She looks pregnant to all my sisters and myself and among us four, have had scores of kids. Two of my sisters are higher education, British history experts, one, in all things Tudor, another a renown international artist, “painter”, we all agree, pregnant. Your presentation is ACES and giving us so much more food for thought on the subject, thank you. Maybe we are all mistaken on our belief, but the monarch certainly could have produced a child. It seems unlikely to us, she wouldn’t, especially since she was unmarried and virtually alone. QEI, mastered all her surroundings, people and power, seems QEI, ordained by God would want a child of her blood, even, if only a companion child for her, but never expected for a throne. QEI has been studied to earths ends and back. but have all the children in court been 100% verified and what they were bestowed in life? Seems odd to us that QEI would appear in an hugely oversized garment, especially in the area above the hips, since ladies of that period were flat corseted. Of my sisters, I create period garments, including Elizabethan dresses and undergarments, i.e., corsets. According to the style of her time, a very, very flat silhouette, tummy and bust was the goal, to obsession, of the ladies, even while being pregnant, (except during the last trimester), where a belly bump was a little freer. That being said, us sisters will have to research further, more paintings, drawings, etchings, her wardrobe manufactures garment lists and heavily pregnant royals of that period. Regardless, we are having great fun speculating about her dress here. One thing is for sure, her hairdresser knew! This link below maybe of interest to some. www.elizabethancostume.net/corsets/history.html
Another well presented, perfectly narrated presentation of a beguiling and intriguing mystery surrounding Elizabeth I. Thank you for sharing your research David. :)
This portrait was not known as ‘Elizabeth 1’. The portrait is stamped on the back as belonging to Charles 1, a noted collector, and was known for a time as a portrait of ‘Queen Elizabeth’. Despite a firm identification of the artist as Marcus Gheeraerts, and a speculative dating of c. 1600, the portrait has no known provenance before 1625. You should consider the possibility that the picture is of Queen Elizabeth Stuart, Winter Queen of Bohemia, surrounded by alchemical and Rosicrucian symbols. She was the daughter of James 1 and the much loved elder sister of Charles 1. She is an ancestor of our present Queen, but seems to have been forgotten in England. She is still lovingly remembered in Heidelberg.
Hello Jane, Many thanks for your comment. That's an interesting take on it. I have looked at many paintings of Elizabeth Stuart and I must say I don't see any likeness. I assume you have looked at my earlier presentations on the painting and the analysis of the poem. There seems to me a great deal of circumstantial evidence pointing to the painting being an allegory of Elizabeth 1st. So I think we will have to differ on that one. Kind regards David
Queen Elizabeth 1 has only been called ‘the first’ since the second Q E came to the throne, so anyone labeling the painting as Queen Elizabeth could well have meant the English one! I’ll have to look up your Heidelberg queen though - thank you for adding to the mystery!
@@MsDormy Dear Ms Dormy, You might be interested in Frances Yates’ book ‘The Rosicrucian Enlightenment’ and more recent work by Nadine Akkerman. Kind regards, Jane
@@davidshakespeare1767 Dear David, It must be said there is not much likeness to Elizabeth Tudor either! However, a comparison of the young face of the ‘unknown woman’ with Gheeraerts portrait of the 17 year old Princess Elizabeth Stuart before her engagement to Frederick the Elector Palatine in 1612 shows the likeness. Since Gheerarts is not known to have travelled to the Netherlands in the early to mid 1620s, it is possible that the painting was commissioned as a gift for Queen Henrietta and that the artist used his earlier cartoon sketch for the face. Kind regards, Jane
Hello Janet, thanks for your kind comments. Funnily enough i did contact Philip Mould and received no reply. The keeper of pictures at Hampton Court Palace did not respond to several emails and personal letters. They will not engage over the painting. Kind regards David
My opinion of the painting they are not the same portrait, at the Rotchchilds this is a copy her dress is completely different, she has a waist, the high lights on the dress is much brighter than the original, the lighter the closer the image come towards you, her face is not the same, my opinion only.
