The amount of times i have been that building and never seen it . I used to go there every month for the Warwick and Warwick stamp auction . It is online now .
@@sleepCircle it doesn’t have to have been found in a Rich persons house for rich people who statistically have more art to want to make sure they don’t lose their purchased pieces to something like this. God why is TH-cam just full of troglodytes. This is why I stay on instagram. People at least have a brain over there. F****n boomers on TH-cam… should never have given you the internet. You weren’t raised with the faculties to handle it.
Well, I guess it can, only because the people that were looking for it and knew its significance didn't know where it was and the people who did know where it was, didn't know its significance and didn't know it was even being looked for.
@@gretchenortner I'm not all that sure people were looking for it though, just that it piqued the curiosity of an art historian. I'm guessing it was one of many copies of the famous Hans Holbein portrait of Henry VIII so while interesting it's not a portrait from life. It's probably exactly where it should be, one of many copies spread out around the country eg Ralph Sheldon commissioned them so he could have his own private gallery: it's still basically serving that purpose.
When the people who know what it is don’t know where it is it’s missing. There are stolen and gifted paintings in private collections all over the world that to all intents and purposes are missing, because they are treasures, with no record of their current location.
@@THEchiQ yeah, when someone says "missing" my first though is stolen or lost, that is someone had it and lost it, that's a pretty clear reference point, Here we're getting into weird questions of point of reference. My parents have a Rosa Bonheur water color painting (ie it's not one of the 118 oil paintings she did that would cause a lot of interest) in a very nice frame, so someone thought a lot of it at one time. My grandmother got it some how in London, my mom inherited it and now it sits above the fireplace where my dad lives. Is it missing? I suppose only four people know where it is now. But does anyone else care?
@@TheJhtlag it was lost in the way that they didnt have any idea of where the painting were and the council didnt knew that this painting was a rare original. Their's a painting which was considered lost until someone realised that the old prop used in a film decades ago, and still in a box at the studios, wasn't a copy but the original
Found art is always fascinating. People tend to get used to art hanging on walls and don’t pay attention. I hope that a lot of art can be found like this, wouldn’t that be great news for a lot of the looted art of World War II found in unsuspecting places because people have forgotten.
The term _found art_ (also _found object)_ has a very different meaning from the one you are assigning to it. It's most easily explained by giving the most famous example of it: the urinal purchased in a hardware store by Marcel Duchamp, placed on its back and signed, and titled _Fountain_ (1917).
@@dixonpinfold2582 They meant it literally, i.e. art that has been found, not art that is made from found objects. So, they used the adjective (and noun combination) correctly. They even went on to expound on the idea of how they used it and used the adjective again in the same manner. It's not the art jargon you read into it, ahem, or are assigning to it.
@@jayhache5609 I pointed out that there was a reason to avoid the term - perhaps in favour of something like 'rediscovered (or recovered) lost artworks'). Note that I did not say 'lost art' since that already has an established and very different meaning. Thanks for your reply.
Well, i only know of few which we have. -Contemporary courtier Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, then kings: -Henry IV, Henry VI, Richard III, Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI. Obviously kings between them and queens reignant after them are missing (until creation of set) -Henry V, Edward IV, Edward V, Mary I, Elizabeth I. Possibly their queen consorts too- Elizabeth Woodville, Elizabeth of York, Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour-were the typical choice for other sets in late 16th, early 17th century. Obviously it is not 22(although it is said it was set of at least 22, it might have been more). Aside from them, not a clue, but I think it is enough to look out for.
From the history blog about the finding of this painting: "The 1781 sale at Christie’s of the Weston portraits show that the group included portraits of Henry IV, Henry V, Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Queen Elizabeth, Charles V, Prince Arthur, Henry VIII, Francis King of France, Edward VI, Queen Mother of France, Henry of Bourbon, King of France, Cardinal Wolsey, L. Cromwell Earl of Essex, Sir Thomas Moore, Duke of Alva, Comte Eglemont, Duke of Guise, Duke of Parma and the Earl of Essex."
My guess is that one day we will find a portrait of Anne Boleyn !!! I've never personally believed the story that the great painter Holbein the Younger destroyed, completely all of his portraits, whether or not it was of Anne Boleyn or someone else. My personal theory is that there's probably one if not two portraits of her that do STILL exist but, that for safekeeping they were somehow coveted by another or spirited away.
