CATHERINE PARR or LADY JANE GREY? Art history documentary | Six wives documentary. Tudor portraits
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ต.ค. 2024
- Which TUDOR QUEEN does this portrait show? Is it Catherine Parr or Lady Jane Grey. Henry VIII’s sixth wife, or his great-niece? This painting now hangs in the National Portrait Gallery in London and is currently identified as Catherine, but for many years it was thought to be Lady Jane Dudley (to use her married name), the tragic nine-day Queen of England who was executed at the Tower of London at the age of 16 on the orders of Mary I. In this Tudor art history documentary from History Calling, we look at the story behind the painting. I’ll take you through the reasons for these two identifications and tell you what we know about its creation and the Tudor court painter behind it, Master John. We’ll then discuss the sitter’s clothing, the jewellery she is wearing and even the Persian carpet she is standing on. Particular attention will be paid to the crown-shaped broach she sports and its appearance in other portraits of Catherine Parr and one thought to be Jane Grey and also in jewellery inventories. Her pendant is important too and appears in another National Portrait Gallery image of Catherine, while her girdle may be traced to an inventory of Queen Katherine Howard’s belongings showing that the six wives of Henry VIII inherited each other’s possessions. I’ll walk you through the provenance of the picture and the stories attached to it by its previous owners regarding this lady’s identity and tell you how overpainting has changed it, so that we no longer see all the colours the artist originally intended.
Amazon storefront: www.amazon.com...
Instagram: / historycalling
Patreon: / historycalling
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:
ROYAL WOMEN PLAYLIST
• Royal Women
ART HISTORY PLAYLIST
• Art History
SIX WIVES OF HENRY VIII PLAYLIST • Six wives of Henry VIII
CATHERINE PARR: BEFORE SHE WAS QUEEN
• CATHERINE PARR: before...
CATHERINE PARR: THE QUEEN WHO SURVIVED HENRY VIII
• CATHERINE PARR: The Qu...
CATHERINE PARR’S BURIAL & SHOCKING CORPSE MULTILATION
• CATHERINE PARR’S buria...
WHAT DID LADY JANE GREY LOOK LIKE?
• What did LADY JANE GRE...
THE EXECUTION OF LADY JANE GREY
• The execution of LADY ...
TUDOR CONSORT NECKLACE
• TUDOR QUEENS’ NECKLACE...
GEAR USED
DJI Drone: amzn.to/38h1vXr (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/39hROZm (US LINK)
Go-Pro Hero 10 camera: amzn.to/3EPIK9U (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3rTWScL (US LINK)
GoPro 3-Way 2.0 (Tripod/Grip/Arm): amzn.to/37CdC1r (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3vaVxjU (US LINK)
Memory Card: amzn.to/36QvcOQ (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3KeLZZs (US LINK)
Microphone: amzn.to/3MFtoaK (UK LINK) OR amzn.to/3rYtjH8 (US LINK)
BUY OR RENT
Becoming Elizabeth (Starz, 2020). Available at amzn.to/3PkKz5m
[Includes the characters of Catherine Parr and Lady Jane Grey]
READ
Susan E. James, ‘Lady Jane Grey or Queen Kateryn Parr?’ in The Burlington Magazine, vol. 138, no. 114 (1996), pp 20-24. Can be accessed/purchased via JSTOR.
Eric Ives, Lady Jane Grey: a Tudor mystery (Wiley-Blackwell, 2011). Available at amzn.to/3EiF012
Antonia Fraser, The Six Wives Of Henry VIII (2nd edn, Phoenix, 2009) amzn.to/3atiEfi (UK link) OR amzn.to/36IqD5r (US link)
David Starkey, Six Wives: the Queens of Henry VIII (Vintage, 2004) amzn.to/3k9uD4Z (UK link) OR amzn.to/3wImKIh (US link)
NB: Links above may be affiliate links. This means if you make a purchase through one of these links, I earn a small commission. It does not affect the price you pay.
Creative Commons licenses used see creativecommon...
Do you think NPG 4451 is Queen Catherine or Lady Jane? Let me know below and remember to check out my Patreon at www.patreon.com/historycalling and my Amazon storefront at www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling
You've made an excellent case
This painting was originally thought to be Lady Jane Grey. It's now believed to be that of Catherine Parr after she became Henry VIII's sixth and final wife. 🤔
I believe the evidence points to this portrait being of Catherine Parr.
@@i_luv_hecklefish I agree.
Queen Catherine
I think you have made the case for this being Catherine Parr really well. Gobsmacking amount of jewellery on show here, along with a spectacular dress. Could only be a Queen, not a princess or duchess. This outfit says "I am the one you should look at. No-one else is able to afford this level of luxury". I bet this cost an arm and a leg and by candlelight she would have shimmered and sparkled like a sparkler. Who could take their eyes off this? Truly magnificent ensemble. 😃🤩👑🎇
Yes, I'd love to be able to see the original dress (or a perfect replica) in person. It must have looked spectacular indeed.
Not exactly because many aristocrats at that time had almost as much money as the royalty. And they dress very sumptuously especially if they were posing for a picture because part of the reason for the pictures was to show off your wealth.
@@HistoryCallingI'd love to own and wear that dress! Although it probably was heavier than anything I've ever owned it would still be luxurious to be in it. Yes, I am a clothes horse!
@@HistoryCallingdo you know if there any extant garments made of cloth of gold or silver fabric? I would assume they’d all be melted down for content.
