displayed on the Restoration company’s website claiming to depict Lady Jane Grey.

Unknown Lady
Oil on Oval Panel
22 1/6 x 17 1/8 inches
©Private Collection

As seen from the image of the portrait it depicts a female, painted above the waist, before a plain dark background. The sitter is facing the viewer’s left and has brown eyes and a rather large flat nose. Her hair is brown in colour and is parted in the centre. On her head she wears a French hood of white fabric over a coif cap. The hood is constructed with both upper and lower billiaments of goldsmith work and a black veil is also seen hanging down behind the sitter. Her costume is constructed of a plain black fabric and the bodice of her dress is cut square at the neckline. Under this, the sitter wears a high-necked chemise of a white fine fabric, with a small frill at the collar. The chemise has been embroidered with the use of gold and black thread. Around her neck, she wears a long gold chain that hangs down the front of her bodice and an open partlet with a convex edge is worn over the shoulders.

So, the question is, could this portrait possibly depict Lady Jane Grey? My initial thought was that the Twitter portrait could possibly be one of the lost portraits supposed to depict Lady Jane Grey. One particular portrait that has not yet, been located is known as the Handford Portrait. This was exhibited in the Old Masters Exhibition at the Royal Academy of Arts in 1880. A detailed description of the Handford portrait is provided in the catalogue for the exhibition and identifies that the sitter does indeed wears a ‘black dress trimmed with gold and a gold chain around her neck’. The description of the Handford portrait also refers to ‘a gold chain at the waist and the hands clasped in front’. Since the girdle chain and sitter’s hands are mentioned in this description and do not appear in the Twitter portrait, we must then presume that the Twitter portrait is a separate painting altogether.[2]

When it comes to the iconography of Lady Jane Grey I am always a little sceptical with just accepting an individual’s word that a portrait does in fact depict her. We have seen with many other portrait’s associated as depicting her that the majority have turned out to be doubtful and have only been associated with Jane Grey due to the high public demand for her image and a possible connection in the symbolism or the plain costume depicted.

To attempt to establish if there is any possible connection to Jane Grey, I feel we need to look at the provenance connected to the Twitter portrait. Due to the events of 2020, I have had limited access to the archives, galleries and museums that may hold some of this information. The first written documentation I have located for this painting is an auction catalogue from 1989. The portrait was sold on 14^th April at Christie’s Auction House London and appeared as lot number 98 in the sale. The catalogue lists the portrait as an ‘unknown lady’ and associates its creator to William Scrots. There is no record of the portrait’s provenance or any previous association with Lady Jane Grey discussed as part of the description for this lot.

The catalogue description does mention that ‘Sir Roy Strong attributes this portrait to the same hand as that of the portraits of King Edward VI and Princess Elizabeth in the Royal Collection’. Christie’s reference Roy Strong’s book The English Icon Elizabethan and Jacobean Portraiture, published in 1969 as the source of their information.[3]

Edward VI
Associated with William Scrots
©Royal Collection

Elizabeth When Princess
Associated with William Scrots
©Royal Collection

William Scrots did indeed work at the English Royal court and records detailing payments for his service can be traced up until the death of King Edward VI. It is not exactly known what happened to him after 1553, however, it is traditionally thought that he left England or died. [4]

As stated in the auction catalogue, the two portraits held in the Royal Collection are associated with the hand of William Scrots. Both portraits, appear to be of a finer quality and contain remarkable detail in the facial features and costumes than that seen in the Twitter portrait. If Sir Roy Strong did indeed come to the conclusion that the Twitter portrait was also by the same hand, then it is hard to see how. It also appears that the auction house may have their sources muddled slightly, as there is no mention of the Twitter portrait or its association with William Scrots in Roy Strong’s book The English Icon. From the Price list detailing the items sold at the Christie’s sale, the Twitter portrait appears to have been unsold and it was highly likely returned to its anonymous owner.

On seeing the photographic image of the full portrait, I instantly doubted the association with William Scrots as the portrait reminded me of the work of Pieter Pourbus, an artist working in the Netherlands in the sixteenth century. The over partlet, worn around the sitter’s shoulders has the distinctive convex shape to the bottom edge and is worn open at the front and pinned to the bodice. This is not consistent with the square, box shaped partlet’s worn closed at the front to create a fashionable V-shaped collar worn by English ladies of the 1550’s. This style of the partlet seen in the Twitter portrait is more consistent with the style of partlets worn in the Netherlands and is depicted in many of the portraits or female sitters painted by Pieter Pourbus.

Pieter Pourbus
Portrait of a Young Women
Oil on Panel
©Public Domain

Pieter Pourbus
Portrait of Jacquemyne Buuck
©Public Domain

The Twitter portrait appears again in 2010, when it was sold as part of a sale on 7^th July at Bonhams Auction House London. The catalogue for this sale refers to the sitter once again as ‘a portrait of a Lady’, however, by 2010 the artist association had been changed from William Scrots to Netherlandish School. Once again, this sale does not mention any previous association with Lady Jane Grey in the catalogue listing and the portrait eventually sold for £18.000.[5]

In conclusion I am unable to find any connection to Lady Jane Grey recorded in any of the documentation related to this portrait. I find it hard to believe that if the portrait had been auctioned along with documentation connecting Jane as a possible sitter then why did the auction houses not mention this in the auction details provided and merely referred to the sitter as ‘An Unknown Lady’.