@@makeitsonumberone1358 Holbein was no fool. 1) He knew how to keep his head which was to keep the king happy !! 2) He also knew how good his work was and it probably greatly pained him to hide it away. The thought or notion of having to destroy, cover up and / or conceal, ANY of his artwork is the bane of any great artist. For an artist to hear that they can no longer showcase their artwork is tantamount to encouraging them to delete themselves. The notion of being an artist that only exists for the sole purpose, of destroying his artwork cannot exist. Even Banksy has a healthy mix some of his more controversial work, yes he does consign it for destruction. However, he also has the other half of his artwork business empire that is not routinely destroyed or obliterated. I believe that is the only way that artists of their caliber can exist.
@@Chance_Rice It's not about whether it's "ugly" or "pretty" it's about interpreting it to help you overcome your problems and grow as a person! That's what art is all about!
fantastic! give that art historian much coverage and praise! Not everyday art historians discover priceless art!! Congratulations to Art Historian Dr. Adam Busiakiewicz!
I was waiting for the "It was stolen in the ...and will be returned to..." but, it was just there, at its current stop through time. Wonder about its previous stops, perhaps an estate broken up post WWII and someone liked this nice picture? (Or was well aware of it but once again its provenance was forgotten?)
I was wondering the same thing and cannot help but speculate that during the war it was moved for safety and afterwards forgotten where it came from so the council took it.
@@SM-Flyers Exactly. They don't suggest a time as to when it went "missing." so was its whereabouts known in say, the 1920's? or has it been "lost" for hundreds of years? This commentary leaves me asking questions.. I'm also really wondering about its importance, Sheldon commissioned a series of portraits during Elizabeth I reign, so Henry VIII didn't really sit for it, did he? So perhaps a copy of Hans Holbein's portrait of Henry VIII? Maybe that's its importance a record of the HH original that was destroyed in a fire in 1698.
I’m assuming it was just written off as simply a portrait of Henry VIII by civic workers who didn’t know better. It was purchased in 1951 at a time when they wanted to add paintings of kings and queens to the building. The art historian who noticed only realized it through seeing the curved frame and checking the art against a crusty mid-Victorian engraving of the hall where it used to hang before all the paintings were auctioned off. Honestly, if you check the art historian’s social media (Adam Busiakiewicz), it’s kinda crazy anyone would have realized at this point in time!
Someone somewhere got confused by someone else doing something and neither of those two people ever thought to communicate with each other so we have silly things like this
Since it is one of a rare set, now it can be studied, better preserved, and safely put on display with the other Sheldon artwork for others to see at the museum in Warwick. 😊
@@FallingGuineaPig That's true but the painting was never missing. The Shire Hall got it in the 1950s and it was hanging on their wall. So, the video's title is totally wrong. The media makes it seem like the Shire Hall stole the painting and they didn't.
@@annabellelee4535 To be honest, I think it still classifies as missing. 🤔 They have a known set of 22 paintings that historians only knew the locations of several, so finding one of the set (that was being displayed without knowledge of its origin) would count as finding one of the missing paintings. Kinda like when big museums lose an item in the archive and might end up finding the missing item untagged (but still in the archive) much later. Or if I lost a book and find it on a shelf mixed with other things a long time later. Still missing, but found in a stupid location? Yeah. 💀 EDIT because TH-cam banished me from replies? : I’m assuming it was just written off as simply a portrait of Henry VIII by civic workers who didn’t know better. Apparently it was purchased in 1951 at a time when they wanted to add paintings of kings and queens to the building. The art historian who noticed only realized it through noticing the frame and checking it against a crusty Victorian engraving of the hall where it used to hang. Honestly, if you check his social media (Adam Busiakiewicz), it’s kinda crazy anyone would have realized at this point.
That art historian should be very proud of himself. This will be an amazing star on his career, so great to have someone like him so passionate in his field.
@1:20- "Ralph" ? Huh! I actually know a guy named "Rafe", and that is how I would have imagined "Raphe" would possibly be pronounced, so I'm really curious how you get Ralph out of that. Quite fascinating!
The standardised spelling of the artist's name is Ralph, but it is indeed pronounced /reif/. The presenter simply pronounced the name incorrectly, likely reading from a teleprompter. You will still see this spelling today, as in Ralph Fiennes.
I sure hope the people of Warwickshire (sp?) have good security on their valuable painting. Museums in the US have found out the hard way that security matters even in small towns or cities. Don’t take anything for granted. There are a lot of art thieves out there.
