Today we have a guest post by Emily Pooley, creator of Anne Boleyn’s beautiful wax work that is currently on display at Hever Castle. Emily kindly agreed to write an article about her interest in Anne Boleyn and how this wonderful wax figure was made. Enjoy!

Le temps viendra.

– by Emily Pooley, technical and special effects artist for television, film and live events.

At this moment, I am sipping a cup of tea looking out of my parent’s office window to the bottom of garden where I would sit for hours with my best friend Holly, patiently carving sticks into stakes -ready for our first encounter with vampires on our next trip to the woods down the road. Buffy the Vampire Slayer was an idol of ours you see – 6:30pm, BBC2, telly on full volume for the intro music. We would train for hours, using the swing as an assault course, passing levels that we would invent.. preparing ourselves. When we created a sufficiently sharp point.. off we went. Deep into the woods.

What, I hear you cry, has this got to do with Anne Boleyn? Buffy was my first encounter with a strong and independent female role model. We were inspired and empowered enough to come face-to-face with a pointy-toothed demon and fight to the death. Of course, there was never any real threat and I have since been dragged kicking and screaming into the serious world of adulthood.. and I found myself looking to a real lady for inspiration, with an incredibly powerful story.

When our GCSE exams were over (finding that miraculously my method of cramming in as much research into the night before actually worked) it was time to plan ahead – what on earth was I going to do!? Like a large number of girls my age, my first port of call was: Vet. But after spending a long week of work experience at a veterinary clinic, clearing up ‘presents’ from the animals as they called it, the reality of work really set in. Don’t worry, Anne is near – ‘le temps viendra’ people!

I sat at home flicking through prospectuses for colleges deflated and racking my brains. This was interrupted by my weekly unmissable dose of Doctor Who. Again, full volume for the intro. Next came Doctor Who confidential on BBC Three courtesy of our brand new digibox, where Neill Gorton talked through the creation of one of his prosthetic monster make-ups. It suddenly dawned on me that people actually made a living out of making these things! This would be the programme that would set me on a path to a career in special effects in television and film.

So off I trotted to Art College and then on to Wimbledon University of Art for my degree in Technical Arts and Special effects.

In cometh Anne Boleyn.

It was shortly after I had completed my second year that Anne Boleyn and I became good friends. We had been acquaintances for a number of years as Hever was my place of choice to visit when my parents were looking for a way to entertain my brother and I without covering the house with PVA glue and tissue paper – as was the norm. We had also met briefly through the pages of the Horrible History books (the new CBBC series is a hilarious watch may I add!) History has also fascinated me, the clothing, the rituals, the drama. Third year rolled around and we were finally permitted to create a project of our own choice. Without a doubt, there was only one person who would be joining me.

I looked for yet more inspiration with another great historical female figure. Marie Tussaud had a mix of rich history with breathtakingly detailed technical and special effects – just the thing I was after. My ambitious aim, albeit it made naively when considering the technicalities, was now to create my own life sized waxwork of my beloved Anne Boleyn.

As with any model, before you can touch any clay you must know and more importantly understand your subject. Especially when a well-known personality or historical figure is concerned. This meant living with my old friend Anne Boleyn for the summer, making her a new outfit to keep her on side. I read as many books as I could but having always struggled with reading (I can read a page without taking any of it in) I only focused on Anne’s coronation with most books.. not due to lack of interest, but rather a complete fascination with the beginning of her story. This is what I knew I wanted to portray with my model. I watched every movie and television adaptation or documentary on Anne that I could find – Degree’s can be such hard work – and used this research to begin my 5000 word dissertation describing the positive and negative portrayals of her throughout the decades.

Next, I had to decide my own take on her. Although I have always been an avid Boleynian I wanted to stay quite neutral in my representation of her, and instead use my figure to tell her story through symbols and props a technique that old Tudor portrait artists had mastered. Once a design and maquette was created, I was to look for a life model to work from. My friend Laura worked next to me at university and bared an uncanny resemblance to my absolute favourite depiction of Anne’s image – Holbien’s sketch. Once I had cornered her and badgered her into sitting for me, I began recording her details.

This process involves drawing a large number dots on the face at keys points like the tip of the nose and tragus (the little sticky out bit above your earlobe.) Photographs are taken of the model from 360 degrees and the points on the face are measured and recorded using calipers. These are all extremely useful reference materials when sculpting and ensure that you can get an accurate a likeness as possible, especially when you don’t have the model to work from.

