Historien

Portræt af Lady Jane Gray

Portræt af Lady Jane Gray



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.


Portræt af Lady Jane Gray - Historie


Tilskrives Levina Teerlinc
Ukendt dame, muligvis Elizabeth I som prinsesse, ca. 1550
Yale Center for British Art, New Haven (B1974.2.59)
Vellum fastgjort til almindeligt papir, cirkulært, 48 mm, 1 7/8 diameter

Det ville være fristende at tilskrive dette til Hornebolte, da indskriften er typisk for hans stil, men detaljeret undersøgelse af objektet ville indikere, at dette sandsynligvis var et værk af Levina Teerlinc, udført kort efter hendes ankomst til England. Tegningen er meget svagere end noget af Hornebolte, behandlingen af ​​funktionerne tynde og gennemsigtige og de små arme er også en tilbagevendende funktion i Teerlinc & rsquos kvindelige sitters. Også Teerlinc var påvirket af storstilede malere, og miniaturen afspejler mester Johns arbejde f.eks. Mary I, 1544.

Alle sitters til miniaturer af hofbegrænserne kommer fra en tæt sammensmeltet kongekreds, der sandsynligvis ville indsnævre identiteten af ​​den mulige siddende til enten Mary I, Elizabeth I som prinsesse eller en af ​​deres fætre, de tre grå søstre. Kjolen er af en type, der bæres mellem midten af ​​1540'erne og begyndelsen af ​​1550'erne. Mary I ville have været for gammel og Lady Jane Gray kun ti i 1547. Dette efterlader Elizabeth, der var atten i 1551. Det tidligste portræt af hende er det berømte billede i Royal Collection, der skildrer hende mellem tolv og fjorten år ca. 1542-1547. Der er ikke flere sikre portrætter, før miniaturerne af Levina i 1560'erne, da dronningen var sidst i tyverne eller begyndelsen af ​​trediverne med et meget ændret udseende og påklædning. Yale -miniaturen følger Royal Collection -billedet og ansigtet på en fuldt udviklet, hård teenager. Hun er iført en meget vigtig juvel med en en l & rsquoantique profilhoved, sandsynligvis af en romersk kejser, i jet med laurbærkranse og sløjfe kappe bearbejdet i guld, hvori kvist af agern og køer er blevet gemt.

Der er en række mærkbare maletab i baggrunden og afskalning og misfarvning. Derudover er der mindre tab i håret og funktioner.

Fra noterne om Levina Teerlinc:

1510/20 Født, et af børnene til Simon Benninck, en af ​​de vigtigste eksponenter for belysningsskolen i Gent-Brugge

1546 Rekrutteret til Henry VIIIs tjeneste med en livrente på & pund40 om året, på det tidspunkt havde hun giftet sig med George Teerlinc

1551 Warrant til at betale Teerlinc for et portræt af prinsessen Elizabeth

1553 Præsenterer Mary I med & ldquoa smale billede af Trynite & rdquo den første i en serie af nytår & rsquos gaver med billeder eller begrænsninger, der fortsatte indtil 1576


Indhold

Lady Jane Gray var oldebarn til kong Henry VII gennem sin yngste datter, Mary, og første fætter, der engang blev fjernet af kong Edward VI. Efter Edvards død udråbte en protestantisk fraktion hendes dronning over sin katolske halvsøster, Mary. To uger senere tog Mary med støtte fra det engelske folk tronen, som Jane opgav kun ni dage efter at hun blev installeret. Jane og hendes mand, Lord Guildford Dudley, blev fængslet i Tower of London på anklager om højforræderi. Jane's retssag blev gennemført i november, men hendes dødsdom blev suspenderet. I februar 1554 deltog Janes far, hertugen af ​​Suffolk, som var blevet benådet, i Wyatts oprør. Den 12. februar havde Mary Jane, dengang 16 år gammel, og hendes mand halshugget Janes far led samme skæbne to dage senere. [4]

Jane var en from protestant under den engelske reformation, da Church of England voldeligt afviste pavens autoritet og den romersk -katolske kirke. Kendt for sin fromhed og uddannelse, korresponderede hun med protestantiske ledere i Kontinentaleuropa, såsom Heinrich Bullinger. En beskeden person, der klædte sig klart, hendes sidste ord før hendes henrettelse blev rapporteret som "Herre, i dine hænder giver jeg min ånd!" [5] Janes henrettelse af en katolsk dronning gjorde hende til hvad Oxford Dictionary of National Biography udtrykker en "protestantisk martyr", [5] og ved slutningen af ​​århundredet var Jane blevet, med historikeren Eric Ives 'ord, "et protestantisk ikon". [6] Skildringer af Jane i det 16. og 17. århundrede, såsom i John Foxes Handlinger og Monumenter (1563), udgivet efter at protestantiske Elizabeth I indtog tronen, "præsenterede [Jane] som primært en figur i en national fortælling om en udvalgt nation, der havde en ren protestantisk tro, som var steget øverst over det katolske Europa". [7]

Jane blev længe antaget at være den eneste engelske monark fra 1500-tallet uden et overlevende nutidigt portræt, man blev dokumenteret i en opgørelse fra 1590, men betragtes nu som tabt. [8] Nogle identificeret som hende blev senere anset for at være af andre siddere, såsom en af ​​Catherine Parr, den sidste af de seks koner til Henry VIII, som blev identificeret som Lady Jane Gray indtil 1996. [a] Andre værker, f.eks. som Henrettelsen af ​​Lady Jane Gray (1833) af Paul Delaroche, blev malet år eller århundreder efter hendes død. [9] Som et resultat, Cynthia Zarin af New Yorker skriver, "det blanke, hvor [Janes] ansigt skulle være, har gjort det meget lettere for de efterfølgende generationer at præge deres politiske og personlige fantasier på hende". [8]