The council office will have basic security. They were probably delighted not to have to worry about looking after a million pound plus painting. Besides the Museum is owned by council too.
you know what's funny, i was watching ghost hunting stuff when i saw the ghost hunters spotted portraits of henry, his wife and his daughter above a fireplace in some old abandoned lord's mansion. i think they were called ghost theory or something if you wanna ask them about that. it baffled me that history was just left behind like that.
an urban explorer found portraits of henry in an abandoned lord's manner. everything's falling apart and trashed but the painting, though since i'ts been posted to youtube for awhile i assume it's not there anymore.
Nice story, but who was the person that claimed it was lost? I bet all the other painting over there can be claimed as lost as well. And not very original if 21were made.
So, I know the British can be rather high handed when it comes to anything that they deem of historic value and not being British, I was wondering.... Was anyone ever compensated for this painting or did the fact that it was found in a council hall automatically make it the property of the larger government?
Are you American by any chance? Ignorant, rude, poor grasp of English prose to convey what you are trying to express, and then of course more interested in the cost of the painting 🙄
The council must have bought it back in the fifties, probably from a dealer, not knowing its history, just that it was a portrait of Henry VIII of which there must be dozens in museums.
@@mrdanforth3744 Does that mean no? So the government gets to grab a priceless painting, the museum gets to display it and the council (and the people it represents) get to have a big blank space on their wall until the tax payers fund the purchase of another painting? Does that sound about right?
@@whatanitemare No what? They can't just take a picture without compensation. You will have to ask them what they got, probably enough to buy another picture.
The interresting part should be if they took a X-ray and watched what underneath the painting to reveal somebody else and not the painting itself.. really -how boring and uninterresting royal history the 2000x painting of a king when the intressting are underneath to reveal somene unknown
@@mattbosley3531 My parents have a Rosa Bonheur painting in their living room, in a very unassuming house. It's a water color by her, so no art historians are looking for it but yes, that's the story, my grandmother was acquainted with some art scene in London my mother brought it to the US etc. I'm aware of it but one can see how it might get "lost" as I am getting on in age.
@@tostyjoost tudor paintings especially in England were often weirdly framed. The painting subject was important not the way the overall effect came out. The guy who commissioned them wanted to show his loyalty to the dynasty (and how rich he was) rather than his artistic taste.
England must be one of the few countries that discovers "lost" paintings hanging in plain site, lol.
@@carladavis4639 did you SEE how many paintings were on that one wall!?!?! lol.
Sight
I'm wondering more about conservators watching council websites...
Fantastic!
Typical journalism and TH-cam. Everything is either hidden or lost 🤦🏼♂️
The amount of times i have been that building and never seen it . I used to go there every month for the Warwick and Warwick stamp auction . It is online now .
This discovery must have blown your mind. Wow.
The quality of it is amazing! I can see why you wouldn't realize how old it was
And just like that, rich people stopped taking photos in their houses and apartments.
By that statement alone, everyone knows you never accomplished anything much.
this wasn't found in a rich person's house
@@hensonlaura 🤭 you clearly have no idea who I am.
@@sleepCircle it doesn’t have to have been found in a Rich persons house for rich people who statistically have more art to want to make sure they don’t lose their purchased pieces to something like this.
God why is TH-cam just full of troglodytes. This is why I stay on instagram. People at least have a brain over there. F****n boomers on TH-cam… should never have given you the internet. You weren’t raised with the faculties to handle it.
Pls, be patient to mononeuronal people out there... ^_^
I don't think that a painting that was hanging in the mayor's office can accurately be described as missing
Well, I guess it can, only because the people that were looking for it and knew its significance didn't know where it was and the people who did know where it was, didn't know its significance and didn't know it was even being looked for.
@@gretchenortner I'm not all that sure people were looking for it though, just that it piqued the curiosity of an art historian. I'm guessing it was one of many copies of the famous Hans Holbein portrait of Henry VIII so while interesting it's not a portrait from life. It's probably exactly where it should be, one of many copies spread out around the country eg Ralph Sheldon commissioned them so he could have his own private gallery: it's still basically serving that purpose.
When the people who know what it is don’t know where it is it’s missing. There are stolen and gifted paintings in private collections all over the world that to all intents and purposes are missing, because they are treasures, with no record of their current location.