When sculpting, you need a strong and sturdy armature frame to support your clay. This meant welding – my nemesis. Once the armature is bent into position, finally, the sculpting can begin. This is the process I love the most. Since a kid, I have always had the desire to shape clay into objects and creatures. Luckily enough, I came across a natural clay pit whilst out staking vampires. This meant an endless supply of creatures, props and pots turned up in the house of my poor unsuspecting parents. Much to their delight of course.

Over a number of weeks, the body is built up – constantly referring to the reference material and measurements. Measuring has always been my weakness, so at one point – I had to operate on Anne and give her a leg extension, cutting them off and hoisting the armature up. The ruler changes length every time I swear! The body and head are roughly built up together, until the stage where the head needs to be refined.

This meant the amusing task of removing Anne’s head – a process that caused a number of opportunistic comical photos with myself and my classmates. I apologized to Anne, and lopped through her neck with a cheese cutter (clay wire to the pro’s.) I shuddered, thinking of the actual day of Anne’s execution, and that night watched a docudrama by the BBC called ‘The Execution of Anne Boleyn’. The horror of her final days struck right through me as I remembered my reasoning for the creation of my model: to tell her incredible story and to somehow do her justice by bringing her back to life. I became a lot more serious about her after this day. I worked on her head at home, spending whole days locked in my room, often forgetting to eat. As payback for making fun of her – she made my life very difficult. At this point I was juggling my dissertation with a few days until the deadline, with the impending day of finishing and moulding her head. She also decided to fall over a week after I got her body out of the mould – splitting the resin cast along the seams and causing a number of repairs. We didn’t talk for days.

But alas, the sculpt had been finished and moulding was complete – the hands were the only section of the model that I had life cast, a technique that Madame Tussaud’s also follow. A plaster waste mould was used for the body and a fiberglass resin cast was pulled out. For the head, I used a flexible silicone jacket mould, which meant pulling a delicate wax cast out would be a lot easier.

I decided to give Anne her infamous 6th finger.. not to make fun or to create a monster (I didn’t want to fall out with her again) but to describe the attacks on her image shortly after her death. Of course, the extra finger most likely did not exist, but I wanted to stir up a bit of debate amongst people who saw her – get people talking about her story again. It was great to hear a conversation at my show on this exact subject: ‘Look she has an extra finger!’ ‘Yes, but she didn’t actually have an extra finger.. it was made up by the Catholics’… ‘But I heard it was a friend that gave a description of it?’… bingo. Of course, Hever had me remove it – much to my pleasure.

Finally, Anne and I had made it to the final hurdle. Once the eyes had been burned into the wax, and the eyebrow hair punched in – I repositioned her head. She looked at me approvingly. All had been forgiven.

Painting her was more of a relaxation process than anything… all of the hard work was completed, now it was time to make her pretty and get her ready for her first party. Finally, I popped her new shift and corset on that I had won her over with the previous summer and fitted her wig. I left her hair down, as she did – a fashionable one was our Anne!

Success! After a year long friendship, with ups and downs and a hell of a lot of hard graft, patience and may I add £1000 in material – I finally stood next to the infamous Anne Boleyn. I had placed her in front of a mirror so that her reflection mimicked many of her alleged portraits – Holbein’s sketch included. I stood beside her and read the words surrounding the frame: ‘Le Temps Viendra’ – the time will come. The infamous words written by Anne in her copy of the Book of Hours that I had read on tip-toes through a pain of glass at Hever as a girl. These words had stuck with me constantly throughout the project. The time will come when all my hard work would pay off and I could relax and show her off to industry professionals and my long suffering friends and family at the show…. The time would come also when I had to say goodbye, and let her go home.

I had been so wrapped up in her story and so concerned with actually finishing her for the show, that I hadn’t given a second thought to what I would do with her once she was here! She spent many weeks in my bed at my family home.. she always won when I came to visit – I got the couch. I began contacting castles to see if she could come and live with them, not once thinking that Hever would be remotely interested. Chance would have it though, that my mum had a close friend who worked at Hever and passed on my details. Next thing I knew it, I was walking with Anne’s head tucked neatly in a box under my arm, walking through the back corridors of the offices at Hever. I whispered to her so that the Lady I was following didn’t here.. ‘welcome home.’

It feels very strange to talk about her again after so long. So much has happened since I parted with her last year. I have been very lucky to land a full time job doing what I love, two days after I took my degree show down and recently worked on the Churchill dog for the insurance commercials. I have a lot to owe her.