Hello there, Thanks for your comment. Our problem here is that I have to take part of an image on an old photograph and then distort it back to a rectangle. That's the best I could do. I agree there are differences, but eh composition is the same and people who saw it commented that it was the same subject as in Hampton Court. If only we could find the original!..regards David
Even allowing for distortion via Photoshop reconstruction (what a clever technique!), the Tring portrait definitely seems to show much darker hair, eyes & even complexion than the extant version of the painting, although there's clearly a very significant link between the two? The shape of the gown in the Tring photo differs notably around the waist & hip area, too. To me, those variances suggest at least two interesting possibilities - there's probably more: A) As @Sue Mount speculates elsewhere in this comment section, could one of the Tring families have commissioned a painting "in the style of" the original Diana painting, but featuring a different sitter, either a real person or an imagined exoticised woman to match the gown? (With the copyist then going a bit off piste in places, eg with the pattern of the skirt flowers!) B) Could our extant version of the work have been even more extensively "retouched" than we think, in the years since the Tring photo was taken, resulting in alteration to shape of gown at the waist as well as to the face & hair of the sitter...? It's clear that there's been really drastic amounts of amendment elsewhere on the canvas, so this wouldn't seem to be out of the realm of possibility? It'd be absolutely fascinating to see a full xray and UV scan done on the portrait, to search for layering & alterations in those areas, as well as in all the other clearly-amended spaces you identified in your two really interesting videos!
@@davidshakespeare1767 @Anna_ in_Aotearoa I agree the painting techniques of this period was egg tempura, this means the pigments were transparent, glazing in layers was the technique, the artist could painted using black and white pigment, and then glazed unlike to days oil paint which is opaque, semi transparent and fully transparent, using opaque paint is how they would cover or change a painting today, egg tempura is much more unforgiving, like water colours you would see the layer under neath so accuracy was essential, also painting directly onto a wooden panel limited the sizes of paintings done at the period.
I have to admit that at first I watched your first two videos out of sheer curiosity. I doubted there was much, if any, validity to your theory. But as I watched on you've made such a compelling case that I went from skeptic to strangely hopeful that you're right. I don't even know why, I just do. There's something oddly romantic about the idea. Also, I'd love to see recreations of what both paintings in this set might've looked like together, but I fear that would require too much artistic speculation. A shame, really...
Thank you David ! Love your research ! Have you had any luck finding the painting of Edward Vere the son of ( Shakespeare} the 17 th Earl of Oxford and Ann Vavasor ? Its in Denmark ?
I read about it when I googled him he was living with relatives and in the military there he was every bit the genius as his father when he wasn't in military duty he was translating literary works he was very poor and he had to be in the military to survive
Hello Lenore, Thanks for reminding me. There is an excellent summary of his life in The History of Parliament on line at histparl.ac.uk. He was taken under the wing of Horace Vere, Edward's cousin and was in the military with him in the Netherlands. He was shot in the back of the head in 1629. The piece says that there is a painting of him in the possession of the Townshend family at Raynham in Norfolk, nothing about Denmark though. Kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 thank you David Norfolk that sounds right can you find the portrait it sounds so exciting being a single mom whose father abandoned us I feel such sympathy for this neglected out of wedlock son who had some of his father's genius !! I will see if I can read about him too
Dear David, I noticed that with your use of the warp tool in Photoshop and the consequent resizing of the painting you didn't take perspective into consideration. As the painting in the photograph is seen from an angle on the right hand side, the width is foreshortened, making the painting seem narrower than it actually is and therefore noticeably wider in reality when viewed from the front than the Hampton Court Palace painting. It's unlikely that any correction of the perspective will reveal more than you've already brought to light, but it will make a difference to the process of overlaying the two works for comparison. Just a thought.
