Tudor History - Tumblr Posts
My thoughts on this painting
I found it on twitter account called Tudor Extra, and they say it has been recently discovered by Dr Emma Cahill Marrón(on twitter as EmmaLCahill) in London.(link is at end of post)
Honestly in closeup it looks in really poor state.
On left are obviously Henry's parents and correctly identified so.
But i am not so sure about rest of figures being correctly identified. Or rather I am sure they aren't!
Yes, the figures lined in red are Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon.
But the orange I lined in orange is supposed to be Margaret Tudor. Henry VIII's sister. Fashion-wise it's possible.
Catherine's gable hood has both veils down, frontlets up. So at earliest it could be somewhere in 2nd half of 1510s, at latest late 1520s. The lack of ends of paste would point to c.1520(however if this was a copy...painters tend to not include them, or not give them justice...) So I am not 100% trusting it.
Margaret left England in 1517(read up on her life, if you want to know more), so in theory she could have been included here. But why is she by Catherine's side? Or rather behind that. Odd isn't it?
Such possition would much better fit Mary I. The sizes can be deceiving here...because in reality Catherine is supposed to be way smaller than Henry...
Hence this figure doesn't necessarily have to be a child(Mary I), but could be. And Mary was wearing same cap in Vyne chapel(where is commonly mistaken for her mother.)
(If there was Margaret, why wouldn't there also be Mary Rose? (Henry's other sister). ...Wouldn't that be even more odd than his daughter being included.)
But...I am really buffled by two figures entirely on right side.
Allegedly on left is Eleanor of Austria and on right her husband Manuel I of Portugal, whom she married in 1518:
...Nobody thinks it weird? ...Just me?
Well, in my opinion. They are misidentified. Both of them.
The man wears order of golden fleece-but that wasn't limited to just Habsburgs, plenty of foreign royalty were honourary members. Including Manuel of Portugal and Ferdinand II of Aragon.
One would be normally considering if the entire portrait is not done to commemorate Charles V visit to England...with figure beside him being widowed Germaine of Foix(who was there!).
But why would Henry's parents be included in such portrait?...Makes no sense!
Unless...we're looking at dynastic portrait!!!
...Where Henry's parents are on left, Henry, Catherine and their daughter Mary in middle, and Catherine's parents on right!
This could certainly be Ferdinand:
Ferdinand died in 1516, but Henry's parents were long dead too...
But...what about the woman? You cannot tell firmly the shape of gown and jewelry(mind could easily play tricks upon you.)
But why would Isabella wear french hood?
...And i considered that perhaps somebody confused portrait of Germaine of Foix or even real Eleanor and Joanna(netherlandish type of frenhc hood) with Isabella...
But then I noticed shape within the french hood's veil...
And it looks suspiciously like cofia de tranzado... the cap and 'braid', just where they are supposed to be.The headwear is overpainted!
Hence it could be based upon some portrait of Queen Isabella!
Unfortunately this is just card/print from Ancaster Collection, Grimstorpe castle labelled slightly wrong as family of Henry VII(instead of Henry VIII):
https://href.li/?https://x.com/EmmaLCahill/status/1673380669018325026?s=20
I hope we can all agree. It deserves way more love and attention.
This might be the first Tudor dynastic portrait!
Equivalent of Whitehall Mural or The family portrait from 1542/3.
...And if there is black and white card of it...is it drawing, engraving, printm or photograph? ...It could be out there...
PS: In it...Elizabeth of York is taller than Henry VII. Not that I'd trust the proportions entirely...but it'd be funny if true.
The fact that people apply the Reign fantasy world to history really annoys me. Mary Queen of Scots was not a competant ruler, she was not the one true Queen of England robbed of her throne either. If you are going to say with your full chest Mary QoS had a better claim to the English throne than Elizabeth I, then you must be insane. Like where has this idea come from? Mary Qos traces her claim through her GRANDMOTHER, who is elder sister to Henry VIII, you are telling me that claim has more substance to it than Henry's actual daughter. I can already hear someone saying 'Elizabeth was a bastard', let's be real, no she wasn't, Henry was playing stupid games, but yes let's for historical accuracies sake acknowledge Henry called his marriage to Anne illegitimate and Elizabeth a bastard. He restores her to the succession, in his will he specifically names her third inherit, even if he didn't, but it must be acknowledged that he does, her sister and Mary I (Queen of England) names Elizabeth as her heir. Mary is not robbed of the throne of England, because she has no right to it while Elizabeth is living, the only reason anyone in that time period tried rebelling against this perfectly sound series of inheritances, and trying to put Mary Qos on the English throne is because some people didn't like the fact Elizabeth was protestant. Also the idea that Mary would make a better monarch to England is genuinely insane, in the end Scotland doesn't even want her, she makes so many political mistakes that I don't have time to sit and mention them all here. Reign is a great show, but at the end of the day it is just that, a show made to paint an arguably terrible political mind into a lovable character. And is Elizabeth I perfect, no, by absolutely no means, but suggesting Mary was a better ruler than the woman who brought about a golden age for England, especially within the arts, is just idiotic and historically incorrect.
(Is this my usual content, no, but by God I've seen one to many just insane comments)
Disneyifies your anne of cleaves and runs away really fast.
Side note. I didn't use any patter brushes I had to invidualy draw every bead and circle.