@@roslynholcomb There’s a collection of Tudor art, textiles, etc. that recently came to the Legion of Honor in San Francisco and it was INCREDIBLE. They had some amazing cloth of gold and you can definitely see the threads of gold in the less worn-out areas in some of the garments, particularly a huge cape-of-state that I think belonged to Henry II (there was an explanation of how the symbols and the garment itself was meant to show power and lend weight to his claim to the throne but I don’t remember exactly whose it was)
I love your evidence to show this is Queen Catherine Parr. I've always felt it looks exactly like her other portraits. I think the sad story of Lady Jane makes others hope to have something of her survive. Thank you for always giving good examples of why being skeptical of evidence is good as a historian instead of doing the same mistake of others.
Thanks Kristen. Yes, I think the resemblance to Catherine's other portraits is quite striking too and the evidence in general just doesn't support the Jane theory.
I’ve never clicked on a video so fast! I first saw this painting in the book “Queens of England” by Norah Lofts as a young girl and there it was identified as Jane Grey. So when I had heard this was disputed to be Catherine Parr it took me a while to accept that. Almost went through a period of mourning because this was always the image of Jane I carried in my head. But over time grew to see it’s true - and now with your fascinating analysis it’s solidified. No way this could be Jane. I had the honor of seeing this painting at the Gallery on my trip to London 5 years ago and it took my breath away! Although Holbein is my man, this one always holds a special place for me, having fallen in love with all things Tudor over 30 years ago.
Keep up the great work and especially on these art videos! You never disappoint! ❤
Thanks Paddy. I completely understand where you're coming from. For a long time, until I really looked into it, I assumed Hever Castle's portrait (which they thought was Katherine Howard) was her.
I obviously saw this portrait in person too recently and loved it as well. In fact I spent something like 45 minutes just in the Plantagenet/Tudor room photographing everything from lots of angles.
@@HistoryCalling I most definitely spent that amount of time in that room too! Even came back for a second look before leaving. I’d been looking at all these portraits in books so many years. It’s a whole other thing seeing them in person. My bucket list is to see all Holbein’s and added more to my list seeing the traveling Tudor exhibit here in the US this year which included Jane Seymour! Divine!
@@paddypaddy2834 May I inquire, do you have additional info of the US tour? I’ll kindly appreciate your reply. X
@@alexandramsh4740 It was “The Tudors: Art & Majesty in renaissance England” at The Met in NYC and the Cleveland Museum of Art which is where I went. Unfortunately this ended in May. I live in Nebraska and constantly keep an eye out for exhibitions here in the US! Saw an amazing Holbein exhibition at The Morgan Library in NYC in 2022. My next art journey will be to London next spring where Buckingham Palace will be showcasing a large display of more Holbein!
You were quite thorough on your presentation. I have no problem admitting that the portrait is Catherine Parr. Thank you for the history lesson. Have a great weekend.
Thanks Leticia. Have a great weekend too :-)
She is really good
Your voice is so melodic & I love watching your videos 😇🥰
Thank you so much. Did you think Catherine or Jane in the end?
Yes your voice is great! 😊
Thank you. I never get told that except on TH-cam, which is quite funny :-)
@@HistoryCallingI think it's probably Caterine Parr.
Yes. Agreed. David Attenborough or Richard Burton wannabes - look out 😄
I love Tudor era portraits and any video related to them is an instant watch for me! I didn't know this one had once been identified as Lady Jane. My immediate thought is that the clothing seems just too rich and fine to be Jane, for how little time she was queen. I know she was reasonably important before that, but I just feel like she wouldn't have got away with wearing that, haha. I'll see what I think after.
Verdict: Catherine Parr. Its the most logical choice.
Yes, I'm surprised Jane was ever in the running for this woman as well.
My thoughts, too. Jane was the king’s great-niece; Katherine was his wife. Jane was so young and relatively unimportant for most of her life. I agree with HC that there wouldn’t have been enough time for a formal portrait of Jane to be painted. If the painting of Katherine was made during Henry’s life, it makes sense that he’d want his queen’s likenesses to be taken, and the lavish opulence of the work would reflect on his own wealth.
Amazing video! Considering all the in-depth information provided I agree with you that it's more likely Queen Catherine Parr, Henry VIII's sixth and last wife. Only royalty could afford to be portrayed in such luxurious and highly detailed work of art showing the crown jewels splendidly. Love your soft voice and accent. Watching you from Newcastle. Thank you 🙏🏻💖
Thank you. I take it that's Newcastle, England (as opposed to Newcastle, Northern Ireland)?
@@HistoryCalling I'm in Newcastle, England and I'm glad to know there's Newcastle in Northern Ireland as well 😀 💕
👏👏👏❤ Anything and everything about Catherine is fabulous. I've read that scarlet was her favorite color and she had a fondness for fine clothing. You know there's a YT channel that brings her portraits "to life" using AI (no doubt there's more than one, of course). Before reading Susan James' book, I'd erroneously assumed the portrait was by Holbein. Obviously I'm not the only one. Great job as always, HC!
Yes, I believe she really did like nice clothes. She also had a penchant for not paying her bills on time though, which doesn't really square with the view we have of her as this very religious, holier than now lady.
@@HistoryCalling 🤣😂 Religious but Scrooge-like! We never see that, right? 😳😉
Ah, there's something Scroogy coming for xmas this year. You'll see what I mean in a few weeks!
@@HistoryCalling Woohoo! Can't wait!
