We bring you an exciting new feature in our video series: the re-imagining of historical figures. With this new feature, we aim to push the boundaries of artistic expression and invite you to join us on this journey. The re-imagining of historical figures provides a unique opportunity to present these iconic personalities through a contemporary lens, offering fresh perspectives and inviting dialogue. What do you think?
Okay, after reviewing all 12 images...here are my votes: For best recreation I'm going with #3. For best re-imagining, I like #1. I like the arch of her brow and her somewhat defiant expression...very similar to re-creation #6.
Jacquetta and Richard Woodville, Elizabeth of York's maternal grandparents, were described as the best-looking couple of their generation. Re-imagining number 2 takes into consideration the hint of a double chin that appears in the traditional portrait of Elizabeth of York. Some accounts indicate that Elizabeth of York was buxom. She was not the raving beauty her mother was, but she was definitely attractive. Henry VIII, through his mother, inherited Edward IV's good looks and athletic build. I believe that Henry VIII's red hair was a legacy of his Tudor heritage.
The cousin’s war has always been a fascinating topic to me, I don’t know why. I’ve consumed so much information and media about it. I’m particularly drawn to Elizabeth Woodville and her daughter, Elizabeth of York, so this video was so touching to me somehow. Like seeing old friends. Thanks.
Poor Elizabeth was stripped of all she owned and shut up in a convent by her son-in-law Henry VII after he caught her trying to help her son regain the throne. You won't read that in More, Shakespeare, or here, but that is what actually happened. Henry was so smitten with Elizabeth Jr. that he may have refrained from killing her brothers when both were caught trying to put the house of York back on the throne. You won't read that here. Try having a look at some of the more recent research.
I have noticed that many people who were reputed to be handsome or beautiful do not appear to be in their original portraits… Is this because we have different standards of beauty these days? I must add that most of your re-creations and re-imaginings are quite lovely by our standards, even though they may have been described as plain by their contemporaries. 😮
You seem incredibly observant, and I would like to express my gratitude for your message. One of the primary reasons we established this channel is to address the "problem" you mentioned. The individuals depicted in these paintings, sketches, and drawings often appear lifeless and distant. However, with the latest advancements in AI technology, we recognized an opportunity to breathe life into these images. Personally, I find it somewhat foolish to aim for a recreation of the person with 100% accuracy, as portrayed in the portraits, as it tends to result in an odd and unnatural appearance. The situation becomes even more absurd when these recreations are made to open their mouths and speak. Our objective here is to achieve the closest resemblance possible while also providing the images with a contemporary and photorealistic aesthetic.
@@firelight-vitality Thanks! I understand completely, and I'm a huge fan of your page...I'm up at all hours watching your videos! It's like crack for history buffs, lol! Keep up the good work. :)
I thought all of the recreations and reimagining were all spectacular but the one’s I thought were the best from the recreations was number 1 which is my favorite and then 6 and 3. From the reimagining number 6 and then 1 and 5. I enjoy your content!
I choose #3 on both. This one has been a little bit harder than the others. But only because of the hair color. She didn't have bright red hair. What books I've read that did describe her, which are very few, said her hair was a very light brown with reddish color. But I've not read a single one that said she had shockingly bright red hair. Am I being to picky?
Thank you for your message. In the only surviving portrait she has red hair. Both of her sons Arthur and Henry had red hair. Her mother, E. Woodville most probably had red hair too. As for the exact shade of red, to be honest it is impossible to control that in the current state of the AI technology.
Her mother Elizabeth Woodville is my 16th Great-grandmother, and her brother Thomas Grey 1st Marquess of Dorset is my 15th Great Grandfather his father was Sir John Grey my 16th Great Grandfather. So she is my 15th great aunt. I have been doing my family history for a while now and have been surprised at my family's amazing history. What I have learned is how connected all the nobility was to each other and how many royals and nobility I have in my own family.
