Do you think the 1534 portrait medal of Anne Boleyn does indeed show her wearing the consort necklace and hood trim? Let me know below and don’t forget to check out: BUY MY BOOK (Find Your Irish Ancestors Online): amzn.to/3Z2ChnG Website (with 2 FREE DOWNLOADS): www.historycallingofficial.com/ Patreon: www.patreon.com/historycalling Amazon storefront: www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling Instagram: instagram.com/historycalling/
When looking ahead to the disappearance of this queen consort parure, I think two causal factors are involved. First, if this suite of jewels was indeed closely identified with queens consort, they could very well be shunned, at least in their familiar form, by queens regnant----the first of their kind in English history----who had a definite point to make by differentiating themselves from the mere wives of kings: they were themselves kings in female form, and held in their own right the power of the Crown. A queen consort's necklace? I don't think so! I'll have something more befitting a reigning monarch, thank you very much! The second reason for the jewels' apparent disappearance may simply have to do with the inevitable changes in fashion that were taking place. That particular style of jewelery may have been seen as old-fashioned and out of date; the deep square neckline which displayed the jewelery so effectively was, after decades of dominating Tudor women's dress, well and truly going out of fashion by the mid-sixteenth century, when Henry VIII's daughters came to the throne, shortly to be followed by the abandonment of the French hood. With gown and headdress styles changing so radically, I imagine the styles in jewelry and other accessories did, too, for such is ever the way of fashion. And who at court----let alone the sovereign----- would want to be caught dead in last decade's tired trend? And had the jewelry somehow survived, and been dug out of some storage chest after the century had turned, I think the next queen consort, Anne of Denmark, would have turned up her royal nose, and had the stones separated and reset in the newest jewelry mode.
Hi History Calling , I agree very much regarding the moost happi medal and it's showing of the jewels on the billiment , however you didn't include the Nidd Hall portrait supposedly of Anne Boleyn..I believe this portrait to be very important because the sitter is definitely wearing the consorts' necklace with the triangular(clover leaf/quatrefoil)pendant (as seen on Catherine Parr's portrait) and wearing Catherine of Aragon's pearls as well, all of which must have been parts of the consort's jewel collection..Jane Seymour also wore the pearls in the Whitehall dynasty portrait as well as a large cross the same I believe which was worn by Anne Boleyn in the portrait medal , which seems to be the same as the one worn by Mary 1. I also have a theory that whilst Anne Boleyn's B pendant was hers ,it would seem that the actual pearl necklace is not as it seems to show up in other portraits...just a casual observation.I do believe that particular portrait is of Anne the reasons are as follows...1 the sitter has an AB dress pendant...2 has an earlier/ older slightly longer and odd curved style of gable hood(Anne was known for tweaking her styles to suit) and 3 wearing the consort jewels.Jane and Anne were cousins(not first) and would have had a glancing resemblance as their mothers were also cousins.
Yes of course it would've been. Then it was passed down to Mary I and then her sister Elizabeth I who wore the bottom part as a hair decoration in the Armada portrait.
You have certainly made a convincing argument that the medal would have shown Anne Boleyn wearing the consort necklace as an indication of her legitimacy. It's too bad that the metal was so soft and that the medal was consequently damaged. I love the way you elevate these beautiful pieces of jewelry by demonstrating their iconographic significance. It makes sense to me that Mary and Elizabeth, being queens of England in their own right, would have had the stones put to other uses. Elizabeth, in particular, loved to show herself sumptuously adorned, so those gems could be hiding in plain sight in one of her portraits! Symbols evolve, as do jewels and clothing! Thank you for sparkling up my morning! I'm wearing an Irish brooch this morning in anticipation of St. Patrick's Day and the arrival of spring.
Anne Boleyn probably felt triumphant, as she had to fight to get the jewels from Catherine of Aragon. The others might have shuddered knowing that previous wives had been killed by Henry.
I imagine they could not wait to get their hands on the necklace, and all the other jewels that went with being the Queen Consort, it was the ultimate status symbol.
I get the impression that at this time the Consort necklace and other jewelry worn by the Consort served the same purpose as a queen's crown would have served in an earlier or later era. As such, H8's various queens would have probably felt triumphant even if they also felt some horror. After all, just because the last lady was an idiot and did X wrong, that doesn't mean that they themselves would make that same mistake. And aside from Catherine Parr and maybe Anne of Cleves, they all seem to have been pleased with all the royal attention - at least until H8 decided to move on to his next queen/victim.
That is a modern take on and is not consistent with the thinking of their time. At a time when status was the top objective of the upper classes, they would have been thrilled to raise their status and their family's status. I'm sure each new Queen thought they were different than the previous ones!
I know. I'm pretty bummed too that we don't have them :-( At least we have beautiful portraits of them though, which I suppose is more than can be said for most Tudor royal jewels.
In the 1980’s there was a style of brooch that resembled medieval jewelry, like theses queens wore. I still have a costume brooch with a pearl in the middle and 4 coloured stones from that time. Pretty.
It absolutely looks like AB is wearing them! And it’s very logical that she would. The artist was very careful to make sure the pattern was recognizable at the time. I hadn’t ever really thought about how important the jewels were until now, but it’s very clear they were key to legitimizing the queen. I’ll bet putting them on for the first time was absolutely amazing!
Yes, there's this whole other language to jewels which isn't always immediately obvious, but they are indeed very important to legitimising the wearer and showing that they are 'in the club' so to speak. We can look at the Koh-i-noor diamond today as well, which Queen Camilla now won't be wearing at the coronation, to see another example of how gems can speak volumes, though sometimes what they're saying isn't good (ie because ownership of the Koh-i-noor is disputed and causes diplomatic headaches with India).
@@HistoryCalling 'diplomatic headaches' isn't a good way of saying they were stolen from a country they colonized and committed genocide upon. And it is not a disputed issue at all
I’ve become addicted to these jewelry videos. I’ve never paid attention to the jewels because I’m always drawn more to the sitter’s face or dress. It’s nice to learn things that I’d never have thought to look into myself. Thanks for keeping it interesting! 😊
Thanks Justine. Yes, I love them too but like yourself, I'd never paid that much attention to the jewels before I started this channel and had to come up with video ideas.
You have convinced me that Anne is wearing the jewels in the medal! Such a shame that it’s so damaged now, I’m sure it would have been pretty clear what jewelry she had on when it was new. I love these jewelry videos, shiny things have always made my inner crow-brain happy! It hadn’t occurred to me that the jewels were a sign on legitimacy, but it definitely makes sense. Great video, as always, and I look forward to next week!
I think your arguement for the necklace being worn by Anne on the medallion is very valid. That four stone configuration on the corner is quite convincing. As you have said, this set was part of a good amount of jewelry that was given to the QUeen Consort, so there were choices to have for what to wear with official portraits. At least there is this medallion.
Yes, it definitely seems to be the necklace (though to give credit where credit is due, it seems to be Lucy Churchill who noticed this while making her reconstruction).
Thank you HC, that was absolutely fascinating. I had never even noticed the necklace before. Hiding in plain sight!! My assumption is that, in common with so many other royal jewels, it was either broken up or sold by the Parliamentarians after the Civil War
Yes, sadly I think that will have been its fate, assuming it even made it that far. Elizabeth I, Anne of Denmark or Henrietta Maria might have already taken it apart by then.
Hi HC, thanks for all the detective work in putting this video together. Trying to track its journey as possessions of all the Queens. I agree with you that Anne was wearing the Consort Jewellery when depicted in the medal. The evidence, hiding in plain sight, confirms this to me. Thanks again for an excellent presentation.
I hardly didn't pay attention to the necklaces that the queens are wearing, so it is nice that I can learn a lot from H.C. Great video,as always, thank you.
I absolutely love your channel. I even have my Beautiful Granddaughter (7 yro), hooked on your channel! History is something I shared with my Darling Late Grandmother. Many, Many Wonderful, Cherished Times we had together! 💕🙏🏼🌹💖
I think why many of the stones (like the large diamond on the pendant) looks dark in the paintings may be due to them been originally silver, over painted with a shellac type paint to make them appear like real gems. Similar techniques have been used in many miniature paintings and due to the silver being tarnished over the centuries it appears dark or almost black.