Hello Penelope, Thank you very much for your observation. My error in reporting what I did. I went back and did the manipulation again and what I had done is to select the picture frame, then put in four guidelines. I then used the Distort tool to correct the image to a long thin rectangle. Lastly I then corrected this to the correct proportions using the Size tool vertically and horizontally but independently. My reasoning was that the pixelated data was all there I was just rearranging them within the plane of my digital image. No gain of information in the process. As the paintings were different sizes I then adjusted them so that the subject was the same size in each. Does that make sense? Kind regards David
The tring portraits face is different than the Hampton court version The width at bust level is different smaller on the tring compared to the Hampton painting the tring lady has a Gainsborough era looking face almost. Perhaps the portrait was for the family who owned the house done in the style of the Hampton court portrait just a thought
I'm really glad you flagged this, as the presenter unfortunately seemed to completely skip over it in his detail analysis...? Although there are strong similarities, the shape, hairstyle and haircolour of the Tring portrait are amongst the features which seem extremely different to me - looks like a much younger subject with dark hair and less porcelain-pale skin. The styling of the garment is different too, although the decoration's similar; much more cinched at the waist. Your suggestion that they might have had a copy made "in the style of" is really fascinating! Perhaps featuring a family member, emphasizing their supposed virtue by inserting them into the Diana myth? Or perhaps, depending on attitudes at the time, replacing the very European subject of the Hampton picture with a more 'exoticised' figure to match the Eastern-style robe...? Or to be far more controversial: Are we sure the Elizabeth-resembling face on the Hampton portrait is what the artist originally painted? Or is this another area that's been extensively overpainted? It feels like all discussion is really purely speculative until the work has been thoroughly xrayed, and viewed under UV light!
@@anna_in_aotearoa3166 I agree to see a proper evaluation would be fascinating especially in the light of your question re the Hampton portrait. It’s a very thought provoking set of questions isn’t it.
This robe reminds.me.of a robe that is hanging in a church in England and is claimed to be the only surviving article of clothing from Q Elizabeth. Sorry, I don't remember the name of the church.
th-cam.com/video/mjai9PoRMo8/w-d-xo.html This is what you are talking about, I believe. You are right, it is so very similar, interestingly enough the garment in the portrait looks big enough to be turned into an alter covering.
@@jei-el2139 thank you for sharing this video! I don't believe the dress is the same on in this portrait we are discussing though. So nice to know others who share my interests! 😀
This is an interesting find! Is there any date range for this painting or any possible artist? and can it be definitely ruled out that it is the original? I'm still not in any way convinced that this is Elizabeth (because the Hampton Court painting doesn't look like her - Elizabeth had frizzy red hair, a jutting lower lip/chin, bump in noseline, distinctive cheekbone and brow ridge, hollow eye sockets with heavy eyelids, shaven/missing eyebrows and a rounded chin: the 'portrait of unknown lady' has none of the above, has long wavy dark hair, and unlike Elizabeth haa a heart-shaped face and sweet appealing expression ) . Neither do I think there is evidence of pregnancy. The methodolgy used is similar to conspiracy theory methodology which contructs an appealing narrative - this being an evolved tendency in human thought - but leaves out the corrective of robust critical testing. I'm much enjoying this intriguing little puzzle and appreciate the detailed sources and references which are helpful to anyone who wants to tackle it. There are other sources which I'll bring to bear asap.
I'm not sure if this is Elizabeth myself, but nor am I surprised the subject was identified as such for so many years. After all, the painting everyone identifies as Phillip Marlow isn't him either. However, I do think the subject, whoever she is, is depicted as possibly pregnant. Not definitively. It's strongly hinted. That impression just isn't a mistake. The artist is too good. It is an allegorical painting, filled with symbolism including the severed branch. The Latin inscriptions and the poem are all about loss, and it's easy to read that as filial loss. I agree with you that the Oxfordians, and the other weird and wonderful Shakespeare conspiracists, are all too willing to construct dizzying narratives that would strain the credibility of a Dan Brown novel. (Not long ago people were digging in Newfoundland to find Shakespeare's original manuscripts and, wait for it, the Ark of the Covenant, based on clues they thought they'd found in the typography and text of the first folio). I would love to know what this odd painting is about, who commissioned it and why, but alas, we will almost certainly never know. It would be fun if the copy turned up!
I would LOVE to see a full comparison between the two paintings, the differences so clearly visible from the photograph tantalize so much, only to be foiled by a broken thread. I do hope it comes to light.🖤🇨🇦
Could it be a mosque in the background? The poppies, pods and seeds in the dress, mention of pain... Could there have been an affair with an Islamic elite?
I don't think so. There were strong links with the Ottoman Empire at the time, with exchanges of gifts. This might explain the headdress and veil. The other thing is that most mosques have at east one minaret. regards David
Very interesting. Thank you. Can I ask? Is your name really Shakespeare or is that an alias? And of you are a Shakespeare do you have a family connection with any of this? Apologies if you have covered this elsewhere.