I would like to thank the people who have taken the time out of their busy lives to contact me about my waxwork and indeed to read my mad babblings – congratulations if you made it this far! It is such a joy to talk to people about the stuff you love, and for an artist it is the best feeling in the world to know that someone else enjoys your work. It is also great to keep tabs on how Anne is getting on on her own. We were reunited when the exhibition opened – it was such a strange feeling to stand in front of her, wearing an absolutely stunning outfit that someone has made for her (feeling slightly jealous of their relationship). But it is great to see her living her own life.

I feel so privileged to have had the time with her and be able to bring Anne Boleyn home. Please say hello from me if you get a chance to meet her!

]]> http://www.anne-boleyn.com/eng/le-temps-viendra-by-emily-pooley-the-creator-of-anne-boleyns-waxwork/feed/ 1 http://www.anne-boleyn.com/eng/anne-boleyn-the-glass-of-fashion/ http://www.anne-boleyn.com/eng/anne-boleyn-the-glass-of-fashion/#comments Fri, 02 Mar 2012 18:43:33 +0000 Sylwia http://www.anne-boleyn.com/eng/?p=127 “She was unrivalled in the gracefulness of her attire, and the fertility of her invention in devising new patterns, which were imitated by all the court belles, by whom she was regarded as the glass of fashion” / Nicolas Sander “The Rise and Growth of Anglican Schism”/

Although Nicolas Sander is the author of many myths about Anne Boleyn, he certainly was right when he described Anne Boleyn’s immaculate taste for fashion. Anne Boleyn  had olive skin and ‘black eyes’ – features not so popular in 16^th century England where pale skin, blonde hair and blue eyes were the most desirable traits in a woman.

Nicolas Sander, who was no contemporary witness of Anne’s life at court, wrote that she had many deformations like projecting tooth, six fingers on right hand and a large wen under her chin. But the next sentences are describing Anne as;

“(…) handsome to look at, with a pretty mouth, amusing in her ways, playing well on the lute, and was a good dancer. She was the model and the mirror of those who were at court, for she was always -well dressed, and every day made some change in the fashion of her garments.” (Nicolas Sander “The Rise and Growth of Anglican Schism” p. 25).

Although for centuries historians are echoing the statement of Agnes Strickland that:

“In Anne, the more powerful charms of genius, wit, and fascination triumphed over every defect which prevented her from being considered a perfect beauty, and rendered her the leading star of the English court” (“The Lives of the Queens of England”, p. 578)

I believe that Anne was a beautiful and charismatic young woman but her unconventional beauty did not make her the perfect courtly beauty. However she attracted attention with her intelligence, temper and something that today we call “sex appeal”.

French influence

There is no exaggeration in Sander’s words that ‘every day Anne made change in the fashion of her garments’. Agnes Strickland described Anne’s dress:

“While at the French court her costume was a cap of velvet, trimmed in points, a little gold bell hanging from each point; a vest of the same material with silver stars, a jacket of watered silk with large hanging sleeves that almost concealed her hands, and a skirt to match. Her feet were encased in blue velvet slippers, with a strap across the instep, fastened with a diamond star. Her hair fell in ringlets about her shoulders.” (p. 381)

Josephine Wilkinson in “Anne Boleyn: a young Queen to be” states that such a gown was probably designed for a special occasion, perhaps a pageant but it is also possible that Anne liked to experiment with her fashion.

Anne Boleyn was sent to France in 1515 and there she was observing how the fashion developed. When she returned from France in 1521/1522 she was considered to be more like a Frenchwoman than an Englishwoman. Anne was fond of French fashion and she manifested it almost all the time – she favoured French hoods rather than heavy and unflattering English gable hoods.

Before she became Queen

Before Anne Boleyn became Queen of England, she was Henry VIII’s fiancée and he often showered her with magnificent gifts. Henry’s Privy Purse accounts have survived for the years 1529-32 and they reveal what Henry was buying for Anne. Professor Eric Ives writes that “much of the expenditure went on clothes” (p. 156).

Those are only some of the expenses from king’s Privy Purse:

Holbein's 'Unknown Lady' with inscription 'Anna Bollein Queen'

December 1530 : ‘Itm the same day paid to Adington the skynner for furres & furrying of my Lady Anne’s gownes’

May 1531 : ‘Crymsin clothe of golde for my Lady Anne Rocheford’

June 1532 : ‘twelve yards of black satin for a night gowne for my Lady Anne’

Anne Boleyn and Henry enjoyed hunting and this activity required a special costume and accessories. Henry presented Anne with hunting gloves, dress and her own set of arrows.