Thank you for another fascinating video! You provided very convincing information on the succession of these jewels from one wife to the next. It is sad that they have disappeared or are hidden somewhere. Perhaps some additional info will come to light. ❤
just wanted to comment how much I rlly enjoy ur videos and how appreciative I am that a friend of mine recommended ur channel to me so I could use ur Tudor Wives series to support a project I have due later this year. so thank you very much! Would u potentially one day analyse TV shows presentations of the wives of Henry- for example how the Tudors present each wife and if it is accurate or not? Just a suggestion as I know u have already analysed certain scenes like execution of Anne Boleyn(and it would be rather useful for me and many other viewers to understand the purpose of TV media portraying them in a certain way) anyways, I rlly wanted to say how thankful I am and if I get any good grades on this project I rlly do need to give u a lot of credit . So thank you so much!
Good evening, with your evidence and showing exactly what you were saying and showing it does show her wearing the necklace. Thanks for another great and interesting video.
I’d always heard that Anne Stanhope, the wife of Edward Seymour, had demanded that Kathryn Parr give her the Queen’s jewels, since Edward was the Lord Protector and Regent during Edward VI’s reign, and that made his wife feel that she was entitled to them.
In the painting of Elizabeth I as a Princess (the William Scrots one) you can see a similar pendant to the one these Queen Consorts wore.Its possible that when Elizabeth was having the painting, Henry VIII made her wear the necklace to show potential suitors that Elizabeth can be a Queen Consort (if you know what I mean) and wed her off. Also in painting of Mary I, there is a similar pendant as well but the diamonds are bigger. In some painting though the black diamond is seen as a emerald.
Thank you. It's been on my to-do list for a while (really since I did the video on Anne Boleyn's B necklace), but it just took some time to get around to it as there was so much else I wanted to do too.
Well History Calling…. Another fantastic instalment. Anna and I have finally managed to watch every single Video and whilst My favourite is Digging Up Anne Boleyn, Anna still argues for The Lost Tudor Crown. She is asking for a substantial request list of more Jewels, Amber Rooms and roaming or mythical Islands. For Me, more Portraits and something on the Gunpowder Plot perhaps. Thanks again for all We learn and, until next time, keep recording. 😂
Haha, why thank you very much. I think Reading the Past maybe did something on the Gunpowder Plot and I try not to overlap with her as she never overlaps with me and I really frown upon stealing other people's video ideas (people do it to me all the time and I despise it, so I don't want to become that person). I'm sure I can find other jewels and artworks to look at in the future though :-)
@@HistoryCalling Very fair and nothing less than I would expect. There are many people who steal ideas but Your Videos are always original, excellently researched and fabulously presented. Anna is only 9 and quote “hated history at school” until I got Her watching Your Videos. She is now excited that when We go to London for the Coronation and to visit the Tower again She will be able know much more about the Jewels and monuments She is looking at. 😁
Oh that's wonderful. I'm so glad I've got her more interested in history and lucky girl getting to go to not just to the Tower, but to the coronation. That'll be incredible. Just make you go to the Tower a day or two later when the crowns & jewels have been returned.
Table diamonds were likely foiled in silver that tarnished. They will look dark grey in this case, it's one of the reasons they say never to get foiled jewels wet. I'm certain she did wear it, as the country was riven because of her union. It was pictorial evidence to the gentry/commons as the certainty of succession. I wouldn't be surprised if Elizabeth broke them up into a new suite as she was no consort, but Bride of England.
In the show The Tudors 2x04 that pattern of jewels is in Princess Mary’s hair when she is looking at her father when he came by to check in on Princess Elizabeth.
Thank you for this lovely video! Perhaps your analysis of the recent discovery of the Tudor heart pendant linked to Henry and Katharine would be appropriate. What a spectacular fine.
I saw that news story too. I debated a video on it for a minute, but I don't know any more about it than what the news article said so I'm not sure I could create a whole video around it. Also I have no copyright free or creative commons images of it :-(
Yes, I know the one you mean. I looked at it but decided it was just a similar design, rather than the same necklace. It must have been a popular type of necklace.
I'm with you on the portrait medal: the corner of her hood has enough surviving detail to confirm what it depicted. I often wondered if the wealth of jewels in portraits of Henry and Elizabeth in particular was artistic license, because of the lack of continuity with later Stuart portraits. But fashion changed dramatically in that period, so I wonder what you think about it?
Hmm, I think they probably just so many jewels (including ones brought from Scotland) that you don't see them repeating a lot. Also things were frequently reset, so you could be looking at the same stones without realising it.
Hi, Awesome live history video I enjoyed it can't wait to see more soon. How are you doing? I'm doing well. Your history videos are always enjoyable and relaxing. See you next video greetings from Canada 😀
The "B" necklace of Anne Boleyn, if found and authenticated, would probably be worth more than the consort necklace. It is so strongly identified with her that at auction, it would fetch a handsome price
Thank you very much. Quite a few others steal my ideas and research, so (as much as I despise them doing that) I try to console myself by flattering myself that they at least must think I'm better than them too. There are lots of other very good ones who don't steal from me though and who you should check out if you haven't already. Reading the Past and Claire Ridgeway's channel are very good in my opinion for instance.
I just watched another channel's production on Anne of Cleves. It was recorded that Henry gifted her with jewels that were pearls and rubies. The source quoted did not describe a necklace but just these specific items.
@@HistoryCalling but that portrait that you are calling Katherine Howard has been identified as Anne of Cleves and you can tell it does resemble her very much. There are no portraits of Katherine.
For Catherine Parr, I had read somewhere that, after her surprise marriage with Thomas Seymour four months after Henry VIII died, she was forced to relinquish her jewels as she had lost her title of queen dowager, with her remarriage and it was a constant subject of dispute between Thomas and Edward Seymour as Edward's wife had claimed them as she was "the closest of the position of the most important woman of the court", being the wife of the lord protector (what about Mary and Elizabeth ? I can't say)... Eventually with the Seymour brothers' downfall, the jewels certainly came back into the king's care (maybe Dudley tried to give them to his wife ?) but maybe some were kept and sold or remodeled as family heirlooms...
Very interesting. I think the medal is likely to show the Queen Consorts necklace, as it was clearly a significant piece and quite well known. The question is what was its' provenance? Where and how did Elizabeth of York get this magnificent necklace and what was the significance of the rubies, pearls and other stones and the design. I think we need a jewellery historian and detective to get to the bottom of this. We also need to know who bought the jewels from Parliament and what is likely to have happened to them since. Are they still hiding in plain sight? Phew, get looking everyone!!
Yes, it's interesting to wonder how they came into being. Henry VII might have had them made for his new Queen, or they could have been an inheritance from the Plantagenet era. Sadly, we'll likely never know.
@@HistoryCalling I have been doing a bit of research online as I am a bit addicted to jewellery. Elisabeth of York ( z not yet in use) is seen in portrait wearing a necklace with 4 pearls and dark stones possibly rubies, held by the National Trust. Katherine of Aragon is shown in an engraving by Vermeulen, wearing a similar 4 pearl neclace. Also in a portrait by unknown artist she wears a cross with 3 pearls hanging, although this is dated to 1697. Mary 1 wears less jewellery, but in a portrait from 1525 she wears the cross with 3 pearls (Horenbout). In a portrait by Master John 1544 she wears 2 pendants one with a single large pearl. In a picture by Hans Eworth she wears the same 2 pendants. Elizabeth 1 in a picture 1560 the necklace has 5 pearls and rubies. In a miniature by Hilliard, she wears the necklace with darker pearls and the pendant with 1 big pearl. In a picture from 1575 she wears the pendant with 1 pearl hanging from a girdle to her right. In the Armada picture 1588, she wears the pendant with 1 pearl from her girdle in the centre. In the Ditchley picture she wears the pendant with 1 pearl from the necklace with 5 pearls, rubies and dark stones. James 1 is seen wearing the 5 pearl and ruby necklace over his chest. (John de Critz) In 1600 Anne of denmark wears the 5 pearl, rubies and dark stones necklace. After this, these jewels do not appear on Charles 1, James 2 or Charles 2. Gone. I could weep for the loss of these beautiful pieces of historic significance. They must be broken up and living somewhere in a cupboard or drawer. How I wish......😢
I LOVED THIS VIDEO - ALL your work, & the other videos you have done on the Tudors. I wanted to ask you, as a historian, about the teardrop pearls on the B necklace. In an interview of Queen Elizabeth II, she states that the State crown has teardrop pearls under the monde, which once belonged to Queen Elizabeth I. She also states that the sapphire in the centre of the cross on top of the monde, was once in Edward the Confessor's ring, and the spinell, belonged to The Black Prince. I understand you are a historian, and that no jewel escaped Cromwell's desire to destroy all remembrances of the former Monarchy. Is it possible that some escaped? I only consider it because the late Queen believed so. It does make more sense that they were all sold. Is it possible that some were restored to the Crown after the restoration of the Monarchy having bought them back should they still could be tracked down. I do know Queen Mary tried to retrieve all she could to restore the treasure of the Monarchy. Thank you! ;)
Thank you very much. Regarding the pearls and the Black Prince's ruby/spinel, I actually have videos on those stones (the pearls are mentioned in the Anne Boleyn B necklace video and I might have mentioned them in my video on an early portrait of Elizabeth I too, though I can't remember off the top of my head), so I don't want to spoil the surprise for you here. If you check those videos out, they'll provide the answers on those items. Regarding the sapphire, I must confess I don't know :-( Certainly lots of stones survived Cromwell. It just isn't usually possible to trace what happened to them after the Parliamentarians sold them off.
