Відео

@@ceeveekaye Thanks for your questions. Firstly, it is important that we do not have any contemporary eyewitness evidence of Anne’s hair colour. It is often claimed that Anne had raven black hair. However, this is first claimed long after Anne’s death, by a man who never saw Anne. This leaves the question of Anne’s hair colour open to debate. Secondly, we cannot rule out the possibility that Anne had red hair, or red in her hair colour, as several undated panel portraits show her with a decidedly red hue to her hair colour, amongst other darker colours, such as chestnut and brown. It is significant, therefore, that red and brown chalks have been recently detected by Dr Kate Heard on the Windsor sketch. This suggests that Holbein intended different hues to be present on the preparatory drawing than simply the ground colour of yellow. Helpfully, through Holbein’s two sketches of Henry Howard - one of which he abandoned - we know that Holbein used lighter chalks as a base colour, and then added darker chalks for the body colour. Holbein abandoned his profile sketch of Henry Howard at the point of the lighter base highlight chalk being applied, and began a new sketch with Howard front facing, as he appears in the painting. In this sketch, we can see the lighter chalk and darker colours on top, revealing his artistic process. Since more colours are evident on Anne’s hairline, Dr Kate Heard’s arguments are persuasive and have a clear precedent. Thirdly, Of the 90+ identifications that Cheke made, he only got two wrong: of women sketched by Holbein before Cheke came to court. We do not know on what basis Cheke made these identifications since these women were no longer present. He may have consulted other people who made a mistake, or these women may simply have resembled the people Cheke noted. We cannot know how these mistakes were made, but, significantly, they are of individuals who Cheke did not know. Fourthly, that historians can't agree which Lady Parker his sketch depicts isn't Cheke’s failing - there were four at the time. Most recently, Suzannah Horenbout - then named Parker - has been suggested as the sitter. Lastly, preparatory drawings were made by Holbein for him to create a painting from. They weren't intended to be a final product. He would sketch the sitter and then use the sketch in his studio to work up a painting. Even a private painting would have a preparatory drawing. The fact that we know that Cheke had an audience with Anne in 1534, that she financed his studies and supported his student, William Bill, financially as a consequence of that audience would tell us that he was well-placed to know his patron's likeness. Cheke also married Mary Hill, whose father was in service to Henry VIll during Anne's tenure as Queen and who gambled with her. Mary's mother, Elizabeth Hill, lived locally to Anne, knew her, and her family (mother, aunts and cousins) kept Anne's Book of Hours safe, inscribing their names in it, too. This was recently uncovered by my wonderful colleague, Kate McCaffrey. Cheke was very well-placed to recognise Anne.

@DrOwenEmmerson I'm excited to look into the research of Kate McCaffrey as well, which I'll do directly after posting this and while I still have free time over this winter break! It did go by fast. Granted, the confusion about the Lady Parker drawing is different to that of the Mother Jak drawing in that Cheke could have correctly identified it and someone down the line assumed that Jane Boleyn had once been Lady Parker. That's completely plausible to me. But the drawing labeled Mother Jak based on his identification was certainly incorrect as he must have known her. She was Edward's nursemaid, he was his tutor. I don't see how he couldn't have but either way, it was incorrect which I think has to call either his identifications into question or everyone who had access to the drawings before they eventually came back into the royal family the third time around. I feel there could easily have been a disconnect somewhere in the process considering all the people who had access to them. I think it would be a different discussion if they'd been held at Windsor from the time they were drawn. I'm still unsure of the relevance of Anne carrying the recessive gene for red hair. All accounts did describe her as brunette, and even though brunette could be used to describe a slightly darker skin tone, Anne wouldn't have had those undertones in her skin color if she did have red hair. The only portraits I've seen of her with the lighter hair were done after her death. I can't help but think the hair color in those paintings was influenced by Elizabeth's hair color rather than Elizabeth's hair color being influenced by Anne's. She certainly was her father's daughter! And my last question is, if the drawing had not had the inscription of Anne Boleyn's name, do you believe anyone would have associated it with her? And if so, what other factors connect the drawing to Anne? I appreciate your response and I thank you for taking the time to address my questions.