Det trekvartlange portræt måler 85,6 cm × 60,3 cm (33,7 in × 23,7 in) og er malet med olie på baltisk eg. [10] En falmet indskrift, der læser "Lady Jayne" [11] eller "Lady Iayne", [6] er i øverste venstre hjørne, over kvindens skuldre. [b] [12] Sitteren beskrives af kunstkritiker Charlotte Higgins som en slank og "nedslidt, from ung kvinde" og er foreløbigt blevet identificeret som Lady Jane Gray. [13] Ives bemærker en familiær lighed mellem viceværten og Greys søstre, Catherine og Mary, som "kan give formodentlig støtte" til identifikationen af ​​Gray. [6]

Motivet bærer en overdådig rød kjole med vendt tilbage trompetærmer og en partlet med stående krave sidstnævnte er broderet med et fleur-de-lis mønster, det heraldiske emblem for fransk royalty. Designet på hendes nederdel viser et mønster, der på forskellige måder er identificeret som jordbær, gilliflowers, skotske tistler eller lyserøde det sidste af disse var et symbol på familien Gray. En fransk hætte på hendes hoved dækker det meste af hendes røde hår. Hun bærer adskillige smykker, herunder en halskæde færdig med medaljoner og perler, disse indikerer en person med høj social og økonomisk status, som forstærkes af silke og fløjl i hendes kjole. Vagten har imidlertid ikke en vielsesring på, hvilket tyder på, at hun endnu ikke var gift. [14] I stedet holder hun en bønebog. [13] Denne type kostume var populær i Tudor -perioden, især i 1550'erne, og nøjagtigheden af ​​dens skildring er blevet brugt til at fremme portrætets ægthed som en skildring af Jane Gray. [15]

Den uafhængige historiker J. Stephan Edwards skriver imidlertid, at fleur-de-lis giver ham en pause, da Jane før juni 1553 "ikke havde haft ret til de franske heraldiske emblemer", da hun endnu ikke var tronarving. . [14] Efter opdagelsen af ​​et indskrevet portræt af Catherine Parr offentliggjorde Edwards i 2014 en foreløbig identifikation af maleriet som den original, som Streatham -portrættet var baseret på. Han skrev, at Parr -maleriet var blevet "tilpasset til at blive" Jane Gray i fravær af et tilgængeligt autentisk portræt "i Streatham -portrættet og lignende, og understøttede dette med en analyse af lignende kjolestiler og smykker (inklusive en halskæde af prydede perler). [14]

Modtagelsen af ​​maleriet som et kunstværk har overvejende været negativ. Historikeren David Starkey beskrev det som "et forfærdeligt dårligt billede, og der er absolut ingen grund til at formode, at det har noget at gøre med Lady Jane Gray", [16] en stemning, som kunsthandleren Christopher Foley afviste. [8] Tarnya Cooper fra National Portrait Gallery gav mindre skarp kritik og sagde "det er et malet antal, bearbejdet kopi", [17] og "dets værdi er som et historisk dokument frem for et kunstværk". [16] Zarin beskriver maleriet som udseende bleget i sammenligning med andre portrætter af monarker, med "det flade ansigt på en papirdukke". [17] Edwards skriver "kvaliteten kan beskrives som naiv, primitiv eller endda folkekunst". [14]

Produktion og tidlig historie Rediger

Portrættet er udateret og uden tildeling. Det menes at være afsluttet i 1590'erne, cirka fyrre år efter Janes død, sandsynligvis som en kopi af et træsnit fra Jane [18] [2] [3] fra 1580, daterer dendrochronology træpanelet til ca. 1593. [16]

Et andet slående lignende portræt, der skildrer en kvinde, der også krediteres som Jane - selvom kostumet adskiller sig lidt - var engang ejet af Richard Monckton Milnes, 1. baron Houghton, men er nu i en ikke -afsløret privat samling. På grund af ligheder mellem de to værker antyder Edwards, at de begge er kopier af en tabt original, måske afsluttet af det samme studie. [19] En tredje kopi, engang ejet af den engelske kostumedesigner Herbert Norris, er kendt gennem optegnelser, selv om dens opholdssted er ukendt. [20]

Streatham -portrættet kan have været en del af en samling protestantiske martyrmalerier. Skader på maleriets mund og øjne tyder på, at det blev hærværk, muligvis af en katolsk partisan, da de sytten ridser ikke splintrede malingen, dette angreb var sandsynligvis ikke længe efter portrætets færdiggørelse. [21] På grund af maleriets grovhed antyder Foley, at det hurtigt blev færdiggjort for Janes familie fra en original, der "skulle ødelægges, fordi det ville have været for farligt at eje, når Mary blev dronning". [22]

Opdagelse Rediger

Portrættet var i besiddelse af en familie i Streatham, London, i det 20. århundrede. [16] De havde længe troet, at portrættet var af Jane, og siden 1923 havde forsøgt at overbevise andre om dets ægthed, uden held. Det blev overført fra generation til generation. [16] I december 2005 informerede Sir John Guinness Foley om familien og deres portræt. Foley besøgte ejeren i håb om "at lukke kammeraten", [23] men da han så arbejdet på et staffeli på loftet "vidste det, at det var rigtigt" i perioden. [23]

