This is the image in question in the article that I linked to last night. There was an article in the Telegraph today that included the picture. When I first read the description in the article, this is the one that I was picturing, so I was delighted to see that was indeed it. The scan that I put in above came from a catalog of an exhibition called “Artists of the Tudor Court – The Portrait Miniature Rediscovered” by Roy Strong. I don’t have the book with me right now, but I’ll check it tonight if I get a chance and post the information that the book has on the miniature.
Here’s the article from the Telegraph
How exciting!
Now they just need to unearth a portrait of Mary Newman Drake and the world would be PERFECT!
😉
She looks rather well-fleshed to be Lady Jane, described by contempoaries as small, spare and thin … the neck does seem Tudor, as does the nose. The arms are certainly thin enough, but they seem more like a mistake of perspective. The age is 18… I thought Lady Jane was executed at 16. Could there be other candidates for the identification? Could the date of the miniature be earlier than the 1540s?
Yeah, I’m going to be curious to see where this story goes. Starkey sort of addressed the age issue in one of the articles and suggests that we may have to look again at the supposed birth year of 1537 for Jane. I honestly can’t remember what the evidence is for the 1537 birth year, so who knows.
Here’s a site devoted to the decade-by-decade evolution of the French hood. http://www.kimiko1.com/research-16th/FrenchHood/
The miniature appears to be definitely of the early 1550s, but here it is identified as possibly Lady Elizabeth. Again, too fleshy for that lady, in my opinion.
I’ll make a full post on it later, but the book that I got the scan from (published in 1983) calls it ‘unknown lady, possibly Elizabeth I as Princess’.
I can’t remember what evidence was used in support of 1537 as her birth year; however, seems to me that most sources state that she was roughly Edward VI’s age. If this is not Jane, wonder if this could be one of her sisters, both of whom lived past 18? Or maybe her cousin, Margaret of Cumberland?
I’d like to think it’s Jane, though. Poor thing deserves a decent portrait.
I love the emotion on the face, very intense.
I can’t get over the Seymour chin though.
This comment was put in the wrong post, so I’m copying it here:
Elisabeth said…
I was dubious of this portrait when Roy Strong said it was probably Elizabeth as princess in his book Gloriana. If it is Elizabeth she would have been 18 in 1551. If Jane, she would have been 18 in 1555. To me the dress seems a bit old fashioned for either of those dates. The most recent supposed portrait of Jane has the high collar and fits better with the styles of the 1550’s. If I had to choose it would certainly be closer to 1551. But I feel the nose is wrong for Elizabeth. As much as I would like to have any new Tudor portrait confirmed I am not convinced that this is even a royal personage.
Here’s another comment that was put in the wrong post, so I’m putting it here:
Samantha H said…
This is one of my fav miniatures. There is just so much emotion in the eyes. It simply gorgeous. I’m glad we may be able to call it Jane Grey from now on.
It’s hard to tell who it actually is. If you at Elizabeth’s cornation partrait, they look pretty similar, but, i think elizabeth would were more extragent clothes.
Its identified in Renaissance Magazine Issue #55 as possibly Anne Boleyn, based on Sir John Cheke’s attribution much, much later. Poor man must’ve needed spectacles- hair, eyes, nose, face and demeanor clearly all wrong. Could this be Princess Mary?