Katherine Howard or Anne of Cleves - The Debate Continues

 

 Unknown Lady, Perhaps Katherine Howard (by Hans Holbein). Royal Collection

 

Recently,  in an article entitled Pandemic Sleuthing to Re-identify a Tudor Queen, Laura Loney and Ashley Risk have supported Franny Moyle's claim (made in her book The King's Painter: The Life and Times of Hans Holbein) that miniatures of an Unknown Lady, Perhaps Katherine Howard in the Royal Collection and in the Buccleuch Collection), were actually those of her predecessor Anne of Cleves. (1)

Apart from reinforcing the notion that the Holbein sitter supposedly resembles Anne of Cleves (as proposed separately by Moyle) and using Adobe Photoshop manipulation to match the two ladies, Loney and Risk took a novel approach in looking for secret symbols in the sitter's jewels and clothes.

Incredibly, in the lady's pendant, they have found a hidden Saint George's Cross and red dragon, indicating the sitter's royal status. In truth, this is highly imaginative, subjective, and difficult to see - like looking for images in inkblot test or in clouds. The so-called cross and dragon are merely light reflections off the ruby and emerald. As well, the claim that there are four empty casings in the sitter's  French hood to imply that she was Henry VIII's fourth wife, is a stretch to say the least. Holbein was painting a straightforward portrait. There is no evidence of any secret messages here.

The authors also claim to see design motifs associated with Anne of Cleves on the Holbein sitter's clothing. Again, this is simply wildly imaginative.

Also, it was argued that 'the coloured gems worn by the sitter are predominantly red and black, colours seen in Anne’s family heraldry'. In actuality, the 'black' gems were not meant to symbolize her family ties. The seemingly black stones were diamonds. In the way they were cut in the 16th century, their facets reflected the light on their surfaces as areas of black (and white at times).

An image of Anne as a child in a family portrait from the Cathedral of Saint Lambert in Düsseldorf has been presented by Loney and Risk to how Anne's hair color. The photo shows hints of yellow and brown, so ultimately, it does not settle the matter once and for all - for or against- the Holbein sitter being Anne.

 

Unknown Lady, Perhaps Katherine Howard (by Hans Holbein). Buccleuch Collection

 

Anne's hair color was described by Edward Hall as 'fair, yellow, and long' at her wedding day (not merely 'long fair hair loose' as reworded by Moyle) (2), and he was almost certainly there in person as he wrote of the ceremony in very great detail. (3) However, there have been attempts to downplay this statement as it was incompatible with the Holbein sitter who is a brunette. Explanations of Hall being mistaken, Anne using hair dye, etc. are unconvincing. Hall was merely stating a simple fact - Anne was blond - and there is no reason to disbelieve him just because it's an uncomfortable fact in reconciling the miniatures of being of Anne of Cleves.

While the prospect of a new portrait of Anne of Cleves being discovered - or rediscovered - is most attractive, the new evidence being presented does not provide a good case. A labelling of the Holbein miniatures as that of an ' Unknown Lady, Perhaps Katherine Howard' should remain. (4).

 

1. https://onthetudortrail.com/Blog/2021/10/30/pandemic-sleuthing-to-re-identify-a-tudor-queen/

2. Franny Moyle, The King's Painter: The Life and Times of Hans Holbein, London: Head of Zeus, 2021, pp. 525-531/621 on Kindle e-book.

3. Edward Hall, Hall’s Chronicle; Containing the History of England, During the Reign of Henry the Fourth and the Succeeding Monarchs, London: printed for J. Johnson, 1809, p. 836. Online at: https://archive.org/details/hallschronicleco00halluoft/page/n845/mode/2up?view=theater

4. For previous arguments, see:  https://tudorfaces.blogspot.com/2021/05/anne-of-cleves-or-catherine-howard.html and https://www.tudorsociety.com/hans-holbeins-portrait-of-queen-catherine-howard-by-roland-hui/

 

 

The Emmy Awards 2021

Actress Emma Corrin (Princess Diana in The Crown) borrowing a look from Lynne Frederick (Queen Catherine Howard in the 1972 film Henry VIII and His Six Wives).

 

 

Joan of Arc in the 17th Century

 

🎶 Joan of Arc with the Lord to guide her, she was a sister who really cooked! 🎵

 

 (Theme song from the tv show Maude) 

 

 

 Later imaginings of Joan of Arc (by Leonard Gaultier, 1612).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hans Holbein’s Portrait of Queen Catherine Howard?

Portrait Miniature by Hans Holbein

 

Mary Tudor, Catherine Howard, Margaret Douglas, or Anne of Cleves?

Learn about this miniature at: https://www.tudorsociety.com/hans-holbeins-portrait-of-queen-catherine-howard-by-roland-hui/

 

 

The Modern Day Mystery of Anne Boleyn's 1534 Medal

 

Portrait Medal of Anne Boleyn, 1534 (The British Museum)

 

One of the few surviving artifacts of Anne Boleyn's 'thousand days' is a portrait medal of her made in 1534.

Cast in lead and measuring 38 mm in diameter, it presented Anne as Queen of England ('A R', that is 'Anne Regina') with her motto 'The Most Happy'. The medal was almost certainly made as a prototype in anticipation of the child she was carrying in the spring of 1534. But then in the summer, the pregnancy was entirely hushed up, and it is believed that Anne sadly had a miscarriage. As a result, the medal was never mass produced for distribution.

