Yet more portrait news
The first is a follow-up to something that I posted back in May and July 2006 about a Holbein portrait of Sir Thomas Wyatt the Younger that was up for auction. It failed to sell in July after there were questions about whether or not it was really by Holbein. But now it has been re-authenticated and will go up for sale again, and this time for £5 million (almost $10,000,000 US). Read more about it from The Telegraph (including picture)
Next up is the “nightgown” drawing of an unknown woman, labeled Anne Boleyn, in the collection of Holbein drawings at the Royal Collection at Windsor. The identification of this drawing as Anne has changed a couple of times since I’ve been following Tudor history, and now it looks like we might be able to call this one Anne again. Maybe.
From The Times Online:
Academics have now traced the inscription to Boleyn’s contemporary, Sir John Cheke, who began his career at the court under her patronage, before becoming secretary to Edward VI. A document of about 1590 notes that Sir John inscribed numerous Holbeins for the King, helping to identify faces of royals and courtiers.Bendor Grosvenor, who carried out the research with David Starkey, the Tudor historian, said: “Cheke was one of the bright brains of the Tudor court. He would have known most of Holbein’s sitters, if not on personal terms, then at least visually . . . It seems inconceivable that he would get Anne’s identification wrong.”
Mike said,
March 16, 2007 @ 8:17 pm
Sure makes you realize how important it is to always identify your own personal photographs, doesn’t it? I’ve spent many hours trying to discover the identities of people in old family pictures and it’s frustrating!
So it even happens with the rich and famous… Even if she is in her nightie, I hope it is Anne Boleyn. It would seem to me that John Cheke would be a good authority from the time.
Megan Alexander said,
March 29, 2007 @ 5:17 pm
Wow. If that really is Anne, it means that probably most of the images we’ve always associated with her are probably incorrect. It’s just weird to think that had such a major position in history we know so little about.