In September 1532 Anne Boleyn was made Marquis of Pembroke in her own right. This was a magnificent ceremony and an occasion for Anne to shine:

“There, her hair about her shoulders and her ermine-trimmed crimson velvet hardly visible under the jewels” (Eric Ives, “The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn”, p. 158)

In 1532 Henry VIII purchased a beautiful black satin nightgown for Anne. Back then nightgowns had the role of modern day dressing gown and it was a common practice to receive guests in one’s nightgown. What is very interesting, one of Holbein’s drawings inscribed as “Anna Bollein Queen” shows a sitter in a nightgown, undercap and chemise. Although many historians dismissed the possibility that the sitter is indeed Anne Boleyn, there is still a little room for speculation.

Anne the Queen

Merle Oberon as Anne Boleyn

On her coronation day in June 1533 Anne Boleyn looked very beautiful:

“going under a rich canopy of cloth of gold, dressed in a kirtle of crimson velvet decorated with ermine, and a robe of purple velvet decorated with ermine over that, and a rich coronet with a cap of pearls and stones on her head; and the old duchess of Norfolk carrying her train in a robe of scarlet with a coronet of gold on her cap, and Lord Burgh, the queen’s Chamberlain, supporting the train in the middle.”

Although many documents from Anne’s time as Queen were destroyed, luckily there is an account of Anne Boleyn’s expenditure for clothes in period from January to April 1536. Professor Ives describes:

“This tells of Anne buying gowns in tawny velvet with black lambs’ fur, in velvet without fur, in damask, and in satin furred with miniver; a russet gown in caffa (heavy silk), two in black velvet, one in black damask, one in white satin and a second with crimson sleeves; a gown in purple cloth of gold lined with silver, and new carnation satin from Bruges to insert into the sleeves of a gown of tissue. There were eight nightgowns, two embroidered and another in russet trimmed with miniver; and three cloaks – of black Bruges satin, of embroidered tawny satin and of black cloth lined with black sarcenet – while Arnold the shoemaker had eight lots of black velvet to make shoes and slippers. Thirteen kirtles included white satin and white damask, black velvet embroidered and crimson satin ‘printed’, with matching sleeves.” (p. 252)

In Henry VIII’s inventory there were at least two pairs of sleeves for women (very important part of the gown) identified as belonging to Anne:

‘one of white satin embroidered over with purled gold acorns and honeysuckles tied with ten pairs of aiguilettes of gold’ and the other ‘of cloth of gold embroidered with a great trail of purled gold with honeysuckles tied with ten pairs of aiguilettes of gold’. (p. 253)

Anne’s gowns very often adorned with jewels:

“such as the nineteen diamonds set in trueloves of gold which Hayes supplied in January 1532, along with twenty-one rubies and twenty-one diamonds set in gold roses and hearts. Anne’s liking for French hoods was costly too, at £9 for the jewelled billament.” (p. 253)

Can you imagine Anne Boleyn in such sophisticated dresses?

Anne cared not only for her own fashionable look, but she also supplied her almost three year daughter Elizabeth with elaborate gowns. Professor Ives described how in three months period Anne supplied her daughter with:

“a gown of orange velvet, kirtles of russet velvet, of yellow satin, of white damask and of green satin, embroidered purple satin sleeves, a black muffler, white ribbon, Venice ribbon, a russet damask bedspread, a taffeta cap covered with a caul of gold. Anne, apparently, was especially fussy about her daughter’s caps: one made of purple satin required at least three journeys to Greenwich to get it right.” (p. 253)

Upon her death Elizabeth had a wardrobe of 2.000 gowns and she certainly shared her mother’s taste for fashion. Some sources claim that Elizabeth felt the need to buy herself new dresses because after her mother’s death, Elizabeth had to wear her old clothes – often the ones that she already grown up from.

Arrest, trial and execution: the meaning of Anne Boleyn’s attire

Anne's execution in "The Other Boleyn Girl"

Anne Boleyn certainly knew the rule ‘dress to impress’. Fashion was a part of demonstration of power and wealth. Anne knew that perfectly well. When on 2 May 1536 three men came to tell Anne that she was accused of adultery, she was allowed to return to her chambers for lunch. But the first thing she did after returning to her rooms was to get changed into a new dress. She was probably aware that she will be arrested and she wanted to look every inch a Queen. She chose a splendid gown of crimson velvet with a cloth of gold kirtle. 