@@firelight-vitality I would love to once I get it all figured out. I have traced back to Edward the III and his son John of Gaunt who was also my great grandfather. I am related to them through both my mother and father, which was actually a big surprise. That come about through Sir Hugh Vernon who married a woman on my father's side and his sister Anne Talbot who married a Corbet on my mother's side. It was all very over whelming at first and I thought I was being pranked for a while, but I did all the research and have double triple and quadrupled checked my sources and it is all correct. Even though I did not set out looking for royalty or nobility it was there and some of my family did not believe it. I told them that we are related to who we are related to, and it does not mean that any of us are getting a title, castle or treasure, it just means that these were the lucky people who had our respective grandparents before either dying from the plague or in battle or executed! It has been an amazing trip through my family history and also very humbling.
In the only surviving portrait she has red hair. Both of her sons Arthur and Henry had red hair. Her mother, E. Woodville most probably had red hair too.
The problem is with the style of the original painting. For some reason the sitters in those days were painted to look like very ‘dull’ individuals. Elizabeth of York was no doubt a beautiful woman but was like so many, not portrayed as such. I think no 6.
You have raised a valid and insightful observation. We also share the view that portraits from a certain period often depict the sitters in a somewhat static and lifeless manner, resembling religious icons. In light of this, we have made a deliberate choice to introduce re-imaginings and re-creations in our presentations. This decision stems from our desire to breathe new life into these artworks and present alternative perspectives that showcase the subjects with more dynamism and vitality.
I choose 3 as recreation and number 6 for re-imagining. What I do find missing, is her little puff of fat under her chin and more hooded eyes. Also her lips were thin, another common British feature. A thin bottom lip with next to very little upper lip. Those slight changes would have given number a much more authentic representation of the portrait. And no, being of British decent, smilling only emphasizes the thinner lips and fat pad under the chin. Hooded eyes and that small fat pad under the chin is actually a dominant genetic thing, found in many northern European countries. Like hooded eyes, this slight fatty deposit under the chin served a function purpose. It maintained insulation of the eyes and throat. This is thought to be attractive back in history and it is estimated to be a generic mutation during the ice age. Anything that gives a person a better or higher survival rate usually got added in as part of the beauty standard. Today, which I think is stupid, that having this nature slight bit of fat under the chin or hooded eyes are considered unsightly. Even thin women who workout cannot eliminate this fat deposit because it is genetic. I mean unless they become unnaturally thin maybe but maybe not reduce the fat under the chinb and dose nothing for hooded eyes. Many women have needlessly have had surgery to remove it and/or have surgies to lessen their hooded eyes and make their lips fuller. This is ridiculous practice and one shouldn't fall for an unnatural appearance of their long-established genetics. All in all, I appreciate the time and thought that went into making this video.🎉 I chose #3 and #6, but the real question still is and will forever be: "Who is Number 1?" 🎶⚪️🎶
They're all beautiful. I do wish we knew what all historical figures looked like.. sigh....it's kind of fun nit knowing. It allows our imaginations to run wild. Out of the first set I'd pick 1 and 3 Second set ....I just can't choose!! I'll say 1 thru 5! Lol. Thanks
That's a great question. Re-creation of portraits of historical figures: A re-creation of a historical figure's portrait involves the attempt to replicate the original artwork with a high degree of accuracy. This can include reproducing the composition, style, and details of the original piece, often using the same or similar techniques employed by the original artist. The goal is to create a faithful replica that captures the likeness and essence of the historical figure as portrayed in the original artwork. Re-imagining of portraits of historical figures: A re-imagining of a historical figure's portrait, in this context, refers to taking creative liberties and presenting a new interpretation of the individual. It involves reinterpreting the subject's appearance, context, or symbolism, potentially incorporating elements that weren't present in the original artwork. The goal is to provide a fresh perspective on the historical figure, possibly bringing in modern sensibilities or alternative viewpoints. In the case of re-imagining historical figure portraits, artists may introduce stylistic changes, incorporate different cultural references, or even depict the figure in a completely new artistic style altogether. The emphasis is on offering a unique artistic vision rather than adhering strictly to historical accuracy. Ultimately, the distinction between re-creation and re-imagining in the context of historical figure portraits lies in the extent to which the artist aims to replicate the original work versus exploring new artistic possibilities and interpretations.