Hello Heath, Yes it is my real name, our family can be traced back to the main branch of Shakspers in Rowington and from there to the earliest references to the Shakspers in Warwickshire soon after the Norman invasion. William Shaksper was also part of this line. After finishing doing my family tree I decided to take a closer look at William from Stratford and became convinced that he was not the author. I still live near Stratford upon Avon and as an orthopaedic surgeon I used to to do regular clinics I the town, the first of which was on an April 1st. regards David
Have you considered that one painting is an old fake.? Not made to fool anyone that it is the original but made to sell to make money. True forgers often "find" another painting of a series that may not have ever existed but one painting gives the "clue" that other similar paintings may exist . .. and so gives the forger a hook to sell his fake. He is not making an exact copy just a similar painting by the same artist.
Hello there, Yes I think you are right. I suspect that the painting was copied when it was lost to the Monarchy after the Civil War. There may well have been a market for these to be "rediscovered" at a later date. From what I can see from the rather poor image is that the detailing of the Tring painting is no where near as good, so this was the copy. regards David
Hello again, I forgot to mention that I have posted a further presentation on the Tring Painting which takes the story a stage further. It is called Update on the Pregnancy portrait. Regards David.
Love your voice! The content is fascinating, but honestly I could listen to you read the phone book lol
She looks pregnant to all my sisters and myself and among us four, have had scores of kids. Two of my sisters are higher education, British history experts, one, in all things Tudor, another a renown international artist, “painter”, we all agree, pregnant. Your presentation is ACES and giving us so much more food for thought on the subject, thank you. Maybe we are all mistaken on our belief, but the monarch certainly could have produced a child. It seems unlikely to us, she wouldn’t, especially since she was unmarried and virtually alone. QEI, mastered all her surroundings, people and power, seems QEI, ordained by God would want a child of her blood, even, if only a companion child for her, but never expected for a throne. QEI has been studied to earths ends and back. but have all the children in court been 100% verified and what they were bestowed in life? Seems odd to us that QEI would appear in an hugely oversized garment, especially in the area above the hips, since ladies of that period were flat corseted. Of my sisters, I create period garments, including Elizabethan dresses and undergarments, i.e., corsets. According to the style of her time, a very, very flat silhouette, tummy and bust was the goal, to obsession, of the ladies, even while being pregnant, (except during the last trimester), where a belly bump was a little freer. That being said, us sisters will have to research further, more paintings, drawings, etchings, her wardrobe manufactures garment lists and heavily pregnant royals of that period. Regardless, we are having great fun speculating about her dress here. One thing is for sure, her hairdresser knew! This link below maybe of interest to some. www.elizabethancostume.net/corsets/history.html
Fascinating!!! Thank you so much for your post!!
Another well presented, perfectly narrated presentation of a beguiling and intriguing mystery surrounding Elizabeth I. Thank you for sharing your research David. :)
Thanks Lauren, I am glad you are enjoying it. Your support makes all the work worthwhile Kind regards David
The plot thickens
This portrait was not known as ‘Elizabeth 1’. The portrait is stamped on the back as belonging to Charles 1, a noted collector, and was known for a time as a portrait of ‘Queen Elizabeth’. Despite a firm identification of the artist as Marcus Gheeraerts, and a speculative dating of c. 1600, the portrait has no known provenance before 1625. You should consider the possibility that the picture is of Queen Elizabeth Stuart, Winter Queen of Bohemia, surrounded by alchemical and Rosicrucian symbols. She was the daughter of James 1 and the much loved elder sister of Charles 1. She is an ancestor of our present Queen, but seems to have been forgotten in England. She is still lovingly remembered in Heidelberg.
Hello Jane, Many thanks for your comment. That's an interesting take on it. I have looked at many paintings of Elizabeth Stuart and I must say I don't see any likeness.
I assume you have looked at my earlier presentations on the painting and the analysis of the poem. There seems to me a great deal of circumstantial evidence pointing to the painting being an allegory of Elizabeth 1st. So I think we will have to differ on that one.