@@ceeveekaye When you say all accounts describe Anne’s hair colour as brunette, this would suggest that you believe there are more than once contemporary references to what Anne’s hair colour was, when in fact we do not have any contemporary references as to what her hair colour was. Re: the recessive gene, you have to be a carrier of the MC1R gene to have red hair or red in your hair colour. Both parents have to be carriers of the MC1R gene to produce a child with red hair. That Elizabeth was famously red-headed doesn't prove that Anne was red-headed per se, but it does mean that she could have been, hence why it is relevant to the question of why red chalks were used by Holbein. Re: Sybil Penn, we only have her monumental effigy to compare to Holbein’s sketch of Margaret Giggs, taken at the age of 19, and this was naturally creeated later in Penn’s life. Sadly, we do not have a comparable portrait of Penn to compare her likeness to Giggs to. It could be that they resembled each other - especially since Holbein chose to capture Giggs at an unusually severe side profile, somewhat masking the clarity of a three quarter or front facing capture - but until a likeness of Penn is identified, we wont know the answer to that question. I would highly recommend the wonderful work that Bendor Grosvenor has completed on the accuracy of Cheke’s identifications. Lastly, my book on Anne’s portraiture will be published in February 2026 in line with the first dedicated exhibition of her portraiture, so if you will forgive me, I will be saving the finer details of my own conclusions on this sketch, and its close comparison to other known images of Anne, until then!

@DrOwenEmmerson I apologize, I didn't realize you had a book coming out. Of course I understand not disclosing your research before the book is released. As for Margaret Gigges, I would only point out that we do have the family portrait of the family/household of Thomas More, and the drawing with the inscription "Mother Jak" is virtually identical to Gigges as she's shown in the final portrait. I see it as one of the strongest reasons to look more closely into the original identifications and the chain of ownership. I appreciate the sources you've cited and look forward to seeing their research as well. I call myself an amateur historian- I'm not a formal student but I do have a great interest in the history of the English/British monarchy, and the Tudor period is especially fascinating to me. Many congratulations on your upcoming book! It's very exciting, and I look forward to reading it. Thank you so much for your time today.

@ absolutely no apologies necessary! I wish I could say more at this stage, but lots of new wider Anne portraiture coming soon! I quite agree that Holbein’s sketch of Giggs has been recreated very faithfully by those who copied Holbein’s original “Family of Thomas More” painting (his original sadly being lost to us). I only wish we had a portrait of Sybil Penn (or Mother Jak, as she was nicknamed) by which we would compare if they shared a similar face. This would help us to better determine how Cheke made this error. Until we do, I'm afraid that question remains opaque. I do so hope that you enjoy the new research when it lands in early 2026!

@@kelrogers8480 Since this is the only of Holbein’s many sketches that has any markings on the verso, what leads you to believe that it identifies the sitter? There is no precedent for Holbein identifying his sitters thusly. Since Henry Wyatt died shortly after Anne’s execution, and since Holbein’s sketch of Anne was therefore redundant for replication purposes, he could well have doodled the arms of Henry for the memorialisation work he was commissioned for.

@@kelrogers8480 See, I don't find the sketch at all unflattering - I just see a woman in a contemplative pose. I think finding it unflattering is perhaps a rather subjective reason to doubt it being Anne. Horenbout’s study of the King’s son, Henry, from 1534 shows him just as Anne appears in the sketch, in a chemise and coif. Marguerite d'Angoulème also appears in a chemise in a miniature, too. John Cheke made the identification of this sket nine years after Anne’s execution. I think the fact that we know that Cheke had an audience with Anne in 1534, that she financed his studies and supported his student, William Bill, financially as a consequence of that audience would tell us that he was well-placed to know his patron’s likeness. Cheke also married Mary Hill, whose father was in service to Henry VIII during Anne’s tenure as Queen and who gambled with her. Mary’s mother, Elizabeth Hill, lived locally to Anne, knew her, and her family (mother, aunts and cousins) kept Anne’s Book of Hours safe, inscribing their names in it, too. This was recently uncovered by my wonderful colleague, Kate McCaffrey. The two sketch identifications that Cheke got wrong were from Holbein’s first sojourn in England, before Cheke came to court, and depict individuals that Cheke didn't know. I would highly recommend Dr Kate Heard’s recent research on the sketch. More historians than not now accept this as a contemporary portrait of Anne

Just to add, excellent video! I loved the detail of the white vs pink sketch paper. You blew my mind with this short and well researched documentary. Subscribed!

Sorry to hear that you didn't like the music. I think it's superb. Hilary Mantel was also the driving force behind the blind casting of this series, so I'm afraid you are very much mistaken here.

@@patriciagriffith7402 Can you provide a source to verify that?