@@firelight-vitality thank you so much for the very detailed and well described reply… I’m so happy I asked this question and I am very pleased that you answered it!
They are all lovely, but I thought the portrait presented a heavier woman than those produced by ai. The portrait as a slight double chin, a feature absent in all the ai renderings.
Paintings of that time seem to all be very frumpy and possibly very unlike the sitter’s actual looks. None of them seem human. The only one that painted exactly what he saw was Hans Holbein the younger. His paintings are very real. Having said all that I go with no 6
None of them looked like the painting to me. All were much prettier. The first couple looked like Eleanor Tomilson as Demelza in Poldark. In the painting she looked very homely and much older than 37 which is what she was when she died.
4 and 6 are the closest to her face. But the original was chubby. A little fat. Like Henry 8th would become. Still beautiful. Fat doesn't cancel her beauty.
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
We bring you an exciting new feature in our video series: the re-imagining of historical figures. With this new feature, we aim to push the boundaries of artistic expression and invite you to join us on this journey. The re-imagining of historical figures provides a unique opportunity to present these iconic personalities through a contemporary lens, offering fresh perspectives and inviting dialogue. What do you think?
They are all extremely beautiful, but number one for both gets my vote.
Thank you, Susan. Your opinion is always spot on. Do you think we should do more re-imaginings?
@@firelight-vitality Thanks. Yes you could do.
Okay, after reviewing all 12 images...here are my votes: For best recreation I'm going with #3. For best re-imagining, I like #1. I like the arch of her brow and her somewhat defiant expression...very similar to re-creation #6.
Wonderful, thank you. Your vote has been counted.
Recreation no 1. Reimagining no 2. But they’re all beautifully done. I love your work and style.
Thank you, Sean!
Jacquetta and Richard Woodville, Elizabeth of York's maternal grandparents, were described as the best-looking couple of their generation. Re-imagining number 2 takes into consideration the hint of a double chin that appears in the traditional portrait of Elizabeth of York. Some accounts indicate that Elizabeth of York was buxom. She was not the raving beauty her mother was, but she was definitely attractive. Henry VIII, through his mother, inherited Edward IV's good looks and athletic build. I believe that Henry VIII's red hair was a legacy of his Tudor heritage.
The cousin’s war has always been a fascinating topic to me, I don’t know why. I’ve consumed so much information and media about it. I’m particularly drawn to Elizabeth Woodville and her daughter, Elizabeth of York, so this video was so touching to me somehow. Like seeing old friends. Thanks.
Poor Elizabeth was stripped of all she owned and shut up in a convent by her son-in-law Henry VII after he caught her trying to help her son regain the throne. You won't read that in More, Shakespeare, or here, but that is what actually happened. Henry was so smitten with Elizabeth Jr. that he may have refrained from killing her brothers when both were caught trying to put the house of York back on the throne.
You won't read that here. Try having a look at some of the more recent research.
I have noticed that many people who were reputed to be handsome or beautiful do not appear to be in their original portraits… Is this because we have different standards of beauty these days? I must add that most of your re-creations and re-imaginings are quite lovely by our standards, even though they may have been described as plain by their contemporaries. 😮
You seem incredibly observant, and I would like to express my gratitude for your message. One of the primary reasons we established this channel is to address the "problem" you mentioned. The individuals depicted in these paintings, sketches, and drawings often appear lifeless and distant. However, with the latest advancements in AI technology, we recognized an opportunity to breathe life into these images. Personally, I find it somewhat foolish to aim for a recreation of the person with 100% accuracy, as portrayed in the portraits, as it tends to result in an odd and unnatural appearance. The situation becomes even more absurd when these recreations are made to open their mouths and speak. Our objective here is to achieve the closest resemblance possible while also providing the images with a contemporary and photorealistic aesthetic.
@@firelight-vitality Thanks! I understand completely, and I'm a huge fan of your page...I'm up at all hours watching your videos! It's like crack for history buffs, lol! Keep up the good work. :)
@@Tamster57 Glad you enjoy them!
I would so love to see a recreation of Elizabeth’s mother, Elizabeth Woodville. There’s much debate on her appearance.