Sitterens identitet er blevet debatteret siden panelets opdagelse. Foley har identificeret mindst fire Jane Grays blandt den engelske adel på portrætets tidspunkt. På grund af "de andre kandidaters alder og civilstand" var Lady Jane Gray imidlertid det eneste levedygtige valg, de andre var for unge, allerede gift og havde et andet efternavn, eller havde mistet deres titel. [24] Starkey var mere reserveret og argumenterede "der er ikke den over-the-top kvalitet du får med kongelige portrætter af perioden, hvor sitterne ser ud som om de lige er kommet tilbage fra Asprey", [11] og at der ikke var dokumentation for, at Jane ejer smykkerne set i portrættet. [16]

Efter opdagelsen udførte Libby Sheldon fra University College London flere tests for at verificere maleriets alder, herunder spektroskopi og lasermikroskopi. Indskriftens alder blev taget i betragtning og viste sig at være samtidig med resten af ​​maleriet. [14] Pigmenter, herunder en type gult pigment, der sjældent blev fundet efter 1600, var passende til det 16. århundrede. [23] Dendrokronologisk analyse viste senere, at værket var for sent til at være et livsportræt af Jane, men udelukkede ikke muligheden for reproduktion. [14]

National Portrait Gallery Rediger

Maleriet blev købt i 2006 af National Portrait Gallery, London, med midler indsamlet gennem deres 150 -års jubilæum, [25] efter mere end ni måneders overvejelse. Omkostningerne blev rygter til at være mere end £ 100.000, [16] selvom Zarin giver en pris på £ 95.000. [26] Opkøbet blev kritiseret af Starkey, der sagde, "hvis National Portrait Gallery har offentlige penge at brænde, så gør det også. [Beslutningen] afhænger af ren hørelse og tradition, og det er ikke godt nok". [16] Foley imødegik: "Beviserne er blevet understøttet af mennesker, der ved langt mere om malervidenskaben end David Starkey. Jeg ved ikke, hvad hans problem er - er det fordi han ikke fandt det?" [16]

Privat Starkey handlede på vegne af Philip Mold Gallery og undersøgte et andet portræt, der menes at være Jane, indeholdt af Yale Center for British Art. Denne miniatur på 2 centimeter (0,79 tommer) var blevet identificeret som Elizabeth I under en udstilling fra 1983 på Victoria and Albert Museum Starkey, men var "90 procent sikker", den skildrede Jane. [27] Efter udstillingen i marts 2007 Tabte ansigter, da miniaturen blev vist efter en nylig genopblomstring af interessen for Jane, udgav Foley et langt brev, der udfordrede Starkeys dom. Han nævnte sitters broche og emblem som vejledende for, at hun ikke var Jane Gray. [c] [17]

Streatham -portrættet bærer tiltrædelsesnummeret for NPG 6804 og betragtes som en del af galleriets primære samling. [25] Fra januar 2007 til begyndelsen af ​​2010 blev den vist i Tudor Gallery. Fra begyndelsen af ​​2013 blev maleriet hængt i værelse 2 i galleriets regionale forpost i Montacute House i Somerset, en del af en udstilling af portrætter fra Tudor-tiden. [28]


Lady Jane Greys mange ansigter

Lady Jane Gray var dronning i kun ni dage, men mange betragter ikke hendes dronning, fordi hun ikke havde en kroning –, men Edward Plantagenet (søn af Edward IV) fik titlen Edward V, selvom han ikke havde en kroning. Så hvorfor omtaler vi ikke Jane som dronning Jane I af England? Begge monarker “ regerede ” i en meget kort periode, før de døde. Edward ’s død er et mysterium, mens Jane ’s død blev beordret af dronning Mary I, efter at hun ikke havde andet valg end at henrette hendes “rival ”.

I denne artikel fokuserer vi på, hvordan Jane Gray så ud, og hvilke af de portrætter, der er tilgængelige for os, der nærmest ligner “Nine Day Queen ”, vi er blevet beskrevet.

Tak til min veninde Natalie på On the Tudor Trail for at dele et gæstepost af Tamise Hills fra Lady Jane Gray Reference Guide som fandt denne nutidige beskrivelse af Lady Jane Gray:

I dag så jeg Lady Jane Gray gå i en stor optog til tårnet. Hun hedder nu Queen, men er ikke populær, for folks hjerter er hos Mary, den spanske dronnings datter. Denne Jane er meget kort og tynd, men smukt formet og yndefuld. Hun har små træk og en vellavet næse, munden er fleksibel og læberne røde. Øjenbrynene er buede og mørkere end hendes hår, som er næsten rødt. Hendes øjne er funklende og rødbrune i farven. Jeg stod så tæt på hendes nåde, at jeg bemærkede, at hendes farve var god, men fregnet. Da hun smilede viste hun sine tænder, som er hvide og skarpe. I det hele taget en elskværdig og animeret figur. Hun bar en kjole af grønt fløjl stemplet med guld, med store ærmer. Hendes hovedbeklædning var et hvidt coif med mange juveler . Den nye dronning blev monteret på meget høje chopines for at få hende til at se meget højere ud, hvilket blev skjult af hendes klæder, da hun er meget lille og kort. – Baptisa Spinola, 10 Juli 1553

Her er en anden beskrivelse af Jane ’s intelligens og#8211 fundet på TudorPlace.com.ar:

Ascham beskrev Jane i et brev fra 1550:

Dog kan jeg ikke overlade to engelske kvinder, og jeg ville heller ikke ønske, min kære Sturmius, at overgive noget, hvis du tænker på venner, der skal huskes på i England, end som intet er mere ønskeligt for mig. Den ene er Jane Gray, datter af den ædle markis i Dorset. Da hun havde Mary, dronning af Frankrig som bedstemor, var hun meget nært knyttet til vores kong Edward. Hun er femten år gammel. I retten var jeg meget venlig med hende, og hun skrev indlærte breve til mig: Sidste sommer da jeg besøgte mine venner i Yorkshire og blev indkaldt fra dem af breve fra John Cheke om at jeg skulle komme for retten, brød jeg min rejse på vej til Leicester, hvor Jane Gray boede hos sin far. Jeg blev straks vist ind i hendes kammer: Jeg fandt den ædle unge dame læse (af Jupiter!) På græsk, Platons Phaedo og med en sådan forståelse, at jeg vandt min højeste beundring. Hun taler og skriver så græsk, at man næppe ville kreditere det. Hun har en underviser John Aylmer, en velbevandret i begge tunger, og mig mest kær for sin menneskelighed, visdom, vaner, rene religion og mange andre bånd i det sandeste venskab. Da jeg forlod, lovede hun at skrive til mig på græsk, forudsat at jeg ville sende hende mine breve skrevet fra kejserens domstol. Jeg venter dagligt på et græsk brev fra hende: når det kommer, sender jeg det straks videre til dig. ”

Af de ovenstående billeder, hvilke tror du ligner Jane bedst fra den givne beskrivelse?

Lad os derefter sammenligne billederne af Jane med hendes søstre, Catherine og Mary. Jeg valgte den, jeg troede, havde de mest lignende funktioner – du tror måske andet, og det er okay.

Jane er til venstre, Mary øverst til højre og Catherine nederst til højre

I 2007 mente historikeren David Starkey, at han identificerede det eneste nutidige billede af Lady Jane Gray.

Dr. Starkey, en Tudor -specialist, hævdede, at han var 󈭊 procent sikker på ”, at det var lykkedes ham at identificere det første samtidige portræt af Jane Gray, den fromme protestantiske bonde, der var dronning i ni dage i 1553, inden han blev halshugget kl. The Tower of London.

Portrættet, mindre end to tommer i diameter, tilhører en amerikansk samling og er kendt for at stamme fra midten af ​​1500-tallet. Sitteren har aldrig før været navngivet, men Dr. Starkey sagde, at han havde identificeret hende som Jane Gray fra en broche på hendes kjole og en meget symbolsk smykkespray af løv bagved, der knyttede hende til sin mand.

Portræt, som David Starkey identificerede som Lady Jane Gray

Her er endnu et portræt af Jane ’s søster Catherine Gray, som jeg har lagt ved siden af ​​det billede, som Startkey identificerede, og ser du ligheder?

Endelig vil vi se på det mest almindeligt anvendte billede af Jane, portrættet fra Streatham fra 1590'erne menes at være en senere kopi af et nutidigt portræt af Lady Jane Gray. Fra den første beskrivelse ser denne ud til at dække alle baser: “små træk, en vellavet næse, munden fleksibel, læberne røde, øjenbryn buede og mørkere end hendes hår, som er næsten rødt. Hendes øjne er funklende og rødbrune i farven. ” Er du enig i, at dette ville være det mest sandsynlige portræt af Jane Gray?

Vi ved måske aldrig med sikkerhed, hvordan mange af Tudor -figurerne lignede – malerier er ikke billeder og nutidige beretninger om disse mennesker er af mennesker. Skønhed er i betragtningens øje, ikke? Med alt dette sagt, fra beskrivelsen af ​​Jane i begyndelsen af ​​stykket og sammenligning med hendes søstre, tror jeg stadig, at Streatham -portrættet sandsynligvis er det eneste sande billede, vi har af Jane.

Yderligere læsning:

Tak til alle dem, der tidligere har doneret – på grund af mennesker som dig, jeg ville ikke være i stand til at fortsætte med at opdatere mit websted med artikler, købe nyt forskningsmateriale, løbende skrive på Facebook og skrive, optage og redigere en podcast. Hvis du gerne vil blive en af ​​mine bedste venner i hele verden og donere enten en månedlig eller engangs donation, kan du gøre det enten via Patreon (månedligt) eller via et sikkert PayPal-link, hvor du ikke skal have en PayPal -konto.


Skeffington -portrættet

Forskning i portrætter fra det sekstende århundrede er et komplekst, men fascinerende emne. I mange tilfælde starter søgningen med selve det overlevende maleri og fortsætter derefter med at søge efter enhver skriftlig dokumentation vedrørende dets herkomst og eventuelle spor til den mulige identifikation af sidderen.

Når man diskuterer portrætter, der har en historie på cirka fire hundrede og halvtreds år bag sig, skal man huske på, at det i dag er svært at opdage et portræt, der ikke er blevet ændret i en eller anden form eller form. I årenes løb kan den originale malede overflade af et portræt være blevet malet på grund af dårlig restaurering eller overdreven rengøring. Inskriptioner og våbenskjolde kan også være tilføjet på et senere tidspunkt, og i nogle tilfælde kan sammensætningen, originale inskriptioner og underskrifter være blevet skåret ned for at gøre det muligt for portrættet at passe ind i en ny ramme.