Kind regards David
Queen Elizabeth 1 has only been called ‘the first’ since the second Q E came to the throne, so anyone labeling the painting as Queen Elizabeth could well have meant the English one! I’ll have to look up your Heidelberg queen though - thank you for adding to the mystery!
@@MsDormy Dear Ms Dormy, You might be interested in Frances Yates’ book ‘The Rosicrucian Enlightenment’ and more recent work by Nadine Akkerman. Kind regards, Jane
@@davidshakespeare1767 Dear David, It must be said there is not much likeness to Elizabeth Tudor either! However, a comparison of the young face of the ‘unknown woman’ with Gheeraerts portrait of the 17 year old Princess Elizabeth Stuart before her engagement to Frederick the Elector Palatine in 1612 shows the likeness. Since Gheerarts is not known to have travelled to the Netherlands in the early to mid 1620s, it is possible that the painting was commissioned as a gift for Queen Henrietta and that the artist used his earlier cartoon sketch for the face. Kind regards, Jane
Very impressed with the detail and overall quality of your work---
Thank you. That makes it all worthwhile. regards David
Another fascinating presentation and so well researched. Have you thought of involving the help of Philip Mould of Fake or Fortune? Just a thought!
Hello Janet, thanks for your kind comments. Funnily enough i did contact Philip Mould and received no reply. The keeper of pictures at Hampton Court Palace did not respond to several emails and personal letters. They will not engage over the painting. Kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 wow... That's really telling imo.
9:28 "Goodness knows what they were supposed to be talking about?"
Premature entombment. (Sorry, couldn't resist)..
My opinion of the painting they are not the same portrait, at the Rotchchilds this is a copy her dress is completely different, she has a waist, the high lights on the dress is much brighter than the original, the lighter the closer the image come towards you, her face is not the same, my opinion only.
I agree the face is not the same
Hello there, Thanks for your comment. Our problem here is that I have to take part of an image on an old photograph and then distort it back to a rectangle. That's the best I could do. I agree there are differences, but eh composition is the same and people who saw it commented that it was the same subject as in Hampton Court. If only we could find the original!..regards David
Even allowing for distortion via Photoshop reconstruction (what a clever technique!), the Tring portrait definitely seems to show much darker hair, eyes & even complexion than the extant version of the painting, although there's clearly a very significant link between the two? The shape of the gown in the Tring photo differs notably around the waist & hip area, too. To me, those variances suggest at least two interesting possibilities - there's probably more:
A) As @Sue Mount speculates elsewhere in this comment section, could one of the Tring families have commissioned a painting "in the style of" the original Diana painting, but featuring a different sitter, either a real person or an imagined exoticised woman to match the gown? (With the copyist then going a bit off piste in places, eg with the pattern of the skirt flowers!)
B) Could our extant version of the work have been even more extensively "retouched" than we think, in the years since the Tring photo was taken, resulting in alteration to shape of gown at the waist as well as to the face & hair of the sitter...? It's clear that there's been really drastic amounts of amendment elsewhere on the canvas, so this wouldn't seem to be out of the realm of possibility?
It'd be absolutely fascinating to see a full xray and UV scan done on the portrait, to search for layering & alterations in those areas, as well as in all the other clearly-amended spaces you identified in your two really interesting videos!
@@davidshakespeare1767 @Anna_ in_Aotearoa I agree the painting techniques of this period was egg tempura, this means the pigments were transparent, glazing in layers was the technique, the artist could painted using black and white pigment, and then glazed unlike to days oil paint which is opaque, semi transparent and fully transparent, using opaque paint is how they would cover or change a painting today, egg tempura is much more unforgiving, like water colours you would see the layer under neath so accuracy was essential, also painting directly onto a wooden panel limited the sizes of paintings done at the period.
I have to admit that at first I watched your first two videos out of sheer curiosity. I doubted there was much, if any, validity to your theory. But as I watched on you've made such a compelling case that I went from skeptic to strangely hopeful that you're right. I don't even know why, I just do.
There's something oddly romantic about the idea. Also, I'd love to see recreations of what both paintings in this set might've looked like together, but I fear that would require too much artistic speculation. A shame, really...