Tamster57 I completely agree. These interpretations of this woman would have made her perceived as plain county woman back then.
I thought all of the recreations and reimagining were all spectacular but the one’s I thought were the best from the recreations was number 1 which is my favorite and then 6 and 3. From the reimagining number 6 and then 1 and 5. I enjoy your content!
I choose #3 on both. This one has been a little bit harder than the others. But only because of the hair color. She didn't have bright red hair. What books I've read that did describe her, which are very few, said her hair was a very light brown with reddish color. But I've not read a single one that said she had shockingly bright red hair. Am I being to picky?
Thank you for your message. In the only surviving portrait she has red hair. Both of her sons Arthur and Henry had red hair. Her mother, E. Woodville most probably had red hair too. As for the exact shade of red, to be honest it is impossible to control that in the current state of the AI technology.
Her mother Elizabeth Woodville is my 16th Great-grandmother, and her brother Thomas Grey 1st Marquess of Dorset is my 15th Great Grandfather his father was Sir John Grey my 16th Great Grandfather. So she is my 15th great aunt. I have been doing my family history for a while now and have been surprised at my family's amazing history. What I have learned is how connected all the nobility was to each other and how many royals and nobility I have in my own family.
That's fascinating to hear. Why don't you share your family history o YT?
@@firelight-vitality I would love to once I get it all figured out. I have traced back to Edward the III and his son John of Gaunt who was also my great grandfather. I am related to them through both my mother and father, which was actually a big surprise. That come about through Sir Hugh Vernon who married a woman on my father's side and his sister Anne Talbot who married a Corbet on my mother's side. It was all very over whelming at first and I thought I was being pranked for a while, but I did all the research and have double triple and quadrupled checked my sources and it is all correct. Even though I did not set out looking for royalty or nobility it was there and some of my family did not believe it. I told them that we are related to who we are related to, and it does not mean that any of us are getting a title, castle or treasure, it just means that these were the lucky people who had our respective grandparents before either dying from the plague or in battle or executed! It has been an amazing trip through my family history and also very humbling.
#3 for the 1st part and #6 for reimaginings
Thank you.
First set # 2 , second #5.
Thanks, Raquel.
Recreation #3 is my pick
Thank you, Sunrima.
I chose re- image #4 of the second picture and of the first portrait I chose #3
Thank you, Laura.
1 for both
Thanks, Aimee.
didn't she have more blondish hair.
In the only surviving portrait she has red hair. Both of her sons Arthur and Henry had red hair. Her mother, E. Woodville most probably had red hair too.
You are probably thinking of the actress in the White Princess who has blonde hair.
Recreation no 6 and reimagining no 5 are my favorites. They look so regal
Recreation #4
Reimagining #1
Thanks, Mayln.
The problem is with the style of the original painting. For some reason the sitters in those days were painted to look like very ‘dull’ individuals. Elizabeth of York was no doubt a beautiful woman but was like so many, not portrayed as such. I think no 6.
You have raised a valid and insightful observation. We also share the view that portraits from a certain period often depict the sitters in a somewhat static and lifeless manner, resembling religious icons. In light of this, we have made a deliberate choice to introduce re-imaginings and re-creations in our presentations. This decision stems from our desire to breathe new life into these artworks and present alternative perspectives that showcase the subjects with more dynamism and vitality.
They are all beautiful. I dig 6 reimanage
I choose 3 as recreation and number 6 for re-imagining.
What I do find missing, is her little puff of fat under her chin and more hooded eyes. Also her lips were thin, another common British feature. A thin bottom lip with next to very little upper lip.
Those slight changes would have given number a much more authentic representation of the portrait. And no, being of British decent, smilling only emphasizes the thinner lips and fat pad under the chin.
Hooded eyes and that small fat pad under the chin is actually a dominant genetic thing, found in many northern European countries.
Like hooded eyes, this slight fatty deposit under the chin served a function purpose. It maintained insulation of the eyes and throat.
This is thought to be attractive back in history and it is estimated to be a generic mutation during the ice age.
Anything that gives a person a better or higher survival rate usually got added in as part of the beauty standard.
