Piecing Together The Puzzle: Unconfirmed Tudor Portraits
- Kali Hollands
- 7 hours ago
- 7 min read
Possible portrait of Lady Jane Grey
In March 2025, groundbreaking evidence was revealed in the realm of Tudor history. A portrait was discovered, that may depict Lady Jane Grey, the infamous “Nine Days Queen”. What makes this painting especially compelling, however, is that evidence shows it was most likely painted before her execution; making this one of the only contemporary paintings of Jane. Analysis of the wooden, painted panel suggests it originates from between 1539 and 1571; during Jane’s lifetime. The back of the panel also shows a merchant mark, identical to those used on portraits of Edward VI. This makes its sitter a significant figure at the time, and Jane was very close to Edward. The sitter’s eyes, mouth and ears are also shown to be scratched; most likely an iconoclastic destruction to the painting, which can also be seen in the portrait of Lady Jane Grey at the National Gallery.
Yet, it still cannot be confirmed whether this really is Lady Jane Grey. Like so many portraits from the Tudor period, its sitter remains unidentified and contested. Historians and history fans alike are continuously debating the identification of many sitters in Tudor portraits and today, this blog will explore a few examples.
Katherine Howard
Possible portrait of Katherine Howard
One of the most infamous unidentified portraits is a particular painting associated with Katherine Howard. In fact, two paintings believed to be that of Katherine can neither be confirmed or denied that they resemble the young Tudor queen. A portrait displayed in The Metropolitan Museum of Art, dating from 1540-5 has widely been speculated as Katherine. The sitter’s clothing is lush and elaborate, suggesting this was a woman of high standing in the Tudor court. The young woman is also sixteen years old. It hasn’t been confirmed how old Katherine was when she was executed, but many believe that she was as young as sixteen. None of her ladies at court would have been of high enough status to wear this type of dress and there was hardly any women of such a young age at court during this time. It could very well be Katherine Howard. Yet, no evidence proves this for certain and remains open for speculation.
The other claimed portrait of Katherine hangs in the Toldeo Museum of Art and dates to 1535-40 and could have been painted before her marriage to Henry. This time, the sitter is twenty-one and once again wears exquisite clothing. However, there is more evidence to suggest that this isn’t Katherine at all. The portrait belonged to the Cromwell family yet seems unlikely that they would hold a portrait of Katherine as her family were viewed as responsible for Thomas Cromwell’s execution; the same day as Katherine’s marriage to Henry. Many historians believe the sitter to be Elizabeth Cromwell; sister of Jane Seymour. In 1537, Elizabeth married Gregory Cromwell, son of Thomas, and may mean this painting was commissioned soon after their marriage. This was a time when Thomas was high in the king’s favour and in a good position to request portraits by Hans Holbein himself. Katherine Howard sadly most likely never reached the age of 21 either, as she was born between 1523 and 1525. It’s legacy in the Cromwell family strongly suggests this is a relative.
Margaret Pole
Possible portrait of Lady Margaret Pole
Lady Margaret Pole is a notorious figure in British history; one of the last few individuals to be directly connected to the Plantagenet family tree and a survivor of the Wars of The Roses. Sadly, many remember Margaret for her brutal execution in 1541, where it has been said it took numerous strikes of the axe to behead the 67-year-old woman. The Countess of Salisbury lived an incredible life. For many years, one painting in particular is said to behold the features of Margaret. Yet once again, this has been contested.
The said painting hangs in the National Portrait Gallery, London, and circulates from 1535; it’s artist Unknown. For many years, it’s sitter has been stated as Margaret Pole. On the sitter’s wrist, she wears an elaborate black band with a barrel charm attached. Margaret’s father, George Duke of Clarence, passed away by drowning in a barrel of alcohol; is this a touching tribute to her deceased parent? She also holds a honeysuckle between her fingers, a flower representing devotion and love. Like many Tudor portraits, this may just be symbolism to represent her piety and devotion to God, or this could be her remembrance for her father. Underneath the barrel, is a W shaped jewel, which has been believed to hold adoration for her grand-daughter, Winifred. However, it cannot be determined whether Margaret ever wore such jewelry, and a piece of research can almost certainly clarify that this is not Margaret.
In 1963, the painting was analyzed by the National Portrait Gallery’s scientific department. They stated that the portrait had undergone severe repainting, including the barrel bracelet and W monogram jewel, which were later additions. The department, however, declared that there is no reason this painting should not represent Margaret Pole, and the add-ons may have been included by a descendant of hers. The portrait once hung upon the walls of Barrington Hall, the very family that Winifred had married in to. On the other hand, it has been stated that this portrait shows a 17th century Barrington noblewoman dressed up as Margaret.