I tilfælde af Skeffington -portrættet er meget af det ovenstående sket. Dette portræt er også blevet identificeret som mindst fire separate individer i løbet af sin moderne indspillede historie. Tre ud af de fire sitters foreslåede har alle stået over for henrettelse, og i dag er portrættet nu identificeret som en ukendt dame.

Vores første dokumenterede optegnelse om dette portræts overlevelse er en bog i samlingen af ​​Society of Antiquaries, London. Denne bog indeholder kopier af referater af møder, der blev holdt af samfundet i løbet af det nittende århundrede og optegner, at et portræt, der menes at skildre Lady Jane Gray, blev præsenteret for samfundet af Sir William Skeffington den 6. februar 1806. [1]

Det præsenterede portræt viser en dame, set lige under taljen og vendt mod beskuerens venstre. Begge hænder er lukket foran sitteren, og fire guldringe kan ses på hendes fingre. Sitteren har grå øjne og rødbrunt hår, der er skilt i midten. På hovedet bærer hun en fransk hætte konstrueret af crimson og hvidt stof med både øvre og nedre billamenter af guldsmedearbejde. Et sort slør ses også hængende ned fra bagsiden af ​​emhætten, og under dette bærer hun et guldkaft. En sort løs kjole med pelskrave og ærme ved fårekød bæres af sitteren og fastgøres til taljen. Under dette ses antydningen af ​​et rødt kirtel, og ved hendes hals og håndled bærer sitteren en figur på otte ærmer, der er broderet med rød tråd. Damen bærer også et vedhæng af guldsmedarbejde, der indeholder tre firkantede ædelstene og tre perler hængende ved hendes hals. Hun er afbildet foran en almindelig baggrund, og billedet er malet på træpanel.

Ukendt dame kaldet Anne Askew
Olie på panel
27 x 21 tommer
Tilknyttet Hans Eworth
© National Trust

Sir William Farrell-Skeffington vedtog Skeffington-navnet i 1786 og arvede herregården Skeffington Hall i det femtende århundrede i East Leicester. Før hans død begyndte han at sælge genstande fra godset og solgte til sidst huset, grunden og indholdet i juli 1814. [2]

Skeffington præsenterede maleriet til salg for pastor John Brand, sekretær for Antiquaries samfund. Han meddelte Selskabet, at portrættet repræsenterede Lady Jane Gray og var malet af Lucas de Heere. Der findes ingen oplysninger i referatet af dette møde for at informere os om, hvorfor Skeffington troede, at portrættet var en skildring af Lady Jane, og der blev ikke registreret oplysninger om maleriernes herkomst. Det ser ud til, at Brand straks anfægtede Skeffingtons identifikation som et maleri af Jane Gray og bemærkede, at et fragment af en inskription kan ses øverst til venstre på paneloverfladen, der identificerede datoen, hvor portrættet blev malet som 1560. Brand mindede med rette om, at datoen, der var malet på overfladen, ikke faldt sammen med Lady Jane Greys død og foreslog, at portrættet faktisk skulle repræsentere Janes mor Lady Frances Brandon, idet Brand bemærkede, at hun døde i 1563. [3]

En mulig årsag til fejlidentifikationen som portræt af Lady Jane Gray er inskriptionen set på højre side af paneloverfladen. Denne indskrift lyder "Snarere død / end falsk af Faythe", hvilket tyder på, at den afbildede sitter hellere ville dø eller muligvis være død som følge af religiøs konflikt. Selve indskriften ser ud til at være malet i en lidt anden nuance af gul end den anden med detaljer om året og kunstnerens initialer på venstre side. Dette tyder på, at en af ​​inskriptionerne muligvis blev tilføjet på et senere tidspunkt, selvom der skulle kræves videnskabelig test for at fastslå, om denne teori er korrekt.

Der er en populær tradition for, at dronning Mary tilbød Jane en benådning, hvis hun var villig til at konvertere til romersk katolicisme. Traditionen ser ud til at være opstået kort efter Janes død som en måde for protestanter at fremme Janes dedikation til den protestantiske sag, selv når de står over for døden. Der er ingen overlevende beviser for at dokumentere, at Jane nogensinde blev tilbudt en egentlig benådning, hvis hun ville konvertere, men der blev faktisk gjort en indsats for at få hende til at konvertere

Jane fik besøg af John Feckenham, dronning Marias personlige kapellan, den 8. februar 1554. På dette tidspunkt i hendes historie havde Jane stået over for retssager og var blevet dømt og dømt til døden som en forræder for at have accepteret kronen og underskrevet sig selv som dronning. Mary blev forhindret i at udstede en benådning, fordi spanierne forlangte, at Jane skulle dø som en betingelse for ægteskabet mellem Mary og Philip af Spanien. Hendes henrettelse var oprindeligt sat til den følgende dag. Mary var imidlertid i stand til at forsøge at redde Janes udødelige sjæl, og hun sendte Feckenham for at se Jane med den specifikke opgave for at prøve at konvertere Jane til katolicisme før hendes død.