On her trial Anne Boleyn wore “a gown of black velvet over a petticoat of scarlet damask and a small cap sporting a black-and-white feather” (Alison Weir, “The Lady in the Tower”, p. 270)

Even on the day of her execution Anne Boleyn looked immaculate in her black damask gown lined with fur, mantle trimmed with ermine and English gable hood. She wore also a crimson kirtle.

Every part of Anne’s gown had its meaning:

-          Although through her life Anne favoured French hoods, on 19^th of May she wore English gable hood; although many described her a “Frenchwoman rather than an Englishwoman” and she was famous for her pro-French views, on the last day of her earthly life she wanted to accent that after all she was wholly English, and the Queen till the end;

-          Ermine fur was reserved for the Royal family: Anne emphasized the fact that she was dying every inch a Queen;

-          Crimson kirtle probably had a meaning as well – crimson was associated with Christian martyrs and thus Anne used it to emphasize her innocence. Years later Mary Queen of Scots will do exactly the same thing by wearing a scarlet bodice and petticoat on the day of her execution.

We can certainly say that Anne Boleyn was ‘the glass of fashion’ and that she made a great impact on the whole English court.

This is a 3D reconstruction of Anne Boleyn's face, based on National Portrait Gallery

I’ve always wanted someone to do a 3D reconstruction of Anne Boleyn’s face, based on her famous NPG portrait. it never happened so I decided to become this ‘someone’. I learned how to use a program for 3D face reconstruction. This program gives a chance to make a 3D face reconstruction based on photographs. Well, obviously we do not have Anne Boleyn’s photographs so I used her portrait. It was quite hard to do such reconstruction. At my first reconstruction, many of you commented that Anne looked like Cher. I admit – I got too creative with first work. But my second reconstruction is successful – I worked on it for few days, and here it is!

I based Anne Boleyn’s 3D face reconstruction entirely on NPG portrait. It came out very realistic and reconstructed Anne looks a lot like on her portrait. What is even more interesting – I noticed that after reconstruction, Anne looks similar also to John Hoskins’ miniature, and this miniature is the most authentic likeness of Anne Boleyn.

For this montage I used Milara’s photograph based on NPG portrait of Anne Boleyn (I had to paste the reconstructed face). It wasn’t easy to find a real-life photograph based on Anne’s portrait, and I didn’t wanted to use any actresses pictures.

I think that Venetian ambassador’s comment about Anne Boleyn is entirely accurate ;

“Madame Anne is not the handsomest women in the world (…) her eyes, (…) are black and beautiful” /Francesco Sanuto, 1532/

]]> http://www.anne-boleyn.com/eng/3d-reconstruction-of-anne-boleyns-face/feed/ 2 http://www.anne-boleyn.com/eng/affair-of-the-necklace/ http://www.anne-boleyn.com/eng/affair-of-the-necklace/#comments Sat, 10 Dec 2011 20:15:35 +0000 Sylwia http://www.anne-boleyn.com/eng/?p=62

Miniature of Anne Boleyn by John Hoskins

Thanks to my friend, Maria who runs her own blog about Anne Boleyn, she shared with me an article that states that the ‘B’ necklace on Anne’s portraits stands for ‘Brandon’ and not ‘Boleyn’. Quite an interesting theory, isn’t it? I’ve decided to research this theory and I found few informations.

In her book ”The Feminine Dynamic in English Art, 1485-1603”  Susan James states that famous portrait of Anne Boleyn showing her with ‘B’ pendant is Mary Tudor Brandon.  Susan James writes ,;

“Although there were no firmly authenticated portraits of Jane Grey or Anne Boleyn known to copyists, a pool of portraits of unidentified women dating from the reign of Henry VIII still existed. As was common, these original paintings were not labelled and … the identities of the sitters were generally problematic. Yet for copyists in need of an image, clues within and without seem to have encouraged them to arrive at speculative identifications. The face pattern generally chosen for Jane Grey was Kateryn Parr and the face pattern chosen for Anne Boleyn was Mary Rose Tudor…”

What do we know about Mary Tudor Brandon’s appearance? Is there a chance she could be confused with Anne Boleyn? Well – if we will take only contemporary descriptions of both Anne and Mary, there is no chance that they were similar to each other. Mary Tudor Brandon was :

”Petite, poised and beautiful, with red-gold hair and the pale translucent complexion that usually accompanies it. She was the ideal picture of womanhood, certainly and the quintessence of Tudor beauty”. / Mary Boleyn: The True Story of Henry VIII’s Favourite Mistress /

According to contemporary sources, Anne Boleyn was quite the opposite ;

‘Madame Anne is not the handsomest women in the world , she is of middling statue, swarthy complexion, long neck, wide mouth, bosom not much raised, and (…) her eyes, which are black and beautiful’ /Venetian ambassador, 1532/

Sketch of Mary Tudor when she was Queen of France

She was also reffered by poet Sir Thomas Wyatt as a ‘Brunette’.