@@THEchiQ yeah, when someone says "missing" my first though is stolen or lost, that is someone had it and lost it, that's a pretty clear reference point, Here we're getting into weird questions of point of reference. My parents have a Rosa Bonheur water color painting (ie it's not one of the 118 oil paintings she did that would cause a lot of interest) in a very nice frame, so someone thought a lot of it at one time. My grandmother got it some how in London, my mom inherited it and now it sits above the fireplace where my dad lives. Is it missing? I suppose only four people know where it is now. But does anyone else care?
@@TheJhtlag it was lost in the way that they didnt have any idea of where the painting were and the council didnt knew that this painting was a rare original. Their's a painting which was considered lost until someone realised that the old prop used in a film decades ago, and still in a box at the studios, wasn't a copy but the original
The UK is like an archaeological Disneyland. Amazing stuff.
Most is stolen though.
@@societysfinest Oh, aren't you just the wokest college kid in your class. Point to you.
@@societysfinest Especially the one of the King of England, right? 🙄
Stop virtual signaling. It’s exhausting.
@@jcortese3300it’s true it’s not woke it’s funny
Most museums around the world have “stolen” artefacts in them.have you seen what’s in the Louvre museum in Paris ?
Found art is always fascinating. People tend to get used to art hanging on walls and don’t pay attention. I hope that a lot of art can be found like this, wouldn’t that be great news for a lot of the looted art of World War II found in unsuspecting places because people have forgotten.
Yes!! I agree 100%!
The term _found art_ (also _found object)_ has a very different meaning from the one you are assigning to it. It's most easily explained by giving the most famous example of it: the urinal purchased in a hardware store by Marcel Duchamp, placed on its back and signed, and titled _Fountain_ (1917).
@@dixonpinfold2582 They meant it literally, i.e. art that has been found, not art that is made from found objects. So, they used the adjective (and noun combination) correctly. They even went on to expound on the idea of how they used it and used the adjective again in the same manner. It's not the art jargon you read into it, ahem, or are assigning to it.
@@jayhache5609 I pointed out that there was a reason to avoid the term - perhaps in favour of something like 'rediscovered (or recovered) lost artworks'). Note that I did not say 'lost art' since that already has an established and very different meaning.
Thanks for your reply.
@@dixonpinfold2582 you do know english words have multiple meanings right?
This is fantastic, so wonderful to find in such great condition.
Ready it for display on halloween.
That is incredible, great find.
I've found the Mona Lisa in the Louvre. It was quite a thing. Now it's being exhibited there.
Stop oil found it to
@@makeitsonumberone1358 I was first. But I wasn't alone.
@@mreese8764You are a liar, sir. It was I who discovered the Mona Lisa first.
@@devins7457 I'm sure many people discover it every day now
No I discovered it.
Be nice if told the sitters names of the rest of the missing portraits? I'm sure the public would go on the hunt for those too.
Look for old frames with a round top.
Well, i only know of few which we have.
-Contemporary courtier Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex,
then kings:
-Henry IV, Henry VI, Richard III, Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI.
Obviously kings between them and queens reignant after them are missing (until creation of set) -Henry V, Edward IV, Edward V, Mary I, Elizabeth I.
Possibly their queen consorts too- Elizabeth Woodville, Elizabeth of York, Catherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour-were the typical choice for other sets in late 16th, early 17th century. Obviously it is not 22(although it is said it was set of at least 22, it might have been more).
Aside from them, not a clue, but I think it is enough to look out for.
From the history blog about the finding of this painting:
"The 1781 sale at Christie’s of the Weston portraits show that the group included portraits of Henry IV, Henry V, Edward IV, Richard III, Henry VII, Queen Elizabeth, Charles V, Prince Arthur, Henry VIII, Francis King of France, Edward VI, Queen Mother of France, Henry of Bourbon, King of France, Cardinal Wolsey, L. Cromwell Earl of Essex, Sir Thomas Moore, Duke of Alva, Comte Eglemont, Duke of Guise, Duke of Parma and the Earl of Essex."
My guess is that one day we will find a portrait of Anne Boleyn !!! I've never personally believed the story that the great painter Holbein the Younger destroyed, completely all of his portraits, whether or not it was of Anne Boleyn or someone else.
My personal theory is that there's probably one if not two portraits of her that do STILL exist but, that for safekeeping they were somehow coveted by another or spirited away.
maybe painted over. Some unrestored, unresearched mediocre painting.
Dont lose your head over it
@@makeitsonumberone1358 Holbein was no fool.