Today, which I think is stupid, that having this nature slight bit of fat under the chin or hooded eyes are considered unsightly.
Even thin women who workout cannot eliminate this fat deposit because it is genetic. I mean unless they become unnaturally thin maybe but maybe not reduce the fat under the chinb and dose nothing for hooded eyes.
Many women have needlessly have had surgery to remove it and/or have surgies to lessen their hooded eyes and make their lips fuller.
This is ridiculous practice and one shouldn't fall for an unnatural appearance of their long-established genetics.
All in all, I appreciate the time and thought that went into making this video.🎉
I chose #3 and #6, but the real question still is and will forever be:
"Who is Number 1?"
🎶⚪️🎶
They're all beautiful. I do wish we knew what all historical figures looked like.. sigh....it's kind of fun nit knowing. It allows our imaginations to run wild.
Out of the first set I'd pick 1 and 3
Second set ....I just can't choose!! I'll say 1 thru 5! Lol.
Thanks
Just so I know… What is the difference between a re-creation and a reimagining?
That's a great question.
Re-creation of portraits of historical figures:
A re-creation of a historical figure's portrait involves the attempt to replicate the original artwork with a high degree of accuracy. This can include reproducing the composition, style, and details of the original piece, often using the same or similar techniques employed by the original artist. The goal is to create a faithful replica that captures the likeness and essence of the historical figure as portrayed in the original artwork.
Re-imagining of portraits of historical figures:
A re-imagining of a historical figure's portrait, in this context, refers to taking creative liberties and presenting a new interpretation of the individual. It involves reinterpreting the subject's appearance, context, or symbolism, potentially incorporating elements that weren't present in the original artwork. The goal is to provide a fresh perspective on the historical figure, possibly bringing in modern sensibilities or alternative viewpoints.
In the case of re-imagining historical figure portraits, artists may introduce stylistic changes, incorporate different cultural references, or even depict the figure in a completely new artistic style altogether. The emphasis is on offering a unique artistic vision rather than adhering strictly to historical accuracy.
Ultimately, the distinction between re-creation and re-imagining in the context of historical figure portraits lies in the extent to which the artist aims to replicate the original work versus exploring new artistic possibilities and interpretations.
@@firelight-vitality thank you so much for the very detailed and well described reply… I’m so happy I asked this question and I am very pleased that you answered it!
Number 1
Thank you.
They are all remarkably life like and look like her. The one that looks the most is1.
recreation 4 and reimagining 5!! ;)
All these images left me thinking Sophie Turner could play a very resembling Elizabeth Woodville or Elizabeth of York
Elizabeth of York sure was a beautiful woman
And this imagining of Richard looks like either Sam Claffin or Tom Hiddleston a lot 2:21
3!!!
3
Thanks, Christine.
Four for both.
They are all lovely, but I thought the portrait presented a heavier woman than those produced by ai. The portrait as a slight double chin, a feature absent in all the ai renderings.
They are all great but #1 is the best in my opinion.
She was real royalty ❤almost lost in history ❤guided to her own glory and fame and fortune
Paintings of that time seem to all be very frumpy and possibly very unlike the sitter’s actual looks. None of them seem human. The only one that painted exactly what he saw was Hans Holbein the younger. His paintings are very real. Having said all that I go with no 6
None of them looked like the painting to me. All were much prettier. The first couple looked like Eleanor Tomilson as Demelza in Poldark. In the painting she looked very homely and much older than 37 which is what she was when she died.
Her eyes were lighter hazel. Somewhat shorter❤ than what’s was said❤
#4 and #4.
Recreation 2 and 4
I thought she was a blonde like her mom and grandma jaquetta
Number four
#3 for first #4 second
4 and 6 are the closest to her face. But the original was chubby. A little fat. Like Henry 8th would become. Still beautiful. Fat doesn't cancel her beauty.
6
Her hair was much fairer!!!
Where is AI getting that jaw line lol. None of them.
What's bothering you about the jaw line?
You know you are talking to AI, right?
I’d say 4 but fuller n the cheeks and rounder face. ❤
Good looks?💀
Remember, they wore VERY subtle makeup back then, almost none...so, no fake lashes and contouring.