Susan James states that well known miniature by John Hoskins depicting Anne Boleyn is in fact, Mary Tudor Brandon and  ”jewelled “B” stood not for Boleyn but for Brandon and tha the portrait was not Henry VIII’s wife but his sister”. Susan James points out that ” It is the only picture in Charles I’s collection with Anne Boleyn’s name attached to it.”

In his book ‘The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn’ Eric Ives writes about Hoskins’ miniature ;

”Fortunately, the sequence also has the effect of corroborating a seventeenth-century miniature in thecollection of the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry. Charles I had this copied as ‘Anne Boleyn’ by John Hoskins the elder (c.1590–1664/5), and it is endorsed ‘from an ancient original’ . How ‘ancient’ it is impossible to say. Although the relationship to examples in the NPG pattern is evident, these were only thirty years old or perhaps less. It is more likely that Hoskins had access to an earlier image of the kind from which the NPG image originated. A full-length portrait of Anne was owned by Lord Lumley in 1590 and existed as late as 1773. Could it even be that Hoskins’ source was or was derived from a Holbein paintingnow lost?” /Eric Ives , ‘The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn’ /

Mary Tudor Brandon (left) and Anne Boleyn (right)

Hoskins’ miniature of Anne Boleyn depicts a woman with pointed chin, dark eyes, oval face, reddish hair and typical ‘B’ pendant on double strand of pearls. She may bear a certain resemblance to wedding portrait of Mary Tudor Brandon and Charles Brandon.

I think that there is no chance that ‘B’ on Anne’s portraits stands for ‘Brandon’ and not ‘Boleyn’. Here are the arguments :

-          Hoskins’ miniature was said to be  ‘don by Hoskins after an oweld pictur’ which means that this miniature was labelled as ‘Anne Boleyn’ from the very beggining ;

-          As professor Eric Ives pointed out, the miniature was endorsed ‘from an ancient original’ which means that it was probably copied from exisiting orginal portrait of Anne Boleyn, or copy of such portrait ;

-          There is plenty of portraits of Anne Boleyn, painted during Elizabeth Tudor’s reign, depicting Anne wearing a famous ‘B’ necklace ; and they are all labelled as ‘Anne Boleyn’  and not ‘Mary Tudor Brandon’

-          Mary Tudor Brandon had no reason to wear a ‘B’ pendant because in Tudor period noble men and women were known widely not by their surnames but titles ; so Charles Brandon was famous as Charles Suffolk, Duke of Suffolk, so it makes no sense why Mary Tudor Brandon would want to be portrayed with ‘B’ pendant ;

-          The similarity between portraits of Anne Boleyn and her daughter Elizabeth are astounding so it is hard to believe that the sitters is not Anne Boleyn ;

Sources :

”The Feminine Dynamic in English Art, 1485-1603”, Susan James

“The Life and Death of Anne Boleyn”, Eric Ives

 ”Mary Boleyn: The True Story of Henry VIII’s Favourite Mistress “, Josephine Wilkinson

Copy of 'Mary Boleyn' portrait c. 1630-1670

You probably remember my article about portrait allegedly depicting Mary Boleyn. Historian and author Alison Weir claims that there are 6 versions of this portrait and that it probably depicts a royal sitter because of the ermine fur;

“The fact that there are at least six versions of the ‘Mary’ portrait indicates that there was demand for a portrait of the sitter, and she is wearing ermine, a fur restricted to the upper nobility and royalty.”[1]

I did a research about this and in this article I am going to write more about this portrait. I was looking for information about provenance of the portrait of ‘Mary Boleyn’ and confirmation of Alison Weir’s claim that there were ‘at least 6 versions of this portrait’.

I contacted Anna L. Splender who is a Deputy Head Steward at the Hever Castle. She kindly replied that;

“I am afraid that I am unfamiliar with the claim that there are 6 versions of Mary Boleyn’s portrait.  We only have one portrait at Hever Castle – Warwick Castle is its provenance (purchased by William Waldorf Astor in the early twentieth century).”

As for now, I did not find any information that would confirm Alison Weir’s claim that there are indeed 6 versions of ‘Mary Boleyn’ portrait. I came across a copy of this portrait dated c. 1630-1670, but it is later copy and it was a common practice to copy already existing paintings.