Stephen! You shameless name-dropper. Holbein? Really??? 🤣
Your final point of no one making money from or wanting a painting of Lady Jane finalized the debate for me. Thanks for all your research, analysis and sound logic.
You're welcome. Yes, I think people today forget sometimes how expensive these paintings were and how long they took to create. Even if Jane had sat for a picture towards the end of her life, no one would have been motivated to pay for it to be finished.
The portrait is, without a doubt, Catherine Parr.The clothing and jewelry were too elaborate to be anyone else but a queen. I am a royal history fan and look forward to your videos each week. Your presentations are so thorough and intriguing, and I just love listening to you speak.
Thank you so much. Yes, I think the age and the outfit really pin it down to Catherine.
Even then, jewelry and clothing displayed one's status. Of course this was before blue jeans! Fabulous documentary as always and thank you. . Catherine Parr was fabulous and poor Jane didn't have the time to have a proper Queen's wardrobe made.
Oh absolutely. It was so important to look the part. I'm really glad you enjoyed the doc. Thank you for watching and commenting. :-)
i rather enjoy the disputes behind the sitter in this portrait, can’t wait to hear your take! 🙌🏻☺️
Let me know when you're done if you think it's Catherine or Jane.
ok verdict in! i’m with you, on the Catherine side. it seems like perhaps it could have been a dangerous thing to hold onto if it were truly if Jane, given her execution and those circumstances.
Super interesting
Can you do a video on the history of laws regarding jewelry and clothing? Like how some people weren't allowed to wear certain fabrics or colors or jewels etc and why that was and how it fluctuated over time and where those laws existed or didn't and the effects the laws or lack thereof had on the noble and non-noble peoples, fashions, culture, politics, economy, etc
Yes, the sumptuary laws are interesting. I'd thought of that before actually, but it's quite a big topic to research as the laws changed over time and from place to place.
@@HistoryCalling Yeah, but if anyone can do it, you can. Your research methods are outstanding. Make it a mini series. Could be an important tool for the future. 😁
I think it's Catherine Parr. I will say I could understand how people would confuse the portraits and why. Pretty much everyone (obviously not 100% of them) were all related, and so shared familial traits. Not to mention that ladies of that status would have prized their looks and worked hard to maintain them.
Yes, most people at court were related to one another in some way.
Right, and styles of the times create a certain similarity among portraits painted around the same time. And the copying was shameless!
Even before you went into a detailed analysis of the jewelry, I was convinced by the sumptuous clothing and jewelry, and by the monumentality of the pose that it was a queen, not a pre-adolescent noble child (even one descended from a queen). Clearly too, this shows a mature female figure, not a child of 8 to 10 which is the age Jane would have been when living with the dowager queen. And the other evidence you presented is overwhelmingly convincing. Thank you for another of your delightful, really close looks at what a painting can tell us!
Thanks Anne. Yes, I don't think it could possibly be Jane either and I'm surprised (especially given her age) that it was ever seriously suggested.
This is a fascinating case study, and your case for this being Queen Catherine is very strong and I agree with you. I also agree with you that the Streatham portrait is of a different woman. The facial shape, eyes and expressions are completely different, and the lady in the Streatham painting even seems to have a slight cleft in her chin. If they are supposed to be the same woman, then saying the Streatham artist is "less skilled" would be an understatement. To my eyes, the two women don't even resemble each other in the portraits, unlike NPG 4451 and the 4 images you showed known to be Queen Catherine. I vote Queen Catherine. Thank you for another fantastic and interesting video!
Thank you. Yes I can't see any strong resemblance there either.
I recall from either Queen Elizabeth's funeral, or King Charles' coronation, that the red "ruby" in one crown was really a spinel. How knowledgeable were people of the era in the makeup of different stones? Were "precious" and "semi-precious" stones different than today? Your comment on her broach made me think that they might consider other stones more prestigious than others - ones today we wouldn't find as appealing?
Ah, you're referring to the Black Prince's Ruby. I have a whole video on that actually. I don't know how widespread knowledge was about stones. I think the Stuarts knew the 'ruby' was a spinel by the 1640s though.
I love the way you look at the documents from the past to prove/disprove historical beliefs.
❤ I believe that, as usual, you've got it right! I don't see how this can be anyone other than Queen Catherine Parr
I'm always amazed by the amount of well researched detail you share with us. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Yes, I must admit I'm surprised too that it was ever seriously thought to be Jane. There are just so many holes in that theory.
“That branch of the family had its own jewelry collection-I guarantee it.” 😂 Love it, so true
I agree that all the verified jewelry from other portraits is completely solid evidence, that in addition to the rest of your analysis makes me think it’s Catherine Parr too
Also your final point that ‘why would anyone spend THIS much money on a posthumous portrait of someone who was viewed like Lady Jane was’ is also spot on: follow the 💰 (even if people felt sorry for her this is too much money for no discernible gain, political or otherwise)
Thanks for another great video-I also really enjoyed your very detailed description of the painting’s individual elements (a CLOCK that tiny?!)
Yes, people often don't think about the practicalities behind paintings like this (like the fact that Jane's family had their own jewels and that portraits were super expensive and no one would pay for one of a disgraced teenager). The little clock was amazing, wasn't it?