1) He knew how to keep his head which was to keep the king happy !! 2) He also knew how good his work was and it probably greatly pained him to hide it away. The thought or notion of having to destroy, cover up and / or conceal, ANY of his artwork is the bane of any great artist. For an artist to hear that they can no longer showcase their artwork is tantamount to encouraging them to delete themselves. The notion of being an artist that only exists for the sole purpose, of destroying his artwork cannot exist.
Even Banksy has a healthy mix some of his more controversial work, yes he does consign it for destruction. However, he also has the other half of his artwork business empire that is not routinely destroyed or obliterated. I believe that is the only way that artists of their caliber can exist.
That frame is also art!
Anything can be art if you look for it.
@CT7056 Nah, that's why modern art is so ugly
@@Chance_Rice It's not about whether it's "ugly" or "pretty" it's about interpreting it to help you overcome your problems and grow as a person! That's what art is all about!
@CT7056 Thanks for proving my point💀🤦♂️
@@Chance_Rice ??? 😭
Okay, go live your vain aesthetic-based life then, I guess???
fantastic! give that art historian much coverage and praise! Not everyday art historians discover priceless art!! Congratulations to Art Historian Dr. Adam Busiakiewicz!
It so amazes me that every now and then fabulous things re-appear. How wonderful for us all.
I was waiting for the "It was stolen in the ...and will be returned to..." but, it was just there, at its current stop through time. Wonder about its previous stops, perhaps an estate broken up post WWII and someone liked this nice picture? (Or was well aware of it but once again its provenance was forgotten?)
I was wondering the same thing and cannot help but speculate that during the war it was moved for safety and afterwards forgotten where it came from so the council took it.
@@SM-Flyers Exactly. They don't suggest a time as to when it went "missing." so was its whereabouts known in say, the 1920's? or has it been "lost" for hundreds of years? This commentary leaves me asking questions.. I'm also really wondering about its importance, Sheldon commissioned a series of portraits during Elizabeth I reign, so Henry VIII didn't really sit for it, did he? So perhaps a copy of Hans Holbein's portrait of Henry VIII? Maybe that's its importance a record of the HH original that was destroyed in a fire in 1698.
I’m assuming it was just written off as simply a portrait of Henry VIII by civic workers who didn’t know better. It was purchased in 1951 at a time when they wanted to add paintings of kings and queens to the building. The art historian who noticed only realized it through seeing the curved frame and checking the art against a crusty mid-Victorian engraving of the hall where it used to hang before all the paintings were auctioned off. Honestly, if you check the art historian’s social media (Adam Busiakiewicz), it’s kinda crazy anyone would have realized at this point in time!
Finally, some good news
It's pronounced "zee", not zed. Silly British.
@@SergeantExtreme I’m Australian, and here it’s pronounced Zed
@@smileyzed3843 Don't forget you also drive on the wrong side of the road.
@@SergeantExtreme we have to cause of the kangaroos 🦘
@@smileyzed3843 Fair enough.
What an exciting find!
who else thought the painting was a small miniature?!
it could be used as a thumbnail.
Sod the paining! I always wondered what had happened to Nick Owen.. 😊
So it was never missing, it was where it belonged at the Shire Hall. What's the problem?
Someone somewhere got confused by someone else doing something and neither of those two people ever thought to communicate with each other so we have silly things like this
I think they mean undocumented.
Since it is one of a rare set, now it can be studied, better preserved, and safely put on display with the other Sheldon artwork for others to see at the museum in Warwick. 😊
@@FallingGuineaPig That's true but the painting was never missing. The Shire Hall got it in the 1950s and it was hanging on their wall. So, the video's title is totally wrong. The media makes it seem like the Shire Hall stole the painting and they didn't.
@@annabellelee4535 To be honest, I think it still classifies as missing. 🤔 They have a known set of 22 paintings that historians only knew the locations of several, so finding one of the set (that was being displayed without knowledge of its origin) would count as finding one of the missing paintings. Kinda like when big museums lose an item in the archive and might end up finding the missing item untagged (but still in the archive) much later. Or if I lost a book and find it on a shelf mixed with other things a long time later. Still missing, but found in a stupid location? Yeah. 💀
EDIT because TH-cam banished me from replies? :
I’m assuming it was just written off as simply a portrait of Henry VIII by civic workers who didn’t know better. Apparently it was purchased in 1951 at a time when they wanted to add paintings of kings and queens to the building. The art historian who noticed only realized it through noticing the frame and checking it against a crusty Victorian engraving of the hall where it used to hang. Honestly, if you check his social media (Adam Busiakiewicz), it’s kinda crazy anyone would have realized at this point.