She doesn't want to start a lawsuit but it doesn't seem right to be so harsh with Catherine of Aragon for refusing the annulment. To begin with, I consider it extremely justifiable to refuse to go to a convent so that your husband can replace you with a younger woman, but also Mary was going to being declared a bastard, which means not having the right to the throne of England, no longer being a princess and lowering her price on the European marriage market. Henry VIII never assured her that Mary would remain a princess and that she would remain his heir if she did not have a son. Catherine must also have thought that Mary, having a mother with such important dynastic connections, was going to be a threat with or without annulment, and she already knew how Henry VIII acts with imaginary or real threats. We only assume that Henry would be generous and leave Mary in her current position if her mother relented but the reality is that there is no record of that, on the contrary Henry always insisted that Mary was a mere illegitimate daughter with no right to the throne, a lady not a princess and when he was forced to put her in succession to the throne he made it clear that she and Elizabeth were going to be after the children he could have with Katherine Parr. Mary's life was always going to be unhappy with a father like Henry VIII.
A royal speech pulling at everyone’s heartstrings
On the 21th of June 1529, Catherine of Aragon spoke her famous speech at the Legatine Court at Blackfriars. After years of Henry VIII’s unsuccessful attempts to annul his union with Catherine, Cardinal Wolsey convened an ecclesiastical court in England with a representative of the Pope presiding – Cardinal Campeggio. The Papal Legatine court was held to determine whether the king’s first marriage was legal and valid.
Catherine of Aragon appearing before the Legatine Court at Blackfriars in 1529
The monarch was the first to speak to the court and people. Despite his burning desire to get rid of his consort, he cheered her as she entered. Then Henry pronounced a speech about his “love” for his wife, stressing that his conscience was badly troubled over the fact that he had married his elder brother’s widow. The faux sweetness of his tone must have been obvious, for he was so obsessed with Anne Boleyn at the time that he wanted Catherine out of his life forever.
However, the court at Blackfriars turned quite surprising for Henry. His queen circumvented the king’s plans by appealing directly to her royal spouse in the most dramatic way that made all those in attendance sympathetic to her cause, whether she told the truth or lied.
According to contemporary sources, Catherine said:
“Sir, I beseech you for all the love that hath been between us, and for the love of God, let me have justice. Take of me some pity and compassion, for I am a poor woman, and a stranger born out of your dominion. I have here no assured friends, and much less impartial counsel…
Alas! Sir, wherein have I offended you, or what occasion of displeasure have I deserved?… I have been to you a true, humble and obedient wife, ever comfortable to your will and pleasure, that never said or did any thing to the contrary thereof, being always well pleased and contented with all things wherein you had any delight or dalliance, whether it were in little or much. I never grudged in word or countenance, or showed a visage or spark of discontent. I loved all those whom ye loved, only for your sake, whether I had cause or no, and whether they were my friends or enemies. This twenty years or more I have been your true wife and by me ye have had divers children, although it hath pleased God to call them out of this world, which hath been no default in me…
When ye had me at first, I take God to my judge, I was a true maid, without touch of man. And whether it be true or no, I put it to your conscience. If there be any just cause by the law that ye can allege against me either of dishonesty or any other impediment to banish and put me from you, I am well content to depart to my great shame and dishonour. And if there be none, then here, I most lowly beseech you, let me remain in my former estate… Therefore, I most humbly require you, in the way of charity and for the love of God – who is the just judge – to spare me the extremity of this new court, until I may be advised what way and order my friends in Spain will advise me to take. And if ye will not extend to me so much impartial favour, your pleasure then be fulfilled, and to God I commit my cause!”
Just imagine! Catherine stood on her knees before Henry as she gave the speech of her life. It was a posture of absolute submission to her husband, but not surrender to his wishes. Had this speech been prepared in advance by Catherine? Had she planned to make it so emotional?
Catherine’s dramatic speech before Henry VIII and the Legatine Court
Catherine was a very educated and smart woman, who was truly a political animal. She was destined to become herself as a daughter of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon. The purpose of planning a speech is to discover what should be said to an audience so that it has the most profound impact possible; preparation is also necessary to learn what should be omitted from the completed speech. I believe that Catherine had made every effort to ensure that at the court, her speech would be so moving that it would pull at everyone’s heartstrings.
Henry gave his stubborn consort the option of entering a convent. At the time, history knew precedents of royal annulments. In 1498, Louis XII of France had claimed that his first spouse, Joan of France, was physically deformed, which had prevented him from consummating their union. His marriage to Joan had been childless. Louis had needed a fertile young wife (Anne of Brittany) to bear him sons in order to secure the Valois line, which had become highly important after the death of Charles VIII of France. At first, Joan had resisted this charge, but the Pope had granted the annulment. Then Joan had stepped aside and turned to the spiritual life.
Nevertheless, Catherine of Aragon seems to have never considered allowing Henry to marry Anne or any other woman. Could Catherine act differently? Her strong opposition to Henry’s annulment was caused by her steadfast desire to remain his wife for the rest of her life. She seems to have believed that it was her destiny to be Queen of England. She defended her right for the crown, as well as her daughter’s right to inherit the Tudor throne. If only Catherine had gone to a convent, how everything would have been different for England and for Henry, as well as for Mary Tudor, who could have been much happier in this case than she was in history.
Catherine and Arthur, Princes of Wales (from the Spanish Princess Series)
Had Catherine really been a virgin when she had married Henry? Or had she consummated her marriage to Arthur, Princes of Wales, before his death in 1502? The subject of Arthur’s health has been debated by historians over the years: some say that he might have been sickly, while others suppose that he had been a robust, healthy young man. Regardless of his health, Arthur was old enough to have reached his puberty by the time of his wedding to Catherine at the age of 15. Although the couple had been subjected to a standard bedding ceremony, later Catherine swore that she had never known Arthur carnally. Many historians and fans claim that Catherine’s famous piety proves the truth of her words, for such a religious woman could not endanger her immortal soul by lying. But wasn’t Catherine her parents’ daughter? The truth is shrouded in mystery.
NATALIE DORMER as ANNE BOLEYN in THE TUDORS (2007-2010) | season 2 2x03 — 2x10