A very convincing argument that the portrait is that of Queen Catherine.....to me it's game set and match. Thank you again for an enjoyable and well-researched and presented video 🥂
You're very welcome :-)
Your analysis here and elsewhere is so solid, it makes me wonder whether you'd be the right person to write a definitive study of the portraiture of all the most famous Tudors. There have been so many questionable attributions, such as the image often referred to as young Arthur, Margaret, and Henry Tudor (which I understand is in fact some of the young Habsburgs); the so-called "wedding portrait" of Henry VIII's sister Mary Tudor and Charles Brandon (where the woman has dark hair and the fashions are clearly from decades later than the 1510s); and even the recent assertions that the lovely Michel Sittow portrait of a blonde young Catherine of Aragon might instead be that same Mary Tudor, her sister-in-law. Conversely, there are portraits that appear to be royals but have not been definitively pinned down, such as the Hans Eworth portrait that some think is Eleanor Brandon and others think is her daughter, Margaret Clifford, Countess of Derby.
It would be wonderful to have in one place a discussion of all the main portraits purporting to be the various Tudor royals, with a well-reasoned assessment of the best evidence for each identification. I would order the first copy! I hope you'll consider doing it.
Thank you so much. Unfortunately I'm not an art historian though, so I wouldn't be good at doing a big study of portraits. When I research these videos, I'm standing on the shoulders of giants, by which I mean I go away and read what other people have written about the pictures and check their primary sources, but actually doing the original research would be another thing entirely. On the subject of that portrait which was supposedly three of H7's children, I got caught out with that too and only realised that it's actually Christina of Denmark and her brother and sister when I was doing a video on her. Boy was my face red! :-)
Thank you, I’ve always thought this portrait was Catherine Parr. The time frame fits and I don’t think there was enough time to have a portrait like this for poor little Jane. Her position was high prior to her becoming queen but she was not high enough to have one like this. Definitely queen Catherine Parr. 🙏🙏🙏👵🇦🇺
I agree. I can't see the Queen's jewels being lent to anyone except maybe Mary and Elizabeth and even then, I've never seen any evidence that they actually were lent out to those girls.
Yay Friday - another wonderful HC video! 👏🙋♀️
Thank you so much (and for your superthanks donation too).
It is definitely Catherine parr HC, your deduction skills shine through again, superb as always thank you HC.
Thanks Simon. Yes, I'm afraid the (probably endless) wait goes on for a contemporary image of Jane.
@@HistoryCalling I don't think a portrait of Jane will turn up anytime soon HC, as always Thank you.
I think the fact that the jewelry was part of the Queen Consort collection and the sitter resembles other known images of her would be the definitive proof that it is Catherine Parr.
Yes, same here.
You make an excellent case here & with all your evidence, I'm amazed that anyone believed, for even a moment, that this was anyone but Queen Catherine Parr.
Halo! I humbly believe it to be Katherine Parr hehe, mainly because:
1- The sitter doesn't resemble Lady Jane's family members
2- She seems too old to be Lady Jane, at any point of her short life tbh, but especially given the fashion she sports- Jane would've no more than 10 at the time these fashions were hot stuff, the sitter is outfitted simmilarly to the portrait of young Elizabeth, for instance
3- She resembles Katherine's other known portraits- ofc they could all be based off of this one, but still.
Yes, I think so too. It's interesting that it was mistaken for Jane though. Just shows how much of a struggle it can be to tell how old people were in portraits.
@@HistoryCalling Even today!
Lovelovelove the analysis of this famous and familiar painting. You go to great detail which is so very interesting!! I agree it's Katherine Parr
Thank you so much :-)
You always have such amazing content. The amount of work that goes into it is evident. Thank you for all that you do to help educate us.
THANK YOU SO MUCH for donating to the channel and for such a kind comment too. I'm really glad you enjoy the videos :-)
Very appreciated.
Thank you. Glad you liked it :-)
Thank you for describe this portrait in detail so that it can be more easily understood. You showed us how to recognize sitter as being a particular person with the jewellery she is wearing, clothing and so on. After your portrait's explanation I have no doubt that this is portrait of Catherine Parr.
Glad it was helpful and you enjoyed it :-)
Another intriguing video!
You make an excellent case for this being Catherine Parr. Timing, ownership of the jewels, and the shortness of Lady Jane Gray’s tenure as queen make it unlikely it is lady Jane.
Yes, sadly I don't think we'll ever have a contemporary portrait of Jane :-(
Yes another interesting subject so thanks for sharing this history lesson..
Thanks Sally. I'd wanted to look at it for a while, but had to wait until I could get my own photos of the portrait.
Good evening to history calling from Bea 🇬🇧
Hi Bea. Some art history for you this week and not one Tudor queen, but two :-)
I always thought that was Elizabeth, the future Queen Elizabeth I. Love your channel! Just started watching. Boy, these ladies sure were elaborate back then! So many portraits that aren’t labeled. Why couldn’t the painters just discretely write the name of the subject on the back, or something? It’s like finding old family photos of people I don’t know & nothing written on the back. No names. No dates. 😩
This is very interesting; I have always thought 🤔 that the female portraits often look very similar. Queen Mary is an exception. Watching as you go through these portraits details, and there are indeed notable differences.
It can be hard to tell them apart sometimes, yes. The pictures of Mary and Elizabeth in the Family of Henry VIII portrait at Hampton Court are nearly identical.
Thank you, History Calling, for another deep dive into another historic mystery...as well as a sound theory of its solution! Do you know, or can you find out, if the Cullinans 3 and 4 have become Crown Property since being place in the Queen's Crown for the coronation? Thanks again.