This is so cool!
That art historian should be very proud of himself. This will be an amazing star on his career, so great to have someone like him so passionate in his field.
ikr
Does anyone else hear them saying "artist orians"?
It took me a couple of listens to realise they were Art Historians 🤦♂️
It's always good news when it comes to preservation of history.
Historian: Oh that's a nice painting you have we'll take it
ok now I can sleep better
Yeah, go back to sleep.
Incredible!
How these lasted this long is a miracle,i can see how the others are lost to time.
Elizabeth I had over 300 elegant dresses. They've all been "lost" except one found, cut up, being used as an alter cloth in a small church.
Henry is just as homely as ever.
@1:20- "Ralph" ? Huh! I actually know a guy named "Rafe", and that is how I would have imagined "Raphe" would possibly be pronounced, so I'm really curious how you get Ralph out of that. Quite fascinating!
The standardised spelling of the artist's name is Ralph, but it is indeed pronounced /reif/. The presenter simply pronounced the name incorrectly, likely reading from a teleprompter.
You will still see this spelling today, as in Ralph Fiennes.
Looks like it needs cleaning, at first glance it doesn’t look like a painting I think that mus5 br due to the glass. Interesting find. 👍🏼
This is click bait.
It was never missing, was exactly where it was supposed to be...
In the mayor's office?
What a great story.
there were a couple of other fine portraits in that house as well
Just did a deep dive on the Sheldon Maps seen in the background of this video, amazing!
That frame looks very prestigious.
And it beggars the question how did the council acquire this collection of artwork?!!
English councils are the most corrupt and disgusting, set in fog people in the country, hands down they have ruin this place, it’s dead
Probably bought them how do you think? Do you suppose they sent a policeman around with a sword stealing art off peoples' walls?
Anybody else curious about its value?
Art could possibly be the biggest money laundering scheme ever 💭
I sure hope the people of Warwickshire (sp?) have good security on their valuable painting. Museums in the US have found out the hard way that security matters even in small towns or cities. Don’t take anything for granted. There are a lot of art thieves out there.
Found portrait of a serial killer.
Tyrant, epic tantrum thrower and friend to no one.
With STD's
@1Kent he’s my friend 😔
👀 Should I tell him ❓@@caesarpizza1338
@@1KentSounds like he would be Trump’s friend.
The rest is very likely not lost to time, but hanging in someones livingroom since grandma bought a box of old paintings on the fleamarket.
GORGEOUS!
Wow. Next, hopefully, one will be found of Queen Anne Boleyn.
Just wait until an art historian sees this video and find the other loss paintings in that same room 💪
Qué bien!
Que ilusión!
How can you discover something when people were already there ?
The ghost of the mayor will one day haunt those chambers looking for his lost Henry.
Film the cleaning/restoration process!
Its called twitter
Amazing!
They are all copies of most likely a Holbein. All commissioned 50 years after Henry VIII died. Odd that they would be considered such a treasure.
Those are clearly people who love their jobs!
An X post sounds like a nickname for a sign, just call it Twitter.
Wow, that is so cool. ❤
Okay, but why can it just be taken?? Its someones property now!
That’s just a painting of EVS from ComicartistproSecrets TH-cam channel
Looking good Ethan !
Is it on loan to the museum, was it given to them, sold, or did they just simply take it?
Probably stole it. This is how government operates now. They take what they want.
The council office will have basic security. They were probably delighted not to have to worry about looking after a million pound plus painting. Besides the Museum is owned by council too.
@@martynnotman3467 Oh, well that all makes perfect sense then. And now the public can easily enjoy it as well. 😎
This has to be the height of BBC journalism.
Nick Owen?!! Glad to see him doing well.
TV legend
She wouldn't have a Willy or a Sam
Nice portrait Your Majesty. Intricate detail and garnishes. So well done it stole the spotlight from the background! 🤩
you know what's funny, i was watching ghost hunting stuff when i saw the ghost hunters spotted portraits of henry, his wife and his daughter above a fireplace in some old abandoned lord's mansion. i think they were called ghost theory or something if you wanna ask them about that. it baffled me that history was just left behind like that.