And what about ermine fur?  I contacted Paul Cox, who is Assistant Curator in National Portrait Gallery and he kindly told me that;

“Maria Hayward, in her 2007 Dress at the Court of King Henry VIII cites a document in the College of Arms (‘Memorandum that all manner of Estates shall ware there Apparell Powdred as ys Abouesaide’ – MS 16 bis. Ff. 14r-15r).  This describes the varying use of ermine on the robes appropriate to different classes of peers, so the furs use was not restricted to the royal family.”

According to those two pieces of information, the sitter from ‘Mary Boleyn’ portrait may not be royal at all.

After few informations that I collect, I think it will be wise enough to say that the sitter from ‘Mary Boleyn’ portrait could be any woman who came from upper class. She could be royal, but considering her costume and appearance – who might it be?

 ‘Mary Boleyn’ bears no resemblance to Henry VIII’s daughter Lady Mary Tudor (who in 1530’s was rather out of royal favor due to her obstinacy), king’s niece Margaret Douglas (who was high in king’s favor until 1535 when she fell in love and secretly engaged Lord Thomas Howard, son of 2d Duke of Norfolk), or king’s sister Mary Tudor-Brandon (who died of consumption in 1533).  What about Henry VIII’s wives?

We can definitely exclude Henry’s first wife, Catherine of Aragon who died in 1536 and spent her final years at banishment. We may think about Anne Boleyn – the sitter’s skin is not typically pale, her eyes are big and dark, and she has an oval face. The only thing that is not similar to Anne – a rather plump face and light eyebrows. It is definitely not Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves nor Catherine Howard.

This lady, in my opinion, could be any lady from upper class. Perhaps it was Frances Brandon, as suggested by Alison Weir. It could be as well Mary Howard, daughter of 3^rd Duke of Norfolk and wife of Henry Fitzroy, Henry’s illegitimate son (they married in 1534, Mary was 15 at that time).

Mary Howard

I still agree with Alison Weir that the sitter is not Mary Boleyn. I gave few reasons in my previous article but I will repeat them here;

- In her book ‘Mary Boleyn: The True Story of Henry VIII’s Favourite Mistress’ Josephine Wilkinson points out that between 1528-1532 Mary was an ‘an unwanted and unloved daughter, the discarded mistress’ (p. 123) . Also Professor Eric Ives writes that; ‘Mary should have been under no illusions. As early as November 1530 the king had given Anne £20 to redeem a jewel Mary possessed, presumably one he had given her. Anne, the wife, wanted no one to remember Mary, the mistress.’ It seems highly unlikely, considering the circumstances, that Mary would be honoured by having such a portrait in 1530s.

- She was banished from court in 1534, after she disgraced her family by marrying a man beneath her station.

Certainly no one wanted to celebrate king’s former mistress, because it would draw attention to the question of validity of Henry VIII’s and Anne Boleyn’s marriage (Mary was Anne sister and king’s mistress, so it was similar affinity like in case of Henry VIII & Catherine of Aragon).

For now the identity of this lady remains a mystery. Until some new evidence will come to light we can only speculate about her. And what do you think about this matter?

Mary Boleyn...?

In her latest book ‘Mary Boleyn: The Great and Infamous Whore’ Alison Weir points out that the famous portrait of Mary Boleyn may actually be a portrait of Frances Brandon, mother of Jane Grey. On her website, Alison Weir gives an explanation of this theory :

‘I’ve written a whole appendix on the subject of portraits of Mary Boleyn and William Carey. The fact that there are at least six versions of the ‘Mary’ portrait indicates that there was demand for a portrait of the sitter, and she is wearing ermine, a fur restricted to the upper nobility and royalty. So I suspect, given the proliferation of the image, that the sitter was royal. Anyway, the costume is that of the mid-1530s. There would not have been any demand for Mary at that time, given that she was little known and in disgrace (and probably living abroad) from 1534. The sitter bears no resemblance to portraits of Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour or Margaret Douglas. She is too young to be Mary Tudor, who died in 1533. Could this be Frances Brandon? A wedding portrait from 1533? There is a resemblance in the nose to Charles Brandon in his ‘marriage’ portrait (yes, I think it is him, having done some digging last night, although I think it’s later than 1515/16.) Even so, that doesn’t quite explain the demand for pictures of Frances – she wasn’t that well known either! It would help if we could identify any clue or reference in the pendant or brooch, or the flowers, but they are too indistinct.‘[1]