Thank you. I don't think they would have been absorbed by the crown if they were the monarch's personal property so they should have just been inherited by Charles.
Loved this! ❤
Well done. Thank you!
Excellent video. Thanks.
THANK YOU SO MUCH NAGISA for donating so kindly to the channel. I'm really glad you enjoyed hearing about the Catherine/Jane debate :-)
You were famous back then, I noticed a tattoo on her shoulder with history calling 😂 kidding and thank you for your in-depth and professional videos. Cheers from Australia 😊
I know. That Catherine Parr, she had good taste in futuristic TH-cam channels :-)
Anytime I saw this painting, I always thought it was Elizabeth as a princess. Thank you for setting me straight.
Thankfully we do have a gorgeous portrait of Elizabeth in a red dress from around this same time though (which I have a video on as well).
@@HistoryCalling Possibly my brain confused the two portraits. I shall be checking out your past videos.
Hi, awesome live history video I enjoyed it. Catherine Parr is my favorite history person. How are you? Who's your favorite person in history? I'm doing well, and so is my cat Benjamin. Do you have any pets? Have a great weekend 😊 see you next video
Hi Michelle. No, no pets here (though I did have hamsters as a kid). I never know who my favourite historical figure is. Maybe Elizabeth I, though I know that's a bit of an obvious answer.
Another interesting video HC. At the end, as you gave the reasons it is prolly not Jane. I thought of the brevity of her rein and her piety. I have read that she was very religious. It doesn’t make sense that she would have acquired the jewelry with the difficulty of her being declared queen plus her reluctance to accept the position much less the jewels.
Yes, the brevity is one of the clinchers here. When on earth was she meant to find the time in a week and a half to pose for this and who would have paid to have it completed?
I came in deciding to give the Lady Jane Grey argument a fair shot but your description of how rich the wearer’s clothing and jewelry is made me just immediately think it can’t be her😂 Like if Jane’s reign wasn’t 9 days I could maybe get behind she got the portrait done as queen but yeah it has to be Catherine
Yes, had Jane ruled for say, 6 months even, then I think it would be harder to discount her.
Thanks! For another very interesting video
THANK YOU SANDRA for so kindly donating to the channel. Did you think Catherine or Jane in the end?
@@HistoryCalling
I have always thought it was Catherine Parr.
Like you said, it was expensive to do a full body painting.
Her jewelry alone would have cost a fortune.
Plus, she is wearing royal colors,
Yes, I'm a bit surprised anyone ever seriously thought it was Jane to be honest.
Thank You for sharing this
Ill be back to watch this 😊💫✝️✝️💟
You're very welcome. Enjoy :-)
Great and interesting video. With all the evidence you gave I would agree with you that it is Queen Catherine. Look forward to next week.
Thanks Vernon. See you then :-)
Definitely Catherine Parr. It looks like her and as you said there simply wasn't time to paint Lady Jane as the Queen. I guess then as now with family pictures, write their name on the back!
Listening to your commentary, I believe you that this is more likely to be Catherine Parr. Thank you for your research. Your videos are always interesting.
Thanks so much Gill. Have a lovely weekend.
Excelllent Friday evening viewing , I will give your comments my full attention. Thanks for your considered content.
Thank you very much. Did you think it was Catherine or Jane in the end?
@@HistoryCalling Just without any other evidence. Where was the time to put Jane in royal jewels and paint her portrait. The side by side of Catherines potential portraits are compelling. The cloth of gold/fabrics/carpet/jewelrey all point to Catherine.
Yes, it is crazy to think of Jane rushing to sit for a portrait in the middle of her incredibly short time as Queen. She had bigger issues to contend with.
I would be glad to think this is a portrait of Queen Catherine, as the only painting of her I knew for quite a long time was the left-most one of the 5 you showed for purposes of comparison (NPG 4618), in which she looks a bit cross, and not at all like the gracious lady she was supposed to have been. I couldn't imagine why, if she looked like that, Henry was attracted to her. The lady in the portrait under discussion looked quite capable of attracting male attention.
Yes, this is a lovely picture. I always wonder when people got their portraits back and they looked stern in them if they complained to the artist, or if that was the look they were going for for some reason?
@@HistoryCalling That's a good question. I suppose you might have been more inclined to re-do it if it were Henry VIII or Elizabeth complaining about it. 🙂 So maybe it was something they were going for. (Excellent video, by the way!)
This is definitely Catherine parr ❤ brilliant video love ur videos ❤❤ long term fan keep ur amazing work ❤❤
Thanks Sarah. Glad you enjoyed it :-)
I've always wondered how much actual time a sitter of a painting actually spent with the painter. There was no photography for the painter to refer to. So I always wonder if the clothes and jewelry were available adorning a mannequin - rather like an effigy, and the face only painted in afterwards - or beforehand, I guess. The exquisite detail of the finer points of the dress, jewelry, headpiece and rug would not have been accomplished in a short time. And in many, appears almost as a cardboard cutout to which a face has been painted in. If it is the case that a face could be added later, a painting could start out as one queen, and finish as another - especially in Henry VIII's court. I've had similar thoughts about Elizabeth I's portraits. They make me wonder if she sat for the painter at all, so little do they resemble a living person.
Sometimes just a few hours for a preparatory sketch. I have a feeling I discussed it in my video on Holbein's painting of Anne of Cleves, but I can't remember the time I gave.
I love to know what happened to the Tudor jewels!!