@@HistoryCalling Thank you! I will check those videos out right away. I can't imagine after hundreds of years and war, that anything could survive? Sold or stolen might be the fate for all treasure from the before the Egyptian pharaohs, until long after we are gone.
I read somewhere that diamonds where painted as black stones for some reasons in those days. Don't know why or where I read it, but the way we express and view things so radically differently sometimes is also a potential reason to why we don't recognise the black stones as diamonds today, but they might have.
I literally just commented that! I heard it recently & thought it made a lot of sense _in theory-_ portraits of royals tend to have lots of black stones, but I can't think of anything I've seen that looks like a "clear" diamond, the way later artists painted them. It was just in a random comment, so I've no idea if it's correct, but it _would_ explain a "table diamond" looking black.
I remember hearing that on some history program or an Antiques Roadshow episode some years ago. I don't remember the exact source but the expert claimed that they couldn't accurately depict diamonds at the time and therefore chose to paint them black.
Thank you again for a wonderfully informative video. Perhaps the jewels were sold off by Cromwell but it is also possible some remnants were repossessed by the Crown when Charles II was restored to the throne and remain wrongly identified within the Crown collection. Perhaps some still exist in the collection of European royalty or within some aristocratic collection in the UK.
@@HistoryCalling Another thing that might have happened is that they were sold off in France by Queen Henrietta Maria in the early 1640s in order to finance the king's struggles. Apparently, she did sell a few jewels, but there was a perception that she did not have the right to sell them, so such prices as were offered were low, and there was little general interest. It's possible the consort jewels disappeared at this time. (If they were still in one piece after James I succeeded. He and Anne of Denmark recycled most of Elizabeth's huge wardrobe, and perhaps the jewels were broken down then.)
The girdle Jane Seymour wears (not the "consort" set around the waist, but the "drop") has tiny little "vases" as part of its design. We see that same girdle on Katherine Parr in the newly rediscovered painting (sold in 2024 so after this video) of her (Earl of Jersey collection) where she is beautiful in a black gown. She has a different pendant but the necklace is identical to Jane's and the billiament is being used on the French hood this time rather than then English (Gable) hood. The neckline billiament and girdle waist are the same jewels, except they have 8 pearls instead of four. Then we have the "vase" drop to the girdle. The Nidd portrait of Anne Boleyn which is identical to the silhouette of the 1534 portrait, has the same jewels with the same pendant that Katherine Parr has in the Jersey portrait. Which implies that pendant is also part of the "Consort Jewels". This I know you have stated in the video. As Dr Emmerson said, it is likely this portrait IS Anne and not of Jane Seymour.
Thank you so much for another interesting Tudor Video, especially about this wonderful necklace 🎥📽️📿I would love to see the wax figures of Henry and his six wifes👑👸🤴⚜️
You're welcome. Yes, they were brilliant. I would have loved to get more footage of them, but a bunch of people came into the room just after I got the 1 minute of footage I have got and I couldn't get anymore, even though I waited quite a while for another quiet time. :-(
No proof either way. If it was still in existence in 1649 then I'd say yes, he and his cronies probably did get rid of it, but I don't know that it still existed by then.
They included a taste of the drama between Parr and Ed Seymour’s wife fighting over these jewels in recent series Becoming Elizabeth… wonderful show, sadly canceled
I'm even sadder that I never got to see it. I don't have the correct TV channel :-( The costumes looked great though, from the clips and stills I saw on the internet.
One Queen of England I think needs more recognition is Mary II (1689-1694) as she’s almost always mashed together with her husband William of Orange by historians, and rarely ever looked at as an individual. Queen Anne has received much recognition thanks to Olivia Colman, but I’ve come to realise I know barely anything about Mary outside of her husband’s actions.
Mary II is tricky to separate out partly because she married William so young (at just 15) and partly because she herself didn't seek much separation from him. She refused to hold the throne without him for instance, then ended up being a joint monarch but with most of the real power invested in him. Nevertheless, I have a video coming in a few weeks which includes some info. on her, so do watch out for that.
I wonder if the jewels got more elborate over time? Like Catherine is clearly not wearing the matching necklace but later queens seem to have the hood/necklace/dress trim. Either that or it was moved about a bit and painted twice in a few portraits 😂
Boy, that medal of Anne is really banged up. I'll take your word for it that she's wearing the Consort's necklace. Regarding the conversation about seeing the Crown Jewels below, right now probably wouldn't be a good time since we know the King's crowns and Queen Mary's crown are being modified before the Coronation in May.
Yes, it has taken a bit of a beating, though it could be much worse I suppose. It's nearly half a millennium old so I suppose we have to make allowances.
Royal gems have constantly been remade if we look at today's examples. Also these women may have worn them as an example of power or look at me ,or Henry showing his queen off. Henry made have buried James with her.??
You certainly have dugged deep HC, the medal showing Ann could be the consort jewels, if Cromwell got his hands on the necklace it would have been broken up and sold like the rest of the crown jewels, thank you as always,
Yes, this was a fun one to research as it was new to me as well and I do like to get to do fresh research. It gets very boring going over information I already know.
You made a comment about the table gem looking too dark to be a diamond - I seem to remember reading somewhere And I’m sorry I have no idea where or it could have even been a TH-cam video on Tudor portraiture- that diamonds now appear black in Tudor portraits as they were painted using silver paint which has oxidised/ discoloured over time - maybe something you want to check out
A few other people have mentioned that and I wish I'd known that detail when I made the video as (if true), it's a good explanation. I do love learning things from all of you as well though.
Thanks for another great piece of research. I have not seen the reconstruction of the Anne medal before. If it was done from the then undamaged original it must be the most accurate portrait we have of her. Do you have a link to it? Also I understand table diamonds were flat topped as the name suggests and reflected light as black rather than white, causing much confusion to some historians 🤔
I popped a link to Lucy Churchill's website in the description box and you can see and purchase the reconstruction there (at least I think I did - I'll double check after I'm done answering comments and if not, I'll add one the link in).
I've watched the Showtime series the Tudors a few times and seen that Catherine of Aragon wears the consort jewelry in her hair a few times (such as when Henry informs her that he means to divorce her). Later in Season 2, I noticed that her daughter the Princess Mary is wears the same jewelry as a hair adornment in many of the scenes she appears in. I think it is interesting because since these jewels belonged to the Crown, Catherine would have had to give them up to Anne Boleyn when forced to do so by Henry. I noted, however, that the jewels were not among the ones presented to Anne. Since they didn't belong to Catherine, they would have been handed over to Anne, not passed down to Catherine's daughter Mary, as is shown in the series. I also notice that none of Henry's subsequent queens are ever shown wearing the Tudor Consort Jewelry.
History calling is my favourite TH-cam history thingy. Can you do something on the Alamo, please? ( I’m English but live in Austin Texas) ty - let me know if you do this please!!
The miniature is Anne of Cleves. If you compare it with her known miniature in Victoria and Albert Museum, it is absolutely clear. (Larger scale portrait not so much.) If you cannot see it, then frankly you're blind and biased. Yep, in her period description she is described as having golden hair, but darkening of pigments is pretty common issue in historical portraits. If you wish to know how Catherine Howard looked, Kunsthistorisches museum in Wien has within their collection portrait of unknown lady. And her gown looks to me as purple. Which at the time only royals could wear and it is not any known wife of Henry VIII or his daughter nor sister, and fashion wise it fits exactly into early 1540s.