It has been suggested that because of Anne's unpopularity as queen, the medal was deliberately damaged  - the nose flattened and a side of the face scarred - after her fall. (1) In May 1536, Anne was accused of high treason and executed. Portraits of her would have been taken down and probably destroyed, and it is thought that the disfigurement which appears on the medal was part of this purge. However, evidence from the late 19th century suggests that no such harm had been done to the medal at that time, and in fact, the defacement - actually unintentional - was relatively recent.

The medal came into the collection of The British Museum through Edward Hawkins, Keeper of the Department of Antiquities from 1826 to 1860. It was later shown to George Scharf, the Director of the National Portrait Gallery, in 1866 or sometime before. Scharf remarked that it was 'brought to my notice, a leaden medallion preserved in The British Museum. It is possibly a cast from a carving in hone-stone, or wood, and measures 1 1/2 inch in diameter; the sculpture in rather high relief... the face is turned slightly sideways, and rather looking up towards the left. The letters A.R. in the field, and the legend "THE MOOST HAPPI ANNO 1534," round the margin, show that this figure must have been intended for Anne Boleyne'. (2)

In 1885, the medal was included in the book Medallic Illustrations of the History of Great Britain and Ireland to the Death of George II by the late Edward Hawkins (he died in 1867) and edited by Augustus W. Franks, and Herbert A. Grueber. Hawkins, before his passing, described it as 'a bust of Anne Boleyn, three-quarters, l. (left), pedimental headdress, with a large veil at back, cross hanging from necklace, low dress and mantle over shoulders. In the field A.R. Leg. THE MOOST HAPPI. ANNO 1534... Probably cast from a carving in wood or hone-stone'. (3)

One of his editors, Grueber, who then wrote an exhibition catalogue about the museum's medals in 1891, had this to say - 'Anne Boleyn, 1534. Obv. Bust of Queen, nearly full face, towards l. (left), wearing coif with veil, &c., in field A. R. THE MOOST HAPPI. ANNO 1534. Reverse plain. Lead. Size 1.5. Cast'. (4)

Repeatedly, none of the writers made note of any damage to the medal. Hawkins in particular, who was very meticulous in including condition issues where necessary - for example: 'very much worn or rubbed' for a medal of Edward VI, a 'decay of the surface' (Elizabeth I), 'badly executed' (Mary Queen of Scots), and 'extremely course workmanship' (Charles I) - made absolutely no comment about the Anne Boleyn medal being in poor shape. (5) Likewise, Scharf, who was a great connoisseur of old portraits (particularly from the Tudor era) and who even liked to make his own sketches of them, said nothing as well. (6)

 

Portrait Medal of Anne Boleyn, 1534 (Woodcut from Edward Hawkins' Medallic Illustrations, 1885)

 

Hawkins' book included a noteworthy woodcut illustration of the 1534 medal with the sitter's face fully intact. (7) Interestingly, there was no disclaimer or indication whatsoever that the drawing of the medal was an artist's re-imagining of what it formerly looked like. By all appearances, it was a straight forward depiction of its current state at the time (before the soft lead was somehow later squashed). 

The unintended defacement of the medal would have occurred sometime between the exhibition of it in 1891 and 1920 when Sir George Francis Hill described it as 'so hopelessly battered about the nose that what may once have been an attractive portrait has become the most pitifully grotesque of caricatures'. This was apparently the first mention of any mutilation. (8)

In summary, observations about the medal, beginning in 1866, strongly suggest that the damage to the Anne Boleyn medal was not done in the 16th century, but much later.  It would seem that when George Scharf saw it, the piece was still in good condition and in 'rather high relief' as he stated. Regrettably, some accident must have befallen it between 1891 and 1920, and it appeared as it is today. (9)

Still, we can be grateful that the medal has survived at all despite its appearance, and that it was properly documented with a drawing showing what it looked like, thus preserving the features of the elusive Anne Boleyn. (10)

 

 

NOTES

1, Eric Ives, The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn, Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004, p. 42.

2. George Scharf, 'Notes on several of the Portraits described in the preceding Memoir, and on some others of the like character', Archaeologia, Vol. 40, Issue 01, January 1866, p. 88. Note: Scharf has used the older alternate spelling of  'Boleyne' here.

3. Edward Hawkins, Augustus W. Franks, and Herbert A. Grueber, Medallic Illustrations of the History of Great Britain and Ireland to the death of George II, Volume I, London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1885, p. 34.

4. Herbert A. Grueber, A Guide to the Exhibition of English Medals, London: Trustees of the British Museum, 2nd edition, 1891, p. 2.

5. Edward Hawkins et al, Medallic Illustrations, p. 58, p. 100, p. 121, and p. 367. The woodcut is on p. 4.

6. Interestingly, in his remarks about an image of the Lady of the Garter (from The Black Book of the Garter at Windsor Castle created in 1534), whom he accepted as Anne Boleyn (see note 2 above), Scharf opined how there was 'not much character in her countenance'. But with the 1534 medal, he had no comment at all about Anne's shortcomings (the very obvious damaged face), implying that the disfigurement was not there in 1866.

7. Edward Hawkins et al, Medallic Illustrations, p. 34.

8. George Francis Hill, Medals of the Renaissance, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1920, p. 151. After Hill's publication, awareness and interest in the medal waned considerably. It was not brought back to public attention until 1972 when Marie Louise Bruce reproduced a photograph of it in her biography of the queen (Anne Boleyn, New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan).

9. My appreciation to The British Museum's Department of Coins and Medals for its correspondence with me. My tracking down the medal's history remains ongoing.

10. For additional observations of the 1534 medal, see sculptor Lucy Churchill's study of it and her physical reconstruction: https://www.lucychurchill.com/anne-boleyn-moost-happi-medal-reconstruction/