As you concluded, asides from the Coat of Arms, the lady's image is almost identical to the Van Cleve portrait. This makes the inscription all the more intriguing - who commissioned it and why? This was a terrific broadcast. Many thanks.
A great question! I worked with it for several years and I'm afraid that I don't think that it is likely to contain a portrait of Anne. It was created in c.1525, some ten years after Louis XII died. This calls into question why a tapestry would have been created to celebrate a very short, fruitless marriage. The clue to what the tapestry was intended to show is woven into the bride's dress. The woven inscription reads “Esther”. This tapestry is, therefore, very likely to have been depicting the marriage of Queen Esther to King Ahasuerus. It isn't impossible that this was an allegorical tapestry, depicting both Mary’s marriage and that of Esther. However, we actually have no evidence to suggest that Anne Boleyn made it to France in time for this wedding. There is no mention of her in the records at all. So this again reduces the likelihood of Anne being depicted.
Anne was never formally betrothed to either James Butler or Henry Percy. No permission was granted by Percy’s father, nor the king. The likelihood of a betrothal portrait would be very slim. We have a confirmed likeness of both Butler and Percy, and the Van Cleve portrait doesn't resemble either man. Nor did Van Cleve ever visit England, where Anne was located when these potential matches were on the horizon.
I think if we knew the identity of the man it would certainly help. There were those Percy and Butler marriage possibilities, but I'm not sure if the expense of a portrait would be done on a maybe so to speak. It could be but I tend to agree with your thoughts here. It looks like perhaps a test run for the final Toledo portrait
You're so right to bring up the Butler and Percy affairs. Sadly, the arms don't match either family and, as you say, neither reached the stage of an official betrothal. The sitter’s clothing is also closer to the 1530s in style, so later than these prospective marriages. We also have the issue that Joos Van Cleve isn't known to have visited England, where these marriage prospects were taking place. Its a conundrum!
I'm not sure that a headdress is a sure way of identifying anyone, it is fashion afterall, which means it could be influenced from anywhere in the known world. If the shield could be identified, it may give more information of use. Using more concrete evidence that does not change (like the police) would be a more reliable method of identification. Eye colour, hair colour, shape of face, distinguishing marks etc. Having said that, she has a very lovely face. 😀
I agree that a headdress wouldn't be a good way of identifying someone. I only stated that its documented use in England and in France isnt a reason to rule it out as being her. The other aspects - the fact that it derives from a betrothal pair of portraits and feature heraldry with no link to Anne or the men in her life - are good reasons to discount her. Sadly, we don't have a universally accepted and confirmed likeness of Anne from her lifetime, so we can't compare features like blemishes etc.
I wonder if the time will ever come for a discovery of a truly genuine Anne Boleyn painting created during her lifetime!
There is every possibility! So few of the panel portraits labelled as Anne have been dated scientifically.
As you concluded, asides from the Coat of Arms, the lady's image is almost identical to the Van Cleve portrait. This makes the inscription all the more intriguing - who commissioned it and why? This was a terrific broadcast. Many thanks.
It really is intriguing! I'm hoping to do some more research into the heraldry soon, so I will do a follow-up feature if I have any luck!
I agree with you and like to think the Hans Holbein sketch may be of Anne Boleyn . Another terrific and interesting broadcast from you . 👏
Oh, I was so excited at the start, only to be disappointed. *sigh* I will keep hoping that someday, somewhere, something will be found.
Ah, so sorry! I'm working on it 🙌
What is your opinion on the tapestry at Hever that is thought to depict Anne Boleyn as a wedding guest? It does resemble her.
A great question! I worked with it for several years and I'm afraid that I don't think that it is likely to contain a portrait of Anne. It was created in c.1525, some ten years after Louis XII died. This calls into question why a tapestry would have been created to celebrate a very short, fruitless marriage. The clue to what the tapestry was intended to show is woven into the bride's dress. The woven inscription reads “Esther”. This tapestry is, therefore, very likely to have been depicting the marriage of Queen Esther to King Ahasuerus. It isn't impossible that this was an allegorical tapestry, depicting both Mary’s marriage and that of Esther. However, we actually have no evidence to suggest that Anne Boleyn made it to France in time for this wedding. There is no mention of her in the records at all. So this again reduces the likelihood of Anne being depicted.
But didn't Anne get betrothed twice before Henry. Once to an Irishman and once to a Percy and wouldn't that fit the time frame, if not the location?
Anne was never formally betrothed to either James Butler or Henry Percy. No permission was granted by Percy’s father, nor the king. The likelihood of a betrothal portrait would be very slim. We have a confirmed likeness of both Butler and Percy, and the Van Cleve portrait doesn't resemble either man. Nor did Van Cleve ever visit England, where Anne was located when these potential matches were on the horizon.
I don’t think it’s her, but there is a resemblance. The dark eyes, oval face, and pointed chin. I think it’s another woman who looked like her.
Yes, this is very likely to be the reason that the later inscription was added.
I think if we knew the identity of the man it would certainly help. There were those Percy and Butler marriage possibilities, but I'm not sure if the expense of a portrait would be done on a maybe so to speak. It could be but I tend to agree with your thoughts here. It looks like perhaps a test run for the final Toledo portrait
You're so right to bring up the Butler and Percy affairs. Sadly, the arms don't match either family and, as you say, neither reached the stage of an official betrothal. The sitter’s clothing is also closer to the 1530s in style, so later than these prospective marriages. We also have the issue that Joos Van Cleve isn't known to have visited England, where these marriage prospects were taking place. Its a conundrum!
I'm not sure that a headdress is a sure way of identifying anyone, it is fashion afterall, which means it could be influenced from anywhere in the known world. If the shield could be identified, it may give more information of use. Using more concrete evidence that does not change (like the police) would be a more reliable method of identification. Eye colour, hair colour, shape of face, distinguishing marks etc. Having said that, she has a very lovely face. 😀
I agree that a headdress wouldn't be a good way of identifying someone. I only stated that its documented use in England and in France isnt a reason to rule it out as being her. The other aspects - the fact that it derives from a betrothal pair of portraits and feature heraldry with no link to Anne or the men in her life - are good reasons to discount her. Sadly, we don't have a universally accepted and confirmed likeness of Anne from her lifetime, so we can't compare features like blemishes etc.