Yes, I wish I could get to see them in person more often, but London is so expensive to visit and I think a day at the Tower is something like £30. Ouch!
It certainly looks like Anne in her medal could be wearing the hood trim. She doesn’t seem to be wearing the necklace though, it looks like a completely different one. I wonder if only the hood and dress trim existed to begin with and belonged to Elizabeth of York and Henry’s first two wives and then Henry had the matching necklace and girdle made especially for Jane. By the time of Henry’s third marriage, he wanted to largely erase the first two. Giving his new wife the consort’s jewels but having additional ones made just for her and then getting Holbein to paint her wearing them would seem like a massive “This is the queen now” statement.
The pearl necklace with a cross pendant that Catherine Parr wears resembles IMO the necklace Anne is wearing on the medal. Although it would make sense for her to wear the other necklace as it seems more important (since it was chosen so much for other portraits).
Eliisabeth I - Let's guess the other way round: Until now the first Lady was the Queen consort - now she was the first lady, but as being the reigning Queen. I could imagine, she used those jewels but would have let them add additional pearls and maybe even a bigger rubine as pendant. A woman of that time would have understood quite well, that she'd be more than a normal queen "consort". Just remember that by that time there were strict rules for each woman of each rank what to wear and what not to wear. To make a copy of royal jewellery would have meant to claim the throne. Just as if a salesman would have made himself a crown.
I've heard that Jane Seymour's portrait used a paint that originally shimmered and represented diamonds but it has since oxidized and now looks black. Do you think there's any truth to that based on the research?
I haven't heard that I'm afraid, which isn't to say it isn't true but I'd need to find the source for it. If the info. comes from a reputable art historian who's examined the painting I would see no reason to doubt it.
There is another portrait of Anne Boleyn in Queen Elizabeth I's ring, which is very similar to the image on the medallion. Would that give a better clue (if available for close inspection!)
I really enjoyed your video today. I follow Panagiotes Constantinou on TH-cam. He uses software that he can recreate paintings, busts, statues and old photos recreates their likeness. I know they’re not full proof but it’s fun to watch. full proof but yet it’s interesting. I’m still waiting for him to recreate Lucy Churchill’s reaction of the Moots Happi coin. I find all this fascinating. Trying to take a look into the past. Thank for another great video. Have a lovely weekend. 😊
Thanks Leticia. Yes, I think the recreations are a bit of fun too (though as you say, far from foolproof when your source is a subjective portrait). Have a lovely weekend as well.
The Nidd Hall portrait proposed to be Anne Boleyn actually seems to have the same pendant as Katherine Parr in the thumbnail. In fact, she seems to be wearing the consort necklace. I wonder if we’ll ever know if it’s truly Anne, or Jane Seymour like some suggest.
Have you ever heard of the TH-camr: Eva Schubert ? She talks about history alongside making music videos. She made entire video series on Isabella of Castle.
It would seem that Anne is indeed wearing the consort necklace in her portrait on the medal. I paused the video and blew up the picture on my computer and there are a couple spots on the upper necklace that seem to still show the four pearl cluster and gems between them, despite the "smooshing" of the lead. The extremely curious part of me would love to know what happened to the jewels in this necklace. More objects that would have quite the tales to tell if they could... 😉📿
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR VERY KIND DONATION MARGARET. I hope you enjoyed hearing about the consort necklace. It's just a pity it hasn't survived the centuries to make it to us.
Hi history calling imagine if both Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard had gotten their divorce from Henry the 8 and were sent away and imagine had Anne Boleyn remarried to maybe another royal husband from another family maybe from Denmark or Sweden a Protestant royal family and eventually had a son and Catherine Howard remarried to Thomas Culpepper what would Henry the 8 reaction be lol 😂imagine that
What’s funny is I’m currently working on an alternate history of if Anne Boleyn married a French Duke instead of going back to England to marry. It’s a love match. She does visit the court of Henry, and while she’s fascinated with him as a friend, she can’t love him the way he loves her. She ends up going back to France, and her sister becomes the scandal of Europe instead.
@@femboy__bunny interesting overall I think Henry the 8 should have had a heart and divorced both Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard and sent them away even the people that he executed of having affairs with them so sad overall thanks for that ideas I wonder how it’s like living in France I mean both Anne Boleyn and Mary queen of Scots seem to like France
I found out what happened to the black Medici Pearl's. Elizabeth 1 wore it. Queen Victoria broke up that necklace and gave pieces of it to her daughters. Diamonds come in colors. It could be a canary diamond.
I've always wondered about the bodice jewel shown in Jane Seymour's portrait. What does that represent? Looks like "PPS". Is it an acronym for something in Latin?
Off the top of my head (because I don't have a blown up image of the portrait next to me) they are initials and one of them is an I because the Latin for Jane is Iana (I think - my Latin is a bit rusty).
Do you think the 1534 portrait medal of Anne Boleyn does indeed show her wearing the consort necklace and hood trim? Let me know below and don’t forget to check out:
BUY MY BOOK (Find Your Irish Ancestors Online): amzn.to/3Z2ChnG
Website (with 2 FREE DOWNLOADS): www.historycallingofficial.com/
Patreon: www.patreon.com/historycalling
Amazon storefront: www.amazon.com/shop/historycalling
Instagram: instagram.com/historycalling/
Oh History Calling, how I love you...
Fantastic video and evidence.
Thanks Tasani :-)
When looking ahead to the disappearance of this queen consort parure, I think two causal factors are involved. First, if this suite of jewels was indeed closely identified with queens consort, they could very well be shunned, at least in their familiar form, by queens regnant----the first of their kind in English history----who had a definite point to make by differentiating themselves from the mere wives of kings: they were themselves kings in female form, and held in their own right the power of the Crown. A queen consort's necklace? I don't think so! I'll have something more befitting a reigning monarch, thank you very much! The second reason for the jewels' apparent disappearance may simply have to do with the inevitable changes in fashion that were taking place. That particular style of jewelery may have been seen as old-fashioned and out of date; the deep square neckline which displayed the jewelery so effectively was, after decades of dominating Tudor women's dress, well and truly going out of fashion by the mid-sixteenth century, when Henry VIII's daughters came to the throne, shortly to be followed by the abandonment of the French hood. With gown and headdress styles changing so radically, I imagine the styles in jewelry and other accessories did, too, for such is ever the way of fashion. And who at court----let alone the sovereign----- would want to be caught dead in last decade's tired trend? And had the jewelry somehow survived, and been dug out of some storage chest after the century had turned, I think the next queen consort, Anne of Denmark, would have turned up her royal nose, and had the stones separated and reset in the newest jewelry mode.
Hi History Calling , I agree very much regarding the moost happi medal and it's showing of the jewels on the billiment , however you didn't include the Nidd Hall portrait supposedly of Anne Boleyn..I believe this portrait to be very important because the sitter is definitely wearing the consorts' necklace with the triangular(clover leaf/quatrefoil)pendant (as seen on Catherine Parr's portrait) and wearing Catherine of Aragon's pearls as well, all of which must have been parts of the consort's jewel collection..Jane Seymour also wore the pearls in the Whitehall dynasty portrait as well as a large cross the same I believe which was worn by Anne Boleyn in the portrait medal , which seems to be the same as the one worn by Mary 1. I also have a theory that whilst Anne Boleyn's B pendant was hers ,it would seem that the actual pearl necklace is not as it seems to show up in other portraits...just a casual observation.I do believe that particular portrait is of Anne the reasons are as follows...1 the sitter has an AB dress pendant...2 has an earlier/ older slightly longer and odd curved style of gable hood(Anne was known for tweaking her styles to suit) and 3 wearing the consort jewels.Jane and Anne were cousins(not first) and would have had a glancing resemblance as their mothers were also cousins.
Yes of course it would've been. Then it was passed down to Mary I and then her sister Elizabeth I who wore the bottom part as a hair decoration in the Armada portrait.
You have certainly made a convincing argument that the medal would have shown Anne Boleyn wearing the consort necklace as an indication of her legitimacy. It's too bad that the metal was so soft and that the medal was consequently damaged. I love the way you elevate these beautiful pieces of jewelry by demonstrating their iconographic significance. It makes sense to me that Mary and Elizabeth, being queens of England in their own right, would have had the stones put to other uses. Elizabeth, in particular, loved to show herself sumptuously adorned, so those gems could be hiding in plain sight in one of her portraits! Symbols evolve, as do jewels and clothing! Thank you for sparkling up my morning! I'm wearing an Irish brooch this morning in anticipation of St. Patrick's Day and the arrival of spring.