Recycled under James I and VI and Charles I, then sold or lost during the Interregnum.
Thanks!
THANK YOU SO MUCH for so kindly donating to the channel. I hope I persuaded you this is Catherine :-)
I think the last point you make is really the strongest. When was there time to paint the 9 Days’ Queen in such sumptuous attire? And why on earth would the portrait have been finished after her execution?
Exactly. There would have only been time for a preparatory drawing and no one was going to pay the equivalent of many thousands of pounds for a picture of Jane later on.
Thankyou.
Just a casual observation.. but isn't the eadband on the NPG portrait the same sequence of 4 pearls separated by a single stone - ie the same as was worn as a necklace in other paintings?
It is very similar, but not quite the same sequence.
My understanding of how gems were painted during the 16th century is that diamonds were represented as black. Makes more sense than 4 rings all being jet. Also, the only other full length portrait,painted by Holbein, from the same period of time with a subject standing on what they called a “Turkey carpet” is Henry VIII himself. It makes more sense to be his wife.
Yes, that's a good point about Turkey carpets reappearing in different royal images.
What amazing puzzles these portraits are. There may be a great likeness or not; well-crafted or not; but for the historian's eye, they always provide a list of objective facts. They document a pose, any number of clothing items, the color and style of hair, the sitter's complexion, an inventory of necklaces and rings that may be matched to other sources, and other details for a sharp eye...but often no date or name. Those have to be extrapolated under the historian's microscope. Those five looks at Catherine Parr (c. 14:26) are not only the same woman, it strikes me that some must be sourced from another of them. Look at the eye-direction in 1 and 5, and the direct gaze in 2, 3, and 4. The anomalous chin seen in all five is nearly certain proof that they are all the same woman.
Yes, art history (especially for portraits in my opinion) is a fascinating subject. It's not my area of expertise I'll admit, but I enjoy it nonetheless. Yes, this lady does look a lot like other portraits of CP as well. I definitely think it's her.
Great video as always, HC. On top of all the visual clues in the portrait, the timing and circumstances -- as you discussed -- don't make any sense for it to be Lady Jane.
Thank you. Yes, there are just too many holes in the Jane theory for my liking.
The famous picture of the woman in the gold and crimson dress standing on the rug picture is Catherine Parr. I've never seen any Tudor subject related book in my own collection or online that refutes it from being Catherine Parr. Jane Gray wouldn't have been old enough by 1543 to be the age the woman in the portrait Catherine Parr looks in that famous painting. Based on online sources and other books I own and looked up,I haven't seen anything that disputes it not being no other than Catherine Parr.
Yes, the Jane theory is really just based on the book I mentioned in the video, although another author (I forget who off the top of my head) did then release a book on Jane with this portrait on the cover. Awkward!
Hi! Love your content. I have a question though, if Catherine Parr's hair color is brown in her portraits, then why was there blonde hair removed from her corpse when her grave was disrupted and vandalized?
I've wondered the exact same thing. I don't have a solid answer for you, unless either the paint has changed colour (seems unlikely to have happened in multiple portraits) or the hair changed colour. Maybe she was far greyer than her painters showed?
@@HistoryCallingcould it be that the artists struggled to resemble her real hair colour with the pigments they had or are there portraits of others with the same hair colour as the hair from the corpse?
I think it is Catherine Parr. She looks like the lady in the portrait that recently sold for millions.
Have a great weekend!
Yes, the resemblance between this and other portraits of Catherine is pretty stark to me too. Have a lovely weekend as well.
Fashion back then was absolutely stunning, but it also looks so heavy and uncomfortable. I'm so glad I can just wear a hoodie and sweatpants at home now, and only really need something slightly nicer for out in public.
Yes, it took ages to put these dresses on, particularly as they weren't really dresses in the modern sense. They were lots of separate pieces put together every morning on the body to look like one garment.
I always thought NPG 4451 was a portrait of Katherine Parr. I really value Roy Strong's work, especially as he's good at putting a painting in context and at symbolism. But sometimes he seems to get things really wrong. This is one example. Jane was Queen for too short a time to have a portrait of herself made....and wearing jewellery associated with consorts? That doesn't make sense. And there is the comparing with images identified as Parr. Your video makes the point. The face in NPG 4451 is that of Katherine Parr.
Yes, there are a lot of holes in that theory for sure.
Side topic please: I had not seen the Jersey portrait so I went searching for it and when I found it on the Tudorqueen6 site they also had a repost of a document signed by Katherine but she spelled her name Katryn could you talk about this at some point or point me to a video you have already posted on the subject. I would be interested to know why the different spelling and if it was Kath spite the spelling or if it was Kat.
Basically, there was no uniform spelling in those days and so people spelt their own and each other's names in different ways at different times. Anne Boleyn went by Anna La Bullein when she was in France for example. Catherine of Aragon's really name was Catalina and Anne of Cleves was called Anna.
@@HistoryCalling thanks
Can't stay but like dropped. Watching later. Too many drama llamas to deal with today! 🙄🙄🙄
Oh dear. Hope the drama gets resolved very quickly and easily :-)
They do look similar, at the jawline, forehead and the each have a slim neck line. It could have been the same person, or two different ladies. The speculation is very exciting. Thank you! 🏵
Thanks Brian. Yes, debating it is half the fun.