Janes henrettelse blev udskudt i tre dage, og der blev ført en debat mellem Feckenham og Jane, hvilket resulterede i, at Jane holdt sig stærk til den protestantiske tro frem for at opgive den. Denne debat blev optaget og tilsyneladende underskrevet i Janes egen hånd. Inden for måneder efter hendes død optrådte det i trykt format sammen med et brev skrevet af Jane til hendes tidligere underviser Thomas Harding, hvor hun fordømte ham for hans overgang til katolicisme og fremmer således Jane ’s stærke tro på den protestantiske tro. I 1615, en pjece med titlen 'Den mest kyske, lærde og religiøse dames liv, død og handlinger, damen Jane Gray'Blev udgivet i London. Denne pjece indeholdt en kopi af den tidligere trykte debat, og det blev i indledningen bemærket, at:

Selv dem, der havde den bedste berømmelse og ry, blev sendt til hende for at afskrække hende fra det sande evangelium, som hun havde fra hendes vugge. Hver stræber efter kunst, efter smiger, ved trusler, ved løfte om liv eller hvad der ellers kunne bevæge sig mest i barmen på en svag kvinde.[4]

Det er ganske muligt, at indskriften set på højre side af portrættet og myten om, at Jane var blevet tilbudt løfte om en benådning, hvis hun var villig til at ændre sin tro, fik Skeffington eller en tidligere ejer til at tro, at maleriet måtte skildrer faktisk Jane Gray.

Skeffington -portrættet blev købt af Society of Antiquaries og forblev i deres samling, hvor det sidst blev optaget i 1847. [5] Hvordan portrættet forlod Selskabet er stadig lidt af et mysterium, men det blev officielt registreret som et 'manglende maleri' i en af ​​de nyere publikationer på dets samling. [6]

Som diskuteret ovenfor forsvandt portrættet engang efter 1847, men det dukkede op igen i 1866, da det blev udstillet som et maleri af Anne Askew i National Portraits Exhibition fra samlingen af ​​en Reginald Cholmondeley. [7] Reginald Cholmondeleys hovedgods var Condover Hall fra det 16. århundrede i Shrewsbury. Ved hans død blev salens indhold solgt på auktion den 6. marts 1897. Det ser ud til, at pasningens identifikation har ændret sig igen, og i 1897 blev portrættet derefter omtalt som:

Punkt 43. Lucas de Heere, Queen Mary (af skotte), i sort med lyserøde kanter og manchetter, kasket med guldkæde og juvelskiltemærke. Indskrevet "Snarere Deathe end false of Faythe", dateret 1560.

Portrættet blev købt på denne auktion på vegne af Wilbraham Egerton, Earl Egerton, svoger til Reginald Cholmondeley, og blev derefter vist på Tatton Park. I 1958 blev Tatton Park og dens indhold testamenteret til The National Trust af Maurice Egerton, 4. baron Egerton fra Tatton, og portrættet forbliver udstillet der i dag.

Det er min opfattelse, at indtil videnskabelig undersøgelse har fundet sted på dette portræt for at fastslå, om inskriptionerne er originale eller tilføjet senere, kan dennes identitets identitet fortsat være ukendt. Portrættet er i øjeblikket opført i dag på National Trust -samlingernes websted som en ukendt dame, kaldet Anne Askew. Som beskrevet detaljeret i andre artikler på dette websted, er størrelsen på den ruff, som sitter på, og datoen på venstre side, ikke i overensstemmelse med datoen for både Jane Greys og Anne Askews død. Skeffington -portrættet kan nu fjernes fra listen over eventuelle potentielle ligheder, der menes at skildre Lady Jane Gray

[1] Proceedings of the Society of antiquaries of London, bind 1, side 47

[2] Et stort femten dages salg af indholdet i Skeffington Hall begyndte den 11. juli 1814. William Ferrell-Skeffington flyttede til London samme år, men døde mindre end et år senere den 26. januar 1815

[3] Proceedings of The Society of Antiquaries of London, bind 1, side 47. Det ser ud til, at John Band unøjagtigt har angivet datoen for Frances Greys død. Frances døde den 20. november 1559 og ikke 1563 som anført i dette referat. Et interessant punkt er, at John Brand også ejede et portræt, der skulle forestille Lady Jane Gray. Portrættet solgte ved hans død på Stewards Auctions, Piccadilly den 23. juni 1807. Det blev købt af bogsamleren Richard Heber Esq for en sum af otte pund. Intet portræt beskrevet som Lady Jane Gray optræder i salgskatalogerne i Hebers samling.

[4] The Most Chaste, Learned and Religious Lady's Life, Death and Actions, The Lady Jane Gray, Trykt af G. Eld for John Wright, 1615, side 22

[5] Elektronisk kommunikation, Lucy Ellis, Museums Collections Manager, Society of Antiquaries, september 2018

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

[7] Katalog til National Portrait Exhibition 1866 side 21. Anne Askew blev brændt som staven som kætter i 1546 for at have nægtet at erkende, at nadveren var 'Kristi kød, blod og ben'.


Beaufort miniatureportræt

Beaufort -miniaturen
Kaldes Lady Jane Gray
Akvarel på vellum påført kortet
(c) Privat samling

The Beaufort Miniature blev solgt i Sothebys auktionshus, London, den 13. september 1983 som nummer 90, og er et af de nyere malerier, der skal sælges med sitteren foreløbigt foreslået at være Lady Jane Gray. Maleriet er associeret med kunstneren Levina Teerlinc og er malet på vellum. Sothebys salg omfattede en anden miniature tilskrevet den samme kunstner, og begge blev tidligere holdt i samlingen af ​​Henry Somerset, 12. hertug af Beaufort.