Yes, I definitely think it's the consort necklace, though I was initially skeptical. I thoroughly approve of the Irish brooch by the way :-)
You
I wonder how each successive wife felt recieving the necklace worn by his previous wives. Whether they shuddered in horror, or maybe felt triumphant.
Anne Boleyn probably felt triumphant, as she had to fight to get the jewels from Catherine of Aragon. The others might have shuddered knowing that previous wives had been killed by Henry.
I imagine they could not wait to get their hands on the necklace, and all the other jewels that went with being the Queen Consort, it was the ultimate status symbol.
I get the impression that at this time the Consort necklace and other jewelry worn by the Consort served the same purpose as a queen's crown would have served in an earlier or later era. As such, H8's various queens would have probably felt triumphant even if they also felt some horror. After all, just because the last lady was an idiot and did X wrong, that doesn't mean that they themselves would make that same mistake. And aside from Catherine Parr and maybe Anne of Cleves, they all seem to have been pleased with all the royal attention - at least until H8 decided to move on to his next queen/victim.
Looks heavy enough to get neck injury from only one wearing
That is a modern take on and is not consistent with the thinking of their time. At a time when status was the top objective of the upper classes, they would have been thrilled to raise their status and their family's status. I'm sure each new Queen thought they were different than the previous ones!
How wonderful it would’ve been if the Queen Consort and Boleyn necklaces had survived. Just imagine the stories they could tell.🇨🇦
I know. I'm pretty bummed too that we don't have them :-( At least we have beautiful portraits of them though, which I suppose is more than can be said for most Tudor royal jewels.
In the 1980’s there was a style of brooch that resembled medieval jewelry, like theses queens wore. I still have a costume brooch with a pearl in the middle and 4 coloured stones from that time. Pretty.
It absolutely looks like AB is wearing them! And it’s very logical that she would. The artist was very careful to make sure the pattern was recognizable at the time.
I hadn’t ever really thought about how important the jewels were until now, but it’s very clear they were key to legitimizing the queen. I’ll bet putting them on for the first time was absolutely amazing!
Yes, there's this whole other language to jewels which isn't always immediately obvious, but they are indeed very important to legitimising the wearer and showing that they are 'in the club' so to speak. We can look at the Koh-i-noor diamond today as well, which Queen Camilla now won't be wearing at the coronation, to see another example of how gems can speak volumes, though sometimes what they're saying isn't good (ie because ownership of the Koh-i-noor is disputed and causes diplomatic headaches with India).
@@HistoryCalling Well, you do an amazing job of explaining and pulling it all together in such an interesting way! Thank you!
@@HistoryCalling 'diplomatic headaches' isn't a good way of saying they were stolen from a country they colonized and committed genocide upon. And it is not a disputed issue at all
I’ve become addicted to these jewelry videos. I’ve never paid attention to the jewels because I’m always drawn more to the sitter’s face or dress. It’s nice to learn things that I’d never have thought to look into myself. Thanks for keeping it interesting! 😊
Thanks Justine. Yes, I love them too but like yourself, I'd never paid that much attention to the jewels before I started this channel and had to come up with video ideas.
You have convinced me that Anne is wearing the jewels in the medal! Such a shame that it’s so damaged now, I’m sure it would have been pretty clear what jewelry she had on when it was new. I love these jewelry videos, shiny things have always made my inner crow-brain happy! It hadn’t occurred to me that the jewels were a sign on legitimacy, but it definitely makes sense. Great video, as always, and I look forward to next week!
I think your arguement for the necklace being worn by Anne on the medallion is very valid. That four stone configuration on the corner is quite convincing. As you have said, this set was part of a good amount of jewelry that was given to the QUeen Consort, so there were choices to have for what to wear with official portraits. At least there is this medallion.
Yes, it definitely seems to be the necklace (though to give credit where credit is due, it seems to be Lucy Churchill who noticed this while making her reconstruction).
Thank you HC, that was absolutely fascinating. I had never even noticed the necklace before. Hiding in plain sight!! My assumption is that, in common with so many other royal jewels, it was either broken up or sold by the Parliamentarians after the Civil War
Yes, sadly I think that will have been its fate, assuming it even made it that far. Elizabeth I, Anne of Denmark or Henrietta Maria might have already taken it apart by then.
Hi HC, thanks for all the detective work in putting this video together. Trying to track its journey as possessions of all the Queens.
I agree with you that Anne was wearing the Consort Jewellery when depicted in the medal. The evidence, hiding in plain sight, confirms this to me.
Thanks again for an excellent presentation.
Thanks James. Yes, I had a good time exploring this topic as it's not something I knew a lot about, so it was fresh meat for me (as it were).
I hardly didn't pay attention to the necklaces that the queens are wearing, so it is nice that I can learn a lot from H.C. Great video,as always, thank you.
I absolutely love your channel. I even have my Beautiful Granddaughter (7 yro), hooked on your channel! History is something I shared with my Darling Late Grandmother. Many, Many Wonderful, Cherished Times we had together! 💕🙏🏼🌹💖
Love your channel! Just found and have been going back watching older videos.
I think why many of the stones (like the large diamond on the pendant) looks dark in the paintings may be due to them been originally silver, over painted with a shellac type paint to make them appear like real gems. Similar techniques have been used in many miniature paintings and due to the silver being tarnished over the centuries it appears dark or almost black.
More time well and enjoyably spent with the elegance of History Calling. Thanks so much for educating and entertaining us.
My pleasure :-)
Thank you for another fascinating video! You provided very convincing information on the succession of these jewels from one wife to the next. It is sad that they have disappeared or are hidden somewhere. Perhaps some additional info will come to light. ❤
just wanted to comment how much I rlly enjoy ur videos and how appreciative I am that a friend of mine recommended ur channel to me so I could use ur Tudor Wives series to support a project I have due later this year. so thank you very much! Would u potentially one day analyse TV shows presentations of the wives of Henry- for example how the Tudors present each wife and if it is accurate or not? Just a suggestion as I know u have already analysed certain scenes like execution of Anne Boleyn(and it would be rather useful for me and many other viewers to understand the purpose of TV media portraying them in a certain way)
anyways, I rlly wanted to say how thankful I am and if I get any good grades on this project I rlly do need to give u a lot of credit . So thank you so much!
Good evening, with your evidence and showing exactly what you were saying and showing it does show her wearing the necklace. Thanks for another great and interesting video.
Thanks Vernon. Yes, it's always so helpful when I can actually show the original evidence onscreen and one of the bonuses of doing art history videos.
I’d always heard that Anne Stanhope, the wife of Edward Seymour, had demanded that Kathryn Parr give her the Queen’s jewels, since Edward was the Lord Protector and Regent during Edward VI’s reign, and that made his wife feel that she was entitled to them.
That does ring a bell actually, but I'd need to look into it.
In the painting of Elizabeth I as a Princess (the William Scrots one) you can see a similar pendant to the one these Queen Consorts wore.Its possible that when Elizabeth was having the painting, Henry VIII made her wear the necklace to show potential suitors that Elizabeth can be a Queen Consort (if you know what I mean) and wed her off. Also in painting of Mary I, there is a similar pendant as well but the diamonds are bigger. In some painting though the black diamond is seen as a emerald.
I love your accent! It's fabulous!
And this Channel is so intriguing and informative. History is essential!
Thank you for all your hard work!
Thank you so much. That's very kind of you to say :-)
Omg, I love that you did a video on this!! 😍😍😍
Thank you. It's been on my to-do list for a while (really since I did the video on Anne Boleyn's B necklace), but it just took some time to get around to it as there was so much else I wanted to do too.
Saturday morning is tea, toast, and History Calling. 😊
Have a great weekend :-)
Another wonderful video, always well presented. ❤️ 🇨🇦
Thanks Kimberley and greetings to Canada :-)
Looooooove Everything you upload!!!! Fantastic!!