Apparently, the black gems all the ladies seem to be wearing in a lot of Tudor portraits are most likely diamonds? The diamonds were supposedly rendered in silver powder, which has since tarnished or came off, or so I've read. No idea if it's true or not, but certainly makes sense when you picture pieces like the consort necklace with a proper diamond vs the black gem the portrait shows for the pendant.
Yes, the colouring on the stones always confuses me but I think the explanation is something like what you say. I wish white diamonds would just look like diamonds though. :-)
Maybe try to look into which of hans holnines paintings are confirmed to be Henry's wives (im actually a boy and my name is Adam this is just a different account)
Hi Adam :-) The portraits of Jane Seymour and Anne of Cleves are definitely of them and by Holbein and I personally think the miniature supposedly of Katherine Howard is indeed her (and also a Holbein).
I believe it's Catherine Parr. Lady Jane, was only 16 when executed. The lady in the portrait looks just a bit older.
Cheers.
Thanks Shane :-)
I agree with you, it's most likely Catherine Parr.
Thanks Jane :-)
Any chance you would consider doing a "what if" video? My main question is What if Catherine of Aragon had agreed to the annulment? Or had died much sooner? Thanks ;-))
I'm not generally a big fan of those as I think there are too many variables and we end up in the realms of historical fiction, HOWEVER, I did do one recently on what if Henry VIII and Anne of Cleves had stayed married, as I had their marriage settlement document as a guide, so you might enjoy that if you haven't seen it already.
@@HistoryCallingOk, how about, inside another video, explaining the reasons why she refused. I know some, but societal thinking was very different back then so while I know facts, I can't truly understand the feelings.
I believe this is Catherine Parr. The subject is much older than the young Jane.
Yes, I think she very much looks like a grown woman too. I would imagine CP had a few greys by this point though, which the painter has very diplomatically removed :-)
I don't believe the portrait shows Lady Jane Grey for the reasons you've mentioned (too young, why would she wear the Queen's jewelry?). However, I am not entirely convinced it shows Catherine Parr either. If I remember correctly, when Catherine's body was exhumed in a rather unceremonial fashion, it was clear that her hair was blonde. Yet the sitter in the portrait has brown hair. Of course, the color in the portrait could have darkened over the centuries. Anne Boleyn's hair in her portraits seems dark brown yet it's likelier it was also a shade of reddish brown. But a shade of auburn hair turning to darker brown still seems more realistic to me than blonde hair turning to brown hair in a portrait. This is only a thought but I would like to hear what you think about the hair color difference between Catherine's supposed portrait and her remains. As always, the video is well-researched and enjoyable to watch, thank you for your work. :)
That issue did occur to me as I made the video, as I already have a video on Catherine's body being exhumed and am aware of the blonde hair. There are several pictures of Catherine, all showing her with dark hair, so I don't think this is a case of the paint dulling, nor do I think it would dull from blonde to brown in such an even manner. I wondered if Catherine's hair was dyed a lighter colour by whatever coffin goop was swirling around it and if a lot of her hair had gone grey by the time she died? I also think that the hair is quite a dark blonde anyway, having just looked up some locks of it before writing this comment.
I can't see how it could ever have been attributed to being that of the horrifically wronged Lady Jane Grey...although from a fine background, she simply was not crowned long enough for the gown to even have been made for her..irregardless of a few other loud discrepancies.
I know. It would be the fast 16th century portrait painter in the world who would have been able to paint her as Queen in barely a week and a half.
@@HistoryCalling right, even if the gown and jewels were imagined...!!
@HistoryCalling actually, there was something else which struck me immediately, as well...if the portrait was a fair likeness, then I see too much experience, and knowingness in those eyes..a well seasoned countenance, if you will.... not the innocent wide eyes of a 16 year old youth thrown whirlwind into such a frightening responsibility...
Sometimes I think certain "historians" are simply out of their minds with their conclusions. I could name two very famous ones that focus on the Tudors, but I don't want to accidentally cause problems.
Part of the problem (I think) is that the Tudors have been so heavily researched and written about that people struggle to find any new angle to present to try to make a splash with their work, so they invent stupid stuff. Other people aren't real historians and make embarrassing mistakes because of their total inability to analyse sources properly.
Do any of these pieces of jewellery exist today??? I’d love to see them ❤ it’s definitely Katherine Parr isn’t it!
No, but my Patrons this week in the top two tiers did get a little podcast explaining what happened to the crown brooch.
Those three pearls on her broach look a lot like the pearls on the Imperial State crown known as Elizabeth’s earrings.
They do, but then again I always think one pearl looks much like another.
They do, but then again I always think one pearl looks much like another.
@@HistoryCalling It’s absolutely true. I’m just fascinated by any royal jewelry that may have survived Oliver Cromwell.
I'd say it is marked Catherine Parr because it resembles her to a high degree.
Yes, I see a resemblance with her other, confirmed portraits too.
It's the time factor for me. Insufficient time, and also the delicate balance with which Jane held onto the crown in those nine days. I do not believe there would have been time nor inclination to have Jane's portrait taken with Mary breathing down her neck at any time during Jane's nine day reign.
I think they're ALL Catherine Parr. Including the Streatham Portrait. None are Jane.
Clearly a portrait of a queen. There was no time in the 9 days reign to take such a likeness, and as you point out, no reason to do so later
Yes, I think there are a lot of holes in the Jane theory and that's a biggie.