Later evidence almost concludes that this very well could be Margaret. In 1973, final analysis was carried out on the portrait. Ten years later, their research showed that the barrel bracelet and W, may be from the original painting. The barrel would almost certainly represent her father George and the W for Warwick.
Mary, Queen of Scots
Possible portrait of Mary, Queen of Scots
Once again in the National Portrait Gallery, hangs a painting once believed to be of Mary, Queen of Scots. When looking upon the portrait, it is easy to see why this is no longer believed to be Mary and has been debated. The sitter’s features bear no resemblance to any other portraits of Mary and there is no sold evidence that it is the Scottish queen. The woman in the portrait is wearing beautiful, lavish clothing and jewellery which most certainly means this is a woman of high status. However, her identity cannot be confirmed and if this was a portrait of a ruling Queen, there would usually be some sort of identification.
This painting has strongly been viewed as a marriage portrait. And if it was, it most certainly wouldn’t be of Mary, whose last marriage was in 1567; three years prior to when this painting was created. The woman in the painting is set in front of a romantic landscape, wearing jewels symbolizing Venus and Cupid. This a portrait symbolizing love and would most likely have been painted to commemorate an aristocratic marriage; still unusual, however, as elite marriages tended to shift away from a romantic narrative.
Still, there is no evidence confirming or denying that this is Mary. Perhaps one day in the future, this painting could be up for discussion once more…
Mary Boleyn
Possible portrait of Mary Boleyn
In 2020, researchers gave a name to the unidentified sitter in a prominent Tudor portrait. The painting has been displayed in the walls of various royal English residences across history and new, exciting evidence finally gave the anonymous woman a name: Mary Boleyn, sister of the infamous Anne Boleyn.
The Jordaens Van Dyck Panel Painting Project confirmed that this is indeed Mary. In Windsor Castle, in Queen Anne’s bathroom, a set of paintings adorned the wall, commemorating 17th century “Beauties”. This painting of Mary was separated from the set by being the only individual bearing 16th century clothing. The team discovered similar versions of the painting, with inscriptions of Lord Wharton; a descendant of Mary. The inscription also matched a portrait of Margaret Smith, who married Mary Boleyn’s great-grandson. The artist, Remigius van Leemput, most likely copied Mary’s features from a lost painting created by Hans Holbein the Younger. There is scarce evidence detailing Mary’s life and virtually no prominent portraits, but this is highly certain to be Mary Boleyn.
There are believed to be 12 copies of this painting, created over time by descendants of Mary. Despite there being little to tell of Mary’s story, it seems her relatives have also been proud of their relation to her and chose to commemorate this infamous Tudor woman.
George Boleyn
Possible portrait of George Boleyn
Whilst the previous painting can most certainly be confirmed as Mary Boleyn, there is one particular portrait, or sketch, that has been hotly debated as bearing the image of George Boleyn; Mary’s brother.
This sketch was created by notorious Tudor artist, Hans Holbein The Younger and it’s sitter remains unidentified. Many people believe that the man in the portrait is George Boleyn; it dates from 1526 and could possibly be so. But yet again, there is no solid evidence to confirm or deny his identification.
The reason why so many believe this to be George is that his features bear similarities with that of his sister Anne ; particularly the chin and shape of his face and the brown eyes. Whoever is in this portrait, is a male courtier who was prominent at court and potentially high in the king’s favour, which George was at this time. However, it could potentially be another male courtier or perhaps even a distant relative of the Boleyn’s; the siblings had numerous cousins and even relations in the Butler family. It could just be a coincidence.
Furthermore, we simply do not know what Anne Boleyn looked like and cannot conclude whether his features bear resemblance to his sister’s. Our only contemporary portrait of hers is on the “Moost Happi” medallion from her coronation and the most iconic of her portraits, is a copy long after she was executed. It cannot be confirmed whether they looked similar or not.
There are also copies of this sketch, which has possibly been confirmed as John Dudley; 1st Duke of Northumberland who notoriously sought to place Lady Jane Grey on the throne.
It is still debated even today over who the sitter is in this sketch. Whether George Boleyn or John Dudley, it is yet another Tudor portrait with no solid evidence to confirm or deny it’s identification.
Resources:
Commentaires