Well History Calling…. Another fantastic instalment. Anna and I have finally managed to watch every single Video and whilst My favourite is Digging Up Anne Boleyn, Anna still argues for The Lost Tudor Crown. She is asking for a substantial request list of more Jewels, Amber Rooms and roaming or mythical Islands. For Me, more Portraits and something on the Gunpowder Plot perhaps. Thanks again for all We learn and, until next time, keep recording. 😂
Haha, why thank you very much. I think Reading the Past maybe did something on the Gunpowder Plot and I try not to overlap with her as she never overlaps with me and I really frown upon stealing other people's video ideas (people do it to me all the time and I despise it, so I don't want to become that person). I'm sure I can find other jewels and artworks to look at in the future though :-)
@@HistoryCalling Very fair and nothing less than I would expect. There are many people who steal ideas but Your Videos are always original, excellently researched and fabulously presented. Anna is only 9 and quote “hated history at school” until I got Her watching Your Videos. She is now excited that when We go to London for the Coronation and to visit the Tower again She will be able know much more about the Jewels and monuments She is looking at. 😁
Oh that's wonderful. I'm so glad I've got her more interested in history and lucky girl getting to go to not just to the Tower, but to the coronation. That'll be incredible. Just make you go to the Tower a day or two later when the crowns & jewels have been returned.
Table diamonds were likely foiled in silver that tarnished. They will look dark grey in this case, it's one of the reasons they say never to get foiled jewels wet. I'm certain she did wear it, as the country was riven because of her union. It was pictorial evidence to the gentry/commons as the certainty of succession. I wouldn't be surprised if Elizabeth broke them up into a new suite as she was no consort, but Bride of England.
Hi History Calling.
Great video. I am always paying more attention to the dress & jewelry. Love your uploads.
TTFN 🖐🏼
In the show The Tudors 2x04 that pattern of jewels is in Princess Mary’s hair when she is looking at her father when he came by to check in on Princess Elizabeth.
Love this! Your videos are great!
Thank you for this lovely video! Perhaps your analysis of the recent discovery of the Tudor heart pendant linked to Henry and Katharine would be appropriate. What a spectacular fine.
I saw that news story too. I debated a video on it for a minute, but I don't know any more about it than what the news article said so I'm not sure I could create a whole video around it. Also I have no copyright free or creative commons images of it :-(
There's also a portrait of Henry's sister Mary wearing a similar necklace, although that one seems to have more than four pearls in each cluster.
Yes, I know the one you mean. I looked at it but decided it was just a similar design, rather than the same necklace. It must have been a popular type of necklace.
I'm with you on the portrait medal: the corner of her hood has enough surviving detail to confirm what it depicted. I often wondered if the wealth of jewels in portraits of Henry and Elizabeth in particular was artistic license, because of the lack of continuity with later Stuart portraits. But fashion changed dramatically in that period, so I wonder what you think about it?
U mean the Stuart jewels weren’t as nice?
Hmm, I think they probably just so many jewels (including ones brought from Scotland) that you don't see them repeating a lot. Also things were frequently reset, so you could be looking at the same stones without realising it.
@@HistoryCalling ya Henry8 was known as a bling king do I don’t see them needing to fabricate wealth in the jewel depiction
Another great video!
THANK YOU SO MUCH for your very kind donation Gigi :-) Glad you enjoyed hearing about the necklace.
Fascinating as always!
Thanks, HC! Third viewing and I'm picking up more detail each time (as per usual).👏👏
THANK YOU SO MUCH STEPHEN. I'm really glad you're getting your money's worth out of the video :-)
Hi, Awesome live history video I enjoyed it can't wait to see more soon. How are you doing? I'm doing well. Your history videos are always enjoyable and relaxing. See you next video greetings from Canada 😀
Thanks Michelle. I'm good thanks. Just enjoying the fact that it's the weekend.
Another real GEM of a history story from you many thanks.
Nicely punned my friend :-)
@@HistoryCalling It was 2/3's of a pun PU
The "B" necklace of Anne Boleyn, if found and authenticated, would probably be worth more than the consort necklace. It is so strongly identified with her that at auction, it would fetch a handsome price
I watch other history channels on TH-cam but I think yours is the best.
Thank you very much. Quite a few others steal my ideas and research, so (as much as I despise them doing that) I try to console myself by flattering myself that they at least must think I'm better than them too. There are lots of other very good ones who don't steal from me though and who you should check out if you haven't already. Reading the Past and Claire Ridgeway's channel are very good in my opinion for instance.
Ok thanks
Same, HC is the best! Claire Ridgway & Dr. Kat are excellent too, ofc, & I love Kings of France as well.
Well well well, we “meet” again! Awesome video my lady
Thank you. :-)
So fascinating. Thank you for this detailed report.
Glad you enjoyed it :-) Thanks for watching.
I just watched another channel's production on Anne of Cleves. It was recorded that Henry gifted her with jewels that were pearls and rubies. The source quoted did not describe a necklace but just these specific items.
He did indeed, but as you say, I don't think this necklace was itemised there.
@@HistoryCalling but that portrait that you are calling Katherine Howard has been identified as Anne of Cleves and you can tell it does resemble her very much. There are no portraits of Katherine.
For Catherine Parr, I had read somewhere that, after her surprise marriage with Thomas Seymour four months after Henry VIII died, she was forced to relinquish her jewels as she had lost her title of queen dowager, with her remarriage and it was a constant subject of dispute between Thomas and Edward Seymour as Edward's wife had claimed them as she was "the closest of the position of the most important woman of the court", being the wife of the lord protector (what about Mary and Elizabeth ? I can't say)... Eventually with the Seymour brothers' downfall, the jewels certainly came back into the king's care (maybe Dudley tried to give them to his wife ?) but maybe some were kept and sold or remodeled as family heirlooms...
If you look at my responses, you will see that these jewels lastest through to James 1st.
The Tudor Queens wearing what was, in effect, The King's Bling 🤭
Exactly, yes :-)
That's so creepy that we can identify who Henry's wives' portraits are from this same necklace
Helpful too though, as the necklace is the thing which really identifies Katherine Howard.
Very interesting. I think the medal is likely to show the Queen Consorts necklace, as it was clearly a significant piece and quite well known. The question is what was its' provenance? Where and how did Elizabeth of York get this magnificent necklace and what was the significance of the rubies, pearls and other stones and the design. I think we need a jewellery historian and detective to get to the bottom of this. We also need to know who bought the jewels from Parliament and what is likely to have happened to them since. Are they still hiding in plain sight? Phew, get looking everyone!!
Yes, it's interesting to wonder how they came into being. Henry VII might have had them made for his new Queen, or they could have been an inheritance from the Plantagenet era. Sadly, we'll likely never know.
@@HistoryCalling I have been doing a bit of research online as I am a bit addicted to jewellery. Elisabeth of York ( z not yet in use) is seen in portrait wearing a necklace with 4 pearls and dark stones possibly rubies, held by the National Trust.
Katherine of Aragon is shown in an engraving by Vermeulen, wearing a similar 4 pearl neclace. Also in a portrait by unknown artist she wears a cross with 3 pearls hanging, although this is dated to 1697.
Mary 1 wears less jewellery, but in a portrait from 1525 she wears the cross with 3 pearls (Horenbout). In a portrait by Master John 1544 she wears 2 pendants one with a single large pearl. In a picture by Hans Eworth she wears the same 2 pendants.
Elizabeth 1 in a picture 1560 the necklace has 5 pearls and rubies. In a miniature by Hilliard, she wears the necklace with darker pearls and the pendant with 1 big pearl. In a picture from 1575 she wears the pendant with 1 pearl hanging from a girdle to her right. In the Armada picture 1588, she wears the pendant with 1 pearl from her girdle in the centre. In the Ditchley picture she wears the pendant with 1 pearl from the necklace with 5 pearls, rubies and dark stones.
James 1 is seen wearing the 5 pearl and ruby necklace over his chest. (John de Critz)
In 1600 Anne of denmark wears the 5 pearl, rubies and dark stones necklace.
After this, these jewels do not appear on Charles 1, James 2 or Charles 2. Gone.
I could weep for the loss of these beautiful pieces of historic significance. They must be broken up and living somewhere in a cupboard or drawer. How I wish......😢
I LOVED THIS VIDEO - ALL your work, & the other videos you have done on the Tudors. I wanted to ask you, as a historian, about the teardrop pearls on the B necklace. In an interview of Queen Elizabeth II, she states that the State crown has teardrop pearls under the monde, which once belonged to Queen Elizabeth I. She also states that the sapphire in the centre of the cross on top of the monde, was once in Edward the Confessor's ring, and the spinell, belonged to The Black Prince. I understand you are a historian, and that no jewel escaped Cromwell's desire to destroy all remembrances of the former Monarchy.