Thank you David ! Love your research ! Have you had any luck finding the painting of Edward Vere the son of ( Shakespeare} the 17 th Earl of Oxford and Ann Vavasor ? Its in Denmark ?
Lenore Jones: Could you offer the basis for your claim that a portrait of Sir Edward Vere exists in Denmark?
I read about it when I googled him he was living with relatives and in the military there he was every bit the genius as his father when he wasn't in military duty he was translating literary works he was very poor and he had to be in the military to survive
Hello Lenore, Thanks for reminding me. There is an excellent summary of his life in The History of Parliament on line at histparl.ac.uk. He was taken under the wing of Horace Vere, Edward's cousin and was in the military with him in the Netherlands. He was shot in the back of the head in 1629. The piece says that there is a painting of him in the possession of the Townshend family at Raynham in Norfolk, nothing about Denmark though. Kind regards David
@@davidshakespeare1767 thank you David Norfolk that sounds right can you find the portrait it sounds so exciting being a single mom whose father abandoned us I feel such sympathy for this neglected out of wedlock son who had some of his father's genius !! I will see if I can read about him too
Thank you very much 🤗
Your researches have me wondering if perhaps Sonnet Nos. 153 & 154 are connected to Diana's Grove.
I'm wondering if there are any clues in Henry Guy's ancestry?
Dear David, I noticed that with your use of the warp tool in Photoshop and the consequent resizing of the painting you didn't take perspective into consideration. As the painting in the photograph is seen from an angle on the right hand side, the width is foreshortened, making the painting seem narrower than it actually is and therefore noticeably wider in reality when viewed from the front than the Hampton Court Palace painting. It's unlikely that any correction of the perspective will reveal more than you've already brought to light, but it will make a difference to the process of overlaying the two works for comparison. Just a thought.
@@penelopecline4650 I love photoshop geeks!
Hello Penelope, Thank you very much for your observation. My error in reporting what I did. I went back and did the manipulation again and what I had done is to select the picture frame, then put in four guidelines. I then used the Distort tool to correct the image to a long thin rectangle. Lastly I then corrected this to the correct proportions using the Size tool vertically and horizontally but independently. My reasoning was that the pixelated data was all there I was just rearranging them within the plane of my digital image. No gain of information in the process. As the paintings were different sizes I then adjusted them so that the subject was the same size in each. Does that make sense? Kind regards David
Penelope Rich...?
The tring portraits face is different than the Hampton court version
The width at bust level is different smaller on the tring compared to the Hampton painting the tring lady has a Gainsborough era looking face almost. Perhaps the portrait was for the family who owned the house done in the style of the Hampton court portrait just a thought
I'm really glad you flagged this, as the presenter unfortunately seemed to completely skip over it in his detail analysis...? Although there are strong similarities, the shape, hairstyle and haircolour of the Tring portrait are amongst the features which seem extremely different to me - looks like a much younger subject with dark hair and less porcelain-pale skin. The styling of the garment is different too, although the decoration's similar; much more cinched at the waist.
Your suggestion that they might have had a copy made "in the style of" is really fascinating! Perhaps featuring a family member, emphasizing their supposed virtue by inserting them into the Diana myth? Or perhaps, depending on attitudes at the time, replacing the very European subject of the Hampton picture with a more 'exoticised' figure to match the Eastern-style robe...?
Or to be far more controversial: Are we sure the Elizabeth-resembling face on the Hampton portrait is what the artist originally painted? Or is this another area that's been extensively overpainted? It feels like all discussion is really purely speculative until the work has been thoroughly xrayed, and viewed under UV light!
@@anna_in_aotearoa3166 I agree to see a proper evaluation would be fascinating especially in the light of your question re the Hampton portrait. It’s a very thought provoking set of questions isn’t it.
This robe reminds.me.of a robe that is hanging in a church in England and is claimed to be the only surviving article of clothing from Q Elizabeth. Sorry, I don't remember the name of the church.
th-cam.com/video/mjai9PoRMo8/w-d-xo.html This is what you are talking about, I believe. You are right, it is so very similar, interestingly enough the garment in the portrait looks big enough to be turned into an alter covering.