For a very long I’ve been thinking about Mary Boleyn portrait, and something was not right. I agree with Alison Weir in few points :

-          the sitter must be royal because she is wearing an ermine fur ;

-          sitter’s costume indicates that the portrait was painted in 1530′s 

-          it’s not Mary Boleyn

 Why this cannot be Mary Boleyn? There are few reasons ;

 -          Mary Boleyn was Henry’s former mistress and Queen’s sister, but she was not entitled to wear ermine ;

-          In her book ‘Mary Boleyn: The True Story of Henry VIII’s Favourite Mistress’ Josephine Wilkinson points out that between 1528-1532 Mary was an ‘an unwanted and unloved daughter, the discarded mistress’ (p. 123) . Also prof. Eric Ives writes that ; ‘Mary should have been under no illusions. As early as November 1530 the king had given Anne £20 to redeem a jewel Mary possessed, presumably one he had given her. Anne, the wife, wanted no one to remember Mary, the mistress.’[2] It seems highly unlikely, considering the circumstances, that Mary would be honoured by having such a portrait.

-          She was banished from court in 1534, after she disgraced her family by marrying a man beneath her station.

Frances Brandon?

 So if it is not Mary Boleyn on this portrait, than who is it? Is it Frances Brandon, as Alison Weir suggests? It is possible, considering the resemblance between ‘Mary Boleyn’ portrait and other portrait of Frances Brandon. The eyes and face structure is similar although the lips are different – on ‘Mary Boleyn’s’ portrait they are fuller and on Frances Brandon’s portrait they are prim.

The only thing I wonder is why would there be 6 versions of this portrait? After all Frances Brandon was not that important figure on the Tudor court.

 There is one portrait sometimes inscribed as Anne Boleyn, however it is probably Anne and Mary’s mother, Elizabeth Howard Boleyn. There are certain facial similarities between this portrait and ‘Mary Boleyn”s portrait. But if it is not Mary, could it be … Anne Boleyn?

Mother and daughter?

Alison Weir states that ;

 ‘The sitter bears no resemblance to portraits of Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour or Margaret Douglas.’[3]

 I have to disagree. The sitter’s oval face, full lips, dark eyes and dark skin  indicate that this actually might be Anne Boleyn. The only thing that does not match is her hair – the colour of  eyebrows indicates that hair colour is perhaps brunette with reddish hue, or sandy/reddish blonde.

Left: Copy of Holbein's sketch of Unknown Lady inscribed as Anne Boleyn, in comparison with 'Mary Boleyn' portrait

The thing that I noticed is sitter’s jewellery. I compared her necklace/pendant  with other Tudor jewellery from portraits. This necklace/pendant looks almost the same as the one worn by Queens on few portraits :

Jane Seymour by Hans Holbein c. 1536

Catherine Parr c. 1548

Unknown Lady, probably Catherine Howard c. 1541

Mary Tudor, c. 1544

It is not entirely the same jewellery (in portraits above queens wear a double strand of pearls and stone with characteristic pendant while the sitter on ‘Mary Boleyn’ portrait has something that appear to be a neck-chain with characteristic pendant).

Details from portraits of Mary Tudor, 'Mary Boleyn', Catherine Parr and Jane Seymour.

What about the brooch and flowers? In my opinion flowers are roses and they indicate (as roses on every Tudor portrait)  ;

‘The Tudor rose was used in Elizabeth’s portraits to refer to the Tudor dynasty and the unity that it brought to the realm. The rose also had religious connotations, as the medieval symbol of the Virgin Mary, and was used to allude to the Virgin Queen as the secular successor to the Virgin Mary.’[4]

Details of roses on 'Mary Boleyn' portrait, Anne Boleyn Hever Castle Portrait and Mary Tudor's portrait

Hever Castle of Anne Boleyn also shows Anne holding a rose. Mary Tudor and Elizabeth were also portrayed holding roses.

 It is hard to say what is on the sitter’s brooch, but we can notice the peraldrop hanging from it.

 An interesting thing is why is Mary Boleyn’s name  written of one of those portraits? Alison Weir states that  it ‘has been written in a much later hand‘ and I agree with that. Who and why wrote Mary’s name there?

 Conclusion : I believe that the portrait does not depict Mary Boleyn. Perhaps it’s Anne Boleyn, but the further investigation must be done in order to identify the sitter. I am very happy that Alison Weir decided to point out that this portrait is not portrait of Mary Boleyn, it was quite obvious considering the ermine fur. I hope something more will be soon revealed about this matter.

What do you think?