Is it possible that some escaped? I only consider it because the late Queen believed so. It does make more sense that they were all sold. Is it possible that some were restored to the Crown after the restoration of the Monarchy having bought them back should they still could be tracked down.
I do know Queen Mary tried to retrieve all she could to restore the treasure of the Monarchy.
Thank you! ;)
Thank you very much. Regarding the pearls and the Black Prince's ruby/spinel, I actually have videos on those stones (the pearls are mentioned in the Anne Boleyn B necklace video and I might have mentioned them in my video on an early portrait of Elizabeth I too, though I can't remember off the top of my head), so I don't want to spoil the surprise for you here. If you check those videos out, they'll provide the answers on those items. Regarding the sapphire, I must confess I don't know :-( Certainly lots of stones survived Cromwell. It just isn't usually possible to trace what happened to them after the Parliamentarians sold them off.
@@HistoryCalling Thank you! I will check those videos out right away. I can't imagine after hundreds of years and war, that anything could survive? Sold or stolen might be the fate for all treasure from the before the Egyptian pharaohs, until long after we are gone.
I read somewhere that diamonds where painted as black stones for some reasons in those days. Don't know why or where I read it, but the way we express and view things so radically differently sometimes is also a potential reason to why we don't recognise the black stones as diamonds today, but they might have.
Interesting
I've never heard that, but it sounds really interesting. Thank you for sharing.
I literally just commented that! I heard it recently & thought it made a lot of sense _in theory-_ portraits of royals tend to have lots of black stones, but I can't think of anything I've seen that looks like a "clear" diamond, the way later artists painted them. It was just in a random comment, so I've no idea if it's correct, but it _would_ explain a "table diamond" looking black.
I remember hearing that on some history program or an Antiques Roadshow episode some years ago. I don't remember the exact source but the expert claimed that they couldn't accurately depict diamonds at the time and therefore chose to paint them black.
I've read that diamonds were painted with a silver pigment that tarnished over time.
Thank you again for a wonderfully informative video. Perhaps the jewels were sold off by Cromwell but it is also possible some remnants were repossessed by the Crown when Charles II was restored to the throne and remain wrongly identified within the Crown collection. Perhaps some still exist in the collection of European royalty or within some aristocratic collection in the UK.
Yes, that could certainly have happened.
@@HistoryCalling Another thing that might have happened is that they were sold off in France by Queen Henrietta Maria in the early 1640s in order to finance the king's struggles. Apparently, she did sell a few jewels, but there was a perception that she did not have the right to sell them, so such prices as were offered were low, and there was little general interest. It's possible the consort jewels disappeared at this time. (If they were still in one piece after James I succeeded. He and Anne of Denmark recycled most of Elizabeth's huge wardrobe, and perhaps the jewels were broken down then.)
The girdle Jane Seymour wears (not the "consort" set around the waist, but the "drop") has tiny little "vases" as part of its design. We see that same girdle on Katherine Parr in the newly rediscovered painting (sold in 2024 so after this video) of her (Earl of Jersey collection) where she is beautiful in a black gown. She has a different pendant but the necklace is identical to Jane's and the billiament is being used on the French hood this time rather than then English (Gable) hood.
The neckline billiament and girdle waist are the same jewels, except they have 8 pearls instead of four. Then we have the "vase" drop to the girdle.
The Nidd portrait of Anne Boleyn which is identical to the silhouette of the 1534 portrait, has the same jewels with the same pendant that Katherine Parr has in the Jersey portrait. Which implies that pendant is also part of the "Consort Jewels". This I know you have stated in the video. As Dr Emmerson said, it is likely this portrait IS Anne and not of Jane Seymour.
Thank you so much for another interesting Tudor Video, especially about this wonderful necklace 🎥📽️📿I would love to see the wax figures of Henry and his six wifes👑👸🤴⚜️
You're welcome. Yes, they were brilliant. I would have loved to get more footage of them, but a bunch of people came into the room just after I got the 1 minute of footage I have got and I couldn't get anymore, even though I waited quite a while for another quiet time. :-(
Oh the famous consort’s necklace! Istg if Oliver Cromwell is ALSO responsible for this I’ll snap😭
No proof either way. If it was still in existence in 1649 then I'd say yes, he and his cronies probably did get rid of it, but I don't know that it still existed by then.
@@HistoryCalling”he and his cronies”- my favourite expression back again😭
Great research and detective work. Thanks.
You're very welcome :-)
This was great video!
Thanks Leah :-)
I have always been fascinated with the portrait jewels. But I never knew these were the same necklace.
They included a taste of the drama between Parr and Ed Seymour’s wife fighting over these jewels in recent series Becoming Elizabeth… wonderful show, sadly canceled
I'm even sadder that I never got to see it. I don't have the correct TV channel :-( The costumes looked great though, from the clips and stills I saw on the internet.
One Queen of England I think needs more recognition is Mary II (1689-1694) as she’s almost always mashed together with her husband William of Orange by historians, and rarely ever looked at as an individual.
Queen Anne has received much recognition thanks to Olivia Colman, but I’ve come to realise I know barely anything about Mary outside of her husband’s actions.
Mary II is tricky to separate out partly because she married William so young (at just 15) and partly because she herself didn't seek much separation from him. She refused to hold the throne without him for instance, then ended up being a joint monarch but with most of the real power invested in him. Nevertheless, I have a video coming in a few weeks which includes some info. on her, so do watch out for that.
@@HistoryCalling It's sort of funny how; one Mary wasn't allow to marry until it was too late while the other Mary did marry young.
I wonder if the jewels got more elborate over time? Like Catherine is clearly not wearing the matching necklace but later queens seem to have the hood/necklace/dress trim. Either that or it was moved about a bit and painted twice in a few portraits 😂
Maybe, yes. It's annoying that we'll never know for sure though.
Love your videos.
Thanks Ella :-)
Boy, that medal of Anne is really banged up. I'll take your word for it that she's wearing the Consort's necklace. Regarding the conversation about seeing the Crown Jewels below, right now probably wouldn't be a good time since we know the King's crowns and Queen Mary's crown are being modified before the Coronation in May.
Yes, it has taken a bit of a beating, though it could be much worse I suppose. It's nearly half a millennium old so I suppose we have to make allowances.
@@HistoryCalling I suppose so and did you say it's made out of lead? very soft metal.
Royal gems have constantly been remade if we look at today's examples. Also these women may have worn them as an example of power or look at me ,or Henry showing his queen off. Henry made have buried James with her.??
You certainly have dugged deep HC, the medal showing Ann could be the consort jewels, if Cromwell got his hands on the necklace it would have been broken up and sold like the rest of the crown jewels, thank you as always,
Yes, this was a fun one to research as it was new to me as well and I do like to get to do fresh research. It gets very boring going over information I already know.
@@HistoryCalling HC your a class act, thank you for all the hours of research, what you do in a word Perfection,
Great detecting ….. very interesting indeed…. Thanks ❤
Thanks Ruby :-)
You made a comment about the table gem looking too dark to be a diamond - I seem to remember reading somewhere And I’m sorry I have no idea where or it could have even been a TH-cam video on Tudor portraiture- that diamonds now appear black in Tudor portraits as they were painted using silver paint which has oxidised/ discoloured over time - maybe something you want to check out
A few other people have mentioned that and I wish I'd known that detail when I made the video as (if true), it's a good explanation. I do love learning things from all of you as well though.
Thanks for another great piece of research. I have not seen the reconstruction of the Anne medal before. If it was done from the then undamaged original it must be the most accurate portrait we have of her. Do you have a link to it?
Also I understand table diamonds were flat topped as the name suggests and reflected light as black rather than white, causing much confusion to some historians 🤔
I popped a link to Lucy Churchill's website in the description box and you can see and purchase the reconstruction there (at least I think I did - I'll double check after I'm done answering comments and if not, I'll add one the link in).
I've watched the Showtime series the Tudors a few times and seen that Catherine of Aragon wears the consort jewelry in her hair a few times (such as when Henry informs her that he means to divorce her). Later in Season 2, I noticed that her daughter the Princess Mary is wears the same jewelry as a hair adornment in many of the scenes she appears in. I think it is interesting because since these jewels belonged to the Crown, Catherine would have had to give them up to Anne Boleyn when forced to do so by Henry. I noted, however, that the jewels were not among the ones presented to Anne. Since they didn't belong to Catherine, they would have been handed over to Anne, not passed down to Catherine's daughter Mary, as is shown in the series. I also notice that none of Henry's subsequent queens are ever shown wearing the Tudor Consort Jewelry.