As discussed above and in my opinion, I am inclined to agree with Bonham’s Auctions that the portrait was possibly created in the Netherlands and not England. The modern provenance related to this painting suggests that the portrait was identified as Jane Grey after it was last sold in 2010 and may just be an association made by the current owner themselves. I would be very interested to here from the current owner of this portrait in the hope that further information that may have come along with the portrait may solve this riddle once and for all.

[1] Painting Conservation and Art Collections Management (fineartconservationsunshinecoast.ca) accessed 20.11.2020

[2] Royal Academy of Arts, Old Masters Exhibition, 1880, page 32

[3] Christie’s Auction House, Important British Pictures, Friday 14^th April 1987, Page 152-153

[4] Gaunt, William. Court Painting in England. London: Constable, 1980

[5] Bonhams Auctions, Old Master Paintings, 7^th July 2010, Lot 3

The Frick Portrait

Gabrielle de Rochechouart
(previously called Lady Jane Grey)
Corneille de Lyon
Oil on Panel
©The Frick Art Museum

Another portrait which has in the past been associated with Lady Jane Grey is currently in the collection of the Frick Art Museum, Pennsylvania. Today, the museum rightfully lists the sitter as Gabrielle de Rochechouart, Lady Lansac as there appears to be more evidence to support this identification than the sitters previous identification.

The painting depicts a lady facing the viewer’s left and painted to just above the waist. She wears a bodice of black fabric cut square at the neck with small puff sleeves, decorated with pearls. A partlet of white fabric with a small ruffle is seen at her neck, and over her shoulders the sitter wears the fur of an animal. The sitter wears a large chain of goldsmith work around her neck and pearls and suspended from this is a large jewel containing one gemstone. Pinned to the front of her bodice is a large jewel containing three gemstones and one large hanging pearl. On her head she wears a French hood constructed with the same fabric used for her fitted sleeves. Upper and lower billiaments consisting of goldsmith work and pearls are attached to the hood, and a black veil is seen hanging down the sitters back.

Nothing is known regarding the early provenance for this portrait or how the image became identified as a portrait of Lady Jane Grey. The first record I have been able to locate regarding this portrait and its one-time association with Lady Jane Grey is an auction catalouge for a sale at Christie’s Auction House, London on 28^th February 1930. The portrait was listed among the vast collection of antiques and paintings from the collection of a Barnet Lewis Esq. Lewis died in 1929 and his collection was subsequently sold off at auction. The Frick painting is described in this catalouge as

Lot 94. Lucas De Heere, Portrait of Lady Jane Grey.

In a black dress, with yellow sleeves and jewel ornaments. Oil on panel – 6 ½ in. by 5 ¼ in.[1]

The description given in the catalouge differs from with what is seen in the portrait today. As listed above, the description states that the sitter wears yellow sleeves, however, when purchased by the current owner, it was apparent that the portrait had been heavily over painted during its history. Recent restoration work has taken place on the painting to remove the discoloured varnish and overpaint, resulting in the colour of the sitter’s sleeves being taken back to the original intended colour of pink.

The Frick Portrait
(prior to restoration)
©The Frick Art Museum

The artist associated with the creation of the portrait, in the 1930 catalouge, is also inconsistent with the dates surrounding Jane Grey’s life. The Flemish painter Lucas de Heere (1534-1584) fled the Netherlands for England to escape religious persecution. He is first recorded in England in 1566, much later than Jane’s death in February 1554, so he is highly unlikely to have painted an authentic portrait of Lady Jane Grey.[2]

The portrait entered the Frick collection when it was purchased from the Wildenstein Galleries, New York by Helen Frick on 16^th April 1931.[3] On entering the collection, the painting was installed in the Librarian’s Office of the Frick Art Reference Library. The identification of the sitter as Lady Jane Grey was immediately challenged, and the Frick portrait was compared to another identical copy once in the collection of the Duke of Sutherland at Stafford House.

Gabrielle de Rochechouart
Corneille de Lyon
Oil on Panel
©Musee Conde

This copy had been donated in 1897 to The Musee Conde by Henri d’Orléans, Duke of Aumale and along with other paintings from the Duke of Sutherlands collection had been associated with the Dutch artist Corneille de Lyon.

Corneille de Lyon was actively working in France from the 1530’s until his death in 1575. He was nationalised as French in 1547 and was employed as the painter to the king under Henry II and Charles IX. Frustratingly, de Lyon did not sign or date his work, so although this artist is widely documented within sixteenth century records, very few works can be reliably associated with his hand today. [4]

The panel surface of the portrait in The Musee Conde’s collection has been extended, at a later date to include the early inscription detailing the sitters name as GABRIELE. DE. ROCHECHOART. DAME. DE. LANSAC.[5] It was therefore decided by the curators of the Frick collection that their identical copy must also depict the same individual and not Lady Jane Grey.

[1] Christie, Manson & Woods, London. Catalogue of the Important Collection of Ancient and Modern Pictures and Water Colour Drawings: The Property of the Late Barnet Lewis, Esq, page 19

[2] Strong. Roy, Gloriana The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I, Pimlico, 2003, page 71

[3] Fazio. Carl Vincent, Helen Clay Flick: Architectural Patron & Art Collector, University of Pittsburgh, 1998, page 36

[4] For the most up to date record of work associated with Corneille de Loyn see Dubois de Groer. Anne, Corneille de Lyon, Arthena, Paris, 2003

[5] Dubois de Groer. Anne, Corneille de Lyon, Arthena, Paris, 2003, Page 215