Inden vi studerer dette miniatureportræt i detaljer, skal vi først undersøge kunstneren, der er forbundet med det, og afgøre, om Levina Teerlinc ville have haft adgang til at male Lady Jane Gray. Født omkring 1510, var Teerlinc datter af den berømte flamske illustrator Simon Benninck, og det er meget sandsynligt, at hun blev lært at male af sin far. I 1546 var hun gift, arbejdede og boede i England. Teerlinc fik en løn på fyrre pund om året af Henry VIII, og hun dokumenteres at have arbejdet for den engelske krone indtil hendes død i 1576. [1] Teerlinc er lidt af en gåde. Artists of the sixteenth century, even those with a large surviving output, are ordinarily not well documented today. But the reverse is true of Teerlinc. The State Papers of four separate Tudor monarchs include specific mention of her, yet no portrait reliably attributable to her is known to have survived today.[2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mary Tudor (Detail)
    Antonis Mor
    (c) Museo Del Prado
  • Unknown Lady (Detail)
    British School
    (c) Private Collection
  • Mary Tudor
    After Antonis Mor
    (c)NPG

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

  • Unknown Lady (Detail)
    Hans Eworth
    (c) Fitzwilliam Museum
  • Beaufort Miniature (Detail)
  • Mary Neville (Detail)
    Hans Eworth
    (c)NPG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Background on England&aposs State of Affairs

After Henry VIII’s death in 1547, his only male heir, Edward, assumed the throne. Sickly with tuberculosis and only 10 years old at the time of his coronation, Edward VI was easily manipulated by calculating individuals such as the fiercely Protestant John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, who acted as regent to the young king. By January 1553, it was clear Edward was dying, and Dudley was desperate to prevent the throne from passing to Edward’s half-sister, Mary Tudor, a devout Catholic. As the daughter of Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, Mary became a pawn in Henry’s quest for a male heir. Henry had divorced Catherine, declaring his marriage null because she was the former wife of his deceased brother. This also deemed Mary illegitimate in the eyes of the court.


The Portraits of Lord Guildford Dudley

One of the lesser known and in some cases forgotten characters in the story of Lady Jane Grey is her husband Lord Guildford Dudley. Various articles have been written on the iconography of Lady Jane Grey and the numerous portraits thought to depict her. Almost nothing has been written relating to the iconography of her husband, which is why I have decided to write and include this article on this website.

As discussed in previous articles, a small number of portraits held in private collections have been associated with Lord Guildford Dudley over the passage of time. During the research for this article, I have so far been unable to locate any sixteenth century references to a portrait of Lord Guildford Dudley being held in collections.

The first documented reference located so far to a portrait of him appears in 1820, a portrait sold by a Mr Bullock of London. This was formerly in the collection of a Mr David Holt Esq of Manchester, and the catalogue for the sale describes the painting as being by a Sir A. Mor. The entry for the lot is as follows:

A portrait of lady jane Grey and Lord Guildford Dudley in one frame, the latter portrait is the only one known to exist of Lord Guildford”[1].

This portrait was again sold in 1833 and has now disappeared from the historical record.

As with Lady Jane Grey, so little is known about her husband. His story has been embellished and exaggerated to enable writers to make the character of Jane Grey appear vulnerable to the manipulation and bullying by others that surrounded her. His story, like that of his wife, has been surrounded by myths with little known today of the actual person.

Similar to his wife, there is no date recorded to inform us of the exact date on which Guildford Dudley was born. Traditionally, his year of birth has been recorded 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.[2]

We also have no detailed description as to what Guildford Dudley looked like. As discussed in previous articles, the description given by Richard Davey detailing Guildford’s features as he entered the Tower of London with Jane as queen in 1553 has today been proved to be an invention by the author. We are simply left with vague references to him being “handsome” by his contemporaries which give us nothing in terms of his physical features.[3]

The aim of this article is to look at the portraits that have been associated with Lord Guildford Dudley in the past in the hope of establishing if there is any possibility of any of these being a genuine image painted from life. Where possible I have included what is known about the provenance of the image in the hope of establishing some documented order.

The Madresfield Court Portrait
Called Lord Guildford Dudley
Unknown Artist
Oil on Panel
© Madresfield Court

Our first portrait appears publicly in a book published in the early twentieth century entitled “The Tower of London” by Ronald Sutherland Gower. Traditionally identified as Lord Guildford Dudley, this painting has for many years been displayed alongside another thought to represent his wife Lady Jane at Madresfield Court in Malvern, Worcestershire. Both portraits have been in the collection of the Earls of Beauchamp since the early nineteenth century.

Neither portrait is an authentic likeness. The portrait thought to represent Lady Jane Grey is discussed in detail by John Stephan Edwards, and it is concluded within his article that the artist who painted the portrait intended it to be a representation of Mary Magdalene and not Jane Grey.[4]

The portrait thought to represent Lord Guildford Dudley shows a male figure standing to the viewers left with his righthand on hip and his left hand resting on his sword. He wears a light-coloured doublet with high standing collar and a large figure-of-eight ruff. The sitter has dark hair and wears a black bonnet that includes goldsmith work and two feathers within its decoration. He is depicted in front of a dark background and in the top left-hand corner is an inscription which reads 1566 Æ SVÆ, 20.

The first questionable aspect of this painting is the inscription. This is inconsistent with the known facts of Guildford Dudley’s life and is dated to some twelve years after his execution in 1554. It is not truly known how this image became associated with Guildford, though it appears that whoever suggested the identity did not know the year in which he died. The date is also inconsistent with the costume worn by the sitter, particularly the large circular ruff seen at his neck and the hat worn by the sitter. This style of ruff dates to the later period of Queen Elizabeth’s reign and is seen in many portraits painted during the 1580’s. During the 1560’s the smaller figure-of-eight ruff which generally surrounded the face was in common use. This again suggest that the inscription itself was probably added later and that this painting was not meant by the artist who created it to be a representation of Lord Guildford Dudley.