Agreed, it does not make sense in her brief 9 days of being a monarch that Jane had sat, commissioned and for the painting to be completed… do not see due to the cost and the political risk that anyone would have the painting completed after Jane was removed from the throne and later killed. Let alone that the painting was allowed to survive given that it could be interpreted as celebrating Jane “stealing” the throne. Easy to romanticize what happened 100s years ago but need to remember at the time there would little motivation to preserve memory of Jane’s brief reign .
Exactly, yes. No one would have wanted to advertise their support for Jane until much later any more than they would have hung up a picture of Anne Boleyn during Mary I's reign.
I watch a lot of history and as soon as I saw all that portrait, I said it was Catherine Parr. I don't know why but i just called it
Makes me wonder if the dress actually belonged to Mary. She wore cloth of silver gown to Edward’s christening. Just a thought!
I don't think Catherine would have borrowed one of Mary's old dresses for a portrait though. It would have looked very strange to her courtiers that the Queen of England had to go begging clothes from her step-daughter and former employer.
@@HistoryCalling good point! I love your perspective!
It’s strange, the version of this painting I remember seeing attributed to LJG was flipped and the background looked green.
Hmm, that is odd. I don't remember ever seeing it presented that way.
@@HistoryCalling I managed to find it in Google image search. Someone probably did that because of copyright or something!
I think it's Katherine. The clothing and jewelry decide it for me. Would Jane have even been allowed to wear the silver and lynx? Would the laws have allowed the Gray family to wear those fabrics and furs?
She would have been allowed to wear the fabrics, yes, but I can't see her being allowed to wear the Queen's jewels.
She was considered a member of the royal family through her relationship to Mary Tudor, Henry VII's daughter. I think the only expensive materials she was not eligible to wear were purple silk and gold which were restricted to the monarch's immediate family. It would be interesting to know the loyalties of whoever was in charge of keeping the royal jewels safe.
Catherine Parr remarried in the same year of Henry’s death, which leads me to believe that the King could not and would not take no for an answer even if the ladies were in love with someone else. No wonder he had unfaithful wives. I pity the women who were ensnared in his trap. I think Catherine of Aragon was the only woman who truly loved Henry and look how he treated her in the end.
Oh I agree that you couldn't really say no to him. Anne Boleyn actually tried for a while, but he wouldn't let her go. You think he had unfaithful wives though? Katherine Howard is the only one I think an argument could be made for there, but we could also argue she was the victim of abuse.
@@HistoryCalling I agree on both counts, unfaithful in their hearts only, but Katherine Howard (being young and foolish) might be guilty of the deed.
Weird question, when did hoods hats etc in there entirety go out of fashion for woman?
People from this era would probably think we walk about naked today lol.
Your correct I have absolutely zero issue with declaring this Catherine parr…. Artists PLEASE sign and name your work on canvis lol
I genuinely don’t know how anyone could think this was Jane? The evidence against is it insurmountable! That’s like in 500 years people saying a portrait of Elizabeth 2nd is infant Mary of teck… no offence to the person claiming it was Jane.
Your videos are so immensely well researched, im binging all your videos as I’m on a plane lol
Thanks Marcus. Hoods seem to have been slipping out of fashion from the late 1550s. We have images of Elizabeth from early in her reign for instance in which she is not wearing one (though she has a cap on).
Not only all that. But if it's the consorts or queens jewels. And Lady Jane was only queen for 9 days, that wouldn't have been long enough for a portrait that detailed.
Exactly. A preparatory drawing would have been theoretically possible, but not a final painting like this (and really, there was so much going on in that week and a half, I don't think getting an artist into the Tower to draw Jane would have been a priority).
The jewels on the hood look like the Ruby Pearl necklace set that belongs to the Queen
They are indeed similar, though it's not quite the same sequence.
I think its Queen Catherine Parr because she is known to have red hair, I think Lady Jane was younger too.😊
Definitely Catherine Parr ❤
I've always heard of it as Catherine Parr - I can't see why Lady Jane would have been painted in this way. Also, were there any fashion differences between 1545 and when Jane might have been painted in a fancy fashion (say, a couple of months before Edward's death)? I do think there's some similarity with the Stretham portrait but if they had no references to go on the painter might have picked a portrait as a reference.
There would have been subtle changes in fashion between the mid 1540s and early 1550s - things like hood shape for instance.
I have heard another sites claims that it could have been on Lady Jane Gray because it was part of the royal collection. However, as far as I have read, when they inventory someone's possessions at that time, they only inventory what the person actually owned. They would not have inventoried a crown of England as part of Henry the 8th possessions. So if the necklace is found in Catherine parr's inventory, then it belonged to her and was not in the Royal collection. Also, at that time and in further times there were things such as base necklaces that you could hang different pendants off of. I believe that would account for the differences of the two necklaces that had the same base but a different pendant. I'm sure that the women and men at that time like to switch things up the same way we do now. People's taste in jewelry don't change that much it seems lol
I do have a question though when you state that some of the base necklaces stones were rubies. I'm wondering considering the differences in pink pigments and the changes over time whether they could be garnets. Yes Ruby's were more precious and are one of the four precious stones but maybe garnets were considered something wanted at that time because their color was deeper than most rubies many of which are purplish. Have no basis for what I just said but just wondering if we can categorically state that those were rubies unless of course that is what it said in the inventory.
I'm not sure if they could have been garnets or not. We would expect the Queen to be wearing only the best and to therefore have rubies, but it's impossible to know now if an error might have been made in calling the stones that.
@@HistoryCallingthat is true that we consider rubies more than garnets but do we really know how they felt in Tudor times? Just wondering.