@@jei-el2139 thank you for sharing this video! I don't believe the dress is the same on in this portrait we are discussing though. So nice to know others who share my interests! 😀
This is an interesting find! Is there any date range for this painting or any possible artist? and can it be definitely ruled out that it is the original? I'm still not in any way convinced that this is Elizabeth (because the Hampton Court painting doesn't look like her - Elizabeth had frizzy red hair, a jutting lower lip/chin, bump in noseline, distinctive cheekbone and brow ridge, hollow eye sockets with heavy eyelids, shaven/missing eyebrows and a rounded chin: the 'portrait of unknown lady' has none of the above, has long wavy dark hair, and unlike Elizabeth haa a heart-shaped face and sweet appealing expression ) . Neither do I think there is evidence of pregnancy. The methodolgy used is similar to conspiracy theory methodology which contructs an appealing narrative - this being an evolved tendency in human thought - but leaves out the corrective of robust critical testing. I'm much enjoying this intriguing little puzzle and appreciate the detailed sources and references which are helpful to anyone who wants to tackle it. There are other sources which I'll bring to bear asap.
I'm not sure if this is Elizabeth myself, but nor am I surprised the subject was identified as such for so many years.
After all, the painting everyone identifies as Phillip Marlow isn't him either. However, I do think the subject, whoever she is, is depicted as possibly pregnant. Not definitively. It's strongly hinted. That impression just isn't a mistake. The artist is too good.
It is an allegorical painting, filled with symbolism including the severed branch. The Latin inscriptions and the poem are all about loss, and it's easy to read that as filial loss.
I agree with you that the Oxfordians, and the other weird and wonderful Shakespeare conspiracists, are all too willing to construct dizzying narratives that would strain the credibility of a Dan Brown novel. (Not long ago people were digging in Newfoundland to find Shakespeare's original manuscripts and, wait for it, the Ark of the Covenant, based on clues they thought they'd found in the typography and text of the first folio).
I would love to know what this odd painting is about, who commissioned it and why, but alas, we will almost certainly never know. It would be fun if the copy turned up!
Wonderful
I believe this woman to be the queen she had a point to prove which was very important to her to be unmarried
Please see Alex Waughs video on Vertue -who seems to have known about Edward de DeVere being Shakespeare and De Veres possible blood link to QE1
Oh man....
I would LOVE to see a full comparison between the two paintings, the differences so clearly visible from the photograph tantalize so much, only to be foiled by a broken thread. I do hope it comes to light.🖤🇨🇦
It has been moved from Hampton court
Could it be a mosque in the background? The poppies, pods and seeds in the dress, mention of pain...
Could there have been an affair with an Islamic elite?
I don't think so. There were strong links with the Ottoman Empire at the time, with exchanges of gifts. This might explain the headdress and veil. The other thing is that most mosques have at east one minaret. regards David
Very interesting. Thank you. Can I ask? Is your name really Shakespeare or is that an alias? And of you are a Shakespeare do you have a family connection with any of this? Apologies if you have covered this elsewhere.
Hello Heath, Yes it is my real name, our family can be traced back to the main branch of Shakspers in Rowington and from there to the earliest references to the Shakspers in Warwickshire soon after the Norman invasion. William Shaksper was also part of this line. After finishing doing my family tree I decided to take a closer look at William from Stratford and became convinced that he was not the author. I still live near Stratford upon Avon and as an orthopaedic surgeon I used to to do regular clinics I the town, the first of which was on an April 1st. regards David
Have you considered that one painting is an old fake.? Not made to fool anyone that it is the original but made to sell to make money. True forgers often "find" another painting of a series that may not have ever existed but one painting gives the "clue" that other similar paintings may exist . .. and so gives the forger a hook to sell his fake. He is not making an exact copy just a similar painting by the same artist.
Hello there, Yes I think you are right. I suspect that the painting was copied when it was lost to the Monarchy after the Civil War. There may well have been a market for these to be "rediscovered" at a later date. From what I can see from the rather poor image is that the detailing of the Tring painting is no where near as good, so this was the copy. regards David
Thank you : )
As always, the presentation is excellent, & so very interesting.
Hi there, Many thanks for your support. Lots more to come!
Hello again, I forgot to mention that I have posted a further presentation on the Tring Painting which takes the story a stage further. It is called Update on the Pregnancy portrait. Regards David.