So, for once, X was used for good?
We got Henry the 8th missing portrait before GTA VI 💀
an urban explorer found portraits of henry in an abandoned lord's manner. everything's falling apart and trashed but the painting, though since i'ts been posted to youtube for awhile i assume it's not there anymore.
Just shows how daft the average council officials are
😂😂 of course! They are not getting jobs on interviews but on stupid voting and manipulation
Like you would be able to tell it's a significant painting yourself, huh?😂
@@paulrr5711 yes
daft lol
Wow! 🎉🫠😇💘💝💖
Amazing
Make sure it’s in a very well secured location! All this attention can put it at risk.
I absolutely think that's on the agenda.
Oyam Eneray the Aigth Oyam
Eneray the Aigth Oyam Oyam
Truely shows that CaseOh is actually immortal…
Nice story, but who was the person that claimed it was lost? I bet all the other painting over there can be claimed as lost as well. And not very original if 21were made.
or was it 22?
Smh 🤦♂️
Bro got his painting stole.
So, I know the British can be rather high handed when it comes to anything that they deem of historic value and not being British, I was wondering.... Was anyone ever compensated for this painting or did the fact that it was found in a council hall automatically make it the property of the larger government?
Are you American by any chance?
Ignorant, rude, poor grasp of English prose to convey what you are trying to express, and then of course more interested in the cost of the painting 🙄
The council must have bought it back in the fifties, probably from a dealer, not knowing its history, just that it was a portrait of Henry VIII of which there must be dozens in museums.
@@mrdanforth3744 Does that mean no? So the government gets to grab a priceless painting, the museum gets to display it and the council (and the people it represents) get to have a big blank space on their wall until the tax payers fund the purchase of another painting? Does that sound about right?
@@whatanitemare No what? They can't just take a picture without compensation. You will have to ask them what they got, probably enough to buy another picture.
@@whatanitemarein the US, possession is 9/10ths of the law. In Texas, we say, “Come and Take It”. Spineless mayor backed down.
a missing portrait of a king?! that's nothing...
King Richard III was 'misplaced' until 2012.
Did I see Charles I in another portrait, there? I'd rather see that.
The others in that room are 18th and 19th century copies
X is the greatest social media these days.
Wasn't almost all portraits done by Hans Holbein...
They found a picture of Alex did they?
hidden in plain sight
The interresting part should be if they took a X-ray and watched what underneath the painting to reveal somebody else and not the painting itself.. really -how boring and uninterresting royal history the 2000x painting of a king when the intressting are underneath to reveal somene unknown
i hope they get mr baumgartner to restore it
Pray not for new horizons. Pray to SEE OLD THINGS with NEW EYES!
**Twitter
This man need to make audiobooks with english ghost stories.
My grandma has that painting hanging in her bathroom in Arkansas!
Wouldn't surprise me. Many people from England moved to the U.S. and brought things with them.
"Bathroom?" I thought she was still usin' an outhouse.
@@yepiratesworkshop7997
Nice
Ya got me
Perfect place, as it is her throne room!
@@mattbosley3531 My parents have a Rosa Bonheur painting in their living room, in a very unassuming house. It's a water color by her, so no art historians are looking for it but yes, that's the story, my grandmother was acquainted with some art scene in London my mother brought it to the US etc. I'm aware of it but one can see how it might get "lost" as I am getting on in age.
Did he also have the missing Dr Who episodes stashed in a cupboard by any chance?
rainer winkler the first
You misspelled Twitter.
you spelt twitter wrong
Don't give it to the Tate. It will not see the light of day.
It’d be NPG if anywhere
X marks the spot
Thats like when my buddy “lost” his keys in his back pocket 😂
X’s marks the spot
@BaumgartnerRestoration can tell you: wrong size frame, glass shouldn't be there.
The frames original
@@martynnotman3467 strange right? looks off size at the top left and right.
@@tostyjoost tudor paintings especially in England were often weirdly framed. The painting subject was important not the way the overall effect came out. The guy who commissioned them wanted to show his loyalty to the dynasty (and how rich he was) rather than his artistic taste.
@@martynnotman3467 ah wow thank you
And still no drumstick 🍗 It’s out there in the Multiverse somewhere though.
Wonder how it got there ? 🤔🤔🤔🤔
The video title shows how stupid the change from Twitter to "X" was. I didn't even realize that's what was meant until halfway through lol.
What is it valued at?