It is highly likely that Guildford’s name was associated with this portrait with little reason behind it. Nothing is seen within the painted image to establish that this portrait was ever painted from life or was ever meant to be a depiction of Lord Guildford Dudley.

The Tyntesfield Portrait

The Tyntesfield Portrait
Called Lord Guildford Dudley
Unknown Artist
Oil on Paper Laid Down on Panel
13 x 9 1/2 inches
© The National Trust

Named in this article after its current location, this portrait is now in the collection of The National Trust at Tyntesfield House, though it is not currently on display.

This image depicts a young gentleman with blonde hair, painted three-quarter length and facing the viewer’s right. He is wearing a black hat with a yellow feather, a black doublet embellished with gold, and a dark fur overcoat with yellow sleeves. The sitter’s right hand is resting on a sword that is attached to his hips.

This portrait was purchased as a painting of Guildford Dudley by George Adraham Gibbs, 1 st Baron Wraxhall (1873-1931). On his death it passed to his son Richard Lawley Gibbs, 2 nd Baron Wraxhall (1922-2001) and was subsequently purchased by the National Trust in 2002.[5]

The National Trust collections website describes this painting as being both British made and created using oil on paper applied to panel. It is also noted to report that the portrait is probably nineteenth century in origin. Though no scientific investigation has taken place on this image to establish a date of creation, the style of the painting is more consistent with nineteenth century techniques than that of sixteenth century techniques.

Until a firm date of creation can be established, It is more than likely that this portrait is an imaginary image of Guildford Dudley rather than a sixteenth century painting painted from life or based on a pre-existing image.

The Wroxton Abbey Portrait

The Wroxton Abbey Portrait
Called Lord Guildford Dudley
Unknown Artist
Oil on Panel
13 x 11 inches
© Private Collection

The third and final portrait is the more interesting of the three, due to it being exhibited publicly on at least two occasions as an image of Guildford Dudley. This portrait was also used by the artist Richard Burchett in 1854 as a basis for his depiction of Lord Guildford Dudley when producing the images of the royal Tudor figures for the Prince’s Chamber’s in the Palace of Westminster.[6]

Lord Guildford Dudley
Richard Burchett
1854
© Palace of Westminster

The original painting once again shows an image of a young gentleman, painted three-quarter length and holding a pair of gloves in his right hand, with his left hand on his hip. The sitter wears a black doublet with large white sleeves, embroidered with gold thread. Placed over his right shoulder, is a cape of dark fabric with fur and at his neck is a large circular ruff.

The earliest documentation regarding this image is the exhibition catalogue for the Art Treasures Exhibition of 1857 held in Manchester. The portrait is described in the catalogue as

item 383. Lord Guildford Dudley from the collection of Col North MP[7]

The painting again appears in the National Portrait Exhibition held at the South Kensington Museum in April 1866 where a description was given

Item 191. Lord Guildford Dudley. Colonel and Baroness North – Half-length, small life size, ruff, doublet and surecoat black with dark fur, white gold-embroidered sleeves, gloves in r hand. Panel 14 x 11 inches.[8]

The Colonel North MP listed as the owner of the painting is John North, also known as John Doyle, of Wroxton Abbey. Wroxton Abbey is a seventeenth-century manor house and was the home of the Pope and North family from 1677 until 1932, when it was leased to Trinity College. A sale was held of the contents of Wroxton Hall in May 1933 that included the portrait of Guildford Dudley matching the description of the portrait which appeared in the National Portraits Exhibition catalogue, displayed in the Garden Parlour.

Item 690. Small portrait on panel of Guildford Dudley, holding gloves in right hand. Believed to be the only known contemporary portrait.[9]

What is seen from the image of the portrait is that once again the sitter is wearing a costume that dates to the 1580’s rather than what would have been worn by Guildford Dudley during his lifetime. Richard Burchett also appears to notice this when creating his image of Guildford for the Palace of Westminster and has adapted his image to fit with a more consistent costume that Guildford would have worn.

On completion of the Wroxton Abbey sale, the portrait then passed into a private collection though was subsequently sold again at auction on 29 th September 1993.

As far as I am aware the three portraits discussed above are the only known portraits associated with Lord Guildford Dudley. As this article shows none contain any clues in favours of the sitter being positively identified as him and so Guildford Dudley remains faceless.

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

[4] Edwards, John Stephan. A Queen of a New Invention Portraits of Lady Jane Grey Dudley, Old John Publishing, 2015, Page 137-139

[6] Wallis, George. The Royal House of Tudor, Cundall and Fleming, 1866, Page 70


The Stowe House Portraits

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

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

The Manuscript Room Miniature Portrait

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The West Stairs Portrait

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

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

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

Called Lady Jane Grey (c) British Museum

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

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

Called Lady Jane Grey (c) Private Collection

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

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

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

  • Catrina Hooghsaet by Rembrandt van Rijn 1657 (c) Museum of Cardiff
  • Portrait of a Lady-British School c. 1660 (c) Private Collection

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

The East Hall Portrait

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Jersey Portrait

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE: 20th November 2019

The West Stair Portrait is to be sold from the Berkeley collection on 11th December 2019 by Sotheby’s Auction House. The portrait is referred to as ‘A Portrait of A Lady, Manner of Rembrandt’. Materials are listed as oil on panel and measurements are given as 28 1/4 x 22 inches.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Se videoen: Henry VIII And His Six Wives As Never Seen Before (August 2022).