History calling is my favourite TH-cam history thingy. Can you do something on the Alamo, please?
( I’m English but live in Austin Texas) ty - let me know if you do this please!!
My Yorkie dog thinks me and Kate Winslet are married.
Better not tell her husband! :-)
@@HistoryCalling This comment made my day.
He has good taste at least? I mean, I'd marry her; I had a major crush on her back in the day (showing my age here, lol).
@@beth7935 I still have A Crush on her.
@@savagedarksider2147 Then you have good taste too!
Elizabeth I was famous for breaking up and reworking old pieces of jewellery I think that sounds the most likely.
Yes, that def. could have happened.
Very interesting and entertaining. Gratitude 🇦🇺
Thank you and greetings in Australia (if I'm seeing the little flag emoji correctly).
@@HistoryCalling you got it right. Australia. I subscribed a while back and thoroughly enjoy what you teach me. 🤗
The miniature is Anne of Cleves. If you compare it with her known miniature in Victoria and Albert Museum, it is absolutely clear. (Larger scale portrait not so much.) If you cannot see it, then frankly you're blind and biased. Yep, in her period description she is described as having golden hair, but darkening of pigments is pretty common issue in historical portraits.
If you wish to know how Catherine Howard looked, Kunsthistorisches museum in Wien has within their collection portrait of unknown lady. And her gown looks to me as purple. Which at the time only royals could wear and it is not any known wife of Henry VIII or his daughter nor sister, and fashion wise it fits exactly into early 1540s.
I agree with you. I read an article that it is most likely Anne of Cleves.
The crown jewels are matchless and truly magnificent!
Yes, I wish I could get to see them in person more often, but London is so expensive to visit and I think a day at the Tower is something like £30. Ouch!
Loooved their obsession with pears and cabochon cut gems
It certainly looks like Anne in her medal could be wearing the hood trim. She doesn’t seem to be wearing the necklace though, it looks like a completely different one.
I wonder if only the hood and dress trim existed to begin with and belonged to Elizabeth of York and Henry’s first two wives and then Henry had the matching necklace and girdle made especially for Jane.
By the time of Henry’s third marriage, he wanted to largely erase the first two. Giving his new wife the consort’s jewels but having additional ones made just for her and then getting Holbein to paint her wearing them would seem like a massive “This is the queen now” statement.
Maybe, yes. It's just frustrating that we'll never know for sure :-(
Royal jewelry is fascinating. I recently went down the Romanov Vladimir tiara rabbit hole.
Oh that sounds interesting. I'm a sucker for the faberge eggs myself :-)
The pearl necklace with a cross pendant that Catherine Parr wears resembles IMO the necklace Anne is wearing on the medal. Although it would make sense for her to wear the other necklace as it seems more important (since it was chosen so much for other portraits).
There are also similarities with the necklace worn by Mary Tudor in the portrait with her husband Charles Brandon.
Keep learning what a great motto. thk you.
Eliisabeth I - Let's guess the other way round: Until now the first Lady was the Queen consort - now she was the first lady, but as being the reigning Queen. I could imagine, she used those jewels but would have let them add additional pearls and maybe even a bigger rubine as pendant. A woman of that time would have understood quite well, that she'd be more than a normal queen "consort". Just remember that by that time there were strict rules for each woman of each rank what to wear and what not to wear. To make a copy of royal jewellery would have meant to claim the throne. Just as if a salesman would have made himself a crown.
Awesome history lesson
Thanks Mandy. Glad you enjoyed it :-)
Thank you.
Very interesting!!
Thanks Maralene :-)
I love The Boleyn necklace, though the Consort necklace is pretty awesome)
Oh yes, I think the consort necklace was really something else. It's such a shame we can't see the real thing.
Good evening to history calling
Hi Bea. Hope you're in a Tudor jewellery mood :-)
I've heard that Jane Seymour's portrait used a paint that originally shimmered and represented diamonds but it has since oxidized and now looks black. Do you think there's any truth to that based on the research?
I haven't heard that I'm afraid, which isn't to say it isn't true but I'd need to find the source for it. If the info. comes from a reputable art historian who's examined the painting I would see no reason to doubt it.
There is another portrait of Anne Boleyn in Queen Elizabeth I's ring, which is very similar to the image on the medallion. Would that give a better clue (if available for close inspection!)
I really enjoyed your video today. I follow Panagiotes Constantinou on TH-cam. He uses software that he can recreate paintings, busts, statues and old photos recreates their likeness. I know they’re not full proof but it’s fun to watch.
full proof but yet it’s interesting. I’m still waiting for him to recreate Lucy Churchill’s reaction of the Moots Happi coin. I find all this fascinating. Trying to take a look into the past. Thank for another great video. Have a lovely weekend. 😊
Thanks Leticia. Yes, I think the recreations are a bit of fun too (though as you say, far from foolproof when your source is a subjective portrait). Have a lovely weekend as well.
The Nidd Hall portrait proposed to be Anne Boleyn actually seems to have the same pendant as Katherine Parr in the thumbnail. In fact, she seems to be wearing the consort necklace. I wonder if we’ll ever know if it’s truly Anne, or Jane Seymour like some suggest.
Yes, that portrait is interesting. I'd love to know who it is as well.
Have you ever heard of the TH-camr: Eva Schubert ? She talks about history alongside making music videos. She made entire video series on Isabella of Castle.
No, I'm afraid not. Someone ironically, I actually watch very little history on TH-cam now. It's too much like work.
@@HistoryCalling I understand, I sent her A comment; saying she was sort of like you.
Could rubies represent the red rose of Lancaster and pearls represent the white rose of York?
It would seem that Anne is indeed wearing the consort necklace in her portrait on the medal. I paused the video and blew up the picture on my computer and there are a couple spots on the upper necklace that seem to still show the four pearl cluster and gems between them, despite the "smooshing" of the lead. The extremely curious part of me would love to know what happened to the jewels in this necklace. More objects that would have quite the tales to tell if they could... 😉📿
Yes, I def. think so too, despite my initial skepticism. Ms Churchill did a great job to notice that detail.
Thanks!
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR VERY KIND DONATION MARGARET. I hope you enjoyed hearing about the consort necklace. It's just a pity it hasn't survived the centuries to make it to us.
Hi history calling imagine if both Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard had gotten their divorce from Henry the 8 and were sent away and imagine had Anne Boleyn remarried to maybe another royal husband from another family maybe from Denmark or Sweden a Protestant royal family and eventually had a son and Catherine Howard remarried to Thomas Culpepper what would Henry the 8 reaction be lol 😂imagine that
What’s funny is I’m currently working on an alternate history of if Anne Boleyn married a French Duke instead of going back to England to marry. It’s a love match. She does visit the court of Henry, and while she’s fascinated with him as a friend, she can’t love him the way he loves her.
She ends up going back to France, and her sister becomes the scandal of Europe instead.
@@femboy__bunny interesting overall I think Henry the 8 should have had a heart and divorced both Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard and sent them away even the people that he executed of having affairs with them so sad overall thanks for that ideas I wonder how it’s like living in France I mean both Anne Boleyn and Mary queen of Scots seem to like France
Educational
I found out what happened to the black Medici Pearl's. Elizabeth 1 wore it. Queen Victoria broke up that necklace and gave pieces of it to her daughters. Diamonds come in colors. It could be a canary diamond.
Very interesting! How goes the Margaret Beaufort book? I enjoyed it very much.
I'm reading it at the moment (it's literally next to me as I type this) and working on her videos :-)
The jewel of old England history documentary producers.💯🌟s
Haha, thank you. If only the BBC thought the same thing :-)
@@HistoryCalling or National Geographic lol
I've always wondered about the bodice jewel shown in Jane Seymour's portrait. What does that represent? Looks like "PPS". Is it an acronym for something in Latin?
Off the top of my head (because I don't have a blown up image of the portrait next to me) they are initials and one of them is an I because the Latin for Jane is Iana (I think - my Latin is a bit rusty).
Didn't Edward Seymour's wife demand Catherine Parr hand the Consort's jewels to her since Seymore made himself Duke of Somerset and Protector?
That does ring a bell actually, but I'd need to look into it.